PDA

View Full Version : CT school shooting: 20 kids 6 adults dead..



Pages : 1 [2] 3

eagle2
12-18-2012, 01:42 PM
PS banning 'assault weapons' discriminates against females with typically small physical stature ... a 12 pound hunting rifle and a 6 pound 'assault weapon' are capable of equal damage, and are equally 'light' for a 6 ft tall 200 pound guy, but I can tell you that the difference in size and weight makes a huge difference for a 5'3" 120 pound woman ( try trudging through the woods all day carrying a 12 pound rifle @@@ )

An assault weapon can do a lot more damage in a short amount of time than a hunting rifle, based on the fact it can fire more rpm and hold more ammunition.

I did a quick search and found non-automatic rifles that weigh less than 6 lbs. Here's one site:

http://www.newultralight.com/HTML/custom-rifles.html

rickdugan
12-18-2012, 02:24 PM
They often to do need protection and will get it. If something bad were to happen to anyone one of them, I wouldn't shed a tear, that's for sure. However, the anger can get taken out on the people forced to protect them and their 1st Amendment Rights, stuck in the middle, and it's not like that they have not had enough to deal with.

There is no way that it is going to go well if they show up at the school or any of the kids' funerals. That whole area is a cauldron just waiting to boil over. And if they plan on staying in CT they will need to do so far away from Newtown as I doubt that any of the local area hotels would dare to rent rooms to them.

There are several local groups mobilizing up there, along with some national groups. These wingnuts have also had their sites taken down and their names, addresses and email accounts published by Anonymous - I never thought that I would like hackers but there it is. Every single one of those nutjobs better be ready for a world of ongoing hurt and misery - and no cover of anonymity - if they actually decide to do this.

There are some things that are so heinous that they should just not be tolerated or forgiven.

Almost Jaded
12-18-2012, 02:36 PM
Well, it looks like the retards are gonna be running the circus. Legislation is being crafted. Expect within the month for the government to strip law abiding citizens of certain weapons (after the same administration just gave thousands of much more powerful weapons to Mexican cartels, LMAO), which will do NOTHING to prevent violent crime, but limit citizens ability to fight back. Congrats, ignorant fools - enjoy your warm fuzzy and false sense of security. This will do nothing to help. Nothing at all.

Dirty Ernie
12-18-2012, 03:48 PM
You can't stop crazy, but you shouldn't object to trying to limit the carnage.

Melonie
12-18-2012, 04:05 PM
Melonie - um - assault rifle? Please don't buy into the impossibly ignorant anti-gun definition and use that term incorrectly. PLEASE. An assault rifle is a clip, magazine, or belt fed rifle CAPABLE OF FULLY AUTOMATIC AND BURST FIRE. That's what an assault rifle is, that's all an assault rifle ever has been. With or without a pistol grip, with our without accessory rails. The media has been pushing the liberal politician's agenda that anything semi-automatic and having a pistol grip is an "assault weapon".


It. Was. Not. An. Assault. Rifle.


For the purposes of NY gov. Cuomo's ban on sales, a semi-auto rifle with a short barrel and plastic stock IS an 'assault rifle'. I was actually planning on buying a Panther LR260L to deer hunt with when I make my semi-annual return visit to the USA next year. Now I can't buy one, and will be stuck lugging around a long barrel wooden stock 12 pound hunting rifle ( again ).

So from that standpoint, IMHO the 'assault rifle' ban discriminates against women ... who have a smaller stature and benefit greatly from a smaller, lighter weight rifle. I'm hoping that the NY 'assault rifle' ban will allow an exception for custom built guns though ( i.e. NULA )

Of course, down here way south of the border, I can buy a MAC 10 without showing ID !!! Unfortunately, there's nothing to hunt in the way of big game down here ( that doesn't pose as great a risk to the hunter as the hunter poses to them ).

Almost Jaded
12-18-2012, 04:07 PM
Better screening for gun owners seeking more than a bolt-action rifle, sporting shotgun, or basic pistol. Fine. Oversight of private sales. Fine. Expand the Class III definition and make more detailed checks on people purchasing semi-automatic rifles and high capacity pistols - FINE. Mandatory training for permit carriers. FINE. And on and on. All of those have something in common - screening the PEOPLE, not limiting the tools. But while we're at it, let common sense prevail. Eliminate no-carry zones with an exception for areas with heavy LE presence at all times (court houses, police stations, airports, and so forth. But anywhere that doesn't have MULTIPLE trained, armed responders AT ALL TIMES - allow civilian conceal and open carry, period. THERE IS NO BETTER DETERRENT TO VIOLENT CRIMINALS.

Relying on LE for all situations like this is beyond asinine; it's straight up foolish. I have called to local police for "shots fired" twice. Once in 2001 - it took me 8 minutes of arguing to convince the dispatcher I knew the difference between a firecracker and gunshots (it was near the 4th of July), and a further 11 minutes for police to arrive. They found a man shot 6 times in the chest lying dead in teh parking lot. Thank God the shooter was only after him - he had 19 minutes of free reign in the area, which he used to escape. AFAIK, he was never apprehended. The second time was in my current neighborhood, just a few months ago. It took North Las Vegas Police THIRTY SIX MINUTES to arrive. Or let's talk about the shooting at a place I frequent a couple of years ago (I wasn't there that night). 5 men accosted another man in the parking lot. The man retrieved a gun from his car and shot the first attacker in the chest, than chased the others away. If he'd sat down and waited for police, all would have been well. But while walking back to his car past the guy he'd shot, he saw him trying to stand up. Walked over and put one in his head. Now it's murder 1. He got in his car and fled. Mind you - there were already over 50 calls to 911 before the 2nd shot was fired - there were a dozen before the 1st as people saw the altercation beginning. So why the story? Because police and paramedics WAITED 2 BLOCKS AWAY FOR BACKUP FOR 20 MINUTES EVEN AFTER BEING TOLD REPEATEDLY THAT THE SHOOTER HAD FLED IN A CAR. They refused to enter an area with an armed suspect without backup DESPITE THE FACT THAT OVER 200 UNARMED PEOPLE WERE THERE WITHOUT HELP IF IT HAD GONE THAT WAY. The coroner confirmed that even after the 2nd shot, the man shot twice would have been saved with immediate treatment - he didn't die of his injuries, he bled out.

That is not just Vegas, folks. If you are facing an armed criminal intent on doing you harm, armed civilians in the area are your best hope UNTIL police arrive - and until those that DO arrive gather enough info to act. The media reports the scary ones, but for every one of these you see, armed civilians stopped many, many more. Changing weapon availability to the general public without more detailed screening CHANGES NOTHING. The bad guys either already have the guns, or will bring them in. Probably the ones Obama just gave them, LMAO.

Almost Jaded
12-18-2012, 04:10 PM
South of the border I'm sure you can buy a lot more than that now, courtesy of the Obama administration and the ATFE, LMAO!!

Kellydancer
12-18-2012, 05:14 PM
Well, I think many of us know Obama thinks more highly of Mexican drug cartel than us but that's another topic.

Anyway, I think those of us who lived in dangerous areas realize that sometimes you need a gun. I lived in an area with lots of gang members and a guy who sold guns illegally. This area also "forgot" at times to send a cop. If I lived in this area still (moved over 10 years ago)you better believe I'd own several guns ready to aim at the first sense of danger.

Don't get me wrong I am not opposed to background checks and all of that to buy a gun legally. However, many crimes are committed by people who bought guns ILLEGALLY.

