RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other.

RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:32:07 AM)
I would NOT want to have someone like you, with a gun anywhere near me of a loved one. And normal folks.....who send their kids to school and the like......aren`t either.

came4U -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:34:33 AM)
quote: And the government will keep teaching us to be more and more passive. More people will scream for more gun control. Guns will be more and more available on the streets as we pass more laws. Exactly why I mentioned that how does a government expect it's citizens to be passive and moral when Congress sends troops, arms, privatized security and tech/fuel engineers to other countries on our behalf and our dime ..in order to cause infiltrated-control and/or death of people we have and will never meet? There lies the problem. We are too passive obviously because this continues daily until we are reminded that 'guns hurt people'. Are we so relieved when it (large scale gun violence) happens every minute of the day somewhere else and so much in shock if it happens here? No one can be 'passive and moral' unless they are refusing to give another dime to the IRS until a government becomes accountable--just as they expect us to be.

joether -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:37:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U I think people have forgotten the reasoning and concept behind creating the Second Ammendment by the founders to begin with. Gun control has but shouldn't have to do with home invasion, little to do with crime rate nor acts of random psychotic incidents (even massacres). The second amendment was created with the concept of a well regulated militia being at the centerpiece of defending liberty from all threats foreign and domestic. It has nothing to do with an individual person's desire to use a firearm to kill squirrels, rampaging dragons, or fellow citizens. Whether for laughs, self defense, whims, or some other reason. The second amendment was created not in the modern era, but in a time and place all together different from our own. The understanding of the world and reality itself in those days was very limited to the world of today. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U These events do not have just cause to precipitate further governmental (notice the term mental if we are to assume that not all politicians are sane :P) 'control' since these events are caused by societal ills--not by the guns themselves. Actually, the firearms used were indeed equally the fault of the events that took place. This event does show quite the contrary, that further goverment control of a tool, whose primary purpose is to kill humans, will be further used in the near future. While a firearm could have a number of secondary purposes (i.e. hunting, target practice, rennactments, etc), its primary is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move 1) Passangers, 2) Cargo, or 3) Passangers and Cargo, from point 'A' to point 'B'. A car has many secondary purposes (i.e. killing humans, racing, traveling, living in, etc). What if we were to request Congress to regulated that all firearms purchased must be insured? And that if the insurance is not paid, the person loses the firearm to their local police station/sheriff, until such time as the bill is paid in full plus other expenses. This would not be any different from many states requiring its citizens to carry insurance for their cars. "...the right to bear arms..." has nothing to do with one's unlimited right, free of legal requirements to have a gun. That part of the amendment actually was related to individual militia members holding their arms at their dwelling (assuming they were in good standing with the well regulated militia to which they were a part of), instead of a centralize armoury that could be destroyed by an invading group. Most people get that one wrong on account of being just plain ignorant to US History. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Chinese citizenry aren't allowed guns but events such as this still occur http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910. A nut is a nut, where a will there is a way and they WILL find a way to cause as much collateral mortality as possible. Gun control is yet just another way of 'us' removing blame and shame for having too many psychopaths being born and cultivated on home soil. Even further, one can say that these acts are a reflection of the society in/of whole. Last I checked, China is NOT a: 1) Us State, 2) Us Territory, or 3) A district within a current US State. No, its its own nation, with its own laws and culture. So stating what happens in another nation is rather irrelevent. With a nation holding the largest population of people in one place, should anyone be surprised there are a few nutcases that would go on killing sprees? Just imagine if the USA had the population of China, with the proportionally same amount of firearms. Whole schools full of dead children wouldnt even make it on the news, cus it was so common place. The funeral industry would be added to the list of those jobs that easily weather bad recessions (like bars and hospitals). Gun control, is a understanding that the tool in question, can easily be used for great harm, in a very quick amount of time. Given our understanding so far of the human condition, the mind, and how macro-economics can affect the micro-economics of the individual; it would be foolishly for us to ignore the awesome potential firearms have to create the amount of destruction and death they were created for in the first place. Only those living in a fantasy land, would believe firearms are not dangerous even in able hands (there's many youtube videos to demostrate it). And if your living in one of those fantasy worlds, your gun SHOULD BE REMOVED immediately! BTW, that guy in China didnt kill anyone. The guy in our country killed twenty-seven kids. That should show the difference between melee and ranged combat. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U The Second Ammendment cannot be changed (without disruption of every other Ammendment or of the entire Bill itself) nor can the Bill of Rights. It was created for a reason and that reason is not so that Suzie housewife can shoot someone for breaking into her house to steal her ipod nor is it to be used to arm a maniac with issues that have caused him to have a self-loathing grandeur. It is to bear arms to PROTECT. Protect yourself/family/others from another (who causes a direct and immediate threat) as well as to protect one from threat of/from their own government (in dire world-changing event) situations. These situations are something I don't ever want to occur but when it comes down to being put onto a train that ain't heading to anywhere nice--I'd sleep better knowing that millions upon millions of fellow citizens were armed. Actually, the second amendment can be changed. It can even be nullified (i.e. the 18th amendment). From this paragraph alone, I would have to say, you really have no clue what the second amendment covers and doesnt cover. The second amendment talked about "A well regulated militia...", not you or me as individuals. Firearms, are not directly covered in this amemdent, but are assumed as being part of other arms as well, for use in said militia. Owning a shotgun for hunting purposes, is not covered under the second amendment, because the shotgun is not being used in a capacity of the militia. Could the shotgun be used within a militia? Of course it could be. But most Americans just have never bothered to crack open an actual US History book, to find the actual thoughts and fears of those first citizens. Their culture, thoughts, religious views, national views, and even philosophy on a wide range of subjects were worlds different from US citizens in 2012. How many of them would reconisder their thoughts on firearms, if they knew two hundred years later, that a musket was capabile of firing 30-300 muskets, 300-800 yards, in fewer seconds than it took to breath once, and kill dozens of enemy troops? Willing to place a bet they would still have given the amendment such loose and little attention? quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Do not forget that it (the 2nd Amm, under the Contitution) is for one purpose and one purpose only. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis Yes a purpose that you can not seem to grasp at current. quote: ORIGINAL: came4U also, the OP mentioned Mexico and drug cartel gun violence. Have you forgotten that these weapons were supplied by, sanctioned and distributed by operation Fast and Furior in which Holder and the CIA were caught in doing so? The grand majority of those arms came from those US states with loose gun laws. Why was 'Fast and Furious' created? It was to help track firearms from point of sale to the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. To understand how the guns were purchases and from....WHOM....the guns were purchased. That's right, US Citizens that looked the other way (legally and morally), all in the name of capitalism! Those people are not doing your cause any favors; if anything, giving the gun control folks plenty of ammunition. And before you go blaming it all out President Obama, that program was created and was in active use during the previous administration. Curious your not blaming Republicans.... quote:* ORIGINAL: came4U In that case they wanted weapons crossing over, likely so they would just kill eachother off to a manageable number in order to have better control and logistic intel and survellience over. In the end they got caught with their hands in that cookie jar because those very weapons killed their own agents. Who says we elect smart officials? uhhg Wait a second! "Guns dont kill People, People kill People"! Isn't that the mantra of the pro-gun-nuters? You cant have it both ways. Either the people killed the border agents, or the guns did it. If Guns dont kill people, but people kill people; then why do we give guns to people in the first place? Oh that's right....the 'Free Enterprise" system....

