| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2012 10:53:16 AM · #776 |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 11:10:35 AM · #777 |
No different than the past occurrences. Note again that NYC has very strict gun control laws already in place.
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 11:10:58. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 11:20:45 AM · #778 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
No different than the past occurrences. Note again that NYC has very strict gun control laws already in place. |
if they had lax laws, would this have happened? |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 11:45:42 AM · #779 |
That's purely speculation. No argument can be made based on that.
However, the argument for having more gun controls in place certainly doesn't seem to have much traction given the location of the majority of the events.
Although I'm sure someone will dispute the causality of the controls.
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 11:45:50. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 12:01:41 PM · #780 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
That's purely speculation. No argument can be made based on that.
However, the argument for having more gun controls in place certainly doesn't seem to have much traction given the location of the majority of the events.
Although I'm sure someone will dispute the causality of the controls. |
this guy was bent on killing his co-worker, im thinking he would have used whatever was at his disposal. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 01:09:45 PM · #781 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Note again that NYC has very strict gun control laws already in place. |
Yes, but neighboring states don't, and there are no border inspection stations* on roads crossing state boundaries.
*Actually, there are, but at the California border they only ask about fresh produce to prevent the spread of agricultural pests -- they don't ask if you're armed and a poitential human pest ...
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 13:11:06. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 01:22:43 PM · #782 |
To all of you who wish to reduce weapons availability, please watch this - you owe it to yourself and everyone else.
//www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2012/08/22/brooke-911-call-records-death.wfaa |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 01:38:29 PM · #783 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Note again that NYC has very strict gun control laws already in place. |
Yes, but neighboring states don't... |
Are NJ, Mass, and Conn not border states to NY? |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 01:47:43 PM · #784 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Note again that NYC has very strict gun control laws already in place. |
Yes, but neighboring states don't... |
Are NJ, Mass, and Conn not border states to NY? |
OK, I should have said nearby states ... do you deny that it is relatively easy/inexpensive to circumvent local gun control laws by traveling to states with fewer restrictions? |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 01:50:21 PM · #785 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Note again that NYC has very strict gun control laws already in place. |
Yes, but neighboring states don't... |
Are NJ, Mass, and Conn not border states to NY? |
OK, I should have said nearby states ... do you deny that it is relatively easy/inexpensive to circumvent local gun control laws by traveling to states with fewer restrictions? |
Yeah, sure - that's one of fifty different ways to avoid gun laws... Glad to see you starting to think. Now extrapolate. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 01:59:56 PM · #786 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Now extrapolate. |
OK -- uniform (nationwide) registration requirements would eliminate that particular method.
BTW, I've been "thinking" for a lot longer than you've been alive ... |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 02:09:00 PM · #787 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Now extrapolate. |
OK -- uniform (nationwide) registration requirements would eliminate that particular method.
BTW, I've been "thinking" for a lot longer than you've been alive ... |
Sometimes it fails to show. Or perhaps you're just bad at it, or more likely, you are being willfully difficult here. Your answer amazes me.. Not only are you wrong (how would nationwide registration prevent someone from transporting a gun? This is a world where people are able to transport entire semi-truck loads of drugs - a gun should be much easier), but you ignored the point of my statement - what about the 49 other ways that the rules can be circumvented?
My point should have been clear - regulate all you want brother, you won't do anything but take weapons out of the hands they should be in, while leaving the "bad" guys well armed. How you can claim that this is a solution baffles me.
Again, I'll say it - this guy chose a gun, and we should be thankful he was so stupid. He killed one person - eleven were wounded, and the reports are that at least some of those were shot by police. Now imagine if he had wanted to kill people and the gun option was off the table (not even sure HOW that would ever happen, but let's just pretend)... What would he have done then, how many do you think he would have killed? Do you really think it would have been none?
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 14:09:33. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 02:32:06 PM · #788 |
Originally posted by Cory:
My point should have been clear - regulate all you want brother, you won't do anything but take weapons out of the hands they should be in, while leaving the "bad" guys well armed. How you can claim that this is a solution baffles me. |
I hear this claim quite often, as if guns are like mushrooms which magically appear out of the earth. Guns are produced and shipped from factories. If we regulated their movements and sale how is it the "bad guys" will remain unaffected while everyone else will be stripped of their guns? Cars are regulated and I see no shift in their ownership to any particular group. If you expand the argument that laws only effect those who abide by them, then all laws only limit the behavior of lawful people. I believe that is why we have prisons.
