View Full Version : Here's where the gun debate should go!
OK, I'll start. I'm a moderate with experience with firearms that is probably middle of the road. I am somewhat familiar with them, have been to shooting ranges now and then but I don't carry and I don't routinely practice. I have lived in TX, AZ and CO (where I live now) and I guess I would say I think CO's laws are reasonable in that there are some checks against folks buying them but if you really have a lot of fear for your life you can go through reasonable steps to get a concealed carry permit. I know a few people with conceal carry permits, and I support their right to have those because basically it makes them feel better. In at least one case, it probably vastly improves the quality of life for this person, because she'd be pretty fearful without it. OTOH, I really do not think there are a lot of mass shooting cases in which arming the populace will prevent gun violence death. I haven't seen all the stuff on the news about whether people in the theater were armed (likely some were) but it's pretty certain people were armed during the Tucson shooting a couple of years ago. AZ has extremely lax laws about guns, not even bothering to require any sort of permit for conceal-carry. I believe at least one of the people who tackled the shooter in that case to the ground was armed, but tackled rather than shot. Very few other mass shooting incidents have been stopped because of an armed bystander, most notably the Fort Hood shooting which was *on a military base* meaning nearly everyone around had had firearm training. At one time I was in a situation when I walked out of the house at night from a recessed door, to hear and see close-range gunfire (this was in AZ). I did have a loaded gun in the house, but my instinct was not to run out of the house with a gun but rather get inside quickly and call the police. I'm certain some people are different because there are trained soldiers and police officers, but after that whole thing I really, viscerally realized how unlikely it would be that I would be prepared to engage in a fire fight. Now, if someone were in my house and I had the advantage of knowing the layout and possibly the element of surprise I might use a gun. More likely I'd prefer some other tool such as a large knife, baseball bat, etc.
As far as gun laws, I don't particularly see how changing them would have changed the outcome in many of these cases (other than the loophole by which the Columbine shooters were able to obtain guns) unless we made it extremely onerous to obtain guns which will never happen. Even if the US did make very strict gun laws, aren't the laws of Norway much more strict about guns? What about England? Yet they have had mass shootings too. These types of incidents are carried out by people with particular thought processes and possible mental illnesses. There are things the press could do to help, like not sensationalizing the whole thing esp the shooter(s) names and faces. Having a stronger mental health system and more/better intervention would likely help as well. Probably this would not completely end incidents like this, because it's sometimes difficult to predict who will carry an act out. But that's a whole other debate that isn't even brought up most of the time.
Having some checks and balances in gun laws will probably have the greatest effect on gun accidents, which claim quite a few lives each year. I don't think it's onerous to expect some level of gun familiarity with both laws and operation of a firearm, prior to obtaining one. After all, everyone is required to have a driver's license prior to driving and much of that is because cars are deadly weapons too. And yes, some people will have guns without a license just like they drive without one, but saying "well some people won't bother/criminals don't care" is a BS argument for the same reason in either case.
There's my opinion, have at it!:)
I've heard the comment in the media how disappointing it was that one of the probably-armed people in the theater didn't do their civic duty and kill this guy while he was mid-slaughter. I don't get that logic. Individuals are not police and it is no one's civic duty to stop a criminal by shooting and killing them mid-carnage. Further, this guy was covered in armor. How would anyone who just happened to be carrying even be able to get a bullet in and slow the guy down? And there was already one person shooting into a darkened, tear-gas-filled, chaotic, heavily populated room. Did the people in that room really want to add another shooter to that mix?
That said, the desire for reasonable gun laws aside, the NRA is a VERY powerful and sophisticated lobby. There is NO appetite by legislators (especially Republican but also on both sides) to limit gun access on any level. So there can be a Columbine or VA Tech every week and given the current climate there will be no changes to gun laws. Further, I don't see the climate changing except for opinions to become even more firmly ensconced in the anything goes attitude in the foreseeable future.
In some states, carrying concealed in a movie theatres is illegal. Someone mentioned on a local AM station that's the case in CO. Or at least theatres are often no-gun zones, at the choice of the management. I've not had the chance to research that more to see if that's actually the case.
Rosie a very good analysis of guns and the control of them in the US. The only thing I would add is there should be requirements that when a person is not home their guns should be required to be stored in a gun safe. I believe most street gangs and crooks get their guns in home burglaries. They could not afford to buy them.
Rosie a very good analysis of guns and the control of them in the US. The only thing I would add is there should be requirements that when a person is not home their guns should be required to be stored in a gun safe. I believe most street gangs and crooks get their guns in home burglaries. They could not afford to buy them.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of requiring people to house guns in a gun safe at home. Many people who own pistols primarily use them for home protection....and if they're locked in a gun safe it's not feasible to get them out in a hurry or load them in a hurry. Maybe if there were an easy, small, fingerprint-protected safe that one could keep under the bed (or whatever, I don't know if such a thing exists). I don't know if I would care much personally, but I also get a little heebie jeebie about legislation that intrudes on someone's home except in cases of direct trauma to another person. IMO requiring certain type of gun storage inside someone's house for a legally owned weapon is intrusive. However, requiring someone to understand the risks of gun theft inside a home prior to purchasing a gun would be OK in my view.
As far as guns in theaters, I believe the law in CO states that businesses can disallow firearms by posting a clear sign at entrances, and entering certain types of businesses (such as bars and schools) is illegal with firearms unless you're a police officer. But that may have been a few years ago and changed at this point....I will have to ask friends who have conceal carry permits what the situation is.
And yeah, Bunnys, good point. If you're a gun-carrying citizen and someone around starts shooting, and then you shoot back and somewhere in there the police show up, then what? They may shoot you and it's pretty likely they'll arrest you. You might get released later, or you might have confused witnesses who say you were shooting at them, too. So now you're on trial for murder and demonized etc etc. If your other choice is for sure dying, well, maybe some would argue they'd take that chance, but in a mass shooting situation if you're in a position to fire back it's probably not clear whether you're likely to die. OTOH, one on one with an assailant who specifically wants to do *you* harm, yes probably attempting to defend yourself is preferable because you're otherwise very likely to die. Also it's much more likely to be clear it was self defense....although not 100% clear, as it's not 100% that someone who happened to be armed in some of the mass shootings would have saved some lives by killing the assailant. I don't think more of the populace armed would greatly reduce mass shootings since the shooters in these situations are most often looking for fame and/or suicide. They are not afraid of death, so they are not deterred by the notion that they may die during the incident. In some of the cases where shooters searched and killed for long periods of time (Virginia Tech for instance) some armed person might have saved some lives. In more rapid situations like Aurora and Tucson, probably less so. Given that rage and mistakes are both human nature, I don't think having every person with a loaded gun on them is a great idea.
I meant the the gun safe would be used to store guns when an individual is not home and they have guns in the home. When they are home they would not need to store them.
I do not think there is any way to prevent mass shootings. Intelligence like we use to catch terrorist would be the only way. I don't think Americans would want to give up their freedom and privacy to such intelligent gathering methods.
Yossarian
7-21-12, 11:31am
The Columbine, Va Tech, Ft Hood, Aurora, and Norway shootings were all in gun free zones. No sheepdogs allowed.
Once the dust settles for the recent tragedy, I'm sure this will become part of the political debate. If I could try to second guess the direction of discussion, the issues would seem to be restrictions on assault type weapons and large capacity magazines and clips. And probably more paper work and transparency to track gun and ammunition purchases. I don't know whether this will especially deter gun crimes or crimp gun owner freedoms to protect home and person to any huge degree regardless of the outcome..
My hope is that people will look at some of the societal issues that might be at the root cause of these things and at least bring some of these to light. Things like bullying and peer rejection seem to have played a role in a few of these. My issue is the gun related violence in the mainstream media that romanticizes both good guys and bad guys and at least to some would make it seem like acceptable or common behavior. It would be interesting to see what percent of non-reality TV shows have some degree of gun violence. I'm not a gaming person, but what percent of computer games have gun or deadly weapon violence at their core? Are peoples lives so mundane that they need this elevated sensationalism to be entertained?
I would like to offer apologies and regrets for a small participation in gun issues in the open forum discussion. It probably wasn't the right place for it.
I would like to offer apologies and regrets for a small participation in gun issues in the open forum discussion. It probably wasn't the right place for it.
Thank you, I appreciate it. The incident has shook up my family badly. last night some of us were able to sleep. Our church was the site of a recent shooting and a police officer was killed 10 minutes from my house this month. Now only miles away they are dismantling his apartment and evacuating people in the area.
My family member who works there expressed concern that if one of their police officers had been on duty that night (they work weekends because of previous gang incidents and shootings) then it c ould have easily been a firefight. That is no comfort I am sure to those who lost loved ones however it is valid. It is horrible to me that this happened in a theatre that has responded well to threats to the patrons by added security measures.
from the other thread:
ZG, so sorry to hear about your friends. What an awful tragedy.
pug, so glad that baby was fussy!
I am not going to jump into the gun debate but think it is appropriate to raise a related issue -- the role of mental illness in these kinds of things. Can we all agree that a sane person would not act in this way? That seems obvious to me. So what can be done to better identify the types of mentally ill individuals that might act out like this and get them the help they need so that this kind of tragedy doesn't happen? Because if we control guns then without help they will probably still find another way to inflict major harm.
lhamo
I'm not sure that I agree that "a sane person would not act in this way." I don't say that to be argumentative--I just don't know that I agree with that premise.
...
My hope is that people will look at some of the societal issues that might be at the root cause of these things and at least bring some of these to light. Things like bullying and peer rejection seem to have played a role in a few of these. My issue is the gun related violence in the mainstream media that romanticizes both good guys and bad guys and at least to some would make it seem like acceptable or common behavior. It would be interesting to see what percent of non-reality TV shows have some degree of gun violence. I'm not a gaming person, but what percent of computer games have gun or deadly weapon violence at their core? Are peoples lives so mundane that they need this elevated sensationalism to be entertained?
....
I'll be interested to see if the shooter has a history of SSRI use that might have led to psychosis.
I wondered about medication/drugs too.
from the other thread:
I'm not sure that I agree that "a sane person would not act in this way." I don't say that to be argumentative--I just don't know that I agree with that premise.
The act itself is not considered insanity - if it was terrorists and others who kill indiscriminately would all be considered insane.
Why such an act would be committed may be considered insane - like if he did because the voices in his head forced him do it.
sweetana3
7-22-12, 12:44pm
CathyA, I wondered aloud before ever seeing his picture or a description if it would be a young white male with some life disappointments who had caused it.
These arguments about gun control remind me of the old West Side Story song:
ALL
We're no good, we're no good!
We're no earthly good,
Like the best of us is no damn good!
DIESEL (As Judge)
The trouble is he's crazy.
A-RAB (As Psychiatrist)
The trouble is he drinks.
BABY JOHN (As Female Social Worker)
The trouble is he's lazy.
DIESEL
The trouble is he stinks.
A-RAB
The trouble is he's growing.
BABY JOHN
The trouble is he's grown.
In other words, it's a really complex issue. Guns or no guns, someone felt like he needed to kill a bunch of innocent strangers. I liked the movie Bowling for Columbine, and I, personally, don't see myself ever owning a gun. That could change, such as if I were personally assaulted in my own home, I would probably be traumatized and feel very afraid and compensate by buying a gun. I have opinions about the NRA and gun ownership, but it's really not about the guns. If I were to add my own lyrics to the West Side Story song it would probably be "the trouble is a) there are too many people who feel powerless and disenfranchised in this society and b) stuff happens."
Good point, Catherine. Especially about the powerlessness many feel.
However, we have a lot of guns in this country and we have a lot of gun violence to go around it. And a lot of other people around the world feel powerless too. But there is a lot more gun violence in this country than in the rest of the world. I'm certain you're right that part of it is about the way people live in our society. I also believe part of it is about the guns.
I saw an interview the other day with a father of a boy who was killed in the Columbine shooting. He said something like "What are we doing? Other countries are saying 'what the heck is going on there??'
There is one or more shooting in the big city near here every single week..........children/youth/adults.....
Drive-bys at barbecues, parties and people are just shot indiscriminately.
I'm glad there are still the majority of us who have absolutely no concept of having so much free-floating anger that we are willing to annihilate innocent people.
I didn't realize that there were still about 10 people in the hospital from the theater shooting who are still critical.
There is going to be alot of horrible memories to try to deal with for a very, very long time for all of the people who were there. :(
It's hard to write satire these days:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sadly-nation-knows-exactly-how-colorado-shootings,28857/?ref=auto
WASHINGTON—Americans across the nation confirmed today that, unfortunately, due to their extreme familiarity with the type of tragedy that occurred in a Colorado movie theater last night, they sadly know exactly how the events following the horrific shooting of 12 people will unfold.
While admitting they "absolutely hate" the fact they have this knowledge, the nation's 300 million citizens told reporters they can pinpoint down to the hour when the first candlelight vigil will be held, roughly how many people will attend, how many times the county sheriff will address the media in the coming weeks, and when the town-wide memorial service will be held.
Additionally, sources nationwide took no pleasure in confirming that some sort of video recording, written material, or disturbing photographs made by the shooter will be surfacing in about an hour or two.
"I hate to say it, but we as Americans are basically experts at this kind of thing by now,” said 45-year-old market analyst Jared Gerson, adding that the number of media images of Aurora, CO citizens crying and looking shocked is “pretty much right in line with where it usually is at this point." "The calls not to politicize the tragedy should be starting in an hour, but by 1:30 p.m. tomorrow the issue will have been politicized. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if the shooter’s high school classmate is interviewed within 45 minutes."
"It's like clockwork," said Gerson, who sighed, shook his head, and walked away.
According to the nation's citizenry, calls for a mature, thoughtful debate about the role of guns in American society started right on time, and should persist throughout the next week or so. However, the populace noted, the debate will soon spiral out of control and ultimately lead to nothing of any substance, a fact Americans everywhere acknowledged they felt "absolutely horrible" to be aware of.
With scalpel-like precision, the American populace then went on to predict, to the minute, how long it will take for the media to swarm Aurora, CO, how long it will take for them to leave, and exactly when questions will be raised as to whether or not violence in movies and video games had something to do with the act.
The nation's citizens also confirmed that, any time now, some religious figure or cable news personality will say something unbelievably insensitive about the tragic shooting.
"Unfortunately, I've been through this a lot, and I pretty much have it down to a science when President Obama will visit Colorado, when he will meet with the families of those who lost loved ones, and when he will give his big speech that people will call 'unifying' and 'very presidential,'" Jacksonville resident Amy Brennen, 32, said, speaking for every other person in the country. "Nothing really surprises me when it comes to this kind of thing anymore. And that makes me feel terrible."
"Oh, and here's another thing I hate I know," Brennen continued, "In exactly two weeks this will all be over and it will be like it never happened.
Bae, Jesse Jackson has already come out with something - I think he was calling for candle light vigils or something like that in as many movie theatres as possible.
Can we please just ban Jesse Jackson? The man's "good by" date is long past.
What's interesting about the whole outcry for stricter gun control after each of these types of incidents, is that there's little outcry about the constant shootings by thug-types in the inner city. Chicago's a great example of it this year. The especially hot weather makes everyone over irritated, and the numbers have gone through the roof.
What's interesting about the whole outcry for stricter gun control after each of these types of incidents, is that there's little outcry about the constant shootings by thug-types in the inner city.
And so little outcry about the circumstances that have led to the inner city ecology developing and persisting.
For instance:
http://coleenkosan.pbworks.com/f/1267240657/ShameNationDustJacket.jpg
Bae, Jesse Jackson has already come out with something - I think he was calling for candle light vigils or something like that in as many movie theatres as possible.
Can we please just ban Jesse Jackson? The man's "good by" date is long past.
What's interesting about the whole outcry for stricter gun control after each of these types of incidents, is that there's little outcry about the constant shootings by thug-types in the inner city. Chicago's a great example of it this year. The especially hot weather makes everyone over irritated, and the numbers have gone through the roof.
Is there something wrong with the call for a candlelight vigil or is it just Jesse Jackson? Regardless of the answer, why?
I, for one, am one of those calling for stricter gun control (or rather some gun control as it's pretty much a free for all out there right now) and I also think it's terrible when "thug-types" engage in "constant shootings" in the inner city. I also think it's terrible when anyone anywhere engages in a shooting, that's why I want some limits to gun/ammo access for all.
What's interesting about the whole outcry for stricter gun control after each of these types of incidents, is that there's little outcry about the constant shootings by thug-types in the inner city. Chicago's a great example of it this year. The especially hot weather makes everyone over irritated, and the numbers have gone through the roof.
These mass murders definitively get more media attention than the daily crimes. Major Bloomberg was on our local coverage and said that New York City has 365 gun related killings a year (I think he was ball-parking). If you can consider the mayors of these cities as any sort of experts, there is a coalition of city mayors including Chicago, Boston, and NYC who are members, along with of a coalition of a few hundred other mayors, that have agreed on the need for tighter gun controls (M.A.I.G.). Bloomberg is especially outspoken. Their have a formal list of items that basically tighten gun registration regulations and give federal and local agencies more access to gun sale and ownership records.
A friend asked me why anyone would ever need an AK-47, and my only answer was that some people believe they're going to have to take on the government/US military at some future time. I don't get the passion we have in this country for weaponry, but it seems to be entrenched, so I mostly just ignore it.
I haven't read Kozol for some time, but I recall him being well to the left of me. I should revisit him, just to be sure.
I loved the Onion piece; perfectly put. And I hate, hate, hate to see people with so much (apparent) promise flame out as Holmes did.
DocHolliday
7-22-12, 5:50pm
A friend asked me why anyone would ever need an AK-47
Do we really want the Thought Police to decide what someone else "needs" in this country? For those who would ban someone else from having them, would you want someone else banning something you own and use from your daily life?
To add some facts to the discussion, rifles of all kinds are rarely used in murders in this country. In most States more people are beat to death than killed by rifles.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
DocHolliday
7-22-12, 5:57pm
I, for one, am one of those calling for stricter gun control (or rather some gun control as it's pretty much a free for all out there right now) and I also think it's terrible when "thug-types" engage in "constant shootings" in the inner city. I also think it's terrible when anyone anywhere engages in a shooting, that's why I want some limits to gun/ammo access for all.
It goes back and forth, but there are years where more people are killed in alcohol related traffic deaths than are murdered by firearms. Should we ban or restrict sales of high-capacity 6 and 12 packs, and cases of beer to bring those numbers down? Background checks for beer sales?
Do we really want the Thought Police to decide what someone else "needs" in this country? For those who would ban someone else from having them, would you want someone else banning something you own and use from your daily life?
To add some facts to the discussion, rifles of all kinds are rarely used in murders in this country. In most States more people are beat to death than killed by rifles.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
You'll notice the discussion wasn't about government, but why anyone would want or need a weapon of mass destruction. Governments ban a lot of items, from lead toys to mescaline, some of which I might want to buy.
To add some facts to the discussion, rifles of all kinds are rarely used in murders in this country. In most States more people are beat to death than killed by rifles.
I don't have statistics, but military style assault rifles seem to be a popular choice for mass slayings, including the most recent. At one time they were banned but that provision expired in 2004, so they are now legal.
You'll notice the discussion wasn't about government, but why anyone would want or need a weapon of mass destruction. Governments ban a lot of items, from lead toys to mescaline, some of which I might want to buy.
An AK-47 is hardly a "weapon of mass destruction". Maintaining such indicates a lack of knowledge.
The AK-47 fires a medium-powered rifle cartridge, roughly the equal of the venerable (vintage 1895) 30-30. The AK-47s sold in America are semi-automatic only, meaning they fire a single round with each pull of the trigger.
The reasons someone might want to own such a thing are varied. At a time when a quality Springfield M1A semi-auto rifle costs $1500 to $2000, or a Remington semi-auto rifle $1000, a $500 AK-47 still represents a reasonable value, it is reliable, very easy to maintain, and shoots reasonably-priced ammunition.
People focus on the AK-47 as a symbol for gun control efforts because it looks scary, has bad connotations because of its history and use by repressive regimes, and so on.
Don't be fooled.
I'll mention something else. The US government will sell you, a normal civilian citizen, a quite nice rifle, the M1 Garand or the M1 Carbine, through the Department Of Civilian Marksmanship, if you are not a criminal and demonstrate that you are engaged in the proper use of such things. They will also sell you ammunition and parts, and run the National Matches, which require the use of these particular firearms for many of the events.
These rifles are very very rarely used in any sort of crime.
The popularity of the assault style semi-auto rifles is due in part to the availability of accessories, like a 100 round drum magazine. They are relatively light weight and smaller than your standard hunting rifle. The AR-15 like the one used in Aurora (with the 100 round magazine if I have it right) is not a cheap gun. It could fire 50-60 rounds a minute with the high capacity magazine, even as a semi auto.
The old clunky Italian carbine Oswald used cost $19.95 with a scope and resulted in the ban of mail order guns to common citizens. FWIW.
I readily admit lack of knowledge when it comes to weaponry, and I suppose "weapon of mass destruction" could be considered hyperbolic by some. ;)
The AR-15 ....
AR-15-style rifles are the top-selling type of rifle in the USA, and have been for several years now. They range in price from $500 to $10,000, depending on configuration and manufacturer.
I believe the main reason they are so popular is that they are so modular - you can reconfigure them a million different ways, changing sights, stocks, grips, barrels, caliber, and so on, generally without special tools. This has spawned a huge accessory industry.
I myself am not too concerned about the 100-round magazines - if you've ever seen one, you'll realize they are expensive, heavy, very unreliable, and cause malfunctions of the firearm. They are mostly toys meant to attract people who like shiny objects, much as the several rows of fishing lures at Cabelas are designed to catch fishermen, not fish. I've never seen anyone with a clue show up to a real range with a 100-round magazine.
