Citizens going about their day to day lives armed and ready to defend themselves and others from violent assault, will not reduce levels of violence, it will ramp it up.

A proportion of the population armed and trained to the use of those arms is a line of defence.

I don't think so. Do you have any data to back this? Have you ever fired a gun? Why are you so eager to give away one of my fundemental rights when you don't have it in your country?

DanaC - This isn't meant to be personal. I respect you greatly. I'm simply passionate about this and I was trying to make a point. Sorry

Don't be sorry, Sarge.
Just post some photos of your wall of cards.

AND DANAC! You promised. I bought a tub of SlimFast. You need a mattress and to post some pics.

There. Ambushed both of you. Equal opportunity attack.

So what action do you propose?

Oh oh oh oh oh I know I know [/horschack]

Cut off men's sperms supplies and make them take some tests and training to get spermies back.

Think of the poor baby daddies.

I'm sure we can find data to "support" the claim. I'm sure we can find data to "debunk" the claim.

Plus, there is always the chicken and the egg fiasco. Did more guns lead to more violence or did more violence lead to more guns?

We all have our opinions and are talking about them here with the dozen or so others who care one way or the other.

If you want your voice to be heard a little more widely, take this survey by Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly. They will submit the survey results to the politicians, and since they are respected by the politicians, the results will be accepted. So include your voice. It's a very short survey/petition. It will require your name, email, and zip code. So you might get some follow up emails, and put on a list somewhere. You can choose multiple options, including not enacting any new legislation at all.

http://action.americansforresponsibl...rg/page/s/poll

So... Adak. It's all or nothing with you? It sounds like you're arguing that way. If xyz idea won't completely solve the problem, then xyz idea should be discarded. And the way you are assessing whether or not xyz idea completely solves the problem is to look for any case, like the above example, that "proves" it won't work. Is this really your strategy?

Also, I'd like to repeat Pete's question, "What part of 'no mass shootings' do you have a problem with?" Are you in favor of mass shootings? If you are, please say so and I'll quit pestering you. If you are not in favor of more mass shootings, then please give me some examples of ideas you think will reduce them, or eliminate them completely.

Come on. What constructive contribution do *you* have to offer?

Well mass shootings do help with population control. (Is it too soon to make a joke?)

Nah, laughter is the best medicine. After all, a modest proposal such as yours has a long and storied history of being both funny and true.

Those who are not licensed to carry firearms, those convicted of felonies etc., when found to have guns shall do a minimum of 3 years in prison. No if ands or buts. Not talking about minors here. If you want to put your tax dollars to a solution lets build more prisons. We may solve the drive bys and the gang violence but you will never prevent nut jobs from carrying out their violent fantasies by legislating gun control..

"How do you propose we minimize gun related crime, especially mass shootings?"
 

As I say elsewhere: in a country of 350 million individuals (and counting), where an estimated 270,000,000 guns are 'out and about', total confiscation is the only answer (a long, bloody, expensive, process with no guarantee of success).

Anything less (patchworks of laws = band aid on a wound the size of the Grand Canyon) is purely emotional salve (sooth the distress by addressing symptoms; never, ever, getting to the *root).

If 'you' won't confiscate, then stop kvetching, make do with piecemeal, and get on with living.









*by all conventional accounts, the root is 'gun'...if this is the case: eradicate 'gun', solve problem, yes?

No.. why should law abiding citizens have to give up their weapons? Your theory is illogical. If some are so intent on making a new law concerning guns then they need to enforce the ones we have and make stiffer penalties for those that illegally carry.

Mass killings can occur with the use of cow manure [/hyperbole]

"Your theory is illogical"
 

Nope. Perfectly logical, and confiscation is the (absurd but logical) end if folks really want to make themselves 'safe' from 'gun'.

Any other (more moderate) course is 'feel good' and nuthin' else.









