Guns don't kill people ....
... But they accidently discharge, sending a bullet into a 15 year old girl's head and a 15 year old boy's neck.
http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/Two-students-in-critical-condition-after-CA-school-shooting--114197884.htmlGuns don't accidentally discharge. We cannot assign accidents to guns. Guns are innocent bystanders. PEOPLE accidentally discharge. :cool:
Maybe the backpack did it.
Guns don't accidentally discharge. We cannot assign accidents to guns. Guns are innocent bystanders. PEOPLE accidentally discharge. :cool:
I have read a statistic that said nearly 28% of all drivers on the road are caused by accidents, so that would support your theory about people accidentally discharging.
Also when did gun shops start having "back to school" sales?
Maybe the backpack did it.
If the compass had been packing he could have saved a lot of heartache. :p:
Also when did gun shops start having "back to school" sales?
Someone was missing a couple bucks from their portfolio...gotta make it up somehow. Volume! and Location Location Location!
Also when did gun shops start having "back to school" sales?
"back
pack to school".
If it was a packrat, I could understand, but a backpack?
If the compass had been packing he could have saved a lot of heartache. :p:
:notworthy
If the compass had been packing he could have saved a lot of heartache. :p:
:confused:
:confused:
Hmmmm...how about this:
If the calculator had been packing heat, he could have saved a lot of heartache.
Possession of a firearm implies that you know how to use it. Not just how to fire it but also how to clean, transport and store it.
Unless you're going to really need it, you transport those things with security on and completly unloaded (no mag inside and no chambered bullet).
And possession of a weapon (either firearm or blade) implies that one day you may have to use it. And that you'll be responsible for that.
Clearly not the case in this affair.
Unless you're going to really need it, you transport those things with security on and completly unloaded (no mag inside and no chambered bullet).
But then it's not ready to pop that old lady blocking the crosswalk with her walker. I'm kidding, not pop her, just hurry her up a little.
But then it's not ready to pop that old lady blocking the crosswalk with her walker. I'm kidding, not pop her, just hurry her up a little.
No need to keep it loaded to do that... Just show it to the lady... She'll pass away from fear or cross the street at full speed...
Either way, she'll grow wings :)
And there are better ways to discharge in a 15 years old ;)
Possession of a firearm implies that you know how to use it. Not just how to fire it but also how to clean, transport and store it.
The road to hell is paved with implications, or something.
If I buy an outboard motor at the sporting goods store, I am implying I know how to clean, transport, and store it. I don't, but I can buy it anyway. I'll "learn as I go", mistakes and all. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! Pick up a pack of cherry berry grape acai gum, too, while you're there. :rolleyes:
Isn't it why there are driving licences and weapons carrying permits?
While I don't want to enter a debate on firearm possession in the US, wouldn't it be safer (at least from the accidental discharge point of view) to ensure that the owner of a firearm can show a modicum of good sense?
...that the owner of a firearm can show a modicum of good sense?
then Sarah Palin couldn't get NEAR a weapon let alone own one.
And that's just downright unAmerican.
You must be a fascist socialist Nazi. Huh.
I would LOVE it if good sense entered into it. I'm not against guns per se (and I too don't want a debate) but the fact is Joe Schmoe With Nothing To Know can get his hands on just about anything, at the local big box store) but I don't think they should be as available as a new beach towel or a 24 pack of toilet paper. :)
Possession of a firearm implies that you know how to use it.
When one implies, one makes an imp out of lies, or something.
Isn't it why there are driving licences and weapons carrying permits?
Something tells me that the backpacker did not have a permit.
While I don't want to enter a debate on firearm possession in the US, wouldn't it be safer (at least from the accidental discharge point of view) to ensure that the owner of a firearm can show a modicum of good sense?
What Bri said.
What about making guns freely available and ammo damn near impossible to get your hands on. Would that satisfy all requirements or just lead to scary homemade bullets? I never hear people moaning about ammo ownership rights.
Chris Rock did a segment on it:
Bullets should cost 5 thousand dollars a piece! There'd be no more innocent bystanders. "Man, I would blow your fricking head off if I could afford it. You better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway."
One of my favorites, here's the whole thing:
Chris Rock: Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. Fuck, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'
Eh, just shoot him. That'll learn him.
Something tells me that the backpacker did not have a permit.
Then the rightful owner of that gun made a mistake.
I don't understand how country's views towards guns have been changed by a few incidents. When I was growing up, all boys carried a pocket knife to school. We never had anybody get stabbed. Guns - we all had them in our trucks because we liked to hunt before going to school. We didn't have school shootings
That was the world I grew up in as well Sarge. Kids grew up learning how to handle weapons and didn't seem to get in trouble outside of hunting accidents, which were used as "don't let this happen to you" reminders. Now we have rural people our age who just assume competent ownership coming up against an urban culture where only bad guys and police have guns. As we saw with Spex's kid, that culture sees things completely differently. Kids today, who don't belong to a shooting club or a hunting group with experienced older gun handlers have no idea what they are doing and threaten the rights of the competent.
I don't understand how country's views towards guns have been changed by a few incidents. When I was growing up, all boys carried a pocket knife to school. We never had anybody get stabbed. Guns - we all had them in our trucks because we liked to hunt before going to school. We didn't have school shootings
Yes, I had a gun when I was a kid too, and Yes, I went hunting,
but population density is not what it was back then.
Few kids are going hunting before school now-a-days.
And yes, I know about the 2nd Amendment.
Why are attitudes towards guns changing ?
I don't know what constitutes "a few incidents".
In a way, it's sort of like old people driving with bad eyesight.
In small towns they can't do much damage, but on freeways it's a whole different risk.
Is this thread going to turn into a debate about guns in the US ?
Everyone has their own source, but Google is your friend.
I invite just this one Google search for:
"
Child killed by gun"
Or, if you don't want to be concerned by suicides and violence, just
add one word:
"
Child killed by gun accident"
This is about my kids' elementary school music teacher's family.
So very sad...
I hope you were able to comfort and reassure your son about all this.
Comparisons with "when I was a a kid" are invalid for so many reasons. It's a different world, of course attitudes are different.
Way back when in the dark ages, no-one washed their hands after defecating/wiping whatever. Now we know germs and hygiene. Knowledge changes.
Way back when we were kids, seatbelts were new-fangled and our parents moaned about how they never needed them and few kids died from being thrown from the back seat. How many cars were on the roads then? How fast did they go? Situations change
Way back when kids went hunting before school, guns weren't kept loaded because the fear of intruders wasn't so high, guns weren't so taboo (and we alll know what happens when you ban kids from things).... and kids didn't mess with papa's gun unless they fancied a good hiding.... Attitudes change.
It's such a diffeent world it isn't really appropriate to make comparisons. imo.
Is true. Guns are not killing people. Bullets are killing people.
If we start saying guns are killing people, we will say cars are killing them too?
If we start saying guns are killing people, we will say cars are killing them too?
Yes.
But people are need cars, yes? Also need guns. If only government has guns, people are helpless. Trust Uday for this.
If we start saying guns are killing people, we will say cars are killing them too?
Yes. Lots more than guns. :D
2* 9/11 every year from car accidents. Driving is dangerous very dangerous, but we accept the risk as necessary.
Guns are weapons. A tool for killing. To use a weapon; to own a weapon is dangerous. To not own a weapon is also dangerous.
We must weigh the risk of use and positions of such things to address the overall benefits of such actions.
And cooking is damn dangerous too. (I have been hurt more from cooking and walking than guns knifes and cars.)
And cooking is damn dangerous too. (I have been hurt more from cooking and walking than guns knifes and cars.)
But not killed yet, right?;)
Yes. Lots more than guns. :D
Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?
A potential gun owner should be able to prove that
1) He/She can handle a gun.
2) He/She isn't manifestly crazy.
Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?
A potential gun owner should be able to prove that
1) He/She can handle a gun.
2) He/She isn't manifestly crazy.
:thumb:
Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?
There is no requirement to have a driver's license to purchase a car. There is no background check required to purchase a car like there is a gun. An individual with felony DUI convictions can still buy a car, but he can't buy a gun. Strange when you consider he is far more likely to hurt/kill someone with a car rather than a gun.
There is no requirement to have a driver's license to purchase a car.
No. Just to use one. It'd be easier to administrate if we check the buyers, don't you think?
Please we're trying to reason by analogy. That's always slippery. No two things are ever equal.
Actually you do not have to have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. A license is only needed if you drive on public streets/property. You can drive on your ranch/farm without a license. You can also drink and drive without restriction on private property.
What it all boils down to are people trying to restrict a fundemental right (to bear arms) and allowing something far more dangerous (motor vehicles) to be used with little restriction versus the potential for serious death/maiming.
Actually you do not have to have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. A license is only needed if you drive on public streets/property. You can drive on your ranch/farm without a license. You can also drink and drive without restriction on private property.
I know. Analogy is slippery as I said. Still if you want to do more than drive in a circle, you need a license.
What it all boils down to are people trying to restrict a fundemental right (to bear arms)
Restrict? So are you saying that if my desired guidelines are implemented that fewer people would be able to own guns?
Personally, I think that would be a good thing. If you can't handle a gun or you are verifiably crazy, then I think you should not be allowed to have a gun.
Mentall illness is already a disqualifier for gun ownership. It has been since 1968. Ya'll have to remember I'm from an area where the majority of folks have guns and hunt. folks who don't have a gun are considered strange.
Right. And we make potential drivers take a driver's exam. Why don't gun owners have to take a gun exam?
A potential gun owner should be able to prove that
1) He/She can handle a gun.
2) He/She isn't manifestly crazy.
Who will write tests? Who will grade tests?
Personally, I think that would be a good thing. If you can't handle a gun or you are verifiably crazy, then I think you should not be allowed to have a gun.
Maybe I am reading the American constitution wrong. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I look at the dictionary, and infringed means
"1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass"
Is my understanding that this means the right to keep and bear arms can not be touched.
Mentall illness is already a disqualifier for gun ownership. It has been since 1968. Ya'll have to remember I'm from an area where the majority of folks have guns and hunt. folks who don't have a gun are considered strange.
Here's a summary of the
Missouri gun laws.
Here's a summary of the
Alabama gun laws.
In both states, as long as you don't know the person and can say you didn't
know they were a felon, crazy, or whatever, then you can sell them a gun.
What state are you in, Sarge?
You have to look at the Federal Law for these restrictions. These laws are binding in all states and territories. The Gun Control act of 1968 sets limitations as to mental competency and prior criminal offenses. This has also been expanded to cover misdemeanor offenses related to domestic violence. There is a mandatory background check from the US Government before you can purchase. Recently, vets diagnosed with PTSD through the VA have been prevented from purchasing firearms. This has caused problems because it often applies to vets who have never been hospitalized for mentall illness.
I'm from MS. State gun laws are lax because Federal law has taken the front on regulation and prosecution for violations. Remember Federal law supersedes state
From wikipeda
* Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors
* Fugitives from justice
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
* Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
* Illegal Aliens
* Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
* Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
* Persons subject to a restraining order
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
* Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition
Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.
Spexx is still the biggest supporter of the next genocide that we've got.
That he pursues this, er, distinction is clear. Why he would -- it's less obvious, though evidence may be gathered through Spexx's exhibition of every mental trait listed in "Raging Against Self Defense" over on the JPFO site. He rages inside, and uncontainably.
It is this rage that sparks genocides, for is not rage conducive to hatred also?
I do not suffer from it. Nor do I suffer it to pass unchallenged. Nor did Bruce, nor did Radar.
Guns don't always kill people... sometimes they just mess up their heads terribly.
Gabrielle Giffords resigned from House this morning
Washington Post
By Felicia Sonmez
01/25/2012
I wish her all the best. She was definitely one of the good ones.
I have no idea what her "recovery" holds in store, but again,
I wish her nothing but good things.
3 dead (so far) in Ohio school shooting
Go, go, go, NRA
... Grover Norquist's parents must be so proud
Would this have been prevented if there were restrictions on clip size?
Do we even know hoe the boy got the gun?
No, but it's fun watching knee jerkers blame guns for a murderer's actions.
Why are we blaming guns for this? When I grew up I carried a pocket knife at school and usually had a gun in the rack of my pick up. We often hunted just before or after school. We never had these problems until about 15 years ago.
I think this is a terrible situation.
I think the real issue that needs to be addressed is the marginalisation of some students. In I think just about every case of a school shooting, it's a victim of bullying who's lost the plot and pulled the trigger.
That speaks more to me of the fact that these kids are never taught any coping skills by their parents or the education system.
It's a huge problem.
Ali - I agree it is a terrible problem. I'm just so surprised things have changed. Can you believe we even had a smoking area at school?
We didn't have a smoking area, but there were 'smoking areas' lol
You know, the other thing I think about with this issue is that more teenagers are killed or seriously and sometimes permanently injured in hand to hand combat than with guns.
Kids are violent.
They learn it from us grown ups.
No, but it's fun watching knee jerkers blame guns for a murderer's actions.
Hey...
Can you please identify the responsible party or object
in this case, in your opinion, of course.
BREMERTON, Wash. - Bremerton police say the 8-year-old girl was accidentally shot Wednesday afternoon at Armin Jahr Elementary School in Bremerton, by another student.
Police say a student brought a gun to school and it fired while in his backpack. The bullet went through the bag and injuring third-grader Amina Bowman.
<snip>Do we even know how the boy got the gun?
FWIW: here is your ever-reliable Fox News to answer your question...
Note: These are only "school-shootings"
Fox News
2/28/12
School shootings and where students got their guns
A list of some school-shootings and where authorities believe the students obtained guns:
Feb. 27, 2012: Seventeen-year-old T.J. Lane arrested following a multiple shooting
in a school in Chardon, Ohio, outside of Cleveland.
Three students died and two were wounded in the spree, which started in the school cafeteria
as he and other students waited for buses to other schools.
Authorities did not immediately say where they believe Lane got a .22-caliber handgun.
Feb. 22, 2012: A 9-year-old boy in Port Orchard, Wash., brought a .45-caliber handgun
to his elementary school where the weapon discharged from inside his backpack,
critically injuring 8-year-old Amina Kocer-Bowman.
Authorities believe he got the weapon during a visit with his mother.
April 19, 2011: A 6-year-old boy accidentally fired a gun inside Ross Elementary School
in Houston, Texas, injuring himself and two other children.
The boy and his mother were staying at the home of Wrolandrea Hensley, 30,
who had hidden the gun under a futon cushion.
The boy found the gun on the floor.
Hensley was charged with making a firearm accessible to a child.
March 25, 2011: Michael Phelps, 15, shot another student at
Martinsville West Middle School in Martinsville, Ind.
Phelps had stolen the 9mm handgun from a family friend's home.
<snip>
The article goes on with school shootings in 2006 and 2005.
.
You know, the other thing I think about with this issue is that more teenagers are killed or seriously and sometimes permanently injured playing rugby or footy than with guns.
Kids are violent.
They learn it from us grown ups.
FIFY.
Then we let them drive cars. It's a wonder we're not extinct.
Can you please identify the responsible party in this case.
I'll start with whichever adult allowed a child access to a loaded weapon or a weapon and ammo.
Or were you assuming the gun went to the store, bought ammunition,
loaded itself, jumped into the student's backpack and then fired a round by itself?
In addition to the charges brought against the boy, the boy's mother would seem to be culpable of reckless endangerment for not securing the firearm (there's nothing about the boy trespassing in the mother's home to get it). The firearm can be configured for safe carry in the backpack even under the conditions of the pack being slammed down; so, it was a matter of human negligence that the firearm was either left "cocked and with the safety off" by the mother; or, configured that way by the boy. That was neither a safe configuration for firearm storage nor any manner of carry. The safety should not be off until one is ready to pull the trigger. For backpack carry, there shouldn't have been a round in the chamber either.
The boy claimed he was going to run away. A similar situation could have developed if his mother had recklessly left her car keys in her car and the boy got in and drove away then hit someone because he didn't know how to properly control the vehicle.
People don't kill people, cars do!
That's another sign of the times. We no longer teach kids safe & proper gun handling. Ya'll have seen pics of my 4 year old shooting. We've taught the kids they can look at or handle any weapon in our home as long as they ask first & we go thru the proper clearing procedures. This way the guns aren't a mystery or forbidden fruit. They learn they are a tool that has to be treated the same way as my chainsaw, circular saw, etc.
BTW, my 28 year old still comments on his first gun lesson. I took him out and shot a cantaloupe. I told him that is what would happen to his head if he messed with a loaded gun. Funny the things that stick in their minds
I'll start with whichever adult allowed a child access to a loaded weapon or a weapon and ammo.
Or were you assuming the gun went to the store, bought ammunition,
loaded itself, jumped into the student's backpack and then fired a round by itself?
The boy is responsible. He's 9.
That's the law in Washington. The mom's not responsible, nobody else. He's being charged.
Who *should* be responsible, tha's a different conversation.
Oh, well its Washington ... you should have said that.
Ya know what they say about peeps in Washington, right ;)
Don't mess with nine year olds.
OK, on a more serious note, you stated "in your opinion."
After reading the article I took this out...
the boy said
he got the gun from his mother's house, and brought it to school because he planned to run away.
"I just want everyone to know that
my kid made a mistake." the boy's father said.
If the bail is met,
the boy would be released to his uncle, who is his legal guardian
and who also sat by his side in the courthouse.
Huh??? Gotta be more to that part of this story.
ALets look into this some more ...
the boy got the gun from the glovebox of his mother's boyfriend's car.
The boy's mother and father relinquished custody of their son,
and his uncle is now his legal guardian.
At a court hearing Thursday, Kitsap County officials said
the boy's parents had extensive criminal records.
Court documents show [the mother] has been in and out of the court system//
//she was arrested for possession of meth
She also was convicted of marijuana delivery and forgery.
[the father] has been convicted multiple times for violating protection orders regarding [the mother]
[the father]said the gun belongs to Chaffin's boyfriend and wants police to investigate her.
In third grade, I was in Tuscon AZ for a year. A kid in my class brought a handgun to school for show and tell. I'm a little hazy on the details, but I'm pretty sure the teacher held onto it for the boy for the day but let him hold it and show it in front of the class for show and tell. She didn't let him pass it around. And I think she asked him if it was loaded, and he said it wasn't, but I never saw her check for herself. That part of the memory is pretty foggy.
He had found it in the desert on the edge of town and had gone shooting with it. He told the story of when he shot a prickly pear cactus, and when he went to look at the bullet hole, he saw that he had killed a lizard or some other small animal that was behind the cactus.
This was 1976. Different times.
OK, on a more serious note, you stated "in your opinion."
After reading the article I took this out...
Huh??? Gotta be more to that part of this story.
ALets look into this some more ...
Guns don't kill people, parents kill people
I think (in my opinion, hmm?) the law in Washington is not what it should be. I don't think a nine year old should be held responsible in this case, though that is how our laws are written. I believe the owner of the gun should be responsible. I'm all for personal responsibility and shit, and I don't know what kind of squawking the 2nd amendment fundies have made but there oughta be a law, y'know?
Otherwise, why not just have some little kid be your triggerman, be the babysitting bank robber or whatever. Who is the fucking adult in charge here? It had better not be a nine year old, running away from home who takes a gun cause he's scared.
Guns don't kill people. People who rail about how guns don't kill people and how we need to educate kids about proper gun use but guns are lying around everywhere and for some reason the gun buddies don't actually get together and have this discussion so person number one has all their guns locked up so the kids can't get to them and decided kid number 1 didn't need the big gun talk yet because he couldn't access the gun closet but kid number 1 has a friend who is kid number 2 whose parents have educated about gun safety and therefore don't lock up their guns so kid number 1 and kid number 2 play together and gee whillickers why weren't all the parents doing what they were supposed to do to prevent kid number one from taking the really cool neato gun from kid number 2's house and shooting his sister like educating him and keeping guns locked up? Guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns do. Sometimes their offspring gets involved.
It's like when it comes to guns the whole world all of a sudden believes that all parents are good and smart and attentive and etc and so on...poppycock. That's an awful big fantasy world you create (and even suspension of disbelief doesn't help here) for the "right" to wave a big old piece of stupid metal around.
[COLOR="White"]lookout in 5, 4, 3, 2...[/COLOR]
Who is the fucking adult in charge here?
Thats the question I was trying to answer as well.
Legally, it is the uncle. However, I don't see how he should be held responsible for this.
IMO, the mom's boyfriend should be in serious shit for having a loaded firearm in the glove box of his car.
I wonder how the boy knew it was there and how he got access to it.
Was the frikkin car also unlocked???
A whole lotta WTF going on here.
yeah sarcasm and all... whatever.
this is obviously vastly more serious than sticks and stones, right? It is clearly an accident, and a terrible one, but a preventable one. The greatest mistake was made by the gun owner, but there is no criminal penalty for the gun owner's mistake. THAT is the part I'm complaining about.
Parents, imperfect parents, I'm not just a customer, I'm the fucking leader of the pack. I get that. Big, avoidable mistakes ... shit.
It's the parent/adult in charge/gun owner's mistake. But it is the two kids that are paying the price. That's wrong.
Thats the question I was trying to answer as well.
Legally, it is the uncle. However, I don't see how he should be held responsible for this.
IMO, the mom's boyfriend should be in serious shit for having a loaded firearm in the glove box of his car.
I wonder how the boy knew it was there and how he got access to it.
Was the frikkin car also unlocked???
A whole lotta WTF going on here.
It isnt the uncle. that's what I'm trying to explain here. the uncle is NOT LEGALLY responsible for shit here.
Sarcasm? I assure you I wasn't being even slightly sarcastic.
Now git up thar on your little doggie and ride off into the sunset, pardner.
See, that was sarcasm.
I don't follow the fallback (finger in dimples) "oh gee I'm such an imperfect parent...chuckle I'm such a human being" excuse when it comes to kids getting their hands on firearms. Fuck that. You'd walk across fire to save your kid but you won't give up your fucking gun or be more "perfect" about it. (By 'you' I mean the general 'you')
Simple really.
Well, I didn't choose the quote button for your post, infinite monkey, but I'm sure I read a sentence in the post of your that said something to the effect of "lock up your sticks and stones". That was the sarcasm I was referring to. Perhaps you edited it out, perhaps I'm imagining it. Upon rereading your post now, there doesn't seem to be anything sarcastic about it.
I am not up in arms over your remarks, I am deeply saddened about this story in my area. I'm also very upset that our law is written the way it's written. Even if a civil suit is brought successfully against the mom/boyfriend/uncle whomever, I don't think that's enough of an incentive to strongly motivate people who own firearms to take reasonable precautions to keep them safe.
I understand. I don't agree with the law either. I think I was using the thread as a rant area. (Clear the Rant Area...INCOMING.)
I did have a line about sticks and rocks but I edited it out: it was from an old conversation I had with my ex after Columbine and it didn't really fit here.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's very sad. Violence makes me very sad, intended or not. I can't even watch my local news anymore.
Why are we blaming guns for this? When I grew up I carried a pocket knife at school and usually had a gun in the rack of my pick up. We often hunted just before or after school. We never had these problems until about 15 years ago.
Because if the kid had only had a knife, or bat, or circular saw, or fist, the damage would have been less.
I wonder how the boy knew it was there and how he got access to it.
My guess is that the criminal mother's boyfriend took it out and showed it to him, maybe as a threat, or maybe to show the kid how "cool" he is, cause all the cool kids pack heat. Maybe he showed it to him because his dick is small.
It isnt the uncle. that's what I'm trying to explain here. the uncle is NOT LEGALLY responsible for shit here.
I'll bet he is. I don't know that I agree with it, but he IS the kid's legal guardian.
Classic jibes with: Cars kill people
No...
Cars are operated to transport people, sometimes people are killed or only hurt.
Guns are operated to kill people, sometimes people are only wounded.
Trying to figure out who is responsible is very close to blaming the rape victim for being raped.
The NRA, with Grover Norquist and the other Board Members, are responsible by politically stopping
any reasonable and effective legislation to deal with our society's ability to control guns.
Likewise, the people who support the NRA are only slightly less responsible.
If you love the idea of hunting, but blindly accept the consequences
of the NRA's position, some independent thought might helpful.
.
Guns are operated to kill people, sometimes people are only wounded.
Guns are operated to shoot targets, VERY RARELY people are killed or only hurt.
How many people are killed or hurt by cars vs. guns?
Guns are operated to shoot targets
I think that's disingenuous.
No more than "Guns are operated to kill people"
Guns are operated to provide food.
That better? If not, I can add to the list.
I am a gun owner. I do not belong to the NRA.
I use them almost exclusively to shoot at targets.
I have not killed anything with any of my guns in years.
I did not keep the guns in my home when my children were young.
I educated my sons (daughter not interested) about them.
No more than "Guns are operated to kill people"
Guns are operated to provide food.
That better?
Yes
great, now ...
How many people are killed or hurt by cars vs. guns?
I can atest to using guns for food. Many nights my protein comes from what I have hunted. Plus I think it is far more humane for the animal than the slaughterhouse route.
great, now ...
How many people are killed or hurt by cars vs. guns?
What is the point of such a question ?
How about airplanes and swimming pools ?
But if you must...
How many laws are there about the safety and operations of cars vs. guns ?
These are the points of my arguments:
- cars are pretty close to being a necessity in our society, guns are not
- cars have laws written about their safety and operations, guns do not
- cars require a driver's license to be operated legally, guns do not
Now ask yourself
why do we have more effective legislation for cars, but not for guns.
My answer is there is a hysteria over guns in the US, that has been
created and promoted by the NRA via Grover Norquist and fellow Board members.
As such, those who support the NRA positions on gun control
also share the responsibility for all it's consequences.
.
You're assuming we all agree that more legislation in regards to cars, pools, airplanes, and just about any damn thing is a good thing.
I've got guns. My kids know I've got guns. My kids know not to touch my guns but I still keep them secured when I'm not carrying them because kids are people and people do dumb shit. If my kid gets his hands on my gun and hurts or kills someone, I will be responsible for that. Morally, criminally, and financially. I'm fine with that.
These are the points of my arguments:
- cars are pretty close to being a necessity in our society, guns are not
- cars have laws written about their safety and operations, guns do not
- cars require a driver's license to be operated legally, guns do not
-I don't need a lawnmower, you shouldn't be allowed to have one.
-There's a shitload of laws on safety (manufacture/sale) and operation (use) of guns.
Now ask yourself why do we have more effective legislation for cars, but not for guns.
The difference is not in legislation, but enforcement, so why is that?
-Cars are an order of magnitude bigger threat to the public.
-Revenue potential in the enforcement of car laws... much, much higher.
According to Sarah Brady, the Brady bill stopped 23,000 felons from buying handguns in the first month. I don't have the figures but I'm sure the total is in the hundreds of thousands to date. The Brady bill makes it a federal felony to
attempt to buy a gun, if you aren't eligible. So how come of those hundreds of thousands of people that have blocked, not one has been procecuted... not one. Because there's no revenue to be made?
My answer is there is a hysteria over guns in the US, that has been
created and promoted by the NRA via Grover Norquist and fellow Board members.
Oh there's a hysteria all right, you can see it in your mirror.
The hysteria of anti-gun zealots proclaiming guns to be the equivalent of the Black Plague/cancer/halitosis combined.
While gun owners are merely stalwart. :haha:
Seriously though, Norquist & company are using the contentious issue of guns as a political tool. More of the divide and conquer strategy, the us vs them, making as many single issue splinter groups as possible, so they can control the government.
And you're playing into it as much as NRA members, with...
As such, those who support the NRA positions on gun control
also share the responsibility for all it's consequences.
Yeah well take that back or I'll shoot you. :p: You see the problem with your manifesto, is you're holding every NRA member personally responsible for that kid killing his tormentors. C'mon, that's so irrational nobody will take you seriously but the choir.
Kids have been killing kids forever. He could have run them down with a stolen car, and you're sadly mistaken if you think one person can't kill two with a knife, in a surprise attack.
Finally, all the laws in the world won't stop the urban gang-bangers, they don't have a lot of concern for rules. They are already breaking the law by possessing and carrying, before they ever use it.
Now I agree there are many people acting irresponsibly. They carelessly allow access to guns by people that shouldn't. They also burn down buildings, leave pets & children in hot cars, OD on their prescriptions, and text while driving. You can't keep people from being stupid by legislation.
Yes, but natural selection is obviously not working.
I think Darwin's theory is wrong.
Maybe natural selection can be overwhelmed by overbreeding. Or we have too many laws protecting fools from themselves already.
Trayvon Martin
Go, go, go NRA
"Justified" homicides have tripled in Florida since the 'stand your ground' law went into effect.
Just think...without that law, many of those people might still be alive.
I am not anti-gun. I know how to shoot and we have a gun at home (safely stored). I am anti-allowing idiots to have dead-making capabilities.