"I've never seen anyone with a clue show up to a real range with a 100-round magazine."
I doubt that anyone with a 100-round magazine will show up at a real range. Instead, they will keep it loaded, unpracticed, in their closet until they get mad enough at the world to trigger its use.
Does anyone have a short summary of the Glocks used, and the amazing history of that gun becoming the premier murder weapon of our time?
I doubt that anyone with a 100-round magazine will show up at a real range. Instead, they will keep it loaded, unpracticed, in their closet until they get mad enough at the world to trigger its use.
Since it will quite likely jam and malfunction out-of-the-gate, that's probably the kind of magazine you want crazies to have, if you can't keep weapons out of their hands...
Does anyone have a short summary of the Glocks used, and the amazing history of that gun becoming the premier murder weapon of our time?[/COLOR]
Glocks are relatively inexpensive, tremendously reliable, easy to use, very safe for trained users, very easy to service, and have great factory support. As a result, they have captured the lion's share of the US law enforcement handgun market, and a huge share of the civilian market. So it is not surprising that they should turn up in crime stats as well.
(I helped write a textbook on the Glock, back in 1992, when I was a new convert from the older styles of weapons, and am a certified Glock armorer...)
One point that has not been covered is the money involved in firearms. The manufactures of firearms and their accessories have a vested interest in firearms control. These groups spend a lot of money on the NRA and buying politicians. Our politicians are afaird to propose any gun control laws to do so would end their political carrier. That is just not wright.
One point that has not been covered is the money involved in firearms. The manufactures of firearms and their accessories have a vested interest in firearms control. These groups spend a lot of money on the NRA and buying politicians.
How large is the US firearms industry, in dollars?
How does that compare to other industries that lobby?
Back-of-the-envelope-time....
(I'll give you a hint - the last company I started is about 50% larger in revenue than the US firearms and ammunition industry. Whole Food Markets has 2.5x the revenue of the entire firearms industry, yet somehow they don't have the same influence over policy. Why is that? Another hint: how many NRA members will write letters and make phone calls if they are informed Yet Another Piece Of Legislation is heading down the pike to add to the thousands of laws already on the books?)
A more telling figure might be the revenue generated by the illicit gun trade. I do not know what that figure is. I suspect it is very lucrative for a few players who can't be bothered with traditional cost of doing business line items and regulatory compliance. Very few legal gun dealers are getting rich through their trade.
I could not find the total dollar amount of gun sales but I fond the following interesting. I will grant that a lot of the 6 million dollars comes from individuals the NRA has scared into believing Obama is taking away their toys/guns even though he has done nothing in the gun the control area.
"Chad Ramsey, the Brady Campaign's senior associate director, says that the NRA has spent $6.67m campaigning against Obama, a sum more than 30 times what it put in to the election campaign against Al Gore in the 2000 election. He adds: "The gun lobby, particularly the NRA, throughout the election has fomented this paranoia that the Obama administration and the Democrats were going to come and take your guns. I think folks responded to that. We're seeing people who are stockpiling weapons because they believed it. It's very problematic and scary. The gun lobby and the NRA have a real interest in spreading this fear. They get a lot of their funding from gun manufacturers and gun dealers. They're feeding their own coffers by doing this."
We will have to agree to disagree. I would agree to reasonable gun control laws and so would many gun owners. The NRA will not be satisfied until everyone owns a gun and preferably a fully automatic machine gun.
iris lily
7-22-12, 10:40pm
...The NRA will not be satisfied until everyone owns a gun and preferably a fully automatic machine gun.
Oh free, that is so much hyperbole, it's ridiculous.
Yes, very hyperbolic.
Here's the thing. I support the NRA. I own zero guns.
The purpose of the second amendment was not to provide options for people to have weapons in their hunting. It was designed so that we could have a standing militia and so that we could fight our own government if need be.
As such, I think that it's great that there are people out there who understand these weapons, who purchase them and keep them in good condition, and are preparing themselves for a great tyranny.
I rely on them to do so. Not because I am eschewing responsibility. I only hope that should something come to pass that sets us up in this way, that I will have another responsibility within that community. It may be that I am taught to carry and use those weapons in the assistance of others, or it may be that I teach those people how to meditate in between battles to better manage their PTSD. Everyone will have a roll, no doubt, should such a terrible vision come to pass.
It will also allow people to secure themselves. Responsible gun owners -- who are the majority of gun owners -- actually reduce the risk of gun violence. No doubt, Bae would have taken down that young man in 30 seconds flat and been a hero -- assuming the laws allowed him to legally conceal-carry. Which, I hope that they would.
In fact, I would honestly trust bae with my life if need be, beucase I believe that he understands this stuff far better than I do. And I'm glad that he does.
Now, this might seem wholly incongruous with why I own no guns.
I'll be honest: guns are difficult tools. They require a great deal of care and knowledge. They require practice and effort. Haivng not been raised in a family that handled guns, I have no experience with them. My family carries a certain measure of fear around them (I don't know why), even though my grandfathers (all 5 of them -- my father had a step dad) were all highly regarded marksmen in their respective military groups (Army, Navy). My cousin is also an excellent marksman. Several of my friends are hunters as well -- so they are clear on weaponry. And three of my friends work almost exclusively with hand-guns, usually doing the casual 'tournaments' at the shooting ranges.
I simply have not taken the time to learn the skills required to be both safe and effective with guns -- for myself and for others. It is too risky for me to have or carry a gun. And with this, I'm not sure I'd use it for security, and *that* is a big issue. Hesitating with a gun is more risky than people imagine (or so my grandfather told me). He said that if I was to carry a weapon, I damn well be both able. . .and more importantly willing. . .to use it. If you dont' have *that* then it's a danger to have the weapon on you, because the other guy will remove it from you and use it against you.
Thus, at the end of the day, I am too risky around those weapons.
But, I value that people have access, and i value that there are people who responsibly learn how to use these weapons.
And in the future, I may learn to use them myself. I don't know. I think going to a shooting range and learning would be fun, and I always through that skeet shooting looked like a real good time. I'd love for DS to learn, but he's way more interested in archery right now. ANd he has time. He's only 4. He wouldn't like the noise.
Is there something wrong with the call for a candlelight vigil or is it just Jesse Jackson? Regardless of the answer, why?
It's Jesse Jackson. Perhaps I'm jaded with having lived in the Chicago area for the past 16 years and so he's all over the local media more than folks might see him in the national media. But whenever something happens that he could grandstand, it seems like he's all over it. Anything for a scrap of publicity. He's also divisive.
He goes on and on about how Chicago needs stricter gun control. Well, Chicago *did* have very strict gun control laws - no one was allowed to legally own a handgun beginning in 1982 until that was struck down in the McDonald case in 2010. Did the ban make a difference? Hardly. Chicago's dragging its heels.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-04/news/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban
These mass murders definitively get more media attention than the daily crimes. Major Bloomberg was on our local coverage and said that New York City has 365 gun related killings a year (I think he was ball-parking). If you can consider the mayors of these cities as any sort of experts, there is a coalition of city mayors including Chicago, Boston, and NYC who are members, along with of a coalition of a few hundred other mayors, that have agreed on the need for tighter gun controls (M.A.I.G.). Bloomberg is especially outspoken. Their have a formal list of items that basically tighten gun registration regulations and give federal and local agencies more access to gun sale and ownership records.
Yes, there are most definitely these mayors. You'll hear Rahm bleating locally about stricter gun control. But on the national level? The gun control debate seems to revolve around these sensational mass shootings, not the daily count. It's especially interesting watching the news after a hot weekend this summer in Chicago to see what the body count will be.
Oh free, that is so much hyperbole, it's ridiculous.
I was just kidding but I guess I was wright. Here is what the NRA spokesperson said in 2008.
The NRA’s [spokeswoman Rachel] Parsons signaled disagreement with respondents who believe that people should be barred from keeping machine guns and fully automatic weapons in their homes.
"Anyone wanting to own such a weapon faces a lengthy and demanding review process, including several background checks, Parsons said, adding that legally owned fully automatic firearms result in little or no crime.
“The NRA stands firmly by the notion that law-abiding citizens are not the problem,” she said."
Link to article: http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=436
That's a bit different, no?
Are you aware of the current legal requirements for civilan ownership of fully automatic weapons in the USA?
Originally posted by Zoebird.
No doubt, Bae would have taken down that young man in 30 seconds flat and been a hero -- assuming the laws allowed him to legally conceal-carry.This is exactly the sort of offal that causes me to upchuck every time I hear it.
Did anyone else watch the hour-long Dateline special (tonight) on the Colorado shooting???, because DH and I, just finished watching it, and what a sobering watch it was...
That's a bit different, no?
Are you aware of the current legal requirements for civilan ownership of fully automatic weapons in the USA?
Yes it is virtually impossible to own a machine gun. That is a good thing Can you imagine how many more people would have been killed in such mass killings. I have shot a machine gun in the army an M60 and know how deadly they are. You probably know you use short burst so you don't burn the barrel up but those short burst are very deadly. I would guess even you would agree that ownership of machine guns should be very tightly controlled.
It is already tightly controlled, and has been since 1934. The NRA helped write that law.
When a tragedy strikes it is a normal reaction to want to do something to prevent something similar from happening, but I don't any easy solution to this one in the gun control arena. It would be nice to wake up and not have any assault weapons like the AR-15 or AK-47s in public hands. They have little value as a sporting weapon and probably not a top choice for personal protection, but there are already so many of these floating around that it would be impossible to somehow recall or eliminate these in any practical numbers. As far as I can tell, the ten year or so ban on assault weapons was practically invisible.
There are some loopholes that should be closed on background checks for firearm purchases, at gun shows for example. Statistics seem to show that murders are typically committed by people who have a prior criminal record, but these people also are likely to have access to illegal guns.
I'm not even sure about allowing more or better access to law enforcement on firearms or ammunition ownership and purchases. Maybe when someone buys huge amounts of ammunition or multiple weapons in a short amount of time there should be a flag that goes up or some sort of limits. But this also allows an implicit trust in legal authority. I have a female friend with a conceal to carry permit who was harassed by police after a routine traffic stop check showed she may be armed. Personally, I turned in a broken old shotgun at local police station and was questioned at some length while they held my driver's license. I'm sure my name is still on their records.
I've been to a few gun shows and shops that specialize in personal protection weapons. Most of the people are collectors, hunters, or people wanting protection for themselves and families. But there are invariably a handful of people that look downright scary. Some probably are radical survivalists, some just odd. Any they are all probably heavily armed. I don't know of a way to eliminate the crazies without also taking away the rights of protection against the crazies.
It just seems like we are too far into the gun culture and have to look at other solutions?
There is no easy-fix, Rogar, that's for sure...
The only thing I know is, it's an incredibly sad day when the definition of "hero" (nowadays), alludes to someone (armed) who makes their way out the door of their home/business first thing in the morning, to alter mankind.
Equally sad (and pathetic), are those who feel they have the god-given right to turn any/all public spaces into their very own personal shooting galleries (being heroes), all in the name of the Second Amendment, putting the lives of innocent people at risk.
There you go again, Mrs-M, with your uninformed judgemental insults.
This is exactly the sort of offal that causes me to upchuck every time I hear it.
First, offal is very nutritious and healthy, so I don't understand your issue with offal or you use of it in this statement.
To me it reads "this is exactly the sort of really tastey, delicious and healthy choice that makes me want to vomit every time that I hear it."
Secondarily, "take down" and "subdue" are the same thing. It doesn't imply killing the young man. It only implies keeping him from continuing.
In general, the police use several methods to subdue individuals -- and in these instances, they shoot or taser them.
If an individual in the theater (or several individuals in the theater in the case of krav maga/mma folks who often subdue perpatrators in small robbery situations), had those means at his/her disposal, it's likely that we would read that fewer people were killed or injured.
The issue here is not that guns are the problem, or that gun owners are. The issue here is that there was a young man in a lot of pain, whose pain drove him to madness. And that madness killed 12 and injured -- 58 others (at the last count that I read).
If someone had subdued him before police got there, it might have been "non one killed, several injured." or it might have been "two killed, several injured" or some such. Not these large numbers that we see.
If saving people using adequate force to subdue a person perpetrating an extreme act of violence makes you vomit, then I really, truly do not understand.
I mean, it's ok for the police to subdue him, but not a random person? You're ok with him being subdued right? As opposed to just continuing until he ran out of ammunition?
The only thing I know is, it's an incredibly sad day when the definition of "hero" (nowadays), alludes to someone (armed) who makes their way out the door of their home/business first thing in the morning, to alter mankind.
You have no way of knowing a person's mind. I don't know anyone who carries a weapon "to alter mankind." Most of them wear it because they want it for their personal security.
One of my friends carries a knife at all times and has since he was 14. It's a large knife, and he knows how to carry it and how to use it. He was trained in the appropriate martial arts when he was between the ages of 12 and 14.
Between the ages of 10 and 18, he, his brother, and his mother lived in one of the roughest neighborhoods in Baltimore. HIs brother -- who is older -- got involved in drugs, and often my friend and his mother would be out on the streets looking for him in the middle of the night.
Three times they were mugged at gun or knife point, and in one instance, his mother was brutalized before his eyes.
It was at this time that he learned several things. First, if your brother is being a stupid druggie, don't go looking for him in the middle of the night. Instead, go back to sleep and be ready for your math test in the morning.
Second, he needed to learn how to defend himself (and to the best of his ability his mother). He went and asked a local martial artist to train him. The school was about 2 blocks from his school, and he told the guy point blank what the situation was and that he couldn't pay. They set up a work-study option for my friend. He spent two years learning basic martial arts skills -- both traditional and modern -- and at age 12, was introduced to using knives.
At age 14, he started to carry one everywhere *except* school, as that was not allowed. He spoke to his principal and said that he would carry the weapon *to* school, turn it over to the principal each morning, and then pick it up after school. The teacher of his martial arts also wrote a letter about my friend's training, and the deal was struck.
From that day to this, unless he's on a flight, he carries a knife on his person -- into the office, around the city, and everywhere he goes. He will remove it when going into government offices (a rare occasion) or any place where it would be a problem. But it's important to note that he usually calls security ahead, tells them that he carries it, and then turns it in so that they can return it when he leaves the building.
My friend is 42 years old.
Third, he learned to stick to the shadows. The issue that he kept seeing is that he and his mother were always attacked when they walked from light to light. He said "the bad guys are in the shadows, you can't see them." And so he learned to stay in the shadows. You blend with the bad guys, and no one picks on you. in fact, no one can see you. He taught me this as well, because he knew I was often in the city at night. He taught me how to effectively stand, use a hoodie, and stay to the dark. He taught me how to keep myself safe.
My friend is not a vigilante. He has no interest in "altering human history" or whatever claim you are making. He simply feels confident considering his experience and worldview (as well as the fact that he lives in Philadelphia and walks his dog most nights too), he prefers to carry something so that, should something happen, he can defend himself.
I can also tell you that he's only had to defend himself once -- age age 15 -- when a group of boys plotted to attack him to "test" his knife skills. He didn't kill, maim, or stab one of them. Simply, he did what his teaching taught him: use your hands as best as you can, subdue them as quickly as possible, make sure you *do not* loose your weapon to one of them, and escape as quickly as possible. Considering it was 6 untrained on 1 trained, I think he did ok.
I would also -- and in fact i have -- trusted this friend with my own life. I will trust him to the day that I die. He is beyond trustworthy, beyond capable, and *beyond the pale* of what a "Good Man" is.
He has a great job (completely self taught IT with very high security clearance with the government); he has a loving girlfriend/fiance (or what we call "partners" here); he rehabilitates abused dogs, with special emphasis in "fighting breeds" such as boxers, pit bulls, dobbies, rotties, german shepards and mixtures of these dogs. He takes the "lost cause" cases and turns them into animals that are -- generally speaking -- able to go with responsible families with older children (not one of the dogs that he has rehabilitated has harmed a person since rehabilitation). He understands these animals deeply, cares for them, and moves them on to the right kinds of homes. And he makes sure that they are placed well.
He practices yoga, he teaches martial arts and yoga at his teacher's school. He teaches how to subdue without using weapons unless you have to.
And on three occasions, he's stopped robberies -- with guns -- in progress. Knowing that all he had was his courage and a knife.
Does he walk out into the world to "alter mankind?"
No. He steps out into the world a confident human being, who is also compassionate and capable. He'll stand up for what is right -- whether it's a child who needs or wants to learn to protect himself from bullies or a shop-keeper being held at gunpoint for a few dollars. He understands justice.
I really don't think you do.
And yet you judge him so harshly.
Equally sad (and pathetic), are those who feel they have the god-given right to turn any/all public spaces into their very own personal shooting galleries (being heroes), all in the name of the Second Amendment, putting the lives of innocent people at risk.
The argument you keep making is this:
all cats are mammals.
all dolphins are mammals;
all cats are dolphins.
except it's this version:
Responsible citizens own guns;
Sociopaths who go on killing rampages own guns;
Responsible citizens who own guns are sociopaths who go on killing sprees.
It's simply not logical.
Here is the appropriate logic.
The majority of gun owners are responsible, average citizens who choose to own weaponry for a variety of purposes. It could be for sport (skeet shooting, shooting ranges/marksmanship, etc); it could be for sustainability (hunting for food); it could be for personal security; it could be because they enjoy weapons technology (and/or antique weapons as well), and would like to collect and keep these in working order (the same way people might like to do with cars or motorcycles).
The majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, not just in terms of gun-ownership, but in every other way possible. Gun control really only inhibits their ability to access guns, but it's not a problem, because if they want those guns, they will simply move through the appropriate hoops to get one.
The majority of people who go on killing sprees suffer from mental illness and/or sociopathy.
While many acquire their guns legally, some also acquire them illegally. Some acquire them illegally by acquiring them from a person who owns them legally. Some of them choose to use bombs or other weapons because they are more accessible than legal or illegal guns.
In Finland and Norway, there were relatively recent, similar massacres. These were perpetrated by men who were -- as far as can be told from the articles online -- sociopaths. Both suffered with mental illness.
The methods to acquiring weapons in these countries is much greater than in the US (from what I can tell), and yet both men acquired guns.
Gun control doesn't stop sociopaths from getting guns. Most sociopaths tend to be "quite people who kept to themselves" or people who simply "pass" in daily life. Sandusky, for example, is obviously a sociopath of a horrifying order. And yet most saw him as an upstanding citizen and nice man for many years. Sociopaths rarely have criminal pasts until whatever it is that they are doing comes to light. With Sandusky, it was as we saw it unfold. With the gunman in norway, it was his killing spree that brought his sociopathy to light.
What gun control does is that it gives a clear set of hoops for people ot go through to qualify for weapons. It mainly nets out criminals from getting guns legally. Thing is, criminals really dont' care about legality. Criminals -- if they want guns -- will get them illegally. After all, we know that there is a healthy, black-market arms trade world-wide. It's no secret, is it?
So, look at it this way.
Sociopaths, like criminals, will get the weapons that they require by any means necessary, with no regard for the law because their ultimate aim is to do whatever it is that they are going to do (bomb a government building, shoot up a school, shoot up a movie theater, etc). Gun control wouldn't stop them -- they'd either change tactic or they will go about and get what they feel they need for their sociopathic act criminally. it won't matter to them.
They tend to choose legal routes because it keeps them off the radar until their "last stand." And fwiw, it generally is. I'm surprised this young man was subdued at all. These things usually end in suicide of the perpetrator.
But, he was subdued, and what will come to light -- eventually -- is that he fits the typical profile for a sociopath with mental illness.
Which is not the profile of the average gun-owner.
Zoebird. Your stance on gun-ownership (and use) quintessentially epitomizes why there is such a HUGE problem in the US (re: gun related violence). For every wrong committed with a gun, gun-owners find ten "rights" (imaginary ones if they have to), and the merry-go-round goes round and round and round...
Re: offal, and it's definition, check out this link (if you're interested). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offal
The third entry reads, refuse; rubbish; garbage.
Did anyone else take the time to delve into the link posted (Open Forum), where the 71 year old man shoots two punks in the internet cafe?
Real bright, eh? I mean does that take a high IQ (or what), (((NOT))), to take up arms and open fire (IN A PUBLIC PLACE) like a bunch of tobacco-chewing cowboys from back in the old western days!
I wonder... do you think the 71 year old man give thought as to what would have happened had a bullet gone straight through one of the punks and hit another "innocent" person in the cafe? My guess is NO.
Honestly... society really can do without heroes like that.
Did anyone else take the time to delve into the link posted (Open Forum), where the 71 year old man shoots two punks in the internet cafe?
Real bright, eh? I mean does that take a high IQ (or what), (((NOT))), to take up arms and open fire (IN A PUBLIC PLACE) like a bunch of tobacco-chewing cowboys from back in the old western days!
I watched that footage a few times and found it encouraging--encouraging that someone chased the gun totting perps off of the premises.
It is certainly true that when weapons are being discharged things that the shooters don't intend happen. But since none of us know the intent of the robbers in using their own weapons, I think it's great that they were run off and no one was hurt except perhaps them.
Ok, so digging to the third dictionary definition, I"ll give it to you. Though generally, it's understood to be "archaic."
Beyond that, you've not produced any evidence or a rational argument that legal gun ownership leads to criminality.
Here (http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm) is some evidence from the National Institute of Justice about gun violence.
It looks to me like one thing is really relevant in that information: gun deaths from gang-related activity and criminal activity has increased, while gun related injury and death from arguments (lets call this non-crime related, average citizenry) has remained the same since the 1970s.