Originally posted by Cory:
Again, I'll say it - this guy chose a gun, and we should be thankful he was so stupid. He killed one person - eleven were wounded, and the reports are that at least some of those were shot by police. Now imagine if he had wanted to kill people and the gun option was off the table (not even sure HOW that would ever happen, but let's just pretend)... What would he have done then, how many do you think he would have killed? Do you really think it would have been none? |
So you think it is good that he had access to a gun because otherwise he would have been smart and used a ....what? Pocket nuke? The numbers from Scandinavia show us that people without guns tend to move down the armament scale when they set out to kill, not up it. When you are limited to blunt or edged weapons there is no drop in the number of attempted murders, just fewer murders because the tools are inferior for the job. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 02:46:11 PM · #789 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
My point should have been clear - regulate all you want brother, you won't do anything but take weapons out of the hands they should be in, while leaving the "bad" guys well armed. How you can claim that this is a solution baffles me. |
I hear this claim quite often, as if guns are like mushrooms which magically appear out of the earth. Guns are produced and shipped from factories. If we regulated their movements and sale how is it the "bad guys" will remain unaffected while everyone else will be stripped of their guns? Cars are regulated and I see no shift in their ownership to any particular group. If you expand the argument that laws only effect those who abide by them, then all laws only limit the behavior of lawful people. I believe that is why we have prisons. |
Drugs are illegal and are produced in factories. So was alcohol during the prohibition.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
Again, I'll say it - this guy chose a gun, and we should be thankful he was so stupid. He killed one person - eleven were wounded, and the reports are that at least some of those were shot by police. Now imagine if he had wanted to kill people and the gun option was off the table (not even sure HOW that would ever happen, but let's just pretend)... What would he have done then, how many do you think he would have killed? Do you really think it would have been none? |
So you think it is good that he had access to a gun because otherwise he would have been smart and used a ....what? Pocket nuke? The numbers from Scandinavia show us that people without guns tend to move down the armament scale when they set out to kill, not up it. When you are limited to blunt or edged weapons there is no drop in the number of attempted murders, just fewer murders because the tools are inferior for the job. |
Or he could have driven a car down the crowded sidewalk.
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 14:47:16. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 02:54:07 PM · #790 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
My point should have been clear - regulate all you want brother, you won't do anything but take weapons out of the hands they should be in, while leaving the "bad" guys well armed. How you can claim that this is a solution baffles me. |
I hear this claim quite often, as if guns are like mushrooms which magically appear out of the earth. Guns are produced and shipped from factories. If we regulated their movements and sale how is it the "bad guys" will remain unaffected while everyone else will be stripped of their guns? Cars are regulated and I see no shift in their ownership to any particular group. If you expand the argument that laws only effect those who abide by them, then all laws only limit the behavior of lawful people. I believe that is why we have prisons. |
But guns are VERY unlike mushrooms... They don't decay or go bad - there will still be a very large supply for many decades to come, even if all production were immediately stopped. Honestly law-abiding people will turn in their guns to be destroyed, criminals will not, it only makes guns more valuable and opens a new market for trading. Banning guns will only create yet another black market, like the one for pharmaceuticals, illegal drugs, and prostitutes. When did they regulate cars as you suggest? I don't recall any new regulations on who isn't allowed to own a car. Drive one, perhaps, but ownership is allowed for pretty much anyone who can afford it. We have prisons because they are excellent business. Do you see a theme here? Money makes the world go round - and no law stops anything, it just drives the business to a different sector of the market.
Let me quote Wikipedia:
"Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges."
Like I said - business, this is just another business, the majority of their business is not protecting you, you need to realize that. Did you know that in the federal prison system, in 2009, victimless crimes were the source of 86% of the population?
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
Again, I'll say it - this guy chose a gun, and we should be thankful he was so stupid. He killed one person - eleven were wounded, and the reports are that at least some of those were shot by police. Now imagine if he had wanted to kill people and the gun option was off the table (not even sure HOW that would ever happen, but let's just pretend)... What would he have done then, how many do you think he would have killed? Do you really think it would have been none? |
So you think it is good that he had access to a gun because otherwise he would have been smart and used a ....what? Pocket nuke? The numbers from Scandinavia show us that people without guns tend to move down the armament scale when they set out to kill, not up it. When you are limited to blunt or edged weapons there is no drop in the number of attempted murders, just fewer murders because the tools are inferior for the job. |
Pocket nuke huh? First, let's talk about "inferior" weapons. A bullet from a 9mm handgun leaves a roughly 9mm hole through you, ignoring the hollow point argument, and is likely to miss. A knife will leave a 25+mm hole, may be ripped to cause a greater wound channel, and is more readily deployed and harder to disarm at a close distance. Not exactly inferior is it?
Secondly, in terms of a "pocket nuke", there really are some options here, like chemical agents and explosives... Both are pretty scary when compared to a gun IMO.
Third, why would you compare Americans to Scandinavians? I know one thing for sure, and it's that culture determines far more of your thoughts and behaviors than almost any other single factor - our cultures are so VASTLY different that I don't know if any meaningful comparison can even be drawn here.
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 15:02:10. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 02:59:26 PM · #791 |
Cory are you really arguing that there is no point is having any laws; that we would be better off in a lawless society, and that a knife is a more deadly weapon than a gun?