The problem is the idiots don't just shoot each other. Let the idiots kill the hell out of each other. hell, I'd sell tickets.
It's us innocent bystanders who pay the cost for their ego-boosts. Can't they just masturbate or something?
Fuckers.
"Stand Your Ground" does not mean "Give Chase." The articles I've read seem to indicate that Zimmerman followed Martin, but a lot of what happened is unclear, although Zimmerman did look beaten up when the cops got there.
What I haven't seen is a map showing the convenience store and the locations of Martin's and Zimmerman's homes. May or not make a difference in an understanding of what happened.
I heard the 911 tape on the radio yesterday, want to listen to it again.
Trayvon Martin
Go, go, go NRA
Abortions increase.
Go, go, go, Democrats.
You can't keep people from being stupid by legislation.
How about if we made being stupid a felony, or is that just a stupid idea?
The cost of prisons would bankrupt the few taxpayers left.
Abortions increase.
Do they? I think they're at record lows. But the
latest data I could find was from 2008, so that may have changed.
Trayvon Martin
Go, go, go NRA
Oregon Sets Assisted Suicide Record
Go, go, go Oregonians
;) Yes, we don't have to eat a gun here in Oregon.
You can go to Georgia for that.
And circle gets the square!
;) Yes, we don't have to eat a gun here in Oregon.
You can go to Georgia for that.
It seems that killings are just fine when suits YOUR purpose, only instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience! Barbarian, hypocrite, and as an Oregonian ... ACCOMPLICE!
Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".
Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.
Classic, shall we start a "dueling headlines" ... go get the guitar
I don't know about every "yesterday", but last March 14th....
3-year-old kills self with gun in car in Washington
ASSOCIATED PRESS March 14, 2012
Anytime you want an update, just search Google News for "child killed gun"
And then today, there is this...
Lake Stevens Journal
Alison Dempsey-Hall
Mar 22, 2012
In light of recent child gun accidents, awareness raised
for need of Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program
In the past few weeks, three children in Washington state have been shot
— two of them killed — because the owners of guns didn't lock them up tight.
So, who does the politicians call for help
... none other than ......(wait for it)............ the NRA !
The National Rifle Association, education professionals,
urban housing safety officials, clinical psychologists, and law enforcement
developed the Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program to teach children
in prekindergarten through third grade how to stay safe if they encounter a gun.
Since the Gun Safety program began in 1988, it has reached
more than twenty-one million children, in all fifty states.
<snip>
WOW ! 21,000,000 children in all 50 states
- somehow Eddy Eagle is not working for 3 year olds.
It seems that killings are just fine when suits YOUR purpose,
only instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security,
you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience! Barbarian,
hypocrite, and as an Oregonian ... ACCOMPLICE!
Ouch ! such name-calling :eek:
Call me when you, or someone close to you, is terminallly ill.
Oh wait, I probably won't be around then.
Take a few minutes to read our law (ORS 127.865 (2)).
You just might want to come to Oregon or Washington.
... and until, then as Reagan said, I won't hold your youth against you. ;)
.
- somehow Eddy Eagle is not working for 3 year olds.
Stop. Don't Touch. Get an adult.
Pretty straightforward, even for the average 3 year old.
Eddie Eagle is a
very basic firearms safety program.
Locking up a gun doesn't make it safer. Learning to respect one does.
Around 75 children under 5 die in firearms related incidents.
350 children under 5 drowned in bathtubs, pools, hottubs, and other water sources in the home.
How's that campaign to ban water going?
Ouch ! such name-calling :eek:
Call me when you, or someone close to you, is terminallly ill.
Oh wait, I probably won't be around then.
Take a few minutes to read our law (ORS 127.865 (2)).
You just might want to come to Oregon or Washington.
... and until, then as Reagan said, I won't hold your youth against you. ;)
.
You old people are so funny! :lol:
Actually, my Spec. Ops. medical training included euthanasia. When operating in denied areas, situations can occur in which someone becomes mortally wounded; but, can neither be taken with the rest nor left behind without risking compromising the mission (that many other lives may depend on) if the mortally wounded lives long enough to be captured and interrogated.
You've probably heard the saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." If you've forgotten what it means, that's OK, I won't hold your advanced years against you. ;)
--------------------------------------------------------
"But think of the children." - The last refuge of a hypocrite.
Classic, shall we start a "dueling headlines" ... go get the guitar
I don't know about every "yesterday", but last March 14th....
3-year-old kills self with gun in car in Washington
ASSOCIATED PRESS March 14, 2012
Anytime you want an update, just search Google News for "child killed gun"
And then today, there is this...
Lake Stevens Journal
Alison Dempsey-Hall
Mar 22, 2012
In light of recent child gun accidents, awareness raised
for need of Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program
So, who does the politicians call for help
... none other than ......(wait for it)............ the NRA !
WOW ! 21,000,000 children in all 50 states
- somehow Eddy Eagle is not working for 3 year olds.
Were any of the owners of the guns that killed these kids members of the NRA?
What's with all these diversions... abortions, assisted suicides, drownings ?
Dwellars are bright enough to know none of these have anything to do with guns killing people.
Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
... and guns would still be killing people just the same
If you know this is happening, what do you propose ?
Were any of the owners of the guns that killed these kids members of the NRA?
One was the daughter of a police officer.
I don't know if he was a member of the NRA.
ETA: He was one of two gun owners that had CCL's
What's with all these diversions... abortions, assisted suicides, drownings ?
Dwellars are bright enough to know none of these have anything to do with guns killing people.
Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
... and guns would still be killing people just the same
A reasonable extension of your rhetoric would have been:
Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
Shootings might be brought to zero
Then you could have asked for proposals on how to accomplish it; but, you didn't. Instead you went off with language that irrationally attributes actions to man made objects that aren't capable of acting on their own.
Where others see analogies, you see diversions: that's because you're set on one course of action that you see as a panacea while others see it as a placebo. You can't get rid of all guns any more than you can get rid of everything people can drown in, that people can use to commit suicide; or, ways people can perform an abortion.
You exhibit the same kind of mindset that causes me to think of some people as gun fanatics, in your case an antigun fanatic. There's no real room for discussion with those in either group. You've convinced me that your question was rhetorical.
If you know this is happening, what do you propose ?
Imma. gonna say it just to be a troll: George Zimmerman
don't look all that " white" to me.
I know. What a racist.
His family claims he is Latino.
This whole thing is so fucked up.
We shouldn't be trying this guy in the press. The police should have done a better investigation. One they can stand behind, and if charges were filed against him, he should have been judged by a jury of his peers. This is not the way to do it.
The shooting is suspect, but the backlash is worse. The public scrutiny should be on the police, the DA, and the law, not on Zimmerman. This is just as bad as a lynching.
Most people who were lynched probably weren't running around shooting people.
So you think it's OK to ruin this guy's future without giving him a trial?
Remember Richard Jewell, the Atlanta Olympics bomber?
edit: How about Steven Hatfill, the anthrax poisoner?
How about that white van the DC sniper was driving around in?
Oh, I was really just addressing the lynching comment. It's not quite the same thing.
No, he needs a trial. And if they can prove he did it without justification good for them: one less nut running around.
If they can prove he was justified then case closed.
Not quite the same, but very similar. Both are groups of people taking justice into their own hands with no regard for the law. Nobody has strung Zimmerman up in a tree yet, but I bet he doesn't feel very safe. I don't see him going out in public.
No, you're right about that.
My really real feeling sounds very bad, and I don't want to voice them.
One word: Sharpton. :headshake
So you think it's OK to ruin this guy's future without giving him a trial?
"without giving him a trial" is what the protests are about.
A reasonable extension of your rhetoric would have been:
Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
Shootings might be brought to zero
Then you could have asked for proposals on how to accomplish it; but, you didn't. <snip>
You exhibit the same kind of mindset that causes me to think of some people as gun fanatics,
in your case an antigun fanatic. There's no real room for discussion with those in either group.
You've convinced me that your question was rhetorical.
OK Stormie, you may consider me an anti-gun fanatic,
but first please consider
one of my previous postings.
I really don't intend my question to be rhetorical.
If it helps, use your words above to address the real question:
How do
you propose shootings might be brought to zero ?
Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from
my issue of people being killed by guns.
.
Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".
Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.
If he'd asked to be shot, the other guy wouldn't have shot him? Like reverse psychology or something? What are you on about?
"without giving him a trial" is what the protests are about.
What's the point of a trial when under Floriduh law he's going to be found not guilty? It would be a show trial and the verdict would probably cause even more anger and possible riots.
What's the point of a trial when under Floriduh law he's going to be found not guilty? It would be a show trial and the verdict would probably cause even more anger and possible riots.
Federal law may come into the picture... to determine if killing Trayvon Martin violated his civil rights.
That may sound strange, I know, but it's possible with the FBI being involved.
What's the point of a trial when under Floriduh law he's going to be found not guilty? It would be a show trial and the verdict would probably cause even more anger and possible riots.
If he's found not guilty because of "stand your ground", rather than some technicality or exculpatory information yet to be mentioned, it may be useful for altering the "stand your ground" law for the better.
If he'd asked to be shot, the other guy wouldn't have shot him? Like reverse psychology or something? What are you on about?
sexobon: ... instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience!
Happy Monkey: ... Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".
I used the concept of security referring to the person who did the shooting. You turned "secured" into a euphemism for being shot, apparently just to make a flippant connection to euthanasia. I was comparing Lamplighter to Zimmerman both of whom are relevant to the discussion. You went off on a tangent contrasting Trayvon Martin to unknown euthanasia participants.
sexobon: ... Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.
Here, I returned to using the concept of security in my original relevant context suggesting that if Trayvon Martin had asked Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch member) to protect [secure] him when they met, Trayvon Martin couldn't have been characterized as a threat and might still be alive today.
Thank you for your question.
... Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.
[bold mine]
You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns." You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators. That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject. Thanks for the entertainment.
Gun nuts are SOOOOO touchy about hurting guns' feelings. :lol:
Guns don't hurt people's feelings...PEOPLE hurt people's feelings.
Like they think we think guns are alive or something. "Oooooh, that gun is a mean one. He once shot a guy just to watch him die. Then he went to Starbucks. Ooooohhh." :lol2:
It's almost as if that's the only argument they can fall back on. :rolleyes:
Still, it's a step up from court jester. :p:
OK Stormie, you may consider me an anti-gun fanatic,
but first please consider one of my previous postings.
I really don't intend my question to be rhetorical.
If it helps, use your words above to address the real question:
How do you propose shootings might be brought to zero ?
Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.
Oops. I didn't say the above. Maybe you meant Sexobon?
Hey, Stormie, I do apologize... my bad... no idea how that came about.
Now that Stormie has responded, Lamp gets to put his post in the "Awesome Pick Up Lines....." thread. :cool:
You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns."
You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators.
That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Oh, sure I can: "People are killing others with guns"
I can also say people are unintentionally killing others with guns
I can also say people are unintentionally killing themselves with guns
And yes, I do portray people as victims... they are the victims.
Once again, it's down to name-calling and quibbling over my wording.
It's OK to write me off --- that matters little, and I'm sorry to lose the conversation.
But what does matter is to be aware of a problem, but find a pretext to avoid it.
Take care.
If there's a stand your ground law and someone is trying to commit suicide, is it acceptable for them to kill themself to prevent themself from killing themself?
Does this change if there is also an assisted suicide law?
and if you do it in a public place will they ticket you for littering and go after your estate?
Here's something I think we can all agree on: Geraldo is stoopid.
He says the hoodie was at fault for the shooting. He urged african-american and hispanic parents to not let their babies grow up to wear hoodies.
So hoodies don't get shot, people WEARING hoodies get shot.
What a maroon.
If there's a stand your ground law and someone is trying to commit suicide, is it acceptable for them to kill themself to prevent themself from killing themself?
Does this change if there is also an assisted suicide law?
Somewhere there is a think tank with an empty chair...
Here's something I think we can all agree on: Geraldo is stoopid.
He says the hoodie was at fault for the shooting. He urged african-american and hispanic parents to not let their babies grow up to wear hoodies.
So hoodies don't get shot, people WEARING hoodies get shot.
What a maroon.
I think you mean Jorge.
What we have here is a Fatal Fashion Faux Pas.
Quit making me guffaw out loud.
If there's a stand your ground law and someone is trying to commit suicide, is it acceptable for them to kill themself to prevent themself from killing themself?
Does this change if there is also an assisted suicide law?
[Grammar alert!] The funny thing is that Mozilla spell check doesn't like the word "themself." Neither does it like "themselves." So I got all flustered and re-edited several times to please spell-check.
According to
this site (warning: Canadian!):
... the plural pronoun "they" can be used to represent a singular antecedent that is gender-neutral and indefinite, for example, "someone", "no one", "anyone" or "a person". ... the other grammatical forms of the "singular they" are "them", "their" and "themselves", and these are used in a sentence to relate to a "singular they" subject, along with a plural verb. The question addressed in this article is whether "themself" can be used in some cases instead of "themselves" with reference to a singular "they" or a singular indefinite antecedent.
and concludes
Although some current dictionaries, for example, The New Oxford Dictionary of English, state that themself has re-emerged in recent years when used to refer to a singular gender-neutral noun or pronoun ("themselves" remains the normal third person plural reflexive form), they label it as "rare" or "disputed" or "not widely accepted in standard English". Other dictionaries such as Webster's Third New International Dictionary do not mention it at all. In short, although there is some acknowledgement that this form is occasionally used today, informally, and that it may perhaps be a trend to watch, its use does not seem widespread enough to justify advocating it in legislative texts for the time being.
What do you think?
I've always heard it as 'themselves' but that doesn't really agree in number, does it?
You could say himself, or herself, or 'him or her self.'
It's an awkward word. Avoid it. ;)
But how else would you represent a singular antecedent that is gender-neutral and indefinite when you want to use an anaphor that is bound by its antecedent?
Imma. gonna say it just to be a troll: George Zimmerman
don't look all that " white" to me.
I know. What a racist.
He isn't. He's Hispanic. Or at least half-Hispanic.
If he were white-white instead of a deep beige, protesters would be burning down DisneyWorld.
I think you're avoiding the more important issue.
But how else would you represent a singular antecedent that is gender-neutral and indefinite when you want to use an anaphor that is bound by its antecedent?
um. 5? :bonk:
What's the point of a trial when under Floriduh law he's going to be found not guilty? It would be a show trial and the verdict would probably cause even more anger and possible riots.
Tain't necessarily so.
Listen carefully to the 911 tape, ignore the inflammatory comment for the time being.
He followed the kid around in his car.
Of course, we don't know what happened, but on it's face it would appear that a cop wannabe who made forty or so calls to 911 in the preceeding weeks and did not identify himself as Neighborhood Watch to the 911 dispatcher on this incident who told him not to follow the teen. Could he have provoked the situation that lead to the shooting?
I'm hoping to be able to listen to Michael Smerconish's show on Monday. He said today that he was going to go over the case point by point based on public information about the case. Should be interesting.
Stand Your Ground <> Stalk Through The Neighborhood.
If Florida would take the guns away from its law enforcement officers, then cop wannabes wouldn't have them to shoot people with either. Problem solved.
I thought it was 'Floorduh'...
I always thought it was legal to shoot someone wearing a hoodie. I guess I might need to change our policy & procedures manual.
Sarge, you've jumped from "should be" to "is".
Nice to see ya, BTW.
Trayvon Martin
Go, go, go NRA
Why don't you want the process of investigation and due process to play out? Your statements confirm that you have convicted this shooter. Why don't you go to Florida and try to hang him?
Do they? I think they're at record lows. But the latest data I could find was from 2008, so that may have changed.
Could be, I have no Idea, and all the better, because the point was to make a statement as stupid as the one I quoted.
If he's found not guilty because of "stand your ground", rather than some technicality or exculpatory information yet to be mentioned, it may be useful for altering the "stand your ground" law for the better.
The Florida legislator that introduced that law in the first place, is saying it's being distorted and abused by the police, and he intends to amend it to make that clear.
In The Hoodie [COLOR="SlateGray"](to the tune of In The Ghetto)[/COLOR]
As the lights shine on a warm and mild Florida night
A neighboring young man is doin' alright in his hoodie
And his mama doesn't know 'bout something that she doesn't need
It's that his soul is soon to be freed from his hoodie
People, don't you understand they need a helping hand?
Or this will surely be a no man's land some day
Take a look at you and me, are we too blind to see
Do we simply turn our heads and look the other way?
Well the world turns and the young neighbor man in hooded clothes
Walks down the street as a warm breeze blows o'er his hoodie
And his temper flares under a watchful eye
And he learns to resist and he learns how to die in his hoodie
Then one day in desperation a community protests away. They call for an arrest, call for a trial, try to dispel the claims, but they don't get far
And his mama cries
As people rally around the young neighbor man
Who was killed in the street with nothing in his hand but his hoodie
Though a young neighbor man died on that warm and mild Florida night
Another local young man is feelin' alright wearin' his hoodie
And his mama cries.
That is awesome, sexobon.
If he's found not guilty because of "stand your ground", rather than some technicality or exculpatory information yet to be mentioned, it may be useful for altering the "stand your ground" law for the better.
Agreed. Although this case has NOTHING to do with the "Stand your Ground" law.
This case is about some asswipe who stalked a kid, chased him down and then shot him after instigating the altercation.
Show me ANYTHING in the "Stand your Ground" law that covers that reality.
Using that law is an abuse of it, by his lawyer.
He isn't. He's Hispanic. Or at least half-Hispanic.
If he were white-white instead of a deep beige, protesters would be burning down DisneyWorld.
Yup. Stop interjecting your damn facts or the extremists will have nothing with which to argue. :rolleyes:
Tain't necessarily so.
Listen carefully to the 911 tape, ignore the inflammatory comment for the time being.
the 911 dispatcher on this incident who told him not to follow the teen. Could he have provoked the situation that lead to the shooting?
A) The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that. He never specifically said NOT to do so.
Stand Your Ground <> Stalk Through The Neighborhood.
Agreed.
Listen to the audio yourself. See if you hear what the asswipe says at 1:52 on the audio.
[YOUTUBE]vNI5CA5jijw[/YOUTUBE]
You tell me if he says "fucking coons"
This POS hunted this kid down and killed him intentionally. He was looking for glory and wanted an altercation.
IMO, he deserves all that he gets ... and I hope he rots in jail for it.
Trayvon Martin
Go, go, go NRA
Why don't you want the process of investigation and due process to play out?
Your statements confirm that you have convicted this shooter.
Why don't you go to Florida and try to hang him?
:D Wow Merc !
Where did you get all that from "Go go go NRA"
Maybe a little bit of transference going on here ?
sexobon: ... instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience!
Happy Monkey: ... Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".
I used the concept of security referring to the person who did the shooting.
Right. Zimmerman did the shooting. Zimmerman killed in the name of security. Treyvon Martin was killed by Zimmerman. Of course I
turned "secured" into a euphemism for being shot, apparently just to make a flippant connection to euthanasia.
Actually, you introduced the flippant between Treyvon Martin and euthanasia:
Oregon Sets Assisted Suicide Record
Go, go, go Oregonians
sexobon: ... Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.
Here, I returned to using the concept of security in my original relevant context...
( Zimmerman providing "security" for his neighborhood)
... suggesting that if Trayvon Martin had asked Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch member) to protect [secure] him when they met, Trayvon Martin couldn't have been characterized as a threat and might still be alive today.
If he'd done what? Approached the armed man who's been following him around and asked him for protection from... what? Again, what are you on about?
But how else would you represent a singular antecedent that is gender-neutral and indefinite when you want to use an anaphor that is bound by its antecedent?
Wow, that's not just a grammar Nazi talking, that's the whole Third Reich.:cool:
Kidding.
It's more the intersection of grammar and engineering.
@ Happy Monkey
Trayvon Martin
Go, go, go NRA
Abortions increase.
Go, go, go, Democrats.
XoB reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to make this point:
Could be, I have no Idea, and all the better, because the point was to make a statement as stupid as the one I quoted. ...
You missed that point and distracted from it by challenging the content thus going off on a tangent.
Oregon Sets Assisted Suicide Record
Go, go, go Oregonians
I also reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to reiterate xoB's point. You missed the point again and went off on a tangent. Now it's been explained to you twice.
Right. Zimmerman did the shooting. Zimmerman killed in the name of security. Treyvon Martin was killed by Zimmerman. Of course I
Actually, you introduced the flippant between Treyvon Martin and euthanasia: ...
All besides the point.
I know you as a contrarian more interested in antagonizing certain other personalities than in valid discussion and the type of person who will, to that end, even go so far as to present absurdities and suggest that it's what another person is implying just to bait them:
( Zimmerman providing "security" for his neighborhood)If he'd done what? Approached the armed man who's been following him around and asked him for protection from... what? Again, what are you on about?
This is the last time I'm going to indulge you.
Even in States with concealed carry permits, brandishing a weapon is illegal. I've not seen evidence that this was done; or, that Martin had actually seen Zimmerman's weapon early on in their interaction. The stand your ground philosophy taken literally would have worked well for Martin as there was no need for him to approach Zimmerman whether Zimmerman was armed or not. That Florida is a concealed carry state was likely known to Martin; also, that Zimmerman
could be armed. Martin might have been able to outrun Zimmerman; but, he couldn't outrun a bullet. Remaining in place and offering Zimmerman diffusing conversation was a viable option. Putting himself in a position of dependency by asking for Zimmerman's protection may have given Zimmerman the sense of control he needed to avoid his resorting to using a weapon. What did Martin need protection from?!!! Why his own emotions of course, Martin's fight or flight response was a contributing factor to his own death.
HM, this kind of in-depth discussion is generally of interest to men. Of what interest could it possibly be to you, Happy?
But had he seen his doodle?
And who had the biggest one?
and was it licensed to kill (007")?
It's more the intersection of grammar and engineering.
"Engineers who are poets" Next, on Dr. Phil
Slowly it turns...
LA Times
Tina Susman and Molly Hennessy-Fiske
3/25/12
Trayvon Martin case sheds light on 'stand your ground' issues
George Zimmerman has so far avoided arrest in the killing
of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by using Florida’s "stand your ground" defense,
but the case has forced even supporters of the statute to confront
what critics say are gaping holes that leave it open to wildly disparate interpretations.
<snip>
I repeat ...
This case is about some asswipe who stalked a kid, chased him down and then shot him after instigating the altercation.
Show me ANYTHING in the "Stand your Ground" law that covers that.
Using that law is an abuse of it, by his lawyer.
... and to offer a little levity (not really)
.
.
.
The "stand your ground" comes in when the police and/or DA don't think they can reasonably prove that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened. To a lot of us it's clear the police made a bad call, but they wouldn't have been able to make that (possibly racially biased) bad call if they didn't have a drastic standard of evidence to prove that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened - rather than Zimmerman having to show why HE felt threatened.
To a lot of us it's clear the police made a bad call,
We don't even have all the facts yet.
We don't even have all the facts yet.
Then why have you already made up your mind about this?
Bullets from guns people pull the trigger of kill people.
There are two separate legal issues...
One is the Trayvon Martin case, itself... the other is the "Stand Your Ground" law and concept.
As Classic says, the "facts" are not in on the Martin case, but there is a lot of emotion.
And, as Classic
posted above, there is a lot to be said about the "Stand Your Ground" law.
It's more appropriate to call this law a “Castle Doctrine” because
that is what the NRA called it when it was distributed via "ALEC",
the American Legislative Exchange Council"
Here is a
link to the "model legislation" as proposed by ALEC and the NRA.
The link down-loads a 3-page PDF document of the "Castle Doctrine".
I urge Dwellars to download and
read the entire PDF.
But here is my short version...
Basically, Section 1 The concept of "a man's house is his castle" is
extended to vehicles and to anything in which a person might sleep, and that
[COLOR="DarkRed"] anyone who
claims to have used defensive force is presumed to have been in fear of bodily harm
and deems any defensive force as permissible under this law[/COLOR]
Here is Section 1, Item 1:
Section 1. {Home Protection, Use of Deadly Force, Presumption of Fear of Death or Harm}
1. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force
that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the
process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or
forcefully entered,
a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed
or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle; and
b. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe
that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was
occurring or had occurred.
Section 2 goes well beyond any previous legislation by giving immunity
from prosecution of any person using "defensive force"
It is section 2 that is controversial to the public,
and opposed by Depts of Justices, D.A.'s, and Law Enforcement.
Here is Section 2:
Section 2. {Immunity from Criminal Prosecution and Civil Action}
1. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting,
detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
2. A person who uses force as permitted in Section (1)
[and other state codes which are affected/amended by this legislation
and which refer to the use of force including deadly force]
is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal
prosecution
and civil action for the use of such force, except when:
a. The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement
officer as defined in
[insert appropriate reference to state/commonwealth code,
which defines the term “law enforcement officer” or similar],
who was acting in the performance of his or her duties and
the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with applicable law; or
b. The person using force knew or reasonably should have known
that the person was a law enforcement officer.
3. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (2), [COLOR="DarkRed"]but the agency may not arrest the person
for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause
that the force that was used was unlawful.[/COLOR]
Then why have you already made up your mind about this?
My position is based upon what we do
know.
Like they think we think guns are alive or something. "Oooooh, that gun is a mean one. He once shot a guy just to watch him die. Then he went to Starbucks. Ooooohhh."
Guns don't let guns shoot at Starbucks
in addition to the stand your ground law, there is also the use of force continuim to be considered which takes in to account physical condition, prior knowledge, and age
Does that apply to "Neighborhood watch" volunteers as well or just Police Officers?
... although Zimmerman did look beaten up when the cops got there.
...
So did Edward Norton in "Fight Club" :cool:
..
X number of people texted whiles driving and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of people were over the legal blood alcohol limit, drove, and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of priests sodomized young boys and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?
(possibly racially biased)
Bingo! Had the race roles been reversed, the black shooter would have been arrested. THAT is the issue.
XoB reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to make this point:
You missed that point and distracted from it by challenging the content thus going off on a tangent.
I also reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to reiterate xoB's point. You missed the point again and went off on a tangent. Now it's been explained to you twice.
When attempting to use an analogous form to demonstrate a problem with an argument, make sure you're actually being analogous! In xoxoxoBruce's case, it wasn't actually true. If you apply his analogy to Lamplighter's, you would be claiming that Trayvon Martin hadn't been shot. In your case, assisted suicides are the expected result of legalizing assisted suicide. Applying your analogy to Lamplighter's, we are expecting more innocent people to be shot due to the NRA.
Putting himself in a position of dependency by asking for Zimmerman's protection may have given Zimmerman the sense of control he needed to avoid his resorting to using a weapon. What did Martin need protection from?!!! Why his own emotions of course, Martin's fight or flight response was a contributing factor to his own death.
If that's your last word, I won't miss you "indulging" me.
Just read that Zimmerman 'fears for his life'.
does that mean he's going to open fire on the world?
I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and carry a gun daily. As I type this, it in my briefcase within arms-length. I don't want to be a statistic if some nut-ball comes to the office I work in (law firm) and decides to start shooting.
That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.
In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for. Still...if someone breaks in to my house and I draw down on them with my handgun and they flee...the confrontation is over. If I give chase and shoot him, I am then the aggressor. That is what happened in this case and he should be charged.
ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.
In Colorado this is called the "make my day" law.
In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for.
Why are you thankful for this?
The idea that you don't have to run away if someone breaks into your house?
Castle laws recognize that retreating during a home invasion is no guarantee of the occupant's safety and may not even be the best way to save oneself and one's family. Not all home invaders will just take something and leave. Castle laws take into consideration that most people don't have the training and experience of police officers in threat assessment and countermeasures along the spectrum of force continuum, from retreat to the use of deadly force; so, Castle laws don't require it of them. Even police officers make mistakes when trying to apply their training and experience under the stress of making real time decisions (could be seconds or less) about the threat level a perpetrator poses and determining the minimum response necessary to counter that threat. Castle law also recognizes that the practical considerations of armed defense, for some civilian families in their homes, may indicate that their best recourse is decisive intervention as early as possible. I believe that the responsibility for the safety of home invaders should rest solely with the perpetrators and not with the victims even though I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't live in a Castle Law state.
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.
I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?
Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?
Imma buy me a big gun and buttfuck them in the mouth with it. I can't afford bullets.
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.
I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
In these days of doped up perps, "stuff" can turn to "lives" (or rape or torture) in less than a heartbeat. I wouldn't kill for stuff either; but, I have the advantage of tactical training plus experience that might enable me to better discern what's at stake and avail myself of more options than most other civilians. I'm not going to sit in judgment of those who don't; unless, I'm legally charged to do so by way of jury duty.
The comparison you suggest would be interesting; but, of limited use even if that information could be accurately obtained. While the good of the many generally outweighs the needs of the few, when it comes to the right of self preservation, sometimes the good of the many is outweighed by the needs of the few - or the one.