Now, I admit -- because it is nearly midnight -- that I don't understand the reference points of those statistics. It says that gang-related homicide involving guns raised from 70% in the 70s to 97% past 2000.
Likewise, "In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm."
What it doesn't break down for us is how many of those 11,346 deaths were due to criminality (gang related crime) or arguments (average citizens getting out of hand).
There's also this http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm from that page. It asserts: "According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from --
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%;
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%; and
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
Meaning that the majority of gun violence extends out of illegal -- not legal -- gun ownership.
Here's http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm from that page which asserts that gun violence has "leveled off" since the 1990s.
This one (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/frmdth.cfm) asserts that the majority of fire-arms deaths are suicides, followed by close margins between accidental (unintentional) and homicidal (intentional) use of guns. What it doesn't yet break down is how intentional gun use falls along lines of criminality.
My impression is that most people who are using guns to murder others obtain their guns illegally, which seems to be born out by the statistic above, meaning that they aren't the sorts of upstanding citizens that we are talking about.
Here (http://home.scarlet.be/guncrime/wapenbezitcriminaliteitEnglish.pdf) also is a really interesting article about gun control in Belgium, and whether or not those controls affected the gun-violence rates in that country. This is the most relevant statement:
A scientific study from the University of Dortmund calculated that in Germany a "97%- 3%" rule applies : of all firearm crimes, legal firearms are only used in 3% of the cases, and illegal firearms in 97 % of the cases . 4
Thus, I think that this study -- at least -- supports my assertion. Gun ownership -- particularly legal gun ownership -- doesn't equate to criminality. And of gun-related violence in the US, criminals themselves asserted that 80% of their guns were illegal.
So far, you haven't defined your problem at all, nor provided any evidence for your problem.
Second to this, you assert that "gun owners find ten "rights"). The reality is that there is only one right: The right to bear arms under the second amendment. That right was defined specifically to create a standing militia to defend against both foreign and domestic invaders -- which could include a tyrannical government.
The legal situation of rights is clear. As the government has a standing military with extreme might, as well as a police force with the same, the average citizenry is at risk of not being able to defend themselves should the state go tyrannical *if* gun law is such that individuals cannot get weapons of "equal force."
The legal precedent in regards to force is "equal force." You are behaving legally so long as force is equal. Meaning, if you pull a knife on me, I can't pull a gun on you, but we can knife fight the live long day. If you have fists, I cannot use knife. It's called using equal force.
In law enforcement, it's much the same. Technically, they are supposed to use legal measures of force.
And, I would say that the theory of it is a two way street between citizenry and government.
In order for us to have equal force, we must maintain access to equal force.
Otherwise, those weapons are only handled by government (military, law enforcement) or criminals (arms dealing).
And as the evidence from Belgium shows, there are more illegal guns in that country than legal ones. I can only imagine what the extrapolation is in the US.
You see, gun control is the same issue as the "war on drugs." The swiss decided to end the war on drugs -- making most drugs government controlled substances. This decrminalized drug use and released people from prisons. It essentially ended the illegal drug trade and the crime related to it. It created a tax-based revenue stream for the government to support programs related both to drug distribution (within the new legal parameters) as well as drug treatment and rehabilitation under their health system (which is part social, part private).
Like drug control law in the US, the more control there is, the more crime their is around it. The same is true of gun control laws. At the very least, logic bears this out. It's a logical inference at least.
So far, I've yet to see evidence *or* a logical inference from you. Please feel free to post some.
foremost, again, you are both assuming his ability (his knowledge, awareness, and capacity with a firearm) as well as his mental state (do you think he cared . . .?)
I don't konw if he cared or not. I can only presume. YOu presume that he did not. What if I presume that he did?
I do, btw, presume that such a person as Bae or that man, or my friend who carries a knife -- has the best possible intention and wouldn't utilize the weapon unless absolutely necessary and without risking himself and other innocent bystanders.
Why do you presume otherwise?
This is what the belgian article (linked above) said about the US:
A. Number of weapons in the USA
In the USA at least 86 on 100 inhabitants possess a firearm 10. So there are at least 258 million firearms, probably the highest number of firearms per inhabitant worldwide.
B. Firearms and homicide/manslaughter
The "International Peace Information Service" states that in 2003 there were 3,45 firearm homicides per 100.000 inhabitants. Furthermore homicide is not only done with firearms in the USA. Also with non-firearms there were 2,25 homicides in 2003.
This is high compared to Europe, but very low compared to other countries on the American Continent : Ecuador 10 per 100.000, Brazilia 14 per 100.000, Venezuela 21 per 100.000, Colombia 62 per 100.000, Argentinia 9,5 per 100.000, Costa Rica 6,5 per 100.000, Mexico 13 per 100.000, Panama 9,6 per 100.000, Venezuela 33 per 100.000, Paraguy 12,6 per 100.000, Ecuador 18,3 per 100.000, Guyana 13,8 per 100.000, El Salvador 31,5 per 100.000, ... (just for info : in the Russian Federation there are 19,9 homicides per 100.000)
There is a clear reduction of crime in the USA : between 1996 and 2005 the number of homicides was reduced with 15% and the number of robberies was reduced with 22% 11. And this although the number of firearms keeps increasing over time.
The International Peace Information Service comes to the conclusion “In the USA in average 86 on 100 persons possess a firearm. The number of homicides that is committed with these arms remains within acceptable boundaries, and is very different from city to city" (free translation from the Dutch text)
This difference between cities and states is very important, to understand crime in the USA. There are enormous differences in Gun Legislation, and enormous differences in Gun deaths. But the cities/states that have a strict gun legislation, are also in the list of the cities/states with the highest number of homicides : Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC 12, ...
1
Washington DC (with the most strict gun legislation of the USA) is the “murder capital” of the USA : After the introduction of the Gun Ban in 1976 homicide increased from 26,8 per 100.000 in 1976 to 80,6 per 100.000 in 1991. As from 1993 we see a gradual reduction of the number of homicides in Washington DC. This gradual reduction is not a result of the Gun Ban (which was already in place for 17 years with as only result an increase of the homicides with 300 %), but was the result of the "gentrification" (investments in new buildings/infrastructure/... and the arrival of new and richer inhabitants).
In 2005 there were still 35,4 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants (6,3 times higher than the average for the USA). In 2006 the “crime emergency” was put in place : strict control of youngsters, more financial means for the police, “youth development strategy”, .... On 6 months time the criminality decreased with 18 %.
Despite all this Washington DC is today still far above the homicide level of 1976 (introduction of Gun Ban), whereas for the rest of the USA the number of homicides was reduced with 40 % over this same period in time.
Except for geographical differences in violent crime in the USA, there are also important demografical differences. Specific demografic groups (representing 26 % of the population) are over represented in murder (84 %), drug trafficking (88%) and gun crime (82%).
Murder and homicide in large cities is said to be mainly caused by criminal gangs, often active in drug trafficking : 30% of the murder in large cities is committed by criminals that are on parole/probation, 72% of the murder suspects was already convicted for violent crime 13
C. Firearms and suicide
The USA, with 4 times more weapons per inhabitant than Belgium, has a much lower suicide rate.
In the USA only 10 per 100.000 inhabitants commit suicide. This means that the USA only has 41% of the suicide rate of Belgium. And the number of suicides continues to drop. The high number of weapons available does not lead to a higher number of suicides.
(source: International Peace Information Service, “Kleine Wapens », dd 2006 11 FBI, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html 12 FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2000.)
Apparently, the evidence also supports my inference. Gun control increases gun violence and criminal activity -- at least, that's what the evidence seems to support anyway.
Oh, and emphases -- bold and italicized and italicized -- are mine. Regular bold are the subject headings within the article.
...to take up arms and open fire (IN A PUBLIC PLACE) like a bunch of tobacco-chewing cowboys from back in the old western days!
Let's just see about that. I was raised on a cattle ranch and spent a great deal of time on the back of a horse so, at least at that time, I fit fairly close with many folks definition of a cowboy. I gave up the habit years ago, but did occasionally chew tobacco when I was working. I own guns. All that and yet I have somehow been able to resist the urge to turn the world into my personal OK Corral. Either I have super human fortitude that allows me to resist overwhelming temtation ~OR~ that was simply a preposterous, insulting and rather judgmental statement born from too much time watching old westerns on TV rather than searching out true and factual information. My wife will confirm that I'm no superman...
iris lily
7-23-12, 10:29am
Let's just see about that. I was raised on a cattle ranch and spent a great deal of time on the back of a horse so, at least at that time, I fit fairly close with many folks definition of a cowboy. I gave up the habit years ago, but did occasionally chew tobacco when I was working. I own guns. All that and yet I have somehow been able to resist the urge to turn the world into my personal OK Corral. Either I have super human fortitude that allows me to resist overwhelming temtation ~OR~ that was simply a preposterous, insulting and judgmental statement made by someone who apparently spent way too much time watching old westerns on TV. Well, I'm no superman...
The huge majority of gun killers in my zip code are as far from tobacco chewin' boot wearin' cowboy culture as you can get, unless you consider hip-hop baggy pants and expensive sneakers to be the garb of the Old West.
Maybe that's the new west, huh, Iris?
Gun ownership is a net positive for me. In my younger days I helped put food on the table by hunting. I've had many pleasurable hours with friends and family target shooting. I feel a small sense of security knowing that in an extreme case a gun could be useful defending my home and family. I appreciate the craftsmanship of some of the finer examples I own. I don't have any negative experiences as a gun owner to relate to anyone. That is due in no small part to taking careful steps to negate as many potentially negative events as possible, which is simply something responsible gun owners do.
The real point here is do you outlaw something that has many positive uses simply because a relatively small number of people abuse it? If that is the approach then we should all agree to remove Rx pain killers from the market. They are almost certainly abused 100 times more frequently than guns are. The number of deaths from them has tripled in the last decade (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/healthcare/articles/2011/11/01/deaths-from-abuse-of-painkillers-triple-in-a-decade-cdc) and they are a problem in every industrialized country. Even for our even keeled neighbors to the north (http://www.ccsa.ca/2007%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-011519-2007.pdf). From the article, "Available evidence suggests that Canadians are among the heaviest consumers of psychotropic medication in the world". So aren't Rx drugs a much more logical place to invoke a ban if we're trying to save society from itself? Someone abusing gun ownership the way James Holmes did will rightfully make headlines and cause us to debate policy, but a doctor's prescription pad, and the powerful lobbies behind it, can be a pretty devastating weapon as well.
goldensmom
7-23-12, 12:50pm
Gun ownership is a net positive for me. In my younger days I helped put food on the table by hunting. I've had many pleasurable hours with friends and family target shooting. I feel a small sense of security knowing that in an extreme case a gun could be useful defending my home and family. I appreciate the craftsmanship of some of the finer examples I own. I don't have any negative experiences as a gun owner to relate to anyone. That is due in no small part to taking careful steps to negate as many potentially negative events as possible, which is simply something responsible gun owners do.
That pretty much sums up my experience too, Gregg. I’ve eaten a lot of venison (never hunted for sport), the only pigeon I’ve shot was made of clay, growing up my parents kept the guns in an unlocked closet and said ‘don’t touch the guns’ so I didn’t. My father taught me how to shoot when I was 8 by wrapping his big ole’ arms around my arms. Opinions come from experience* and that’s mine.
*or lack thereof.
How many people would have been killed in that theater with a hunting gun? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
How many people would have been killed in that theater with a hunting gun? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
You realize that the best-selling hunting guns over the past decade have been based on the AR-15 platform? And that's where the market is moving? And that even very traditional hunting arms producers have AR-15-based offerings now? And that there are top-notch hunting arms based on the AK platform as well?
The reasons are simple - reliability, ease of maintenance, easy configurability, and so on.
There is very little difference, objectively, between a scary black military-looking semi-automatic rifle, and a modern hunting rifle. Often they are exactly the same item.
For instance, I do a great portion of my varmint control here with a FN P90 rifle, which is a scary-looking very modern semi-auto firearm that has a 50-round magazine, and that the media often breathlessly portrays as the choice of drug cartels because of its alleged armor-piercing capabilities. The reason I use it is because it is tremendously accurate, very light and compact, easy to mount anti-varmint optics on, and can shoot some very nice frangible ammunition that turns into harmless powder when it contacts a hard surface, so there is very little danger of rounds richochetting or travelling any distance through the woods here.
To those who think gun ownership and carrying is a positive thing - do you think private businesses and property owners should have the right to ban guns on their own businesses/properties? I see arguments of carry as a positive thing - however the theatre chain banned weapons from their theatres.
To those who think gun ownership and carrying is a positive thing - do you think private businesses and property owners should have the right to ban guns on their own businesses/properties?
Sure. It's their property. But I think they should be able to discriminate about all sorts of things on the same basis.
Sure. It's their property. But I think they should be able to discriminate about all sorts of things on the same basis.
Just wanted to repeat this just in case anyone has any doubts as to the agenda of the NRA. There you go.
Just wanted to repeat this just in case anyone has any doubts as to the agenda of the NRA. There you go.
I'm unclear what you mean by that. I agreed that property owners ought to be able to control the use of their property. I'm not sure what that has to do with the NRA or their secret agenda.
You realize that the best-selling hunting guns over the past decade have been based on the AR-15 platform? And that's where the market is moving? And that even very traditional hunting arms producers have AR-15-based offerings now? And that there are top-notch hunting arms based on the AK platform as well?
The reasons are simple - reliability, ease of maintenance, easy configurability, and so on.
There is very little difference, objectively, between a scary black military-looking semi-automatic rifle, and a modern hunting rifle. Often they are exactly the same item.
For instance, I do a great portion of my varmint control here with a FN P90 rifle, which is a scary-looking very modern semi-auto firearm that has a 50-round magazine, and that the media often breathlessly portrays as the choice of drug cartels because of its alleged armor-piercing capabilities. The reason I use it is because it is tremendously accurate, very light and compact, easy to mount anti-varmint optics on, and can shoot some very nice frangible ammunition that turns into harmless powder when it contacts a hard surface, so there is very little danger of rounds richochetting or travelling any distance through the woods here.
Do those man eating rodents ever shoot back. 50 round magizene you must have an army of rodents in your neighborhood.
You also forgot to add that the AR15 is the in weapon. You can play army and look like a real solder.
Do those man eating rodents ever shoot back. 50 round magizene you must have an army of rodents in your neighborhood.
They devour my livestock and crops, and cause operational safety issues at the airstrip here.
You also forgot to add that the AR15 is the in weapon. You can play army and look like a real solder.
I believe I mentioned previously that the AR-15 platform was the top-selling rifle in the USA, and has been for some time. And mentioned a few reasons why, which have nothing to do with "playing army", a task for which artillery and air support is advised.
How many people would have been killed in that theater with a hunting gun? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
James Holmes used 4 guns in the shooting. Two were Glock, .40 caliber hand guns. Those are very popular for all the reasons bae listed earlier, but I will grant that they would not usually be considered hunting guns.
The rifle used was a Smith & Wesson made version of Colt's AR-15. It is a military style rifle that is essentially the civilian version of the M-16 carried by most of our troops. As bae also said that is a very popular platform for hunting rifles for the same reason it works well in military operations, and he is exactly correct. It is lightweight, accurate, fairly dependable and easy to work on. I have several friends who routinely use them in ranching duties, so yes, they can be considered a hunting gun.
The shotgun was a Remington 870. That is a pump action shotgun designed specifically for hunting and target shooting. There are models available that have more defensive characteristics (shorter barrels, larger magazines, etc.), but I don't know which version was used in Colorado. I do know that I received one of these as a Christmas present when I was 12 years old. I still have it and it still works great. My kids learned to shoot with guns that were specifically made for young marksmen, but all of them graduated to the Remington at some point in their instruction. My Grandma had 2 of them in her closet when she passed away and I know my Mom still has a couple of Dad's around. Those are all hunting guns in every respect.
Any legally purchased gun I know of can be used for sporting pursuits just like any car can be used to go get bread at the store. Any gun can be misused if the owner has evil intent or is mentally disturbed just like any car can kill someone if the driver is drunk or texting. I do understand the idea that it could be helpful to limit certain types of guns. Its a logical thought if you're not completely familiar with how they all work. With the car analogy comparing hunting guns to "assault weapons" is like comparing a Civic to a Suburban. Both have all the same parts, just different styles and sizes. There isn't much difference at all regarding how they work.
A driver in a Civic or in a Subruban that loses control for whatever reason is a threat to those around him, but deciding which one could inflict more damage depends on any number of other conditions that constantly vary. I'd rather be hit by the Suburban going 5 mph in a parking lot than by the Civic doing 100 mph with a driver hellbent on running me down. A more sensible solution than outlawing either is to properly train the driver of both so accidents are avoided as often as possible.
It is already tightly controlled, and has been since 1934. The NRA helped write that law.
Did you read the quote I posted from the NRA rep in 2008. She indicates that it would be acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in their homes. The NRA is a lot different today then when I was a member 30 years ago. Once a gun nut not always a gun nut. That is me.
To those who think gun ownership and carrying is a positive thing - do you think private businesses and property owners should have the right to ban guns on their own businesses/properties? I see arguments of carry as a positive thing - however the theatre chain banned weapons from their theatres.
Absolutely they should have the right to ban guns on their property. If you ask me that might even include guns carried by uniformed law enforcement, but that's a different thread. The theater did, as I understand it, have a no gun policy. I don't think James Holmes was inclined to abide by any of society's rules that night, including theater policy.
Did you read the quote I posted from the NRA rep in 2008. She indicates that it would be acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in their homes. The NRA is a lot different today then when I was a member 30 years ago. Once a gun nut not always a gun nut. That is me.
Did you read my responses? It *is* acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in the home, and has been, well, forever. They have been regulated heavily since 1934, under legislation the NRA helped to write. Legally owned machine guns are used in essentially zero crimes by civilians. The NRA representative was speaking in the context of current law, not arguing that we should pass some new law to hand out machine guns on street corners. You probably know that.
Then you throw "gun nut" out, so I know you are interested more in cultural warfare than fact or reasoned discourse.
San Onofre Guy
7-23-12, 4:25pm
I was at an Officer Involved Shooting Saturday evening that turned into a mob riot scene. I was then awakened last night at 2:00 to respond to another Officer Involved Shooting. It isn't pretty when someone shoots at a cop. The cop wasn't shot but there is another gang member that has assumed room temperature.
People say that they need guns for protection! From whom or what?
Bae as stated I meant me. When I was a lot younger I read the NRA magazine, Guns &Amo, and other weapons publications. I had by today's standards a small arsenal.
Pistols: Ruger single six, S&W 44 mag, US Army 45 auto loader.
Rifles: Remington 30-06 auto loader, 30 caliber carbine with 30 round mag, military Sprignfield 30-06, 22 cal bolt action rifle.
Shotguns: two 12 gauge pump shoot guns, and Winchester model 101 over and under 12 gauge shotgun.
I now have the 22 because it was a present from my parents on my 16th birthday and a 12 gauge shotgun for protection from what I don't know. But since I have not shot anything in so many years I would need a shotgun to hit anything.
Again I was only talking about me.
I'm unclear what you mean by that. I agreed that property owners ought to be able to control the use of their property. I'm not sure what that has to do with the NRA or their secret agenda.
http://lezgetreal.com/2012/05/mo-no-to-gun-ownership-discrimination-yes-to-lgbt-discrimination/
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-to-bar-employer-bias-against-gun-owners-gets-ok/article_b1352fe5-d418-54cb-a8df-626428565de7.html
from this article:
"The National Rifle Association is pushing similar gun owner discrimination bills in other states, including Alabama and Tennessee, where the proposal has put lawmakers in a crossfire between gun activists and some of the state's largest employers. Some of the state's largest corporations, including FedEx, Bridgestone and Volkswagen, testified against the legislation and companion gun bills earlier this month."
The way you just casually drop in that not allowing guns in businesses is discrimination fits right in.
The way you just casually drop in that not allowing guns in businesses is discrimination fits right in.
There you go again, dishonestly twisting my meaning.
I was supporting the right of the property owner to discriminate, quite explicitly, for that is what it is, and I have no problem with it in the context mentioned. It was me answering Creaker's question, not the NRA. My answer didn't expose any sort of secret NRA agenda - as you may note from my actual words, I disagree with them on this point.
The popularity of the assault style semi-auto rifles is due in part to the availability of accessories, like a 100 round drum magazine. They are relatively light weight and smaller than your standard hunting rifle. The AR-15 like the one used in Aurora (with the 100 round magazine if I have it right) is not a cheap gun. It could fire 50-60 rounds a minute with the high capacity magazine, even as a semi auto.
The old clunky Italian carbine Oswald used cost $19.95 with a scope and resulted in the ban of mail order guns to common citizens. FWIW.
Both my sister and I own AR-15's - mine for hobby nowadays, and hers for her job (security officer for a defense contractor). They really are nothing more than a standard .22 rifle with a military twist. In Calif (which has some of the toughest gun and ammo control laws in the nation) it is illegal to have a clip (...er.. excuse me - a magazine. Guess, it's true Bae, you can't teach an old blonde new tricks :-)!) that holds more then 10 rounds and they are semi-automatics not full autos. Pretty much like a smallish caliber standard pistol but with greater range. Nothing at all like military or law enforcement full auto assualt weapons as many people seem to believe (not talking about you Rogar). I had a full auto M-16 in the service (as well as Colt .45 pistol, .12 guage riot shotgun, and .50 and .60 caliber machine guns) and there is a big difference between legal civilian firearms and military or law enforcement weapons.
I have used, owned and carried various firearms both professionally and personally for over 30 years now and, outside of work, have never had cause to fire any weapon for defensive or offensive purposes - and probably never will. I believe my experience is the same for 99 % of gun owners who have guns for legal purposes. And while the Colorado shooting was tragic - just as any unwarranted shooting is - owning a gun is not what lead to his behavior.
