Another school shooting
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15105305/?GT1=8618
Has the entire world lost its ever-lovin' mind? :sniff:
A tragedy, but how many millions of schools are there? and billions of people?
I hardly think this isolated incident indicates the "World" has lost it's mind. That said, I'm sure there are thousands of wackos out there capable of the same thing.:(
I saw that! I mean, it's amish country for goodness sake! they don't bother anyone!
Sept 14th: man kills one and wounds at least 20 (some severely) in shooting in a college in Montreal
Sept 29th: student kills principal in Cazenovia WI
Sept 21st: 3 students charged with conspiracy to commit homicide for allegedly planning to attack their school with guns and bombs in Green Bay, WI
Sept 27: man kills 16 year old girl after holding six girls hostage and sexually assaulting them in a school in Bailey, CO
Today: at least six killed in a shooting in an Amish school in Lancaster PA
I realize this is hardly a dent in the millions of schools and billions of people, but I don't remember a trend quite like this one. Are you saying it's just getting more press?
Are you saying it's just getting more press?
It is precisely because it gets so much press that it happens as often as it does. When people come to believe the only way they can touch the world they see on TV and online, the same world that seems to ignore them totally in real life, this can be the result.
Funny - none stabbed or beaten to death, poisoned or starved. The second ammendment rules! :mad:
If every student, teacher and administrator had beened armed, these things would never have happened. :rolleyes:
Funny - none stabbed or beaten to death, poisoned or starved. The second ammendment rules! :mad:
If every student, teacher and administrator had beened armed, these things would never have happened. :rolleyes:
It would be just as illegal for all minor students to be armed as it was for the perps in these cases.
But teachers and administrators who have students under their care and protection
in loco parentis (and who are legally able themselves; convicted felons and ex-mental patients with teaching licences need not apply) should certainly consider it; they have a duty to their charges to protect them.
Of course the painfully liberal NEA wouldn't hear of that...
And what makes you say no students were stabbed or beaten to death? I think it's certain that quite a few were during the interval in question...but they seem to get different treatement in the press somehow. The same way that an aircraft crash with two fatalities gets vastly more coverage than an automobile crash with the same mortality, I suppose, which is much more charitable than inferring a political motivation from a liberal press.
A mass school stabbing would get just as much press
I think it would be harder to kill a large number of people if you were armed with only knives, sticks, and rocks.
Gun prohibition would be no different than alcohol prohibition anyway. If you make it illegal you'll just drive it underground and create cartels.
Besides, it's in the constitution, rewrite it if you have a problem.
9th, are you off your meds again?
"Rewrite it if you have a problem"? Testy much?
:stickpoke
Testy? Absolutly. I've been working 13 hour days for the past two weeks including weekends. September/October is hell for students anyway and taking 20 credits doesn't help matters. Temper tends to go short on 5 hours of sleep.
I KNOW about these months for student, I'm an administrator who gets to deal with them. Working those hours when the students are yelling at you because they turned in their paperwork WAY late doesn't help either. Working so hard trying to help those students doesn't help either. Nor does finding out the guy you moved in with, who used up all your money so that you are so deep in debt that you have to declare bankruptcy, is calling his ex-girlfriend who he previously hated doesn't help either. Having a car that needs brakes so badly you're afraid to drive it doesn't help either. Trying to figure out how you're going to afford to move out, pay an atty to declare bankruptcy, get your car fixed, and find a way to live doesn't help. Needing glasses and dental work that there's no way you can afford doesn't help.
So, I'm testy too. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and get on with it.
I think it would be harder to kill a large number of people if you were armed with only knives, sticks, and rocks.
It's much easier to kill any number of people if they've been disarmed than otherwise. Disarming a victim is ever so much easier than disarming a perp...victims usually don't break laws. Even less likely to be a criminal is a legally armed citizen; they prefer to keep their licences.
Since schools and universities are garanteed to be victim disarmament zones, they attract perps who are comitting suicide-by-cop but want to take a significant number of victims with them. This also applies to post offices and many factories.
Even less likely to be a criminal is a legally armed citizen; they prefer to keep their licences.
Are you saying that I, a citizen who is not armed, am MORE likely to be a criminal than you, who are legally armed? Because you're "legally armed"? That makes you...more law abiding than me? Based on what?
I call bull shit.
Testy? Absolutly. I've been working 13 hour days for the past two weeks including weekends. September/October is hell for students anyway and taking 20 credits doesn't help matters. Temper tends to go short on 5 hours of sleep.
hey, chill out man..... grab a gun, go shoot some kids....
Geez...this is so twisted. Coldly executing children you don't know isn't bad enough. He executes kids dressed in 19th century headbonnets and homemade garb. Why not kill Santa Claus while yer at it?
I wanna divorce from the human race. :(
I think it would be harder to kill a large number of people if you were armed with only knives, sticks, and rocks.
Probably not in the case today, as the victims were bound before being shot.
Are you saying that I, a citizen who is not armed, am MORE likely to be a criminal than you, who are legally armed? Because you're "legally armed"? That makes you...more law abiding than me? Based on what?
I call bull shit.
Statistically, those licenced for concealed carry commit fewer crimes per capita than the general population. Not surprising, because they're screened for criminal history, and if they're convicted of a crime they lose their licences.
Myth: People with concealed weapons will commit crimes
Fact: The results for the 30 states that have passed “shall-issue” laws for concealed carry permits are similar. Here are some specific cases:
State Permits issued Revoked permits % Revoked
Florida 551,000 109 0.02%[31]
Virginia 50,000 0 0.00%[32]
Arizona 63,000 50 0.08%[33]
Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:[34]
· 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
· 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
-----------------
[30] FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992 – for following bullet points
[31] October 1987 through Jan 1999
[32] 1995 – no follow-up data available
[33] 1994 through 1998
[34] William Strdevant, unpublished study reported in August 2000 edition of America’s 1st Freedom
-----------------
Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.[35]
Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas – “because there haven't been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.[36]
Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since 1989, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit.[37]
Myth: Texas CCW holders are arrested 66% more often
Fact: This claim comes from the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a gun control policy group. Most arrests the VPC cites are not for any form of violent crime (for example, bounced checks or tax delinquency). [38]
Fact: This data is also for arrests, not convictions.
Fact: Many of these arrests came in the early years of Texas CCWs, when the law was not understood by most of the law enforcement community or prosecutors.
Fact: Compared to the entire population, Texas CCW holders are about 7.6 times less likely to be arrested of a violent crime.[39] The numbers breakdown as follows:
° 214,000 CCW holders
° 526 (0.2%) felony arrests of CCW holders that have been adjudicated
° 100 (0.05%) felony convictions
Fact: The four year violent crime rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.3 times less likely to commit a violent crime.[40]
-------------------
[35] Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-
News, September, 2000
[36] Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence, Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2000
[37] Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998
[38] “Basis For Revocation Or Suspension Of Texas Concealed “, Texas Department of Public Safety,
December 1, 1998
[39] Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association,
www.tsra.com/arrests.htm
[40] “An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population”, William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000
What are we coming to that we are killing helpless children? Sometimes I grow so weary of this world. The guy picked the people least able to defend themselves, too. The Amish don't beleive in guns. As someone else pointed out, since his victims were tied up anyway, he could have used a knife or strangled them with his bear hands. He could have thrown a homemade bomb into the classroom.
The problem is not gun ownership. In Finland, 50% of all households own at least one gun, and their gun related homicide rate is only .87%. By contrast, the US with a mere 42% of all households owning guns has a gun related homicide rate of something like 6.7%.
Finland has a free press, too; so its not Maggie's liberal media which is responsible for this disparity. US society has some deep problems, in case no one has noticed.:(
The Amish don't beleive in guns.
I don't believe that to be true for the Lancaster, County, PA Amish. It's my understanding that they hunt. :confused:
Amish County, Amish School, but plain old shooter with a mysterious grudge.
The location of the incident is interesting, but irrelevant. Until they know more about the shooter's motivation, the notion of a "school shooting" is not really what we have here, except in the sense that it occured in a school. The shooter was some guy ... a milk truck driver, not a student at the school, not even an age mate.
The problem is not gun ownership. In Finland, 50% of all households own at least one gun, and their gun related homicide rate is only .87%. By contrast, the US with a mere 42% of all households owning guns has a gun related homicide rate of something like 6.7%.
Finland has a free press, too; so its not Maggie's liberal media which is responsible for this disparity. US society has some deep problems, in case no one has noticed.
The United States problems include the drug trade, lack of family structure, and unlike Finland, we do not have a homogenous population.
I do wonder what the homicide statistics would look like if you removed all drug-related shootings ... probably a lot closer to Finland's number.
PEOPLE who don't deserve it.
And it was clear from interviews with his co-workers at the dairy that his mood had darkened in recent days and he had stopped chatting and joking around with fellow employees and customers, the officer said.
If I had started behaving this way my co-workers and customers would have called the phsyc immediately. If people cared more about each other (even those they don't particularly know) then we probably wouldn't have so many problems with crimes related to mental instablility. But its all in retrospect sometimes. :-(
Yup... because it sounded to me like "if people were more nosy and fucked with someone who was having a bad day more....". Shit like that would make me want to shoot someone.
Yup... because it sounded to me like "if people were more nosy and fucked with someone who was having a bad day more....". Shit like that would make me want to shoot someone.
I see your point, rkz, but I also have come to believe that more intervention-esp. among the fringe-(identified mental health folk and assorted other identified) is really needed in this country. We've thrown a lot of nuts out on the street in the name of saving a buck (those bucks aren't really saved, just spend elsewhere) and cut mental health reimbursments/services down to the nubbin. Watching a paranoid-schizophrenic walk down the street carrying all her earthly possessions into nowhere is a sad sight. I've seen it many a time--crazies get discharged into a no-win situation and end up doing a crazy thing.
I don't know for a fact that mr. shoot-up-the-Amish was crazed but I suspect he was.
they prefer to keep their licences.
But at the core, they REALLY LOVE their guns. Most every gun owner in this country doesn't really "need" his gun/s, for self-defense or otherwise. They just LOVE them sooooooo much. The guns are substitutes for their essential insecurity and self-loathing.