It will always be a balancing act and it appears the process will be in the adversarial form of our judicial system with staunch advocates for both extremes going at each other while those in the middle hope to take from it what's best for them. I don't believe there's a one size fits all national solution and that it will continue to be the purview of the states. I hold the people of each state accountable for those decisions and not entire national organizations whether they be business, political, religious ... etc.
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.
I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.
This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules. It should not be a 'almost anything goes' law like in Florida but it shouldn't be so restrictive that it prevents people from protecting themselves or their properties, if they understand the potential consequences of doing so.
That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.
ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.
Well said.
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?
IF you like. It isn't really relevant though ... see below.
[RACE] is the issue.
Really? Gee thats a new twist :rolleyes:
Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.
This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules.
Agreed
One day, I plan to own a handgun and a rifle. maybe multiple. I'm not really into shotguns or "assault" weapons but could imagine owning an AK-47 or something.
I would never use a weapon to defend myself, or conceal carry it, even in Vermont, the holy grail of gun rights or something like that.
But I don't feel like, anywhere in Vermont, I would need to.
*This statement not intended to be political in any way. Just personal.
...
I would never use a weapon to defend myself...
Not even if a bunch of the locals were outside your door with torches and pitchforks?
I couldn't do it. Like, I have no business using a weapon to defend myself. Gun owners talk about how some mythical Übermensch of the Responsible Gun Owner is who they mean when they talk about gun owners... I am not that. I don't believe that I could make the hard choices, be the right responsible actor in a high-stakes, high-stress situation like that. If I can't talk my way out of it, well, I'm SOL... but if I picked up a weapon to be used for violence, I do not believe that I would be able to use it responsibly, and using it irresponsibly, even under emotional stress, i don't believe is forgivable, even if you didn't create the situation. I'm not necessarily saying that should be the law, but I don't think the use of violent force, even in self-defense, is justified if the force is applied irresponsibly.
I think that is a completely valid argument for a single person to make. If you have others in your household, sacrificing them to a principle you hold is less noble. I look at it like the nutters who don't seek medical help because Jesus is gonna cure them. Fine die of cancer, but don't let your children die to improve your relationship with the guy in the sky. Thankfully, I live in a "castle" state where in the unlikely event of a home invasion I can do whatever needs to be done, without having to read the mind of my assailant. If possible I'd avoid confrontation, but I'm not sacrificing myself or my children.
Strange correlation: We've seen the video of the kids with the rc car pushing the guys golf balls around. Being a golf hater, I thought it was hilarious if a little mean, but then the kid confronted the old man over a not unpredictable response. The home invader is an extreme version of that kid, crossing a psychological line with unpredictable results, because his victim is surprised and has no way of knowing his intent and maybe buried his wife yesterday.
Why am I thankful for this? Because I work hard for what I have. I should not have a duty to leave a house that I own and pay for because some piece of shit who would rather steal than work wants to take what I worked hard for. That's why. I understand that this concept is contrary to the liberal mindset, but......
If I can safely avoid a physical confrontation, I would do it. If he has a weapon and threatens, all bets are off.
An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.
I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".
Well, that's the thing, Spex...you are not legally permitted to kill over STUFF. You have to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. If some drunk breaks in and lays on my couch because he thinks he's in his own house, I call the police. If someone breaks in tries grabbing my flat screen, my dogs will be on him along with myself and hand him an ass beating. If he is armed and threatens me, I drop him. It's not like the wild west...you have to know when you are legally permitted to use deadly force. I have studied it as a responsible gun owner.
Ibram: what WILL you do with your AK-47, then?
Griff: I suppose it would've also been funny had someone ran an RC around just as people in their bee-keeper costumes were getting ready to jab pointy things at each other in a time-honored and noble sport. ;)
dmg: I guess I'll pull out a conservative-ish thought and say that you can't really define a 'liberal mind-set' because I would protect myself (a single person, no dog, no gun, but a big knife) if someone invaded my home. I'd kill the hell out of someone who was trying to take away my life and my freedom to be safe in my own home. Or die trying.
We liberals aren't all pushovers.
I think I'm a liberal, but I think the castle laws as described in Sexobon's post (196) are as things should be, regardless of gun laws.
I believe we have a "reasonable force in self defence" clause, where reasonable might include lethal under the right circumstances.
I don't think I could actually stab someone, and couldn't get a gun even if I wanted one. I do have an extra large security torch beside the bed, and I think I could use it.
Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?
You are one funny guy
I would never use a weapon to defend myself, or conceal carry it, even in Vermont, the holy grail of gun rights or something like that.
I encourage anyone who is not legally prohibited from owning firearms to get one. But ... if you have no willingness to defend yourself, and feel no need to ... why would you buy a pistol? Yeah, target shooting is a heck of a lot of fun, but you can fulfill that particular need by throwing darts or getting a bow.
Oh, and Vermont is a safer state because of the no-paper carry laws and responsible gun ownership.
But ... if you have no willingness to defend yourself, and feel no need to ... why would you buy a pistol?
Ibram: what WILL you do with your AK-47, then?
I really, really enjoy firing guns. Target shooting is just really fun! I doubt I would even hunt with it, I'm not really into killing animals either. It's... not the same as archery or darts.
An assault weapon is one which you use to beat someone.
Hence the scare quotes, since I couldn't be bothered to figure out what to call an assault rifle.
Oh, and Vermont is a safer state because of the no-paper carry laws and responsible gun ownership.
Do you have any evidence of that?
Vermont is hardly a model for other states to follow
Vermont State Law Summary
Last updated February 2, 2012
Vermont does not:
• Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties;
• Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Require firearms dealers or purchasers to obtain a state license;
• Require the reporting of mental health commitments or adjudications for firearm purchaser background checks;
• Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;
• Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;
• Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”);
• Allow local governments to regulate firearms; or
• Require any permit or license for the carrying of concealed firearms.
In 2009, Vermont had the 16th lowest number of gun deaths per capita among the states.
Yet even this relatively low ranking means that, in that year, 60 people died
from firearm-related injuries in Vermont.
In addition, based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
Vermont had the 16th highest rate of crime gun exports among the states in 2009–
meaning that crime guns originally sold in Vermont were recovered after being used in crimes
in other states at the 16th highest rate among the states.
VTdigger.org
Kate Robinson
3/27/12
Gun safety law is in limbo, despite recent teen suicides
by Kate Robinson
March 4, 2011
I fully agree with what wolf said. If you are not willing to take someone's life when yours is threatened, you should not have a gun for self defense. Hesitation will cause it to be taken from you and used against you.
The only problem with a knife or other "short" object for self defense is that you have to get get close enough to the threat that your weapon can be removed from you or they can hurt you with their weapon (knife, club, etc.).
If you are dead set (no pun) against (or unable to own) a gun, I would recommend a POLICE strength pepper spray in a cone fog. Fox Labs makes a good one that I keep by the bed. One blast of that and the person should be out of commission for a short time so you can escape and call the police. Also, a weapon with a little longer reach like a baseball bat or golf club. This is all assuming the other party does not have a gun. You know the joke about bringing a knife to a gunfight....
Pretty common anti-gun rhetoric there ...
• Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties;
Most states operate the same way for long arms (rifles and shotguns). On a quick search I have been unable to locate the specific statute addressing this for Vermont. It is, however, illegal in all states to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who is legally not allowed to possess one, or to a person whom you know intends to commit a crime.
• Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;
As stated previously, an "assault weapon" is one you hit someone with. Most cap and ball weapons as .50 caliber or more. A shorter magazine makes things more dangerous rather than safer for self defense ... you have to reload more often.
• Require firearms dealers or purchasers to obtain a state license;
Again, most states don't. Firearms dealers are Federally licensed and have to comply with Federal Law with respect to record keeping, background checks, and sales records.
• Require the reporting of mental health commitments or adjudications for firearm purchaser background checks;
It's on the federal form. This is usually pushed forth as an issue because crazy people are perceived as scarier and more violent than "normal" people. They aren't.
• Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;
Most places don't. It's a commercial transaction. I can buy as many boxes of ceral at one time as I want.
• Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;
Most states either don't have or have dropped waiting periods. In the face of an imminent threat or natural disaster, or unnatural one (riots), you're screwed rather than benefitted by this law. Sometimes it's called a "cooling off" period. Think about it. If you're pissed off enough to want to kill someone, will you really be that much calmer three to five days from now?
• Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”)
They aren't "unsafe." They are inexpensive. They do exactly what they are made to do. You pull the trigger and it goes bang. "
Saturday Night Special" is a name given to these sorts of weapons when in the 1800s they were banned to prevent blacks from owning firearms.
• Allow local governments to regulate firearms;
Local governments can't enact a law that contradicts state law. That applies to ALL laws, not just firearms law.
• Require any permit or license for the carrying of concealed firearms.
Yay for them." Vermont Carry" is much desired in the pro-gun lexicon. Alaska has it too. No wild west gunfights. How about that? The move, incidentally, is to refer to it as "Constitutional Carry."
I'm not convinced that gun ownership specifically causes lower crime in Vermont. In fact I would argue that the high popularity of hunting causes unnecessary accidental firearms injury or death... but that's irrelevant to gun control issues specifically I think. I think that there is a correlation between the high gun ownership and the culture of vermont, which is what more broadly contributes to the very low violent crime rates in the state. Much more important is the fact that the rural communities that make up most of vermont's population are so small that everyone knows everyone, and so violent crime is almost only committed between people who know eachother - where tighter gun control wouldn't help. Vermont is a state with perfect conditions for Vermont Carry to be safe. I wouldn't support Vermont Carry in, say, Maryland, or New Jersey, or any other densely-populated state, or any big, crime-ridden city, to be honest.
Firearm deaths appear to be more closely related to whether
the state's voted-share was for McCain (high) or Obama (low) :rolleyes:
The Atlantic
By Richard Florida
Jan 13 2011
I think that there is a correlation between the high gun ownership and the culture of vermont, which is what more broadly contributes to the very low violent crime rates in the state. Much more important is the fact that the rural communities that make up most of vermont's population are so small that everyone knows everyone, and so violent crime is almost only committed between people who know eachother - where tighter gun control wouldn't help. Vermont is a state with perfect conditions for Vermont Carry to be safe. I wouldn't support Vermont Carry in, say, Maryland, or New Jersey, or any other densely-populated state, or any big, crime-ridden city, to be honest.
Agree completely. I don't think guns cause or reduce violent crime, but depends on the culture. Cultures were guns are used as a method of attaining and holding power will tend to lead to more gun deaths. Cultures were guns are respected will tend to reduce them.
Here is a pdf from CDC showing the top 15 causes of death in the US over several years broken down into excruciating detail.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf
One thing is pretty clear, people die from firearm related injuries. But not that many as compared to the other forms of death
Assault (homicide) with a firearm counts for just under 11,500 deaths in 2009.
Intentional self harm (Suicide) by firearm about 18,700 (I would leave this out as a determined suicide will find other means.)
Aortic Dissection claimed about 10,500 in 2009.
For comparison's sake Aortic dissection is described as
... a rare but serious condition that mostly occurs in men aged 60 to 80.
I am finding it very hard to think of guns, as they exist in this country, as being particularly lethal to the population.
One thing is pretty clear, people die from firearm related injuries. But not that many as compared to the other forms of death
I am finding it very hard to think of guns, as they exist in this country, as being particularly lethal to the population.
So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?
... But they accidently discharge, sending a bullet into a 15 year old girl's head and a 15 year old boy's neck.
http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/Two-students-in-critical-condition-after-CA-school-shooting--114197884.html
i think this is completely missing the point your trying to make - being 17, and carrying a gun with the safety off in her purse, it was illegal for her in the first place - so if she already broke existing gun control rules how would more gun control rules would help?
guns are a market that needs to be kept under control percisely because you dont want untrained teenagers to carry it in public places on a common basis, percisely because you want this sort of thing to be rare, and that means you want to marginalize the black market as much as you possibly can.
why? for the same reason me and probably most of the people here had no problem getting weed throughout highschool - let's not apply the same rotten logic to guns.
So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?
apparently so.
Here is a pdf from CDC showing the top 15 causes of death in the US over several years broken down into excruciating detail.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf
One thing is pretty clear, people die from firearm related injuries. But not that many as compared to the other forms of death
Assault (homicide) with a firearm counts for just under 11,500 deaths in 2009.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Intentional self harm (Suicide) by firearm about 18,700 (I would leave this out as a determined suicide will find other means.)[/COLOR]
Aortic Dissection claimed about 10,500 in 2009.
For comparison's sake Aortic dissection is described as
Originally Posted by http://www.iradonline.org/about.html
... a rare but serious condition that mostly occurs in men aged 60 to 80.
I am finding it very hard to think of guns, as they exist in this country, as being particularly lethal to the population.
Once again this is non-comparative thinking:
It's only useful if by changing A, there is a causal change in B.
For a (hypothetical) example:
- suicide by gun does happen
- attempted suicide by gun does happen
- but, of the attempted suicides by gun, only 10% are later successful
Therefore, if you prevent an attempted suicide, there's a good chance you have prevented successful suicide.
Here is my misquote:
"When one person dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's a statistic."
I urge everyone to look beyond gun "deaths"
Look at the numbers of injuries, and specifically "unintended" incidents
For example, the numbers of Emergency Room visits related to guns.
Also, look at the use of guns as intimidators of women, and/or "domestic violence"
- threats of suicide
- threats to kill the wife/girl friend
- threats to kill the children
California found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun.
A national random survey found more hostile gun displays against women in the home
—primarily by intimate partners—
than self-defense gun uses in the home by women or anyone else.
Children do find guns...
If you ever have children in your home, are your guns already safe from them ?
If your children visit other homes, do you FIRST ask if there are any guns in that home?
California found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun.
For that to be even a remotely useful statistic you should probably ask how many were threatened with a legally owned gun. I'm certain some of them were, maybe even a large percentage. I'm also confident that anyone who batters his wife would be just as likely to use his hand, frying pan, or wrench.
Those are strawman arguments setup so you can say, "if we had tougher gun laws or better yet no guns, no women would be abused".
*buzzzzz* Thanks for playing, but guess again.
People kill each other. They've done it for a long time and apparently without guns if you believe the whole Cain v Abel bit.
So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?
Maybe for the same reason I have excellent auto and homeowners insurance even though I haven't needed to use it. You know that whole,
better to have it and not need it bit...
At the end of the day there are a lot of people who hate guns for a variety of reasons. In my opinion most of those reasons tie back to a fear of guns because of unfamiliarity. I don't care if you don't want to own a gun. If they scare you, you shouldn't have one. I fully support laws designed to keep handguns out of the hands of convicted felons. I don't support laws designed to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and maintain firearms. I'll be damned if your fear of something leads to my not being able to protect my family should the need arise.
I really, really enjoy firing guns. ... It's... not the same as archery or darts.
There are Civil War re-enactors clubs. There are Old West re-enactors/Cowboy Shooting clubs. There are WWII re-enactors clubs. Maybe it's time for someone to start a Community Watch re-enactors club. The club might even get corporate sponsorship to provide free hoodies!
[SIZE="1"](just kidding, I know you said target shooting)[/SIZE]
:lol: you naughty naughty person you.
Applause.
Standing ovation!
So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?
Is that why people want firearms?
Once again this is non-comparative thinking:
It's only useful if by changing A, there is a causal change in B.
For a (hypothetical) example:
- suicide by gun does happen
- attempted suicide by gun does happen
- but, of the attempted suicides by gun, only 10% are later successful
Therefore, if you prevent an attempted suicide, there's a good chance you have prevented successful suicide BY FIREARM. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Here is my misquote:
"When one person dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's a statistic."
I urge everyone to look beyond gun "deaths"
Look at the numbers of injuries, and specifically "unintended" incidents
For example, the numbers of Emergency Room visits related to guns. Still very small. CDC reports on that.
Also, look at the use of guns as intimidators of women, and/or "domestic violence"
- threats of suicide
- threats to kill the wife/girl friend
- threats to kill the children
California found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun. A useless statistic. 66% of how many women? 100? 1000? I know that even one is too many, but abusers will use any tool at their disposal. Lack of having a weapon won't change an underlying mindset. The other thing missing from that statistic is did it happen once in their life or seven times a day?
A national random survey found more hostile gun displays against women in the home
—primarily by intimate partners—
than self-defense gun uses in the home by women or anyone else. That's only because women don't listen.
Children do find guns...
If you ever have children in your home, are your guns already safe from them ? YES. The same is true for bleach, solvents, and so forth.
If your children visit other homes, do you FIRST ask if there are any guns in that home? I admit, I hadn't thought of that, but I have taught my kids what to do if they ever find a firearm.
By the way ... I think somebody's cooking the numbers. 21K suicides by firearm is too high. There are around 30K completed suicides annually. Less than half of those are by firearm.
-Over 36,000 people in the United States die by suicide every year.
-Ninety percent of all people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death.
-Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
LinkCalifornia found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun.
A useless statistic. 66% of how many women? 100? 1000?
I know that even one is too many, but abusers will use any tool at their disposal.
Lack of having a weapon won't change an underlying mindset.
The other thing missing from that statistic is did it happen once in their life or seven times a day?
FWIW, what difference does it make how often ?
Is once enough, or does the intimidator get one freebee, or two, or... ?
Here is data from the
Abstract:
Am J Public Health. 2004 Aug;94(8):1412-7.
Weapons in the lives of battered women.
Sorenson SB, Wiebe DJ.
School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles
OBJECTIVES:
We assessed weapon use in intimate partner violence and perspectives on hypothetical firearm policies.
METHODS:
We conducted [COLOR="DarkRed"]structured in-person interviews with 417 women in 67 battered women's shelters.[/COLOR]
RESULTS:
Words, hands/fists, and feet were the most common weapons used against and by battered women.
About one third of the battered women had a firearm in the home.
In two thirds of these households, the intimate partner used the gun(s) against the woman,
usually threatening to shoot/kill her (71.4%) or to shoot at her (5.1%).
Most battered women thought spousal notification/consultation regarding gun purchase
would be useful and that a personalized firearm ("smart gun") in the home would make things worse.
FWIW, what difference does it make how often ?
Is once enough, or does the intimidator get one freebee, or two, or... ?
I wholeheartedly agree. However having a firearm doesn't make a person an abuser.
Also the figure isn't 66% of battered women in shelters. It is 66% of one third.
About one third of the battered women had a firearm in the home.
In two thirds of these households...
So, 417 * .33 = 137
137 * .66 = 90
The real number is 90/417 or about 21%
Still shitty if you are being abused, but closer to truth and accuracy.
What I see as important here is that it is 66% of battered women situations involved a firearm. (again, no mention of whether it was legally owned or not)
It [COLOR="Red"]does not [/COLOR]say that 66% of firearm owners batter women.
You may not like firearms and that is ok. I don't like broccoli and would rather die than eat it, but I promise I won't try to make it harder for you to have it if you like it.
I think I'm a liberal, but I think the castle laws as described in Sexobon's post (196) are as things should be, regardless of gun laws.
I believe we have a "reasonable force in self defence" clause, where reasonable might include lethal under the right circumstances.
I don't think I could actually stab someone, and couldn't get a gun even if I wanted one. I do have an extra large security torch beside the bed, and I think I could use it.
Why couldn't you get a gun? You could still have a shot gun or a .22. Both would do the job if you needed a job done.
I am certain that if someone or something threatened my family and I had a gun within arms reach, I wouldn't think twice. (fortunately for any potential criminals I don't have a gun)
What I see as important here is that it is 21% of battered women situations involved a firearm. (again, no mention of whether it was legally owned or not)
It [COLOR="Red"]does not [/COLOR]say that 66% of firearm owners batter women.
You may not like firearms and that is ok. I don't like broccoli and would rather die than eat it, but I promise I won't try to make it harder for you to have it if you like it.
How about Broccoli Raab? Is it all Cruciferous vegetables?
Maybe for the same reason I have excellent auto and homeowners insurance even though I haven't needed to use it. You know that whole, better to have it and not need it bit...
Meh. I googled home invasion statistics, and the first several pages were scare tactic sites by insurance and security companies. It's just another boogy man tactic for taking your money.
At the end of the day there are a lot of people who hate guns for a variety of reasons. In my opinion most of those reasons tie back to a fear of guns because of unfamiliarity. I don't care if you don't want to own a gun. If they scare you, you shouldn't have one. I fully support laws designed to keep handguns out of the hands of convicted felons. I don't support laws designed to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and maintain firearms. I'll be damned if your fear of something leads to my not being able to protect my family should the need arise.
I hope you're not characterizing me that way.
Is that why people want firearms?
Apparently - see above.
I bought firearms (a .22 and a shotgun) to protect my garden from woodchucks, skunks, possums, rabbits, and deer.
I also (attempted) to use my guns to put meat on the table. (If god had wanted us to be vegetarian then why did he make animals out of meat?) Because I keep my guns and ammo locked up they would prove unhandy in the event of an intruder. I'd probably just rely on the old fashioned heavy bedside lamp and sock full of quarters.
I didn't say there's only one reason to own a gun.
I wholeheartedly agree. However having a firearm doesn't make a person an abuser.
Also the figure isn't 66% of battered women in shelters. It is 66% of one third.
So, 417 * .33 = 137
137 * .66 = 90
The real number is 90/417 or about 21%
Still shitty if you are being abused, but closer to truth and accuracy.
Yes F3, you are correct.
I misinterpreted the wording of the abstract, and I apologize.
Below is the abstract, along with the associated paragraph in the full article.
In the Abstract:
RESULTS:
Words, hands/fists, and feet were the most common weapons used against and by battered women.
About one third of the battered women had a firearm in the home.
In two thirds of these households, the intimate partner used the gun(s) against the woman,
usually threatening to shoot/kill her (71.4%) or to shoot at her (5.1%).
Most battered women thought spousal notification/consultation regarding gun purchase
would be useful and that a personalized firearm ("smart gun") in the home would make things worse.
In the full text of the publication
Firearm use.
If a gun was kept in the home, the respondent was asked whether
she and her partner had used the gun(s) against each other.
Nearly two thirds (64.5%) responded that the partner had used one of the guns to scare, threaten, or harm her.
When asked what happened during the incident, 71.4% of these 98 women
reported that the partner threatened to shoot or to kill her.
Respondents also reported that the partner threatened to kill himself (4.1%)
or to harm or to kill the children (3.1%). Five percent (5.1%) of the women reported
that their partner had shot at them (16.3% did not answer the question).
In most cases (74.5%), substances had been used by the partner just before the incident:
30.6% had used alcohol and other drugs, 27.6% had used alcohol only,
and 16.3% had used other drugs only.
That last part is very interesting as well. Add some "liquid asshole" to the equation and things get out of hand.
The whole topic is horribly depressing.
Why couldn't you get a gun? You could still have a shot gun or a .22. Both would do the job if you needed a job done.
I am certain that if someone or something threatened my family and I had a gun within arms reach, I wouldn't think twice. (fortunately for any potential criminals I don't have a gun)
Why? Umm, the law, you know?
I haven't actually checked this out, just what I've picked up over the years, but I'm pretty sure you can only have a gun if:
you're a licensed security guard
you're a licensed professional shooter
you're a rural landowner who can demonstrate a need to control vermin
you're a member of a sporting target shooting club that shoots to olympic standard
you're a member of a licensed hunting organisation.
Home defense is explicitly NOT a lawful reason to have a gun.
I don't come anywhere near any of those categories.
I not really sure about any of that, it is just what I remember from the changes brought in after the Port Aurthur Massacre. (For teh Merkins, in 1996 a crazy guy went really really crazy and killed 35 people in Tasmania. After that we put a lot of restrictions on semi-automatics, pump-action shotguns, and magazine size. We also made it against the law for crazy people to have guns.)
We haven't been genocided yet. ;)
Anyone can still go get a gun as long as it's not automatic in any way. You might tell them it's to keep the rabbits out (or some such thing). You're just not permitted to fire a gun in an urban area, except at a rifle range/shooting club, and they're usually on the fringes anyway.
There would be restrictions if you'd been convicted of a crime, especially one involving a weapon.
I'm sure there are other restrictions, but none that would stop an average law abiding citizen from owning a gun, provided they had the required storage facilities for said gun.
I just checked on the Qld gun laws and you don't have to be a landowner to own a gun to use for shooting pests, but you do have to have permission from a landowner (over 40 acres) for the purposes of shooting to prove your eligibility for a gun license.
Thought I'd check just to make sure I wasn't speaking out of my arse. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Hey, that didn't stop me. :D
Oh and yeah, all guns must be stored in locked gun safes.
There was a move a while back to make sporting target shooters store their guns at the gun club, not in their homes, but I think that didn't go through, because it would be such a tempting target for thieves.
I wouldn't worry too much about being uninformed on this one. Most people from the city don't get out to the country that much anyway, and when they do, it's not usually for the purpose of shooting stuff.
To all intents and purposes, most people who live in urban areas probably would have trouble presenting a reason for owning a gun. I sometimes forget my family still has pretty strong rural ties, so people who own guns and use them are pretty common to me.
in my American Judicial Process class at the community college of vermont a couple weeks ago, we were dealing with a case where a 14 year old kid shot a man who was in their house to have sex with his bipolar, possibly schizophrenic, unmedicated mother who thought a family lived under their trailer and pulled out all the insulation, freezing their pipes and cutting off their running water. The kid said that the man had to leave because his mother didn't know what she was doing and couldn't consent, the man didn't, the kid brandished his shotgun, the man attacked him, the kid shot him.
I raised the point that nobody questioned that a 14-year-old owned and kept his own shotgun.
The class just kind of went, um, yeah, its vermont, why the hell wouldn't a 14-year-old have his own shotgun?
That's the difference between CCV and Bennington College!
in my American Judicial Process class at the community college of vermont a couple weeks ago, we were dealing with a case where a 14 year old kid shot a man who was in their house to have sex with his bipolar, possibly schizophrenic, unmedicated mother who thought a family lived under their trailer and pulled out all the insulation, freezing their pipes and cutting off their running water. The kid said that the man had to leave because his mother didn't know what she was doing and couldn't consent, the man didn't, the kid brandished his shotgun, the man attacked him, the kid shot him.
I raised the point that nobody questioned that a 14-year-old owned and kept his own shotgun.
The class just kind of went, um, yeah, its vermont, why the hell wouldn't a 14-year-old have his own shotgun?
GD Genius you are.
How about Broccoli Raab? Is it all Cruciferous vegetables?
Just don't try to regulate it! :)
Two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. We're not sure about the universe.
Teenagers hurt in Victorian hunting accident
Two teenagers are in a serious condition in hospital after a shotgun accident in central Victoria.
The accident happened in the small town of Majorca in central Victoria just before midday.
Police say the two boys, aged 14 and 15, were with a 48-year-old man who was rabbit shooting at the time of the accident.
It is believed they were accidentally shot when they walked up a ridge and into the man's path as he was firing on an animal.
The pellets caused serious injuries to the face, chest and body of the 15-year-old boy.
The 14-year-old boy also suffered chest and arm injuries.
They were both flown to the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne.
For "It is believed they were accidentally shot when they walked up a ridge and into the man's path as he was firing on an animal"
please read
"It is believed they were accidentally shot when the man fired on an animal too close to the ridge line without sufficient backstop. Dumbarse."
I have never owned a gun or gun license, and never fired anything bigger than an air rifle, but even I know this rule.
Were they wearing hoodies that might have made them look like trophy rabbits?
Seven more + three wounded by one gunman.
GO, go, go NRA
Fox News
April 03, 2012
Students hid as gunman opened fire small Christian school in California; 7 dead
OAKLAND, California – *One wounded woman cowered in the bushes
after the gunman opened fire on the campus of a small Christian university in California
One student hid in a locked classroom as the shooter banged on the door.
Within an hour's time Monday, police said, a 43-year-old former student named One L. Goh
walked into Oikos University and began a rampage that left seven people dead and three people wounded,
trapped some in the building and forced others to flee for their lives.
<snip>
About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States
GO, go, go UAW!
Lamp: would tighter gun laws have prevented that? How MUCH tighter? Assuming that a British style no-guns proposal would be unconstitutional, and barring repealing the second amendment... What do you propose as a solution?
To be honest, while most pro-gun arguments that assume "more people with guns means less crime!" don't quite check out 100% to me, mass shootings like this are one of the few cases where I definitely think that MORE gun ownership would limit the casualties in massacre situations.
Gun crime is tied to gun culture, not number of guns. In some areas, more guns means more deaths. In some areas, more guns means less deaths.
Lamp: would tighter gun laws have prevented that? How MUCH tighter?
Assuming that a British style no-guns proposal would be unconstitutional, and barring repealing the second amendment...
What do you propose as a solution?
My short answer is: Yes, tighter gun laws could prevent that sort of massacre.
What do I propose as a solution ? That's a longer discussion.
I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.