"
Does anyone have a short summary of the Glocks used, and the amazing history of that gun becoming the premier murder weapon of our time?
Glocks are also the premier law enforcement weapon. Besides an AR-15 rifle, my sister also carries a Glock 9mm for her job. They are used by many military and law enforcement people thru out the world.
Noted, I would take Spartana to movies also. I trust that Spartana can handle such things far better than I can.
I finally read an article today that asserted that Holmes surrendered to police behind the theater.
That's interesting. I mean, it is really, really rare. My understanding in general is that these things usually go two ways: 1. the individual gets subdued in some way; or 2. the individual commits suicide.
This case is really curious. I wonder what his particular brand of crazy is.
creaker:
Yes, i think that property owners can discern for themselves whether or not guns are allowed on the premises (or other weapons). I have no problem with that.
The difficulties lie in "places where a person is otherwise allowed to be."
It's a bit of a reach in comparison, but what strikes me is the law protecting breastfeeding. In the US, the law clearly states that a woman is allowed to breastfeed openly (without a cover, etc) in any place where she would 'otherwise be allowed to be.' If she were just there with her baby and a bottle, and that would be a normal circumstance and perfectly legal, then she is likewise allowed to breastfeed there.
A lot of people assert that a restaurant, shop, etc are all "private property or premises" and as such should be able to determine whether or not a woman will be allowed to breastfeed in that location. But, the law is clear that this property right doesn't extend to infringe the right of the woman and baby dyad to breastfeed.
It might likewise be argued that the right to carry -- under the laws as it is written -- cannot be infringed upon simply because the property owner would have a preference.
But, the difference is in relative risk. Obviously, a weapon is riskier than a nursing baby. So it's moot, really (i said it was a reach). I was just exercising the underlying theory of where one's rights end and begin (in this case, the property owners vs the woman/baby or the gun carrier).
iris lily
7-24-12, 12:42am
I finally read an article today that asserted that Holmes surrendered to police behind the theater.
That's interesting. I mean, it is really, really rare. My understanding in general is that these things usually go two ways: 1. the individual gets subdued in some way; or 2. the individual commits suicide.
This case is really curious. I wonder what his particular brand of crazy is.
I watched the 2.14 minutes of his courtroom appearance. He did a good job at playing crazy. The orange hair helped that impression, smart of him. Let's see, he is:
1) crazy enough to identify vendors who carry the weapons he wants
2) crazy enough to order, receive, and assemble same, undetected
3) crazy enough to focus on protecting himself in all kinds of armor gear
4) crazy enough to meticulously plan booby traps in his apartment
5) crazy enough to plan and carry out the shooting event
6) crazy enough to give himself up before he gets shot
and now
7) crazy enough to act disoriented and, well, crazy, in court
Yeah he's crazy all right, crazy like a fox.
You have to understand that sociopathy (or "crazy") doesn't mean that the person lacks the intelligence or ability to do whatever it is that he did. Most of the sociopaths that have been studied all demonstrate these capacities.
Statistically, sociopaths (and many people with mental illness) demonstrate average intelligence -- that which most of us have. But they use this intelligence in sociopathic ways.
For individuals with mental illness, the same is true. Though, there are some exceptions of people who have above-average intelligence in these instances.
His ability to do these things does not mean that he is not crazy. His ability to get into a school and earn a PhD does not mean that he is less crazy. His ability to plan his attack does not mean that he is not crazy.
Simply, it will be interesting to know what sort of crazy he turns out to be.
Likewise, in a quick google search, I learned that most mass murders have a great deal of planning involved in their processes, but likewise most of them are either shot down (killed) or commit suicide.
This guy protected himself from the first, and didn't do the latter. This is different.
We might say he's not crazy -- but what he does goes against anything that we understand to be "normal human behavior" which leaves us into the real of "abnormal human behavior" which equals crazy.
Here's a collection of relevant articles (http://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201107/how-can-we-spot-mass-murderer) from Psychology Today about mass murderers.
And here's an article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201107/what-happened-in-norway/can-we-profile-killers-jared-loughner-nidal-malik-hasan-a) about their profiles (from that collection) which asserts: "Mass killers seem to share distinctive profiles (see here (http://www.peele.net/blog/091106.html)) - socially isolated, probably schizophrenic, mildly delusional and paranoid."
Also possibly relevant in this instance is this further quote from the article: "On his MSNBC early morning program, Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough confidently identified Cho and Loughner as suffering from Asperger's (which he identified was true for his own son)."
Aspergers is understood to be a form of extremely high-functioning autism -- 80% who have aspergers have above-average intelligence. (source (http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_articles/aspergers))
What is interesting about each article in the collection is that they call not to somehow "monitor" all people with mental illness -- because the majority of the people with mental illness (or aspergers, etc), are not violent. But instead, they call for "Assisting such individuals to appropriately express feelings and discontents is the preferred therapeutic course to avoid both acting-out and acting-in dysfunctions."
This means providing better mental health coverage across the board -- for all of them -- in the hopes that those few who *would* turn to this sort of violence would be able to develop mental health skills and techniques to prevent "acting out" and "acting in" negative/harmful behaviors.
Just pointing out, though, that it is pretty much (as far as I can tell) considered common opinion (among experts) that this sort of situation (Holmes) is a mark of and/or comes out of mental illness.
Mrs-M, it puzzles me why you choose the Americans to give your views about "gun toting" in their country.
As a proud Canadian myself, surely you realize that Canada isn't exactly lily white about gun use here.
There have been many instances of gangs declaring war on each other (the infamous Bacon brothers come to mind) to protect their drug dealing turf, just like street gangs in the US doing the same thing.
I once owned a condo next to a rental apartment full of South American drug dealers where there were drive-by shootings on a regular basis. They had police cars coming and going night and day, called by neighbours who were kept up during the evenings by gunshots. Needless to say, I no longer live there. I now live in a different area that is very safe and peaceful. We have our own police and fire protection who patrol our streets night and day, and I feel much safer and protected here.
The guns and ammunition were probably smuggled across the border, easier then than now when there are body searches going back and forth across the border.
I was brought up in a home with guns...my father had a rifle and a shotgun he used for hunting birds as well as moose and deer, but the guns were locked up safely when he was home.
I have never shot a gun myself, in fact they scare the h*ll out of me.
If it wasn't predictable, our news is already talking about making military assault style weapons like the AR-15 or the AK-47 (semi-auto citizen style) illegal or harder to get. I think that is the low hanging fruit for those wanting more gun control. It makes sense to me, though I don't know how effective it can be. They seem to be a weapon of choice for mass murders and I read a few reports where police are saying they are becoming so common among gangs and drug dealers that the criminals have better fire power than the police.
Bae mentioned that they are becoming popular hunting guns, but most of my friends who do deer and elk hunting use larger caliber bolt action rifles and would probably consider the AR-15 too small a bullet for big game. They probably have some function to plink at varmints. So limited use as a hunting weapon and plenty of alternatives.
I can not visualize a practical other than Limited hunting. There are better choices for home defense and they are not especially portable as a concealed weapon for personal defense out side the home. Maybe they could be used for defending a food source when the hordes attack after nuclear winter or an attack of zombies.
Originally posted by San Onofre Guy.
People say that they need guns for protection! From whom or what? I see it as a "monkey see- monkey do" sort of mentality. No real reason behind it (related to most people), but because the US Government is extravagant in allowing a profusion of latitude related to affording "about" anyone the freedom to own/buy/carry (and use), suddenly, gun-ownership becomes "the right thing to do". Everyone hopping aboard the bandwagon/welcome-wagon.
Remember the old 80's Quaker Oats commercials with Wilford Brimley? "It's the right thing to do". Wilford Brimley says so, so it must be true. Same goes for guns. Because the US Government allows it (and encourages it), then it must be the right thing to do, "sign me up"!
Originally posted by Lizii.
Mrs-M, it puzzles me why you choose the Americans to give your views about "gun toting" in their country.
As a proud Canadian myself, surely you realize that Canada isn't exactly lily white about gun use here.Here in Canada, at least our government has taken a proactive approach to curb and tighten gun-ownership/use. There is no "perfect" system, but allowing a free-for-all system with unlimited flexibility, definitely isn't the answer.
I see it as a "monkey see- monkey do" sort of mentality. No real reason behind it (related to most people), but because the US Government is extravagant in allowing a profusion of latitude related to affording "about" anyone the freedom to own/buy/carry (and use), suddenly, gun-ownership becomes "the right thing to do". Everyone hopping aboard the bandwagon/welcome-wagon.
Maybe you simply don't understand the ethos of the United States. We are a free nation and the US Government was not designed to "allow us a profusion of latitude", as that is something we have in spite of government.
From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
In other words, the government cannot be "extravagant" in allowing us anything as it is not our master.
I heard something, and it just made too much sense for me not to ask. For those concerned about personal protection, either with or from guns, does anyone purchase/wear like bullet proof vests, body armor, whatever as passive protection?
It is something that would have probably saved lives in the Aurora shooting.
Bae probably has a bunch of them and he'll show us his collection. :~)
What a sad world if bullet-proof vests were part of everyone's daily attire.
But then all the ammo would be invented that could penetrate it.
The way you just casually drop in that not allowing guns in businesses is discrimination fits right in.
So I'm confused peggy. Are you saying a business owner should not have the right to implement a no gun policy on their property? I thought bae was pretty clear that he supports the rights of the owners to decide on their own whether they would allow guns in or not (a position I support as well). Your comment and the attached post, while sarcastic, also seems to indicate that you also feel that this is not a discrimination issue, but an issue of the right to decide by the property owner. Do I have that wrong?
It's an important point in the larger debate. Think about homeowners. Should I have the right to tell everyone entering my home that I do not allow guns, please leave them in the car? What if a police officer comes to my home? Do I have the right to ask them to check their gun at the door? Forget the officer's reaction, I'm just curious to know how far my right to have a gun free house goes if that is what I so choose. For the sake of debate lets assume that officer is there performing a civil duty of some kind, not to arrest me as a murder suspect or for any other reason that would indicate I may pose a threat of violence to anyone.
Simpler at Fifty
7-24-12, 10:47am
Spartana said: "And while the Colorado shooting was tragic - just as any unwarranted shooting is - owning a gun is not what lead to his behavior. "
Amen. +1000
Simpler at Fifty
7-24-12, 10:49am
If people would have had body armor on, they would have been packing too. Just sayin.
If people would have had body armor on, they would have been packing too. Just sayin.
Maybe not - passive protection is a very different thing. And you don't have to be a good shot for armor to be effective.
The problem I think is that while carrying a gun is "acceptable", wearing armor, vests, etc. is considered on par with wearing tin foil caps.
Maybe you simply don't understand the ethos of the United States. We are a free nation and the US Government was not designed to "allow us a profusion of latitude", as that is something we have in spite of government.
From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
In other words, the government cannot be "extravagant" in allowing us anything as it is not our master.Chalk one up to the Declaration of Independence!
So I'm confused peggy. Are you saying a business owner should not have the right to implement a no gun policy on their property? I thought bae was pretty clear that he supports the rights of the owners to decide on their own whether they would allow guns in or not (a position I support as well). Your comment and the attached post, while sarcastic, also seems to indicate that you also feel that this is not a discrimination issue, but an issue of the right to decide by the property owner. Do I have that wrong?
It's an important point in the larger debate. Think about homeowners. Should I have the right to tell everyone entering my home that I do not allow guns, please leave them in the car? What if a police officer comes to my home? Do I have the right to ask them to check their gun at the door? Forget the officer's reaction, I'm just curious to know how far my right to have a gun free house goes if that is what I so choose. For the sake of debate lets assume that officer is there performing a civil duty of some kind, not to arrest me as a murder suspect or for any other reason that would indicate I may pose a threat of violence to anyone.
You know gregg, my post wasn't really all that long. You could have read the whole thing. What was it, 5, 6 sentences? Sheesh!:doh:
I think you know my position on people toting guns around well enough to know that I of course want people to have complete control over someone carrying guns into their bar, or store or whatever. Why are you trying to twist my words?
And no, I didn't misread bae, or twist his words. Whatever he thinks of the policy, he very casually called the theater owners policy of no guns 'discrimination'. It's not discrimination. It's no more 'discrimination' than me saying I don't allow you to come into my shoe store, drop your pants and piss on the purse rack. Discrimination isn't the other side of the 'do anything you want, wherever, whenever, however you want' coin. Life isn't a free for all, yet!
And I called him on it because it IS the agenda of the NRA to label such policies as discrimination. They want to get that meme out there and start the drum beat of their political toadies calling it, and referring to it as discrimination. Because, of course, it's pretty easy to find people against discrimination, once everyone agrees it is discrimination. And the NRA trying to make gun owners victims somehow, would be laughable if it wasn't really scary in their intent. I know exactly what they are doing, and anyone who is paying attention knows what they are doing.
Although bae loves to say one thing while protesting he really didn't mean it, I'm pretty sure he intended to use the words discrimination when referring to the theater owners policy, considering how invested he is in the NRA and it's culture. He is paying attention to this detail, and probably betting no one else is.
Why do people want to carry guns? To protect themselves from other people carrying guns, right? So, maybe I should carry a gun to protect myself from the others carrying guns who are carrying guns to protect themselves from the others who carry....etc...until we are all armed to the teeth, and of course we can't be expected to disarm ourselves when in a place of business cause that's discrimination......
You want to call that sarcastic, fine. Did you catch the casual reference to this policy as 'discrimination'? Probably not. And that is the point.
Chalk one up to the Declaration of Independence!
Yeah, cause you all in Canada aren't free, or England or Germany or really most other modern progressive countries.
Just though I'd let you know in case you didn't.
Kind of a public service.
:)
Peggy - I used the word "discrimination" not because secret satellite rays from NRA headquarters are controlling my thoughts, but because "discrimination" is a word with useful meanings along the lines of "taste, discernment, perception, acumen, distinguishing" - I did not intend to push your PC hot buttons and send you off all a-frothing.
As to body armor -
It is heavy, hot, expensive, cumbersome, and slows your movements. And the typical body armor doesn't stop rifle rounds. I would not recommend wearing body armor unless you have a truly pressing need.
I have several sets, including some rifle armor, and I only use them when teaching or running a firing range.
ApatheticNoMore
7-24-12, 11:47am
Maybe not - passive protection is a very different thing.
true
And you don't have to be a good shot for armor to be effective.
The problem I think is that while carrying a gun is "acceptable", wearing armor, vests, etc. is considered on par with wearing tin foil caps.
good point, maybe has to do something with machismo :). You can't just "hide" from the bad guys (ie protect yourself with body armor), you must take them out! I don't think it's desirable socially for everyone to be packing everywhere, no it is not the world I would prefer to live in (and honestly I'm not sure it's legal in California). But I don't much favor federal restrictions either. It's really that. And I think the gun control debate is a dead end for the left (to the point of alienating potential supporters even - lots of working class people with guns ....).
Yeah, cause you all in Canada aren't free, or England or Germany or really most other modern progressive countries.
Just though I'd let you know in case you didn't.
Kind of a public service.
:)
It seems to me that if you live in an environment where the government routinely "allows" you to do things, you can't really say that you're free, modern or progressive.
ApatheticNoMore
7-24-12, 12:08pm
It seems to me that if you live in an environment where the government routinely "allows" you to do things, you can't really say that you're free, modern or progressive.
Then basically noone is (though maybe Holland is the model back in the dope everywhere days?). Anyway the U.S. is obviously partially totalitarian, more than many many other countries (though of course there are worse), the fate of all empires perhaps. Canada is better, but unfortunately moving in the same direction (they keep getting people like Harper ...).
It seems to me that if you live in an environment where the government routinely "allows" you to do things, you can't really say that you're free, modern or progressive.
That's exactly the environment we live in - ask the Syrians. There's no big hand that drops out of sky and stops the government if they overstep their bounds.
We're free to do whatever we want - just ask the Aurora shooter. But so is the government - and they have much more firepower to back them up.
That's exactly the environment we live in - ask the Syrians. There's no big hand that drops out of sky and stops the government if they overstep their bounds.
We're free to do whatever we want - just ask the Aurora shooter. But so is the government - and they have much more firepower to back them up.Clap, clap, clap!
It seems to me that if you live in an environment where the government routinely "allows" you to do things, you can't really say that you're free, modern or progressive.
I can think of many an issue in the US that would not equate to being "free, modern or progressive"...
We're free to do whatever we want - just ask the Aurora shooter. But so is the government - and they have much more firepower to back them up.
And why is the government free to do whatever it wants? Isn't it a servant of the people, or have we advanced beyond that?
Noted, I would take Spartana to movies also. I trust that Spartana can handle such things far better than I can.
Good - Someone I can hide behind :-)!!
But seriously, I know that several other's have mentioned that even a professionally trained marksman wouldn't have been able to shoot this guy because of the smoke, darkness and people running and josutling each other. And I totally agree. However, with the exception of a "Lone Gunman in the Bell Tower" kind of thing, these kinds of shootings almost always follow a certain pattern. After people run away or hide and things calm down a bit, the gunman usually will walk thru whatever area he/she is in indiscriminatly shooting those people in hiding. This happened in Columbine, in VA Tech, in Toronto, in pretty much every mass shooting ever - often times killing more people during that time then in the chaotic beginning. That is the time when someone who is armed can "probably" attempt to stop the shooting. Why this man stopped is a mystery to me. Even with one weapon jammed he still had 3 more and could have inflicted even greater harm and death. Maybe at some level the reality of what he had done caught up with him. As other's have pointed out Hollywood glamourizes these things but the reality is much much different.
The guns and ammunition were probably smuggled across the border, easier then than now when there are body searches going back and forth across the border.
Liizi - When I was in the US Coast Guard I was stationed on a patrol boat in Maine and we did patrols up to the Canadian border. During that time we picked up many vessels illegally running guns and weapons of all kinds up to Canada. Almost all were from South or Central America and the various caribeen island nations. I'm sure that the ones we caught were only a tiny fraction of the weapons that made it thru to Canada (along with drugs, illegal aliens, and pretty much any kind of contrband you can think of). Heard it's even worse on the West coast where they have to deal with smugglers from Mexico, China, and the Far East.
San Onofre Guy
7-24-12, 2:17pm
In the summer of 1981 I saw one of the boats that got by the blockade put up by Spartana's patrol boat. I was sleeping on a sailboat at anchor in a cove on the outside (open ocean side) of Swan's Island at the mouth of Blue Hill Bay which is between Deer Isle and Mt. Desert. I awoke in the middle of the night to see a large trawler and a normal sized lobster boat enter the cove and tie up stern to stern. The spent about 20 minutes transferring stuff from the larger vessel to the smaller. From the distance I couldn't tell if it was bales of pot, kilos of cocaine or weapons. I doubt if the cargo was legal because legal cargo is unloaded at the dock.
I Maybe they could be used for defending an attack of zombies.
He He - that's what mine is for :-)! I agree with everything you said and I think most people have them just for plinking at stuff, target practice, etc... They aren't very practicle unless, like my sister, you work in a security or law enforcement field. Even them it's limited IF one adheres to the laws (i.e. no extended magazines, etc...). Of course criminals at al don't always adhere to the law.
We're free to do whatever we want - just ask the Aurora shooter. But so is the government - and they have much more firepower to back them up.
I agree with the government part creaker and I do think that is a problem, but I find the first part of your statement more compelling. Freedom, to me, does not imply that we can simply walk around and do anything we want without limit or consideration of anything except ourselves. It comes with responsibility and must be exercised with conscience. No one should try to stop you from pursuing life, liberty or happiness as long as you are not disrupting the same pursuit of someone else. The Aurora shooter obviously did that in about the most extreme way imaginable. Even in our (supposedly) free society he had no right to do what he did. Different societies establish moral and ethical norms over time and they will vary depending on a host of factors. But even though there is no absolute set of rules, I can't think of any society in which James Holmes' actions would be justified.
You can't just "hide" from the bad guys (ie protect yourself with body armor), you must take them out! I don't think it's desirable socially for everyone to be packing everywhere, no it is not the world I would prefer to live in (and honestly I'm not sure it's legal in California). But I don't much favor federal restrictions either. It's really that. And I think the gun control debate is a dead end for the left (to the point of alienating potential supporters even - lots of working class people with guns ....).
Yes but unless we line our tin foil hats with kevlar then body armour is useless :-)! In Calif you can not carry a loaded firearm (concealed or in the open) unless you have a permit (I do). You can, I believe, carry an unloaded gun holstered but they may have changed that. So if you are transporting a firearm - say going to the range, having it in your car or on your person - it has to be in a locked case, unloaded and seperated from any ammo. I personally like gun control laws - especially ones that have waiting periods, age requirements, mental health and prior conviction checks, training, qualifing and re-qualifing on a annual basis, and licensing of both the firearm and the owner, restrictions on types of firearms, restrictions on the amount of ammo a person can buy, maybe some way to track large ammo purchases over time, etc.. While it is all very Big Brotherish to me, I also recognize that, like driving and owning a car with all it's requirements and restrictions, you often have to make concessions to personal freedoms for the sake of safety.
In the summer of 1981 I saw one of the boats that got by the blockade put up by Spartana's patrol boat. I was sleeping on a sailboat at anchor in a cove on the outside (open ocean side) of Swan's Island at the mouth of Blue Hill Bay which is between Deer Isle and Mt. Desert. I awoke in the middle of the night to see a large trawler and a normal sized lobster boat enter the cove and tie up stern to stern. The spent about 20 minutes transferring stuff from the larger vessel to the smaller. From the distance I couldn't tell if it was bales of pot, kilos of cocaine or weapons. I doubt if the cargo was legal because legal cargo is unloaded at the dock.