Then some kid yesterday in AZ steals an AK-47 from his parents house. I hear the gun people say "They did not store the gun properly...blah blah blah." That may be true, but why do these people have an AK-47 in their house? For self defense? I doubt it. It's because they love the power they feel when they hold it in their hands. Eventually, if life becomes too much to deal with for them or their children, they will use it on others. I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.
"When I held that gun in my hand, I felt a surge of power...like God must feel when he's holding a gun." ---quoth Homer S., NRA member--for a brief time.
You don't really think of yourself as a bigot, do you Pan?
Eventually, if life becomes too much to deal with for them or their children, they will use it on others. I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.
Yeah, I bet the Finns with their 50% of all households owning guns are going to declare war on us any day. And your neighbor who's such an expert cook with all those sharp knives in her kitchen? I'd keep an eye on her if I were you. Sure, some people love their guns. Some people love their cars, too. So what? I love animals. Does that mean that one day, I'm going to set a pack of snarling Rottweilers loose on a two-year old? You're just showing your bias against gun owners, not making a coherent argument.
Gulp. This isn't about gun owners (god rest them) it's about nuts--right?
PS--re: Finns. WTF? The Finn's are like--like, comparing the US to Greenland! Come ON!
You don't really think of yourself as a bigot, do you Pan?
To some degree, yes. But I think there's a little biggot in everyone.
More to the point, having encountered many gun-owners, I do see that they tend to fetishize their weapons. And sure, I fetishize things too; but there is something inherently scary about the way people obsess over their guns. And yes, people kill people...with their guns.:neutral:
I can see the reason to own rifles, shotguns, and even small handguns but after a point it is simply to give themselves a sense of domination. You see this type of behavior with other things such as cars, houses, even education...the more the bigger the best. Everyone exhibits this kind of mentality, and we can't just accuse or condem gun-owners for it. Most criminals who commited a crime with a gun, used an illegally attained or stolen gun.
Offenders
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
Also quoth Homer S. -- If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around--you want that, huh, DO YOU?
Everyone exhibits this kind of mentality, and we can't just accuse or condem gun-owners for it.
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:
To some degree, yes. But I think there's a little biggot in everyone.
More to the point, having encountered many gun-owners, I do see that they tend to fetishize their weapons. And sure, I fetishize things too; but there is something inherently scary about the way people obsess over their guns. And yes, people kill people...with their guns.:neutral:
There are more vehicle related deaths than gun related. People love their cars, and "fetishize" them as well. In the last year I have been in two wrecks and I know of 3 other ppl at my work who have been wrecked. When I was in HS I knew of 5 kids who were killed or paralyzed in a car wreck or had a close relative killed or seriously injured. I knew of none who were injured by a gun during that time. Sorry I knew of one...he accidently shot himself in the leg when he had gone bird hunting...fortunatly it was just birdshot. He couldn't run track for a while though.
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:
So what constitutes need?
People love their cars, and "fetishize" them as well.
Observation: cars have a primary purpose which is not violence-related...
So what constitutes need?
Good question.
Good question.
Easy question. Ask any kid who's been bullied beyond tolerance.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold needed guns.
Do you consider hunting strictly violence related then? Many people hunt for the food, you can't get wild texas pig in the supermarket. People tend to be more responsible when handling a gun because the risk involved is easily recognizable to them. People often don't give a shit when it comes to their driving or they just don't think that there is that much of a risk. That is why ppl don't care to tie down the furniture so that it falls out when they are on the hwy and causes a wreck behind them (saw it happen this weekend). That is why I was totalled 2 weeks ago when a semi rock truck decided to pass ppl in the turn lane. Cars aren't directly related to violence so people don't relate them to violence. But yet you can kill more people with one car than one bullet. There are more responsible gun owners then you are giving them credit for.
Pan, I'm just calling you on it...
Even your anecdotal evidence is broken, because when you say "having encountered many gun owners", you're not really talking about the gun owners you've encountered. You're talking about the asshole gun owners you've encountered. The rest of them, you did not even know they were a gun owner. Some of them wouldn't tell you even if you asked.
I would very much like to shoot an AK-47, because it's one of the most common rifles in the world and has been involved in tons of conflicts and continues to be. I would like to know what it does so I can understand.
Do you consider hunting strictly violence related then?
violence
1. swift and intense force
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold needed guns.
i'm saying the emotions run higher than you or I could imagine. I am not saying those boys needed guns or should have been violent. Sheesh. I guess you find what you are looking for, eh, Monkey? You are soooo good at that. Twist, twist, twist.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.
you forgot a few
I meant what I meant. Guns are designed to inflict harm. I didn't specify justfied or non-justified harm.
I simply meant that guns are designed to cause harm, while cars are designed to transport.
There are more responsible gun owners then you are giving them credit for.
I haven't said anything about gun owners...
ok we are totally getting caught up in a different subject altogther.
The point is that this man committed a violent act.
He wanted to commit a violent act. Because he was deranged or whatever.
Controlling guns would not have prevented him. Whether he got his arsenal legally or illegally he still would have gotten them.
He still would have killed the Amish girls.
The only possible way to have stopped him was to have recognized his mental instability beforehand and gotten him treatment.
And then he still had the potential to commit this act or a similar one.
It is tragic. It is a part of our lives.
So, Flint are you a vegetarian, then? That hamburger you just ate was once a nice pretty cow, grazing in a summer field. It was then rounded up, taken to the slaughter house, and, according to you, suffered a violent death.
PS--re: Finns. WTF? The Finn's are like--like, comparing the US to Greenland! Come ON!
I was questioning the validity of Pangloss's assertion that gun owners have a tendency to turn their guns on others. The Finn's have more guns per household than we do, they've got to do SOMETHING about all that pent up violence! :right:
...according to you, suffered a violent death...
No, according to
the definition of the word violent. You're stuffing alot of words in my mouth :::spits them out:::
i'm saying the emotions run higher than you or I could imagine. I am not saying those boys needed guns or should have been violent. Sheesh. I guess you find what you are looking for, eh, Monkey? You are soooo good at that. Twist, twist, twist.
I didn't twist a thing. That was a softball. A kid who has been bullied beyond tolerance is not a good example of someone who needs a gun.
A kid who has been bullied beyond tolerance is not a good example of someone who needs a gun.
What about disgruntled Post Office employees?
I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.
That's called hoplophobia, on your part.
Could it be that you feel *you* harbor anger that is ultimately uncontrollable, and since that feeling is unacceptable you project it onto others? Since you're so into psychoanalysing, try
this on for size.
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:
When exactly were you appointed to judge what I may or may not have based on your perception of my "needs"? Your hoplophobia is *your* problem; suck it up and deal with it.
Controlling guns would not have prevented him. Whether he got his arsenal legally or illegally he still would have gotten them.
This "fact" is often repeated by gun rights advocates. It's simply not true.
If (and it's a huge "if") guns are outlawed, they will be removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. That will leave guns in the hands of criminals. As the criminals are caught, guns will be taken from them. Over time, guns would become scarce. They will become virtually unobtainable.
This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market. You hear every few years about someone being caught with one, but they are not the problem that other guns are. They are virtually non-existant or are kept in hiding where they do exist. The same would happen with all guns if they were outlawed. It would just take time.
No, according to the definition of the word violent. You're stuffing alot of words in my mouth :::spits them out:::
Hey, YOU posted it. You can always delete your post. :rolleyes:
This "fact" is often repeated by gun rights advocates. It's simply not true.
If (and it's a huge "if") guns are outlawed, they will be removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. That will leave guns in the hands of criminals. As the criminals are caught, guns will be taken from them. Over time, guns would become scarce. They will become virtually unobtainable.
This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market.
Well, that pretty much discredits your opinion on the subject. Full-auto guns aren't illegal at all, and although they are expensive, they are obtainable by those who can pass the background check. I've fired full-auto at the range, and could own one if I thought it was worth the expense...especially the ammunition expense.
Your "as the criminals are caught" scenario may be appealing to you, but it's totally false. After all, following that reasoning, there are no illegal drugs today, right?
This "fact" is often repeated by gun rights advocates. It's simply not true.
If (and it's a huge "if") guns are outlawed, they will be removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. That will leave guns in the hands of criminals. As the criminals are caught, guns will be taken from them. Over time, guns would become scarce. They will become virtually unobtainable.
This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market. You hear every few years about someone being caught with one, but they are not the problem that other guns are. They are virtually non-existant or are kept in hiding where they do exist. The same would happen with all guns if they were outlawed. It would just take time.
But you can't remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens because of the 2nd amendment.
Amendment II - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And because the method worked with the fully automatic guns doesn't mean it would with other types of firearms. The automatic guns were more expensive and large, therefore harder to smuggle, plus they were mostly used by highly organized crime syndicates. Which don't have the strength today as they did then. Plus their tactics have changed since then...now they are into lobbying ;) .
Hey, YOU posted it. You can always delete your post.
Specifically, in response to a comparison of guns to cars, I posted that the primary purpose of cars is not violent.
Then, to clarify, I posted the definition of "violent" that I meant, and said "I didn't specify justfied or non-justified..."
Somehow, from this, you got:
So, Flint are you a vegetarian, then?
"
You can always delete
your post."
Well, that pretty much discredits your opinion on the subject. Full-auto guns aren't illegal at all, and although they are expensive, they are obtainable by those who can pass the background check. I've fired full-auto at the range, and could own one if I thought it was worth the expense...especially the ammunition expense.
Your "as the criminals are caught" scenario may be appealing to you, but it's totally false. After all, following that reasoning, there are no illegal drugs today, right?
My mistake. I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I thought machine guns were outlawed when really they are just heavily regulated. That proves my point even more though. If heavy regulation keeps a certain kind of gun out of a criminal's hands, then outright banning it will do an even better job.
Your drug example is a poor one, because drugs can be easily manufactured by individuals and are therefore hard to control. Guns require a factory. They are also much heavier and bulkier. Much harder to smuggle.