That's not surprising because right now the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is to their favor.
The NRA is running with it, and lobbying feverishly to pass their manly "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Just the name of that law makes the weak feel strong. :rolleyes:
Personally, and contrary to what Lookout123 has assumed, I have no problem with guns,
per se,
I have owned them since high school, and still have one.
As policy, I have no problem with guns used for hunting, either for meat or trophy
--- so long as the hunt is "fair chase".
As policy, I have no problem with guns (or CCL's) issued when the individual's job or
career presents a need for one, i.e., as an agent in busines that needs protection.
(e.g., as an agent for a bank or $-guard, body guard, criminal attorney, etc.)
I do have a problem with every Joe Blow citizen, like my next door neighbor, having a gun
just because he lives in fear that someone somewhere might do something he doesn't like.
I put the blame where the fault lies... with the ATA and the NRA.
It is my belief about the way things are going due to the current interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment, that society will eventually recognize that the argument
about "self defense" is fallacious, and the fact that guns are doing unjustifiable harm to individuals and to society, itself.
When that happens, the judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will change,
and guns be allowed in specific light of maintaining a well-regulated militia (e.g., National Guard)
only as necessary for the security of the free state, and not to feed the politics of the NRA.
.
About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States
GO, go, go UAW!
Once again, fuzzy logic.
Do away with the UAW, and cars would still be made, and accidents would still happen at the same rates.
Do away with the NRA, and gun control laws would be passed, and the rate of killings would decrease,
... maybe even down to that of auto accidents.
Do away with the NRA, and gun control laws would be passed, and the rate of killings would decrease...
:lol2:
:lol2:
My short answer is: Yes, tighter gun laws could prevent that sort of massacre.
What do I propose as a solution ? That's a longer discussion.
I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.
... I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.
Lamplighter, to me there are two glaring reasons why the matters you're presenting haven't gotten the response you'd like:
1. First and foremost, we're 270 posts into this thread and YOU DIDN'T BRING ANY SNACKS!
2. Similar issues have been raised and done to death here before, prior to you joining the community (e.g. [thread=16089]Will the Second Amendment survive?[/thread], 12-02-2007 to 01-06-2008, 22 pages, 326 posts). Many of the previous participants are still here. Some have chimed in this time around for various reasons including probing just to see where the newer members stand on the issues. Many are not getting involved to the same degree as before, if at all, and why should they? They're under no obligation to rehash their perspectives just to appease more recent members. Unless you've read through all of the previous topically related posts in all of the previous topically related threads, I believe the part of your quote I've put in bold does the membership an injustice.
About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States
GO, go, go UAW!
But can you drive your Glock to work?
Personally, and contrary to what Lookout123 has assumed, I have no problem with guns, per se,
I have owned them since high school, and still have one.
So you don't have a problem with guns. So long as it's the right kind, bought in the right place, and for the right purpose. Is that about right? Wait, who's definition of
right are we going to use?
I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
What's to answer? You see a massive problem, I don't. Tighter gun restrictions do nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens, who have the right to own firearms to do so. You may have noticed that most crimes are committed by criminals. You know, those guys who don't really give a damn about the law anyway?
Universities are legislated gun-free zones. Mass shootings occur in schools and colleges mainly because there is little to no likelihood that anyone will be anything other than a victim.
There have been school/college shootings minimized by bystanders who went to their cars and came back with their legally owned weapons.
I recently attended a lecture in which an interesting fact was revealed ... there have been no school shootings in schools with an armed, uniformed, police officer on the premises. Is this true? I have not exhaustively researched this claim, so I don't actually know. The presenter, he researched it, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. If I find anything to back up that claim, I'll let you know.
ETA: Was replying to Lookout.
Ahh, if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns.
And police, security guards, and everyone else with a legitimate reason to have one.
It is very easy to slip from "only criminals" will have guns to "all criminals will have guns", but that doesn't follow.
In low-gun cultures like Australia, only the most serious, well connected criminals have guns. The majority of criminals can't get much more than a big stick, or a knife; and any crook with a gun can be arrested for it and have the weapon seized.
Of course, this couldn't work in the US because of the large amount of guns already in circulation.
We choose to have fewer guns, and pay the price of occasionally having the situation where a crazy dude goes on a rampage (sometimes with, often without, a gun) and no-one has a gun to stop him 'til the cops get there.
You choose to have more guns, and pay the price of having more accidental discharges, suicides, and petty criminals with guns; but when some #$%&-up goes on a rampage in, say, a subway outlet, there is a pretty good chance that someone with a CCL will be there to deal with it.
Personally, I prefer fewer guns, but I don't think the difference in outcomes is so big to make the decision obvious.
Culture, culture, culture.
Switzerland's gun ownership laws work pretty well for switzerland.
Australia's and the UK's gun ownership laws work pretty well for Australia and the UK.
America's works okay for America, but better in some places than others. Vermont has a good record with gun laws and outcomes. Large, poor cities have bad records with gun ownership, and fewer handguns overall works better than freer gun ownership there. Places like the south, they're more likely to be used in race-based encounters, but only because racial violence is more common in the south - and as the case of the boys in mississippi i think it was who pled guilty a few weeks ago, they used their car, not a gun. Gun ownership works okay in a lot of the south.
Where do you live, Lamp, and do you think the gun laws where you are work? Do they lead to too many "joe blow"s getting guns? Why should you be allowed to own the gun you own, but not your next-door neighbor? How should you have to prove that/how would you change the licensing system to fix that? Would that include long guns, or only handguns?
But can you drive your Glock to work?
If one has a job... no.
But can you drive your Glock to work?
If one has a job... no. Thanks for rubbing it in though. :cool:
@Ib
Where do you live, Lamp, and do you think the gun laws where you are work?
Do they lead to too many "joe blow"s getting guns?
Oregon guns laws and the people that have them are, more than likely,
just like the other states and other people who have or who avoid guns.
The NRA has been lobbying here too, and we do have a version of "Stand Your Ground".
Yes, too many "Joe Blows" end up with guns.
We have just as many abusive men intimidating women,
just as many accidental or unintentional shootings,
and just as
few home-invasions prevented by a homeowner's gun.
Oregon and Washington may be different in one respect.
We have had fishermen on the banks of rivers and streams who fired a gun
towards boaters passing thru "their water". :eek:
(P.S. I don't have a boat so don't anyone try to hang that one on me) ;)
We also have hunters do stupid things, such as "warning shots",
unintentional shootings, and accidents where someone has been shot or killed.
Why should you be allowed to own the gun you own, but not your next-door neighbor?
After submitting my post, I realized someone might put those two
sentences together, but it was too late to edit my post.
That was NOT intended.
With respect to me and my next-door neighbor, I am no different.
I have, but don't need, a gun... I'll give it anytime... that would not be an issue.
How should you have to prove that/how would you change the licensing system to fix that?
Would that include long guns, or only handguns?
I'm not trying to get out of answering such questions.
But it's not up to me to prove my points by coming up with the "perfect solution".
I'll participate in such a discussion, but the "pro-gun" people need to think about the issues too.
Let me give just one example of gun-control which might save some misery and/or lives in a family household.
What if... ?
- A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it
If one has a job... no. Thanks for rubbing it in though. :cool:
Oh, come on.
Let me give just one example of gun-control which might save some misery and/or lives in a family household.
What if... ?
- A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it
That sounds eminently reasonable, except that it would be hard to deal with legally. That is to say, if I own my house, and happen to be letting you and your kids live in it also, and then you tell me to get rid of my gun cause you voted... you have no legal standing to demand that.
Who should be allowed to own guns? As few people as possible seems to be your answer. How do you respond to right-wing claims that gun ownership is the surest protection against tyranny? How would you ensure that the process to license a gun owner checks that they "require" the firearm? again, is this just for handguns, or long guns also? What about hunting? What about sport shooting, skeet shooting, target shooting? What should be done with guns already owned by people who would come off your list, and already in circulation on the black market or in gray, pseudo-regulated "gun shows" and other less-regulated markets?
As I said:
Short answer: If a law says that everyone living in the household must agree to the presence of guns, that gives them the legal standing.
I'm not trying to get out of answering such questions.
But it's not up to me to prove my points by coming up with the "perfect solution".
I'll participate in such a discussion, but the "pro-gun" people need to think about the issues too.
ETA: Was replying to Lookout.
Ahh, if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns.
And police, security guards, and everyone else with a legitimate reason to have one.
It is very easy to slip from "only criminals" will have guns to "all criminals will have guns", but that doesn't follow.
Legitimate is the sticky part isn't it?
I didn't mean to say all criminals will have guns. In fact probably fewer criminals would have guns because they would be more scarce. The some criminals having them and zero law abiding citizens having them part is a given under your scenario though. Remember, the courts have already ruled that the police have no obligation to prevent crime, only investigate it after it has occured.
On the flip side of all that is a law restricting guns to law enforcement and military (even if it were constitutional) would have the effect of making people who are law abiding citizens into criminals because I can guarantee a large section of the populace will not turn them in peacefully.
Again, slowly it turns...
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON
April 5, 2012, 03:33 pm ET
Coca-Cola Ends Ties To Conservative Law Writers
Coca-Cola Co. has terminated its relationship with a conservative group
seen by some as an incubator for a string of new state voter ID laws and
a marketer of laws like Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense statute.
<snip>
ALEC brings together state and federal lawmakers, who pay $100 for a two-year membership,
and corporations, which pay between $2,500 and $25,000 for an annual membership.
The legislators and corporate representatives draft templates of legislation
that can be used by lawmakers and lobbyists as models for state or federal legislation.
<snip>
Koch Industries, whose top executives Charles and David Koch are prominent supporters
of conservative causes, is one of the largest corporations supporting Washington-based ALEC.
<snip>
Several states have passed laws requiring voters to show specific ID,
toughening voter registration or reducing early voting days.
The voting laws have been seen by civil rights and other groups, as well as many Democrats,
as an attempt to suppress the votes of African Americans, Latinos, the elderly and students.
Huffington Post
Dan Foomkin
4/5/12
American Legislative Exchange Council, Ultra-Conservative Lobby, Loses 2 Major Funders
WASHINGTON -- Succumbing to pressure from public interest groups,
Coca Cola and Pepsico have severed their ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),
an ultra-conservative lobby group that has pushed so-called Stand Your Ground gun legislation
and voter-identification bills through state legislatures across the country.
<snip>
A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it
That is a logistical impossibility.
I'll participate in such a discussion, but the "pro-gun" people need to think about the issues too.
When you've done some thinking about how to make a genocide not merely impracticable, but well-nigh unthinkable, post what it is you've found. A hint: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
I think you will find their argument about why
you need an assault rifle and at least 200 rounds of ready ammo unanswerable.
Let me give just one example of gun-control which might save some misery and/or lives in a family household.
What if... ?
- A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it
You'd get extra people killed with that one. Yet somehow, the hoplophobe hasn't any philosophical problem with becoming an accessory before the fact. This is unconscionable, and hence must never be allowed. Heavens Tibet, Lampie:
your right of self defense should be subject to blackballing? What madness is that? Is it even defensible?
You see, the gun people are on the side of the angels -- while the antigun are on the side of the State.
Legitimate is the sticky part isn't it?
I didn't mean to say all criminals will have guns. In fact probably fewer criminals would have guns because they would be more scarce. The some criminals having them and zero law abiding citizens having them part is a given under your scenario though. Remember, the courts have already ruled that the police have no obligation to prevent crime, only investigate it after it has occured.
Really? That might be a thing you could look at changing too. And regardless of "obligation", I can't believe any (well, many) police would stand back and watch some thug on a rampage, wait until he's finished, then go and arrest him. They intervene in that, when they can.
On the flip side of all that is a law restricting guns to law enforcement and military (even if it were constitutional) would have the effect of making people who are law abiding citizens into criminals because I can guarantee a large section of the populace will not turn them in peacefully.
We had that argument here during our gun buy-back. Maybe a few people kept their guns, but there hasn't been a significant issue with it. Different situation, of course.
Of course, if such a law were somehow passed in the US, so many crooks already have guns and wouldn't hand them in, that it would be a total gimme for crooks. From where the US is now, I don't think you COULD achieve a low-gun society. Not without more trouble than it would be worth, anyway.
The government cannot "Buy Back" anything that it never owned.
Just sayin'.
12 dead in 'Dark Knight' Colorado theater shooting
How about this proposal: anyone can have any kind and number of guns they want, but if your first trial determines that someone is negligent or criminal, they are immediately executed. No appeals. Since people kill people, and all.
First we need to determine how many of the theater goers were wearing hoodies in case it's hoodies that kill people.
Were the people he shot talking and texting during the movie? That would be reasonable justification.
First we need to determine how many of the theater goers were wearing hoodies in case it's hoodies that kill people.
Were the people he shot talking and texting during the movie? That would be reasonable justification.
Very funny
The dark knight rising I hear it is to die for
Well, this seems forgivable, presuming they went to press before the incident.
[ATTACH]39765[/ATTACH]
but this is just lazy and stooopid
[ATTACH]39766[/ATTACH]
:facepalm:
Why does the apology post have an earlier timestamp than the aurora one?
Good point. I notice one is via web and the other via iphone, and I guess that some multiple time-zone malarky is involved.
Doofus marketer made the first post, more senior exec had to step in and clean up the mess, maybe.
12 dead in 'Dark Knight' Colorado theater shooting
How about this proposal: anyone can have any kind and number of guns they want, but if your first trial determines that someone is negligent or criminal, they are immediately executed. No appeals. Since people kill people, and all.
I'll buy that.
Anybody else have an opinion?
Anybody else have an opinion?
Sort of like pedophiles
... a trial is after the event
and the person is apprehended
and brought to trial
and found guilty.
After all that, capital punishment is an (one-time) effective deterrent of recidivism,
but unfortunately it's not very effective as a preventative in the first place.
It won't happen in my lifetime, but eventually I believe this nation will demand
that the Supreme Court will revoke it's current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
(Now, everybody go buy ammunition and hide your guns) :rolleyes:
.
OAK CREEK, Wis. — The gunman who killed six people at a Sikh temple south of Milwaukee on Sunday and critically wounded three others, including a police officer, was identified Monday as Wade Michael Page, a 40-year-old Army veteran with reported links to the white supremacist movement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sikh-temple-shooter-was-military-veteran-who-lived-nearby/2012/08/06/648d8134-dfbd-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.htmlIf they don't like genocides, the nation won't ask for gun control.
Joe Klein, Time magazine, wrote the current issue's cover story, Why Guns Won. Mr. Klein is the last person on Earth who ought to be writing about guns, for he is a giant statist and a gunbanner of many decades' standing. He's never been aware that a disarmed populace is necessary to a genocide, for otherwise that mass crime becomes impossible to commit.
Since I have some idea of the position he'll take, in defiance of the repeated Lott studies among others, I doubt I'll read the article.
Do you even know what the word "genocide" means? I ask, because you use it so freely and so improperly. You should double check your understanding. Reading what you actually *write* in situations like this make you even harder to understand than usual.
eta:
I've got it! You sound like tw when you write like this. You use "genocide" like he uses "wacko extremists". You both just plug that in when you feel some kind of stress--it's like a toddler that sucks his thumb. He's not actually hungry, but it feels so good. The biggest difference between your usage of "genocide" and tw's use of "wacko extremist" is that he's stating an opinion, while you're just misusing a word that has an objective definition. You know better, but you don't let that stop you.
An American tourist was
almost genocided in Canada recently.
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000]Recently, while out for a walk in Nose Hill Park, in broad daylight on a paved trail, two young men approached my wife and me. The men stepped in front of us, then said in a very aggressive tone: "Been to the Stampede yet?"
We ignored them. The two moved closer, repeating: "Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?"
I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, "Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye." They looked bewildered, and we then walked past them.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000]If only he'd had a gun, maybe it would have turned out better.[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Yep, get rid of guns and everything will be just fine. Then, all I have to worry about is someone breaking into my house or approaching me on the street with...a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, their fists, etc. None of those can be used to kill me. And luckily, I will have my hands and maybe some keys to defend myself. I noticed that nobody (at least in this thread) mentioned a recent spree killing in China using.....wait for it....a knife.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577564512826406388.html
One could argue that, had someone been carry a legally concealed weapon, they could have mitigated the damage the nut in CO. was causing.
My two cents as a supported of the Second Amendment and responsible gun owner. YMMV.
If they don't like genocides, the nation won't ask for gun control.
Huh? Say what?
Do you even know what the word "genocide" means? I ask, because you use it so freely and so improperly. You should double check your understanding. Reading what you actually *write* in situations like this make you even harder to understand than usual.
Thank you BigV.
Given the vast weapon technologies now available including everyone's fav - WMD's - there is no way a group targeted for genocide or even just collateral damage can defend itself against a powerful government. Or even a not so powerful one.
But feel free to acquire all the rocket launchers and tanks you can get your grubby hands on. :rolleyes:
Here come the helicopter -- second time today
Everybody scatters and hopes it goes away
How many kids they've murdered only God can say
If I had a rocket launcher...I'd make somebody pay.
I don't believe in guarded borders and I don't believe in hate
I don't believe in generals or their stinking torture states
And when I talk with the survivors of things too sickening to relate
If I had a rocket launcher...I would retaliate.
On the Rio Lacantun one hundred thousand wait
To fall down from starvation -- or some less humane fate.
Cry for Guatemala, with a corpse in every gate
If I had a rocket launcher...I would not hesitate.
I want to raise every voice -- at least I've got to try.
Every time I think about it water rises to my eyes.
Situation desperate echoes of the victims cry
If I had a rocket launcher...some sonofabitch would die
- Bruce Cockburn
The point is being missed here.
Sikhs are pacifists and wouldn't carry a gun even if they COULD.
Close to home -
15yr old shot
This boy is a friend of my D16, they go to school together and he has been to my home. They're all my daughter's friends, actually.
The story I got from Michael Owens (my daughter's boyfriend and who was interviewed in the above article) was that a girl, another friend, stole the loaded gun from an unlocked car. She, Ryan, and another teen were playing with it and had actually removed the clip. But, being stupid kids, they didn't know there was still a bullet chambered. She pointed the gun at Ryan and he tried to knock her hand away, causing it to go off. The hollow point entered through his mouth and blew the side of his face off. So he's in ICU and stable, but will require extensive reconstructive surgery.
From what I understand, the girl will be charged with something (probably waiting to see if Ryan lives) as will the owner of the loaded gun left in an unlocked car.
All the kids involved in the incident as well as friends are very sobered and saddened.
The point is being missed here.
Sikhs are pacifists and wouldn't carry a gun even if they COULD.
Unless someone beat me to it...I believe there are Sikhs who serve in the U.S. military. in fact, they fought to be able to wear their (forgive my ignorance) head apparel.
The Wikipedia on "
Sikh" is a very good read on their history, religion,
and particularly their tolerance of other peoples.
But becoming warriors was thrust upon them
... and they became very good at it !
What Lamplighter said. Also, there was quite the Sikh empire around the 1600's and they didn't hang on to it by all holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
Sikh warrior's helmet from that same time period.
... She, Ryan, and another teen were playing with it and had actually removed the clip. But, being stupid kids, they didn't know there was still a bullet chambered.
Not stupid, uneducated. If they had been acclimated to proper gun safety it probably wouldn't have happened.
Exactly, Bruce. I was raised around guns and taught to respect them. When I went to a gun shop recently to look for a new gun, the shop owner commented that it was obvious to him that I grew up around guns. I asked him how. He said how I handled the gun...not putting my finger on the trigger, pointing it away from people, checking that it was unloaded after he handed it to me even though I had just seen him clear it. Some people were just not taught not to play with guns and they pay the price.
Yep, the safety of guns is directly related to the gun culture.
Yep, get rid of guns and everything will be just fine. Then, all I have to worry about is someone breaking into my house or approaching me on the street with...a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, their fists, etc. None of those can be used to kill me. And luckily, I will have my hands and maybe some keys to defend myself. I noticed that nobody (at least in this thread) mentioned a recent spree killing in China using.....wait for it....a knife.
I'll take my chances against a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists rather than a gun, how about you?
One could argue that, had someone been carry a legally concealed weapon, they could have mitigated the damage the nut in CO. was causing.
One could argue that the damage could have been mitigated if the guy hadn't had a gun. The damage would have been mitigated if he'd only had a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, or his fists.
Exactly, Bruce. I was raised around guns and taught to respect them. When I went to a gun shop recently to look for a new gun, the shop owner commented that it was obvious to him that I grew up around guns. I asked him how. He said how I handled the gun...not putting my finger on the trigger, pointing it away from people, checking that it was unloaded after he handed it to me even though I had just seen him clear it. Some people were just not taught not to play with guns and they pay the price.
Then:
How about this proposal: anyone can have any kind and number of guns they want, but if your first trial determines that someone is negligent or criminal, they are immediately executed. No appeals. Since people kill people, and all.
I'll take my chances against a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists rather than a gun, how about you?
That is entirely up to you, Spexxvet. I'll keep my guns to defend myself and my family, thank you.
One could argue that the damage could have been mitigated if the guy hadn't had a gun. The damage would have been mitigated if he'd only had a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, or his fists.
We can play this game all day. One could argue that the guy could have killed even more people if had opened the door and started chucking in molotav cocktails. The bottom line is that the theater owners had posted signs stating guns are not allowed. As a result, nobody there was carrying their own concealed weapon and could stop the guy. As for those signs, it is not illegal for you to ignore them. It is simply a matter of breaking the company's policy, not a law. If they were to find out that you were carrying a concealed (legal) handgun (which they shouldn't if it is CONCEALED), they can only ask you to leave. If you do so without arguing, etc...you are NOT breaking any laws. Criminals know that a gun free zone equates to a target rich environment.
As for the last part...are you saying that, if you own a gun and use it to kill someone (illegally of course, not self defense), you should be executed immediately? What about if I use a knife? Dead is dead, right? As for negligence, what if I hit someone with my car and kill them? Dead is dead, right? Should I be immediately executed for that as well? It's an illogical argument.
You won't change my mind and I know I won't change yours. but that's what is so great about this country.
As for those signs, it is not illegal for you to ignore them. It is simply a matter of breaking the company's policy, not a law. If they were to find out that you were carrying a concealed (legal) handgun (which they shouldn't if it is CONCEALED), they can only ask you to leave. If you do so without arguing, etc...you are NOT breaking any laws..
Is that true? I'm not so sure. If you walk past a "no tresspassing" sign, do you get a second verbal warning before you can be arrested for tresspassing? No.
If a private property has a sign that says in effect "anyone carrying a gun is tresspassing," then why do they get a second warning? Tresspassing is about entering a private property without permission, and in the gun case, a person carrying a gun does not have permission.
I'll take my chances against a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists rather than a gun, how about you?
That is entirely up to you, Spexxvet. I'll keep my guns to defend myself and my family, thank you.
Fine, you have your gun. Do you want to protect yourself against someone with a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists, or someone with a gun? Please don't be evasive.
I am one of the lucky few who has never had to confront a criminal in my own home.
Phew. With no gun I've no doubt I would have been bludgeoned to death every weekend for years save for this fact.
Anyway.
When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.
I was wrong. Didn't mean I was any less shocked.
I had a Sikh temple in the road behind me when I lived in Leicester.
The idea of those people being gunned down makes me feel physically sick.
Is that true? I'm not so sure. If you walk past a "no tresspassing" sign, do you get a second verbal warning before you can be arrested for tresspassing? No.
If a private property has a sign that says in effect "anyone carrying a gun is tresspassing," then why do they get a second warning? Tresspassing is about entering a private property without permission, and in the gun case, a person carrying a gun does not have permission.
Let me preface this by saying that I work for a law firm and do have attorneys at my disposal to ask such questions. Your trespassing example is correct. I can be arrested for coming onto your property against your No Trespassing sign. However, in the theater example, you are an invited guest. Again, you cannot be arrested for breaking their policy. They can ask you to leave an not come back. If you refused to leave (which would be stupid), you could be charged with something like disorderly conduct. Or, if you returned after being asked to leave, that could be trespassing. The attorney I asked used the example of sneaking food or drink into the theater. They have signs prohibiting it. Will you be arrested for it? No...you will be asked to leave. You cannot be trespassing if you are an invited guest.
I'm not being evasive. I will admit I would much rather defend myself against someone with anything other than a gun. But, look at any country which has banned guns...they still get them. And with our porous border? My God...guns would be flying over the border. So, you will never get rid of guns 100%...ever. Never mind the fact that no politician would ever seriously get beyond the point of election year rhetoric as far as trying to reverse the 2nd Amendment. Besides losing that election, that would be the start of another revolution.
Fine, you have your gun. Do you want to protect yourself against someone with a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists, or someone with a gun? Please don't be evasive.
I am one of the lucky few who has never had to confront a criminal in my own home.
Phew. With no gun I've no doubt I would have been bludgeoned to death every weekend for years save for this fact.
Anyway.
When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.
I was wrong. Didn't mean I was any less shocked.
I had a Sikh temple in the road behind me when I lived in Leicester.
The idea of those people being gunned down makes me feel physically sick.
And I'm with you, Sundae. Someone who does something like that to other human beings is not fit to live among the rest of us humans. The same thing with the theater in Colorado.
Those of us who choose to take advantage of our 2nd Amendment right to own guns are not unfeeling, irresponsible or insane (as many anti-gun people want to you to believe) In fact, carrying a gun makes us MORE cautious and conscience of out actions. Example: I get into a shouting match with a guy in another car. He pulls over and so do I. A fight breaks out and he pulls a knife. I pull my gun and shoot him. Was I in my right to do so? Technically, yes. However, a judge would rule that, had I not pulled over, the fight would not have happened. Had the fight not happened, he would not have pulled the knife. Had he not pulled the knife, I would not have pulled my gun and shot him. I am someone who has read countless books about the legal issues associated with carrying a concealed weapon. See, we realize what a huge responsibility it is. We're not all trying to John Wayne.
Yeah. I'm still not convinced.
You're an invited guest when you buy your ticket and agree to the conditions of the ticket sale. The ticket probably even has legal mumbo jumbo on the back that says that by puchasing the ticket you consent to the rules. If you don't actually consent to the rules, then you aren't an invited guest.
That doesn't mean they are gonna arrest you for sneaking food in, because they don't want bad publicity.
When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.
I see this incident less as a gun story than a how unbelievably stupid the folks in the neo-nazi movement are story. This is apparently the story of failed education from school through Fort Bragg where he apparently hooked up with the White Power movement and was actually involved in psy-ops. Dude was on law enforcements radar because of his racist music. I am more concerned with race terrorism than guns.
snip--
Those of us who choose to take advantage of our 2nd Amendment right to own guns are not unfeeling, irresponsible or insane (as many anti-gun people want to you to believe)
You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.
In fact, carrying a gun makes us MORE cautious and conscience of out actions.
--snip
Ahem.
Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.
And I'm with you, Sundae. Someone who does something like that to other human beings is not fit to live among the rest of us humans.
I see this incident less as a gun story... I am more concerned with race terrorism than guns.
Completely. I didn't come here to raise a gun issue.
Just wanted to comment on slaughter, however it was achieved.
Sadness.
You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.
Nice argument. When you start resorting to name calling, it's a sign you're losing the argument.
Ahem.
Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.
Let me ask you a question. Have you EVER carried a concealed weapon? If not, your argument is faulty because you can't speak from experience. I've been through it, so don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had a road rage incident where the guy was literally pounding on the steering wheel trying to get me to pull over. Why didn't I pull over, smart guy? Because I was aware of something called disparity of force as escalation of force. I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to act like you do. You just look stupid.
I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy.
Then where's the fun in packing heat?:rolleyes:
BTW, what did you do to piss him off, and did you do it because you knew, in the back of your mind, that you had a gun to back up your shit?
Now you see, Spex...there you go again ASSuming. Why do you ASSume that I purposefully did something to piss him off? Because I had a gun? If that was the case, why would I have gone out of my way to avoid the guy? Actually, he was trying to pass everyone before the two lanes narrowed to one. He did not make it in time and had to get behind me. That sent him into an uncontrolled rage. I have never seen someone act like that behind the wheel. I seriously though he was going to ram me. I'll admit, I was scared. That's why I did NOT stop...I know what would have happened.
Your complaints sound whiny. There's no "argument".
Am I losing my other "argument" by calling the shooters in CO and WI "fucking homicidal nutball assholes"? Just curious.
Let me ask you a question. Have you EVER carried a concealed weapon? If not, your argument is faulty because you can't speak from experience.
I have not carried a concealed weapon.
I do not concede the point that a lack of direct experience means my argument is faulty. You and I both live our lives, speak and act correctly and with confidence in a multitude of situations where we have no direct experience. It is not a deal breaker. We can debate this point, but only if you insist.