Ah yes, the one that got away :-)! Small world! I think we were down in the caribeen doing patrols there at that time. Lets see - winter patrols in Maine and summer patrols in the Caribbeean? What's wrong with that picture :-)
ApatheticNoMore
7-24-12, 3:08pm
We're free to do whatever we want - just ask the Aurora shooter. But so is the government - and they have much more firepower to back them up.
really interpreted this as just an existential statement, the way things are. I don't think many are going to defend the actions of the Aurora shooter. I mean really anyone want to argue for random senseless mass murder? But neither are governments having vast firepower and using it as they see fit some big cause for celebration. And governments (cough the U.S. government) don't always use this power morally (as that wasn't obvious). Governments having firepower is just the inevitability so long as well governments are instituted among men I guess. Wanna try anarchy now? Although of course we have gone along (even cheered?) with this inevitability progressing way too far, far beyond what is reasonable (biggest military on the planet, militerized police etc.) - crazy. How many guns do they need anyway?
There's no big hand that drops out of sky and stops the government if they overstep their bounds.
There are no guarantees, but is there any chance armed people affect the course of criminal activity or tyranny?
Ah yes, the one that got away :-)! Lets see - winter patrols in Maine and summer patrols in the Caribbeean? What's wrong with that picture :-)
Simple governmental logic? At least you get better rates in the off season.
Simple governmental logic? At least you get better rates in the off season.
Ah but then we would miss lobsta' season don't cha know :-)! And of course I got all that free lodging and food out there in the middle of the sea for months at a time. I mean, how's a girl suppose to have a man in every port when she doesn't even get to stop at even one port :devil:
ApatheticNoMore
7-24-12, 4:11pm
There are no guarantees, but is there any chance armed people affect the course of criminal activity or tyranny?
One of possibly many many many factors (and at the very best the last line of defense - but for heavens sake defend things sooner). By the way even bombs work to some degree (and they can't outlaw homemade bombs).
People seem to fantasize about a shootout (for which they will be grossly outgunned) as the final answer. And often have little understanding about all the other battles intended to effect the course of tyranny. Chris Hedges and crew taking the NDAA to court, that crew of principled leftists, in an utterly principled and heroic action, they ARE trying to hold the line on tyranny. People who vote out people who keep voting for this nonsense. They are trying to hold the line on tyranny. Anyone who raises any protest is. A country that allows resistence movements, that allows them to flourish, is holding the line. What's a resistence movement? OWS. Which by the way is not saying yes, we must do everything OWS says or even anything that it says. But really you look at how resistence movements are treated and you get a baramoter of things, like how much dissent will actually be cracked down on. Supporting the right to protest that is holding the line on tyranny. Opposing the militirization of the police, the survellance state, the "war on terror" propaganda, that is holding the line on tyranny. Opposing conditions getting worse and worse in prisons, that is holding the line. How they treat the most ostracized among us matters, that stuff spreads. But to just wait until it gets to a shootout (with the most armed power the world has *EVER* known) is crazy. Guns ok, guns fine, you notice I'm very definitely not taking the hard line against them (but don't mind some carry restrictions in the states) - think doing so is a fools errand!, but guns are at best one tool. Life and history and government is not some action movie - nor is it 1776 - the U.S. government is armed to a degree that was beyond anyone's conception then.
And why is the government free to do whatever it wants? Isn't it a servant of the people, or have we advanced beyond that?
See the firepower part at the end of what I said. "servant of the people" is a pretty phrase, but it really doesn't mean anything. We'd have no concerns or worries with government if there was any meaning to that.
Yes but unless we line our tin foil hats with kevlar then body armour is useless :-)! In Calif you can not carry a loaded firearm (concealed or in the open) unless you have a permit (I do). You can, I believe, carry an unloaded gun holstered but they may have changed that. So if you are transporting a firearm - say going to the range, having it in your car or on your person - it has to be in a locked case, unloaded and seperated from any ammo. I personally like gun control laws - especially ones that have waiting periods, age requirements, mental health and prior conviction checks, training, qualifing and re-qualifing on a annual basis, and licensing of both the firearm and the owner, restrictions on types of firearms, restrictions on the amount of ammo a person can buy, maybe some way to track large ammo purchases over time, etc.. While it is all very Big Brotherish to me, I also recognize that, like driving and owning a car with all it's requirements and restrictions, you often have to make concessions to personal freedoms for the sake of safety.
I absolutely agree with the gun control measures you set out. There needs to be national standards, across every state, every gun show and every purchase from Walmart to private sales. Here's where it gets sticky. There aren't standards. Some states have strict controls while others have practically no controls. I think every gun sold, where ever, when ever, who ever, needs to be registered, officially, and any time a gun is used in a crime, traced back to the last guy who owned it. And unless you have records of a break in, police report, etc...you have some explaining to do. And you should be held accountable. No more buying it legally cause you have a squeaky clean record, then selling it to the neighborhood thug. There should be a process where if I sell you a gun, I will take down your drivers license, address, phone, whatever, and have it checked out before I hand over the gun. Sure that takes time, but if you use it in a crime, or sell it to a criminal, I don't want to be held liable. I also think there should be a way to check out folks when they purchase large rounds of ammunition, lots of weapons like assault weapons, etc...The kinds of things that should set off alarm bells. Doesn't need to be all that intrusive. Wouldn't take the local sheriff long to know if you belong to the local gun club (I guarantee you he knows about them) If you are a collector, or some guy living in a hidey hole in the hills (again, he probably knows about you)
I don't want to disarm all the good citizens of the nation, I really don't have anything against hunting or target shooting, (I wish someone would shoot the deer that keep eating my trees!) but if we took some common sense approaches to this, we can keep guns out of criminals hands. NO, I don't think anyone could have prevented this past week tragedy, but it's just frustrating how this happens over and over and nothing is done. People start the conversation of gun control and others start shouting how liberals want to take every one's guns away, and it turns into a pro-gun or anti-gun shouting match and the conversation just stops. Gun control doesn't mean no guns. It just means reasonable control, period. But when you get the NRA shouting down any sensible discussion and calling no-gun policies 'discrimination' what can you do? Not only do they not want to have reasonable gun control, they are pushing to pass laws that let people carry guns into schools, stores, bars, churches, where ever they want. And they spin up the massess for political gain. They are using this tragedy now through all the people who jump up and declare how if only there had been MORE guns in the theater, all would have been ok.
My interest is in what we can do to keep guns out of the hands of the common criminals as these people kill far more every year than a dozen such tragedies. Common sense, national standards would go a far ways towards that I think.
One of possibly many many many factors (and at the very best the last line of defense - but for heavens sake defend things sooner). By the way even bombs work to some degree (and they can't outlaw homemade bombs).
People seem to fantasize about a shootout (for which they will be grossly outgunned) as the final answer. And often have little understanding about all the other battles intended to effect the course of tyranny. Chris Hedge and crew taking the NDAA to court, that crew of principled leftists, in an utterly principled and IMO heroic action, they ARE trying to hold the line on tyranny. People who vote out people who keep voting for this nonsense. They are trying to hold the line on tyranny. Anyone who raises any protest is. A country that allows resistence movements, that allows them to flourish, is holding the line. What's a resistence movement? OWS. Which by the way is not saying yes, we must do everything OWS says or even anything that it says. But really you look at how resistence movements are treated and you get a baramoter of things, like how much dissent will actually be cracked down on. Supporting the right to protest that is holding the line on tyranny. Opposing the militirization of the police, the survellance state, the "war on terror" propaganda, that is holding the line on tyranny. Opposing conditions getting worse and worse in prisons, that is holding the line. How they treat the most ostracized among us matters, that stuff spreads. But to just wait until it gets to a shootout (with the most armed power the world has *EVER* known) is crazy. Guns ok, guns fine, you notice I'm very definitely not taking the hard line against them (but don't mind some carry restrictions in the states) - think doing so is a fools errand!, but guns are at best one tool. Life and history and government is not some action movie - nor is it 1776 - the U.S. government is armed to a degree that was beyond anyone's conception then.
Very well said! One of the best on recognizing and fighting tyranny I've read in a long time. ++1
I'm probably echoing something that has been said here before, but it's interesting to me that so many are up in arms (literally) about the possibility of losing some access to high powered weapons while the Patriot (sic) Act and all its sequelae passed with hardly a murmur.
I agree with the government part creaker and I do think that is a problem, but I find the first part of your statement more compelling. Freedom, to me, does not imply that we can simply walk around and do anything we want without limit or consideration of anything except ourselves. It comes with responsibility and must be exercised with conscience. No one should try to stop you from pursuing life, liberty or happiness as long as you are not disrupting the same pursuit of someone else. The Aurora shooter obviously did that in about the most extreme way imaginable. Even in our (supposedly) free society he had no right to do what he did. Different societies establish moral and ethical norms over time and they will vary depending on a host of factors. But even though there is no absolute set of rules, I can't think of any society in which James Holmes' actions would be justified.
I would say the shooter is proof that we can simply walk around and do anything we want without limit or consideration. I don't think it was right or justifiable or even in consideration of his own self interest. I don't think he had any right to do what he did. But he did it. Anyone could.
There is awful violence and death everywhere all the time - if this was some shooter in Afghanistan or more killings in Mexico I think most would have just filed it under "there they go again - how sad" and just go on with their day. Being brought face to face with the notion that it could happen "here" by some unidentifiable someone who just chose to do something that horrible is much more unsettling.
Peggy - I used the word "discrimination" not because secret satellite rays from NRA headquarters are controlling my thoughts, but because "discrimination" is a word with useful meanings along the lines of "taste, discernment, perception, acumen, distinguishing" - I did not intend to push your PC hot buttons and send you off all a-frothing.
bae, here you go again. The English language is an amazing language, with many shades of nuance and meaning, making it very easy to hide behind any of the 50 other meanings of a word when called on it. You're actually very good at that, and use this often.
However, context is everything, and we know what your meaning was when you said the owner should be allowed to discriminate, as we were talking about banning guns from an establishment. The use of discriminate, in this discussion, is the same as "she discriminated against blacks" or "He discriminated against old people". Fairly clear, really.
Now, if you had said, The theater owner has discriminating tastes in guns, or He could discriminate between a hand gun and a rifle, then maybe I could buy it. But, well, again, context is everything. Maybe you misspoke, I don't know. i doubt it, but then I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt.
Words are very important, and when an agenda like the one of the NRA is established, we need to be very watchful how this agenda is pushed. Turning gun owners into victims of discrimination is the insidious start. And I'm pretty sure they aren't talking about victims of poor taste.
ApatheticNoMore
7-24-12, 5:11pm
There is awful violence and death everywhere all the time - if this was some shooter in Afghanistan or more killings in Mexico I think most would have just filed it under "there they go again - how sad" and just go on with their day.
yea and if it's people the U.S. drones in Afghanistan, ho hum. And if it's all the people that die in auto accidents ho hum (I admit noone is at fault there! still people die, it's the choice we made when we made a car based society). But if it's here, it's like the terrorism threats, it's knee jerk reactivity and that isn't likely to lead to good laws IMO. Facts like the crime rate being the lowest in 40 years go out the window, all reactivity all the time. Really just more lost rights is all it leads to (the 2nd ammendment isn't warm and fuzzy, I don't relate to those who fetish guns, but nontheless ...).
Everyone, very nearly everyone in this society is taught distancing from day 1 almost I think. Is taught what happens in the rest of the world is somehow not real. You've got to be carefully taught ... and we are. We are brainwashed. But you can see the distancing in action, droning the whole world, doesn't matter, shooter here catastrophic. 1 billion people starving, somehow doesn't matter. Poor countries devistated by climate change, doesn't matter? The morality that the west actually lives by is narrow! Is maybe not worthy of the term morality at all. I don't claim to be a saint, I don't even claim to be good or bad, just a nice person by conventional measures :). But really the whole fricken world may be destroyed by this morality of the west (talking environmental issues of course), and all the while other people elsewhere somehow don't really count, don't really matter, future generations don't really matter, etc. The fact the 3rd world suffers most from climate change and is LEAST guilty of causing it, doesn't matter.
I absolutely agree with the gun control measures you set out. There needs to be national standards, across every state, every gun show and every purchase from Walmart to private sales. Here's where it gets sticky. There aren't standards. Some states have strict controls while others have practically no controls. I think every gun sold, where ever, when ever, who ever, needs to be registered, officially, and any time a gun is used in a crime, traced back to the last guy who owned it. And unless you have records of a break in, police report, etc...you have some explaining to do. And you should be held accountable. No more buying it legally cause you have a squeaky clean record, then selling it to the neighborhood thug. There should be a process where if I sell you a gun, I will take down your drivers license, address, phone, whatever, and have it checked out before I hand over the gun. Sure that takes time, but if you use it in a crime, or sell it to a criminal, I don't want to be held liable. I also think there should be a way to check out folks when they purchase large rounds of ammunition, lots of weapons like assault weapons, etc...The kinds of things that should set off alarm bells. Doesn't need to be all that intrusive. Wouldn't take the local sheriff long to know if you belong to the local gun club (I guarantee you he knows about them) If you are a collector, or some guy living in a hidey hole in the hills (again, he probably knows about you)
I don't want to disarm all the good citizens of the nation, I really don't have anything against hunting or target shooting, (I wish someone would shoot the deer that keep eating my trees!) but if we took some common sense approaches to this, we can keep guns out of criminals hands. NO, I don't think anyone could have prevented this past week tragedy, but it's just frustrating how this happens over and over and nothing is done. People start the conversation of gun control and others start shouting how liberals want to take every one's guns away, and it turns into a pro-gun or anti-gun shouting match and the conversation just stops. Gun control doesn't mean no guns. It just means reasonable control, period. But when you get the NRA shouting down any sensible discussion and calling no-gun policies 'discrimination' what can you do? Not only do they not want to have reasonable gun control, they are pushing to pass laws that let people carry guns into schools, stores, bars, churches, where ever they want. And they spin up the massess for political gain. They are using this tragedy now through all the people who jump up and declare how if only there had been MORE guns in the theater, all would have been ok.
My interest is in what we can do to keep guns out of the hands of the common criminals as these people kill far more every year than a dozen such tragedies. Common sense, national standards would go a far ways towards that I think.
YES!
I would say the shooter is proof that we can simply walk around and do anything we want without limit or consideration. I don't think it was right or justifiable or even in consideration of his own self interest. I don't think he had any right to do what he did. But he did it. Anyone could.
There is awful violence and death everywhere all the time - if this was some shooter in Afghanistan or more killings in Mexico I think most would have just filed it under "there they go again - how sad" and just go on with their day. Being brought face to face with the notion that it could happen "here" by some unidentifiable someone who just chose to do something that horrible is much more unsettling.
There is nothing you said here that I disagree with creaker. The Colorado shootings hit me harder than similar incidents in the other countries you mentioned which tells me I'm desensitized to the death and violence occuring in more distant places. That can't be good.
I guess my point is that our society places consequences on the actions of individuals (or groups) if they inflict harm on the other members of the society. To me that is where the distinction of 'free' to do something ends. No one here can walk around shooting other members of this society without fear of retribution. Our rules work pretty well as a preventative measure, but are not foolproof. None are, unfortunately.
In the strictest sense you are correct in saying that I could exercise my free will, load my guns, take off tonight for any crowded venue and start shooting. Almost everyone has a moral compass that would make it impossible to do that. For those that are on the fence our laws will hopefully serve as a reason to choose a different path. For the very few who are not deterred by any of the above we have a process that our society has deemed appropriate to render justice from them. That kind of behavior is across the line where freedom ends.
I absolutely agree with the gun control measures you set out. .
Well not to shatter the illusion that I'm a sensible person :-), but I do believe that, after adhering to fairly strict qualification standards, training, etc... and all the other gun control measure I mentioned - as well as more - that people who qualify should not only be able to own guns, but be able to get a permit to carry a concealed loaded weapon on their person. Shatter, shatter :-)!
The is what the mayor of Boston Thomas Menino had to say, as a member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition of mayors. Their coalition has the the most sensible gun reforms that I have run across. (BTW, our morning news today said our Denver Metro gun sales have doubled since the shooting).
“My condolences and prayers go out to the victims and families of victims who were affected by this random and senseless act. While we still don’t know much about how this happened, we do know that we have laws in this country that allow people who have no business ever possessing a firearm to get their hands on guns. We have a Columbine, a Virginia Tech, a Tucson, an Aurora theater every day in America. 34 people are killed with guns every single day in America. And yet – we will see a few weeks of media attention that forces politicians to express their condolences, but then no action is taken in Washington to fix the problem. The fixes are easy and they are common sense. It’s about enforcing existing Federal laws and making sure we don’t let criminals buy weapons. We need to put a background check on all sales and require states to step up their reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to make sure we have a check that works. Maybe this will finally wake up Washington. We are going to keep the pressure on because this just has to stop.”
http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml
Wikipedia has a list of specific legislation the MAIG supports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns
Thanks for those links Rogar.
I caught a great broadcast last night on CBC Radio related to guns. Here are two broadcast/podcast links from the program for anyone interested.
http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/gun-laws-israel/
http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/gun-violence-virtually-a-thing-of-the-past-in-japan/
Under each picture is a sound file track. Click to listen.
I'm echo what Gilad?, said in the first link at 4:48. "Giving everyone permission to have a gun, would be irresponsible".
Originally posted by Rogar.
(BTW, our morning news today said our Denver Metro gun sales have doubled since the shooting).Doesn't surprise me at all. Not whatsoever... Considering everything I read, hear, and see related to the US, America, is a gun-nation, and with hatred at an all time high, what an ideal partnership/combination.
Mrs M, There are some relative historic items that are part of America's gun heritage, from the revolution, through the taming of the frontier, to the world wars. Whether it is accurate or romantic stories, there are accounts of war heroes whose gunnery skills came from hunting squirrels and deer on the farm. All of which has had an overall benefit (some items open to discussion on that). Unfortunately it has left us which what I call John Waynism, which may not be totally bad, but is less relevant to modern times. I think the recent gun purchases are probably more related to fear than hate.
I agree, Rogar. But how sad it is when so many people feel as though they have to go about/live their daily lives under such austere measures.
The US gun-culture (in it's entirety) IMO, has moved from being a once responsible component, to that of irresponsible.
Originally posted by Zoebird.
Gun control increases gun violence and criminal activity -- at least, that's what the evidence seems to support anyway.Not so, check out the second link I posted on page 14 (Japan related).
...and with hatred at an all time high...
It is?
Come now, Gregg, I will not be fooled (for a second) over the thought that you keep your head buried in the sand.
http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/images/smilies/smilies-11117.png
ApatheticNoMore
7-25-12, 1:02pm
Well how do you measure hatred (it being at an all time high and all)? It has me imagining some psychological test "have you had fantisies of smashing someone's head in recently?" "how often have you had feelings of road rage withing the past month", "do you keep an enemies list?". What I think might be high is political divisiveness. I have no solution, this country and (not common) culture nourishes desires for civil war. But I haven't heard any political motives in this shooter. Social dysfunction is probably pretty high too, but all time, I don't know about that. And well even in an ideal society you might have an ocassional nutcase, and this is very far from an ideal society.
You, too, ApatheticNoMore? What are you and Gregg, missing?
While I generally agree with more extensive background checks before a gun sale is completed, we shouldn't overestimate what that will do for us. Sure, it will likely reveal a criminal history and might reveal a history of mental illness, but probably only if the buyer was somehow court ordered to undergo treatments. I'm not convinced that most criminals try to buy their guns through legal means, but it would catch the few who are dumb enough to try. People who's mental health gradually declines, even to a point of true psychosis, but who don't receive more than out-patient treatment or a Rx (if even that) would not trigger a red flag.
It appears James Holmes is an intelligent guy who either slipped slowly enough that no one really noticed or thought he might be capable of violence or he just snapped. Either way, a background check probably would not have stopped him. And even if it had, it looks like he fits the profile of someone who would have found a different way to accomplish what he wanted to do. Detonating propane cylinders or a U-Haul truck full of fertilizer could easily produce similar results. If he is what he appears to be he would have found a way and there just isn't a way to regulate society to stop people like that. The only way we can stop most of them is by being vigilent. If we keep our eyes open and our minds sharp most of these guys will get caught before they go off. But its up to us, not the government.
Originally posted by ApatheticNoMore.
how often have you had feelings of road rage withing the past monthNot a once! And proud of it. In fact, DH and I, were just having this very conversation a few days ago, and DH mentioned the fact that as he is getting older, he appreciates the slow-down (quite literally), driving like an old-fogy, and he says it irritates/agitates people wildly!
"Everyone in a big rush to go nowhere", is how DH words it, and he's 100% right.
Bottom-line, Gregg, granting permission to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, to carry a gun, is poor policy IMO.
While I generally agree with more extensive background checks before a gun sale is completed, we shouldn't overestimate what that will do for us....
It probably would not be the solution that solves all, but what if it prevented just one of these. For the common law abiding citizen, I can't see that it an inconvenience or an infringement on rights. There is probably the illusion to some that it gives the government more power to regulate.
You, too, ApatheticNoMore? What are you and Gregg, missing?
Nothing. "Hatred at an all time high" is a statement that can not be quantified. It is an opinion and one that you have every right to hold if that is the result your experiences produce. I do not hold the same opinion because my own experiences produce an entirely different result. I can look back at the discrimination and fear and in some cases outright hatred that I witnessed years ago. That has not been entirely wiped out, but it is at least far less prevalent than it was. To be black or gay or any other part of the rainbow aside from the lily white world I was raised in used to automatically put you three steps behind and needing to always look over your shoulder. Most things probably still come easier for a straight, white man, but the division is not as dramatic as it used to be and we've made good progress reducing violence based on that hatred. To back it up our country has passed laws with severe penalties for hate crimes as a way to let people know that we won't stand for that type of behavior any longer. There is still work to be done, but from my vantage point hatred is a very long way from an "all time high".