I meant what I meant. Guns are designed to inflict harm. I didn't specify justfied or non-justified harm.
I simply meant that guns are designed to cause harm, while cars are designed to transport.
I haven't said anything about gun owners...
So...what is your point then? that people shouldn't own guns because they are designed to cause harm? what about knives? Guns don't cause harm they are used by irresponsible criminal people to cause harm. That is no reason to condem the lawful citizens who feel more secure because they have a gun or use them to hunt. My comparison between the gun and car was simply to show that it isn't the
design of an item that causes the problem, it is the person irresponsibly using it.
ok we are totally getting caught up in a different subject altogther.
The point is that this man committed a violent act.
He wanted to commit a violent act. Because he was deranged or whatever.
Controlling guns would not have prevented him. Whether he got his arsenal legally or illegally he still would have gotten them.
He still would have killed the Amish girls.
The only possible way to have stopped him was to have recognized his mental instability beforehand and gotten him treatment.
And then he still had the potential to commit this act or a similar one.
It is tragic. It is a part of our lives.
my emphasis.
Girl - without the guns, he probably would have killed a girl. While he was stabbing, beating, whatever, the first girl, the others could have run away.
How do we resolve the "mental" problem? I think many people are crazy, starting with W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Would the "this person is crazy and needs to be dealt with before he commits a heinous act" turn into "mental health McCarthyism?"
"You can always delete your post."
I will if you will. You go first. :p
So...what is your point then? that people shouldn't own guns because they are designed to cause harm? what about knives? Guns don't cause harm they are used by irresponsible criminal people to cause harm. That is no reason to condem the lawful citizens who feel more secure because they have a gun or use them to hunt.
I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.
"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.
My comparison between the gun and car was simply to show that it isn't the design of an item that causes the problem, it is the person irresponsibly using it.
Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.
I will if you will. You go first.
reply #1: okay then, on the count of three...
reply #2: nah, mine are okay, yours are the crap ones.
reply #3: :::shoots you:::
Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.
:::launches furious internet search campaign, to cite example of death-by-toilet-paper-beating:::
So...what is your point then?
That cars and guns are not in the same catagory of items, for the reasons I stated.
NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.So...what is your point then? that people shouldn't own guns because they are designed to cause harm? what about knives? Guns don't cause harm they are used by irresponsible criminal people to cause harm. That is no reason to condem the lawful citizens who feel more secure because they have a gun or use them to hunt. My comparison between the gun and car was simply to show that it isn't the design of an item that causes the problem, it is the person irresponsibly using it.
Flint you are using that sentence out of context...it is a part of a whole. To reiterate, I compared guns and cars to show that the original intent or purpose of the item is not the problem, or the cause of violence.
Okay, the full context: You asked me what my point was and then you answered your own question by providing my point for me.
I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.
"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess."
they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.
"Law abiding" responsible citizens are not likely to have their guns stolen or used on them. And their children are not likely to get possession of the weapon.
Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.
The possibility is there...
That cars and guns are not in the same catagory of items, for the reasons I stated. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
Okay, the full context: You asked me what my point was and then you answered your own question by providing my point for me.
It seems to me that what you're saying, and the only thing you're trying to say, is that I cannot compare the potential violence, in the possession of an irresponsible and/or criminal person, of guns vs cars just because they aren't the same thing?
It seems to me that what you're saying, and the only thing you're trying to say, is that I cannot compare the potential violence, in the possession of an irresponsible and/or criminal person, of guns vs cars just because they aren't the same thing?
I honestly can't imagine how you managed to attribute such a specific multi-part meaning, of your own design, to
me, with nothing that
I've ever posted even resembling any part of it. It may
"seem" that way to you, but you've got to ask yourself: why do I
"seem" to be saying something that I
never said? Where is it coming from? Me, or you? Or, from some association with a post/posts made by other person/persons that are also
not me?"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
...
I know....the gun can't hurt anybody if it isn't wielded by a person, right? Ok. Let's have a showdown. I'll use a gun, you use a knife, OK?
Just as a gun can't do as much damage without a person, a person can't do as much damage without a gun. :eyebrow:
"How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess." they caused and that is my whole point. The people with the guns caused the damage...not the guns.
...
Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?
Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?
National Security Alert! Heroin supports the Taliban, you support Heroin, therefore you support the Taliban!
:::nabs you in the middle of the night, holds you indefinitely without trial, ships you overseas to be tortured in secret prisons:::
Are you saying that I, a citizen who is not armed, am MORE likely to be a criminal than you, who are legally armed?
Maggie is certainly capable of a reply but I thought I might throw my thoughts in here.
When a person carries a firearm legally with a permit, it changes you and how you might do things.
First off, the last thing that you would like is some type violent confrontation because regardless of the circumstances, YOU will be going to jail. That might be a short stay or a long one but until there is some type of investigation to establish your innocence, you'll probably be in the cooler.
Your vulnerability is no longer from physical attack and you dont want any legal troubles so you tend not to get overly upset. Yelling, screaming any hostile body language tends to disappear from your normal routine ( if it ever was present before ). You dont want to be misunderstood or to appear threatening in a situation that is not threatening your life ( which is 99.99% of them ), so you might over communicate and pay more attention to your tone.
In short, you're a wonderful smiley, polite person that has had check after check after check to make sure that you are up to the responsibility of carrying a firearm that might well be enough to wipe out your neighbors and in some cases, give law enforcement a run for their money.
The armed citizen is also not panicked in situations that may if someone is NOT carrying. If you feel totally vulnerable, it changes your attitude. Many times it makes people act overly aggressive as a defense.
Just my observations here. No citations or criminal studies.
Gun toters less likely to be a criminal? Probably. Just from the background check alone. Someone that knows how to avoid troubles of all sorts? Absolutely.
...In short, you're a wonderful smiley, polite person that has had check after check after check to make sure that you are up to the responsibility of carrying a firearm that might well be enough to wipe out your neighbors and in some cases, give law enforcement a run for their money.
...
And who may be secretly planning to murder some nice innocent Amish girls...:worried:
And who may be secretly planning to murder some nice innocent Amish girls...:worried:
Did he have a permit to carry a handgun? You tell me, I dont know.
I don't have a major issue with hunting or rifles. While handguns can be used for hunting, you have to admit that it's not their primary purpose. You don't have to conceal your weapon from a deer. You also have to acknowledge that a single person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a knife. How much damage would have been done in Columbine if the two kids had been armed with knives? Not as much as they caused with guns, is my guess.
"Law abiding citizens" may feel more secure if they have a gun, until it is used on them, or stolen and used in a crime.
Ok, but I've never heard of a person being "spooned" to death, or killed by being beaten with a roll of toilet paper.
I would be fine with not having my guns as long as NO ONE ELSE gets to have them either, ever... that means cops also.
Until that time... they stay.
BTW, I grew-up on a ranch and my side-arm was used as protection against snakes, boar and a myriad of other things. Not just humans. But, poachers were also an issue.
That you have a problem with people protecting themselves is suspect in my eyes.
Deer in the US are overpopulated, as are many other species, culling is nessicary... hunters are also the major supporters of most of your green, environmentalist, groups. Get educated.
But at the core, they REALLY LOVE their guns. Most every gun owner in this country doesn't really "need" his gun/s, for self-defense or otherwise. They just LOVE them sooooooo much. The guns are substitutes for their essential insecurity and self-loathing.
There is a lot that you don't understand about the "gun culture."
An awful lot.
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:
May I in return condemn you for owning clothing and CDs and DVDs and luxury food items that you don't need?
Using that logic, heroin shouldn't be illegal. It can't do any damage without a person doing something with it, right?
I wouldn't oppose that.
But at the core, they REALLY LOVE their guns. Most every gun owner in this country doesn't really "need" his gun/s, for self-defense or otherwise. They just LOVE them sooooooo much. The guns are substitutes for their essential insecurity and self-loathing.
Then some kid yesterday in AZ steals an AK-47 from his parents house. I hear the gun people say "They did not store the gun properly...blah blah blah." That may be true, but why do these people have an AK-47 in their house? For self defense? I doubt it. It's because they love the power they feel when they hold it in their hands. Eventually, if life becomes too much to deal with for them or their children, they will use it on others. I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.
You, obviously, have spent
very little time with legitimate collectors. Most enjoy their guns for the engineering, aesthetics and comparing them to others in a series or time period. The idea of power never enters into it... if that was it, they would just upgrade to higher and higher powered weapons, which is rarely the case.
Though, my weapons are just tools. What I have are just for utilitarian reasons.
Observation: cars have a primary purpose which is not violence-related...
Observation: There is no call to ban cars every time a drunk driver kills a family of five.
I do not carry a gun for the purpose of going out and randomly shooting people. I carry a gun for the purpose of
defense.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold needed guns.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold illegally obtained guns, and used them to commit an illegal act.
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:
I don't want you having things you don't need either... oh, wait... what country do I live in again?:eyebrow:
Nevermind... its
NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS!My mistake. I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I thought machine guns were outlawed when really they are just heavily regulated. That proves my point even more though. If heavy regulation keeps a certain kind of gun out of a criminal's hands, then outright banning it will do an even better job.
Your drug example is a poor one, because drugs can be easily manufactured by individuals and are therefore hard to control. Guns require a factory. They are also much heavier and bulkier. Much harder to smuggle.
Regulation certainly hasn't kept full-auto out of criminals hands. It's made it somewhat more cumbersome only for the lawabiding in comparison to other firearms. But I think the real reason you don't see more full-auto is it's usually not worth the hassle...unless you have a logistics train supplying you with ammo and acquire the additional skill of using it effectively, it offers not much advantage. That's pretty much why not every infantryman is issued a full-auto weapon.
Full-auto is the wet dream of gun grabbers and gang bangers. And those two loons in body armor that died holding up that bank in LA.
Your prohibition scenario is still a fantasy. I also think you're vastly underestimating how difficult it is to make a gun; it certainly doesn't require "a factory", nor are they terribly difficult to smuggle. In fact, this debate was done here once before, with Jaguar in the role of "gun prohibition does work, no, really".