Owner59 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:42:54 AM)
Thank you Joether for the well thought out,reasonable point of view.

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:43:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Why is his mental status of lesser value in discussion than the 'object in his hand'? There's another thread on mental illness. I try not to mix the issues up too much. That said, sure, universal health care makes sense, and mental health should be part of that, as should dental health, and ideally social health, but the latter isn't a field yet, and the others aren't particularly good yet, either. quote: What kind of person kills their own mother? It's a time honored tradition, so I would have to say "any kind of person". Less sensitively, I might ask "what mother gives her son cause to kill her?", for which I have some suggestions, some of which seem to be applicable in this case, others of which have been applicable in other cases I'm familiar with, none of which are going to be very popular. So I leave it be in this time of high emotions. quote: What occured to create someone who does these sort of things? Quite frequently, the mother happened. quote: How does this person wander through and within society so ghostly as to not bring notice of his mental health? Are we that immune to crazy people? Is this guy just THAT darn clever? I doubt it. It's perfectly understandable, indeed expected, and somewhat sad that a lot of people are surprised by these things. I'm upset when they happen, because the suffering is great, but not surprised in the least. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:54:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Norway is a large wealthy country with a small relatively homgenous population, it just doesn't have the socio-economic problems and mix larger countries have. I'm not saying there aren't social problems, there obviously are but you aren't comparing apples to apples here. Reading comprehension. [8\|] Go back and reread. Salient points follow. Sweden. Denmark. Norway. Compare those three. That's what I did. All three the same size. All three with closely comparable wealth. All three with a shared culture and a common ethnic composition. All three with nearly identical laws and politics. But. Dramatically different gun ownership. Different homicide rates. No correlation between those two variables in these three extremely comparable countries. By contrast, the small difference in economy correlates with the small difference in homicide rates. That correlation proves to hold when one compares to other countries. And don't even get me started on our "homogenous" population. IWYW, — Aswad.