Djoser
12-18-2012, 07:12 PM
Alright, we start bringing up Obama it goes to Games & Puzzles. I should have known better than to even think of replying myself to a clearly politically charged thread.

Now let's keep it to mourning the tragic loss and away from legislation concerning guns, so I don't have to close the thread. Me too.

Djoser
12-18-2012, 07:12 PM
Alright, we start bringing up Obama it goes to Games & Puzzles. I should have known better than to even think of replying myself to a clearly politically charged thread.

Now let's keep it to mourning the tragic loss and away from legislation concerning guns, so I don't have to close the thread. Me too.

Eye
12-18-2012, 08:40 PM
Alright, we start bringing up Obama it goes to Games & Puzzles. I should have known better than to even think of replying myself to a clearly politically charged thread.

Now let's keep it to mourning the tragic loss and away from legislation concerning guns, so I don't have to close the thread. Me too.

why? Just because the president was mentioned, it gets buried? That doesn't make any sense. Are you worried about fall out or what? So confused.

Eye
12-18-2012, 08:41 PM
So any topic is ok, as long as we don't mention Obama. hmmm. Are you worried about the Gov watching this site?

Smurfette
12-18-2012, 09:12 PM
^^ LOL no, it's because debating politics is against the rules of this forum. We used to have a lot of political threads but the topic got banned because too many people were getting upset/angry, which tends to happen with politics...

Djoser
12-18-2012, 09:21 PM
Precisely. I am actually supposed to close and/or delete any and all political threads, and point people for continuing to post on political topics.

Instead I usually move them here where they can quietly fade away.

Obama is very much a politician, just as his opponents in the US government are.

Thank you for your co-operation.

;D

eagle2
12-19-2012, 12:21 AM
Not to pick on you smurfette, you just provided the perfect quote to bring the anti-gun crowd under a convenient banner.

eagle, loveshooks, roat, smurfette - you've been the most vocal of teh anti-gun people in these discussions. So I would like to ask you - what is your experience with firearms? Have you ever handled one AT ALL? If so - more than once? Learned how to use and handle them, maintain them, etc? My guess is no. I don't know a single person that knows ANYTHING about firearms that feels like that quote above. At a party this weekend, I brought my new 1911 to show a couple of our friends who knew I picked it up. Opened the case, dropped the mag, checked that the chamber was clear, and handed it across the table. The reactions around the table were fascinating. Several people actually recoiled away from teh table like there was a live grenade in front of them. Magazine dropped, chamber clear - any one of those people could have picked up their steak knife or fork and been better armed and more dangerous than this useless lump of metal in that condition. And yet, when my friend took it and closed the slide, two people FLINCHED. For what? I told him "dude - feel the trigger on that thing, it's awesome." One lady freaked on me - "how can you tell him to pull the trigger in a crowded area?!!!" Seriously? He did. "click". I think 2 of them shit themselves.

Why that story? People are scared of things they don't know. If all you know about guns is movies and TV and stories from the news - well shit - of course you don't want them in your schools. They're scary evil death-dealing devices and everyone near anyone who carries one is in danger!! Aaaaahh!!

You're above statements has nothing to do with my views. All things being equal, I couldn't care less how many people do or don't own a gun, or what type of gun they own. The main issue for me is how many people are killed by guns. If our murder rate was as low as other modern industrialized countries that have much stricter gun control laws, this wouldn't be a major issue for me, but that's not the case. The U.S. has a far higher murder rate than any other modern industrialized country, and guns are used to kill people far more than any other weapon. It's clear to me that our lax gun laws are a major reason why so many people are killed by guns.



Guys, I don't know how to tell you this other than to put it straight out there. You're acting out of ignorance. Ignorance, naivety, fear, denial - and more.

No, I'm acting based on fact. It's a fact that the U.S. has by far, the highest murder rate of any modern, industrialized country. It's a fact that guns are used far more than any other weapon to murder people.



You say we sound like "gun obsessed wanna-be vigilantes" (quote from another board I'm arguing on, a nice summation), but WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!! All the scary stories and accidents you hear about, all the horrible stories... You realize that those are like, such a tiny fraction that it defies measurement, right? Ever hear the phrase "In other news, 270 million OTHER guns didn't kill anyone today?" We use it a lot. It's accurate.


The issue isn't how many guns didn't kill anyone. It's how many guns DID kill someone.




If you applied the same logic to cars that you do to guns - OMG, that's like, laughable. Gun accidents are one in over 100,000 owners.

I doubt that. According to this study, just among children, more than 20,000 go to U.S. emergency rooms with gun injuries each year. 37 percent of these injuries were accidental.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/guns-wound-30-percent-kids-study-finds/story?id=14741514#.UNFisayz6RM




Violent uses are even less than that unless you count violent criminals with illegal weapon, gangs, etc - which is kind of the point, right? I mean, they're going to have them, so we shouldn't?

How do you know they would have them if there were stricter gun laws? I would bet that most guns used by criminals originated from someone who bought those guns legally, or were legally bought by the criminals themselves. Any criminal can walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun.



Cars accidents are 1 in TWO. HALF of all owners will have at least one accident. Cut that to serious accidents with injuries and/or death - STILL MORE THAN 10X THE NUMBERS FROM GUNS.

I doubt very much your numbers are accurate. It's my guess that you're comparing annual figures from guns, to lifetime figures for cars. One in two cars don't get in accidents every year.


Know what else? Cars are used to kill people too. When that lady backed over her husband SEVEN TIMES, where were the cries to ban cars?


10,000 people aren't being murdered by cars every year.



To carefully screen owners for emotional problems? To deny licenses to people with a history of domestic violence or with warrants? Hmm. Weird. What if she'd shot him? Once even, not even 7x. Yup - suddenly the TOOL is the problem, not the person. Run over him with a car - crazy person. Shoot them - THE GUN MADE THEM DO IT!!!!!!!!!!


You don't seem to be able to understand the issue. The issue isn't just that guns kill people. It's that guns are used to kill people far more often than any other weapon. How many people do you seriously think are killed by someone who intentionally runs them over with a car?



Guns aren't bad. They aren't even really dangerous


They are very dangerous when someone is trying to kill you with one.



- far less so than many things you handle and operate every day. Are you scred to walk into a Bank of America because there are armed guards there? Are children raised on or near military bases in danger because there are weapons ALL AROUND THEM? Parents who send their kids to military school should be charged with child endangerment!! C'mon. Stop being afraid of a piece of metal. Learn about firearms. God forbid - GO SHOOTING. Than get back to us. Right now... Paint us as crazy or backward or redneck or whatever you want, but the 2A crowd in these debates are NOT the ones talking out of our asses. We know what we're talking about. YOU. DO. NOT.

No, you think you know what you're talking about. Not all of your statements seem accurate. Some of your arguments are illogical, such as trying to equate cars with guns because one woman ran over her husband seven times, while disregarding the fact that 10,000 people a year are murdered with guns.

Almost Jaded
12-19-2012, 04:42 AM
You're above statements has nothing to do with my views. All things being equal, I couldn't care less how many people do or don't own a gun, or what type of gun they own. The main issue for me is how many people are killed by guns. If our murder rate was as low as other modern industrialized countries that have much stricter gun control laws, this wouldn't be a major issue for me, but that's not the case. The U.S. has a far higher murder rate than any other modern industrialized country, and guns are used to kill people far more than any other weapon.

If everything y0ou said made this much sense, I wouldn't be in disagreement with you...