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Observation: There is no call to ban cars every time a drunk driver kills a family of five.
I do not carry a gun for the purpose of going out and randomly shooting people. I carry a gun for the purpose of defense.
[SIZE="1"]See: The last 50 posts (what I was responding to...the definition of the word violent I was using...the clarification of what I meant and didn't mean)[/SIZE]
I know....the gun can't hurt anybody if it isn't wielded by a person, right? Ok. Let's have a showdown. I'll use a gun, you use a knife, OK?
Just as a gun can't do as much damage without a person, a person can't do as much damage without a gun. :eyebrow:
No weapon can do any damage without a person. And a person can defend themselves more effectively with a gun.
If you were able to actually eliminate all firearms, we'd be back in the realm where bigger/stronger people could effectively threaten smaller and weaker people by wielding a club or edged weapon. But that doesn't worry me, because you can't eliminate all firearms. In fact, I recently saw a collection of firearms manufactured *in prisons*. What does worry me is liberal dilettantes with little knowlege and less thought who want to use the government to disarm me because they think it might help them "feel better".
I also think you're vastly underestimating how difficult it is to make a gun; it certainly doesn't require "a factory", nor are they terribly difficult to smuggle. In fact, this debate was done here once before, with Jaguar in the role of "gun prohibition does work, no, really".
Yes, I'm aware that there are hobbyists who make guns in their basements.
My point is that there are no criminals who make guns. Criminals are mostly stupid and lazy, and they don't have the discipline to make anything. If they could make a gun, they would have a skill and a temperment that would allow them to lead a law abiding life. It's a numbers game. Criminals need the law abiding populace to have a large number of guns, so they can steal a subset of them.
It may be easy to smuggle one or two guns, sure. But the number of guns in use by criminals today to commit crimes is astronomical. It's too many to smuggle easily. Dope can be stuffed into teddy bears and vases and fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars. A gun can be smuggled for what, maybe as much as grand? It's too difficult, and the economics that would drive the smuggling are just not there. Criminals don't invest in tooling to commit crimes. They get a stolen gun for $50 and rob somebody and toss the gun. Again, it's a numbers game.
I'm not arguing in favor of banning guns. I just don't buy the lie that banning guns won't reduce the number of guns available for criminals. That's a crock.
:luv: :madhop: :apistola: :bong: :hide: :rattat:
I love a good gun thread. :)
My point is that there are no criminals who make guns.
You're really batting 0.000 on this. I just got done telling you about the guns made IN PRISON.
I'm sure ATF will be interested in your theory that "there are no criminals who make guns", because they arrest people for making guns in ways ATF doesn't approve of fairly frequently.
Banning guns would have the same effect on availability of guns for criminals that banning drugs and banning alcohol did. It might raise the price, but that's about it.
Since you claim it's a numbers game, tell us how many crime guns there are per year, so we can see exactly how "astronomical" it is, and how impossible to smuggle/manufacture them. Bear in mind that many crime guns are used in multiple crimes, so a simple count of gun crime won't cut it. Also remeber that in this day of NC machining, a gun design is basically software. (In fact, my carry piece was made on NC milling machines in a shop that does other work besides firearms manufacture.)
It may be easy to smuggle one or two guns, sure. But the number of guns in use by criminals today to commit crimes is astronomical. It's too many to smuggle easily. Dope can be stuffed into teddy bears and vases and fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars. A gun can be smuggled for what, maybe as much as grand? It's too difficult, and the economics that would drive the smuggling are just not there. Criminals don't invest in tooling to commit crimes. They get a stolen gun for $50 and rob somebody and toss the gun. Again, it's a numbers game.
But don't you see that the precise reason smuggled drugs can fetch a high price is because they are completely illegal?? If guns were banned, you could not buy one for $50 and toss it. The economics would shift such that smuggling was by definition profitable. A car trunk full of guns would be just as expensive and just as easy to sell as a car trunk full of cocaine.
You're all missing the point.
Columbine, the more recent shootings and the amish massacre were not committed by criminals with illegal guns.
Columbine, the more recent shootings and the amish massacre were not committed by criminals with illegal guns.
You do understand that
stealing a gun from someone else A.) means you almost certainly do not have a permit for a gun, and thus it is illegal for you to own; and B.) makes you a criminal, both for having possession of it at all and for stealing it in the first place?
Columbine, the more recent shootings and the amish massacre were not committed by criminals with illegal guns.
Since it's illegal here to have a gun in a school without a legal purpose, the perps were in fact criminals, and the guns illegal.
were you ever in the military? you have all the attributes of the barrack-room lawyer...
A leadership sighting this afternoon. Gov. Rendell was served up the opportunity to connect the Amish shooter's crime with new gun control legislation. Ed Rendell is one of the most anti-gun politicians you will find. But instead of taking the political road, scaring the public in order to move the legislation, he flatly shut the connection down with his honest response: no, even our hardest gun control won't stop the crazies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/03/cnr.03.html
QUESTION: Governor, the state legislature is debating some gun control (INAUDIBLE) the next couple of days. Has...
RENDELL: The question, the state legislature is debating some gun control measures in the next several days, will this change the dynamic? I'm not sure what the thinking of the state legislature is, and I believe, with all my heart, that Pennsylvania needs stronger gun control legislation.
But, I think we should all understand no proposed law, none that I would think of or none that I've seen, could have ruled out this situation. This individual, as the Colonel said, has never had a criminal record, has no evidence on record of mental instability that would barred him from going into a gun shop and buying a handgun or a shotgun, et cetera. So he could have purchased these guns lawfully. We don't know that.
QUESTION: We do know that he purchased the 9-millimeter lawfully?
RENDELL: He purchased the 9-millimeter handgun lawfully. So there is no law out there -- I mean, our biggest push in the legislature is to eliminate straw purchasing. But no one, a month or anything, would have stopped this from happening.
We have -- you know, we have real problems in our society, because we tend to be so much more violent than almost any other country in the world, but -- and I think there are laws that can improve that. But it would be disingenuous for gun control advocates, myself included, to say that this demonstrates for better, stronger laws.
And a person can defend themselves more effectively with a gun.
MaggieL again ignores facts. Those who carry guns for defense more often have that gun used against them. Cops carry a gun as an offensive weapon. When called to defend another, the cop goes offensive. Guns for defense is reasoning based only upon emotion, speculation, and in direct contradiction to statistical reality.
Second fact from history. As number of guns increase, then number of violent murders increase accordingly. This was documented many years previous in the Cellar.
We license drivers and cars. Dangerous items require the user and machine to be carefully trained and maintained. That is the purpose of licensing – responsibility. MaggieL does not demand requirements for responsibility. She advocates rights. But responsibility is secondary and sometimes ignored. No wonder she also advocates extraordinary rendition, torture, violations of the Geneva Convention, violations of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, nonsense called 'unlawful enemy combatant', and eliminating the writ of Habeas Corpus. A complete denial of responsible attitude – what some call American morality.
Responsibility is secondary to rights? Who often suffers when carrying the gun? MaggieL forgot that fact.
No one is talking about banning guns. But then need for responsible gun owners is somehow spun into myths about eliminating all guns. Included is a myth that more guns means safer streets - a complete lie.
Everyone working in a Post Office should carry a gun? Good. Then the wacko need not go home - realize his mistake - before shooting his manager. A perfect solution to underfunded pension funds and social security.
Yes, I'm aware that there are hobbyists who make guns in their basements.
My point is that there are no criminals who make guns.
Ever heard of a zip gun, Glatt? Criminals (mostly teen gangs in the 50s and 60s, when gangs were social and protective gatherings rather than a means of transporting and selling drugs) made them all the time.
Today there aren't a lot of hollow car antennas with the diameter of a .22 available.
And you don't look as cool as a dude who holds a Glock sideways.
Dude - relax.
I would be fine with not having my guns as long as NO ONE ELSE gets to have them either, ever... that means cops also.
Until that time... they stay.
Because cops..??
BTW, I grew-up on a ranch and my side-arm was used as protection against snakes, boar and a myriad of other things. Not just humans. But, poachers were also an issue.
You couldn't have done that with a shotgun or rifle?
That you have a problem with people protecting themselves is suspect in my eyes.
I don't. Buy a bulletproof vest, a burglar alarm, a knife, a rifle, a bodyguard, whatever. Why does defense/protection have to mean a handgun?
Deer in the US are overpopulated, as are many other species, culling is nessicary... hunters are also the major supporters of most of your green, environmentalist, groups. Get educated.
I said I don't have a problem with hunting for food.
Who, here, has ever had to use a gun to protect themselves? I am 47 years old, and have never needed a gun to defend myself. I am alive, never been robbed, haven't been in a fistfight since high school. Why do you pro gun folks feel like it's the only way to protect yourselves?
I don't. Buy a bulletproof vest, a burglar alarm, a knife, a rifle, a bodyguard, whatever. Why does defense/protection have to mean a handgun?
Because most defensive uses of handguns occur within less that 7.5 feet, IIRC (I pulled that particular number out of my ass, rather than spending the time to look it up, but I'll bet it's correct). My rifles are made to shoot at distances up to 1000 yards.
Do you use a sledgehammer for all of your small home improvement projects?
The handgun, incidentally, is there when all other options fail. Bulletproof vests are heavy, unwieldy, uncomfortable, only protect your center of mass, and are illegal in many jurisdictions.
I don't go strolling around in crack neighborhoods for fun at night, just to see if someone hassles me enough to justify shooting them.
As others have stated, most legal handgun owners go out of their way to avoid overtly dangerous situations. Safety is as much a matter of pre-planning as it is response.
Unlike a lot of people here I get credibly threatened fairly regularly. I can go so far as to say that I collect death threats the way most people collect baseball cards.
no, even our hardest gun control won't stop the crazies.
Once read that in Canada you can get a gun almost as easy as in the US, yet gun related deaths are much less. Both countries have the same historic frontier spirit. But in Canada the frontier iconic is the Mountie, while in the US the heroes are outlaws.
