| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2011 08:56:40 PM · #101 |
I believe that if he would have had access to a Chevy Tahoe and sped through the parking lot hitting people he would have killed many many more that he did. He used a gun because it seemed to be personal between him and the congresswoman.
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Shooting in Tucson and now every narrow/backward minded anti-gun doorstops attacking, not to crazy son of a bitch gunman, but to guns.
Listen up, you can kill anyone with one gas paddle... everyone from 16 to 90 drives today. Guns are not the reason of any crimes, people are. Guns don't fire by themselves. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing "gun-control" from those who DO NOT understand a crap about the subject. If you take guns from people who obey the law, DO YOU THINK criminal will stop carrying it? How DUMB do you think they are, or HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK WE ARE?
Google, and see how many crimes stopped by people who carry weapons daily. You will not hear any good stories but only the bad ones from time to time. |
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 09:44:25 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
You really are all about the red herring aren't you? |
As they say in the schoolyard, "it takes one to know one."
I notice you haven't responded to my noting your own error of fact -- perhaps you are just in the arms of Morpheus ... You posted while I was typing ...
No one is denying the right of a mentally competent, law-abiding adult to have a gun. However, it is the government's duty to make a person demonstrate that they are a competent, law-abiding adult before getting one. |
No one here is denying the right of a mentally competent, law-abiding adult to have a gun.
There, fixed it.
But perhaps, you know, coryboehne is discussing the larger context we find ourselves in? The pro-gun clique started the discussion after all, and they have a legitimate concern that people will use this event not to regulate, but to ban, guns.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 10:10:34 PM · #103 |
Funny I should stumble on this discussion today... while I'm wearing my "2nd amendment shaped like a gun" t-shirt at work.
For the people insisting we need more regulation... I live in one of the most regulated states in the country, California, which also has a huge number of gun related injuries/deaths per capita. Yet I grew up in Vermont, where you can get a concealed carry license at 16 just by asking the cops (and you don't even need to ask permission at the age of majority, just sign some paperwork), having some of the most liberal gun laws in the country yet one of the lowest incidences of gun injuries/deaths per capita.
What gives?
Also, I'd like to point out that existing regulations, already on the books, did nothing to stop this kid.
I find myself in the middle honestly, but I don't like how Cory's been made out like a nut just because he supports the status quo, and doesn't want an increase in regulations of unproven efficacy.
The OP and Cory have a point. A psycho will cause damage if they want to, guns or no guns. You can drag in accidental firearm deaths to make a point, but I don't want to live in your nanny state. I personally don't want to shoot burglars... I want to shoot paper targets and trash. I would LOVE to do that with a P90, but alas, I have been deemed unworthy in regard to owning one, due to my status as a resident of California.
To be clear... I believe in regulation. If it's effective. That is not the sort of regulation I am seeing proposed in the news as of late.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2011 10:47:30 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Just provide some examples of Columbines, Virginia Techs, or Tucson Walgreens that were perpetrated with kitchen knives, and you win the argument. |
A whole Google full of them for you.. Notice I restricted that to chinese alone (they seem to have a thing for this in the last few years), but there are other examples.. |
you did better than I thought you would, though considering the population of China they are way, way behind us in killing sprees.
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 12:22:13 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I did, and yes I can see that there is a correlation shown. But I just have a hugely hard time imagining that people are just more prone to violence when a gun is available, and that IS exactly what you are arguing, correct? |
I believe he is arguing that the outcome of that violence is more serious and more often fatal, not more likely. |
Exactly. |
Fair enough.. I can see that, and definately see the logic there, it stands up without a doubt... But that still doesn't mean nutzos can be stopped (with any reasonable amount of effort anyway) from getting guns, they're just way too prevalent throughout the US in particular, but throughout the world in general, honestly, at least in the US it's somewhat difficult to buy an RPG or hand grenade, there are plenty of places that they are downright easy to find and purchase.. Along with a selection of fully automatic rifles, and god knows what else..
And, just as a fun thought, sometimes it's a person who seemed normal and reserved who will snap and go on a rampage, this time it just happened to be a fantastic nutjob.