joether -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:55:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawotk Gun control, my balls. If any one of the adults would have had a fucking gun, for chrissakes, at that or any other incident like it... At least the people would have had a damned chance. Sigh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2YC5cVxTcQ If they had a gun on school grounds, they would have been arrested as well! Most school zones outlaw firearms except in specific instances (i.e. law enforcement). And many arguements have been stated in the past that if "somebody had a gun, things would have been different". Yes, just like down in Arizona. Tell me, why did the guy that tackled the gunmen to the ground (whom shot several people moments before), NOT use the gun on his hip? I mean, that's the B.S. on display right there! The guy had a firearm; a pistol to be exact. Why not just pull it out, and put two in the head? Further, there were quite a few people there that had firearms on their person. Why did none of them prevent the tradegy from taking place? Here is the problem. Its one of reality meeting fantasy. Gun laws can not protect in all instances and situations, the same as a person armed with a firearm to defend others. Neither can predict future events with perfect accuracy and in time to prevent that event from taking place. We can however, make it much harder for those to obtain firearms to be used for ill purposes simply by being wise about it. Unlike the late 18th century, we in the 21st understand an extremely more detail information on how the human mind works and operates. We know the brain doesnt become infected with demons and devils, but due to trauma, birth, or other circumstances (like drugs mixing with alcholic liquids in the brain). Maybe what we have to do, is require owners of firearms to get tested by a medical doctor (or psychologist) every few years, much like how cars are tested for 'road worthiness'? Will it completely stop children from being murdered by the dozens? No. Will it lessen it? Has the potential. I would rather go with the potential, rather than just rolling the dice blindly. Finally, the firearms used by the shooter, were registered to the mother of the shooter. Which should show you just how useful those firearms were in protecting her from harm....

jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 4:55:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U quote: A very small percentage were traceable back to the United States. I don't know about you but 2,500 weapons (not incuding rounds) is not a 'small percentage'. Especially when a government who puts weapons in the hands of others wants to remove them from the sane citizens who pay their salaries. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/president-obama-falsely-claims-fast-and-furious-program-begun-under-the-previous-administration/ It is yet unknown how many more thousands are not yet accounted for because their trace is 'incaculable'. Funny how they want to give drug dealers high grade weaponry, yet don't trust their own people with the same. and Aswad, hehe, I don't think such 'recipes' are legal to mention, here or elsewhere. :P quote:* Kirata post 12 According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States... This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008... This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States. 2500 weapons? Compared to 30000? I did not say that none of the weapons used by Mexican cartels came from the United States. I said a very small percentage of the weapons used by drug cartels came from the border states, and that GAO report backs up that statement.