There is more going on than just access to deadly weaponry. US culture has a latent violence and many of these crazies indicated that they were inspired by violent movies or TV series. Also the media plays a part in the recent rage. It's a known fact that paranoid people are inspired by the extensive coverage and think "that's a guy like me and that is his solution to his problems".
You're really batting 0.000 on this. I just got done telling you about the guns made IN PRISON.
Ah, yes. Unreliable single-shot zip guns, which are just as likely to blow up in your hand as fire in the general direction of where you are pointing the thing. Would the gunman who killed 5 Amish girls have been able to do that with a single shot imprecise weapon?
I'm sure ATF will be interested in your theory that "there are no criminals who make guns", because they arrest people for making guns in ways ATF doesn't approve of fairly frequently.
I assume you are talking about gunsmiths who modify guns or make guns. Now you are relying on semantics and Bill Clinton style arguments that have to do with defining words. They are otherwise law abiding citizens who only become "criminals" when they make a gun with the wrong features. These guys aren't generally drug users looking to mug someone to get money for their next fix. Nice try.
Banning guns would have the same effect on availability of guns for criminals that banning drugs and banning alcohol did. It might raise the price, but that's about it.
You keep repeating that, but you ignore how easy it is to make alcohol and drugs. They are very easy to smuggle and also manufacture in our own border. I'm not going to, but I could make both myself. Making a real gun isn't nearly as easy, and smuggling them, while possible, isn't easy either.
Since you claim it's a numbers game, tell us how many crime guns there are per year, so we can see exactly how "astronomical" it is, and how impossible to smuggle/manufacture them. Bear in mind that many crime guns are used in multiple crimes, so a simple count of gun crime won't cut it. Also remember that in this day of NC machining, a gun design is basically software. (In fact, my carry piece was made on NC milling machines in a shop that does other work besides firearms manufacture.)
You can do your own research. Do you deny that gun use in crimes is widespread? After all, you own guns to defend yourself against others, so clearly you must think some bad guys have them. Maybe "astronomical" was a bad choice of words. You probably had a mental image of Carl Sagan saying "billions and billions." :)
But don't you see that the precise reason smuggled drugs can fetch a high price is because they are completely illegal?? If guns were banned, you could not buy one for $50 and toss it. The economics would shift such that smuggling was by definition profitable. A car trunk full of guns would be just as expensive and just as easy to sell as a car trunk full of cocaine.
That's true. Drugs are worth a lot of money because they are illegal and because they can be sold for an affordable price once you cut them into smaller portions. You can't cut up a gun to spread the cost around. If the cost of a smuggled gun is $1000, who will buy it?
My point that I'm arguing is that gun regulation will, in fact, reduce the number of guns in criminals'* hands. A more expensive gun will mean fewer criminals will be able to afford them. Criminals are usually poor.
*criminal=someone who is a criminal because they commit a crime and the gun is just a tool to use in that crime.
Ah, yes. Unreliable single-shot zip guns, which are just as likely to blow up in your hand as fire in the general direction of where you are pointing the thing. Would the gunman who killed 5 Amish girls have been able to do that with a single shot imprecise weapon?
Before firing a single shot, he had his victims isolated and bound, so yes.
Before firing a single shot, he had his victims isolated and bound, so yes.
Except the cops outside would have gotten him after the first one or two.
Once he's got them bound he doesn't have to use the zip gun at all.
So...we need to outlaw . . . rope? (Or duct tape?)[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Gray"] oops I meant "regulate" not "outlaw" . . .[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Before firing a single shot, he had his victims isolated and bound, so yes.
Would have been able to bind them if he hadn't been wielding a gun?
Would have been able to move the people he couldn't overpower physically out, using the threat of the zip gun;
Would have been able to bind the remaining weak young girls without even using the same threat;
Would have been able to kill them quickly using a knife, ballpeen hammer, plastic bag or many other means;
Use your imaginations folks, the bad guys do.
The conversation is about guns because guns are the best tool for the job. Just ask the gun enthusiasts on the board why they are enthusiastic about guns, and not ball peen hammers.
Everyone who wants to live in a country where only the cops and the military have guns, raise your hands...
...raise your hands...
BANG!
ha ha haOk, everybody wants everybody else to obey the law. And if those others don't obey the law, they should be shot, right? You don't want the bad guys to have guns, you don't want only cops to have guns. What the fuck would make you happy? Back to the old west? Everybody has a piece in their holster, and let the law be with he who draws fastest?
You're missing the point again. It's over there, off to your right, about ten feet away.
Obeying the law isn't all that hard, Spex. Don't steal from others, don't do physical harm to others, don't damage property not belonging to you (if it's your own car you want to smash the window of and steal your own stereo just for kicks, go right ahead).
The movie gunslinger hairtrigger shoot a varmint fer lookin' atcha funny Old West is, as far as I know, the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, although, based on recent news reports, that's what owners of illegal firearms are doing in our urban settings.
Didn't you read the crime stats Maggie provided regarding folks registered to carry firearms legally?
An armed society is a polite society, so saith the sage, Robert A. Heinlein.
What the fuck would make you happy?
My own class M planet. Planet Slangun. :)
You're missing the point again. It's over there, off to your right, about ten feet away.
...
The problem is that your point is constantly moving. You address one aspect of the debate, which conflicts with other aspects of your point. You talk about easy access to guns. An armed society is a polite society. Keep the guns away from criminals. Punish those who misuse guns. Legal gun owners have to go through a rigorous process to get licensed and don't want to loose that license. You can't have all of these things - many are in conflict with each other.
Now, describe the system that you'd like in place. Don't address a specific of my post, describe your all-encompassing plan where there is easy access to guns without abuse by non-licensed gun riff-raff. Where you can protect your life and property, but not shoot your neighbor, whether on purpose or by accident. Let's hear how you can accomplish all of these things. :eyebrow:
The movie gunslinger hairtrigger shoot a varmint fer lookin' atcha funny Old West is, as far as I know, the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, although, based on recent news reports, that's what owners of illegal firearms are doing in our urban settings.
Guns were almost non-existent in the old west. This for numerous reasons. Some obvious ones. First, guns were manufactured in only two places in America - Harper's Ferry VA and Springfield MA. Hunting parties traveled in large numbers so that among twenty might be three guns. Furthermore, those hunting parties had to carefully arrange who would shoot and who would withhold fire - so that a loaded gun always remained.
Second, a gun cost something like two years salary. Most could not afford a gun. The wild west gunslinger was extremely rare. Few had guns. Therefore violent murders were few. In fact most murders were among the rich because only the rich had guns.
Along comes something called a civil war. Early armies were equipped with European weapons because America had so few. But the civil war meant massive gun manufacturing AND so many guns. After the war, soldiers returned home with their weapons. Next ten years were the most violent. America had never seen so many violent murders – if I remember on the order of tens of times higher. Violent murder rate increased with more guns. That fact was and is not just in America. The same trend is repeated in most every country.
Does not matter that another country may have 1.8 times more guns per person and less violent deaths. The fact is that when numbers of guns increase in any country, the violent death rate also increases.
Reality - more guns mean increased murder rates. No way around that reality.
More guns= more gun deaths. Guns that shoot more = more things are efficiently killed.
Ask your local Emergency room personnel. Accidents happen. Guns make killing efficient and easy.
Would gun control have impacted the Amish girl murders? no.
Would it have spared the life of the Wisconsin principal. Maybe.
As Spex points out you gun owners are too idealistic. get real. Its about gun sales,volume, not personal or public safety. If your theory is so sound, why dont we solve the Iraq crisis through manditory arming? That would make them much more polite.
That would be redundant as most of them are already armed. :D
Along comes something called a civil war. Early armies were equipped with European weapons because America had so few. But the civil war meant massive gun manufacturing AND so many guns. After the war, soldiers returned home with their weapons. Next ten years were the most violent. America had never seen so many violent murders – if I remember on the order of tens of times higher.
On this one, I gotta disagree with you, tw. Sure the 10 years or so after the Civil War were more violent. That's because alot of people were, in effect, still fighting it. To this day, in areas of the deep South, people are STILL mistrustful of Northerners. You're right about the "wild West," though. Most of the violence out here was perpetuated against Native Americans who then retaliated in turn.
Does not matter that another country may have 1.8 times more guns per person and less violent deaths. The fact is that when numbers of guns increase in any country, the violent death rate also increases.
Could you give us a cite for this, please?
Many of you seem to argue that stricter gun control laws would cut down on the amount of violent crime. And I do agree with this. But I do not thing that it will solve any of the real problems that we have with violent crime. Most violent criminals come from places that have poor education systems, and little economic stability. Almost half of the violent criminals (not necessarily gun users) released from prison will return within 3 years, 1/3 of the non-violent criminals. This shows that our system of punishment is not working. Our country needs to concentrate on socially benificial programs (and I'm not talking welfare) so that the cause of crime and criminal behavior can be treated. This will prevent people from wanting to commit a crime, not just prevent them from being able too.
US society has some deep problems, in case no one has noticed.:(
Michael Moore did but people would rather focus on his weight or liberal bias :greenface
The United States problems include the drug trade, lack of family structure, and unlike Finland, we do not have a homogenous population.
I do wonder what the homicide statistics would look like if you removed all drug-related shootings ... probably a lot closer to Finland's number.
There are some
interesting stats gleaned from the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
Drug offences:
Norway = 987.1 per 100,000 people
United States = 560.1 per 100,000 people
Finland = 259.7 per 100,000 people
United Kingdom = 214.3 per 100,000 people
I can't imagine Norway or Finland more adept and providing their own drugs than the USA. So the drugs have to be getting there somehow.
Now look at
murders with firearms per capita:
Colombia = 0.509801 per 1,000 people (it's safe to say that's largely drug related)
United States = 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
Canada = 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
Finland does not even make the list. Either it's statistically insignificant or they don't differentiate by murder tool. They do however have 0.0283362 murders per 1,000 people. Yes, their total murders per capita is only slightly higher than the firearm murders per capita of the USA. Total murders per capita in USA is 0.042802 per 1,000 people. Norway 0.0106684 per 1,000 people. Drugs trade looks a very unspecioius claim in light of those facts.