I've been through it, so don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had a road rage incident where the guy was literally pounding on the steering wheel trying to get me to pull over. Why didn't I pull over, smart guy? Because I was aware of something called disparity of force as escalation of force. I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy.
What I think you're saying is that by having your gun with you, you knew there was a pretty good possibility you might have to shoot to kill if you faced off with him, and you didn't want that to happen, so you took other measures. Does that sound right? Here's my question: what the fuck does the gun have to do with anything in that situation with respect to being more cautious and conscientious? If you didn't have your gun, would you have pulled over and taken your chances? If you didn't have your gun could/would you have used evasive driving and lost the guy?
Are you less cautious and conscientious when you are not carrying your gun? That's my question.
If your answer is yes, then you fucking scare me. "I need my gun to keep me calm". JFC.
If your answer is no, then your argument is invalid. You're cautious and conscientious WITH your concealed weapon, AND you're cautious and conscientious WITHOUT your weapon. Which was my original point. It isn't the gun. (and if it is, and I think it might be for some people, heaven help us all).
So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to act like you do.
There are lots of things I don't know--talking about them is part of how I learn about them. There are lots of things I know *some* stuff about, and I talk about them too. This subject falls into that category. Specifically, what makes people cautious, and what doesn't make people cautious; things that are dangerous and things that are less dangerous. So, I'm clear to speak and act in this kind of discussion, with authority. I do know what I'm talking about.
You just look stupid.
By your own logic, you're losing your argument. Unless you just think I look stupid. Which is fine, no? You sound whiny, and I look stupid. I'll make you a deal--you stop looking at me and I'll quit listening to you.
Now you see, Spex...there you go again ASSuming. Why do you ASSume that I purposefully did something to piss him off? Because I had a gun? If that was the case, why would I have gone out of my way to avoid the guy? Actually, he was trying to pass everyone before the two lanes narrowed to one. He did not make it in time and had to get behind me. That sent him into an uncontrolled rage. I have never seen someone act like that behind the wheel. I seriously though he was going to ram me. I'll admit, I was scared. That's why I did NOT stop...I know what would have happened.
Sure, you were completely innocent.
Sure, you were completely innocent.
Oh Spexx, shove it up your liberal, gun-hating ass. It must be nice to know everything. You should run for Messiah.
Your complaints sound whiny. There's no "argument".
Am I losing my other "argument" by calling the shooters in CO and WI "fucking homicidal nutball assholes"? Just curious.
I have not carried a concealed weapon.
I do not concede the point that a lack of direct experience means my argument is faulty. You and I both live our lives, speak and act correctly and with confidence in a multitude of situations where we have no direct experience. It is not a deal breaker. We can debate this point, but only if you insist.
What I think you're saying is that by having your gun with you, you knew there was a pretty good possibility you might have to shoot to kill if you faced off with him, and you didn't want that to happen, so you took other measures. Does that sound right? Here's my question: what the fuck does the gun have to do with anything in that situation with respect to being more cautious and conscientious? If you didn't have your gun, would you have pulled over and taken your chances? If you didn't have your gun could/would you have used evasive driving and lost the guy?
Are you less cautious and conscientious when you are not carrying your gun? That's my question.
If your answer is yes, then you fucking scare me. "I need my gun to keep me calm". JFC.
If your answer is no, then your argument is invalid. You're cautious and conscientious WITH your concealed weapon, AND you're cautious and conscientious WITHOUT your weapon. Which was my original point. It isn't the gun. (and if it is, and I think it might be for some people, heaven help us all).
There are lots of things I don't know--talking about them is part of how I learn about them. There are lots of things I know *some* stuff about, and I talk about them too. This subject falls into that category. Specifically, what makes people cautious, and what doesn't make people cautious; things that are dangerous and things that are less dangerous. So, I'm clear to speak and act in this kind of discussion, with authority. I do know what I'm talking about.
By your own logic, you're losing your argument. Unless you just think I look stupid. Which is fine, no? You sound whiny, and I look stupid. I'll make you a deal--you stop looking at me and I'll quit listening to you.
Big V, we will agree to disagree. You'll just twist any explanation I counter with to paint me as a gun-toting psycho. So, we'll just leave it there.
... Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.
I respectfully disagree BigV. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts and the fact is that you can't read the minds of people while they are carrying guns to know whether or not they take the responsibility seriously enough to adjust their behaviors accordingly.
I've carried concealed firearms both off duty and on duty, both in the US and other countries as a representative of the US. I've always had a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions due to the complexities that carrying a lethal weapon introduces into my routine, ramifications that aren't there when I'm not carrying.
I also have a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions when I'm driving a car as opposed to riding a bicycle, roller skating; or, jogging as I know that running into someone with a car is far more likely to have serious consequences in the way of morbidity and mortality.
The situation is similar when using power tools and I believe it applies to most people. These behavior trends don't just disappear for the sake of a position in a debate. Using those people who are exceptions in the aforementioned situations to extrapolate a generality discredits the position for me.
To others reading this thread:
I have not said I think anyone posting here is a gun-toting psycho, nor do I think it without saying it. I think dmg, for example, is cautious and conscientious. I believe the overwhelming majority of gun owners are. Were it otherwise, we'd have a lot more horror stories like the ones in the news recently.
Though dmg has withdrawn, I'd like to take the point he made, the one that is made by others all over the place "I'm more cautious with my gun" (paraphrasing). I honestly believe that's true, but it's true because any reasonable person understands that the presence of a gun makes any given situation more dangerous, therefore justifying more caution. Because of the steepness of the transition between threat and death with guns, reasonable people take extra care. That's a very good thing.
But because it is more dangerous with guns around, that extra caution should include PREcautions. There are many precautions possible. Training, locks, locked cases, strict attention are some examples. I should also include careful consideration of who gets access to guns. And I believe they should be restricted to cautious, conscientious people, like dmg. To attempt to say the presence of a gun makes things safer is just faulty. It isn't the gun that's the danger, right, it's the person. So it should be the person that is subject to much greater scrutiny, if safety truly is one's goal.
dmg, I'm happy to disagree with you, but I think we're not arguing the same point.
well, sexobon, you're right. I don't have my own private facts, and I don't know to four decimal places the state of mind of other people. your analogy about power tools is a good one. I'm careful when I use them, but I'm careful anyhow. we were both composing our posts at the same time it appears.
My point is that care is due because stakes are higher; the situation has greater potential for serious consequences in very short timeframes when guns are present. My nephew just bought a car, his first. I'm kinda terrified for him because his personal local danger quotient just leapt higher. I told him, no offense, but distraction, impairment and inexperience are the greatest factors in teenage car accidents. They don't have to be fatal to be horrific. So I begged him, until he gains more experience, slow the fuck down. Margin for error is his best, his only substitute for experience until he gains it. (No drinking period or **I* will personally kick his ass; put the goddamn iphone in the trunk when you're driving). I digress.
Since things can go from "grrrrr" to "holyshit what just happened" in an ohnosecond, greater caution is needed to avoid tragedy. But not everyone has adequate __________ (I don't know the quality here. brains? restraint? whatever) to exercise such a right responsibly. We have a lot of rights, and I'd like to avoid devolving into a constitutional pissing match for the moment, but there are few rights when exercised irresponsibly have such serious consequences *for other people*, namely, those being shot, than the right to bear arms.
It's an important right, and those who exercise it bear a proportionally serious responsibility. How can those of us who want to avoid being shot improve that likelihood? I don't think I'm at risk from you, or from dmg. But there are plenty of people who do represent a greater risk to *my* right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. We have rules about who can get access to controlled substances, you need a note from your doctor to get your hands on some things that risk only personal, individual danger, not to other people. We all know how george zimmerman answers that question, I reject his method. What do you say can be done, or should be done about tragedies like what happened in CO and in WI?
Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying
that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious,
or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious.
It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.
This "Having my CCL (gun) makes me more cautious" argument is literally
making the rounds on the internet among gun-advocate web sites,
and
Joe Zamudio is their latest CCL-hero.
They say that he exercised caution and good judgment when he
came to the aid of Rep Gifford in Arizona.
Some of their statements are factual wrong.
And they don't expose one important detail...
MSNBC
Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, [COLOR="DarkRed"]bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man[/COLOR]
— it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The gun the older man was holding had been wrestled away from the shooter.
Police later identified 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner as the suspect.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]"I could have very easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot more people,"[/COLOR]
said Zamudio, who helped subdue the suspect until authorities arrived.
I'm not denigrating Joe Zamudio. In fact, I was very impressed by him
in interviews at the time where he said his frame of mind was that
he was prepared to his gun, and was only stopped by the shouts of the crowd.
My point is that it is only fantasy to suggest that having a gun will
make a person cautious and rational.
I think it's just as easy to imagine a fantasy of a Mexican Standoff,
or shooting an innocent person... or yourself.
Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious, or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious. It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.
Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.
Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.
When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.
Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.
Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.
To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.
This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.
Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]And where do you get your 1% and 99% ?
Frankly, I believe you will be hard pressed to document a statistically valid
sample of instances where CCL-guns were actually used to prevent or reduce
the incidence of the so-called intrusions/attacks/etc, let alone test the level of "caution" or loss there of.
Certainly the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' annual surveys cannot document such improved outcomes.
[/COLOR]
Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]How much safer will these Type A people be with their guns than without them ?
I believe you are defining this group from within a larger group of people
- who generally behave safely and avoid confrontations, with or without a gun.
[/COLOR]
When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]And, so the numerical balance of outcome between two groups is what, zero ?
Again, such a number is probably not available, and it's an assumption
that Group A benefits will far outweigh group B.[/COLOR]
Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.
Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]In a previous post, you said such would lead to "revolution" Now that is scary, and really cuts off discussion !
But isn't the biggest part of this problem what you refer to next... regulation.
From my perspective, it's the absolute intolerance towards any kind of regulation by NRA etc. that prevents useful discussion
[/COLOR]
To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.
This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]Agreed ![/COLOR] :)
... My nephew just bought a car, his first. I'm kinda terrified for him because his personal local danger quotient just leapt higher. I told him, no offense, but distraction, impairment and inexperience are the greatest factors in teenage car accidents. They don't have to be fatal to be horrific. So I begged him, until he gains more experience, slow the fuck down. Margin for error is his best, his only substitute for experience until he gains it. (No drinking period or **I* will personally kick his ass; put the goddamn iphone in the trunk when you're driving). I digress. ...
... How can those of us who want to avoid being shot improve that likelihood? ...
Drivers, both novice and experienced, benefit from defensive driving courses that teach them how to recognize
potential threats and methods to avoid those becoming actual threats. The practice is accepted to the point where some auto insurance companies even give a discount to drivers who complete an accredited course and money talks. There are naysayers who contend that they should neither have to go to all that trouble to protect themselves from bad drivers nor have to carry uninsured motorist insurance coverage and perhaps that's true; however, the consequences of acting on that premise are prohibitive and those who don't drive defensively or carry the added insurance are generally construed to be deficient in judgment.
Military, police, and even some private security firms train their people to recognize others who's behaviors indicate they may be carrying concealed weapons and they teach methods for avoiding those who present as
potential threats to keep them from becoming actual threats. The civilian population generally hasn't caught up with this despite the practice being accepted by those who face such risks professionally.
There are several reasons for maintaining the status quo: As with drivers, a lot of people simply don't think that the burden should be on them to learn avoidance measures. Police don't see their tax dollar allocations go up for teaching people how not to be victims (their allocations go up when there are more victims). There probably isn't enough demand to support commercial classes. There's no financial incentive, like discounts on life and medical insurance, for being trained in this type of threat recognition since the frequency of insurance providers saving on payouts is much lower than for something like drivers' claims.
Unfortunately, people need to realize that we're not going to eliminate guns from society anymore than we're going to eliminate cars. The onus is on themselves to recognize and avoid potential threats from shooters just as practical people have learned to recognize and avoid potential threats from drivers. Either that; or, fall by the wayside.
... I'd like to avoid devolving into a constitutional pissing match for the moment, ...
Done.
And where do you get your 1% and 99% ?
Frankly, I believe you will be hard pressed to document a statistically valid sample of instances where CCL-guns were actually used to prevent or reduce the incidence of the so-called intrusions/attacks/etc, let alone test the level of "caution" or loss there of. Certainly the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' annual surveys cannot document such improved outcomes.
That is my point. I picked your quote because you were the last person to post but both sides of the gun control debate have a strong tendency to solely cite anecdotes or be completely speculative. As you mentioned, it is impossible to statistically measure the
complete impact of guns into positive and negative categories that can be compared. All we have is gun crime statistics, anecdotes, and speculation, all of which are heavily biased and do not give a good picture of the problem. That is why I am trying to frame this debate in a different manner.
How much safer will these Type A people be with their guns than without them ?
I believe you are defining this group from within a larger group of people - who generally behave safely and avoid confrontations, with or without a gun.
No, the context is correct. I am saying that because I personally sometimes fall under that category. I think fighting is stupid but I like to mess with people and see how far I can take it. It is usually in good fun but it is possible to hit a nerve and get a defensive response out of someone, especially when alcohol is involved. However, if I was a carrying a gun with me, I would
never do anything that could potentially get a defensive response out of someone because I know it could escalate quickly and put me in a very bad situation.
And, so the numerical balance of outcome between two groups is what, zero ?
Again, such a number is probably not available, and it's an assumption that Group A benefits will far outweigh group B.
I made no assertion because this is the discussion that I would like to see. There is no numerical equation but framing it in this way at least shows forces everyone to acknowledge both sides.
If I had a guess, I would say certain regions of the US have many more Type A people than Type B and other regions of the US have many more Type B people than Type A. Once again, it depends on the gun culture of the particular location. That is why I am against any federal gun control ban (besides overly powerful weapons). What may work for New York City will probably not work for Wyoming and vice versa. Gun control laws should be local.
In a previous post, you said such would lead to "revolution" Now that is scary, and really cuts off discussion !
It was a hyperbole. I made the point that it is currently not politically possible for the government to completely ban guns in the US.
From my perspective, it's the absolute intolerance towards any kind of regulation by NRA etc. that prevents useful discussion
I agree. They have a very negative role in this.
Oh Spexx, shove it up your liberal, gun-hating ass. It must be nice to know everything. You should run for Messiah.
This is the internet equivalent of cutting the guy off. Now say "I didn't do anything to make anybody mad". You cut the guy off, because you're self-righteous and the guy was being a dick trying to get ahead of you before the construction, and he should just get behind you in the line of traffic like all the other sheep. And you figured you could do it because if push came to shove, you could protect yourself with your gun. After you calmed down, you realized what a jackass you'd been, and acted like a pussy by running away. We've all done it, just without the gun part. Admit it... you'll feel better.
I'm a liberal, gun-hater? It must be nice to know everything.
I don't need to run for Messiah. I AM the Messiah. You'd better get your shit together or I WILL be sending you to eternal damnation.
For the record, I don't hate guns. I believe that our society needs to take steps to reduce the chance that innocent people will get murdered. It seems to me that, while it won't eliminate it, reducing the number of handguns and assault weapons in the general population is a good start.
Talk of the Nation did a show on
guns last week. A lot of it was from a public health perspective. Interesting factoid 60% of gun deaths are suicides. I found this
page from the AFSP.
Firearms and Suicide
Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
I guess to me an interesting stat would be home invasions thwarted, although I couldn't guess what percentage of those are reported.
I see two competing narratives here which make us all less safe. The left demonizes guns to the point where people are prevented from being exposed to a culture of safe handling of firearms, while the right pretends that gun owners are by and large well trained at handling firearms. I'd like to see some thought go into reducing that suicide number.
I'd like to see some thought go into reducing that suicide number.
Not being a wise ass, but why? People should be allowed to commit suicide if they want. Frankly, I see suicide as a responsible use of firearms.
I agree with your point with respect to adults, but I see teens as a different situation. That said, I had an older multiple addicted cousin hang himself in his late teens, a gun may have provided a far less traumatic end.
If I'd had access to a gun during my lowest moments I think I would have committed suicide.
Not suggesting it as a reason for gun control, just saying what I think.
When I went to counselling the PSO asked how I invisaged suicide. Shooting myself under my right jaw. I would even probe the spot while imagining it. I must have seen it somewhere when a person was being held hostage - I have no idea if it is an effective spot, but it was very real to me.
It was very reassuring to the PSO; despite counting as suicidal thoughts it was still a suicidal fantasy, given that I had no way of acquiring a gun. At that stage I couldn't even use a phone (I had special dispensation to make walk-in appointments, turning up after a 1.5m walk).
Do you have any restrictions on over the counter drugs commonly used in suicides?
We do.
You can go to every pharmacy in town and buy the maximum allowable of course, but it is hoped that by the time you have queued up behind the methadone patients and the old giffers querying why their their tablets are a different colour, and the women with screaming babies, you will realise that some people have it worse than you.
Do you have any restrictions on over the counter drugs commonly used in suicides?
We do.
Drugs are very heavily regulated in the States. I would guess that a lot of over the counter stuff in GB is regulated here. We are a strange place with our talk of liberty. Even dying patients have to squirrel away pills to control their end of life.
I'm thinking Paracetemol, which from reading American books equates with Tylenol?
So they'd die of internal bleeding and liver failure? I'd rather they had access to an opiate or a gun.
We don't regulate tylenol or some cold medicines but that sounds like a terrible road.
The left demonizes guns to the point where people are prevented from being exposed to a culture of safe handling of firearms, ...
What leads you to say this ?
I've no idea when or how or who, among liberals or anyone else, is preventing education or gun safety.
For example, the NRA/Boy Scouts/hunting clubs/local police/ etc have public gun-safety events,
and I've never heard about anyone complaining or opposing them.
If by "exposed to a culture", you mean everyone should have their own gun,
or parents should always allow their children to play in houses where there are guns,
or everyone should go hunting, or the such, maybe you have a point.
I agree we are very polarized on this issue. But as liberals go,
I feel they live their lives in tolerance of current laws, but maybe working to change them.
But "demonizing", No...
(Well, except I do demonize the NRA --- but only because they deserve it. :rolleyes:)
I do see the liberals-on-this-issue trying to use the statistical data that has been gathered
over the years by public health institutions to convince others of
the unnecessary (<-my word) deaths and harm that comes via guns.
I find it ironic that with all it's $, the NRA does not buy gun-safety
PSA's (public service announcements) on radio or TV,
the way electric companies tell people to not touch electric wires.
Instead, the NRA is devoted to... Well, you know what NRA is devoted to.
You mention suicide and home invasions.
For many years, there have been very large, multi-state, annual
surveys by the Feds trying to put numbers on such catagories.
Suicides are easy to count, as are hospital/ER admittances due to gun shot.
Home invasions - not so much - but they do try to sort out if a gun was present/used/deterred
and the data is NOT there to support what the gun community wants to believe.
Then you get into reasons why "the Fed survey is invalid because..."
I can agree with some of the reasons, but at the end of it all it becomes a matter of weight.
If guns were actually deterring or prevention a significant number of injuries,
the data should be leaning in that direction. But it's not.
So everyone gets into anecdotes to make their point... thinking the more dramatic, the better.
What leads you to say this ?
The federal school zone gun ban leading to the elimination of high school rifle teams would be one example. Was it Spex who posted about his kid sneaking around town with a airsoft rifle leading to a policeman at the door? Spex is probably the most anti-gun American poster here yet he allowed his child to engage in a very dangerous activity with what appeared to be a firearm. Irresponsible behavior with firearms goes across the political spectrum, but the left uses shaming to push ownership underground making ownership less safe. The "community" of gun owners becomes a hardened faction unattractive to many of us. Of course when I look at the right wing douches with their automatics on the cool weapons thread, I am not reassured about the rights' commitment to gun safety either.
. Was it Spex who posted about his kid sneaking around town with a airsoft rifle leading to a policeman at the door? Spex is probably the most anti-gun American poster here yet he allowed his child to engage in a very dangerous activity with what appeared to be a firearm.
Just for clarification:
17 year old walking unsneakily ;) with a non-lethal "toy" without my advice or consent.
I have no issue with rifles/shotguns being used for protection or sport/hunting, unless the prey is human. I object to the ease which people can murder high numbers of innocents. That's all.
Would it be fair to say, not sneaking with a non-lethal toy which
looks like the real thing?
The federal school zone gun ban leading to the elimination of high school rifle teams would be one example.<snip>
I had not heard of such a ban, so can you give a link or two ?
There was a ban by some local school boards after the Columnbine shootings.
But in a brief Google search, I haven't yet found such a ban.
There was the Assault Rifle ban in the late 1990's, but that law expired and not re-newed.
OTOH, a Google search for school rifle teams turned up several links,
and here are two, Connecticut and California, and I'm sure there are more...
Middletown Press
Serving Middletown, CT
JIM BRANSFIELD
March 09, 2011
Xavier High School offers rifle team
MIDDLETOWN — It’s many places, it’s a sport in decline, but not at Xavier High School.
The Falcons’ rifle team continues to thrive and according to coach Aaron King,
Xavier’s team is the largest in the state with 45 members.<snip>
“In the state competition there were 50 kids from the five teams,
so that took more than four hours to complete,” said King.<snip>
There are three leagues in the state and the champion of each —
Xavier didn’t win its league, the Quinnipiac
— and two wild cards make up the five teams in state competition.<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“We’ve had no political interference or any sort of argument
brought to me that this isn’t something we should be doing.
It’s very popular with the kids and it’s worthwhile.”[/COLOR]
------------
Wickenburg HS: (Calif)
Clubs and School Activities. (Calendar 2012)
We're proud of our Athletics program here at Wickenburg High.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The W.H.S. coed Rifle Team shoots AR 15's and has been shooting high power rifles for several years.
We practice twice a week, year round.
We participate in team and individual shooting competitions throughout the year.[/COLOR]
Eddie Eagle says:
If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don’t Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
Begun in 1988, The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has reached more than 25 million children – in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.
I had not heard of such a ban, so can you give a link or two ?
Gun-Free School Zones
Act of 1990
If you read the wiki, it was found unconstitutional then altered slightly. I'd guess your rifle teams are off-campus activities.
Would it be fair to say, not sneaking with a non-lethal toy which looks like the real thing?
sure, But I wouldn't to characterize it as a "very dangerous activity".
Eddie Eagle says:
If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don’t Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
Yes xoB, I'm familiar with this NRA program, and would favor it being used more.
But presentations are pretty scarce events as far as they go
... and it are often one-time presentations for any particular group of kids.
Again, with all their $, does the NRA really need to charge for the materials.
Radio and TV PSA's would reach many more kids, their parents, and the people who have guns in their house.
Repetition is one key to learning, and it's not just kids who need to learn gun safety.
sure, But I wouldn't to characterize it as a "very dangerous activity".
Yet someone called the police. Perception is reality. People are afraid of guns.
So they'd die of internal bleeding and liver failure? I'd rather they had access to an opiate or a gun.
We don't regulate tylenol or some cold medicines but that sounds like a terrible road.
Oh gosh yes, I agree re a horrible, horrible end.
Which is why I didn't choose it. I know about the nastiness of dying of a paracetemol overdose because Mum used to work for the Ambulance Service. She made us aware of all sorts if unusual things (across to the hospital, up to the morgue for example).
Less physically messy though. So if no-one really does love you, you die quietly rather than your landlord retching on his knees faced with a scrubbing brush full of brains.
Emotionally, suicide's a messy business generally.
your analogy about power tools is a good one. I'm careful when I use them, but I'm careful anyhow.
Says the man who used a
chainsaw on a ladder like Conan ... :neutral:
Spex who posted about his kid sneaking around town with a airsoft rifle leading to a policeman at the door?
But I wouldn't to characterize it as a "very dangerous activity".
Therein lies the problem. Guns are NOT toys - even fake ones. Especially as dusk or the waning hours of daylight. What he did was not only "very dangerous" it was incredibly stupid. VERY LUCKY to have not been met by an overzealous neighbor or rookie cop.
Yes xoB, I'm familiar with this NRA program, and would favor it being used more.
But presentations are pretty scarce events as far as they go
... and it are often one-time presentations for any particular group of kids.
Again, with all their $, does the NRA really need to charge for the materials.
Radio and TV PSA's would reach many more kids, their parents, and the people who have guns in their house.
Repetition is one key to learning, and it's not just kids who need to learn gun safety.
They don't do a traveling dog & pony show, they're making a structured program available for local initiatives. Really the only way it can be effective is getting the parents involved. Otherwise they send their kids to one of these presentations, like they would to the Saturday matinée, and won't have a clue what the kid saw, or retained. Plenty of parents could use the training too.
Therein lies the problem. Guns are NOT toys - even fake ones. Especially as dusk or the waning hours of daylight. What he did was not only "very dangerous" it was incredibly stupid. VERY LUCKY to have not been met by an overzealous neighbor or rookie cop.
You're right. Better get those handguns away from "overzealous neighbor"s. I guess they didn't have guns, or they would have shot, instead of calling the cops.:cool:
I have limited time and haven't been through the (whole) thread, so this may have been addressed already. If not...
Folks have been known to off others with all manner of things (baseball bats, razors, hammers, guns, fists, etc.).
If Joe kills one, ten, 100, with an item, the item should then be restricted or regulated for every one else?
I have limited time and haven't been through the (whole) thread, so this may have been addressed already. If not...
Folks have been known to off others with all manner of things (baseball bats, razors, hammers, guns, fists, etc.).
If Joe kills one, ten, 100, with an item, the item should then be restricted or regulated for every one else?
Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an American with anything but a gun.
"Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an *American with anything but a gun."
9/11: Twin Towers.
*shrug*
Not relevant to my question.
*yes, not Americans, I know, but living here, working here, etc.
"Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an American with anything but a gun."
9/11: Twin Towers.
*shrug*
Not relevant to my question.
Not an American. Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal.
"Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an *American with anything but a gun."
9/11: Twin Towers.
*shrug*
Not relevant to my question.
*yes, not Americans, I know, but living here, working here, etc.
How about the happy practice of giving the Native Americans blankets infested with small pox? :eyebrow:
"Not an American."
Yeah, I said that.
#
"Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal."
Wasn't going for 'the win', was answering your question, "Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an American with anything but a gun.” The legality of the instrument was not part of the question. However, since you bring it up: yes, explosives are illegal...fat lot of good that did for OK City... ;)
Again: all irrelevant to my question which I'll rephrase since I think it's poorly constructed.
>If Joe does something stupid, bad, or inhumane with an item, why should Jack be punished by way of restrictions on that kind of item?<
How about rephrasing the question in a less biased way.
Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual. At what point should society decide that restricting an individual's action benefits society more than not restricting the action?
You're right. Better get those handguns away from "overzealous neighbor"s. I guess they didn't have guns, or they would have shot, instead of calling the cops.:cool:
You think he would have been the first? Perhaps your attitude would be different... or not.
Not an American. Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal.
Not the Ammonium nitrate he used. Its a common fertilizer. The rest, maybe.
from Wiki ...
" The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6 and injured more than 680 people.
The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius,
destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.
The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage."
AND NOT ONE GUN USED.
Some guns were used in this:
Constable, civilian, gunman confirmed dead after shooting near Texas A&M campus
COLLEGE STATION, Texas—Three people, including a Brazos County constable, died Monday when a gunman opened fire near the Texas A&M campus in College Station, according to investigators.
The gunman and another civilian were also killed, police said.
A female civilian, 55, was also shot and was rushed to the hospital, where she underwent emergency surgery. Her condition was not known.
The suspect was shot by responding officers and later pronounced dead. The name of the 35-year-old gunman has not been released.
No gun here, people still died.
Woman stabs boyfriend in neck during argument
HOUSTON—A man died after his girlfriend stabbed him in the neck during an argument, according to police.
Same here:
Bride stabs, kills fiancé hours before wedding in Philadelphia
PHILADELPHIA —
A bride-to-be was sent to jail on her wedding day after police said she stabbed her fiancé twice and killed him
It's true, people kill people, and they're creative in their choice of weapons.
ph45,
You really think your rephrasing is less biased that either of my versions?
My iterations are neutral; yours drips with bias.
#
"Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual."
Demonstrably not the case.
If Joe, who lives alone, masturbates himself to sleep every night, how does this affect anything (other than his bedsheets)?
Your rephrasing trades precision and accuracy for bias.
#
"At what point should society decide that restricting an individual's action benefits society more than not restricting the action?"
I'd say you restrict the individual when the individual does something worth being restricted for...that is, when he or she commits a crime. To restrict (action, ownership, etc.) before hand, in anticipation of a crime, well, defend that position if you can.
>And 'my' question stands (rephrased yet again): If Joe does wrong, with bare hand or with gun, why should Joe’s actions affect Jack's hands or Jack’s ownership of a gun?<
It shouldn't. But when Joe, Jim, Bob, Harry, Fred, Susie, Steve, Kenny and Eric do it too I think it would be responsible to think about it at least.
My iterations are neutral; yours drips with bias.