Full disclosure (again): I own one gun (12 gauge coach gun...a man-killer, which is what I mean it to be, though -- in a pinch -- it works for hunting as well). I've no interest in any other firearm, and no interest in giving up what I have.

If its absurd how is it logical? ;) You and I are the same except I think those that illegally carry should have to face a stricter punishment. Again for full disclosure I have a Detroit Riot rifle and and an 1891 Winchester I don't hunt but I have shot skunks and coyotes,with the Winchester, not giving mine up either.

We shouldn't. It's hard enough getting a deer with a rifle, now I'm sposed to shoot them with a bow?

I also prefer to call them firearms. It's not really a fight between me and the deer, I'm pretty much straight up killing them.

Yeah, I'd agree with absurd. And since that means it's only useful for entertainment value, I'm moving on.

hq, we have LOTS of other rules in our society (another concept I know you have an allergic reaction to) that don't use absolute, zero tolerance thresholds that still make a useful positive difference. To say it's all or nothing isn't helpful. I'm looking for helpful ideas.

Also, your plea for no kvetching is similarly doomed.

A woman woke up in the middle of the night to someone breaking down her apartment door. She grabs the gun from her nightstand as the intruder comes through her bedroom door,and shoots him dead, thus saving her life and the lives of her two young children.

Explain how this fictional use of a firearm was not defensive in nature.

He was going to kill her and her children?

The apt building was on fire and the intruder was a fireman coming to rescue her two kids. :eek:

Shooting the man is an offensive act. It's offense against offense. The door was defense, it was overcome by the intruder's offense, the battering and smashing. Shooting him as he comes through the bedroom door is her OFFENSE overcoming the intruder's offensive charge.

Calling it "defense" is common, but it is a perversion of the word.

A woman in Georgia knew an intruder was in her home she was on a 3 way call with her husband and 911, she had her two children with her and her gun. Her husband told her to shoot when that guy got thru the door, he had to go thru several locked doors to find them.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/09...s-gun-control/

GOOD FOR HER

Touche'.

I didn't think of this, but given the actions of an arsonist with a gun in NY a couple weeks ago, this previously unimaginable example became real.

And it brings up a good point--shooting the man coming through the door--that objective act can be interpreted differently depending on circumstances, hm? So, what is it? Shooting someone is what? It's defense? It's offense? I'm sure the bullet catcher doesn't feel defended. It's offense.

If someone was in a fire why would they shoot someone coming thru a door? that makes no sense..

Good for her!

I cheer her success at protecting her family. Good job, her counter-attack worked.

Really ? counter attack?

For every anecdote like that, we can find another one where some idiot uses a gun to murder their spouse/neighbour/step child/random passing stranger for no acceptable reason.

And if my understanding of the statistics is correct, the "genuine legal defense" cases are badly outnumbered by the "criminal killing" cases.

And further, the suicides outnumber both.

Yes.

Look... no context...

woman shoots gun at man.


what happened?

it's an attack, bang bang bang bang. if the man was just walking along, it's an attack. if he was charging at her with a knife, it's a counter attack. Yes. I stand by my choice of words.

Yes, as in defense.

Oh I get why you choose to use inflammatory adjectives, my comment stands> REALLY? I supposed she should have used her toothpaste on him :rolleyes:

Inflammatory?

defense is as inflammatory as offense, they're complementary, right? attack is neutral. it is the same word in both directions.

I've said nothing about her choice of weapons, I'm saying she attacked him with a gun, after he threatened her. Could you say she defended him with the gun? she didn't do anything to her kids with the gun. she didn't offend or defend or attack her kid. what she DID do with the gun was attack the guy coming at her.

sounds like it was justified, sounds like it was a good idea, sounds like it was successful. she "defended" herself by attacking him with the gun, an offensive action.

Obtuse thy name is Big V ;)

In my post, the woman did not know the apt building was on fire,
and was meant only a snippy response.

But to be argumentative... my posit was quite sensible.