It's clear to me that our lax gun laws are a major reason why so many people are killed by guns.

...and then you say this. Israel. Switzerland. Two examples of industrialized nations with gun ownership - and even ILLEGAL gun ownership percentages up there with ours - and with murder rates down there with Canada's. THE TOOL IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Why is it so hard to understand the thought behind the phrase (now a slogan) "guns don't kill people; people kill people". It's that easy. Limiting the guns does not limit the crazy. People intent on harming a classroom full of kids are going to do it. BTW - if this particular crazy had resorted to explosives and/or chemicals, there would be a lot more than 26 dead.

The statistics in that study you quote are infamously flawed, and it's well known. Only anti-gun people with their heads in the sand ever bother to quote those numbers anymore (I'm assuming maybe you just didn't know that). They include underage gang members in those numbers, and once the sample was altered to account for that, the numbers dropped below everyday causes like swimming pools and bike accidents.

Nope, lifetime numbers for both.

WAY mroe than 10,000 people are killed by cars every year. Murdered? Well, that depends. IMO, people KNOWINGLY driving drunk and causing a fatal accident should be charged with murder, but I'm a little extreme like that. But for the record, alcohol-related deaths in this country total an average of THIRTY-FIVE PER DAY. That FAR outstrips all gun deaths. So by your logic, we should return to prohibition, right? It makes perfect sense. In fact, real numbers would indicate that banning alcohol would dramatically reduce both automobile AND firearm related fatalities. So let's get our priorities straight here!!

Yes they are very dangerous when someone is trying to kill you with one. And the single best known deterrent to that is having one to point back at them.

Your claims that I don't know what I'm talking about and my arguments are flawed is curtailing the point of the statement I made. The majority of people on the anti-gun bandwagon know nothing about guns. They react instinctively based on concepts derived from TV and movies and the fear-mongering media. If you want to get into a fact-by-fact debate, let's do it like this:

Of the 10k people you say are killed by guns in the U.S. every year, how many would have been killed anyway, by other means, had firearms not been available? Impossible to know - but guns going away doesn't save ALL of them. Also note, that in your 10k number, you are counting ALL firearm deaths. How many of those are bad guys and violent criminals? Sorry, but I gotta say - their deaths belong in a different category.

Alcohol is responsible for far more deaths in the U.S. than guns, and in fact is responsible for or a factor in, many of the gun-deaths, as well as car deaths, on top of other forms of violent death, before we even address medical deaths from alcoholism - but the left isn't trying to ban alcohol, despite the inarguable fact that it would be FAR more beneficial for society than pointless gun laws.

The guns are already out there, both in the states and outside. Limiting what *I* can buy does *NOTHING* to limit what the bad guys can get on teh street or across a border. The L.A. shootout happened with *ILLEGAL* full-auto AK-47's. A large number of your 10k "gun deaths" are by illegally obtained weapons used by criminals against either other criminals or innocent people. Feinsteins's dumb ass never addresses this, and in fact often tries to skirt the question altogether.

All things considered, bad parenting, alcohol and drugs, and poor mental health care accounts for *MOST* of your gun deaths. Focus on those problems, and leave gun owners alone. You will save *FAR* more lives than meaningless magazine restrictions and so-called "assault weapon" bans.

Eric Stoner
12-19-2012, 08:54 AM
Trying to keep this as apolitical as possible I will avoid commenting on the usual "political" responses by the "usual suspects" and just try to keep things as factual as possible.

1. If "Almost Jaded" was commenting on the often nebulous, slippery and often facile definition of "assault weapon" then I have to agree with him that a lot of weapons were confused with "assault rifles".

2. Machine guns i.e. weapons that discharge continuous fire with a single trigger depression have been illegal in private hands since 1934. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 and is SUPPOSED to be a single shot weapon. There are illegal converter kits that can convert it to a "machine gun".

3. The previous Assault Weapons Ban that was in effect for 10 years from 1994 to 2004 had ZERO positive effect. The gun murder rate was not affected one bit and when it lapsed the rate did not go up.

4. More LEGAL guns = less crime. In states that have passed "right to carry " laws the crime rate has gone down. In Chicago and D.C. with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the gun murder rate is among the highest in the country.

5. Please Note Well. "3" and "4" are just based on the FBI numbers. Advocates for and against stricter gun laws can play with the numbers and try to explain and spin them in various ways to support their respective positions. To paraphrase myself from various economic discussions : " If you don't like the numbers, please take it up with the FBI."

6. Parts of Canada have rather high gun ownership and very low rates of gun violence. So do several U.S. states. It is obviously MORE than just LEGAL gun ownership that accounts for our relatively high rate of gun violence.

7. Other than the nut who blew up the school in the 1920's and the Texas "tower shooter" of the mid-60's, it seems that almost all of these massacres occurred after the so called mental health reforms of the 1970's. Clearly the perpertrators of these horrendous atrocities were mentally ill and I respectfully suggest that we direct our focus to mental health and away from gun laws. As I've said and as the numbers indicate, restricting gun ownership only makes criminals safer.
Right, wrong, fair or unfair , we have dramatically raised the bar for confinement and compelled treatment. In almost all cases , there has to have been acts of violence for someone to be labelled a danger to self or others enabling the state to confine them against their will. Something like 1/3 of our jail and prison population is mentally ill. Depending on who you talk to , anywhere from 2/3 to 90 % of the homeless have some sort of mental problem.

8. I am admittedly venturing into an area where I am NOT qualified BUT the question has been raised , in good faith afaic , whether we are overmedicating our kids and whether said overmedication is causing or worsening things like ADHD , OCD , Asberger's and even autism. I don't know, but I do know that these medications affect brain chemistry and I doubt anyone can claim that the perpetrators of these massacres had "normal" brain chemistry. I do know that psychiatrists have become hand maidens for the pharmaceutical industry. I am also aware of programs that treat mental illness in children without medication or at least have been able to lower the dosage. I also know that such programs tend to be more expensive than just pushing pills.

Kellydancer
12-19-2012, 12:52 PM
Regarding Chicago though, there are many other factors involved with why it has a high crime rate and gun usage is only part of it. Basically the societal issues with Chicago play a part in the issue not just guns. I think the same is true of DC too.

I think one thing about this that bothers me is how guns became a Dem/Rep issue. I know pro gun Dems and anti gun Reps but often it seems like a all/none issue with both. Contrary to what many believe I am not a Republican at all, nor a gun lover, just that I see the hypocrisy in this issue because if you take away guns you won't have a peaceful society, what you will have is a society where criminals still get guns and non criminals won't. Also, someone with intent to kill will kill no matter what, whether it is guns, knives, or bombs. McVeigh killed 168 people without a gun.

eagle2
12-19-2012, 08:24 PM
If everything y0ou said made this much sense, I wouldn't be in disagreement with you...



...and then you say this. Israel. Switzerland. Two examples of industrialized nations with gun ownership - and even ILLEGAL gun ownership percentages up there with ours - and with murder rates down there with Canada's.

Israel and Switzerland have much stricter gun control laws and lower gun ownership rates than the US.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089893




THE TOOL IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Why is it so hard to understand the thought behind the phrase (now a slogan) "guns don't kill people; people kill people". It's that easy. Limiting the guns does not limit the crazy. People intent on harming a classroom full of kids are going to do it.