Neutral? C'mon. You are just saying why should Person 2 get punished for the stupid actions of Person 1.
This is an extremely libertarian way of thinking. I'm pretty sure no one else but libertarians or traditional small government conservatives solely think this way.
"Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual."
Demonstrably not the case.
If Joe, who lives alone, masturbates himself to sleep every night, how does this affect anything (other than his bedsheets)?
Your rephrasing trades precision and accuracy for bias.
How old are you? First of all, to be nitpicky (since you were), you affect take in electricity, water, and produce wastewater when washing your sheets. Second, I assumes we were mature enough not to be nitpicky when making generalizing statements.
Back to my point.
Almost everything we do affects someone else somehow. If I smoke a cigarette I exhale toxic chemicals that can be inhaled by someone else. If I get drunk I can break other people's properties, commit crimes, verbally and physically abuse people,
etc. If I use electricity I am getting that from some energy source which most likely releases CO2 and toxic gas into our environment. If I preach hate I can potentially get other people to act on my beliefs, hurting and killing people. If I vote for a politician, I have some responsibility for the politician's votes. I can go on forever.
The point is that we as a society are constantly trying to find an equilibrium between individual rights (right to smoke, drink, use electricity, speech, vote, etc.) and social rights (rights not to inhale toxic chemicals, not to be a victim of someone's misuse of alcohol, not to be affected by man-made climate change, not to be a target of hate, etc.).
There is no formula or line where we can put actions into "allowable" and "not allowable" because we feel differently about them. We recognize electricity is a necessity so we don't ban its use even though the negative consequences can be great. We failed at banning alcohol because our culture will not allow for it and we feel the positive personal effects outweigh the negative personal and social consequences. We banned weed because there is a social stigma against it even though its positive consequences are greater and negative consequences are much less than alcohol.
This leads me to your quote:
And 'my' question stands (rephrased yet again): If Joe does wrong, with bare hand or with gun, why should Joe’s actions affect Jack's hands or Jack’s ownership of a gun?<
You see gun laws are not enacted because the actions of one person. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. People try to ban guns because there is a history of gun owners using guns for violence. If both Joe and Jack try to get guns, it is very difficult to determine that Joe will use it for violence while Jack will not. There is that uncertainty so it leads people to try to ban them all together.
I disagree with banning guns and support tougher regulation but, once again, it largely comes down to culture. Also, to complicate it, if Joe has a nuclear weapon, he has the power to kill millions of people and we as a society do not trust that power with any non-government official. The power of the weapon has a large influence in regulation as well.
Explosives are illegal.
Nope, not illegal. Explosives are restricted to licensed users.
>If Joe does something stupid, bad, or inhumane with an item, why should Jack be punished by way of restrictions on that kind of item?<
Jack is not being punished any more than he's being punished by having to stop at a stop sign. People like those Columbine students, Aurora movie goers, Wisconsin Sikhs are being protected.
If Joe, who lives alone, masturbates himself to sleep every night, how does this affect anything (other than his bedsheets)?
Stupid: masturbation doesn't kill masses of innocents.
Nope, not illegal. Explosives are restricted to licensed users.
My mistake. I was wrong
Gun owner think and state that they have guns to protect themselves in their homes. Let's see if it's true. In the next month, I'm going to infiltrate Classicman's home, unarmed, and kiss him on his ear. Let's see if he can shoot me before I can do it.
ph45,
<snip>
And 'my' question stands (rephrased yet again):
If Joe does wrong, with bare hand or with gun,
why should Joe’s actions affect Jack's hands or Jack’s
ownership of a gun?<
A
coincidence of postings.... :D
Neutral? C'mon. You are just saying why should Person 2 get punished for the stupid actions of Person 1.
This is an extremely libertarian way of thinking. I'm pretty sure no one else but libertarians or traditional small government conservatives solely think this way.
How old are you? First of all, to be nitpicky (since you were), you affect take in electricity, water, and produce wastewater when washing your sheets. Second, I assumes we were mature enough not to be nitpicky when making generalizing statements.
Back to my point. Almost everything we do affects someone else somehow. If I smoke a cigarette I exhale toxic chemicals that can be inhaled by someone else. If I get drunk I can break other people's properties, commit crimes, verbally and physically abuse people, etc. If I use electricity I am getting that from some energy source which most likely releases CO2 and toxic gas into our environment. If I preach hate I can potentially get other people to act on my beliefs, hurting and killing people. If I vote for a politician, I have some responsibility for the politician's votes. I can go on forever.
The point is that we as a society are constantly trying to find an equilibrium between individual rights (right to smoke, drink, use electricity, speech, vote, etc.) and social rights (rights not to inhale toxic chemicals, not to be a victim of someone's misuse of alcohol, not to be affected by man-made climate change, not to be a target of hate, etc.).
There is no formula or line where we can put actions into "allowable" and "not allowable" because we feel differently about them. We recognize electricity is a necessity so we don't ban its use even though the negative consequences can be great. We failed at banning alcohol because our culture will not allow for it and we feel the positive personal effects outweigh the negative personal and social consequences. We banned weed because there is a social stigma against it even though its positive consequences are greater and negative consequences are much less than alcohol.
This leads me to your quote:
You see gun laws are not enacted because the actions of one person. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. People try to ban guns because there is a history of gun owners using guns for violence. If both Joe and Jack try to get guns, it is very difficult to determine that Joe will use it for violence while Jack will not. There is that uncertainty so it leads people to try to ban them all together.
I disagree with banning guns and support tougher regulation but, once again, it largely comes down to culture. Also, to complicate it, if Joe has a nuclear weapon, he has the power to kill millions of people and we as a society do not trust that power with any non-government official. The power of the weapon has a large influence in regulation as well.
:notworthy
ph45,
I'd say you restrict the individual when the individual does something worth being restricted for...that is, when he or she commits a crime. To restrict (action, ownership, etc.) before hand, in anticipation of a crime, well, defend that position if you can.
I take it that you are not in favor of imposing sanctions or worse on countries like Iran or N. Korea to prevent them from developing automic bombs and other WMD's. They are just researching the ebola virus to benefit mankind. Iran is just going nuclear because they have an altruistic desire to send all their oil to other countries and you gotta get electricity somehow.
You bet.
Gun owner think and state that they have guns to protect themselves in their homes. Let's see if it's true. In the next month, I'm going to infiltrate Classicman's home, unarmed, and kiss him on his ear. Let's see if he can shoot me before I can do it.
Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.
Gun owner think and state that they have guns to protect themselves in their homes. Let's see if it's true. In the next month, I'm going to infiltrate Classicman's home, unarmed, and kiss him on his ear. Let's see if he can shoot me before I can do it.
I was gonna say bring your camera/pics or it never happened...something, but bruce's reply was far more betterer.
Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.
Okay, fellas, the whole homo-erotic phallic-firearm things is getting out of hand.
Next three posters have to play soggy biscuit.
Okay, fellas, the whole homo-erotic phallic-firearm things is getting out of hand.
Next three posters have to play soggy biscuit.
Ok, first I had to look up 'boganesque' because of Ducks and now I have to ask what is 'soggy biscuit' -? Is it an Oz thing or a dirty guy thing?
Ph45,
Leaving aside the irrelevant bias of your or my posts: you really mean to say that Jack’s use of ‘this’ or ‘that’ (his ease of use, his ease of acquisition) legitimately depends on what ‘the people’ have to say?
Jack may understand ‘the people’ will certainly try -- by way of the stick called ‘LAW’ (codified and sanctioned force) -- to, in his view, hobble him for the good of ‘the people’, but Jack may fundamentally disagree with ‘the people’s’ (shifty, shifting, capricious) wisdom and do as he can to navigate ‘round ‘the people’.
You might say this makes Jack a criminal.
Jack might say, ‘I’m okay with that.’
Stalemate.
*shrug*
#
Spexx,
I can’t see how a stop sign (one of several devices for regulating traffic) is in the same ballpark as saying, ‘No, Jack, because a whack of folks have done bad things with this item, you are not allowed to own the same kind of item, or, you must jump through all manner of legal hoops to get this item.’
#
Sam,
The Hebrews have a saying: ‘If you know someone is coming to kill you, get up early and go kill them first.’ Iran, N. Korea, and others have made ‘their’ intentions clear. I say, ‘kill them first’. In any event: if Jack buys a gun, the act (of buying) is not an active threat against any one, so, why should he be penalized for what he ‘might’ do?
#
“Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.”
I want a DVD of that.
Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.
Only if Classic packs 100% of the time, including when he answers the door. If he answers the door without pointing the gun at me, I'll get him.
If you know he has a gun, you aren't going to his door.
I bet nobody can sum this up in one NORMAL (un-tw like) paragraph but the post about spexx getting buttfucked in the mouth and then shot got my attention.
what the hell is going on??
Dieter says: Now is the time on Sprockets when we DANCE!
[YOUTUBE]QHZR9SA5pOg[/YOUTUBE]
I bet nobody can sum this up in one NORMAL (un-tw like) paragraph but the post about spexx getting buttfucked in the mouth and then shot got my attention.
what the hell is going on??
Filling in for Merc?
Says the man who used a chainsaw on a ladder like Conan ... :neutral:
--snip
Exactly!!
**extra** careful, otherwise, I'd've been injured. Injured bad.
If you know he has a gun, you aren't going to his door.
Classic isn't going to shoot me. He already posted that he can "get upstairs to his gun". That's a long way. He's also a responsible gun owner. That means that he has his weapons locked in a gun safe or has trigger locks on them, so those who shpuldn't have access don't have access.
Oh look, he just got back from the range and it's on his living room table.
If you know he has a gun, you aren't going to his door, unless you're a moron.
Wait! What? Classic has suddenly become a serial killer or maybe a mass murderer? :eek: Did somebody find a stock pile of AK47's and vials of ebola virus in his basement?
Gee, he always seemed so quiet and well mannered. Such a nice young man. It's hard to believe. You just can't trust anyone anymore these days. ;)
Gee, he always seemed so quiet and well mannered. ... You just can't trust anyone anymore these days. ;)
[ATTACH]40094[/ATTACH]
Only if Classic packs 100% of the time, including when he answers the door. If he answers the door without pointing the gun at me, I'll get him.
Thats when you get the baseball bat. After a couple whacks I'll have all the time I need to make coffee.
Thats when you get the baseball bat. After a couple whacks I'll have all the time I need to make coffee.
So you admit that you don't use your gun to protect yourself from home invasion. I accept your apology.
No, I never said it was the first line of my defense.
Feel free to try again, though. You seem to draw some very odd pleasure out of this.
Classic isn't going to shoot me. He already posted that he can "get upstairs to his gun". That's a long way. He's also a responsible gun owner. That means that he has his weapons locked in a gun safe or has trigger locks on them, so those who shpuldn't have access don't have access.
Or maybe he has them out cleaning them and he's just finished the job...and then you knock on the door, after a day of telling him what a dick he is, and he's just had enough.
So he smiles a small smile to himself and thinks about how fate works in mysterious ways as he steadily walks towards the door, knowing the bane of his existence is waiting for him on the other side...
...to be continued...
... there's a loud sound, then he looks through the peephole in the door for the person who'd been knocking, the peephole that wasn't there a few moments ago ...
No, I never said it was the first line of my defense.
Feel free to try again, though. You seem to draw some very odd pleasure out of this.
No pleasure. I'm compelled to debunk foolish thinking.
... there's a loud sound, then he looks through the peephole in the door for the person who'd been knocking, the peephole that wasn't there a few moments ago ...
And he killed the UPS man, goes to jail, and anyone who was counting on him for food, clothing, shelter, etc, is fucked.
... there's a loud sound, then he looks through the peephole in the door for the person who'd been knocking, the peephole that wasn't there a few moments ago ...
... and confirms that he has killed a menacing Landshark, which he recognized through the closed door when he heard it say "
Telegram." The President later awarded him the Medal of Freedom and sent him a candygram.
Widespread gun ownership immediately preserves property and earning capacity -- for the dead do no work and earn no bucks, life insurance settlements being quite another matter, not part of earning -- to the tune of US$2.5BN each year in the United States alone. See John Lott.
There's also the little matter of its being the only known societal vaccination against genocides.
Pretty well buttfucks the ideas of the hoplophobic ragers against self-defense. Which article q.v. in the JPFO website.
Politically correct gone wild.:mad:
but it's not political correctness at all. it's out-and-out ableism. it's a clear assault on the rights of the deaf and the disabled. that's the opposite of political correctness, isn't it?
You could make a case for that, but most people would give you the stink eye and walk away muttering about Ivy league twits.
It's stupid fucking behavior by people who want to be politically correct (or fear not to be), following rules set by people who are trying to be politically correct (or fear not to be).
Nobody want to make a logical judgment call for fear of being crucified. Just pass the blame on to faceless zero tolerance rules, no matter how inappropriate for the situation. I realize they worry about their jobs or litigation, but these gutless assholes make me sick.
I'm willing to bet, in a private one on one conversation, every one of the people involved with this would admit it's stupid bullshit.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with his being deaf. If the kid's parents had named him Gunner, would the school also have an issue? I suspect they would.
[Devil's advocate tangent]And even then, there is a moderate line--what if they'd named him Motherfucker? I think most would agree that, at SOME point, it doesn't matter if it's his name, it's still unacceptable. [/tangent] Anyway, this is clearly the type of school that has their panties in a wad about everything, not just deaf handsigns.
It's not political correctness; it's zero tolerance. They're different issues. You can have zero tolerance on a politically correct subject, but this is zero tolerance for violence.
And I'm with you all the way on zero tolerance.
And this ridiculous bullshit doesn't come from trying to be politically correct? Horeshit, when I went to school there was zero tolerance on violence. They didn't tolerate it. Period. Not being able to shape your hand like a gun and pew pew pew on the playground has nothing to do with violence. It's about control, shaping body and soul into politically correct minions.
Good thing his family name isn't Raper.
And this ridiculous bullshit doesn't come from trying to be politically correct? Horeshit, when I went to school there was zero tolerance on violence. They didn't tolerate it. Period. Not being able to shape your hand like a gun and pew pew pew on the playground has nothing to do with violence. It's about control, shaping body and soul into politically correct minions.
The problem with zero tolerance is that it is very easy to fall down a slippery slope. First it starts out as physical violence. Then, some messed kid up draws a picture of students shooting a teacher and it gets found. The logical outcome is to punish the student justifying themselves with "zero tolerance" on violence, which I would say is logical in that particular situation. Then, since they punished a kid for the threat of violence, that gets expanded to "zero tolerance" on any form of violence, whether it be a student harmlessly drawing a picture of a gun or whatever. Its stupid because there is no end to it. I can get just keep getting pushed further and further.
I'd seen this story a couple days ago and raged at the television (and anyone in earshot) about the idiocy of such a stand taken by the school district. But I seem to be a little late to the story in this thread. Here's my take on it.
A little background first. My eldest son is deaf. I've been involved, though not immersed in Deaf Culture for 25 years. I'm slow but functionally fluent in sign language. I've dealt with school administrators and teachers and other employees for many years. I've been helped by and hindered by various policies at various times.
Good grief.
All of the comments above indicating disdain for "zero tolerance" policies are right on target as far as I'm concerned. Every one of them is just a bureaucratic fig leaf for "zero judgement". Of course I don't want violence in my kids' school. Of course I don't want weapons in my kids' schools. Of course I don't want drugs in my kids' schools. But each of these, and practically any other fairly wide category, has exceptions that are acceptable. And there are endless examples of specific objects or actions that, in context, are perfectly acceptable, but could, in a different context, run afoul of some "zero tolerance" definition. This story is a perfect example.
The problem is not his name. Nor his name sign. Nor is it a policy that restricts weapons.
The problem is very stupid people opening their mouths and letting the stupid out. I scanned around a bit and found examples of his family signing his name sign. There's No. Way. In. Hell. that it's anything like a threat. In the video at the link I've included here are a couple scenes where the sign is made. Watch it, judge for yourself. It's not a threat and it's not a violation of anything. It's the kid's name for fucking fuck's sake. That's my factual refutation of the stupid that leaked out of the stupid people.
...
My other more emotional reactions to this story make me glad I'm not closer to Grand Island, Nebraska. I'd like to be at that PTA meeting or School District meeting to tell everyone in the room how I feel about it. There might be some of these stupid people in the room, but I doubt they'd get it. His sign isn't even the letter H, it's the letter R (the crossed fingers, like you might make behind your back when you're telling a lie). I have a member of my extended family named Gunnar (those crazy Norwegians). That's his freakin name. What in the world would the school do with that? Obviously NOTHING. The double standard this case represents makes me incandescent with anger.
As I followed up on this story, I found this
news report. It seems that the school district is in full reverse on this subject, saying "Grand Island Public Schools is not requiring any current student with a hearing impairment to change his or her sign language name."
O.R.L.Y.
Where did this story come from then? The Liberal Mainstream Media? I hope the parents get satisfaction on this case. This isn't a little bit of a problem on both sides like many other issues. This is all, *all* on the school district and those who open their mouths on their behalf to let the stupid out.
The man who killed two people and seriously wounded a third in a crowded Oregon mall Tuesday was identified Wednesday, the Associated Press reports.
Shortly before 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, walked into a Portland mall carrying a long AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, according to police reports.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/12/oregon-mall-shooter-identified-day-after-killing-2
This guy probably wanted to use a bat or a knife, he could have fucked up way more people if he did.:rolleyes:
I thought I read that he stole the gun from a friend. So any background check or waiting period type of regulation wouldn't have worked here. The only way to prevent this would be to completely ban guns.
And I'm glad he used a long rifle in the mall. It's serious looking, but in a confined space like a mall, a long rifle is a bad choice for doing serious damage. A handgun or some sort of short barrel would have been much worse. Look at the numbers. Only 2 dead. Terrible, but it could have been much worse.
I expect that this guy will be found to by mentally ill. That's the real story. We need to do a better job as a society of identifying and treating the mentally ill before they do stuff like this. I think it ties in to affordable health care. You can attack this problem from the health care side instead of the gun grab side and probably be more effective.
The gun debate is over. The Supreme Court ruled a couple years ago when it said that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional.
Where did this story come from then? The Liberal Mainstream Media? I hope the parents get satisfaction on this case. This isn't a little bit of a problem on both sides like many other issues. This is all, *all* on the school district and those who open their mouths on their behalf to let the stupid out.
There is no liberal bias it is a bias towards laziness and sensationalism, which this reeks of both.
**************************************************
The last three shoots have been done by people whom have had mental health issues and were not treated for them.
We don't have a gun problem in the US we have a mental health care problem
Where was the law-abidin' gun-totin' heroes ready to pull out their concealed carry and pop a cap in the skull of these nutjobs? They never seem to be around. If they are, they're scared, or realize the danger of shooting into crowds.
We don't have a gun problem in the US we have a mental health care problem
We have a mental health care problem with respect to mass shootings. We still do have a gun problem, but those often don't make national news headlines.
Oh just fucking great. Jebus Mudder of Fucking Gob.
Shooting at elementary school in Connecticutt. Multiple injuries to students and multiple deaths reported but unsure if any fatalities are children.
Shooter is dead.
This is breaking news with unclear reports so I'll just leave that post as it is for now. CNN reports no confirmed deaths; MSN is saying multiple deaths.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1
http://news.msn.com/us/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-schoolVery confusing information coming in. The multiple deaths link I posted is the only one saying that.
Latest: at least 27 dead, including children.
:sniff:
How the fucking fuck am I not supposed to hate this world? I feel ill. Jesus fucking christ.
Stick your goddam heads in the sand, this isn't really happening in a world of puppies and lollipops.
Latest: at least 27 dead, including children.
that's seriously fucked up
Another report says the shooter was a parent of one of the children.
This is unfathomable. I can't even process this in any normal fashion.
LIttle kids. Kids my niece's ages. Kids the ages of some of your kids. These things can't be predicted. How can parents even let their children leave the house in this world? I couldn't do it. When does the call come that one of the schools in my (or your) area has been a target of some psycho freak?
As I said, I can't process this.
I thought I read that he stole the gun from a friend. So any background check or waiting period type of regulation wouldn't have worked here. The only way to prevent this would be to completely ban guns.
And I'm glad he used a long rifle in the mall. It's serious looking, but in a confined space like a mall, a long rifle is a bad choice for doing serious damage. A handgun or some sort of short barrel would have been much worse. Look at the numbers. Only 2 dead. Terrible, but it could have been much worse.
I expect that this guy will be found to by mentally ill. That's the real story. We need to do a better job as a society of identifying and treating the mentally ill before they do stuff like this. I think it ties in to affordable health care. You can attack this problem from the health care side instead of the gun grab side and probably be more effective.
The gun debate is over. The Supreme Court ruled a couple years ago when it said that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional.
Glatt, I'm usually in agreement with you, but with this posting I am not.
I agree that "background checks" are not efficient enough to deal with the problem.
But discussing the "tactics" of which weapon is better or worse just ignores the real problems.
The Supreme Court has, indeed, made a ruling on this, but the gun debate is not over.
I've posted my belief before that eventually the US people will have had enough,
and will place the blame squarely on the NRA and it's supporters who are contributing agents.
Probably not in my lifetime, but eventually this craziness over gun rights will be reversed.
In the meantime, maybe our staunch NRA/gun-rights Dwellars will step up
and rationalize again how the events today in Connecticut are someone else's fault.
Or how if Charlie Smarley, 8 years old, had been allowed to pack heat, there would have been a lot less dead.
NBC is saying 26 dead, including 18 children.
:mecry:
Well, now, they will be screaming again for teachers to be able to carry guns in class. That'll solve it, won't it.
Well, now, they will be screaming again for teachers to be able to carry guns in class. That'll solve it, won't it.
Maybe. I know I'd shape up if I was a student.
incomprehensible.
why can't murder suicides be suicide murders? Or just plain fucking suicides, and stop killing other people for fucking fuck's sake.
People are insane & we as a nation are more & more letting them
"Slip thru the cracks" -- b/ c fixing cracks costs $$$$$$ we are spending elsewhere.-
Just wow...
I understand the shooter shot his father at his home in NJ, then drove to the school in CT where his mother taught. He killed her entire class, apparently kindergarten, then her.
At some point he died also, whether by his own hand or the police, I'm unclear on.
I simply cannot comprehend it. My daughter will get some bear hugs when I see her later tonight.
I pray for the survivors and the parents of those who were so needlessly killed.
His girlfriend is apparently missing and one of his brothers has been found dead as well.
Tragic.
It's like everyone is so desensitized. These were little children. Little tiny children. This, to me, has much the same effect that the Columbine massacre did (you know, before everyone was all like "oh another shooting?") and 9/11 in its 'fucking why' factor.
I just can't get over it. An entire classroom of kids, families who are being notified as I type, finding out your little one was in that room.
Jesus christ it's unbearable. The world should end. I don't want to hear about all the goodness that comes out of such tragedy. I really don't. This is too much for any human with even an ounce of compassion to bear. Or, those with compassion might have to self-preserve and make light of it, remind themselves that it happened somewhere else, tell themselves it's so surreal it's unreal.
[Updated at 3:16 p.m. ET] From the president: "I offer Gov. Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation."
The president appears to be emotional, he's wiping his left eye.
Here's more of what he's saying:
"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. Each time I learn the news I react not as a president but as anybody else would as a parent.
"That was especially true today.
"I know there's not a parent in America that doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.
"The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10.
"They had their entire lives ahead of them, birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own."
Obama sighed.
"Our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these children and the families of the adults we lost.
"As a country, we have been through this too many times.
"This evening Michelle and I will do whah every parent in America will do - hug our children a little tighter and tell them that we love them.
"There are families in Connecticut that cannot do that tonight and they need all of us tonight.
"May god bless the memory of the victims and in the words of scripture heal the broken hearted and bind up their wounds."
I don't think people are desensitized, my facebook feed is nothing but condolences, people questioning why/how this happened, and gun control policy. I have seen maybe one cynical post.
I heard about this on the radio just now. It's the only reason I ventured into this thread.
I'm really sorry to hear about it.
The ages of children at that school are very similar to those at mine.
I can't imagine seeing empty places in the classroom and knowing it was because of an attack like this.
I don't think people are desensitized, my facebook feed is nothing but condolences, people questioning why/how this happened, and gun control policy. I have seen maybe one cynical post.
Maybe it's just the people around me.
I don't do FB.
... Jesus christ it's unbearable. The world should end. ...
:confused: and to think that if the world had ended on 12/12/12 like it was supposed to, this never would have happened.
Oh whatever. That 12.12.12 thing is as stupid as the Mayan thing. Please dont make light of my emotions in this situation. I just have little faith in humanity at this point...been brewing for a couple days.
Any of y'all who make jokes and want to say 'too soon?' I'll tell you right now ahead of time that fucking yes it's too soon.
... Jesus christ it's unbearable. The world should end. ...
I'm considering that the killer may have shared your sentiment, only about something else, and acted on it to end his little corner of the world.
Right, sexo. You're a right class act, you are. And much too clever for my limited sensibilities.
What a noodge.
I wouldn't kill a fly. I would, however, like to present you with a hearty FUCK YOU. Asshole.
How about let's not attack each other.
I'm considering that the killer may have shared your sentiment, only about something else, and acted on it to end his little corner of the world.
keep spinning your tale .. get to the part where you imagine his justification for killing the class of kindergartners. I try to stretch my mind around this and it capsizes into some horror movie script.
Or, how about let's not attack each other.
How about let's not attack each other.
I think that would be nice...but change 'us' to sexobot.
I should've known I would get flamed and insulted for showing real and true emotion. I wasn't arguing about anyone's guns. I was expressing the emotion I feel for this horrible tragedy.
That sexobon thought it would be funny to take one of my typical hyperbolic when upset comments (please to see my 'what is a friend' post and put two and two together) and use it to make fun and demoralize is, really, par for the course...and nothing I need right now.
... Jesus christ it's unbearable. The world should end. ...
People who can even think like this should be banned for life from ever owning a gun.
You know what? I don't give a shit about guns or knives or bats. I want these types of killings to stop. I want violence to stop. How do we do that?
I have been greatly disturbed by this incident because they were children and Addie is 5 yoa. The only thing we can do now is believe these innocent lambs are in a better place. At least that is what I keep telling myself......
Gun control probably would not have prevented this. Take away all the guns and then you'll start seeing SVIEDs (suicide vests) or SVBIEDs (suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device). If a nut job plans on killing a bunch of people, there are a lot better options than a gun. You can do a lot of damage by driving a car or a large truck through a crowd. Should we ban all vehicles because they kill more people than guns every year?
Mental illness is the key. We must do a better job in identifying these people before they can harm themselves or others. In my state, they have been slashing the mental health budget. Most of our regional crisis centers have been closed and even one of the state (mental) hospitals. One last shout from my soap box, I truly feel that violence on TV, graphic video games, etc. have desensitized the younger generations.
Now I will prepare to be stoned for my thoughts.
Last Friday there was a similar incident in China - an effed up individual attacked children at an elementary school.
He didn't have a gun, so he used a knife.
22 children were "slashed" but as far as I can tell,
none were killed.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/knife-wielding-man-injures-22-children-in-china/4428958Such a tragedy. I woke up to this news today and still have been trying to process it. It's almost inconceivable, except it's not. :(
Mental illness is the key. We must do a better job in identifying these people before they can harm themselves or others. In my state, they have been slashing the mental health budget. Most of our regional crisis centers have been closed and even one of the state (mental) hospitals. s.
I heartily agree with you there Sarge. Mental health centers/crisis centers are a fucking joke in my state. They are staffed by the most burned out, underpaid, overworked zombies you'd ever care to see. Working with the mentally ill takes a toll on a person and burn out is about five years---similar to ED workers. Add slashed budgets, stale salaries, working thru lunch, holding your bladder b/c you MUST admit one more person before you go; and hostile, over burdened workers who cannot support you emotionally, an indifferent or even evil management "team" (there's usually 5 "managers" and 1 RN for every 7 patients) and insurance co. who don't want to pay a single dollar for mental health care in this country...yeah, a LOT of somebodies slip thru the cracks. All these shooters gave clues to what they were going to do or thinking of doing. Everybody always says the same thing: I thought he was kidding. I was taught that if someone says they are going to kill themselves or another you take them VERY seriously.
I hadn't heard he'd killed one of his brothers..? He has a bro named Ryan who's been constantly interrogated since the shooting but that's all I've heard on the sibling front.
boy had mommy issues------that's pretty clear. I've also heard that he was 20 and then 24. I hope to get some good information today. It's all been so speculative. And those babies who were killed-----IIRC, they are still lying where they were shot as they process the scene. I cannot begin to imagine that.
The only thing we can do now is believe these innocent lambs are in a better place.
No it's not. We can
do a better job in identifying these people before they can harm themselves or others.