Canada certainly isn't more homogenous. From the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development we learn that in the year 2000 the USA ranks #6 in immigration with 10.4% its populations immigrants. Canada has 17.4%.
Drug offences:
Norway = 987.1 per 100,000 people
United States = 560.1 per 100,000 people
Finland = 259.7 per 100,000 people
United Kingdom = 214.3 per 100,000 people
Interesting stats indeed. Never realised that Norway was on top of the list.
Interesting also to see that our little "drug liberal" country (or narcotic state as Mr.Chirac once claimed) is #20 on the list with 47 per 100,000 people. Less than a 10th of the US, which is always lecturing us how to deal with drugs...
PS and what about Switzerland!!
On this one, I gotta disagree with you, tw. Sure the 10 years or so after the Civil War were more violent. That's because alot of people were, in effect, still fighting it.
The charts and data were posted many years ago. Older dwellers may confirm those trends.
Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.
If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased? According to claims made here by others, then more guns should mean decreased violent deaths. That trend was not only demonstrated in America. Same trend was demonstrated in other nations.
Also noted was why murder in old west towns such as Tombstone were so low. These cattle towns required all to surrender weapons before entering. In that time, most murders were in big cities where the rich had more guns and where more guns were carried in public.
Spexx, I'm trying to figure out the best way to respond to you. First off, I think you're confusing some things that I said with things that Maggie said.
I actually don't think there is a need for any type of firearms 'licensing' or 'permit'. Both imply that I don't have a right to keep and bear arms. I think that the model for the way things should be is what's commonly called "Vermont Carry". In Vermont and Alaska you can carry a firearm concealed. You don't need a permission slip from the state government telling you that you can do so. I would like to see this in all 50 U.S. states. I would like to be able to cross the borders of other states without having to check a book to see what I have to do next to be legal in that state ... secured in the trunk, disassembled, in a locked container, ammunition in a separate locked container, doesn't do me much good when I make a wrong turn in Camden.
As I stated before, I would like to see criminals actually treated as criminals, going to jail, with sentence extensions for committing crimes with guns. Parollees and Probationers should go back to jail with a sentence extension if they are found to be in possession of a firearm, give a hot urine, or violate their probation/parole in some other way.
Background checks/instacheck is okay ... criminals should not be buying guns from legal dealers, but the records of those checks are supposed to be destroyed. Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation, as we have learned from the British and the Australians.
Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.
If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased?
I, for one, would like to see those numbers, along with other crime statistics at the same time ... was this an urban effect, or was it also seen in rural areas. Were the perpetrator and victim, as is often the case today, both engaging in other illegal activities?
I, for one, would like to see those numbers, along with other crime statistics at the same time ...
You were hear when those numbers and charts were posted. You had posted in that discussion. When all that information was posted, suddenly, those who advocated more guns went silent.
Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.
If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased? According to claims made here by others, then more guns should mean decreased violent deaths. That trend was not only demonstrated in America. Same trend was demonstrated in other nations.
But the events during these times were the main reason that there was an increase in violent deaths. During the Reconstruction, there was great animosity towards the Radical Republicans, and all northerners really. Its still there in the south to some extent. The former confederates had been defeated, but they didn't want to be conquered. They rebelled against the north. The KKK was began to repel the Radical Republicans, and those were their main target. After Reconstruction the violence started to end, the north was no longer constantly agitating the former Confederate states, and those states had gained back much of the freedom they had lost because of their defeat.
During prohibition the amount of illegal activity increased because people all over the country were rebelling against the prohibition law. The mafia was profiting greatly by smuggling in booze and were fighting over territory.
There is normally a reason that violent crime increases, and it is not the availabilty of guns that makes people violent. They must feel a need or want for a gun, they plan on using it and therefore seek out aquiring one, either legally or illegally. If they plan on using the gun for an illegal activity they will most likely aquire the gun through illegal means, harder for the weapon to be traced back to them.
This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market. You hear every few years about someone being caught with one, but they are not the problem that other guns are. They are virtually non-existant or are kept in hiding where they do exist. The same would happen with all guns if they were outlawed. It would just take time.
How many would you like? :eyebrow:
Guns were almost non-existent in the old west. This for numerous reasons. Some obvious ones. First, guns were manufactured in only two places in America - Harper's Ferry VA and Springfield MA. Hunting parties traveled in large numbers so that among twenty might be three guns. Furthermore, those hunting parties had to carefully arrange who would shoot and who would withhold fire - so that a loaded gun always remained.
Absolutely, positively, not true. Everyone is the west had a gun....at least every man and many of the women. For that matter most everyone in the east, that didn't live in one of the cities, did too.
Not everyone had a
handgun, because they were expensive and not all that accurate, reliable or useful. The long gun, however, was essential for obtaining food and not becoming food. People were further from the top of the food chain then.
Oh, and those pesky heathens that lived there first.
Harper's Ferry, VA and Springfield, MA were military ordinance, although during the war, people like Mr Colt in Hartford, Ct, lent a hand. That's when manufacturing of interchangeable parts, field repairable, cheap(er), and with that wonderful invention the metallic cartridge, came about.
Ever hear of the Pennsylvania Rifle, the Kentucky Rifle? These guns were made by blacksmiths by the tens of thousands. Blacksmiths that proved adept at making guns were in much demand and turned to gunsmithing exclusively. They also commanded more money but most of the other blacksmiths still made guns in their spare time between horseshoeing and utensil building.
After the war, was a period of "how ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm". Young men that had a taste of travel and adventure. Before that most people never went more than 50 miles from home in there whole lives unless they were emigrating for some reason. Sure, most of the soldiers just wanted to go home, but many, particularly in the South, had no home to go to, and others had reasons they didn't want to or couldn't go home. More people on the move, repeating weapons and hard feelings, are a recipe for conflict.
A couple people claimed making handguns is difficult. Not so. Making accurate, reliable, high caliber guns, yes. But in my basement, with rudimentary tools, I can turn out a substantial number of single action revolvers that look good enough and work well enough to commit a crime, hold up a person or 7-11, as long as you didn't get into a shootout with the cops or an armed citizen. We're not talking Dirty Harry's magnum, .22, .32 or .38 will do.
If somebody sticks a gun in your face are you going to demand to see the machining marks?....ask to see the heat treat record for the barrel? :headshake
Don't forget that most crimes committed with a gun, no shots are fired. Despite the YouTube clips of clerks opening a can of whoopass on armed robbers, most people acquiesce.
You were hear when those numbers and charts were posted. You had posted in that discussion. When all that information was posted, suddenly, those who advocated more guns went silent.
Because it was pointless...go read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; he explains why those statistics are misleadingly interpreted.
More guns= more gun deaths.
More matches = more house fires? More crowbars = more burglaries? More ski masks = more bank holdups
The majority of legal defensive gun uses do not involve "gun deaths", gunshot wounds, or even discharging the weapon.
Read Gun Facts, and then Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".
Absolutely, positively, not true.
Oh, but tw said it; it's "reality". ;-)
Lott's "study" is no more statistically sound that my laypersons typing of
More guns = more gun deaths.
or the majority of gun deaths are caused by gun shots.
His stats are suspect, and his analysis weak.
I bet I can find more evidence for my equation. I'll see what I can find. Meantime:
The flaw with your example is that the objects you cite have uses other than causing death. That is what a gun is for. If is doesnt kill, its not effective. If youre not ready to use it to kill, dont own it. right?
And I'd forgotten about all the Lott fraud! You sure picked a lame reference, Mags. (Meanwhile, I'll continue to gather up the research I can find that suggests the reality of my simple equation)
this debunking courtesy of the brady gun control campaign site:
Lott Co-Author Admits to Gaping Flaws in Study
Professor David Mustard, the co-author of Lott's study, has conceded that there were serious flaws in their study - flaws that seriously undermine the conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that: 1) the study "omitted variables" which could explain that changes in the crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws, and 2) the study did not account for many of the major factors that Mustard believes affect crime including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs and alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing. These serious flaws completely undermine Lott's findings.
Lott Claims Computer Ate His Controversial CCW Survey
In his published research analysis, John Lott has claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few self-defense uses of handguns are ever reported. But when scholars began questioning his survey results, Lott began a series of evasions that culminated in the claim that his computer had crashed and he had "lost" all the data. The University of Chicago, where Lott claims he conducted the study, has no record of it being conducted so Lott began claiming that he funded it himself (and kept no records) and that he used students to make the survey calls (though no students have been identified who participated). Indeed, no records of the survey exist at all. Lott is now facing serious questions about whether he fabricated the entire survey - raising serious questions about his ethics and credibility.
Only the tip of the freaky fraud iceberg
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott
The flaw with your example is that the objects you cite have uses other than causing death. That is what a gun is for. If is doesnt kill, its not effective. If youre not ready to use it to kill, dont own it. right?
There's a very significant difference between being "ready to kill", and killing. Not every one who is "ready" to kill actually kills anyone.
A gun that cannot kill isn't an effective weapon...but a weapon doesn't have to be used to kill to be
used. Every cop on the street has a gun (and the smart ones have more than one), but they very, very seldom use them to shoot to kill. (So seldom that too many cops think they'll *never* need to fire them, and don't develop and maintain the skill to use them well.) But a cop's sidearm that isn't used to kill isn't "useless". It changes a situation by simply existing.
Because it was pointless...go read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; he explains why those statistics are misleadingly interpreted.
Or he misleadingly misinterprets statistics, himself.
this debunking courtesy of the brady gun control campaign site:
Yeah, the Brady Bunch are real authorities on statistics. They've been manufacturing them for years.
The second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" was published in 2000, with new data reinforcing the original conclusions. His more recent work is "The Bias Aginst Guns", which deals with how media handles the issue.
Go look at Gun Facts for other stats on defensive gun use...it's free.
(Meanwhile, I'll continue to gather up the research I can find that suggests the reality of my simple equation)
Oh, no! Another expert on "reality"! Whatever will we do if they disagree?