Given even one gun in a home, especially with children present,
the odds are much higher for an accidental/unintended shooting
than for an illusionary "NRA-stand-your-ground" defense.

No new prisons, just legalize pot and there'll be plenty of room.

Despite your verbal gymnastics, the LAW says defense.

Who better to defend against a gun attack than the Secret Service guarding the POTUS? And who couldn't do it?

Guns are no defense against guns.

Lets all cherry pick anecdotal evidence to back our pro or anti-gun views!

and really how else is a debate done?

"If its absurd how is it logical?"

Since when do 'logic' and 'absurd' mutually exclude one another?

#

"...those that illegally carry should have to face a stricter punishment."

I got no problem with that (or any other option, large, small, moderate, extreme, etc.)...I just don't think -- long term -- it'll make any difference.

Sure will make lots of folks 'feel good' though.

#

"not giving mine up either."

:thumbsup:

"To say it's all or nothing isn't helpful."

Never said 'all or nuthin'.

I merely point out what could work versus what just makes folks 'feel good'.

Interpret that as absolutist if you like (but that ain't what I said).

#


"I'm looking for helpful ideas."

Since I was answering Spexx's question (not yours) can't say I give a flip what you're looking for.

"Obtuse thy name is Big V"
 

HA!

No, not 'obtuse', but 'sophist'.

Which of the following...
 

...does anything other than 'soothe' the public?

Which of the following does anything other than make folks 'feel good'?


1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Since the POTUS doesn't make laws there's only so much he can do except prod congress and give direction to existing agencies that have discretion.

1, 2, and 3 will help if they get serious about background checks, there's a lot of information not going into the database.

9, may help cut down straw purchases for gang bangers.

14, when Biden & Co tryed to come up with solutions, everyone they asked said there's no data. That wasn't an accident.

16, that's no accident either.

It won't stop anything but it's a start.

It depends on the implementation, but most of those look substantive to me. Except stuff like "national dialogues" or "national campaigns", which are the "feel good" side.

:haha: That would imply he was skilled in deception, not so ;) strawman comes to mind...

16. leaves me a bit squeamish I don't think it's any of my Drs biz if I have a gun. If the Dr is a Psychiatrist maybe...

So...

She successfully offended herself and her children?

"That would imply he was skilled in deception"
 

HA!

I amend myself, then: 'unskilled sophist'.

##

"I don't think it's any of my Drs biz if I have a gun"

Agreed, which is why I'll tell the doc, 'that ain't germane to nuthin', move on, Doc.'

The doc can ask me anything he or she likes...no compulsion on my part, however, to answer.

##

"we have LOTS of other rules in our society (another concept I know you have an allergic reaction to)"

Yes, and I ignore most of them, hence my *shrug* regarding any and all suggestions (moderate or extreme) that come down the trestle on how to control guns and/or gun owners.

Ban away! Restrict away!

Catch me, if you can... :neutral:

My doc asked mainly to be sure we practice good "gun hygiene" in the house. Locked out of reach of the kids, ammo kept separately, etc etc.

"Pearl High School in Mississippi; Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee; Appalachian School of Law in Virginia; a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pa.; Players Bar and Grill in Nevada; a Shoney's restaurant in Alabama; Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City; New Life Church in Colorado; Clackamas Mall in Oregon (three days before Sandy Hook); Mayan Palace Theater in San Antonio (three days after Sandy Hook).

There's a reason that you never heard much about the places on the second list. The number of innocent people killed was much smaller — sometimes, none. In each of them, the "active shooter" or potential shooter was confronted by an armed defender who happened to be at the scene when the attack commenced; the bad guy wasn't able to just keep going about his deadly business, as at Sandy Hook.