joether -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 5:22:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawotk I am so disgusted by morons who whine about more gun laws. It doesn't work in a country like ours, period. That has been proven time and time and time again. Gun laws = More gun violence. Period. Advocating for gun control puts blood on ones hands. It is that simple. Allow me to explain how laws work. The actual mechanics. A new 'gun-law' (in keeping with the nature of this thread directly) is created to handle a fixed number of concepts. Sometimes, a previous firearm's law was found not to be working as intented. Or it was overturned in the courts. Or further it was to broad/narrow to bring about the desired affect. The new law may incorporate much of the existing laws, but must state how it changes a law, when it does so. For instance, if the first law was banning of a specific firearm (to keep it simple), the AK-47 (lets pretend its billions of modifications dont exist, ok?). A newer law decides on banning all 'assault rifles', that then defines said 'assault rifle' to be under a specific set of concepts. They use the 'AK-47' as an example of an assault rifle, and later on down the list of newly banned arms, it too is listed. This law, changes the previous law (i.e. nullifies it), so the new one is used. The old law is not removed from the record books, but exists for historical and record keeping purposes only. So when someone is adding a new law to the books, there really is a logical reasoning for the action. Enforcing 'current firearms laws' is purpose of the additional law. There is no place in any state or federal location that states there can only be 'X' laws pertaining to firearms at anyone time. That would be a silly law.... quote: ORIGINAL: rawotk Everyone loves to talk and whine but I've been around to see what the fuck is real. I wouldn't be alive today if I had not owned a firearm. Many people at all of these massacres would still be with us, today, if everyone wasn't being taught "Um, guns are bad, uhhhhh" Everyone loves to talk and whine but I've been around to see what the fuck is real. I wouldn't be alive today if I had not owned Mass Health (that's Rommeycare for your ignorant folks). Many people at all of these states woudl still be with us, today, if everyone had Mass Health. I can use your same B.S. to ask the question why so many conservatives are against an act, they have neither read nor understand, but demand its removal, even though a better version could be created that helps than even more! quote: ORIGINAL: rawotk Here you go, if you're a moron (proponent of US gun control)-- here's your answer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8 There you go, FOX News showing yet...AGAIN....its the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. I thought new stations were suppose to be in the business of reporting the FACTS and not PROPAGANDA? Oh, forgot, most of FOX New's viewers have no idea how often or deeply they are lied to on a daily basis. Imagine if the USA had a law similar to Canada's that requires newstations to report the FACTS minus the OPINION when reporting the news? FOX New's stock would become a penny stock in under a week!