THE TOOL IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. When "people kill people", their weapon of choice is most often a gun. Limiting the guns does not limit the crazy, but it does make it much more difficult for crazy people to kill others. People intent on harming a classroom full of kids are going to TRY do it. Having access to guns, especially automatic or semi-automatic guns, makes it much more likely they will succeed. In China, a crazy person was intent on harming schoolchildren, but did not have access to a semi-automatic rifle, so he used a knife instead. As a result, not a single child was killed.



. BTW - if this particular crazy had resorted to explosives and/or chemicals, there would be a lot more than 26 dead.

So why didn't he use explosives or chemicals? What makes you think he had the ability to do such a thing? How many people use explosives or chemicals as their weapon of choice to kill people, as opposed to guns?



The statistics in that study you quote are infamously flawed, and it's well known. Only anti-gun people with their heads in the sand ever bother to quote those numbers anymore (I'm assuming maybe you just didn't know that). They include underage gang members in those numbers, and once the sample was altered to account for that, the numbers dropped below everyday causes like swimming pools and bike accidents.

Because you disagree with it, doesn't make it flawed. Please show your references if you dispute the figures.



Nope, lifetime numbers for both.

There's no possible way that only one in 100,000 gun owners will injure themselves or someone else during their lifetime.



WAY mroe than 10,000 people are killed by cars every year. Murdered? Well, that depends. IMO, people KNOWINGLY driving drunk and causing a fatal accident should be charged with murder, but I'm a little extreme like that. But for the record, alcohol-related deaths in this country total an average of THIRTY-FIVE PER DAY. That FAR outstrips all gun deaths. So by your logic, we should return to prohibition, right? It makes perfect sense. In fact, real numbers would indicate that banning alcohol would dramatically reduce both automobile AND firearm related fatalities. So let's get our priorities straight here!!

No, gun deaths far outstrip alcohol-related deaths in this country, if you include accidents and suicide. Approximately 85 people die each day from guns. Based on current trends, gun deaths are on pace to pass automobile deaths in 2015.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html



Yes they are very dangerous when someone is trying to kill you with one. And the single best known deterrent to that is having one to point back at them.

A much better deterrent is to prevent a potential murderer from getting a gun in the first place.



Your claims that I don't know what I'm talking about and my arguments are flawed is curtailing the point of the statement I made. The majority of people on the anti-gun bandwagon know nothing about guns. They react instinctively based on concepts derived from TV and movies and the fear-mongering media. If you want to get into a fact-by-fact debate, let's do it like this:

Of the 10k people you say are killed by guns in the U.S. every year, how many would have been killed anyway, by other means, had firearms not been available? Impossible to know - but guns going away doesn't save ALL of them. Also note, that in your 10k number, you are counting ALL firearm deaths. How many of those are bad guys and violent criminals? Sorry, but I gotta say - their deaths belong in a different category.

Nobody says that if guns were to go away, all murders would stop, but based on the fact that it's far easier to kill people with guns than any other method, I think it's safe to say that a lot of those people murdered, wouldn't have been, if their assailant didn't have a gun.

My 10k number strictly applies to murder. If you count all firearm deaths, the number is closer to 30k.



Alcohol is responsible for far more deaths in the U.S. than guns, and in fact is responsible for or a factor in, many of the gun-deaths, as well as car deaths, on top of other forms of violent death, before we even address medical deaths from alcoholism - but the left isn't trying to ban alcohol, despite the inarguable fact that it would be FAR more beneficial for society than pointless gun laws.

No, gun deaths exceed alcohol deaths.



The guns are already out there, both in the states and outside. Limiting what *I* can buy does *NOTHING* to limit what the bad guys can get on teh street or across a border. The L.A. shootout happened with *ILLEGAL* full-auto AK-47's. A large number of your 10k "gun deaths" are by illegally obtained weapons used by criminals against either other criminals or innocent people. Feinsteins's dumb ass never addresses this, and in fact often tries to skirt the question altogether.

How do you know that those AK-47's weren't originally bought legally as semi-automatic, and then converted to fully automatic?

How do you know what the bad guys would be able to get on the streets if there were stricter gun laws here? If it's so easy to get guns across the border, why do Mexican drug cartels get so many guns from the US?



All things considered, bad parenting, alcohol and drugs, and poor mental health care accounts for *MOST* of your gun deaths. Focus on those problems, and leave gun owners alone. You will save *FAR* more lives than meaningless magazine restrictions and so-called "assault weapon" bans.

There are people focusing on those problems and we're still having lots of gun deaths. It's common sense that if it were more difficult for those people to obtain guns, there would be far less people being killed by guns.

eagle2
12-19-2012, 08:51 PM
3. The previous Assault Weapons Ban that was in effect for 10 years from 1994 to 2004 had ZERO positive effect. The gun murder rate was not affected one bit and when it lapsed the rate did not go up.

How do you know there wouldn't have been more deaths from 1994 to 2004 without the Assault Weapons Ban? I don't remember there being as many mass shootings back then as there are today.

In Australia, after a 1996 mass shooting, Australia passed restrictive gun laws. Since then, there hasn't been another one. In addition, the number of homicides by firearms decreased significantly, with no increase in non-firearm-related homicides.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html



4. More LEGAL guns = less crime. In states that have passed "right to carry " laws the crime rate has gone down. In Chicago and D.C. with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, the gun murder rate is among the highest in the country.

NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and also one of the lowest, or lowest murder rates of all the major cities.

D.C. has seen a HUGE decline in the number of murders, going from 482 in 1991 to 108 in 2011.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm




6. Parts of Canada have rather high gun ownership and very low rates of gun violence. So do several U.S. states. It is obviously MORE than just LEGAL gun ownership that accounts for our relatively high rate of gun violence.

The issue isn't just the gun ownership rate, but how easy it is for anyone to legally purchase a gun, or lots of guns. I'm not too familiar with Canada's gun laws, but I would bet that in Canada, any person can't just walk into a gun show and purchase a few semi-automatic rifles.



7. Other than the nut who blew up the school in the 1920's and the Texas "tower shooter" of the mid-60's, it seems that almost all of these massacres occurred after the so called mental health reforms of the 1970's. Clearly the perpertrators of these horrendous atrocities were mentally ill and I respectfully suggest that we direct our focus to mental health and away from gun laws. As I've said and as the numbers indicate, restricting gun ownership only makes criminals safer.

Stricter gun laws would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.



Right, wrong, fair or unfair , we have dramatically raised the bar for confinement and compelled treatment. In almost all cases , there has to have been acts of violence for someone to be labelled a danger to self or others enabling the state to confine them against their will. Something like 1/3 of our jail and prison population is mentally ill. Depending on who you talk to , anywhere from 2/3 to 90 % of the homeless have some sort of mental problem.


According to this study of homicides from a representative sample, it found approximately 4.3% of the assailants had a history of mental illness.

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

The study is from 1988, but this is still after the mental health reforms that you mentioned.

Almost Jaded
12-19-2012, 09:01 PM
Tell you what - instead of going point by point - which will never end, because I'll call BS on you and you on me - why don't I just say this. Explain to me how restricting the sales of only certain weapons to 95% of the LEGAL gun owners in teh U.S. will make one shit-lick of difference.

P.S. - whilst listing NYC and DC - both of which launched MASSIVE actions against gangs and other criminals which had nothing to do with gun control - you failed to mention Chicago, with arguably the strictest gun control in the nation. Is that because it hasn't done jack fucking shit in that city, and in fact crime has been on the rise?