Sometimes the hero was an armed school guard (Sullivan Central High). Sometimes it was an off-duty police officer or mall security guard (Trolley Square, Mayan Theater, Clackamas Mall and the Appalachian Law School, where two law students, one of them a police officer and the other a former sheriff's deputy, had guns in their cars). Or a restaurant owner (Edinboro). Or a church volunteer guard with a concealed carry permit (Colorado). Or a diner with a concealed carry permit (Alabama and Nevada). At Pearl High School, it was the vice principal who had a gun in his car and stopped a 16-year-old, who had killed his mother and two students, before he could drive away, perhaps headed for the junior high."

AND because they rushed into doing this, it was poorly written and virtually every police officer in the state is in violation.
YAY FOR POINTLESS EMOTIONAL DECISIONS!

Frikkin idiots. Addressing the scary looking "assault weapons" which accounted for .872% of the fatalities is ignorant. illogical and does virtually nothing to prevent these crimes.

From what I have seen, the rifle the Sandy Hook POS brought was found in the car, the two weapons he actually used to kill all the children were semi automatic pistols. One was a Glock and the other a SigSauer, both of which were stolen from his mother. Both of which had 15 round clips.

By the way, where was the outrage day after day, week after week, month after month while hundreds of black children were being killed? I must have missed all that. Heck, in Chicago alone with ridiculously stringent gun restrictions, more people were killed (Over 220) than all troops killed in Afghanistan last year.

I hear you! My thoughts exactly

Our pediatrician asks pretty regularly too. I'm in favor of the question. If the simple question can get an idiot gun owner who isn't practicing safe gun storage around kids to pause and think for a minute about what they are doing, then it's worth it. It's like asking if you smoke or drink or do other things that increase your risk of getting hurt. Simple patient history questions.

Do you?

"YAY FOR POINTLESS EMOTIONAL DECISIONS!"
 

Indeed.

Don't expect much support from this crowd, however.

I made the same point with my comments about 'response' versus 'reaction' and my post was met with silence.

Again: passion (anger, hate, fear, frustration) is the enemy of response and is the bedrock foundation for reaction.

*shrug*

Absolutely. We are very hygienic at our house. Not helpful in the event of intruders, but we don't get too many out here.

regarding the 23 exec orders posted up-thread
 

What's unfortunate (for those in favor of tighter controls)...

Not a one of these orders (or the laws that may eventually extend out from them) address the estimated 270,000,000 guns (and accompanying ammunition) 'out and about' now.

Maybe if the NRA hadn't effectively declawed the ATF and made it impossible to track dealers' inventories, we'd have a better idea.

Someone watched the Daily Show...:p:

But, Dana, you Brits did have a better idea.

As I point out several times up-thread: while it would be a long, expensive, bloody endeavor (with no guarantee of success), confiscation is the ticket.

If 'gun' is the problem, then remove the problem, yes?

*Isn't this what you folks did on the Great Isle?

As law, hasn't confiscation worked there?









*not exactly confiscation, I know, but as close to it as possible...strict controls on what is allowed and who is allowed to own and use, with severe penalties for illegal possession and use

Sort of yeah. The rules were tightened up and made very restrictive, at the same time there have been intermittent amnesties on firearms.

It's been a few years since the last time they did an amnesty. But it is amazing how many guns they bring in with those.

It hasn't solved gun crime in this country. There have been several gang related shootings in recent years and a few incidents involving children. But the numbers are very low nationwide, and comparatively low even in our hotspot areas.

But, the UK is a very different proposition on something like this. Guns weren't so ubiquitous to begin with. The number of guns in the country at any one time, even when ownership wasn't so regulated, just wasn't on the same level per capita as it seems to be in the States. The cultural associations are very different. Not to say there aren't/weren't any such associations, but they are a much smaller part of the national psyche.

The opposition to gun control was there, and it was vocal and heated at times, but the ban on hunting foxes with hounds caused more popular debate and passion.

We're also a pretty small island. And we only have 2 or 3 legislative and jurisdictional areas to come to agreement in order to take action. On a purely logistical level the idea of removing all guns from all but a qualified few, in a country as large and legislatively fragmented as the US seems an exercise in futility.