In my state, they
Tell it like it is:
The REPUBLICANS
have been slashing the mental health budget. Most of our regional crisis centers have been closed and even one of the state (mental) hospitals.
Now I will prepare to be stoned for my thoughts.
Pass the doobie.
Seriously, what are you willing to sacrifice to ensure that this doesn't happen to Addie?
I guess one question is 'What is the gun designed for?'. Someone with a bolt action rifle is not going to be able to quickly kill two dozen people. What is really needed for hunting, target shooting, home defense? Who uses a 30 round clip to hunt deer?
One problem is the lethality of weapons. If someone wanted to build and own a low yield nuclear device, then told their neighbors that it was perfectly safe and protected by the second amendment, the response would be obvious. Because the lethality of the device directly impacted those neighbors, including the threat of it's misuse. By the same token, a concealed knife or openly worn sword is also lethal, but limited in their ability to inflict mass damage. A semi-automatic firearm, however, is capable of inflicting great harm, even assuming the assailant could be overpowered.
A lot of arguments about the Constitution revolve around the intent of the founding fathers. The personal weapon technology of the time was the flintlock rifle and pistol. Imagine any of the recent mass shootings being committed by someone armed with a flintlock.
Our founding fathers did not have to consider 20th century weapon technology when they considered the 2nd amendment, other than to imply the intent being a well regulated militia. This presumes weapons training and weeding out of unsuitable candidates. Show them a clip of the fire rate of a semiautomatic pistol and those requirements would have been a lot tighter and more explicit.
Switzerland allows honorably discharged veterans to retain carry permits for weapons. You don't see many mass murders in Switzerland. Of course American culture is considered to be too violent by most industrialized nations.
This may ruffle some feathers but if gun policy is going to be discussed, I think it is extremely important that we look at the issue from multiple perspectives. It does the country harm if the narrative is controlled by people who only look at the issue as black in white.
The truth is, a gun saturated population can prevent crime and murder along with increasing crime and murder at the same time. It largely depends on the decisions made by the person holding the weapon, which varies greatly culture to culture, person to person, and even at different times with the same person.
Jeffrey Goldberg recently wrote an article in the Atlantic about how we need more gun regulation while not preventing responsible gun owners from possessing guns. I don't agree with everything but the pragmatic viewpoint is refreshing. Here is his response to the massacre in Newton along with a link to the article.
The massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, has caused many people, including people at the White House, to say that this is not the day to talk about gun policy. This day is obviously for mourning the dead, but I don't understand why we shouldn't talk about the conditions that lead to these sorts of shootings. I wrote about this issue in the current issue of The Atlantic (you can read the story here), and I want to quickly make a few points drawn from that longer article.
1) This is a gun country. We are saturated with guns. There are as many as 300 million guns in circulation today (the majority owned legally, but many not) and more than 4 million new guns come onto the market each year. To talk about eradicating guns, especially given what the Supreme Court has said about the individual right to gun-ownership, is futile.
2) There are, however, some gun control laws that could be strengthened. The so-called gun-show loophole (which is not a loophole at all -- 40 percent of all guns sold in America legally are sold without benefit of a federal background check) should be closed. Background checks are no panacea -- many of our country's recent mass-shooters had no previous criminal records, and had not been previously adjudicated mentally ill -- but they would certainly stop some people from buying weapons.
3) We must find a way to make it more difficult for the non-adjudicated mentally ill to come into possession of weapons. This is crucially important, but very difficult, because it would require the cooperation of the medical community -- of psychiatrists, therapists, school counselors and the like -- and the privacy issues (among other issues) are enormous. But: It has to be made more difficult for sociopaths, psychopaths and the otherwise violently mentally-ill (who, in total, make up a small portion of the mentally ill population) to buy weapons.
4) People should have the ability to defend themselves. Mass shootings take many lives in part because no one is firing back at the shooters. The shooters in recent massacres have had many minutes to complete their evil work, while their victims cower under desks or in closets. One response to the tragic reality that we are a gun-saturated country is to understand that law-abiding, well-trained, non-criminal, wholly sane citizens who are screened by the government have a role to play in their own self-defense, and in the defense of others (read The Atlantic article to see how one armed school administrator stopped a mass shooting in Pearl Mississippi). I don't know anything more than anyone else about the shooting in Connecticut at the moment, but it seems fairly obvious that there was no one at or near the school who could have tried to fight back.
5) All of this is tragic. As I wrote in The Atlantic, Canada, which has a low-rate of gun ownership and strict gun laws, seems like a pretty nice place sometimes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/what-can-we-do-to-stop-massacres/266300/
Full article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/
snip... we need more gun regulation while minimizing the ability of responsible gun owners to possess guns. snip
Was that a typo? :eyebrow:
Yes. Yes it was. Thank you.
:lol: I would have overlooked a normal typo but that one had a big impact on what you were trying to say. ;)
Seriously, what are you willing to sacrifice to ensure that this doesn't happen to Addie?
Our Constitutional Rights are sacred. Think how many have fought and died for these rights. I'm willing to keep our right to bear arms, even if it did endanger my precious angel. We need to start putting our country and constitution first. To be a free country, you often have to pay a price
I think gun ownership should be more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, except for automatic/semi-automatic weapons, just more carefully controlled. I think a permit and complete background checks should be required of all permit holders. It should be revoked in the event of domestic violence, mental illness, or any felony crime. If accused of a crime, all guns should be confiscated, to be returned if found not guilty/charges dropped. It should be required that all weapons be secured and accessible only to the permit holder(s).
If you fuck up, you lose your guns.
We lose our jobs, cars, drivers licenses, children and spouses for fucking up, we should also lose our guns.
And mental illness should be an automatic block to owning a weapon. Sorry if that feels too harsh, but shit..you can't be a police officer or judge or teacher or daycare provider if you have a documented mental illness, and you should not be allowed contact with a gun either.
The permit should be required to be renewed periodically, and another full background check (including mental health records) should be done. A registry of all licensed gun owners and the weapons registered to them would be kept. Longer sentences for illegally possessing a weapon should occur.
I say this as a gun owner, and one whose (adult) son has a concealed permit and is an active enthusiast. I have nothing against guns, but they are too easy to get and their possession is too unregulated. We pay less attention to guns than we do to cars!!
f you are a responsible adult, you should have no problem obtaining a permit and retaining it any more than you would a driver's license.
Our Constitutional Rights are sacred. Think how many have fought and died for these rights. I'm willing to keep our right to bear arms, even if it did endanger my precious angel. We need to start putting our country and constitution first. To be a free country, you often have to pay a price
That, folks, is the difference between the shepherd and the sheep.
:lol: I would have overlooked a normal typo but that one had a big impact on what you were trying to say. ;)
Psshh....read what I mean...not what I type. :cool:
the constitution has been wrong before, you know. thats why we've had to amend it 27 times.
Personally, living in gun-crazy Vermont, I can say that... this doesn't really happen up here. There are the horror stories of 14-year-olds using their own personal shotguns to blow away mommy's new boyfriend (well, actually, in the case I'm referring to, the mother was either bipolar or schizophrenic, and was off her meds, and therefore was beyond being able to consent, so it was rape, and I think the kid shouldn't've been charged for warning his mother's rapist to leave, and then firing in self-defense when the rapist attacked him for the gun...), and plenty of hunting accidents, but for the most part, there are very few murders here (11 last year), and guns aren't actually used in at least half of them. There's also very little armed robbery and such.
And yet I could buy a semi-auto AK47 or AR15 today. With no planning. The background check takes five minutes. If I have enough money in my bank account I could have a semi-auto rifle with a 100-round mag by tonight. (well, i dunno if they're open weekends, but you get my point). If I were some sick fuck who wanted to mow down a crowd, i'd absolutely have more bullets than targets anywhere I could GO in Vermont, basically. Maybe the mall has a hundred or so people at any given time but its a long, thin mall with lots of exits.
Clearly, gun control laws aren't the only factor in gun crime and mass killings. But they could make it more difficult. I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to make owning a gun more difficult, paperwork-ed, and bureaucratic than owning a car. licensing, screening, basic training and certification, periodic inspection? Sounds cool to me. Surely it's worth mildly inconveniencing legal owners of guns, to help ensure that at least the most obviously unfit are weeded out?
To be a free country, you often have to pay a price
I'd love to live in a free country.
[ATTACH]42152[/ATTACH]
And mental illness should be an automatic block to owning a weapon. Sorry if that feels too harsh, but shit..you can't be a police officer or judge or teacher or daycare provider if you have a documented mental illness, and you should not be allowed contact with a gun either.
Gender Identity disorder is still technically recognized in the DSM. Should trans* people not be allowed to own guns?
So is ADHD, and depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is obsessive-compulsive disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is bipolar disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is borderline personality disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is sadistic paranoid schizophrenia. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
"mental illness" is far too broad an umbrella, unfortunately. Obviously psychopaths, sadistic schizophrenics, etc shouldn't have guns. but where do you draw the line?
I'd be much more interested in screening for violent factors like history of verbal/emotional abuse (even if not physical), racism/hate, gang/criminal affiliation, history of alcohol abuse, etc.
Gender Identity disorder is still technically recognized in the DSM. Should trans* people not be allowed to own guns?
So is ADHD, and depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is obsessive-compulsive disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is bipolar disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is borderline personality disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is sadistic paranoid schizophrenia. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
"mental illness" is far too broad an umbrella, unfortunately. Obviously psychopaths, sadistic schizophrenics, etc shouldn't have guns. but where do you draw the line?
I'd be much more interested in screening for violent factors like history of verbal/emotional abuse (even if not physical), racism/hate, gang/criminal affiliation, history of alcohol abuse, etc.
Actually, the new DSM-V just came out a month ago, and one of the big changes is there isn't a "gender identity disorder" anymore, because they wanted to get away from the idea that it was a "disorder." Now it's "gender dysphoria." (I'm up to date on the changes, by the way, because there's also no such thing as Asperger's or PDD-NOS anymore, it's all just "autism spectrum disorder." )
But to be blunt, yes, I think everything you listed should be at least a temporary barrier to owning a gun. Even ADHD. Because all mental illnesses are subjective to a large degree--one doc says you have adult ADHD, another says you're bipolar... All of the above should warrant a second or even third evaluation, when it comes to the question of gun ownership.
I don't think that anyone who believes that their guns are more important to them than their children should be allowed to have a gun (or children).
I have been greatly disturbed by this incident because they were children and Addie is 5 yoa. The only thing we can do now is believe these innocent lambs are in a better place. At least that is what I keep telling myself......
Gun control probably would not have prevented this. Take away all the guns and then you'll start seeing SVIEDs (suicide vests) or SVBIEDs (suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device). If a nut job plans on killing a bunch of people, there are a lot better options than a gun. You can do a lot of damage by driving a car or a large truck through a crowd. Should we ban all vehicles because they kill more people than guns every year?
Mental illness is the key. We must do a better job in identifying these people before they can harm themselves or others. In my state, they have been slashing the mental health budget. Most of our regional crisis centers have been closed and even one of the state (mental) hospitals. One last shout from my soap box, I truly feel that violence on TV, graphic video games, etc. have desensitized the younger generations.
Now I will prepare to be stoned for my thoughts.
Our Constitutional Rights are sacred. Think how many have fought and died for these rights. I'm willing to keep our right to bear arms, even if it did endanger my precious angel. We need to start putting our country and constitution first. To be a free country, you often have to pay a price
I agree with you regarding focus on Mental Health Resources. Crimes like this have happened in countries with strict gun control laws e.g. UK
I disagree that the USA is a "free country". or at least any more free that a plethora of other countries. Ones which do have gun control among other things. And odn't necessarily have a "constitution" that is help up as sacred.
Just saying something doesn't make it so. Just because something was written on a bit of parchment eons ago doesn't make it sacred.
How many parents feel free of fear, right now, for example? And a little regulation wouldn't strip your law-abiding sane citizen of their right to own guns -just maybe a few more nutters. What is so wrong with the idea of "Gun Owners Ed" with a mental evaluation being part of the process? Shame mental evaluation isn't part of Driver's Ed.....
No matter what, though, you can't stop a nutter who is prepared to die. I am so saddened by this incident and yet, I feel I need not to feel. You can't wrap them in cotton wool and keep them at home. Or they turn into nutters. Sometimes.
Actually, the new DSM-V just came out a month ago, and one of the big changes is there isn't a "gender identity disorder" anymore, because they wanted to get away from the idea that it was a "disorder." Now it's "gender dysphoria." (I'm up to date on the changes, by the way, because there's also no such thing as Asperger's or PDD-NOS anymore, it's all just "autism spectrum disorder." )
But to be blunt, yes, I think everything you listed should be at least a temporary barrier to owning a gun. Even ADHD. Because all mental illnesses are subjective to a large degree--one doc says you have adult ADHD, another says you're bipolar... All of the above should warrant a second or even third evaluation, when it comes to the question of gun ownership.
Yes.
shutting up
Griff, you didn't need to edit your post. You're a citizen. Big Sarge is a citizen-soldier. Perhaps he's noticed some things that you missed. I'm sure he would have taken that into consideration. Thank you for your input, it was weighted accordingly even before it was withdrawn.
I think gun ownership should be more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, except for automatic/semi-automatic weapons, just more carefully controlled.
Whats the difference, these are semiautos...
Other than the badass appearance of the first two they are the same, work the same, do the same. Full autos are illegal without difficult and expensive federal machine gun permitting. Some semiautos, other than the badass guns, use a detachable magazine too.
Semiautos allow you to make the second or third shot quickly and smoothly. It's not a case of you missed the first shot so no meat for you. It's you hit your first shot and if you don't make the second, the animal will escape wounded and suffering.
I think a permit and complete background checks should be required of all permit holders.
Permit for each gun, like license plates, or permit for each person like a drivers license?
Whats the difference, these are semiautos...
The main difference is that I only own the last one. And it has the 19 round mag, pre-ban.
Ft3, you'll be sure to tell us if you start giving away your possessions, won't you ?
Oh, no worries about me. It's the deer I'm after.
Just make sure they're not flying reindeer, I want my Christmas presents.
Surely it depends on what that mental illness is? Somewhere in the region of one in four adults will suffer some sort of mental illness or debilitation during their lives.
Do we include depression? After all the work that has been done to combat prejudice and taboos around that common condition. Do we include body dysmorphia in that? OCD?
'mental illness' is a pretty wide category to employ.
The mother of a violent 13 year old write about how she's trying to prevent her son from becoming another murderer, and getting no help.
In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.
snip
A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.
That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.
We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.
snip
I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.
It's worth reading.
The thing is, if you ban anyone with any kind of mental illness, including depression and OCD, from owning guns, it increases the likelihood that some people suffering from such conditions will not seek help.
There is already a massive stigma attached to even run of the mill psychiatric conditions. The more aspects of life which are officially closed off from people on the grounds of mental health, the more mental health problems will go unreported and untreated. Some parents may even be inclined to not seek help for children they suspect of having some mental condition such as mild ADHD or depression, in order not to mark them out in a world which may well discriminate against them on that basis.
This quote is falsely attributed to Morgan Freeman but I think it makes some very good points:
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
Yes. In
The gift of fear" author Gavin DeBecker talks about this, and has suggested (my paraphrasing) that rather than glorifying the shooters, the newspapers and TV should refer to them as "typical losers" as in ...another typical loser acted like a complete loser moron... and then spend all the rest of the time on the people who were killed or injured, barely mentioning the perp's name.
Surely, no payoff for them as regards fame and notoriety.
Also found this excellent site:
www.justfacts.com
Supposedly rigorous fact checking about many topics including gun ownership and crime in the us and other countries.
ALLEGED typical losers. :rolleyes:
I hate that "alleged" shit. If you're talking about associating a crime with a real person's name, I get the reasoning, but things like "the alleged gunman," as if there may or may not have been a person pulling the trigger, or the bullets may or may not have been fired via slingshot instead...
JMO I don't think in this particular situation the young man had the inclination to be famous. I don't know what his pay off could be and maybe we cannot know for sure. I don't have enough information but I cannot imagine that his mother thought he would kill anyone or her since she taught him to use the firearms. His brain did not work quite right > gut feeling His mother's either apparently...
Our Constitutional Rights are sacred. Think how many have fought and died for these rights. I'm willing to keep our right to bear arms, even if it did endanger my precious angel.
You might feel differently if your angel was shot dead.
We need to start putting our country and constitution first. To be a free country, you often have to pay a price
The price you just paid was the lives of 20 children, and that's only partial payment.
That, folks, is the difference between the shepherd and the sheep.
No, he's just a sheep who belongs to a different shepherd.
There is far too much media fascination with the killer.
I'd like to see a lot more media focus on the teachers.
Many of them successfully hid their classes, misled the killer, and were murdered. Unarmed, untrained for this sort of thing, yet died saving the children in their charge. It doesn't get much more heroic than that.
The school has around 670 students. 650 of them walked out of the building and were reunited with their families. That's due entirely to the teachers and the heroic office staff and all the times they had practiced lockdowns.
I've always thought the locked school doors and lockdown drills were overkill, but this incident shows I was probably wrong about that.
When we first arrived in PA I thought the locked school doors with cameras and the need to be buzzed in by office staff were way over the top. Then we moved back to Ontario for a couple of years and I noticed that drug dealers loitered in the front hall of the high school my kids attended with pit bulls in tow. My second son was assaulted by one of them; had a knife held to his face with the promise that he'd be cut into ribbons the next time the guy saw him.
The school ignored it all, and the police told us there was no use arresting the guy, he'd be out within an hour.
I'm all in favor of locked school doors and secure campuses.
There is far too much media fascination with the killer.
I'd like to see a lot more media focus on the teachers.
Many of them successfully hid their classes, misled the killer, and were murdered. Unarmed, untrained for this sort of thing, yet died saving the children in their charge. It doesn't get much more heroic than that.
The school has around 670 students. 650 of them walked out of the building and were reunited with their families. That's due entirely to the teachers and the heroic office staff and all the times they had practiced lockdowns.
I've always thought the locked school doors and lockdown drills were overkill, but this incident shows I was probably wrong about that.
The teachers and administrators were true heroes. They bravely sacrificed themselves to protect those less able to protect themselves.
I wonder if republicans will reinstate teachers' pay and benefits in light of this. Naw.
Some interesting gun ownership facts in
this NYTimes chart from exit polls 4 years ago.
[ATTACH]42178[/ATTACH]
Obviously there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans. But when you look at Republicans, the only places where you see significant different ownership rates are by race, and also by population density. Not many Republicans in the city own guns, and not many Asian Republicans own guns, but when you look at all the other breakdowns, Republicans have consistently high ownership rates.
Then you look at the Democrats, and they are all over the map in every category. A rural Democrat is gonna have a gun. An atheist Democrat won't have a gun. A high school educated Democrat might have a gun, but if they went to college, they probably won't. You can make these sweeping statements for each category. It's really interesting.
For the record, I am adamantly opposed to semi-automatic firearms, and I think gun ownership requirements in this country are looser than lax. A bolt action rifle with a four round clip is all one needs for hunting.
I've been thinking along those lines too. Legitimate reasons for owning a gun are self defense and hunting. You don't need automatic or semi-automatic guns for either of those. A revolver holds 6 shots and may require a little more strength to pull the trigger, but they were in common use for a century or more and are perfectly effective for personal protection. A pump action shotgun makes a great home defense weapon, and bolt action rifles are great for hunting and shooting varmints around the farm. I'm a little more lax than you. I think 6 shots is reasonable.
I understand gun enthusiasts may like semi-automatic weapons because they are easier to use, just like power steering in a car is easier to use, but I think the line must be drawn somewhere, and it's in the wrong place now.
"…the line must be drawn somewhere, and it's in the wrong place now..."
…the obvious opinion of 'some', but not 'others'.
Tomorrow, when the 'law' tightens and the line is where you like, others will kvetch that things are 'too restricted'.
And that's the way it goes: on and on and on.
Power moves from one set of hands to another and what's permissible shifts with it.
Those who want tighter control: no doubt, you'll get your wish.
Those who loath tighter control: don't sweat it...the pendulum ALWAYS swings.
#
Full disclosure: I own one gun (12 gauge coach gun...a man-killer, which is what I mean it to be, though -- in a pinch -- it works for hunting as well). I've no interest in any other firearm, and no interest in giving up what I have.
Vermont has more or less the loosest gun laws. It has very little gun crime.
I think the problem here isn't gun laws or mental health support - it's the death-fetishizing, sensationalist, and destructive CULTURE in this country.
After the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, we (Australia) tightened our gun laws, which were already tighter than those in the US.
The main change was that semi-autos and pump-actions can have a magazine capacity of no more than five shots. You needed to show specific reason for having one, such as being a professional shooter.
Philly is either the current or a recent murder capital of the U.S., and gun laws here are inadequate. Our problems have more to do with illegal guns, but there are plenty of legal gun problems, too. There are shootings practically every day, it seems. A lot of those involve children.
The police make arrests for illegal guns all the time, but complain that the perps are just let back out on the street. Another source of frustration is the Florida loophole. Pennsylvania recognizes Florida gun permits that anyone can apply for via mail order--even those who can't get a PA permit. And then there are the straw purchasers. When and if they are actually caught, their punishments are light even if the guns they bought are used in crimes.
...
I think the problem here isn't gun laws or mental health support - it's the death-fetishizing, sensationalist, and destructive CULTURE in this country.
This is exactly what I keep thinking.
Root cause analysis.
Sadly, what can you do? Reasonable voices get shouted down. Our mindset is sickened, diminished by cynicism. I don't know what a feasible solution to the underlying problem would even look like. It's something that the cards are stacked against.
Vermont has more or less the loosest gun laws. It has very little gun crime.
I think the problem here isn't gun laws or mental health support - it's the death-fetishizing, sensationalist, and destructive CULTURE in this country.
This is exactly what I keep thinking.
Root cause analysis.
Sadly, what can you do? Reasonable voices get shouted down. Our mindset is sickened, diminished by cynicism. I don't know what a feasible solution to the underlying problem would even look like. It's something that the cards are stacked against.
All I can say is that I agree. We can call people out when they're being stupifucks... I actually had a father of a 5 year old emotionally disturbed child using first person shooter video games to babysit his son on his Dad weekends. Shit like that. Maybe letting people know that their gun fetish is part of the problem. We need to look in the damn mirror.
No. This ("death-fetishizing, sensationalist, and destructive CULTURE") as descriptor for America, is exaggeration taken to an absurd point.
If all you see is one extreme aspect of America, ignoring all others, then you suffer from skewed thinking.
Take a friggin' walk -- with 'open' eyes -- through any town or city you care to name: you'll see all manner of extremisms running along side all manner of moderatisms and all manner of down-right placid, peaceful, and serene-isms.
Hyperbole is the tool of the Sophist (there's more than one of those in this place...are you one?)
Decisions made in the midst of anger or grief are always bad decisions.
Reaction is the enemy of response.
Long past time, I think, for folks to 'stop' and 'think'.
It 'feels good' to be righteous, but righteous is not always 'right'.
I, for one, will not follow you (or any one) down the path of 'good intentions'.
I don't think the intent is to portray American culture as monolithic, but conversely, is it feasible to propose that there are no systemic cultural issues? Don't you think it's possible that anomolies that arise within a culture can indiacte a systemic problem? That is to say, in the simplest form, that a different set of variables will alter the outcome of a complex scenario? More precisely, if one could indentify the correct variables (as I said, Root Cause Analysis) at least the call to action wouldn't risk being made blindly. As you said, stop and think--that's what we're doing here.
Reaction is the enemy of response.
Long past time, I think, for folks to 'stop' and 'think'.
As H.L. Mencken said, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong."
I addressed Ibby's hyperbole (and the skewed thinking it stems from), not "systemic cultural issues", but, since you bring it up...
No, I don't think -- in a country of 350 million individuals (and counting), situated on a planet with 7 billion individuals (and counting) -- it's possible to "indentify the correct variables ".
Every single person is a "variable".
That is exactly the reason I paint with a broad brush.
Cuz you need to get the first coat on by noon?
Especially in this weather.
...
No, I don't think -- ... -- it's possible to "indentify the correct variables ".
So we can 1) act blindly, or 2) do nothing. Or, 3) "stop and think" --BUT WAIT, if we to refuse to consider any systemic flaws in society, then what the hell is there to stop and think about??? Sorry, not trying to mince words, I just don't understand. It sounds like you're objecting to people doing what you prescribe them to do. You want people to stop and think, but you don't them to think "wrong" ideas...? As every person is a variable, you also can't just sweep alternate viewpoints under the rug.
I think the problem here isn't gun laws or mental health support - it's the death-fetishizing, sensationalist, and destructive CULTURE in this country.
This is the most astute observation I've heard in relation to this whole event, and one that cuts closest to the real truth in this, as I see it. This is a super subjective statement and could mean 1,000 different things to 1,000 different people. It meant something to me, and it meant exactly what I've been thinking. In fact, every time the talking heads are talking this issue to death, I think to myslef, THIS, what Ibby has said here, THIS is the problem nobody is talking about. I think this is because it is prohibitively complex, as you've said, as I've said. But as far as identifying the root cause, I can't disagree that the products of a culture are produced by the culture that produced them, therefore therein lies the problem. It's blatantly obvious, isn't it? I don't understand what the disagreement could be. Here, let me rephrase this, the way I read it:
we must not neglect to consider "...the death-fetishizing, sensationalist, and destructive--"
(and other, implied) aspects of the "--CULTURE in this country..."
when observing events which occur within the aforementioned culture, AS THEY ARE INEXORABLY LINKEDyou don't even have to agree with my assessment that it's the nexus of white supremacy, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and the basic belief that straight cis white men deserve to rule the world and always get their way is the root cause of how fucked up America is. I'm 100% certain that Flint, as a right-libertarian (i think that's a broadly fair assessment of your politics, as i understand them, taking into account the fact that I'm a left-libertarian/socialist), thinks that white men (and their systemic exploitation and abuse of everyone else) are the core problem with this country.
That doesn't change the fact that we have a violence problem in this country that kills more people every day than a whole year of soldier deaths in our two wars, in domestic violence situations, in robberies, in murders over sex and drugs and money, in accidental shootings, in escalated fights, in gang warfare in and out of prison.
if you don't believe America has a violence problem, you're fucking stupid.
a violence problem is inherently cultural in nature because we're talking about our culture, in which it occurs.
there is room for a very healthy debate on why we have a violence problem - why our country is death-fetishizing (i bet every one of you can talk about the final minutes of at least one victim of this shooting; i bet almost everyone can name the shooter; i bet almost everyone has had the number of victims drilled into their head... that's death-fetishizing, guys), sensationalist (again...), and destructive (thousands of violent deaths sounds destructive to me) - but to argue that it isn't even a problem is disgusting.
if you don't believe America has a violence problem, you're fucking stupid. a violence problem is inherently cultural in nature because we're talking about our culture, in which it occurs.
...
there is room for a very healthy debate on why we have a violence problem ... but to argue that it isn't even a problem is disgusting.
I keep thinking, every time I see the media pundits and armchair quarterbacks rehashing the same, pointless factoids in relation to this latest, inevitable-seeming event, that isn't gun control and/or mental health services, aren't these things a "band-aid" solution to a sick, misguided society, driven by extrinsic happiness, short-term gratification, and completely disconnected from the rich cultural heritage of our evolutionary forefathers, now isolated in a confused, disconnected wasteland of cheap thrills, awash in misdirected neurochemical responses which have no mechanism of purposeful self-regulation, given the novelty of our daily circumstances, and the completely artificial and contrived system of arbitrary moral standards which we must perform constant logic cartwheels in order to even stand living under the thrall of?
Please, "god" or whatever, tell me I'm not the only one drawing a larger lesson from this. This isn't a "quick fix" --we can't shuffle a few resources around to make this go away. Our culture is sick, and dying. Our humanity, in a thousand small ways or a handful of big ones--take your pick--is on the ropes. This is it. We've got to decide what's important.
Why are we here? What's the meaning of it all? These are no longer questions which it is okay to simply say "we may never know" --we've got to DECIDE that there ARE some meaningful answers. It may not be a big black book, or a kind old white-bearded man in the clouds, but it's got to be SOMETHING.
If you don't even know why you're alive, aren't you part of the commoditization of human beings?
Do we intrinsically have value, or not? If so, what is it? To have a good credit score? To go to church on Sunday?
again: clearly flint and i disagree almost diametrically on what the problems are
because i would absolutely argue that a religious or pseudo-religious-spiritual answer to our worldly issues, a "higher purpose", is absolutely part of the problem, not the solution
that "higher answers" is hurtful to the intrinsic worth of human life
that "intrinsic" valuations are a problem on a societal scale
etc
and yet, two people such opposed can agree that the problem is totally that our society IS sick to its core, IS dying, that our humanity IS on the ropes
that implies to me that there has to be at least common-enough ground for legislative-cultural activism to have a broad appeal, or at least a compromise legislative-political-cultural path exists.
we CAN fix this bipartisanly, or at least through a broad political compromise. or, at least, potentially fix.