Bottom-line, Gregg, granting permission to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, to carry a gun, is poor policy IMO.
I agree. But since we don't that is a moot point.
It's unfortunate that every time a discussion/debate surrounding guns comes about on the forum, all the diehard gun-owners/supporters love delving into an all-out, denial mindset...
It's unfortunate that every time a discussion/debate surrounding guns comes about on the forum, all the diehard gun-owners/supporters love delving into an all-out, denial mindset...
And equally unfortunate that strawmen constantly hinder real communication.
It's unfortunate that every time a discussion/debate surrounding guns comes about on the forum, all the diehard gun-owners/supporters love delving into an all-out, denial mindset...
It is unfortunate that every time a "discussion" on this subject occurs, Mrs-M and a handful of quite predictable others engage in insulting characterization of others and uninformed fear-based blathering.
Originally posted by Gregg.
Hatred at an all time high" is a statement that can not be quantified.Oh, really? Well I encourage you to take a trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Sudan, right now, and attempt to go for a cross-country journey though any of those countries and see what happens, but twenty years ago you could.
It probably would not be the solution that solves all, but what if it prevented just one of these. For the common law abiding citizen, I can't see that it an inconvenience or an infringement on rights. There is probably the illusion to some that it gives the government more power to regulate.
Well, it probably really would give the government more power to regulate, but that in and of itself isn't always bad. I personally don't have any problem going through a much more stringent background check. I think it probably would weed out several people who might not make ideal gun owners. There are just a couple points that I'm trying to apply common sense to and see what the outcome is....
How many criminals actually get their guns through legal means that would subject them to that background check? That is a real question and I think the answer is important. As I said, I don't mind going through one because I know it will catch a few of these guys. I just don't have any unrealistic expectations that it would make much of an impact on the larger pool of criminals who possess guns acquired through less than legal means.
Would someone like James Holmes pass the background check and get his guns anyway? He did, so there are obviously cracks that people can fall through. Problem is he had no criminal background and apparently no history of mental issues that would show up on a background check regardless of how extensive it was. The two most obvious actions are to continue to refine our present course, accept that the possibility someone at sometime will again commit an act like Aurora and teach our children to be vigilant and keep their wits if ever in that situation ~OR~ we can revoke the 2nd amendment and simply outlaw all guns of any kind owned by any private party. I'd don't like all or nothing arguments, but because we DO have a system of checks in place we're not really in the "all" category anyway. For quite a few reasons well beyond simple gun ownership I'm uncomfortable with that second, "nothing" option.
Originally posted by Bae.
It is unfortunate that every time a "discussion" on this subject occurs, Mrs-M and a handful of quite predictable others engage in insulting characterization of others and uninformed fear-based blathering.Oh, Bae... if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
http://www.abestweb.com/forums/images/smilies/kickass.gif
Oh, Bae... if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
http://www.abestweb.com/forums/images/smilies/kickass.gif
Mrs-M -you are rude and uninformed.
Originally posted by Bae.
Mrs-M -you are rude and uninformed. http://www.thepondforum.com/images/smilies/tantrum.gif As a mom of four boys, I recognize a tantie when I see one.
Very nice, Mrs-M - some belittling and gender issues thrown in. You truly are a piece of work, but you need to step down as moderator, clearly.
...twenty years ago you could.
Since the strawman argument is heading outside the US why don't we just look at the whole world rather than just a few carefully selected hot spots. (Humans live pretty much everywhere, right?) Here's a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002) of of 25 wars* that all began between 1990 and 1993, roughly 20 years ago. Sixteen of them were ongoing in 1992, exactly 20 years ago.
Now here's a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts) of the 9 wars* going on today. Sixteen down to nine. Hmmm.
*War being defined in both instances as a conflict that causes more than 1000 deaths per year. Not to trivialize any level of suffering, but you have to have some criterion that allows comparison on an apples to apples basis.
Hatred can not be quantified, but the results of hatred and greed show up in statistics like this. Hopefully this little detour is complete so we can get back to the issue at hand.
Gregg. You're old enough to remember the late 60's/70's (like myself), and do you not see the lessening of people helping others, like it used to be? Look at the incidents of road rage nowadays, something that didn't exist back then, and how about we back-up the clock some thirty years ago to assess drive-by shootings, mass-shootings, and whatever else we can find lurking within our common society today, then compare today's era with yesterdays, and see what you come up with.
I just don't get the sense that society, our world, or the people, are becoming more friendly of giving towards one another, yet we keep increasing the means for others to harm one another. Easy means may I add.
How many criminals actually get their guns through legal means that would subject them to that background check? That is a real question and I think the answer is important. As I said, I don't mind going through one because I know it will catch a few of these guys. I just don't have any unrealistic expectations that it would make much of an impact on the larger pool of criminals who possess guns acquired through less than legal means.
The two most obvious actions are to continue to refine our present course...
We seem to have two polarities on the topic. One is the crowd that has suggested several possibilities ranging from mild to radical reform. And another group who has found fault with everything suggested. Practically speaking, we are going to have the second amendment, and I believe the supreme court has stated that there is some room for jurisdiction and legislation around that amendment. Are you proposing that the existing state is good, and/or what would you call refining of our present course?
ApatheticNoMore
7-25-12, 3:20pm
Since the strawman argument is heading outside the US why don't we just look at the whole world rather than just a few carefully selected hot spots.
What is interesting, although very off topic, about the hot spots were that at least 2 were countries that had been destroyed by U.S. imperial wars. :\
Originally posted by Rogar.
I believe the supreme court has stated that there is some room for jurisdiction and legislation around that amendment.I believe the same.
Hey, Gregg, do post your thoughts on the first link I posted Re: Japan, and the tight gun-control laws they have, and how successful they are, and how they make for a much safer country and more balanced society.
And then......... you, Gregg, along-side, Bae, and any other pro-gun people... I'd like to hear from you as to the success the Second Admendment has offered the people of the US, and how it's made for a more safer and well-adjusted society. Oh, and then let's compare stats between the two countries to see who has the higher rate of deaths related to gun violence.
I keep hearing how gun-control laws do nothing to curb violence or gun-related deaths, so it would be interesting to cover that "hot topic" off (once and for all), now that we have all the stats right here in front of us to work from.
We seem to have two polarities on the topic. One is the crowd that has suggested several possibilities ranging from mild to radical reform. And another group who has found fault with everything suggested.
I see the "polarities" defined differently. One camp is proposing "reforms", but seems largely ignorant of the current state of the law and the real-world facts involving the area to be regulated. The other camp is arguing their position largely from an analysis of the facts and the law.
Public policy changes done from emotion and a desire to "do something", without a rational analysis of the facts, tend to turn out poorly.
Practically speaking, we are going to have the second amendment, and I believe the supreme court has stated that there is some room for jurisdiction and legislation around that amendment.
Indeed. And if you notice, there are currently thousands upon thousands of firearms laws and regulations in the USA.
Are you proposing that the existing state is good, and/or what would you call refining of our present course?
Our current situation is a mess, and in an ideal world we'd eliminate many of the redundant, conflicting, ineffective, or unenforced laws and regulations on the books, and produce a comprehensive model set of regulations. Like the Uniform Building/Fire Codes. I suspect this would result in more freedoms for firearms owners, more effectiveness and lower cost for law enforcement, and improved (though not perfect) ability to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.
I find it absurd, for example, that to freely travel throughout most of the USA while legally carrying my licensed weapon, I have to keep in my wallet licenses from three different states, because of the changing-by-the-month web of interlocking reciprocity arrangements each state has with other states. I have to check with an app before I drive, to see if my route is legal this month or not. I don't have such worries with my drivers license, or my marriage license (unless I am gay.).
I'm not sure what we can do for cases like the Aurora killer, where the killer had no disqualifications, followed some pretty extensive regulations, and spent a long time planning his attack. It seems similar in ways to the recent Norway shootings on Utøya Island.
Our current situation is a mess, and in an ideal world we'd eliminate many of the redundant, conflicting, ineffective, or unenforced laws and regulations on the books, and produce a comprehensive model set of regulations. Like the Uniform Building/Fire Codes. I suspect this would result in more freedoms for firearms owners, more effectiveness and lower cost for law enforcement, and improved (though not perfect) ability to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.
Bae, bearing in mind that we are not only talking about the Colorado incident, but other mass slayings and possibly gun violence in general, what specific proposals, if any, in the current guns regulations would you suggest that would reduce these. I have offered mine and they nor I are ignorant of the current laws and issues, though perhaps not perfect.
As a side comment, I have a friend who was arrested in California and charged with three gun related felonies. He was ignorant of California law and following what he considered would be legal in Colorado. They were not violence related. It is a long story. It cost him ten thousand in legal fees and several hours of community service after his charge was reduced to a misdemeanor.
What would you propose?
We seem to have two polarities on the topic.............Are you proposing that the existing state is good, and/or what would you call refining of our present course?
Sorry so long, lots to talk about... I'm actually thinking the existing state is NOT good and I really am trying to figure out how to 'refine' the way we go about gun ownership in the US to improve the situation. From what I'm reading the polarity more reflects emotions more than actual events. A madman just committed an unthinkable crime and people are scared. I'm scared. My 16 yo daughter was at the midnight premier of the same movie on the same night here in my hometown. What happened in Aurora could have just as easily happened here. It is perfectly natural for emotions to run high.
I'm scared, but I'm not paralyzed by that fear and I'm not willing to radically overcompensate in the hope that it helps. I'm trying to logically figure out what is really happening so I can support the course of action that most accurately reflects my values. Here's what I know so far...
I know crimes committed using illegal guns out number those committed using legal guns by a factor of almost 30 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr). That tells me our real problem lies with illegal guns.
I have known hundreds, if not thousands, of gun owners in my life, most of whom own multiple guns. To the very best of my knowledge every one of their guns are legal and not one of them has ever used a gun of any kind to commit a crime. That's non-scientific, but valid because we all rely on our own experience to decide what to do. It further reinforces my conclusion that our real problem is with illegal guns.
I know we have several hundred laws on the books that seek to limit the sales of guns to anyone with less than stellar intent. Analyzing it purely by the numbers there have only been a handful of Aurora type crimes committed in a country of some 315,000,000 people. That tells me the laws ARE working in almost every case, but that handful of events is still unacceptable.
I know James Holmes was able to legally purchase his guns, even with a background check, because he did not have a criminal record and (apparently) did not have a medical history that disqualified him. That tells me we should be looking for more effective methods of screening before guns are sold, but I can't tell you what those might be.
I know there are crazy and sick people in this world who will harm other people, often innocent people, and there is nothing that we can do that will stop all of them. That tells me that as comforting as it might be, I am not in denial.
I know that if denied one method of inflicting harm those crazy and sick people will often find another method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing) that is just as effective, if not more so. That tells me we need to find a different, more interacitve approach to identify people who would do things like this.
I know I would give blood, pee in a cup, let them trim my hair for DNA or whatever if that was part of an effective screening process. I also know most gun owners would do the same thing if they thought there was a chance it would prevent future atrocities. But I also know it probably would, at best, only cause the people who commit such acts to move on to a different plan (see above).
Is there anything there that you disagree with? Are we getting closer to finding common ground?
Greg, Our governor, who I consider a wise man, has basically said the same thing. That it is people, not guns, that commit the crimes and that tightening gun laws is not the answer. He said that without access to guns, they would find a way. I disagree, but not to a huge degree. There is something about a gun crime such as the mass slayings we've seen that in some twisted fashion gives the perpetrator satisfaction by being there in person and is also romanticized by the media. Opinion, but probably valid. There is also the fact that certain guns are capable of inflicting more and faster damage than others and have some favor by mass murders.
What I favor would be things that would not be especially burdensome or limiting to people wanting to protect home and family, but at the same time just "might" prevent other violence. If these have just a calculated and decent chance of preventing loss of life, would it be worth it? Would it slow down a potential criminal and give him more time to think, put a few hurdles in the way, or catch a mentally unstable person? I would include on a list of things to consider, a reinstatement of the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, a requirement for a background check on private gun sales including gun shows, limits on high capacity magazines and clips, elimination or limits of large quantity orders for ammunition on the internet, a requirement for states to report mentally unstable to the national network that handles background checks (I think this is currently voluntary and is mentioned as a gap in the Virginia Tech incident), and a requirement for gun owners to report lost or stolen guns. Several of these appear in some form or another on the Mayors Against Illegal Guns platform. I'm sure you can poke holes in a few of these.
I have gun toting friends myself. A couple own semi-auto assault style weapons purchased in a panic before they were banned way back when. I own guns for home defense and hunting. Not everyone would be happy with these changes, but I think the common citizen who isn't paranoid about a zombie attack would not be burdened or infringed upon by these.
In spite of some of the opinions here wanting tighter restrictions, and it is interesting to hear opinions, most of it just isn't going to happen. National politicians don't want to raise the ire of the NRA lobby, especially before elections, and however many might want tight restrictions, the American democratic public majority is not likely to favor much more. There are some deeper social issues that need to be addressed.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of it's own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." ~ Col Jeff Cooper The Art Of The Rifle
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of it's own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." ~ Col Jeff Cooper The Art Of The Rifle
The most important means of surviving a lethal confrontation, according to Cooper, is neither the weapon nor the martial skills. The primary tool is the combat mindset, set forth in his book, Principles of Personal Defense.
DocHolliday
7-25-12, 8:22pm
I absolutely agree with the gun control measures you set out. There needs to be national standards, across every state, every gun show and every purchase from Walmart to private sales. Here's where it gets sticky. There aren't standards. Some states have strict controls while others have practically no controls.
Why exactly do we need "national standards"? 29 out of the 50 States had 5 or fewer murders by rifles of all kinds in 2010, 18 of those States had either 1 or 0 murders by rifle:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
We already have the usual suspects in Congress wanting to ban assault rifles nationwide, even though in the vast majority of the country murder by rifle is incredibly rare.
DocHolliday
7-25-12, 8:31pm
34 people are killed with guns every single day in America.
30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?
30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?
[/LEFT]
No, that was Mother's against Drunk Drivers. I believe the strict laws on driving while intoxicated have had a significant effect in reducing alcohol related fatalities.
30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?
[/LEFT]
yes, I'm sure these mayors have expressed concern about drunk drivers. Are you under the impression that folks haven't expressed concern for drunk driving? Across the board? And what cave have you been in for the last, oh, 20 years or so? In fact, even makers of alcohol have expressed concern, wanting strict controls themselves to keep their legal product safe for users. Unlike the NRA, who apparently want to allow anyone, anywhere to pack heat, the makers of alcohol actually show some responsibility to the nation that affords them the freedom to produce their product.
I'm guessing these mayors, with the support of alcohol makers, AREN'T pushing for legislation to get alcohol into more hands with fewer restrictions, unlike the NRA. Comparing alcohol to guns is just a dumb comparison. It's apples to small white labratory animals.
Why exactly do we need "national standards"? 29 out of the 50 States had 5 or fewer murders by rifles of all kinds in 2010, 18 of those States had either 1 or 0 murders by rifle:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
We already have the usual suspects in Congress wanting to ban assault rifles nationwide, even though in the vast majority of the country murder by rifle is incredibly rare.
I know it is tiresome to read all the posts, but it just might be helpful if you intend to enter the conversation.
Cause if you had read even a few pages you would see we aren't just talking about rifles. We are covering the whole gambit from hunting shotguns to semi-automatic guns, handguns, and all. FYI
Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post
34 people are killed with guns every single day in America.
30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?
[/LEFT]
Are these numbers correct? No judgements on any issues, just asking a statistical question. Am I more likely to be killed by someone with a gun than a drunk driver?
Good question Creaker. I think I got my figure from a Bloomberg talk right after the Aurora incident. Knowing how politicians play with numbers, I did a quick check. According to the CDC there were 11,400 homicides by firearms in the US in 2008. Not sure about drunk drivers, but would imagine they are more random, which would raise your odds of being affected by a drunk driver over a gun toter, unless your are maybe involved with shady characters with guns.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)
It is unfortunate that every time a "discussion" on this subject occurs, Mrs-M and a handful of quite predictable others engage in insulting characterization of others and uninformed fear-based blathering.
Now now, just because you were called on your attempt at advancing the NRA agenda of 'gun owners as victims of discrimination' doesn't mean you should get your whitey tidys in a twist.
It is unfortunate that whenever anyone tries to start a discussion on this subject, the usual characters come swaggering out of the shadows, guns blazing...so to speak. Too bad it is only the Internet cause it's so much harder to make your point by debate alone. Cause, you know, people who make a habit of walking around armed usually find that folks generally agree with them, don't they.
You are insulting and dishonest, Peggy. I pity you.
Well...one thing about the recent increase in gun sales. As the Onion would say, "It's good to see consumers out spending again."
I think it's time for me to bow out of this one.
Good question Creaker. I think I got my figure from a Bloomberg talk right after the Aurora incident. Knowing how politicians play with numbers, I did a quick check. According to the CDC there were 11,400 homicides by firearms in the US in 2008. Not sure about drunk drivers, but would imagine they are more random, which would raise your odds of being affected by a drunk driver over a gun toter, unless your are maybe involved with shady characters with guns.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)
I got a stat from USA today for 11,773 fatalities from drunk driving in 2008. But I would think that probably includes the drunk drivers who died in their own mishap, while the homicide number would not include suicides.
But maybe close enough to call it 50-50, even odds for one or the other?
Clap, clap, clap!
I really hope you are not "clap, clap, clapping" about the Aurura shooter.
You are insulting and dishonest, Peggy. I pity you.
And you can only insult when you have nothing else to bring to a debate.
Shame on you.
Moderator on vacation? It's not feeling very moderate in here.
East is east and West is west............
There's never going to be any resolution to this issue, when there are some who aren't willing to compromise at all. Seems like the gun owners aren't into compromise.
I agree Creaker..........its time to shut this puppy down.
I've thought a little lately about WHY I have a gun in the house at all. I shoot sporting clays with a group of friends a couple times a year and I really have fun doing that. I go out target shooting once or twice a year and enjoy that. Both are, to different degrees, precision activities. I like the challenge of that. It's basically the same reason I play golf, which I enjoy more than shooting. Other than those few occasions the guns only come out for a regular clean and oil. I like to look at the burled grain of the wood, the way it fits so precisely with the metal and I appreciate the skill with which the scroll work was carved into that metal. Aside from that they sit in their cabinet, locked up and static.
The 2nd amendment primarily gives citizens the right to bear arms against the government if it gets out of hand. IMO it is out of hand right now, but I choose other methods of playing David to their Goliath. They have me too far....out gunned to mount an armed protest. Even so, keeping a gun is in part a symbolic gesture in line with the spirit of that amendment.
If home defense is the issue there are golf clubs, a baseball bat, several sharp kitchen knives and a host of other potential weapons in between my bed and my guns. I have had reasonable training and am in decent shape and know my house far better than any stranger fumbling in the dark does. Even if they have a gun, the odds that I would be able to get the drop on one or two people are acceptable. And there is no doubt that I could inflict just as much damage with a 3 iron or a 10" chef's knife as I could with a 9 mm. That, by the way, is the singular reason that an argument imposing severe limits on legally purchased guns doesn't make much sense to me. But I digress...
That's about it. From a purely practical standpoint it would make sense to sell them all and use the money for something we would get use or joy from on a more regular basis. The only one that I have any emotional attachment to is my Dad's shotgun that he carried when I was young and we hunted together. I'm sentimental enough that I would like to keep that. We're stable enough that money from the sale of the others wouldn't really mean much one way or the other, so I keep them.
Most of my friends who own guns, which is to say pretty much all of my friends, are in about the same mindset. Some hunt more, a few are more concerned with defense, some haven't pulled their guns out of the closet in years, but the degrees of difference between us aren't great. No real point is saying all this except to try to give a little clearer picture of what I think the average, legal gun owner is like. Not a wannabe Rambo or a closet Ted Kaczynski. More importantly, not a gang banger or anyone with criminal intent. Those are the gun owners who cause problems and we want to get the guns out of their hands as much as anyone does. Maybe we should focus on the real problem and see what the world looks like when that gets fixed.
Moderator on vacation? It's not feeling very moderate in here.
***MOD HAT ON***
Nope. The topic is not particularly moderate. Right or wrong it stirs up a lot of emotion. People who choose to kick sand in others faces damage themselves and their arguments enough without being modded to death. The thread will die a natural death when everyone is exhausted. It will be reborn the next time a madman picks up a gun and shoots people.
***MOD HAT WAY OFF***
Sadly, we won't see the same level of passion every time 15 people are killed in a crash along the border just trying to come to this country. Most of us will never be disgusted enough with the obscenity of war to ever do anything more than vote for the guy who says he will end it. There are any number of issues in the real world that significantly impact 10,000 times the number of people that gun crimes ever will. But hey, let the world run out of potable water and forget 1,000,000 people dying of malaria as long as we can argue about whether or not someone should be allowed to buy inanimate objects. Making a stand here doesn't actually require us to DO anything. Does anyone else ever get the feeling our priorities are all ****ed up?
Originally posted by Gregg.
Sadly, we won't see the same level of passion every time 15 people are killed in a crash along the border just trying to come to this country.And rightfully so. Naturally occurring accidents are going to happen, and as our worldly population grows and people extend-outward to regions, traditionally and typically not inhabited by man, there will be more instances of accidents (and death), that is our world, but to promote, encourage, and sensationalize "guns", according to the level and magnitude that the US, does, takes accidents, death, and carnage, to a whole new entire level.