But again, that doesn't mean that regulation should be increased, as it's going to take a lot more regulation to stop people like this, and you're going to stop nearly all of the people who have perfectly legitimate reasons to own firearms long before you stop the problem folks... Actually, by my thinking, due to theft, you NEED to stop all of the normal people who should own the guns before you can hope to stop the whackos... |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 12:27:56 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Just provide some examples of Columbines, Virginia Techs, or Tucson Walgreens that were perpetrated with kitchen knives, and you win the argument. |
A whole Google full of them for you.. Notice I restricted that to chinese alone (they seem to have a thing for this in the last few years), but there are other examples.. |
you did better than I thought you would, though considering the population of China they are way, way behind us in killing sprees.
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
First, thank you, that's a nice complement.
Secondly, you are (*almost, see below) absolutely right, and in response I say "some people need killin"... Redneck huh? But I think most people think it's true, they just disagree on which people, exactly, need to be killed...
*- Please do note that I carry a semi-automatic handgun for predator defense, our bears around here are small (and generally NEVER a problem), and we have "mountain lions", which aren't super large animals either, so my .45 ACP is quite enough for these animals (I expect I'd never need it, but the cats do funny things sometimes, and I guess the bears do too, but I just don't expect it out of them)... It is however, fair to say that I mostly expect that it's far more probable that in the unlikely event that I actually need to use it, the target would be a human, not an animal.. Here's to hoping I never prove or disprove this.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2011 12:29:29 AM · #107 |
,
Message edited by author 2011-01-11 00:29:43. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 01:07:22 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
That's just typical anti-gun nonsense. Millions of people use semi-autos every day and never kill anyone. I myself have used semi-auto rifles and pistols regularly for nearly 50 years and I've never killed anyone. Although I must admit there have been a few brainless liberal-nonsense-spouting morons that I'd like to... Well, suffice it to say that I've never killed anyone. Yet.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2011 01:44:24 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
If you are in a life threatening situation, you either kill or get killed. That doesn't happen too often, however you carry your gun all the time.
First responders to a crime are the people have some kind of protection at the moment. Cops are there "after" crime is done.
Criminals target places they know guns are not allowed or controlled more (officials only). Most criminals are not as fearless they seem. They do get scared as well... let's keep their fear alive. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 04:10:34 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
That's just typical anti-gun nonsense. Millions of people use semi-autos every day and never kill anyone. I myself have used semi-auto rifles and pistols regularly for nearly 50 years and I've never killed anyone. Although I must admit there have been a few brainless liberal-nonsense-spouting morons that I'd like to... Well, suffice it to say that I've never killed anyone. Yet. |
So the point made was singularity of purpose. What else do people use guns for... stirring paint? Backscratching? Cutting out teeny tiny donut holes? |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 04:19:00 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
... What else do people use guns for... stirring paint? Backscratching? Cutting out teeny tiny donut holes? |
Helps relieving constipation as well... don't try it without doctor's orders though... I heard it might cause brain damage if band over incorrectly. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 04:37:38 AM · #112 |
Hmmm....glad to live in Australia.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2011 04:51:50 AM · #113 |
| Guns? What are they? - I've never even held a gun in real life, let alone used one. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 05:29:46 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'd like to ask you, personally a few questions that will establish your qualifications of determining what is and what is not reality..
Have you ever watched someone you cared about bleed out in front of you?
Have you ever been the victim or assailant in a violent crime?
Have you ever actually been involved in buying / selling of black market items?
Have you ever actually done anything outside of the "prescribed life" you know so much about? (I know you've taught and traveled, but that doesn't in any way demonstrate a knowledge of the darker side of reality...)
How many people do you know personally that have actually murdered someone?
How many long term acquaintances of yours are in prison right now, or have been at any time?
Do you know anyone who you think would gladly kill you for your possessions if only they thought they could get away with it?
Do you know what it feels like to be stabbed or shot?
Gotten into a street fight?
I can go on with these, and just to clarify, I'm a yes on every point above...