Kellydancer
12-19-2012, 09:29 PM
Btw living in an area in Cook County that went from upper middle class to low income (and high crime)turned me from a far left "ban guns no matter what" to a more centrist Libertarian. If any of you anti gun people saw this change with your own eyes I guarantee you would rethink your view on guns. In fact I lived across the street from a guy selling guns to gang members (and also running a prostitution ring).

BlkSharpie
12-19-2012, 09:37 PM
I wish this topic hadnt spiraled into an argument about gun control...the initial subject, is I think, a pretty worthy one on its own and whether guns are legal are not has no bearing on the effect of a sick psycho pulling a weapon out to kill defenseless children.

Anyway...kiddo told me today that there is a rumour going around her school that there is going to be a shooting on Friday. She heard two kids talking about it in her 2nd period class, and she thought they were just being insensitive and stupid considering what just happened in CT. But then in her 3rd period class, her teacher addressed the class about the supposed shooting thats supposed to happen. And in another class, her teachers brother works for LE, he called up his brother to let him know what was going on, and got things in motion for them to work with the school so that there would be heavy police presence in and around school that day, and by her last class, most of the kids said they were going to stay home on Fri cause they are so freaked out.

No one know really where or how the rumour started...but of course theyre taking it seriously. Its a sick and stupid prank if its not for real...and its just plain sick and stupid if it is for real. Im glad to see that the teachers and her school are being hypervigilant about it. But also absolutely terrified...the year before she started school there, there was a stabbing her at school. And she goes to school in one of the nicest / wealthist areas of Miami, not some inner city type school. You really just never know. Im really praying its a prank though.

just4you
12-19-2012, 10:16 PM
Country 1: We should attack country 2, they are developing nuclear weapons, that can destroy the World.

Country 2: No, nuclear weapons don't kill people on their own. It's the human beings whod do that. We should not deter nuclear weapons. Infact, all the countries should have nuclear weapons, so that they can protect themselves.

Kellydancer
12-20-2012, 01:13 AM
I wish this topic hadnt spiraled into an argument about gun control...the initial subject, is I think, a pretty worthy one on its own and whether guns are legal are not has no bearing on the effect of a sick psycho pulling a weapon out to kill defenseless children.

Anyway...kiddo told me today that there is a rumour going around her school that there is going to be a shooting on Friday. She heard two kids talking about it in her 2nd period class, and she thought they were just being insensitive and stupid considering what just happened in CT. But then in her 3rd period class, her teacher addressed the class about the supposed shooting thats supposed to happen. And in another class, her teachers brother works for LE, he called up his brother to let him know what was going on, and got things in motion for them to work with the school so that there would be heavy police presence in and around school that day, and by her last class, most of the kids said they were going to stay home on Fri cause they are so freaked out.

No one know really where or how the rumour started...but of course theyre taking it seriously. Its a sick and stupid prank if its not for real...and its just plain sick and stupid if it is for real. Im glad to see that the teachers and her school are being hypervigilant about it. But also absolutely terrified...the year before she started school there, there was a stabbing her at school. And she goes to school in one of the nicest / wealthist areas of Miami, not some inner city type school. You really just never know. Im really praying its a prank though.

It is so sad and sick what is going on. Yesterday I went to teach religious ed at church and now the doors are locked no matter what and you have to buzz to come in. I stood at the door waiting for the kids and as soon as they were in the door was locked. The kids were asking me about it and I had no idea what to say because there is no justification for what happened. The fact is no matter what someone thinks about guns, there shouldn't have been 20 dead kids (and 7 dead adults).

BlkSharpie
12-20-2012, 05:32 AM
The fact is no matter what someone thinks about guns, there shouldn't have been 20 dead kids (and 7 dead adults).

Thats exactly how I feel too.

Almost Jaded
12-20-2012, 06:35 AM
Country 1: We should attack country 2, they are developing nuclear weapons, that can destroy the World.

Country 2: No, nuclear weapons don't kill people on their own. It's the human beings whod do that. We should not deter nuclear weapons. Infact, all the countries should have nuclear weapons, so that they can protect themselves.

Are you trying to make a point here? Because you failed miserably if that was your aim. First off - unlike with nukes - the bad guys already HAVE the weapons. So the REAL comparison here would be more like this: Nukes are bad, so we're going to sign a treaty to ban them. And America, France, Great Britain, Israel, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world that has managed to be responsible with them so far will give them up, and destroy all their stockpiles to make the world safer!! And taking those nukes away from the responsible nations will make the world a safer place, despite the fact that Iran, Libya, North Korea, and their like will now be the only ones with nukes!! WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

rickdugan
12-20-2012, 07:40 AM
Look, the 2nd Amendment exists for a reason, which is to provide the populace with a means to resist tyranny. That need has not gone away. There is a good reason why the first thing that every newly established dictator does is disarm the populace, a practice which even pre-dates firearms. Anyone who believes that the United States is immune from ever facing this type of problem has a very limited understanding of world history.

As it is, the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment have been significantly watered down due to the advancements in firearm technology and limitations on what the civilian population is allowed to own. Remember, back when this amendment was passed, muskets and single shot handguns were still in use.

I am devastated by what happened in Newtown, but the only lesson here is that one nutjob did a horrific thing. But let us not forget that legions of people throughout the history of this country who have died in order to procure us the very freedoms that we have today, including those provided by the 2nd Amendment. Using the deaths of these little angels in order to justify further weakening those freedoms both devalues the sacrifices made by our ancestors and is nothing more than disgusting political opportunism.

Almost Jaded
12-20-2012, 08:15 AM
Rick and AJ in complete agreement on an issue. On December 20th, 2012. Coincidence? I think not. :P

Eric Stoner
12-20-2012, 08:28 AM
How do you know there wouldn't have been more deaths from 1994 to 2004 without the Assault Weapons Ban? I don't remember there being as many mass shootings back then as there are today.

In Australia, after a 1996 mass shooting, Australia passed restrictive gun laws. Since then, there hasn't been another one. In addition, the number of homicides by firearms decreased significantly, with no increase in non-firearm-related homicides.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html


NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and also one of the lowest, or lowest murder rates of all the major cities.

D.C. has seen a HUGE decline in the number of murders, going from 482 in 1991 to 108 in 2011.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm


The issue isn't just the gun ownership rate, but how easy it is for anyone to legally purchase a gun, or lots of guns. I'm not too familiar with Canada's gun laws, but I would bet that in Canada, any person can't just walk into a gun show and purchase a few semi-automatic rifles.


Stricter gun laws would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.



According to this study of homicides from a representative sample, it found approximately 4.3% of the assailants had a history of mental illness.

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

The study is from 1988, but this is still after the mental health reforms that you mentioned.

Simple. We can look at the gun murder rate BEFORE the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and the rate while it was in effect and the rate AFTER it lapsed. It had no discernable effect on the gun murder rate. That being said, I personally do not have a problem with banning certain weapons and high capacity clips.

I do not have a problem with banning sales at gun shows. I have repeatedly said that owning a gun should be like owning a car. Both should require licensing and registration.

Your study looked at ALL murders. We are talking about MASS MURDERS. Are you aware of a single one where the perpetrator was SANE ?

My focus is NOT on the guns. It is on Mental Health. Something that I am very much in favor of and which I think we need more of. Don't you ?

eagle2
12-20-2012, 08:37 AM
Your study looked at ALL murders. We are talking about MASS MURDERS. Are you aware of a single one where the perpetrator was SANE ?

As far as I know, Timothy McVeigh was.



My focus is NOT on the guns. It is on Mental Health. Something that I am very much in favor of and which I think we need more of. Don't you ?