Oh, no! Another expert on "reality"! Whatever will we do if they disagree?
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" –
Adam SavageBecause it was pointless...go read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; he explains why those statistics are misleadingly interpreted.
Didn't Lott impersonate himself on the internet as this "Mary Rosh" female person to praise his own work? Can we take this guy serious?
Lott finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws. (
New England Journal of Medicine)
Didn't Lott impersonate himself on the internet as this "Mary Rosh" female person to praise his own work? Can we take this guy serious?
I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously.
You on the other hand...well... Not to worry, your government isn't about to let you have a weapon, so it's a non-issue for you.
Lott finds, for example...that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates.
"Reducing" them how? Citation, please?
I suspect that high rates of crimes around black women 40 or older would have to do with the presence of black men 20 and younger.
I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously.
You on the other hand...well... Not to worry, your government isn't about to let you have a weapon, so it's a non-issue for you.
My friend Bob said that Making sure there are NO guns in the entire world would reduce the number of murders by guns. I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously. :rollanim:
Where did you have lunch: where the elite meet to eat? ;)
I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously.
I've had lunch with him too. I don't know whether it was his bulging biceps, or his steely gaze, which seemed to pierce my very soul. All I know for sure is that, at that moment, John Lott could have told me anything,
anything at all, at all and I would have believed him.
God help me, that man is impossible
not to believe... . . . when you have lunch with him.
My friend Bob said that Making sure there are NO guns in the entire world would reduce the number of murders by guns. I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously. :rollanim:
Making sure there are no guns in the entire would would require godlike powers. (Making sure that only criminals have them only requires passing an idiotic law, of course).
Is your friend a deity? Does he talk to you when others are around, or only when you're alone?
I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously.
You on the other hand...well... Not to worry, your government isn't about to let you have a weapon, so it's a non-issue for you.
You take a researcher who anonymously praises his own work serious? Or are you just a gullable person and eat his words without any criticism?
"Reducing" them how? Citation, please?
Ask your lunch partner Lott, it was his resarch. The New England Journal of Medicine reviewed his book and found this strange result.
Lott's junk science proofs that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by around about 0.5 to 7 percent and the murder rate would have increased by 250% since 1974 if the United States had not built so many new prisons.
Next time you have lunch with him, ask Mr.Lott why he had no variation in his key causal variable – "shall issue" laws – in the places where most murders occurred. America's counties vary tremendously in size and social characteristics. A few large ones, containing major cities, account for a very large percentage of the murders in the United States. As it happens, none of these very large counties have "shall issue" gun control laws.
Where did you have lunch: where the elite meet to eat? ;)
The Delaware Valley Pink Pistols meets once a month for lunch; he accepted our invitation to join us a while back.
Ask your lunch partner Lott, it was his resarch. The New England Journal of Medicine reviewed his book and found this strange result.
So you don't have a citation. Makes the claim difficult to refute.
Making sure there are no guns in the entire would would require godlike powers. (Making sure that only criminals have them only requires passing an idiotic law, of course).
I'll accept that as agreement. It's probably the closest thing I'll ever get to agreement, anyway...
Is your friend a deity? Does he talk to you when others are around, or only when you're alone?
You better watch what you say, Bob is standing right next to you. And that's his name, not what he does.
The Delaware Valley Pink Pistols meets once a month for lunch; he accepted our invitation to join us a while back.
Uh, ahem... she was talking to me.
A few large ones, containing major cities, account for a very large percentage of the murders in the United States. As it happens, none of these very large counties have "shall issue" gun control laws.
Not true. Philadelphia County is a case in point...despite the lobbying of the mayor, the state shall-issue law preempts any county statute.
When "shall-issue" laws are passed, they are usually accompanied or preceded by state-level preemption statutes, otherwise the largely Democratically-controlled urban areas would pass their own local law requireing citizens disarm themselves when entering.
I'll accept that as agreement. It's probably the closest thing I'll ever get to agreement, anyway...
If there were in fact no ${x}, there could be no deaths caused by ${x}. But for ${x}=firearms, such a state is neither possible nor desirable.
So...you bought lunch. ; )
If there were in fact no ${x}, there could be no deaths caused by ${x}. But for ${x}=firearms, such a state is neither possible nor desirable.
Thank you for the concession and agreement. :)
Not true. Philadelphia County is a case in point...despite the lobbying of the mayor, the state shall-issue law preempts any county statute.
In the state of Pennsylvania, a "shall issue" law was passed in 1989, but the city of Philadelphia was exempted from it. Comparing figures with Pittsburgh show that murder rates are generally higher in Philadelphia than in Pittsburgh, but the passage of a law giving citizens the right to get permits to carry concealed weapons did not have the positive effect posited by John Lott. In fact, the Pittsburgh murder rate was declining prior to the passage of the law, then increased slightly. In Philadelphia, the murder rate had been increasing, then it leveled off despite the fact that the new law did not apply in that city. The violent crime statistics for the same two counties show the same pattern.
In Philadelphia, the murder rate had been increasing, then it leveled off despite the fact that the new law did not apply in that city.
The "first-class city" restriction applied to licence
issuance in Philadelphia, it did not make permits issued elsewhere in the state (such as in the adjoining suburban counties) invalid in Philadelphia. And after observing the effect of the shall-issue law in the rest of the Commonwealth, the legislature made its application uniform thoughout Pennsylvania...even though Philadelphia still seriously drags its feet in complying with issuances.
Thank you for the concession and agreement. :)
A pretty thin concession, and damned little agreement. What I don't conceed is your original assertion that the number of legal guns and the amount of gun crime are correlated.
Spexx, taken together, the entirety of the two sentences of MaggieL's statement are by no means an agreement. They are a statement that your position is an impossible one. In this world anyway.
If there were in fact no ${x}, there could be no deaths caused by ${x}. But for ${x}=firearms, such a state is neither possible nor desirable.
No, she agrees, and her assessment that it is impossible is merely her pessimistic view. Some people thought that putting a man on the moon would be impossible. They were wrong - perhaps Maggie will be wrong. I, for one, will not be so presumptuous, arrogant, or closed minded to say that it absolutely *will* or *won't* happen, only that it *is* possible.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec06/forgiveness_10-06.html
The freedom contained in Jesus' teaching of forgiveness, wrote the German philosopher Hannah Arendt, is the freedom from vengeance, which includes both doer and sufferer in the relentless automatism of the action process, which by itself need never come to an end.
Strong stuff.
No, she agrees, and her assessment that it is impossible is merely her pessimistic view. Some people thought that putting a man on the moon would be impossible. They were wrong - perhaps Maggie will be wrong. I, for one, will not be so presumptuous, arrogant, or closed minded to say that it absolutely *will* or *won't* happen, only that it *is* possible.
A deeply flawed analogy.
The key to the success of the lunar exploration program was the use of fail-safe design; if you failed to achieve your design intention the result should be as harmless as possible. The result of a failure of a legal effort to eliminate all firearms would be that only criminals would be armed. That's not an acceptable outcome.
Nor do I wish to return to the medivial days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all.
What I said was what I meant...and lifting part of the posting out of context is lame. I say for the case ${x}=firearms, the proposition is unacheivable, and even if it were achievable it's not desirable.
Gwennie has a bumper sticker that says "You can't beat a woman who shoots." So true.
The freedom contained in Jesus' teaching of forgiveness, wrote the German philosopher Hannah Arendt, is the freedom from vengeance, which includes both doer and sufferer in the relentless automatism of the action process, which by itself need never come to an end.
Strong stuff.
:notworthy
Also:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Mahatma Gandhi
My friend Bob said that Making sure there are NO guns in the entire world would reduce the number of murders by guns. I've had lunch with him. I take him seriously. :rollanim:
I can never tell when people are being sarcastic.
You cannot undo technology.
So, if you did actually dig up Merlin and release him from his crystal chamber, burn the Bill of Rights and get rid of the existing guns in the ensuing police state.
After that, within three hours, anyone knowing someone with plans, and a milling machine, would have their gun back. I would be one of them.
It is a very simplistic, and fascist, fantasy.
Firearms make self-defense accessible to all.
Not true.
MaggieL, I admire your patience and your intellect, even though your opinions coincide with mine only sometimes. But your tendency to make illogical conclusions like the one above, and others just like it, and then use them as though they were facts, misrepresents cause and effect. You frequently misuse causation and correlation. This is a typical example, and it weakens your arguments.
I don't intend this as a flame or a personal attack. You set an admirable example of arguing at a high level and I'm joining you there.
Don't stop there Big V, tell us why that statement is flawed. :question:
You set an admirable example of arguing at a high level and I'm joining you there.
The full context of my statement was (spelling corrected): "Nor do I wish to return to the medieval days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all." You assert "not true" without a supporting argument or evidence.
I'll make a minor consession to admit that the blind, minor children and quadraplegics don't have direct access to the self-defense benefits of firearms; they must rely on others for protection, as they do for other necessities like food. To that extent those benefiting from the ability to arm themselves fall short of "all". But not by much.
If you're "joining [me] on that level" you're not there yet.
[CENTER](only slightly off-topic: the
graphic novel version of L. Neil Smith's classic The Probability Broach is being serialized online at the Big Head Press site.) Personaly I don't subscribe to all the ideas put forward in it, but the artwork alone is pretty spectacular.)
[/CENTER]
Yes, excellent artwork....I'll have to tune in on Wednesdays for future installments. :thumb2:
A deeply flawed analogy.
The key to the success of the lunar exploration program was the use of fail-safe design; if you failed to achieve your design intention the result should be as harmless as possible. ..
The analogy was not between guns and lunar exploration, though that was a good try to go off-topic. The analogy was between people who think the possible is impossible. People like you.
xoB, wolf, MaggieL, all:
"Nor do I wish to return to the medieval days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all."
I'll make a minor consession to admit that the blind, minor children and quadraplegics don't have direct access to the self-defense benefits of firearms; they must rely on others for protection, as they do for other necessities like food. To that extent those benefiting from the ability to arm themselves fall short of "all". But not by much.