I just doubt that you are qualified to tell me about the "real" world, I don't honestly expect that you can ever appreciate just exactly how "bizarro" the real world is - your Cape Cod fantasy life isn't reality Bear, it's actually about as far from the "real" world as you can get.. |
Wait... are you really claiming that we all live in a bizarro world because we haven't met these criteria? If you don't realize that your experiences are atypical and do not reflect the average citizen and the majority of experience, there's no way any discussion can be had. Laws are created for the masses to meet and affect the average experience of somebody. To assume that your experiences are typical is kinda like saying the experiences of somebody in a concentration camp typified the experience of all Europeans at the time...
I get your point that weapons can be created out of whatever, and yeah zip guns and bombs are easy to make. Look at prisons... pretty much everything is forbidden... and weapons still abound. But are you arguing that overall violence and bloodshed is higher than if we handed out bowie knives to every prisoner and said have fun?
Yes, civility is a yoke that we choose to wear. Yes, we can all go apeshit if we want to. The point of it is to serve as a reminder, descriptor, and hopefully enforcer of that which is accepted. Rules and morals do not require adherence, but they're all we have. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 06:03:15 AM · #115 |
| This thread has done absolutely nothing to dispel my growing suspicion that Cory is actually Dog The Bounty Hunter. "Some people need killin". Growl. Scratch. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 08:35:27 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by JH:
Guns? What are they? - I've never even held a gun in real life, let alone used one. |
Same here. The strict UK gun laws work very well on the whole with only about 50-60 murders a year.
Knife crime is more of a problem here with about 250 deaths a year. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 09:38:20 AM · #117 |
Interesting discussion, it got me thinking about the gun laws in my own country (France). Maybe more importantly i should be asking myself why I've no idea about them & why I've never thought about them before, incidentally i asked my wife who also didn't' know much about them, so obviously guns don't play a big part of our lives at least were we live. Here is what i found on the web about gun laws over here:
To keep a gun you have to have a permit from the right authorities (préfecture) and you must be officially registered. Your weapon also has to be registered in your name. You have to have a licence from the French shooting federation which you have held for more than six months. You have had to have proper training and taken three different shooting examinations spaced at two monthly intervals that are recorded on an official record book which you must have with you as well as your licence and identity card if you take your gun to another spot than your official residence. Your application to own a gun has to be endorsed and approved by your local branch of the shooting federation. You have to have a special reinforced safe where to keep your weapon in your home. You must have undergone police checks as to your suitability to own a gun, have a clean offence record, and be known in your community for your high morals. You must have no record of any kind with Social Services (DDASS).
If you carry a gun from one place to another, say to a shooting competition, or to a hunt, it has to be unloaded, in inoperative mode, and bagged in a proper container. It must be locked up in the safe at all other times and no other person than the licenced person must know the combination or be able to access the contents of the safe .
Are they proposing something similar in America? . |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 09:48:30 AM · #118 |
I was listening to the CBC last night and there was an interview with a congressman (some politician anyway) regarding the shooting in Tuscon. He said that if everyone was packing then the situation would have been better since a citizen would have shot the perpetrator before he shot as many people as he did.
How does having many citizens shooting at the perpetrator in a crowded area result in fewer casualties? How does the average citizen know how to handle a weapon safely in a crowded area?
Maybe he thinks that if everyone is known to carry a weapon then the shooting wouldn't have happened in the first place. That's a very big if.
Message edited by author 2011-01-11 09:48:58.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2011 09:55:43 AM · #119 |
To own a gun here in Ireland you must be either a farmer (who can own shotguns), specially trained policeman, or a member of a shooting club.
Regular police who patrol the streets don't carry guns.