Have we stepped through the looking glass? |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 03:13:50 PM · #792 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Cory are you really arguing that there is no point is having any laws; that we would be better off in a lawless society, and that a knife is a more deadly weapon than a gun?
Have we stepped through the looking glass? |
Unfortunately, it appears as though we have, as some folks think reality follows laws that man passes.
When did I say anything about anarchy? I like law and order, I just dislike poorly thought out laws and the lack of order they cause.
I support anything that will, in reality, help. I am vehemently against anything that would appear to help, convincing the stupid majority, and only advance a very narrow set of interests that are not well aligned with the interests of society at large.
Unfortunately, just like the war on drugs, this proposed war on weapons would only cause more issues than you're trying to solve. So yes, my solution in this case is to be very careful about what laws we do create, as the effects may not be obvious to the casual observer.
ETA: Yes, knives are often more deadly than guns. Your failure to realize that says much about your understanding of the issue at hand.
Message edited by author 2012-08-24 15:20:43. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 03:29:08 PM · #793 |
You give me a few google searches, I give you science"Without exception**, gunshot wounds were more serious and more likely to lead to death." "For example a study in The Journal of Trauma (36:4 pp516-524) looked at all injury admissions to a Seattle hospital over a six year period. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 22% while that for stab wounds was 4%. Even among patients that survived, gunshot wounds were more serious ΓΆ€” the mean cost of treatment for these patients was more than twice that for stab wounds."
|
|
|
|
08/24/2012 03:41:03 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Unfortunately, just like the war on drugs, this proposed war on weapons would only cause more issues than you're trying to solve. |
Even if there was a "proposed war on weapons" it is dealing with an entirely different problem than that of drug prohibition.
To me, a rational approach is to require at least the same things we do of the owner/operator of a motor vehicle:
-operator licensure (requires knowledge of the law and demonstrable ability to operate, legal address, fingerprint/photo ID, medical clearance, legal status assessment)
-registration of items
-proof of liability insurance in case of mishap
-proof of safe storage of items (lock or locker) to prevent unauthorized access |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 03:50:22 PM · #795 |
| Anecdotally, the people most vocal about stronger regulations are going to be the people that actually do believe they'll lose their weapons because of those stronger regulations. So, Cory, what are you afraid of? What are you hiding? Why would better regulations scare you? ;) |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 03:56:36 PM · #796 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You give me a few google searches, I give you science"Without exception**, gunshot wounds were more serious and more likely to lead to death." "For example a study in The Journal of Trauma (36:4 pp516-524) looked at all injury admissions to a Seattle hospital over a six year period. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 22% while that for stab wounds was 4%. Even among patients that survived, gunshot wounds were more serious ΓΆ€” the mean cost of treatment for these patients was more than twice that for stab wounds." |
:)
There are many more variables here than just mortality once wounded. And I think many of those studies took suicide into account on the gun deaths - clearly that alone is reason for concern when the study is used for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2012 04:12:56 PM · #797 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Unfortunately, just like the war on drugs, this proposed war on weapons would only cause more issues than you're trying to solve. |
Even if there was a "proposed war on weapons" it is dealing with an entirely different problem than that of drug prohibition.
To me, a rational approach is to require at least the same things we do of the owner/operator of a motor vehicle:
-operator licensure (requires knowledge of the law and demonstrable ability to operate, legal address, fingerprint/photo ID, medical clearance, legal status assessment)
-registration of items
-proof of liability insurance in case of mishap
-proof of safe storage of items (lock or locker) to prevent unauthorized access |
The top two, many states already do. The choice is yours, move to a state that has those restrictions. That's why we have states that can enact different laws.
Liability insurance is interesting, I haven't heard it mentioned before - what would that do to prevent the things you're trying to prevent?
You have to provide proof of safe storage of your vehicle?!? What do you do, take a picture of your garage? |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 05:37:02 PM · #798 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Anecdotally, the people most vocal about stronger regulations are going to be the people that actually do believe they'll lose their weapons because of those stronger regulations. So, Cory, what are you afraid of? What are you hiding? Why would better regulations scare you? ;) |
Obviously he is lazy and doesn't want to have to stab people to death. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 05:53:43 PM · #799 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Anecdotally, the people most vocal about stronger regulations are going to be the people that actually do believe they'll lose their weapons because of those stronger regulations. So, Cory, what are you afraid of? What are you hiding? Why would better regulations scare you? ;) |
Obviously he is lazy and doesn't want to have to stab people to death. |
Yes, this. ;)
Honestly, I'm afraid more for others than myself, my 100lb girlfriend comes to mind.
In the end it's more that I'm just against creating rules that won't help, and arguably could do a good deal of harm. |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 06:06:08 PM · #800 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, I'm afraid more for others than myself, my 100lb girlfriend comes to mind. |
Come on, Cory. This is America - how hard is it to find a 300lb girlfriend?? |
|