You're right. Children should not be armed. However,
72 millon plus children is hardly a minor concession, especially in light of the fact that the very story that started this thread is about a school shooting.
You also said:
convicted felons and ex-mental patients with teaching licences need not apply
Why would you exclude those groups from the benefits of self-defense? Who else need not apply? Ibram's another example, apparently (notwithstanding his minor status).
The reason I won't ever own a gun is that I know I wouldnt use it.[/COLOR] I could never bring myself to use it, and having one would just escalate the situation. But I figure people dont know if I have one or not cause of all you people who do have them, so yeah.
If you don't think you could use a firearm, then you're absolutely right not to carry. And your observation that the 3% of us who do carry [COLOR="Blue"]extend protection[/COLOR] to the 97% who don't just [COLOR="Blue"]by creating that uncertainty[/COLOR] is very much on-point.
This is known as [COLOR="Blue"]"security through obscurity"[/COLOR], a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.
As to your second point, that [COLOR="Red"]a person who wouldn't use a gun gains no self-defense benefit from one[/COLOR], concisely explains why your statement is false. Would a gun, unused, in this example provide any self-defense benefit at all? Of course not. It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm.
A firearm is a tool. It has a primary purpose, and some secondary purposes. Like all tools, it can be used well or poorly. There are situations where it is the right tool for the job, and other situations where it is not, and some in between. But it is folly to say that the tool does the job, when it is the person who does the job. "A poor workman blames his tools." What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.
So your statement fails on two counts; it certainly doesn't apply to anything close to "all" people, and it any self-defense benefits a person enjoys are the result of that person's actions, not the tools used in those actions.
A firearm is a tool, only, not a talisman.
There is a pistol range near me that has a braille translation on the sign where the rules are posted, next to the door that leads into the range. One day, while going in, I pointed directed my girlfriend's attention to the braille and we snickered. Later we went back out to exchange guns (we were renting) and the guy behind the counter handed my a newspaper article about a customer at a range facility. His vision is bad enough that he can't read, but he can put the necessary percentage of his bullets in the right places to pass a test that allows him to carry a gun.
On the one hand, here's a guy who lives in a not-very-nice part of town, a guy who would be an easy victim, a ripe target for a hoodlum, and thus a guy who has more cause to buy a gun than I do. On the other hand, one of the tenets of shooting is that you take a good look behind your target and make sure there's nobody back there to get hit by strays and over-penetrated rounds.
Given the choice, would I take away his ability to defend himself from an attacker he can barely see, on the theory that he might fire into a crowd by mistake? I'm sure he's wise enough to at least know where people are likely to be, and not reckless enough to fire indiscriminantly. I would, somewhat uncomfortably, opt to trust his judgement rather than try to take his gun.
What would you do? The same? Leave him to be preyed upon but the hoods in his neighborhood? Ideally, he'd move, but economics don't favor that outcome. He's not well-off, so moving to a nicer neighborhood isn't a practical option; he's in a place where he can make his commute safely, to the best job he's had in years. It's just not a very nice neighborhood though. Does he deserve to carry a device that he gives him a chance to deter (or if necessary defeat) an attacker? Or should it be taken away from him?
Before I had LASIK in 1999, I had really, really terrible vision. Used to be that if you couldn't see the "E" at the top of the eye chart then you were considered "legally blind," don't know if that's still the official definition. Anyway, I couldn't see it. I got my first pair of ridiculously thick glasses when I was three.
The point is, I couldn't read, but I could still see. I could walk around the house without my glasses on if need be, and I was very good at figuring out what it was I was looking at based on its particular blur. The difference between little black letters on a page and a full-grown person in a threatening posture should be obvious. A hoodlum who is really harassing him enough to be shot is also close enough to make aiming a non-issue, visually. He passed the target test, he gets to keep the gun.
...Used to be that if you couldn't see the "E" at the top of the eye chart then you were considered "legally blind," don't know if that's still the official definition...
Yes, but that's with your glasses/contacts
on. In general, if you can't be
corrected to better than 20/200, you are considered to be "
legally blind".
Ah, thanks Spexx. I was correctable with lenses, damn thick though they were. (I was roughly -10.00 diopters in both eyes, unless I've forgotten the correct meaning of diopters, in which case I was about -10.00 in whatever units your prescription is generally in. :))
That's a pretty hefty Rx, but SteveDallas has you beat by a long shot, IIRC. Luckily lens thickness can be radically reduced now, compared to even 10 years ago.
Guns cause as many problems as the "solve". The only reasonable use for a gun is to hunt with it. And then you still need to be extremely careful and responsible at all times. If you want to protect yourself from hoodlums carry pepperspray, stun gun or
one of these. The fatality risk is greatly reduced, they're just as effective and less likely to kill an innocent bystander.
Hoodlum?.... maybe, but not hoodlums. And that's only for a hoodlum that doesn't have a serious bent to cause you bodily harm. Although those are admittedly rare. ;)
xoB, wolf, MaggieL, all:
You're right. Children should not be armed. However, 72 millon plus children is hardly a minor concession, especially in light of the fact that the very story that started this thread is about a school shooting.
Yes, and was it caused by one of the 115,000 guns someone said kids take to school each day?
I'm not saying they should, heavens no. Just reminding you all those guns didn't cause any shootings today, I've heard about.
snip~This is known as "security through obscurity", a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.
But wouldn't exist at all without the availability of them.
As to your second point, that a person who wouldn't use a gun gains no self-defense benefit from one, concisely explains why your statement is false. Would a gun, unused, in this example provide any self-defense benefit at all? Of course not.
False, most of the time displaying the gun will do the job.
Not a good practice and I highly advise against it if you're not willing to use it, but it works most of the time.
It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm.
What? You're kidding, right? What the hell good are any of those things, except awareness, without the tool?
A firearm is a tool. It has a primary purpose, and some secondary purposes. Like all tools, it can be used well or poorly. There are situations where it is the right tool for the job, and other situations where it is not, and some in between. But it is folly to say that the tool does the job, when it is the person who does the job. "A poor workman blames his tools." What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.
So you'd take away shovels because
sometimes a pick is a better choice?
So your statement fails on two counts; it certainly doesn't apply to anything close to "all" people, and it any self-defense benefits a person enjoys are the result of that person's actions, not the tools used in those actions.
No, but it's umbrella effect covers many of those people. If Bruce Waynes father had been armed there would be no Batman.
A firearm is a tool, only, not a talisman.
That's 100% true. Now why do you want to take away
any of my tools?
You chose the name Big V. Methinks it was not because you are a 90lb weakling. You are also seriously into bossing kids .....er, I mean teaching Boy Scout credos to children. OK, I was jiving ya, sorry.:blush: But, I'll bet you firmly believe in and try to live by those credos, which is very commendable. You also live in an area that has crime problems, like everywhere, but you must admit is not known for it/them.
Put this all together and we have a man that looks like messing with him should not be taken lightly, leading an exemplary lifestyle, avoiding most places even close to seamy, in an area not noted for crime. I would expect your attitude based on that. I'm saying it's not a profile of someone who might feel they need a gun.
The fatality risk is greatly reduced, they're just as effective...
Nonsense. They're not anywhere near as effective. In many cases they don't work at all.
(And the Tazer you linked to is illegal in Philadelphia. :-) )
This is known as [COLOR="Blue"]"security through obscurity"[/COLOR], a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.
That's a huge misapplication of the term. But allow me to point out if only criminals had guns, the uncertainty would be gone.
The 3% of the population that arms themselves (when permitted to) happen to extend a protective umbrella of uncertainly to those around them. But only those who actually do arm themselves have certain protection.
Why would you exclude those groups from the benefits of self-defense?
I said that because that's what the law is. *I* didn't exclude them personally. Are you proposing changing the law?
It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm... What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.
A craftsman understands what his tools can and cannot do. He also understands the limitations imposed on him when he is deprived of the proper tools.
Guns cause as many problems as the "solve". The only reasonable use for a gun is to hunt with it.
You should be ashamed of yourself. This viewpoint is friendly to genocide.
You will note that my viewpoint is very unfriendly to genocide. (It's not too sweet on genocide's supporters here in the Cellar, either.)
Which is the morally superior position, and why are you contenting yourself with the inferior one? There are two explanations -- both unflattering, you know.
General ownership of firearms, teacheth the JPFO, is the only known preventative of episodes of genocide, and surely resisting genocide is a "reasonable" use for a gun. While the fundamental rationality of general warfare is open to debate (I regard war as an inescapable part of the human condition, just as getting eaten by lions is part of the African antelope condition.) the fundamental rationality of resisting getting killed by hostile combatants is not. Morethanp, your approach makes refugees, not winners. What's the point of that?
You won't be blessed with an informed opinion on this until you've read Simkin, Zelman, and Rice's
Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, available from the JPFO among other sources.
How is it that you inhabit a small town in Texas and are unable to understand guns better?
Some one cleaning a gun recently shot a person I know in the back through the wall of her hotel room. Many of those who own guns are idiots. Many people are more than likely to overreact when confronted and therefore accidently shoot someone. And just because they "attack" doesn't mean they deserve to be killed. That is why we have justice system. Guns don't always work right either. I might have not have been entirely accurate when I said there are other methods of deterring attackers that are just as effective. You're right, none of the other methods of self protection normally cause as much mass harm as guns do. Just because it is the most forceful method doesn't make it the best method. Kill or be killed? Thats a very uncivilized view. UG I understand guns very well and I've known many incidents of things going wrong with them that have caused death to an innocent bystander. Most Texans own guns for hunting and recreation. Not protection against other people.
EDIT: I have never once said I have a problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with them being used as your main source of self protection. At my house we have a hand gun, we know how to use it. But 1st we have a large dog, a locked door, two warning dogs (rat/chihuahua mixes), a baseball bat, and 911. If I am ever in an unsecured location, I am by bright lights, my mother knows where I am and when I should be home, and I have my pepperspray. I believe I need a gun to keep me safe, neither would I be willing to use it. In this incident MaggieL where is the protective umbrella you provide me?
I think I saw this used by The Penguin on Batman once.