came4U -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 5:24:56 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: came4U I think people have forgotten the reasoning and concept behind creating the Second Ammendment by the founders to begin with. Gun control has but shouldn't have to do with home invasion, little to do with crime rate nor acts of random psychotic incidents (even massacres). YOU: The second amendment was created with the concept of a well regulated militia being at the centerpiece of defending liberty from all threats foreign and domestic. It has nothing to do with an individual person's desire to use a firearm to kill squirrels, rampaging dragons, or fellow citizens. Whether for laughs, self defense, whims, or some other reason. The second amendment was created not in the modern era, but in a time and place all together different from our own. The understanding of the world and reality itself in those days was very limited to the world of today. I said it (gun CONTROL, NOT the Second Amndt) has little to do with what you propose. Read again. quote: Last I checked, China is NOT a: 1) Us State, 2) Us Territory, or 3) A district within a current US State. No, its its own nation, with its own laws and culture. So stating what happens in another nation is rather irrelevent. and as I said....by my comparason,...where there is a will, there is a way. By knife, machete, gun or bonking on the head with hammers...if someone is dead set on being violent--they will be by any means available. Will anyone come forward to ban hammers, knives and fists? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: came4U The Second Ammendment cannot be changed (without disruption of every other Ammendment or of the entire Bill itself) nor can the Bill of Rights. It was created for a reason and that reason is not so that Suzie housewife can shoot someone for breaking into her house to steal her ipod nor is it to be used to arm a maniac with issues that have caused him to have a self-loathing grandeur. It is to bear arms to PROTECT. Protect yourself/family/others from another (who causes a direct and immediate threat) as well as to protect one from threat of/from their own government (in dire world-changing event) situations. These situations are something I don't ever want to occur but when it comes down to being put onto a train that ain't heading to anywhere nice--I'd sleep better knowing that millions upon millions of fellow citizens were armed. YOU: Actually, the second amendment can be changed. It can even be nullified (i.e. the 18th amendment). From this paragraph alone, I would have to say, you really have no clue what the second amendment covers and doesnt cover. As you likely didn't notice I said...it cannot be changed (without disruption of every other....), which includes other constitutional and bill rights (speech for one). Considering when these initial words were created it was to verifty that speaking up against a government is a right--and in knowing how some countries (Britian) dealt with those that did--came at a price, that price gave rise to creating the US of A to create documents that withheld basic rights including which is to bear arms (via a militia). YOU: quote: The second amendment talked about "A well regulated militia...", not you or me as individuals. Firearms, are not directly covered in this amemdent, but are assumed as being part of other arms as well, for use in said militia. Owning a shotgun for hunting purposes, Assuming that since circa German WWII events that people have become more and more paranoid and long after that 'regulated militias' have been used (Kent State) for unscrupulous activity. Not only that but 'regulated' could be taken as a given that they might mean 'governed'. Even worse....of late (pre and post Okahoma City bombing) private militia groups have been more and more disarmed, disbanded or infiltrated (until destruction). It is not only outside governments that people worry about, as you probably know. YOU: quote: How many of them would reconisder their thoughts on firearms, if they knew two hundred years later, that a musket was capabile of firing 30-300 muskets, 300-800 yards, in fewer seconds than it took to breath once, and kill dozens of enemy troops? Willing to place a bet they would still have given the amendment such loose and little attention? Muskets (the term included) were the most modern tool of the time. As were police that actually had to chase you to catch you in 1957--instead of causing electric shock to avoid that excercize. Why not bring that up? Tanks, mines and missles weren't invented yet either, lets remove them in total. (but, you don't care for that--because OTHER countries might have em, so we can't rid of them. But, we can't now--because that would leave us weak, vulnerable, right? oh oh why not? afraid someone will come over with one? Maybe their tank is bigger than your tank? oh is ok, you don't worry about TANKS as weapons because they won't come after YOU but someone else in another country, right? whew. The Second Ammendment could and should be changed..but it WOULD cause much disruption (and paperwork). Let em at it. It can be revised as needed. But if it is changed in order to disarm, you are the one who needs history lessons, not I. You say: quote: The grand majority of those arms came from those US states with loose gun laws. Why was 'Fast and Furious' created? It was to help track firearms from point of sale to the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. wtf. What insane people actually consider this as a good idea and you defend it? Why because they are bad guys and they are not within rock throwing distance? To track firearms? and how else to track them without analysing actual deaths (via ballistics) and/or arrests??? Who are they (ATF) to be playing God? What is the difference between this and the Tuskegee syphilis experimentation or even in Guatemalal test of similar rank? You defend such actions of 'testing' the tracks of death? You don't mind guns being used in this ENTRAPMENT scenerio but you advocate gun control for those that can hold onto one without using it for 'testing out on our neighbors to see which bullet hits whom'? ahh ok, gottcha. Would you also say that giving crack to crackheads to see how fast they die or to arrest them is a justifiable act--because it gives a heads up to statistical data by a tracking ploy? Entrapment is entrapment Mister, despite what reasoning you use to clear them as innocent bystanders. It is all fun and games until that crack gets into some politician's daughter's arm. Then, whooopssss!! quote: ORIGINAL: came4U In that case they wanted weapons crossing over, likely so they would just kill eachother off to a manageable number in order to have better control and logistic intel and survellience over. In the end they got caught with their hands in that cookie jar because those very weapons killed their own agents. Who says we elect smart officials? uhhg YOU: Wait a second! "Guns dont kill People, People kill People"! Isn't that the mantra of the pro-gun-nuters? You cant have it both ways. Either the people killed the border agents, or the guns did it. If Guns dont kill people, but people kill people; then why do we give guns to people in the first place? Oh that's right....the 'Free Enterprise" system.... Are you implying that I said that the guns got up on their lil hind legs and walked across the border? :O without even water, these poor guns had to walk for miles? You make zero sense by flip flopping around on this converstion. Those guns sure did KILL people. Hell, in fact if those guns hadn't have been there (entrapment gifts for what... the pure enjoyment of such 'tracing' thrills?) how many would not have had guns in possession to even be able to kill or maim other criminals and even unarmed Mexican citizens to begin with?

jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 5:28:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I heard a reference on the radio saying that the Bushmaster was found in the trunk of the car, and was never used. If that is correct (initial facts are still confused, I think), do you think that will delay for a moment efforts to claim this a tragedy that could have prevented, if only the assault rifle ban had been renewed? Certainly won`t prevent the rightist fantasy/alt-reality dicks from making shit up that doesn`t happen....... This shit is not normal and until the lunatic fringe/NRA types stop trying to make this shit the norm........desensitizing us to the violence,making us indifferent to the loss of loved ones,selling the crazy proposition that this crap is just a part of life(it`s not) and the cost of doing business........ we`ll never have an honest discussion. The NRA dicks (not to be confused with normal folks who favor reasonable gun regs) seem to trying to arm as many angry,unstable,self-made-victim, selfish adult children(and kids too for that matter) as possible. All the while trying to weaken the hard fought for and dearly payed for(in blood) reasonable gun laws we have on the books. For the record: the NRA has not tried to weaken any gun laws on the books. the NRA is in favor of reasonable gun laws. In this incident, the weapons used by the shooter were NOT assault style weapons. They were two pistols with high capacity magazines. The key words here are HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES. The weapon used in the Arizona shootings in which congresswoman Gifford was shot was again a 9mm pistol with a high capacity magazine. BANNING ASSAULT OR MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED EITHER OF THESE TWO INCIDENTS. You want to prevent this from happening in the future? Do something about the number of rounds the shooter can fire before reloading. Now as I referred mike to, check out Charles Whitman and the UT Tower shooting. And yes, he was in a good position for what he was doing, BUT, he got his body count without an assault weapon, and without a high cap magazine for the weapons he had. When things like this happen, people want to ban assault weapons or handguns, or automatics. It is not the type of weapon that is the problem and the sooner anti gun proponents realize that, the easier it will be to actually coming up with gun laws that work. Banning assault weapons in the past did not stop multiple victim shootings, did nothing to reduce gun violence, and according to GOVERNMENT studies had little or no impact on gun related crime. When will you people learn that. IN case you have not noticed, there has not been an epidemic of mass murders in the United States. This kind of incident is not the norm, it a rare event in gun related violence. So please, do not think that extreme steps or gun laws will stop this from happening in the future. I and the majority of NRA members are in favor of reasonable, WORKABLE gun control laws. Some one in this thread said 40% of gun sales in the United States go without background checks. I would like to see where they got that information. You cannot go into ANY gun dealer in the US and buy a gun WITHOUT a background check, and since the enaction of the Brady bill, signed by a right wing saint, you cannot get a handgun at any dealer without a 7 day waiting period. Most gun related crimes in the United States DO NOT involve a legally purchased weapon. Check the facts yourself. Now consider the facts of this case, please. 1) the shooter was alleged to be mentally unstable, still waiting on the details. 2) the weapons were not his, not purchased by him, nor owned by him. They were registered to his mother. Not that it makes much difference, he had access to them. 3) Sane and reasonable people do not go out and commit mass murder, the exception being the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, and even then I am not sure those individuals were sane and reasonable. By the way, please refer to the incidence of gun violence in Israel, the number of guns in private hands in Israel, and the fact Israel has some very lax gun laws. And look at the statistics for the EU member states as well.

jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 5:42:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether The grand majority of those arms came from those US states with loose gun laws. Why was 'Fast and Furious' created? It was to help track firearms from point of sale to the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. To understand how the guns were purchases and from....WHOM....the guns were purchased. That's right, US Citizens that looked the other way (legally and morally), all in the name of capitalism! Those people are not doing your cause any favors; if anything, giving the gun control folks plenty of ammunition. And before you go blaming it all out President Obama, that program was created and was in active use during the previous administration. Curious your not blaming Republicans.... Before you go and make yourself look more of fool, see post 12 of this thread

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 6:01:13 AM)
quote: The Second Ammendment could and should be changed..but it WOULD cause much disruption (and paperwork). Let em at it. It can be revised as needed. But if it is changed in order to disarm, you are the one who needs history lessons, not I. Ok.. wow.... where did you get the idea that we would ever disarm the people? The 2nd was there because, at the time, we didnt have a militia that the government provided arms. In other words, citizens who were drafted or decided to join up had to bring their own. We also had citizens living on the "edge of civilization". 911 wasnt invented, people couldnt call the cops to come see why someone was lurking around. By horse back, some people lived half a day away from their closest neighbor. And, yes, the founders here wanted to ensure that the people would always have a way to stand up to government. But, please, dont mistake gun control with gun elimination.