I agree with you on this.

Almost Jaded
12-20-2012, 08:49 AM
At least we all agree on SOMETHING!

Smurfette
12-20-2012, 10:13 AM
As it is, the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment have been significantly watered down due to the advancements in firearm technology and limitations on what the civilian population is allowed to own. Remember, back when this amendment was passed, muskets and single shot handguns were still in use.

What are you trying to say, exactly? That the founding fathers intended for civilians to have access to all firearms including military-grade weaponry?


Using the deaths of these little angels in order to justify further weakening those freedoms both devalues the sacrifices made by our ancestors and is nothing more than disgusting political opportunism.

Further weakening? Gun control laws in the US are already extremely lax and for the most part gun laws have been loosened in recent years, not tightened. You have an extremely powerful lobbying group in the NRA that pretty much guarantees that no significant gun control legislation will pass. Although it looks like there's enough outrage over Sandy Hook for some changes to finally be enacted.

Wanting to change a system that allows mentally unstable individuals to easily get their hands on legally purchased assault weapons is not political opportunism, it's trying to find a solution to a problem. You could just as easily say that all this frothing at the mouth over expanding concealed carry laws and insisting that we arm teachers and put armed guards in school, is also political opportunism. And you guys are the ones with a corporate industry worth billions of dollars backing you... one that cares more about its bottom line than it does about dead kids.

rickdugan
12-20-2012, 11:27 AM
What are you trying to say, exactly? That the founding fathers intended for civilians to have access to all firearms including military-grade weaponry?

In a sense, yes. Civilians DID have access to the same types of weapons that were issued to the military at that time. If that had not been the case, we would very likely still be a British colony.


Further weakening? Gun control laws in the US are already extremely lax and for the most part gun laws have been loosened in recent years, not tightened. You have an extremely powerful lobbying group in the NRA that pretty much guarantees that no significant gun control legislation will pass. Although it looks like there's enough outrage over Sandy Hook for some changes to finally be enacted.

Wanting to change a system that allows mentally unstable individuals to easily get their hands on legally purchased assault weapons is not political opportunism, it's trying to find a solution to a problem. You could just as easily say that all this frothing at the mouth over expanding concealed carry laws and insisting that we arm teachers and put armed guards in school, is also political opportunism. And you guys are the ones with a corporate industry worth billions of dollars backing you... one that cares more about its bottom line than it does about dead kids.

The gun laws are restrictive enough to put the civilian population at a significant disadvantage should our government ever become a dictatorship. And the reality is that you cannot completely limit access to guns to nutjobs without also taking them out of the hands of everyone. In fact, the wingnut who shot the kids stole his mother's guns in order to do it.

That was an awful lot of hyperbole packed into that last little paragraph. ;) It is easy to act out of grief over the death of these little children as we are far removed from the millions who died so that we could be free in the first place. A freedom given up can seldom be reclaimed and makes us that much more vulnerable to the misdeeds of future governments.

I hear that China has very low crime rates and is very safe, at least if the government doesn't dislike you for any reason. Would you really want to raise your children in that repressed society?

Sophia_Starina
12-20-2012, 11:36 AM
The gun laws are restrictive enough to put the civilian population at a significant disadvantage should our government ever become a dictatorship.

A freedom given up can seldom be reclaimed and makes us that much more vulnerable to the misdeeds of future governments.

I hear that China has very low crime rates and is very safe, at least if the government doesn't dislike you for any reason. Would you really want to raise your children in that repressed society?

Why are you so scared of the government? What indications has the government given you that they are considering becoming some sort of omnipotent dictatorship and enslaving American citizens?

The concept is such a long shot that it hardly warrants discussion.

rickdugan
12-20-2012, 12:05 PM
Why are you so scared of the government? What indications has the government given you that they are considering becoming some sort of omnipotent dictatorship and enslaving American citizens?

The concept is such a long shot that it hardly warrants discussion.

Nobody ever thinks that it can happen to their government, until it does. The founding fathers understood this all too well, which is precisely why the constitution was crafted the way that it was. Even during their time, history was packed full of examples of exactly this. Human beings crave power and control and, in some cases, it happens simply because politicians adopt the false belief that they are in a better position to decide what is best for the people than the people themselves are.

How many of the largest industrialized countries are, even now, heavily controlled by centralized governments? Do you think that the people who lived in these places before these governments came to power ever thought that it could happen to them?

Nazi Germany was actually democratic until Hitler rose to power and nobody could have imagined what was to come. He, too, was so worried about the safety of the people that he disarmed them - and then eventually slaughtered millions of them.

And do you know how Castro won over Cuba? By promising schools, hospitals and free elections. And, of course, he enacted stringent gun control laws - in order to keep the population safe of course. ;) We all know how that went.

The list goes on. Our politicians are human beings like anywhere else and we are no more immune to power grabs than is any other government.

Eric Stoner
12-20-2012, 12:38 PM
As far as I know, Timothy McVeigh was.



I agree with you on this.

McVeigh made a BOMB. He didn't use a gun. It's good question whether or not he was "sane". Did he have a grip on reality ? Yes. Did he know what he was doing and that it was wrong ? Yes. Was he a psychopath ? Absolutely. Should he have been denied access to guns if at all possible ? Definitely. Many countries require psychological screening to own a firearm. I don't have a big problem with that.

Btw, I looked up the numbers from "Down Under". In 1997 Australia banned certain types of assault weapons. Over 600,000 weapons of various types were turned in. The result ? An exploding black market in illegal firearms and a large increase in violent crime. In one well known incident an armed gang shot up a Sydney police station !

roast
12-20-2012, 12:40 PM
The concept is such a long shot that it hardly warrants discussion.

Hey now, Godwin's Law has to happen at some point in this kind of a thread. We've got internet tough guys, calling people hysterical and hyperbolic while being hysterical and hyperbolic, some cool story bros, confusing state and federal laws, tl;drs, now some Red Scare stuff ----- we are greatly overdue for some Nazi analogies.

We're so close

:crosses fingers:

Smurfette
12-20-2012, 12:50 PM
In a sense, yes. Civilians DID have access to the same types of weapons that were issued to the military at that time. If that had not been the case, we would very likely still be a British colony.

So you honestly think that if the FF could foresee the future, they would've wanted the general public to have access to RPGs, machine guns, basically everything the military uses? What about tanks? I really don't think their vision extended that far.



The gun laws are restrictive enough to put the civilian population at a significant disadvantage should our government ever become a dictatorship. And the reality is that you cannot completely limit access to guns to nutjobs without also taking them out of the hands of everyone. In fact, the wingnut who shot the kids stole his mother's guns in order to do it.

That was an awful lot of hyperbole packed into that last little paragraph. ;) It is easy to act out of grief over the death of these little children as we are far removed from the millions who died so that we could be free in the first place. A freedom given up can seldom be reclaimed and makes us that much more vulnerable to the misdeeds of future governments.

It sounds to me like you guys don't want to give up the "freedom" to indulge in your hobby, at the expense of everyone else.



I hear that China has very low crime rates and is very safe, at least if the government doesn't dislike you for any reason. Would you really want to raise your children in that repressed society?

Shall I list for you the dozens of peaceful, democratic, safe first world countries with much tighter gun control than the US? Gun control laws up here in Canada are not as tight as in other countries, but there still a lot more regulations compared to the US, and the changes that Joe Biden and others plan to implement would bring US laws closer aligned with those of Canada's. As far as I can tell, no one up here feels like their rights or freedoms have been lost or trampled on, even the those who love guns. Although I suppose you might argue that since the government up here is more socialized, that that in itself is a "loss of freedom".