Answer something for me, Gregg. What twenty-year old needs to be carrying around a gun? Aside from a professional career in security, the forces, or some other personal-line of security/protection, "what twenty-year old needs a gun"? But it's out there.
My husband and I, talked a little about this last night, and at one point DH said, "I was extremely grown-up and mature for my age at 20, yet handing over a gun to me and allowing me to pack it around (freely), would have been a very dangerous thing to do".
My husband and I, talked a little about this last night, and at one point DH said, "I was extremely grown-up and mature for my age at 20, yet handing over a gun to me and allowing me to pack it around (freely), would have been a very dangerous thing to do".
That is mind boggling to me. At NO point in my life (beyond just being a young child) was putting any kind of gun in my hand ever dangerous in any way to any other person. Not one time...EVER. I was taught from an early age how to properly and safely handle and fire guns of many different configurations. So was everyone I grew up with.
I've relayed the story before, but my high school had 100 kids in it. At any given time, and especially during hunting season, there were 200 or 300 guns in the back windows of pick ups or the trunks of cars in the school parking lot. There were semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, hand guns and bb guns...all kinds. There were also several thousand rounds of ammunition available because we all knew that a gun without ammo is a club. Not one time, EVER, was there ANY incident of violence involving a gun. Even awash in that sea of completely accessible guns and teenage hormones it was absolutely unthinkable to threaten or harm another person with a gun.
Contrary to popular propaganda, the guns have not changed since then. Yes, you can buy a few expensive and highly specialized models that were not available back then, but those are not what is readily available to most of us at the local hardware store. Mostly there are just different styles, just like clothes have different styles. The popular calibers are still the same. The rate of fire is the same. The accuracy of factory loaded ammunition is the same. The distance a bullet will drop at 600 yards at 65* into a 20 knot headwind is the same. It’s the people that have changed, not the guns. The problem isn't with the guns.
If a gun would have been dangerous in the hands of your DH he was neither mature nor well trained in its use. Period. Putting a gun or a steering wheel or a glass of whisky in the hand of anyone who is not mature and has not been properly instructed in its use is a problem. Putting any of those in the hands of someone who intends to use them to inflict harm on others is a problem. That's where we need to focus.
ApatheticNoMore
7-26-12, 12:17pm
Sadly, we won't see the same level of passion every time 15 people are killed in a crash along the border just trying to come to this country.
there are instances of border patrol shooting people coming into the country as well :\
Most of us will never be disgusted enough with the obscenity of war to ever do anything more than vote for the guy who says he will end it.
I hear you, what are these unnecessary wars but killing? And hey we have a President that proclaims the right to murder outright. That's not supposed to have any influence on our morals or anything (the morals of the powerful don't apply to us - ubermench and all) but ...
There are any number of issues in the real world that significantly impact 10,000 times the number of people that gun crimes ever will. But hey, let the world run out of potable water and forget 1,000,000 people dying of malaria as long as we can argue about whether or not someone should be allowed to buy inanimate objects.
I hear you. Another thing is that I'm quite willing to put up with a certain increase in risk of crime to live in a free society. I would gladly put up with a certain amount of increase of risk of terrorism to repeal the Patriot act and all that followed etc..
Does anyone else ever get the feeling our priorities are all ****ed up?
Totally.
there will be more instances of accidents (and death), that is our world, but to promote, encourage, and sensationalize "guns", according to the level and magnitude that the US, does, takes accidents, death, and carnage, to a whole new entire level.
I don't think they should be sensationalized. I *REJECT* and reject entirely macho culture (that you are tough because you kill or because you carry a gun), but neither do I or anyone else see outlawing them entirely at this point.
I read a thought-provoking article on gun ownership in Switzerland yesterday. Its male citizens are armed by law with an amazing range of weaponry, yet their death by firearms statistics-- while high by European standards--are about 40% lower than ours. I understand Switzerland's armed neutrality stance, but really don't get the passion for firearms here. Unlike Gregg, I don't know many gun owners and wasn't raised in a gun culture. I'd like to see loopholes closed and licensing with competency testing like we have for drivers put in place, but in the end this issue isn't the hill I'm keen to make my last stand on.
I read a thought-provoking article on gun ownership in Switzerland yesterday. Its male citizens are armed by law with an amazing range of weaponry, yet their death by firearms statistics-- while high by European standards--are about 40% lower than ours. I understand Switzerland's armed neutrality stance, but really don't get the passion for firearms here. Unlike Gregg, I don't know many gun owners and wasn't raised in a gun culture. I'd like to see loopholes closed and licensing with competency testing like we have for drivers put in place, but in the end this issue isn't the hill I'm keen to make my last stand on.
I think a linked issue is the "rage" culture we have, the acceptableness of just "losing" it - I wonder what those numbers look like in Switzerland?
No more commentary from me, but I did run across a recent Bill Moyers talk that runs about 5 minute. I am a fan of his and enjoyed it very much.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/watch-living-under-the-gu_b_1691100.html
There's a video of which I'd like to remind you. You can see it on YouTube. In it, Adam Gadahn, an American-born member of al-Qaeda, the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says:
"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"
I think a linked issue is the "rage" culture we have, the acceptableness of just "losing" it...
Bingo creaker. Therein lies the problem.
You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card.
But of course none of that is true. Why do suppose a terrorist would lie?
That is mind boggling to me. At NO point in my life (beyond just being a young child) was putting any kind of gun in my hand ever dangerous in any way to any other person. Not one time...EVER. I was taught from an early age how to properly and safely handle and fire guns of many different configurations. So was everyone I grew up with.
I've relayed the story before, but my high school had 100 kids in it. At any given time, and especially during hunting season, there were 200 or 300 guns in the back windows of pick ups or the trunks of cars in the school parking lot. There were semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, hand guns and bb guns...all kinds. There were also several thousand rounds of ammunition available because we all knew that a gun without ammo is a club. Not one time, EVER, was there ANY incident of violence involving a gun. Even awash in that sea of completely accessible guns and teenage hormones it was absolutely unthinkable to threaten or harm another person with a gun.
Contrary to popular propaganda, the guns have not changed since then. Yes, you can buy a few expensive and highly specialized models that were not available back then, but those are not what is readily available to most of us at the local hardware store. Mostly there are just different styles, just like clothes have different styles. The popular calibers are still the same. The rate of fire is the same. The accuracy of factory loaded ammunition is the same. The distance a bullet will drop at 600 yards at 65* into a 20 knot headwind is the same. It’s the people that have changed, not the guns. The problem isn't with the guns.
If a gun would have been dangerous in the hands of your DH he was neither mature nor well trained in its use. Period. Putting a gun or a steering wheel or a glass of whisky in the hand of anyone who is not mature and has not been properly instructed in its use is a problem. Putting any of those in the hands of someone who intends to use them to inflict harm on others is a problem. That's where we need to focus.
I think Mrs. M was referring to the fact that a 20 year old often hasn't the life experience or maturity to hold their emotions in check. A 20 year old is still a kid, in many ways, and I'm guessing she is thinking of the many stressful situations, school, girlfriends, new jobs, etc...where someone with very little 'life experience' might find themselves with very spun up emotions and not have the skill to deal with it.
I think this links with what she was talking about earlier about hate where it was a pile-on instead of trying to see what she meant. Mrs. M, if you don't mind, may I take a stab at it?
I think what she was looking at is the lack of civility in public discourse that we didn't have 30, or even 20 years ago. I don't think i have to give the links, but I will, again, if you want. Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh? This man is on the airwaves 2, 3, 4 hours a day, and it is just a constant litany of hate filled talk, in his monotone (which by the way is a tool of brainwashing) hour after hour, day after day. And you have one of the two major political parties that regularly defend, and pay homage to this guy. This isn't just some fringe nut job, which we have always had and always will, but a major player on the national political stage. And he is just one voice among the many.
We have that congressman from Florida, Alan West, who has said he believes 60-70 of democrat congresspeople are communist. There is Michele Bachmann who wants an investigation into unamerican activities by democrat congresspeople and now says the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the White House. She found 4 other congress persons to sign on with that one! These are elected leaders! Congressmen/women!
We have Fox News which is 24/7 GOPTV promoting lies and constant 'wars' all aimed at democrats/liberals. And you have a republican leader who said, up front, getting rid of the democrat President was job #1. Mind you he said this when this president was first elected and the country was in an economic free fall. Helping the country wasn't job 1, or helping the people through this horrible economic time wasn't job #1. Nope, getting back in power was job #1, period. They weren't in the slightest interested in helping this president help this nation, and everything they have done since then shows that.
WE have Santorum, standing before an audience and getting cheers and whistles by saying Obama was a snob because he wished everyone who wanted to go to college could.
Why am I giving these examples? Because, even though we have always had political rivalry, and hate mongers on the fringe, and heated debate, never in our history did we have an entire political party, as a whole, stand and cheer hateful speech, and demonize half of their colleagues as well as half of the Nations people. We haven't been this polarized since the civil war, and the constant demonizing drumbeat from TV and radio and even our political leaders has lead to this climate of hate. I believe this is what Mrs M was talking about.
You all had hunting rifles in your trucks at school. Fine, but you didn't have them strapped to your hip, spun up by the hour of Rush you listened to on the way to school, bolstered by images of tea baggers wearing guns to political rallies as political 'speech', and yes fantasizing about violent video games and bloody movies where sex is banned but blowing someones' head off is OK.
No, guns haven't changed, but we have, and society has, and political discourse has. Now to say liberals want to take away everyone's guns is simply not true, and really dishonest when some continue to say it. (NRA, many on the right) It's meant to stop the conversation, period. It's meant to stop reasonable discussion on sensible gun control. It's meant to get people spun up and in the stores to stockpile weapons and ammo. And who are they stockpiling it against? Why the liberals, of course! We are the ducks in the shooting gallery. WE are the ones who Limbaugh and Fox News and Bachmann and Allen West and Rick Santorum and the NRA are demonizing, day after day after day. Can you blame us for being a little nervous?
I can think of a lot of reasons one would have a gun. A cherished gift from a parent, hunting, clay target shooting (which actually sounds like a lot of fun!) etc...Saying you keep a gun because you are ready to fight your government is getting into Ted Kaczynski territory. Tin foil hat stuff. And that's another thing. We used to recognize crazy talk. WE don't anymore. WE celebrate it, and quote it as if it were meaningful, and give equal voice to every crack pot and crazy theory out there!
I guess this is just a really long way to say enough already. But unless the reasonable among us agree there is a problem, and probably some solutions, nothing will get done.
ApatheticNoMore
7-26-12, 1:41pm
There's a video of which I'd like to remind you. You can see it on YouTube. In it, Adam Gadahn, an American-born member of al-Qaeda, the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says:
"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"
Ok if that's true, the fact that there haven't been much in the way of such terrorist attacks might show that, I don't know, the threat of terrorism has been *WAY* overblown.
I think Mrs. M was referring to the fact that a 20 year old often hasn't the life experience or maturity to hold their emotions in check. A 20 year old is still a kid, in many ways, and I'm guessing she is thinking of the many stressful situations, school, girlfriends, new jobs, etc...where someone with very little 'life experience' might find themselves with very spun up emotions and not have the skill to deal with it.
Mrs. M was quite clear in what she said, but that doesn't take away from what you're saying here. And I don't disagree with you. What I said was gun specific, since that is our topic here. At 20 or 14 or 51, there has never been any time in that span where putting a gun in my hand would have been a dangerous thing to do. When I said it was unthinkable that anyone in my high school would have ever used a gun against another person I meant it. Our parents, usually our fathers, made sure that is how we operated or we would have never touched a gun or a car or a drink...
The examples you gave perfectly illustrate that the world has changed. I completely and totally agree with you and creaker and anyone else that says we are all screwed up regarding what behavior is acceptable. It was devastating when my girlfriend gave me the boot, but I NEVER thought about hurting someone else as a way to express my emotions. Being hurt and confused and overwhelmed and emotional are very much a part of growing up. Being violent is not. We were all taught that violence was only an option if you were threatened. Now it seems to be the first reaction to everything. I don't know where the disconnect between then and now is exactly, but there is one (or maybe several). Maybe we should be working a little harder to figure that out.
But of course none of that is true. Why do suppose a terrorist would lie?
It is absolutely true. It is featured in the Bill Moyers video. You can watch it.
Why would you fabricate a story that it is a lie?
In many states there are no background checks required at gun shows and semi-auto assault weapons have been legal since 2004.
I think a linked issue is the "rage" culture we have, the acceptableness of just "losing" it - I wonder what those numbers look like in Switzerland?
My (perhaps unsupported) impression is that Europeans in general are better-educated and more thoughtful than we are. International satisfaction indices say they're happier too, which I attribute to socially democratic governments and a strong safety net. There's more community and fewer Marlboro men, and--as far as I know--no powerful media empire set up to convince white males they're horribly oppressed by feminists and people of color and that the whole game is cruelly rigged against them. I believe the Swiss take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously--they get extensive training along with their weapons--and consider national service a solemn trust. All these factors make a difference: we have a huge cohort of ill-educated, disaffected, resentful cranks milling around, and they don't.
The suicide rate in Switzerland is high. Don't know how that squares with a perception that The Swiss are happier.
Rogar, I was commenting on what the terrorist, Adam Gadahn, said. Specifically, what I said was untrue was this comment by Gadahn that you posted...
You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card.
You can NOT go to a gun show and just buy a FULLY automatic assault rifle, no matter what the terrorist says. It doesn't happen. That class of weapon is not bought and sold that way and it is a different animal from a SEMI-automatic rifle that yes, you can buy at gun shows and shops. The ATF would throw away the key for anyone who went around selling fully automatic weapons without having all their ducks in a row. Perhaps the terrorist, or for that matter Mr. Moyers, doesn't know the difference between the two types of guns.
The only way to legally sell a fully automatic weapon is by first acquiring a Class III Federal Firearms License. I don't believe you need a special permit or license to buy one. As I understand it you go through a rigorous background check, have a law enforcement officer sign your paperwork and then pay a $200 transfer tax. Bae or Alan, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. What you CAN'T do is just walk up to a counter in a gun shop or at a gun show and buy one.
Most dealers at gun shows are licensed federal firearms dealers. They are subject to the same rules and regulations at a show that they are in their shops. You WILL have to fill out a Federal Firearms Transaction Record, known as a Form 4473, to purchase a gun from them. You WILL have to show a picture ID. I don't know about everywhere, but here only a state issued id or military id will work. A US passport might work, I'm not sure about that. If there is a waiting period or background check or any other requirement to purchase a firearm in your jurisdiction it will apply to you there as well. Around here anyway the only guns you can buy or sell at shows without filling out federal paperwork are antiques, guns made before 1898.
Agreed, Greg. I did not catch that distinction when I first read it. My apologies.
However, it would be accurate if semi-automatic terminology was used. Which has it's own level of concern. Here is the wiki version gun sales at gun shows.
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License) and perform background checks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_check) through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System) maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act), however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).
Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.
Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists. In the summer of 2011, Adam Yahiye Gadah (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Yahiye_Gadah&action=edit&redlink=1)declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also incorrectly claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadah urged Western extremists to follow this path. Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows, although purchases of semi-automatic handguns and extended magazines remain legal without a criminal background check.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show#cite_note-10)
The suicide rate in Switzerland is high. Don't know how that squares with a perception that The Swiss are happier.
I was thinking of Europe as a whole. Apparently, it's the Scandinavians (talk about safety nets) who are happiest there.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/23/happiness-world-index-oped-cx_hra_0423happy.html
From the article referenced above:
The Swiss, Weiner discovered, are efficient and punctual, comparatively wealthy and face hardly any unemployment. Their streets, air and tap water are squeaky clean and chocolate is a national obsession. But Weiner saw no joy in their faces, and reasoned that perhaps it's better to live in this middle range than to vacillate between gleeful moments of elation and gut-wrenching spates of despair. Swiss happiness, he writes, is "more than mere contentment, but less than full-on joy."
Mrs. M was quite clear in what she said, but that doesn't take away from what you're saying here. And I don't disagree with you. What I said was gun specific, since that is our topic here. At 20 or 14 or 51, there has never been any time in that span where putting a gun in my hand would have been a dangerous thing to do. When I said it was unthinkable that anyone in my high school would have ever used a gun against another person I meant it. Our parents, usually our fathers, made sure that is how we operated or we would have never touched a gun or a car or a drink...
The examples you gave perfectly illustrate that the world has changed. I completely and totally agree with you and creaker and anyone else that says we are all screwed up regarding what behavior is acceptable. It was devastating when my girlfriend gave me the boot, but I NEVER thought about hurting someone else as a way to express my emotions. Being hurt and confused and overwhelmed and emotional are very much a part of growing up. Being violent is not. We were all taught that violence was only an option if you were threatened. Now it seems to be the first reaction to everything. I don't know where the disconnect between then and now is exactly, but there is one (or maybe several). Maybe we should be working a little harder to figure that out.
Well yes, that is what I was saying. Guns aren't different, we are, and society is. But, since 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' wouldn't it be reasonable that we would reexamine our laws and modify them to fit our modern society and not your utopia of 30 years ago? And I'm not knocking where or how you grew up. I grew up in Houston Texas and it was even there pretty much as your life was. It was just a different time, and a different society. In so many ways we are better than that yesterday time, but in many ways we are not, and the culture of killing, real and imagined/virtual, is certainly one.
I still think if the sale of guns was more regulated, as in every sale, professional or private, that would be a really good start towards getting a handle on this problem. I'm not talking specifically about the Colorado shooting, but generally guns in the hands of common criminals, who do far more damage every year.
If every sale was officially registered, with background checks, names dates addresses etc...and a particular gun was used in a crime, that gun would be traced back to the last person who owned it. If that person can't produce a police report saying it was stolen/lost, then they should be held responsible. That would keep ne'er do wells with otherwise spotless records from buying and reselling guns to criminals. Such a law would not only help to keep guns out of the wrong hands, it would actually protect the average private seller who just wants to sell a gun. An example being, a guy buys a gun from a dealer, who does the background check, registration, etc..all by the book. The guy then, later on, sells to someone else, a neighbor or friend of neighbor, who then sells it to someone else. Gun is part of crime, and traced back to the first guy who bought it legally and with good intent. He says I sold it to so and so, but, no record, no check, no proof, nothing.
For heavens sakes, we can't sell a car without legally transferring title! Why not do the same with guns.
I was thinking of Europe as a whole. Apparently, it's the Scandinavians (talk about safety nets) who are happiest there.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/23/happiness-world-index-oped-cx_hra_0423happy.html
From the article referenced above:
The Swiss, Weiner discovered, are efficient and punctual, comparatively wealthy and face hardly any unemployment. Their streets, air and tap water are squeaky clean and chocolate is a national obsession. But Weiner saw no joy in their faces, and reasoned that perhaps it's better to live in this middle range than to vacillate between gleeful moments of elation and gut-wrenching spates of despair. Swiss happiness, he writes, is "more than mere contentment, but less than full-on joy."
And the Danes and the Swedes are a bit further down in the suicide rate from the Swiss, still higher than in the U.S.
But that said, I'd love to live in Switzerland (if the language didn't limit me too much) but you all can have the Scandinavioan countries, they are just not my bag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
And the Danes and the Swedes are a bit further down in the suicide rate from the Swiss, still higher than in the U.S.
But that said, I'd love to live in Switzerland (if the language didn't limit me too much) but you all can have the Scandinavioan countries, they are just not my bag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Well, just be aware the Swiss government requires its citizens to buy health insurance.
ApatheticNoMore
7-26-12, 8:18pm
And the Danes and the Swedes are a bit further down in the suicide rate from the Swiss, still higher than in the U.S.
look at the rate of anti-depressant use ....
common criminals, who do far more damage every year.
The solution is obvious, pass a law making crime illegal.
The solution is obvious, pass a law making crime illegal.
LOL, Problem solved!
DocHolliday
7-26-12, 8:51pm
East is east and West is west............
There's never going to be any resolution to this issue, when there are some who aren't willing to compromise at all. Seems like the gun owners aren't into compromise.
You do know that part of compromise is that both sides have to give a little, so what exactly is the anti-gun side willing to deal on? When people claim that an *extremist* position like banning certain guns or magazines is "reasonable" and want the other side to go along with them, no wonder gun owners want no part of any such compromises.
DocHolliday
7-26-12, 8:55pm
Agreed, Greg. I did not catch that distinction when I first read it. My apologies.
I don't think you would have anything to apologize for. You would think a supposed "investigative journalist" like Bill Moyers would check an easily verifiable fact like that before he ran it...maybe he issued a correction somewhere down the line...
DocHolliday
7-26-12, 9:10pm
yes, I'm sure these mayors have expressed concern about drunk drivers. Are you under the impression that folks haven't expressed concern for drunk driving? Across the board? ... Comparing alcohol to guns is just a dumb comparison. It's apples to small white labratory animals.
Unsuprisingly the point went right over your head. You have MAIG honcho Bloomberg wanting to ban large Cokes, guns, magazines, and any other thing that he gets a bee in his bonnet about, yet I haven't even heard of him calling for background checks into a product that misuse of kills 11,000+ people a year. As far as comparing alcohol to guns, it may be dumb in your mind but that's just you. Used in a legal manner the way the vast majority of people do, no problems. But the drunks who misuse alcohol and the killers who use a gun both kill people just as dead as the other does. Even the gov't has an specific agency that deals with both products...the BATFE.
And the Danes and the Swedes are a bit further down in the suicide rate from the Swiss, still higher than in the U.S.