igor2003 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 6:07:25 AM)
--FR-- I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information in this article, but it does make an interesting read concerning mass murder over the years. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 6:23:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Reading comprehension. [8\|] Go back and reread. Salient points follow. Sweden. Denmark. Norway. Compare those three. That's what I did. All three the same size. All three with closely comparable wealth. All three with a shared culture and a common ethnic composition. All three with nearly identical laws and politics. But. Dramatically different gun ownership. Different homicide rates. No correlation between those two variables in these three extremely comparable countries. By contrast, the small difference in economy correlates with the small difference in homicide rates. That correlation proves to hold when one compares to other countries. And don't even get me started on our "homogenous" population. IWYW, — Aswad. Sweden and Denmark's GDP is 60% of Norway's, that is a huge difference. However, gun crime in Scandinavia is on par with Britain which has many social and economic problems Scandinavia doesn't have, population density problems and is poorer (per capita) so Scandinavia does have an high number of gun deaths per 100,000 considering its advantages. Gun crime in France where laws are liberal and which has similar social problems to Britain, gun deaths are sky high with more than 20 times the gun deaths as Britain, Germany with more liberal gun laws than Britain but less liberal laws that France have around 9 times the gun deaths as Britain. There is a correlation when you weigh the statistics with socio-economic advantages and disavantages. A useful sight for comparisons with Norway

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 6:41:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Thank you Joether for the well thought out,reasonable point of view. That's laughable.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 6:44:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I heard a reference on the radio saying that the Bushmaster was found in the trunk of the car, and was never used. If that is correct (initial facts are still confused, I think), do you think that will delay for a moment efforts to claim this a tragedy that could have prevented, if only the assault rifle ban had been renewed? Certainly won`t prevent the rightist fantasy/alt-reality dicks from making shit up that doesn`t happen....... This shit is not normal and until the lunatic fringe/NRA types stop trying to make this shit the norm........desensitizing us to the violence,making us indifferent to the loss of loved ones,selling the crazy proposition that this crap is just a part of life(it`s not) and the cost of doing business........ we`ll never have an honest discussion. The NRA dicks (not to be confused with normal folks who favor reasonable gun regs) seem to trying to arm as many angry,unstable,self-made-victim, selfish adult children(and kids too for that matter) as possible. All the while trying to weaken the hard fought for and dearly payed for(in blood) reasonable gun laws we have on the books. For the record: the NRA has not tried to weaken any gun laws on the books. the NRA is in favor of reasonable gun laws. In this incident, the weapons used by the shooter were NOT assault style weapons. They were two pistols with high capacity magazines. The key words here are HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES. The weapon used in the Arizona shootings in which congresswoman Gifford was shot was again a 9mm pistol with a high capacity magazine. BANNING ASSAULT OR MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED EITHER OF THESE TWO INCIDENTS. You want to prevent this from happening in the future? Do something about the number of rounds the shooter can fire before reloading. Now as I referred mike to, check out Charles Whitman and the UT Tower shooting. And yes, he was in a good position for what he was doing, BUT, he got his body count without an assault weapon, and without a high cap magazine for the weapons he had. When things like this happen, people want to ban assault weapons or handguns, or automatics. It is not the type of weapon that is the problem and the sooner anti gun proponents realize that, the easier it will be to actually coming up with gun laws that work. Banning assault weapons in the past did not stop multiple victim shootings, did nothing to reduce gun violence, and according to GOVERNMENT studies had little or no impact on gun related crime. When will you people learn that. IN case you have not noticed, there has not been an epidemic of mass murders in the United States. This kind of incident is not the norm, it a rare event in gun related violence. So please, do not think that extreme steps or gun laws will stop this from happening in the future. I and the majority of NRA members are in favor of reasonable, WORKABLE gun control laws. Some one in this thread said 40% of gun sales in the United States go without background checks. I would like to see where they got that information. You cannot go into ANY gun dealer in the US and buy a gun WITHOUT a background check, and since the enaction of the Brady bill, signed by a right wing saint, you cannot get a handgun at any dealer without a 7 day waiting period. Most gun related crimes in the United States DO NOT involve a legally purchased weapon. Check the facts yourself. Now consider the facts of this case, please. 1) the shooter was alleged to be mentally unstable, still waiting on the details. 2) the weapons were not his, not purchased by him, nor owned by him. They were registered to his mother. Not that it makes much difference, he had access to them. 3) Sane and reasonable people do not go out and commit mass murder, the exception being the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, and even then I am not sure those individuals were sane and reasonable. By the way, please refer to the incidence of gun violence in Israel, the number of guns in private hands in Israel, and the fact Israel has some very lax gun laws. And look at the statistics for the EU member states as well. I have to respectfully disagree.. What outfit has campaigned successfully NOT to do background checks on 40% of guns sold....be they private sales or gun show sales?Who is trying to get concealed carry laws passed? Don`t say that because the NRA hasn`t been successful with CC that they aren`t bad faith players. All anyone has to do is google crazy Wayne LaPierre quotes to know the NRA are full of dangerous crackpots. Btw,I have agreed with just about 100% of your thoughts so far and would say I we feel the same regarding gun ownership.

jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 6:46:34 AM)
Some one said something to the effect that if the framers of the constitution would have foreseen that a firearm could fire 300 rounds a minute at a range of 300 yards, they would not have set up the 2nd amendment. First lets address the range point. I suggest you look up the death of General John Sedgwick during the American Civil war. The range was 1000 yards, the weapon, a black powder muzzle loader, a weapon little improved since the revolutionary war and the creation of the 2nd amendment. As for rate of fire. Unless the weapon is on full auto, the rate of fire is meaningless. Even a highly skilled shooter, with one exception that I saw on the Discovery Channel series "Sons of Guns" cannot fire a weapon at the highest rate of fire with any accuracy. Every time you pull the trigger of any semi automatic fire arm, there is some recoil and to accurately fire again, you have to reacquire your target, minimum elapsed time for a skilled shooter, about 1 second, longer if you have to acquire a new target, and this is if you are aiming at something specific. The only way you dont have to aim is in a crowd situation where all the people are in a close group. The shooting at Sandy Hook school started at 9:30, police dispatch put out the first notice of the shooting a 9:36, at 9:38 dispatch said that the shooting appeared to have stopped. Police on scene at 9:46. Why is the time line important? Simple, to get some idea of the VOLUME of fire, not rate of fire. In 8 minutes, the man killed 27 people, 20 of them children. That is one victim every 17.7 seconds, and I doubt that it was a one shot one kill situation. The point I am making is that rate of fire capability of the weapon is not the problem, hate to disappoint you people, but it isn't. Anyone that thinks it is does not know the first thing about firearms and shooting. I have not read anything about how the victims were found, and I could tell you more about how this happened from the point of a person who knows firearms. But from the point of view of someone that has been on the receiving end of high volumes of incoming fire, your first instinct is to find cover, and once you do, you dont want to leave it. I suspect that the victims did not try to leave the kill zone, they tried to hide behind or under desks, or they grouped up in some part of the room. This man took his time to do what he set out to do, coldly and efficiently. He did not randomly fire unless the victims huddled in a group, in which case it is like a using a camera, point and shoot. He did not depend on a high rate of fire to do what he did. So don't make the argument that if the gun had been slower he would not have killed as many as he did. He could have done basically the same thing with a double action revolver and a bunch of speed loaders, might have taken him a little longer but the results would have been the same.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 6:50:50 AM)
And I will ask again, why do you need a semi assault rifle? Why would anyone need a magazine that allowed someone to shoot off hundreds of rounds within 8 short minutes? Btw, the victims were found in 2 rooms. So, yeah, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/15/2012 7:10:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I have to respectfully disagree.. What outfit has campaigned successfully NOT to do background checks on 40% of guns sold....be they private sales or gun show sales? Btw,I have agreed with just about 100% of your thoughts so far and would say we feel the same regarding gun ownership. You are quoting Mayor Bloomberg on the 40% point. Now for the facts on that number, the information is 10 to 15 years out of date, and it did not just mean gun shows, it also meant the internet and private owners, who under the FEDERAL law are not required to do back ground checks. However, in 11 states background checks are required for some gun sales at gun shows, and in 7 of those states they are required on all gun sales. Now, may I point out that in this case, and the cases at Virginia Tech and Aurora Colorado, all the guns used were legally purchased, 3 of the 4 guns used at Columbine were purchased legally. Crimes involving guns are rarely committed with legally purchased weapons, but those crimes are not mass killings. Yes, I agree that there is a problem with gun show weapon sales. But in these crimes background checks were done. In fact, in this particular case, the weapons were legally registered to the shooters mother, not him. The problem is not assault weapons with high rates of fire, in this shooting, as in most mass shootings, the killer took his time, 17 seconds between victims. In this case he used two pistols. He could have managed the same thing with a double action revolver and speed loaders. So you tell me, what would a weapon ban have accomplished? What would a background check have accomplished? Research straw gun purchases. I also suggest you read my posts on how to really and completely prevent this kind of thing from happening again. I was not exaggerating, I was being serious. There are countries on this planet where it is illegal to own any kind of firearm, but they still have gun crimes.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625