Smurfette
12-20-2012, 01:28 PM
Why are you so scared of the government? What indications has the government given you that they are considering becoming some sort of omnipotent dictatorship and enslaving American citizens?

The concept is such a long shot that it hardly warrants discussion.

Because Obama is an evil, Kenyan-born, socialist Nazi dictator who wants to disarm the populace, tax millionaire's at 99% to fund iPads for welfare queens, send your grandparents to death panels and force everyone to have gay abortions. Duh!


Nobody ever thinks that it can happen to their government, until it does. The founding fathers understood this all too well, which is precisely why the constitution was crafted the way that it was. Even during their time, history was packed full of examples of exactly this. Human beings crave power and control and, in some cases, it happens simply because politicians adopt the false belief that they are in a better position to decide what is best for the people than the people themselves are.

How many of the largest industrialized countries are, even now, heavily controlled by centralized governments? Do you think that the people who lived in these places before these governments came to power ever thought that it could happen to them?

Nazi Germany was actually democratic until Hitler rose to power and nobody could have imagined what was to come. He, too, was so worried about the safety of the people that he disarmed them - and then eventually slaughtered millions of them.

And do you know how Castro won over Cuba? By promising schools, hospitals and free elections. And, of course, he enacted stringent gun control laws - in order to keep the population safe of course. ;) We all know how that went.

The list goes on. Our politicians are human beings like anywhere else and we are no more immune to power grabs than is any other government.

It made sense back in the 1700s. But do you really think so poorly of the US military that they couldn't stand up against a disorganized, untrained civilian uprising? Or do you believe that the righteous soldiers of the military would automatically agree with the citizens, and turn their guns against the politicians?

The government is not some faceless, monolithic entity completely separate from society, like some puppet-master controlling the strings from the shadows. It's a large organization comprised of Americans, led by representatives that the population has elected to represent their own interests.

Technically, the government IS us... and honestly I think the US is so "rah-rah democracy, freedom!" that an attempted grab at an unlimited dictatorship would be shut down pretty quick. Or maybe I'm just optimistic.

yoda57us
12-20-2012, 03:24 PM
I know, in light of what happened in Newtown, it's a serious issue but I'm just not ready to enter the gun control debate right now. My heart is still breaking every day with the stories of fallen children and teachers but even more so I am worried for the survivors.

Small children have seen their friends-classmates and their teachers brutally murdered. Brothers and sisters will have to grow up cheated of the joy that their siblings brought to their lives. Parents have been denied the chance to nurture and guide their child to adulthood or even to hug their child just one more time and tell them that they love them. Teachers have seen their colleagues and the very children that they dedicated their lives to struck down before their eyes. Even the first responders-men and women who face death and destruction every day-have been stopped in their tracks by this horror.

The reasons why this happened are not unimportant. The crime, the cause and the possible solutions will all be discussed by greater minds than mine and, hopefully, positive change will come from this tragedy. But right now I'm honoring the victims and praying for the survivors. They need our help and support. This is not a partisan issue. This is humanitarian issue for all of mankind to deal with. We can all help a little. There are dozens of links on the internet like the one I have posted below. Find one that works for you. Do something. Do anything. The smallest act of kindness is a step in the right direction and honors our fallen children and grieving community left in the wake of this nightmare.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/12/newtown-victims-honoured-with-26acts-of-kindness-campaign.html

Sophia_Starina
12-20-2012, 05:37 PM
Nobody ever thinks that it can happen to their government, until it does. The founding fathers understood this all too well, which is precisely why the constitution was crafted the way that it was. Even during their time, history was packed full of examples of exactly this. Human beings crave power and control and, in some cases, it happens simply because politicians adopt the false belief that they are in a better position to decide what is best for the people than the people themselves are.

How many of the largest industrialized countries are, even now, heavily controlled by centralized governments? Do you think that the people who lived in these places before these governments came to power ever thought that it could happen to them?

Nazi Germany was actually democratic until Hitler rose to power and nobody could have imagined what was to come. He, too, was so worried about the safety of the people that he disarmed them - and then eventually slaughtered millions of them.

And do you know how Castro won over Cuba? By promising schools, hospitals and free elections. And, of course, he enacted stringent gun control laws - in order to keep the population safe of course. ;) We all know how that went.

The list goes on. Our politicians are human beings like anywhere else and we are no more immune to power grabs than is any other government.

Dude, I lived in the USSR. Some older folks from that era are still spooked by the possibility of power-grabs and the like. But seriously speaking, the likelihood of that nonsense happening here is seriously soooooooooo remote. Think about it.

No one is proposing to snatch up yo' weapons, yo' gunz, yo' rifles, etc. (shout-out to Antoine Dodson!). C'mon! Even if they are proposing to regulate guns in a more stringent way, the ones you have buried your safe out in the back yard will be just fine.

Government seems to be paying lip service to gun control but really, there are more pressing issues to address. There is an economic crisis to deal with, fiscal cliff diving to be done, and come midnight tonight(!!!), the world is supposed to end (sorry just had to give this post some Mayan flavor).

Even if I agreed to slide down your slippery slope, I still know that there are between 8 and 9 guns for every 10 citizens in the USA. Sources are listed below.*** Those are just the registered guns, mind you. I think we are in no danger of eradicating guns in the USA, regardless of legislation. It. Is. Not. Feasible. Like. At. All.


Smurfette Said It Best....



Shall I list for you the dozens of peaceful, democratic, safe first world countries with much tighter gun control than the US? Gun control laws up here in Canada are not as tight as in other countries, but there still a lot more regulations compared to the US, and the changes that Joe Biden and others plan to implement would bring US laws closer aligned with those of Canada's. As far as I can tell, no one up here feels like their rights or freedoms have been lost or trampled on, even the those who love guns.


On the eve of our Mayan Apocalypse... let's put the guns aside and hug it out. :hug::grouphug::hug:





***
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg

rickdugan
12-20-2012, 08:15 PM
I'm not sure that Canada is really the best example here. After all, don't 18% of Canadian households own guns and wasn't the long gun registration requirement recently repealed?

But putting Canada aside, I will agree that there are certainly many other countries with more stringent gun laws that have not devolved into dictatorships or one party states. However, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen or that it won't in the future. Many of these people have already given up so many economic freedoms, along with control over educational and health care choices, that they are rather accustomed to a high degree of "benign" government control. Only time will tell if one or more of these governments becomes less benign or tries to exert its influence over other aspects of their citizens lives.

Smug and misplaced overconfidence, apathy, and, in some cases, the need of some people for government to be the answer to every problem or tragedy, all contribute to the erosion of our personal freedoms. As is all too often the case, freedoms are lost over time through a series of actions, each providing the government with a little more power and the citizens with a little less. Thomas Jefferson understood this well when he said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

And I'll address the silly comments about my gun stash, or support of the gun industry, etc., by saying that my issues with this are far broader than gun control. Anything that takes power or control out of the hands of the citizens and places it in the hands of the government is bad IMHO, and that extends to economic issues, privacy, laws restricting free movement and speech, etc. Heck, some of my views even align with those of the ACLU and I would probably donate to them if they didn't devote such a significant amount of their resources to such frivolous things as suing small towns that allow religious-oriented Christmas displays to be placed in public spaces.