But that said, I'd love to live in Switzerland (if the language didn't limit me too much) but you all can have the Scandinavioan countries, they are just not my bag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
* side note- when we lived in Europe the big joke was, "...but can it pass the dutch tolerance test?" usually used when seeing a totally tattooed or pierced, or orange spiked hair person, as Holland seemed to be completely populated by these persons. As in, speaking of something totally outrageous, "But can it pass the Dutch tolerance test?"
Ziggy Zaggy Ziggy Zaggy
I don't think you would have anything to apologize for. You would think a supposed "investigative journalist" like Bill Moyers would check an easily verifiable fact like that before he ran it...maybe he issued a correction somewhere down the line...
That's true enough. Rogar has nothing to apologize for. There is a huge distinction between semi- and fully-automatic weapons, but there really isn't any reason most folks would know what that difference is. Maybe this will help clarify.
One of my favorite hunting rifles is a Browning BAR Type 1 that was made in Belgium. It was built in 1974, but the design pre-dates that by many years. The "AR" in the name stands for automatic rifle. It is semi-automatic. It has a four round clip so will hold five with one round in the chamber. I could shoot off all five rounds in a little less than five seconds if I wanted to, but could not recover from the recoil enough to make any except the first shot accurately. Aesthetically this gun is quite different from the one that was used in the Aurora shootings, but mechanically, the way it works, it is almost identical.
The basic engineering and design that was used to build my gun originally came from the Browning M1918A2. That was produced during WWII and was a fully-automatic rifle. That model was capable of a fire rate of 550 rounds per minute, or about 10 times the rate my semi-automatic version is capable of. Imagine what that theater might have been like if James Holmes had been able to fire 10 times the number of rounds that he did and you can begin to understand why fully-automatic weapons are so tightly controlled.
As for the news reports, well, I would expect a terrorist to either lie or not be particularly worried about fact checking. As for reporters I think we all know that a few grains of salt are usually required. It reminds me of that commercial that is playing on TV these days. The girl says, "everything on the internet is true". Her companion asks, "where did you hear that?" And she answers, "on the internet". Nuff said.
Quote Originally Posted by Gregg
That is mind boggling to me. At NO point in my life (beyond just being a young child) was putting any kind of gun in my hand ever dangerous in any way to any other person. Not one time...EVER. I was taught from an early age how to properly and safely handle and fire guns of many different configurations. So was everyone I grew up with.
I've relayed the story before, but my high school had 100 kids in it. At any given time, and especially during hunting season, there were 200 or 300 guns in the back windows of pick ups or the trunks of cars in the school parking lot. There were semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, hand guns and bb guns...all kinds. There were also several thousand rounds of ammunition available because we all knew that a gun without ammo is a club. Not one time, EVER, was there ANY incident of violence involving a gun. Even awash in that sea of completely accessible guns and teenage hormones it was absolutely unthinkable to threaten or harm another person with a gun.
Contrary to popular propaganda, the guns have not changed since then. Yes, you can buy a few expensive and highly specialized models that were not available back then, but those are not what is readily available to most of us at the local hardware store. Mostly there are just different styles, just like clothes have different styles. The popular calibers are still the same. The rate of fire is the same. The accuracy of factory loaded ammunition is the same. The distance a bullet will drop at 600 yards at 65* into a 20 knot headwind is the same. It’s the people that have changed, not the guns. The problem isn't with the guns.
If a gun would have been dangerous in the hands of your DH he was neither mature nor well trained in its use. Period. Putting a gun or a steering wheel or a glass of whisky in the hand of anyone who is not mature and has not been properly instructed in its use is a problem. Putting any of those in the hands of someone who intends to use them to inflict harm on others is a problem. That's where we need to focus.
Originally posted by Peggy.
I think Mrs. M was referring to the fact that a 20 year old often hasn't the life experience or maturity to hold their emotions in check. A 20 year old is still a kid, in many ways, and I'm guessing she is thinking of the many stressful situations, school, girlfriends, new jobs, etc...where someone with very little 'life experience' might find themselves with very spun up emotions and not have the skill to deal with it.
I think this links with what she was talking about earlier about hate where it was a pile-on instead of trying to see what she meant. Mrs. M, if you don't mind, may I take a stab at it?
I think what she was looking at is the lack of civility in public discourse that we didn't have 30, or even 20 years ago. I don't think i have to give the links, but I will, again, if you want. Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh? This man is on the airwaves 2, 3, 4 hours a day, and it is just a constant litany of hate filled talk, in his monotone (which by the way is a tool of brainwashing) hour after hour, day after day. And you have one of the two major political parties that regularly defend, and pay homage to this guy. This isn't just some fringe nut job, which we have always had and always will, but a major player on the national political stage. And he is just one voice among the many.
We have that congressman from Florida, Alan West, who has said he believes 60-70 of democrat congresspeople are communist. There is Michele Bachmann who wants an investigation into unamerican activities by democrat congresspeople and now says the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the White House. She found 4 other congress persons to sign on with that one! These are elected leaders! Congressmen/women!
We have Fox News which is 24/7 GOPTV promoting lies and constant 'wars' all aimed at democrats/liberals. And you have a republican leader who said, up front, getting rid of the democrat President was job #1. Mind you he said this when this president was first elected and the country was in an economic free fall. Helping the country wasn't job 1, or helping the people through this horrible economic time wasn't job #1. Nope, getting back in power was job #1, period. They weren't in the slightest interested in helping this president help this nation, and everything they have done since then shows that.
WE have Santorum, standing before an audience and getting cheers and whistles by saying Obama was a snob because he wished everyone who wanted to go to college could.
Why am I giving these examples? Because, even though we have always had political rivalry, and hate mongers on the fringe, and heated debate, never in our history did we have an entire political party, as a whole, stand and cheer hateful speech, and demonize half of their colleagues as well as half of the Nations people. We haven't been this polarized since the civil war, and the constant demonizing drumbeat from TV and radio and even our political leaders has lead to this climate of hate. I believe this is what Mrs M was talking about.
You all had hunting rifles in your trucks at school. Fine, but you didn't have them strapped to your hip, spun up by the hour of Rush you listened to on the way to school, bolstered by images of tea baggers wearing guns to political rallies as political 'speech', and yes fantasizing about violent video games and bloody movies where sex is banned but blowing someones' head off is OK.
No, guns haven't changed, but we have, and society has, and political discourse has. Now to say liberals want to take away everyone's guns is simply not true, and really dishonest when some continue to say it. (NRA, many on the right) It's meant to stop the conversation, period. It's meant to stop reasonable discussion on sensible gun control. It's meant to get people spun up and in the stores to stockpile weapons and ammo. And who are they stockpiling it against? Why the liberals, of course! We are the ducks in the shooting gallery. WE are the ones who Limbaugh and Fox News and Bachmann and Allen West and Rick Santorum and the NRA are demonizing, day after day after day. Can you blame us for being a little nervous?
I can think of a lot of reasons one would have a gun. A cherished gift from a parent, hunting, clay target shooting (which actually sounds like a lot of fun!) etc...Saying you keep a gun because you are ready to fight your government is getting into Ted Kaczynski territory. Tin foil hat stuff. And that's another thing. We used to recognize crazy talk. WE don't anymore. WE celebrate it, and quote it as if it were meaningful, and give equal voice to every crack pot and crazy theory out there!
I guess this is just a really long way to say enough already. But unless the reasonable among us agree there is a problem, and probably some solutions, nothing will get done.Thanks so much, Peggy! You captured exactly (to a T), the point at the heart of my entry.
Originally Posted by peggy
I think Mrs. M was referring to the fact that a 20 year old often hasn't the life experience or maturity to hold their emotions in check. A 20 year old is still a kid, in many ways, and I'm guessing she is thinking of the many stressful situations, school, girlfriends, new jobs, etc...where someone with very little 'life experience' might find themselves with very spun up emotions and not have the skill to deal with it.
Originally posted by Gregg.
Mrs. M was quite clear in what she said
Too bad a few here like to pull out their dumb-cards when someone has something viable to add. I figured you had ample life-experiences behind you, Gregg, where I didn't have to take you by the hand (like a little one) and guide you through every single detail and step, as to what my husband reiterated, but however disappointing it was (your misinterpretation of my entry), it's great that we have members like, Peggy, because she seemed to have no problem (whatsoever) in reading between the lines as to what was said in my post.
I figured you had ample life-experiences behind you, Gregg, where I didn't have to take you by the hand (like a little one)...
Well, the line in your post that I commented on was a QUOTE so there isn't much room for interpretation. Moving on, I was fortunate that my Dad did take me by the hand when I WAS a little one. He taught me respect for guns and all kinds of other things, too. As a result teenage hormones and the emotions that come with them never had any effect on my ability or desire to safely and responsibly handle firearms. Apparently not everyone had the benefit of such guidance which is probably why Canadians (and Americans) have problems with guns. Makes the solution look pretty simple, doesn't it?
At the age of 20, you can get married, sign a contract, purchase a truck, drive on the public roads, join the military, have children, consent to surgery, and quite a few other things.
By Federal law, however, you cannot purchase a handgun until you are 21. And most states require you to be 21 to carry a concealed weapon. Some states have lower, I think a few have (or had) higher age limits.
So the "20 year old" argument is reflective of a lack of knowledge of the reality here in the United States, and is a red herring.
Originally posted by Gregg.
I was fortunate that my Dad did take me by the hand when I WAS a little one. He taught me respect for guns and all kinds of other things, too. As a result teenage hormones and the emotions that come with them never had any effect on my ability or desire to safely and responsibly handle firearms.Good on you. Unfortunately, calamitous and flimsy laws (US related) allowing people to use deadly force in a public place if they have reasonable belief that they are in danger of death, or great bodily harm, undermines the dimension of how well one was or wasn't raised, because with laws such as the one I just outlined, who needs enemies!
Originally posted by Bae.
So the "20 year old" argument is reflective of a lack of knowledge of the reality here in the United States, and is a red herring.Oh... my apologies, as if one whole year makes all the difference, but isn't that the way, Bae, the way of staunch gun-owners always so determined and unwilling to hear of change or improvement to a chronically failed system. Anything to be able to hang onto the status of being able to roam streets and public places (freely) with a gun strapped to your side!
Under the current rules, laws, regulations, and legislation (United States related), "for sport", doesn't even figure into the equation, whereas, "to kill", does. Pathetic to think that a majority of US gun-owners take up arms and guns for all the wrong reasons.
Good on you. Unfortunately, calamitous and flimsy laws (US related) allowing people to use deadly force in a public place if they have reasonable belief that they are in danger of death, or great bodily harm, undermines the dimension of how well one was or wasn't raised, because with laws such as the one I just outlined, who needs enemies!
You ignore the reality though, and yet there is plenty of data to look at if you care to honestly examine the situation, instead of emoting.
Normal law-abiding citizens in America who lawfully carry concealed weapons have not been the cause of the streets running red with blood of innocents, and may in fact have contributed to a drop in the crime rate.
By the way, I am curious Mrs-M - how you propose a law-abiding citizen respond to an attacker when they have reasonable belief that the attacker is going to kill them or grievously harm them? Call 911 on their cell phone, and wait for the police to arrive to mop up the blood and write a report? Lie back and enjoy the rape, so you don't harm the self-esteem of the attacker? Allow your child to be kidnapped, so as not to upset the quiet of your suburban neighborhood by resisting?
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/More-Guns-Less-Crime.png
Oh... my apologies, as if one whole year makes all the difference,
What is the magic age, Mrs-M? 22? 30? 50? 65?
When do you consider a citizen old enough to assume the rights and responsibilities of adult citizenship?
Or is the answer simply "never, everyone should be treated as a child by the all-knowing state. Except for representatives of the state, who are made of magic pixie dust and unicorn smiles, and better than the rest of us..."?
Under the current rules, laws, regulations, and legislation (United States related), "for sport", doesn't even figure into the equation, whereas, "to kill", does.
My state has numerous laws on the books defining our acceptable "sporting" uses of firearms. Those laws describe where shooting ranges can not be built (residential areas, near schools, etc.), what license is required to hunt various types of large and small game, what time of year it is legal to hunt that game, what level of hunter safety classes are required to get a hunting license, acceptable ways to legally, and safely, transport firearms to and from sporting venues, what types of ammunition can be sold to the public for sporting purposes, and on and on...
Every state in the US has a similar collection of laws. I've heard some folks in Canada hunt or use guns in other ways beside murdering their fellow citizens so I suspect similar laws exist there, too.
Every state in the US has a similar collection of laws. I've heard some folks in Canada hunt or use guns in other ways beside murdering their fellow citizens so I suspect similar laws exist there as well.
But it seems facts aren't the issue here, Gregg....
Originally posted by Bae.
Normal law-abiding citizens in America who lawfully carry concealed weapons have not been the cause of the streets running red with blood of innocentsMaybe not, but it sets a precedence for wannabees, wannabees who might not otherwise be interested in a gun, suddenly they see a man or woman walk by them on the street and think, "cool, I want to be just like them". It's poor policy (plain and simple), and it has no place in modern day society.
Originally posted by Bae.
By the way, I am curious Mrs-M - how you propose a law-abiding citizen respond to an attacker when they have reasonable belief that the attacker is going to kill them or grievously harm them? Call 911 on their cell phone, and wait for the police to arrive to mop up the blood and write a report? Lie back and enjoy the rape, so you don't harm the self-esteem of the attacker? Allow your child to be kidnapped, so as not to upset the quiet of your suburban neighborhood by resisting?What a shameful way to view the rigors of daily life, and to think there are parents out there who are raising their children to mirror the same. "Raised to kill". Doesn't say a lot Re: the integrity of society to move forward in hopes of a safer, more well-adjusted world.
Maybe not, but it sets a precedence for wannabees, wannabees who might not otherwise be interested in a gun, suddenly they see a man or woman walk by them on the street and think, "cool, I want to be just like them". It's poor policy (plain and simple), and it has no place in modern day society.
Now you aren't making any sense at all.
How can "a wannabee" suddenly see a woman walk by them on the street, carrying a *concealed* weapon, and decide "you know, I can't see that *concealed* weapon, that makes me think, hmmm, maybe I should carry a *concealed* weapon too, so I can be as cool as that lady whose gun I can't even see..."
Concealed means concealed.
At this point, you are throwing out your fears, without any factual basis for your concerns, or cost-benefit analysis of your knee-jerk "sensible" remedies. I understand that you have fears, but often the best way to address such things is through education, and not by insulting other people and proposing to restrict their rights and activities.
But it seems facts aren't the issue here, Gregg....
They can be inconvenient.
At the age of 20, you can get married, sign a contract, purchase a truck, drive on the public roads, join the military, have children, consent to surgery, and quite a few other things.
By Federal law, however, you cannot purchase a handgun until you are 21. And most states require you to be 21 to carry a concealed weapon. Some states have lower, I think a few have (or had) higher age limits.
So the "20 year old" argument is reflective of a lack of knowledge of the reality here in the United States, and is a red herring.
Were we only talking about handguns? I don't think so. Gregg was talking about shotguns and Mrs. M was talking about all guns. Guns, covers all guns. Talk about a red herring!
What a shameful way to view the rigors of daily life, and to think there are parents out there who are raising their children to mirror the same. "Raised to kill". Doesn't say a lot Re: the integrity to move forward in hopes of a safer, more well-adjusted world.
I will repeat my simple questions then, since you didn't respond at all, but deflected by insult and character assassination:
How you propose a law-abiding citizen respond to an attacker when they have reasonable belief that the attacker is going to kill them or grievously harm them?
Call 911 on their cell phone, and wait for the police to arrive to mop up the blood and write a report?
Lie back and enjoy the rape, so you don't harm the self-esteem of the attacker?
Allow your child to be kidnapped, so as not to upset the quiet of your suburban neighborhood by resisting?
Sing Kumbaya and hope a wave of brotherly love will sweep across the planet, causing your attacker to break down in tears and change his ways, while you cuddle him to help him through that difficult time?
Originally posted by Bae.
What is the magic age, Mrs-M? 22? 30? 50? 65?I touched on that on page 20, Bae. Unless people are involved with security, special forces, personal protection and police work, allowing people to carry, is a law that will continue to come back and haunt the American people (over and over again). It portrays a lack of stability.
Were we only talking about handguns? I don't think so. Gregg was talking about shotguns and Mrs. M was talking about all guns. Guns, covers all guns. Talk about a red herring!
A dishonest attempt to muddle the waters on your part, Peggy.
Concealed carry licenses in most states cover handguns only, not "all guns". Most states do not allow you to walk around with loaded rifles or shotguns in public spaces, except under some pretty restrictive conditions involving hunting. As a result, most citizens who lawfully carry firearms in public are carrying handguns.
Now you aren't making any sense at all.
How can "a wannabee" suddenly see a woman walk by them on the street, carrying a *concealed* weapon, and decide "you know, I can't see that *concealed* weapon, that makes me think, hmmm, maybe I should carry a *concealed* weapon too, so I can be as cool as that lady whose gun I can't even see..."
Concealed means concealed.
At this point, you are throwing out your fears, without any factual basis for your concerns, or cost-benefit analysis of your knee-jerk "sensible" remedies. I understand that you have fears, but often the best way to address such things is through education, and not by insulting other people and proposing to restrict their rights and activities.Are there States, where people can carry (out in the open)? If so, that is what I am referring to.
What a shameful way to view the rigors of daily life, and to think there are parents out there who are raising their children to mirror the same. "Raised to kill". Doesn't say a lot Re: the integrity of society to move forward in hopes of a safer, more well-adjusted world.
I raised my kids to, first) be aware and avoid trouble, and second) know how to get away if you get caught in it, and third) know how to defend yourself if need be. You may consider that shameful, I consider it my obligation. They are some of the most well adjusted people I know and some of the least likely to be involved in a violent situation because they know violence is only acceptable when other options have been exhausted.
I touched on that on page 20, Bae. Unless people are involved with security, special forces, personal protection and police work, allowing people to carry, is a law that will continue to come back and haunt the American people (over and over again). It portrays a lack of stability.
And yet, if you look at the time-series map of the laws in the USA, your prediction seems unfounded. We've had decades of data on this, in my state back for over 50 years. We have not had a rise in improper shootings accompany the spread of issuance of carry permits.
Are there States, where people can carry (out in the open)? If so, that is what I am referring to.
Yes, there are such states. Do you know which ones? Do you know what percentage of the population carries openly in those states? Do you have any factual foundation for your "wannabee" fear? Do you have any evidence that even if there are such "wannabees" in any significant number, they cause any significant number of actual problems?
Originally posted by Bae.
How you propose a law-abiding citizen respond to an attacker when they have reasonable belief that the attacker is going to kill them or grievously harm them? Well... aside from the United States, I know of no other country that allows it's citizens to "take the law into their own hands". And never mind just taking the law into their own hands, taking a life.
ApatheticNoMore
7-27-12, 2:27pm
Re: the map. I actually feel perfectly safe living in California, not a gun culture, and I don't mind in the slightest. It's not an issue where I take the slightest issue with the state government (the main problem with the state government is that the budget is a mess plus some corruption (but possibly less than many places) - that's really about it). There's still violence, I just don't worry about it. So this happened: taking a walk in my lunch hour, told to turn back as there is an insane person with a gun a few blocks down. Having no particular death wish that day I turn back unperturbed. The cops came (helicopters even) and took care of it, noone was hurt. Seemed at first to be a violent incident happening there nearly every month. But statistically is that going to kill me or is driving home, is cancer, is the big one (the big earthquake), what about the big one plus a nuclear power plant going off here? I mean ok I'm not that likely to die in the big one either, but the odds may be greater. I dont' even have an emotional (irrational) fear of violence: because stranger danger was never a danger growing up, however you learn to hide when people you know get angry, since even though none get killed, people could get hurt.
To add, I know the next angle that will be introduced here... "look Mrs-M, here is a list of other countries that allow such". I don't want to hear it.
Fact of the matter is, that's what our police force is for, granted, someone wants to try and snatch one of our kids away from us while DH and I are at home (or out in public) best of luck to them! Anything goes in that case, and that's to be expected, but to allow someone the given-right to open fire on someone/anyone, aside from ones very own home, is asinine.
Well... aside from the United States, I know of no other country that allows it's citizens to "take the law into their own hands". And never mind just taking the law into their own hands, taking a life.
You know of no other country in which you are allowed to use force, perhaps even lethal force, to defend yourself?
And yet I believe you live in one... You better start lobbying to get that fixed, or what will the world think of Canada?
Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-13.html#docCont
Understood, Bae, but it sets an unhealthy precedence for younger generations to follow.
Originally posted by Bae.
Most states do not allow you to walk around with loaded rifles or shotguns in public spacesReally? How come? What is the difference between a US, citizen, carrying/packing a loaded handgun, versus a US, citizen, wandering around town/public places/spaces with a loaded rifle?
A gun is a gun is a gun, isn't it?
To add, "sure kids, you are allowed to ride your bikes on the street, but you aren't allowed to ride bikes with training wheels on the street".
Really? How come? What is the difference between a US, citizen, carrying/packing a loaded handgun, versus a US, citizen, wandering around town/public places/spaces with a loaded rifle?
It has to do with all those pesky sporting/hunting regulations you claim we don't have.
A gun is a gun is a gun, isn't it?
More-or-less. Handguns are simpler to carry, and harder for opponents to snatch away from you unawares, if carried concealed.
A rifle is much more of a pain to carry around on a daily basis while doing your normal activities, unless you have a particular requirement that makes it useful to do so.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-VGHzYYVDBgU/UBLjYhQoZ9I/AAAAAAAAF-8/-GXIxW9IEVw/s640/Israel.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.