You also have to undertake a mental health assessment. You must also allow for ad-hoc inspections of your gun safe where the guns are stored. And if you're a member of a shooting club you can only own certain types of gun (e.g. rifles below a certain calibre)
So they don't make it easy. Even owning air rifles or gas-powered pistols above a certain velocity is illegal. Crossbows are illegal. Normal recurve bows are allowed (they take a while to reload....) |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 10:33:37 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
That's just typical anti-gun nonsense. Millions of people use semi-autos every day and never kill anyone. I myself have used semi-auto rifles and pistols regularly for nearly 50 years and I've never killed anyone. Although I must admit there have been a few brainless liberal-nonsense-spouting morons that I'd like to... Well, suffice it to say that I've never killed anyone. Yet. |
Wow. That's not even halfway to funny. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 10:38:40 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
...in response I say "some people need killin"... Redneck huh? But I think most people think it's true... |
Chilling. What kind of world do you think you live in? Oh yeah, the "real" one. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 10:42:53 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I was listening to the CBC last night and there was an interview with a congressman (some politician anyway) regarding the shooting in Tuscon. He said that if everyone was packing then the situation would have been better since a citizen would have shot the perpetrator before he shot as many people as he did.
How does having many citizens shooting at the perpetrator in a crowded area result in fewer casualties? How does the average citizen know how to handle a weapon safely in a crowded area?
Maybe he thinks that if everyone is known to carry a weapon then the shooting wouldn't have happened in the first place. That's a very big if. |
That's why I always outfit my family with bulletproof suits & helmets before entering the USA, eh. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:15:52 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Interesting discussion, it got me thinking about the gun laws in my own country (France). Maybe more importantly i should be asking myself why I've no idea about them & why I've never thought about them before, incidentally i asked my wife who also didn't' know much about them, so obviously guns don't play a big part of our lives at least were we live. Here is what i found on the web about gun laws over here:
To keep a gun you have to have a permit from the right authorities (préfecture) and you must be officially registered. Your weapon also has to be registered in your name. You have to have a licence from the French shooting federation which you have held for more than six months. You have had to have proper training and taken three different shooting examinations spaced at two monthly intervals that are recorded on an official record book which you must have with you as well as your licence and identity card if you take your gun to another spot than your official residence. Your application to own a gun has to be endorsed and approved by your local branch of the shooting federation. You have to have a special reinforced safe where to keep your weapon in your home. You must have undergone police checks as to your suitability to own a gun, have a clean offence record, and be known in your community for your high morals. You must have no record of any kind with Social Services (DDASS).
If you carry a gun from one place to another, say to a shooting competition, or to a hunt, it has to be unloaded, in inoperative mode, and bagged in a proper container. It must be locked up in the safe at all other times and no other person than the licenced person must know the combination or be able to access the contents of the safe .
Are they proposing something similar in America? . |
European-style gun control is not something that would be easily achieved in the United States. Even setting aside Constitutional and pro-gun culture barriers, the number of guns currently in circulation makes enforcement of even the the most restrictive gun control laws very difficult. As someone above noted, it is sort of a case of the horses already being out of the barn.
I am of the camp that feels that majority of firearm problems flow from too easy access to handguns. If I had my druthers, long-guns and shotguns would be available with minimal regulation, but handguns would be strictly limited to law enforcement and military personnel.
However, there simply isn't currently the political will or social concern in the United States necessary to achieve that kind of firearm reduction, even if it was just limited to semi-automatic handguns, and any local restrictions on handgun ownership (like we had until recently here in Chicago) is likely to be highly ineffective because of the ease of obtaining handguns through unofficial channels and even legally outside of the municipality and/or state.
That gun control efforts are stymied by too many guns already in circulation is well documented. Some examples:
Gun Control, Zimring (A 1986 article, but still pretty relevant.)
Originally posted by Zimring:
"The real difficulty in restricting handguns is whether any law can reduce
the number of such guns in circulation enough to make headway against gun
violence, and, if so, how long this will take and what its cost will be. It is possible, by law, to stop the manufacture of handguns at any time, but even if this were done, some of the 35 million handguns in the civilian inventory would still be killing people in the 21st century. Under the best conditions, collecting the vast arsenal of civilian handguns would be neither easy nor swift. Americans do not live under the best of conditions-the very crime rate that makes many people want gun control also makes gun control extremely difficult to achieve. How many citizens would turn in their guns when the law took effect? How long would it take to remove the guns from the streets, where they do the most harm? Should urban households be left fearfully defenseless? Is it desirable to add yet another victimless and unenforceable crime-possession of a handgun-to the depressingly long list of such crimes that have already accumulated? These are not easy questions to answer." |
Book Review: "Can Gun Control Work," Jacobs
Originally posted by From The Review:
Can Gun Control Work? . . . is an unusual piece of scholarship, especially in the literature on gun control. It argues strenuously that controls are unlikely to have the effects hoped for by their advocates. Yet Jacobs is not a gun devotee. It appears that he is saddened by his conclusions, that he would prefer to live in a world without guns, and that he perceives guns to have far more negatives than positives. However, Jacobs consistently concludes that essentially all currently envisaged types of gun control fail to have the desired effects.