Anyway, just my :twocents:

eagle2
12-20-2012, 09:49 PM
In a sense, yes. Civilians DID have access to the same types of weapons that were issued to the military at that time. If that had not been the case, we would very likely still be a British colony.



The gun laws are restrictive enough to put the civilian population at a significant disadvantage should our government ever become a dictatorship. And the reality is that you cannot completely limit access to guns to nutjobs without also taking them out of the hands of everyone. In fact, the wingnut who shot the kids stole his mother's guns in order to do it.

There's plenty that can be done to limit access to guns to nutjobs, without taking them out of the hands of everyone. Requiring a criminal background check on everyone who wants to own a gun, have a medical professional confirm they're mentally stable (Japan does that), limit the amount of guns that can be purchased, so one person can't legally buy hundreds of guns, and then illegally sell them to criminals.




I hear that China has very low crime rates and is very safe, at least if the government doesn't dislike you for any reason. Would you really want to raise your children in that repressed society?

Japan has a very low crime rate and is very safe, and the Japanese probably have as much freedom as Americans, other than the right for anyone to buy as many guns as they want, regardless of their criminal history or mental stability.

BlkSharpie
12-20-2012, 10:06 PM
Not to keep interrupting the gun control argument going on with a discussion about school shootings...
But for those who are interested and concerned, it seems my daughters school is not the only one with rumours that there will be a shooting tomorrow.

https://www.google.com/search?q=school+shooting+rumours+for+dec+21&oq=school+shooting+rumours+for+dec+21&aqs=chrome.0.57.11831&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Lots of them are saying its just a rumour and unfounded, but it still makes me nervous...being the whole thing about its the day the world is supposed to end and all, I actually woudl not be surprised if *something* happened. Just to be on the safe side, a lot of kids are saying they will stay home tomorrow and Im strongly leaning on the side of caution to keep kiddo home too.

Djoser
12-20-2012, 11:07 PM
Not to keep interrupting the gun control argument going on with a discussion about school shootings...


Thank you!

BlkSharpie
12-21-2012, 12:28 AM
Thank you!

Youre very welcome :D Seriously though, I dont mean to get snippy, just that this is still an ongoing issue and concern. I post abt whats going on with kiddos school and its like, whatever thats not as important as arguing about gun control. I seriously felt like I was interjecting a completely different topic that few cared to hear about.

As a mom who sat here today listening to kiddo tell me about the rumours and seeing how freaked out she is...and finding out shes just one of thousands of kids around the country feeling that way about going to school tomorrow...considering the matter of school shootings is still an ongoing and sensitive subject, I do think that deflecting from that and ignoring the issue and topic of the thread in favour of fighting about political views is pretty insensitive.

On that merry note, maybe Chris Rock has the right idea...


http://youtu.be/OuX-nFmL0II?t=1m41s

rickdugan
12-21-2012, 07:54 AM
I have a lot more to say on the political side of this (including comments about the Japan example), but I am going to stop here. DJ has already been gracious enough in letting this continue for as long as it has.

I will just say that my heart aches over the deaths of these children. My profile lists NYC because I work and club a lot in the city (and maybe for a little misdirection - LOL), but I am in CT and my 6 year old daughter's school is not far from where this happened, so this hit very close to home. When I picked her up from school that day, I clutched her to me and cried silently while I carried her to the car. She didn't understand why I was doing that as she had no clue about what happened, but my little angel graciously went with it. ;)

Who I would like to get my hands on, quite irrationally I might add, is this kid's father. How did they turn out such a monster? Didn't they know that he was capable of hurting others? He had behavioral problems all his life and it was not like the dad was without resources - just how did this 20 year old kid end up this fucked up? What, if anything, did these people do to help, or at least contain, this kid until he was 18? And why in the world would you leave guns in a place that was accessible to a kid with his type of issues?

Almost Jaded
12-21-2012, 09:45 AM
Again with finding it creepy that Rick and I are on precisely the same page here. While MM & I are running around like the proverbial headless chicken getting ready for an impromptu wedding, he has summed up everything I would have added probably more eloquently than I would have anyway.

Eagle - for all our back & forth, I'll say this - if all you're after is stricter requirements before purchase and limits on massive purchases - we're not at odds. I
'll take that one to some extremes, even - require ongoing checks on my gun collection to make sure I still have them all. Take away guns on a case-by-case if someone becomes violent. I would even say semi-annual checks on mental stability and drug screening, but I don't trust the government not to expand these things over time to find reasons to take weapons - but short of that caveat, I'd submit to almost anything within reason - EXCEPT for actual limits on what gun I can have, what capacity, etc - because that's pointless.

Some of you have a very limited view of why people own and collect firearms. I see multiple references to the effect that we're endangering everyone just to keep a hobby. This is short sighted, ill-informed, and just plain wrong. I am screaming from the rooftops about the "assault rifle" ban - and I do not, and don't plan to, own anything that comes even CLOSE to that description. I own 5 guns right now. A 12 gauge for home defense. A .22 pistol and 2 .380 pistols - the .22 matches the .380's perfectly in both form and function, and costs pennies to practice with vs dollars for the bigger ammunition. The .380's are his & hers personal carry weapons. Last but not least, a 1911 .45 - because I got an insanely good deal on it, and considered having it just to have it (any gun aficionado would know why, lol) - but since I own firearms only for enjoying time at the range and for personal protection, i rapidly came to the conclusion that the .45 is too bulky for me to carry frequently, too expensive to shoot regularly at the range, and pointless as a "keep it at home just in case" gun because that's what the shotgun is for. So I'm selling it. I *MIGHT* pick up a hunting rifle at some point just to have a fallback literally for food in the wake of a disaster, but frankly the shotgun can serve in a pinch there, too. Most gun people have a similarly thought-through inventory, with different guns filling different niches. And whether you agree or not, "defending myself nd my property from tyrannical government actions" is a perfectly legitimate slot in that inventory for many, many people, making the so-called "assault weapons" the single best expression of the actual intent of the 2nd amendment.

I am not surprised that there are rumors flying. Without a tin foil hat, that's what happens. Kids got talking for months after Columbine, too - resulting in many other kids being investigated and even arrested, in many cases for no good reason; simple panic and knee-jerk reaction. With your tin foil hat ON, those rumors are going to be spread to keep the panic at a low boil in order to guarantee ongoing support for the suppression of our rights and the removal of our weapons. In either case, the actual odds of another school shooting have not gone up nor down at all in the last week, nothing has changed.

Lastly. To many people - admittedly myself included - saying that our government beginning the move toward those behaviors that the constitution sough to prevent is far flung is patently wrong and not at ALL far fetched. Another discussion for another time, but if you look at legislation and trends over the last 40 years, it's not only not far-flung, it's already happening.

Eric Stoner
12-21-2012, 11:04 AM
[QUOTE=eagle2;2434324]There's plenty that can be done to limit access to guns to nutjobs, without taking them out of the hands of everyone. Requiring a criminal background check on everyone who wants to own a gun, have a medical professional confirm they're mentally stable (Japan does that), limit the amount of guns that can be purchased, so one person can't legally buy hundreds of guns, and then illegally sell them to criminals.


Japan is a poor example on many levels. They are nothing like the U.S. : They have a homogenous population , a low crime rate , a totally different history and culture etc. Japan has a long history of disarming its citizens. In the 1500's ordinary citizens were prohibited from owning weapons. In fact, a number of Japanese martial art styles teach weapons which are really converted farm tools. While they have a low murder rate, Japan's suicide rate is one of the World's highest. They have a long history of repressing individuality and stressing conformity.