. . .
[The book looks at the] impediments to further gun control. One is the Second Amendment and the widespread belief among gun owners that it guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Jacobs suggests that even under an individualist interpretation of the amendment, there is still scope for regulation of firearms. But he sees the technical implications of the Constitution as less relevant than long-standing hostility to gun regulation on the part of a substantial fraction of the country.
A second critical difficulty that faces additional controls is the large number of guns in circulation. This fact, combined with the durability of most guns, implies that even if no new firearms were obtained by anyone in the United States from some point forward, there will still be a high rate of gun ownership for decades. Thus even perfectly effective controls on new ownership cannot address problems related to existing guns.
The third key impediment that Jacobs emphasizes is the multitude of mechanisms by which new and existing gun-control laws can be circumvented or evaded. Any restrictions on the sale of guns are undone to a substantial degree by straw purchases, fake IDs, gun thefts, and unscrupulous federal firearms licensees. Jacobs notes that all these avenues for circumventing control apply even if both primary and secondary purchases are subject to background checks and even if all guns are registered. |
Note that both of the sources above simply note the difficulty of implementation, which is separate from the issue of whether effectively implemented gun control would actually achieve lower rates of death and/or serious injury. As I have noted in my other comments, above, all available evidence indicates that such an achievement would be the result.
Message edited by author 2011-01-11 11:17:53. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 12:59:24 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Also, I'd like to point out that existing regulations, already on the books, did nothing to stop this kid.
I find myself in the middle honestly, but I don't like how Cory's been made out like a nut just because he supports the status quo, and doesn't want an increase in regulations of unproven efficacy.
|
Which Arizona regulations are you referring to? Isn't Arizona the state who's easy purchase laws allowed gun runners use to subvert the laws of California and New York? At least that was the case before municipal gun control was made illegal by the Supreme Court.
When an 86 year old man killed 10 people at the Santa Monica pier in 2003, AARP did not fight against looking into stopping such tragic events from occurring again. Laws on licencing older drivers were further tightened. When a person in a car kills people we can act to reduce the probability of such an event happening the same way another time, but if the same number of deaths are cause by a madman wielding a deadly weapon, we act as if any change in the laws would be idiotic.
Limiting access to guns results in fewer gun deaths, that is simple fact; It is not practiced in the United States, but don't pretend that regulating gun ownership has no effect on the murder rate, because in every country that has real gun laws the murder rate is lower than ours. Guns don't kill people, and lacking a gun people will still try to kill each other; All guns are is the most efficient method of making large ragged holes in other people. The impulse to kill is universal, access to the most efficient tool to carry out that impulse is not. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 01:40:03 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Mick:
I've never killed anyone. Although I must admit there have been a few brainless liberal-nonsense-spouting morons that I'd like to... Well, suffice it to say that I've never killed anyone. Yet. |
This is the sort of semi threat that is more likely than anything to become outlawed. When we know you are armed, then when you jokingly threaten to kill us, we get worried.
When Sara Palin targeted Gabrielle Giffords' congressional seat and put her in her "crosshairs" on Ms. Giffords' picture, it was an unfortunate foreshadowing of Ms. Gifford taking a bullet to the brain.
When Tea party darling Sharon Angle suggested that Nevada Senator Reid ought to be taken out with "second amendment remedies" some of us found the idea of threatening a political opponent with murder less than funny.
You can think us brainless and whatever else you like, but when you threaten us with murder unless we shut up, you will be taken down. Rule by threatened killing is not a sound basis for society. |
|