Anyone seen my thousand round self propelled AR-15 magazine lying around?
Da-gum.
Lemme know if ya do.
Thanks.
SLANG!!! What you up to lately?
Wow, lots of rare visitors dropping by these days.
... Please, "god" or whatever, tell me I'm not the only one drawing a larger lesson from this. ... Why are we here? What's the meaning of it all? ... Do we intrinsically have value, or not? If so, what is it? To have a good credit score? To go to church on Sunday?
Oh all right. I can tell you that you're not alone and answer a few questions. Your raison d'être is to learn that there is no raison d'être. Life is as life does. While you're alive you make things. After you're gone, I get to keep your stuff. Somehow stuff is always more enjoyable when somebody else makes it. Your intrinsic value really depends on how much I enjoy your stuff and that won't be determined until after you've gone bye-bye; so, don't worry about it. The violence is there both for people who won't be making any good stuff and for people who have already made good stuff so that I can have it sooner. Oh yeah, only support churches that have good stuff. I don't have time for anymore questions as I'm busy evaluating stuff I've already acquired. All earthly opinions about the meaning of life are a red herring. Bonne chance.
By stuff, include culture. Tolkien made hobbits, and they'll continue in our culture for ages, even though he's long dead.
Culture. Its the stuff you can share and still have.
ETA. Well, that and herpes.
Anyone seen my thousand round self propelled AR-15 magazine lying around?
Da-gum.
Lemme know if ya do.
Thanks.
Dude, you left it on the school bus this morning with your bookbag.
I keep thinking, every time I see the media pundits and armchair quarterbacks rehashing the same, pointless factoids in relation to this latest, inevitable-seeming event, that isn't gun control and/or mental health services, aren't these things a "band-aid" solution to a sick, misguided society, driven by extrinsic happiness, short-term gratification, and completely disconnected from the rich cultural heritage of our evolutionary forefathers, now isolated in a confused, disconnected wasteland of cheap thrills, awash in misdirected neurochemical responses which have no mechanism of purposeful self-regulation, given the novelty of our daily circumstances, and the completely artificial and contrived system of arbitrary moral standards which we must perform constant logic cartwheels in order to even stand living under the thrall of?
This is why I read the Cellar. In one run-on sentence flint has relentlessly circled in on the problem. The modern American man and the modern American culture are incompatible. Our culture is tribal. It became obvious to me while watching the cheering drunken males watching the televised bombing of Afghanistan at a child's birthday party. We can argue about from where this culture is derived. I've read good arguments that it is borderlander (dispossessed Scotch-Irish) expressed through Appalachian culture. We've long harnessed those attributes when killing needed doing but I'd say without a new frontier we're the ones in harness now.
SLANG!!! What you up to lately?
Wow, lots of rare visitors dropping by these days.
Hello Zen and all the other Cellar people.
I am currently in Florida and will soon be going to SE Asia for another great business adventure which many of the details will be revealed in the next month.
Don't forget to leave some ammo and cookies out for Santa!!
Guns don't kill people, SANTA does!!
Blame the media?
I don't hear claims that coverage of other horrors, such as the jerry sandusky coverage, causes more 'people' to commit such horrors.
Just a thought.
The NRA has finally solved the fiscal and unemployment crisis for the US.
By putting a armed guard in every school, that would be about 100,000 new jobs,
and since a single guard per school just won't due it could easily up that number to 150,000.
But that's not the end of this very imaginative job creation program.
Just as we need armed federal marshals on planes, we need a armed "good guy" on every school bus.
Now the multiplier would be different for each school, but let's assume 10 buses/school.
That is at least 1,000,000 part time jobs... without having to pay medical benefits !
But then, the insane shooters are not only active during weekdays.
There are the churches where children gather on weekends.
Those 1M part-timers can even have 1 more day's work each week on Sundays,
and in some communities even on a few on Saturdays,
and for the Baptists, there are the Wednesday night Prayer Meetings.
And don't forget all the summer-time church socials, VBS's, summer camps, etc.
This means year-round employment, not like the vacations school teacher get.
But maybe individual armed guards are not the complete answer,
so private companies (the job creators) would be have to be formed.
Also, we certainly can not create all these jobs without some sort of official organization and oversight.
Relying on local resources would create a hodge-podge of programs, and certainly leave gaps in coverage.
The NRA has volunteered it's resources, and Wayne LaPierre sounds as though
he would not refuse the job of Under Secretary for Domestic Defense in the Dept of Homeland Security.
For such an important division, it would take a least 100,000 new federal and state and city employees.
Although that would increase the size of these governments,
it is such a brilliant idea and of such importance, and the federal government
has "so much money", there could not possibly be an significant political objection.
Once this program is fully implemented (next week) we could expect to discover gaps in coverage,
such as charter schools, private schools, public and private libraries, etc.,
and the program can be expanded to a fully, effective force. (by Easter).
Unfortunately, such a large force of armed guards would eventually be seen by many as an Obama conspiracy.
But don't worry, the NRA can establish and provide a separate and independent,
armed and trained force to protect America from an Obama-guard take-over.
They even can have a program to train boys and girls for future needs... and call them the "NRA Youth Guards"
ETA: I failed to include movie theaters... sorry Colorado, how soon we forget.
We'll never have an itty-bitty government at this rate! Spend, spend. That's always their solution.
Irony, it's what's for dinner. And midnight snack. Maybe a quick breakfast.
NRA chief: If putting armed police in schools is crazy, 'then call me crazy'
Well... There you have it.
(CNN) -- The National Rifle Association made clear Sunday it will not budge on its opposition to any new gun laws, despite heated criticism of the organization's response to the Connecticut school massacre.
I understand it's all about lobbying but their rhetoric makes it sound like they are the ones who decide what the laws are going to be.
Of all of the leaders of 'mainstream' political organizations in the US, I've always considered LaPierre to be the most batshit crazy. He's like the Ahmadinejad of the 501's.
Maybe the NRA should swap leadership with NAMBLA. At least then it would be in their best interests to stop the massacre of children.
... Ba-a-a-a, ba-a-a-a, ba-a-a-a ...
[SIZE="1"]
[translation in bold mine][/SIZE]
That's the price of being sheep.
Mutton, it's what's for dinner. And midnight snack. Maybe a quick breakfast.
Of all of the leaders of 'mainstream' political organizations in the US, I've always considered LaPierre to be the most batshit crazy. He's like the Ahmadinejad of the 501's.
Maybe the NRA should swap leadership with NAMBLA. At least then it would be in their best interests to stop the massacre of children.
Srsly. Chock FULL O' Nuts!
[SIZE="1"][translation in bold mine][/SIZE]
That's the price of being sheep.<snip>
...he said sheepishly.
It was said modestly. That anyone can live as long as you have and not recognize the difference is disconcerting. Lamplighter, not one brain left in his poor old head. Maybe Santa will bring you one!
Went to the range today with my son and daughter to do some shooting. Place was absolutely packed! Not sure if paranoia or holiday time off was the reason.
They had nowhere else to go. The local mental hospital had just had to discharge them all, because of funding cuts.
Sexobon has been insulting people across multiple threads, and not in the poke-fun-at-you way. Apparently, if you don't agree with him, you're broken.
We're you a tattle-tale in school, also?
They had nowhere else to go. The local mental hospital had just had to discharge them all, because of funding cuts.
that would be funny if it wasn't so fucking true.
We're you a tattle-tale in school, also?
If I were a gun owner, I could have just shot him and 25 other people, but I'm not.
I guess I was just wondering, in a discreet way, why Ibby gets shit, but Sexobon doesn't.
I didn't understand why it was ok for him to shit on me, not in a pokey fun way, when i expressed sincere horror in the immediate wake of the shootings. Shit on for feeling, for caring, for expressing? Fuck that, I am human.
And I also don't get Flint's constant need to check in seemingly just to admonish dwellers in a tsk tsk 'at children' kind of way. I'm insulted FOR the targets of that crap.
I liked his Amish
Better than his admonish
It's really simple: just be cool. Don't be a dick, don't be a bitch, and don't be a whiner. If somebody hurts your feelers, suck it up and be the bigger person. If you feel like you need to be the hall monitor and "get people in trouble" then please get a different hobby. So, as I said, it's real simple. Just try to be cool, don't freak out, and try as hard as you can not to make an ass of yourself.
That's all I will ever have to say about that. So don't bother replying. I don't care.
Yep, I already thought of a rebuttal for that, and that, and that too. Still don't care. The end.
"When you point a finger at someone there are six fingers pointing at yourself." Or something. Srsly, dude. You just broke all your own commandments. Is someone paying you to call out certain posters but not others? These occasional edicts of yours, on behalf of...who for what i'm not sure...are rather strange.
But you don't care so i don't imagine a reply about it. We'll just wait to hear from you when someone else expresses a thought that isn't on your list of acceptable posting...then we'll watch you call them out in that admonishing playground matron tone.
Physician, heal thyself.
They had nowhere else to go. The local mental hospital had just had to discharge them all, because of funding cuts.
Hey! They didn't discharge me, I was only out on a holiday pass. :p:
... I guess I was just wondering, in a discreet way, why Ibby gets shit, but Sexobon doesn't.
A valid question. It's because I'm a mirror, reflecting the level of intensity others present. Your intensity is relatively consistent which is why I've not turned up the intensity with you or many others here whether they have agreed with me or not.
At times, Ibby turns up the intensity disproportionately. Chalk it up to youthful inexperience or whatever, it begs widespread disapproval when she violates Golden Rule 2.0. - Do unto others as they have done un to you.
Unlike Ibby, I'm not afraid of anyone here. Quite the opposite, I challenge everyone here to entertain me.
That's all I will ever have to say about that. So don't bother replying. I don't care.
Yep, I already thought of a rebuttal for that, and that, and that too. Still don't care. The end.
Your face is a whining tattle-tale
Goddmanit you made me reply. I lose, lol. Well played, sir.
"what the hell is there to stop and think about???"
*About what 'you' (as Flint) can do, will do, would do, should do.
Now, if your thinking leads you to look at editing others, then have at it: just don't be surprised when those others resist the editing. I don't get the appeal of fixing the other (especially when the other may not view him- or her-self as broken), but as you like.
If, like me, your thinking leads you to a keener sense of your 'self' and how you can self-depend, -defend, -define, and -motivate, then good on you!
Hey, even if your thinking leads you to the quixotic job of addressing the culture (an entity as real as ghost farts) then, have at it!
My point: whatever it is 'you' do, it ought to be for reasons you suss out for yourself (or not...**frankly, I don't give a shit what you do...just stay the hell away from me).
*thinking is best done with a closed mouth, alone; not in the midst of a crowd, jabbering away
** as I say up-thread: I have mine and I have no interest in giving it up, so what the rest of you ***folks do (about guns) either makes my life easier or harder but in no way truly stymies me...the Law is ass (kick it or ride it: never obey it)
***I don't care what president, congress, supreme court (or any one else) has to say on the matter...I'm equally indifferent to the machinations of both pro- and anti-gun folks
**frankly, I don't give a shit what you do...just stay the hell away from me)
:D
Thou doest protest too loudly.
Separation is most easily obtained by "self-leaving".
henry, you seem upset. I am sorry that you are having unpleasant feelings, and I hope you feel better soon.
"Separation is most easily obtained by "self-leaving"."
Why should I do such a thing?
Besides: I'm not stuck here with 'you'; you're all stuck here with 'me'.
Get used to it.
#
"you seem upset"
A picayune assessment based on nuthin': obvious diversion.
I expected no better.
[strike]We're[/strike]Were you a tattle-tale in school, also?
Nah, too busy paying attention in English class.
I am definitely taking a Karma hit for that, but I couldn't resist. I really don't have a dog in this fight - not the guns issue, but the mini-flame, "he said/he said" one. Feel free to go grammar Nazi on me in retaliation when I eventually screw up.
BTW, Henry - take a few calming breaths, check your meds, and put an extra lock on the guns.
Auto-correct on the iPhone is a killer. No excuse, I know, but the Blackberry software would default the keyed characters, and suggest corrections before posting, much akin to an F7 spell check; whereas iOS defaults the suggested correction, necessitating user intervention to prevent arbitrary edits. There are pros and cons--the most prominent pro point being that there is an obvious hurdle to overcome due to having no tactile feedback from your input peripheral.
Auto-correct on the iPhone is a killer. No excuse, I know, but the Blackberry software would default the keyed characters, and suggest corrections before posting, much akin to an F7 spell check; whereas iOS defaults the suggested correction, necessitating user intervention to prevent arbitrary edits. There are pros and cons--the most prominent pro point being that there is an obvious hurdle to overcome due to having no tactile feedback from your input peripheral.
That sucks. I'm used to the right click dropdown giving choices with whatever Windows software performs the edit.
That's two of like three things out of 20 where the Blackberry is better than the iPhone. But the iPhone is so much better in so many other ways.
"take a few calming breaths"
No need.
#
"check your meds"
Go fuck yourself.
#
"put an extra lock on the guns"
ONE gun, stored safely...your concern is touching.
As the NRA are fond of saying, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun ... is a good guy with a gun ... or a teacher with skills at human interaction (and cahones the size of watermelons)...
A teacher at a high school in California has been praised by police for averting a serious shooting incident.
The teacher and a campus supervisor talked a gunman into putting down his weapon after he had shot and injured one pupil at Taft Union High School.
Police said the gunman had enough ammunition to kill many people.
The injured student was taken to hospital in an air ambulance and is in a critical condition.
The drama started after 09:00 local time (17:00 GMT) when the gunman, also a student, arrived late, armed with a shotgun, at the school in the small town in California's central valley.
Students and staff telephoned police, but before officers could arrive, the suspect had shot at two people in a class in the science block. One shot missed its target.
The teacher, who had been grazed by a pellet, then intervened. He is reported by US media to have warned the suspect that there would be no shooting in his class, at which point the gunman put down his weapon and police officers arrested him.
From the article:
"They talked him into putting that shotgun down. He in fact told the teacher, 'I don't want to shoot you,' and named the person that he wanted to shoot," Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said.
How much you want to bet the person he wanted to shoot was a bully? How much you want to bet every teacher in the building knows that kid is a bully, and has done nothing about it?
How much you want to bet the person he wanted to shoot was a bully?
Nothing has changed. Except that we all now have access to big guns. So what was once solved by a fist or a thrown egg is now solved by assault weapons and large clips.
People do kill people - when armed with weapons whose only purpose is to kill lots of people.
Bullying is being addressed in most locations. Long ago when bullying was ignored, people were not dying. And kids were not armed with high powered weapons. We need those weapons to defend ourselves - even from bullies. Big guns have solved bully problems.
Give everyone a gun and bullying will end. More guns mean more safety. Anyone who can read a soundbyte knows that is true.
So how do fringe extremists respond?
"check your meds"
Go fuck yourself.
A perfect example of someone who most needs guns to defend himself. Otherwise he would have nothing but insult and profanity to defend his ego. "He dissed me and I fixed him." Clearly that makes him a man.
Heaven forbid should someone with a pre-frontal cortex challenge his politically correct profanity. Thank god for big guns to defend his right to disparage others.
I haven't followed this entire thread, but I don't understand Clod's comment. I assume she means that if an adult at the school had been on the ball, the situation could have been defused before it reached the point where someone decided to bring a gun to school. Children don't like tattle-tales and many don't want to be a tattle tale, either. Most bullies are smart enough to act one way around adults and a whole different way when only their peers are present. Teachers aren't mind readers.
Teachers have a pretty good idea who the bullies are, but if it doesn't happen in front of them, or if someone doesn't narc on the bullies, then there is little the teachers can do.
All the bullies in my school experience from grade school through high school were pretty much out in the open with their activities and well known to the teachers, including the bully teachers.
And I went to good schools.
School was a huge FAIL when I was a kid.
A question for all the anti-gun control folks.
How do you propose we minimize gun related crime, especially mass shootings?
All the bullies in my school experience from grade school through high school were pretty much out in the open with their activities and well known to the teachers, including the bully teachers.
And I went to good schools.
School was a huge FAIL when I was a kid.
I went to schools on Army bases until the 8th grade. The teachers there were pretty strict and the bullies confined themselves to bullying after school. A couple of "big kids" (third graders) terrorized me a time or two when I was a first grader walking home from school. It never occurred to me to tell a teacher, but I did tell my Mom.
The next day she was waiting for me outside the school grounds and she put the fear of dog into those two little monsters - name, rank, and serial number and just one more time and your father's commanding officer will be hearing about this! You go, Mom!
Needless to say, those two never bothered me again.
Adult intervention can make a big difference if the adults know what's going on, but kids can be pretty crafty.
Kids can be crafty, but that's not the kind of bully that wears a kid down enough to make them bring a gun--that only happens over years of abuse. My bully once raised her leg up and kicked the shit out of my ribs, in class, right in front of the teacher, and the teacher did nothing.
If I had only known I could fight back, things would have been different. Adult intervention is critical, and that includes teaching kids that they don't have to put up with being bullied, a message that was lacking when I was a kid. I'm glad your mom stood up for you. If she hadn't, what would you have done?
Kids can be crafty, but that's not the kind of bully that wears a kid down enough to make them bring a gun--that only happens over years of abuse. My bully once raised her leg up and kicked the shit out of my ribs, in class, right in front of the teacher, and the teacher did nothing.
If I had only known I could fight back, things would have been different. Adult intervention is critical, and that includes teaching kids that they don't have to put up with being bullied, a message that was lacking when I was a kid. I'm glad your mom stood up for you. If she hadn't, what would you have done?
That sucks Clod. And I'm glad teachers and kids have become more aware of the problem and how to deal with it than everyone was back in the day when we were in school.
My parents were mistrustful of regular schools after sending me to schools on army bases for grades K thru 7. When we bought a house off base and I would have had to attend a regular public school, they baulked at the idea and sent me to a private school run by the Luthern Church instead.
I'd have been better off with the gang bangers my parents imagined infesting civilian schools. The culture shock was awful. I went from attending class with a group of my fellow vagabonds to being in a classroom with a group of kids who'd gone to school together since the first grade. And if being the new kid wasn't bad enough, I'd hadn't been raised Luthern. As a matter of fact, I was already an agnostic by the ripe old age of 13.
That pack of 8th grade fundamentalists made my life miserable in every way they could think of. I used to cry myself to sleep. The teachers not only knew about it and didn't intervene, they actually joined in. One time another kid asked me if I was "saved" during lunch-break in the school cafeteria. I hated that little bitch who asked and I had no trouble telling her the truth which was "Hell, no!"
Naturally word spread like wild-fire among the shocked faithful and I was called into the office of the pastor who treated us 8th graders to an hour's worth of fundamentalist brain washing each day. That man told me that I was going to hell. He damned me to eternal flames at age 13. I was pretty stunned for a few days. Then I decided that if the Lutherns were right, a bunch of unbaptized babies were going to hell with me and SOMEONE needed to take care of those poor children since god wouldn't.
This thought bouyed me up considerably and when my Dad came home after a year-long tour of duty in Vietnam, I convinced him to let me go to the local public high school where I found a group of fellow nerds to hang out with and was spared further bullying. I can easily imagine a teenage boy being pushed over the edge and doing bad to those kids at my old junior high. :thepain:
In the news paper today ,
Hunting buddy by
zippyt, on Flickr
And do you sir, have ANY evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, showing that unarmed, defenseless people, are safe from violence?
snip
Me.
I'm unarmed. I'm "defenseless" (by your tortured definition). I'm safe from violence. I'm not invisible, I'm not in hiding or in an undisclosed location. I'm not a sheep or a sheeple. This is FACTUAL, anecdotal, empirical, verifiable, first person evidence.
Will this turn your ridiculous argument? I believe it won't. Perhaps you are thinking of how to be safe from some hypothetical threat of violence. Well, in that* case, no, I'm not safe. But hey, I'm thinking of a different hypothetical threat of violence. Yeah, I'm safe from that one.
* There is ALWAYS some hypothetical threat that can be conjured up in your imagination or mine that could be prevented by having a firearm. It is equally likely that a different imaginary situation can be thought up where no firearm is needed. Just as it's equally possible to think up some situation where the firearm is present but inadequate. What. The. Hell. Ever. A far better, more rational, helpful, useful exercise of our intelligence is to think about where firearms *are* a good idea (protip, the answer is NOT everywhere at all times).
There's no need to shoot a drunk who is causing no one any serious harm.
He's drunk, and he's trying to get inside a hotel where he'd like a room, or help to find his room - he's not trying to rape or kill or kidnap anyone.
There's no need to fire a gun unless the threat is very immediate, and very serious.
Real People are armed. Sheeple People rely on their invisibility cloaks to avoid being a victim.
The guy wasn't just drunk, he was high on dog knows what. The doors leading into motel rooms were pretty obvious - even to a drunk. He was attempting to break into the laundry room located down a short hallway from the front desk and all that cash. And he was very mean and very big.
Under circumstances like that I figure the guy could be capable of doing anything. He was certainly doing a number on that door, and I might have been next on his list. The threat was very immediate when we stood there face to face and very serious as far as I was concerned. If I'd shot him with a gun instead of pepper spray, I would have been justified, and my local cop friends would have backed me up. Thanks to my handy pepper spray, I was spared all the complications of the aftermath of shooting someone with a gun.
Real people try to find the least violent way of dealing with a situation
A question for all the anti-gun control folks.
How do you propose we minimize gun related crime, especially mass shootings?
Is this thing on?
:corn:
What is anti-gun control? There is a wide range of views.
I believe mass shootings is more of a cultural issue. They (school shootings) are
rare outside the United States. While banning semi-automatic rifles may have some effect (is this what you mean?), I don't know the significance on mass shooting deaths.
"The researchers found that killers do not 'snap'. They plan. They acquire weapons. These children take a long, considered, public path toward violence."[1] Princeton's Katherine Newman has found that, far from being "loners", the perpetrators are "joiners" whose attempts at social integration fail, and that they let their thinking and even their plans be known, sometimes frequently over long periods of time.
This leads me to believe that these shooters will try the black market if they can't get weapons legally. Or, they may just use handguns, which can also be extremely deadly.
A question for all the anti-gun control folks.
How do you propose we minimize gun related crime, especially mass shootings?
One thing that would help, is to work on welfare and military assignments, so fathers could be around their boys (especially), as they are growing up.
Absent fathers have a terrible impact on boys - not on every boy, but on many boys. With all of our military dads being assigned repeatedly overseas, and many welfare programs forcing welfare families to kick the dad out, so they're eligible, it's a disaster.
Go back and check out how many of these mass killers had dads around when they were growing up.
My Dad taught me how to do push-ups when he was home between tours of duty. Oh, and that I had to "police" my room. He didn't seem to be very excited about flashing around any of his military issue weapons, tho. I was quite disappointed at the time, but I got over it when I discovered super soakers.
What? Did those idiots let you play with assault super soakers?
Me.
I'm unarmed. I'm "defenseless" (by your tortured definition). I'm safe from violence. I'm not invisible, I'm not in hiding or in an undisclosed location. I'm not a sheep or a sheeple. This is FACTUAL, anecdotal, empirical, verifiable, first person evidence.
Will this turn your ridiculous argument? I believe it won't. Perhaps you are thinking of how to be safe from some hypothetical threat of violence. Well, in that* case, no, I'm not safe. But hey, I'm thinking of a different hypothetical threat of violence. Yeah, I'm safe from that one.
* There is ALWAYS some hypothetical threat that can be conjured up in your imagination or mine that could be prevented by having a firearm. It is equally likely that a different imaginary situation can be thought up where no firearm is needed. Just as it's equally possible to think up some situation where the firearm is present but inadequate. What. The. Hell. Ever. A far better, more rational, helpful, useful exercise of our intelligence is to think about where firearms *are* a good idea (protip, the answer is NOT everywhere at all times).
You are ONE person - not "people". Your experience is the fruit of people who fought WITH GUNS, to give you a better (and yes, a safer), place to live.
Would we even HAVE a country, if we had no guns, and simply asked King George VI, "would you please leave us alone?".
How about those Kurds in Iraq? They had almost no guns, and when they displeased Saddam Hussein, he had their whole town killed with poison gas.
What about the Israeli's? Would they be alive today if it wasn't for their guns? Didn't they live without guns before the Holocaust? How did that work out, pray tell?
How about those 8,000 or so men and boys in Srebrenica? They had no guns. The Dutch army was there under UN auspices to protect them, remember? The Serbs just had too many guns, so they stood down, and surrendered.
The Serbs then demanded the Dutch uniforms to embarrass them, and took the men and boys from the city, into the forest - and killed every one of them.
Or go back a few years to an earlier massacre - same place (roughly), but this time it was of the Serbs, not the Bosniaks, who were slaughtered: Javor and Korita massacre's, 1941.
How about the Armenians in the early 1900's? They were pretty well unarmed. So the Turks slaughtered them by the tens of thousands.
How about the American Indian? Tomahawks, knives, and bows and arrows, were no match for guns. Did it work out well for them?
How about the Aztecs? Cortez just killed them off, lickety split - because he had guns and metal swords, and the Aztecs didn't. About the same, for the Inca's. No guns, you die.
Rosicrucians? Knights Templar? Jews in the UK, in the 1600's? All slaughtered or driven out.
You could fill up an entire encyclopedia with all the different groups that have been massacred because they didn't have guns (or have enough guns, or know how to use them well, etc.).
We didn't outlaw airplanes after 9/11 -- and we don't outlaw spoons, knives and forks, because of the obesity problem. That would be stupid.
Same with guns. Guns allowed us to be free, in the first place.
To be people - not sheeple.
You've simply been lucky, but disarming is a very dangerous decision.
Looking back and using history as a guide, it's been a fatal decision or circumstance, for millions.
What? Did those idiots let you play with assault super soakers?
How else were we going to defend ourselves from our liberal playmates?
You are ONE person - not "people". Your experience is the fruit of people who fought WITH GUNS, to give you a better (and yes, a safer), place to live.
Would we even HAVE a country, if we had no guns, and simply asked King George VI, "would you please leave us alone?".
.
I'm no great fan of counterfactual history, but judging by the political landscape of Britain at the time, and the direction of travel in public discourse, I'd say possibly, but maybe half a century later. It maybe that there was always going to be some element of fighting, but the Napoleonic wars may well have blunted Britain's appetite for armed conflict, as well as heightened already apparent popular unease at her treatment of the American colonies.
I don't know how much of the British side of that whole period you get taught over there. There was a good deal of popular support for the American colonists amongst the British public.
Maybe that's why George brought in Hessian mercenaries.
Of course I am just one person - - what are you? A robot?
You asked for one piece of evidence, I gave you one, and you blithely disregarded it. How typical of you, how....convenient.
People WITH guns get shot, people WITHOUT guns get shot. But.... No one, not one single person in all of history ever got shot without a gun. Guns are no defense against getting shot. Guns aren't defense AT ALL. Guns are pure offense.
I didn't realize this discussion had wandered. I gave Adak his response
here.
Of course I am just one person - - what are you? A robot?
You asked for one piece of evidence, I gave you one, and you blithely disregarded it. How typical of you, how....convenient.
People WITH guns get shot, people WITHOUT guns get shot. But.... No one, not one single person in all of history ever got shot without a gun. Guns are no defense against getting shot. Guns aren't defense AT ALL. Guns are pure offense.
i have seen people shot with bows and arrows. the chinese invented a semi-automatic crossbow. guns are a major defense, it often goes unreported in the media. did you read the op/ed in the la times yesterday??
Come on, how is a gun *defense*?
No, I missed the LA Times op/ed.
i have seen people shot with bows and arrows. the chinese invented a semi-automatic crossbow. guns are a major defense, it often goes unreported in the media. did you read the op/ed in the la times yesterday??
I they're comparable to automatic weapons, why aren't our military provided with bows and arrows, knives, bats, automobiles, and all the other (not) analogous crap the NRA is throwing out there?
An interesting perspective from the LA Times citing incidents that were stopped by armed citizens:
Guns in America: Arming the right people can save lives
Good guys with guns have managed to keep a list of shooters from carrying out the kinds of attacks that get far more publicity.
" Here are some examples you may not have heard about: Pearl High School in Mississippi; Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee; Appalachian School of Law in Virginia; a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pa.; Players Bar and Grill in Nevada; a Shoney's restaurant in Alabama; Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City; New Life Church in Colorado; Clackamas Mall in Oregon (three days before Sandy Hook); Mayan Palace Theater in San Antonio (three days after Sandy Hook).
There's a reason that you never heard much about the places on the second list. The number of innocent people killed was much smaller — sometimes, none. In each of them, the "active shooter" or potential shooter was confronted by an armed defender who happened to be at the scene when the attack commenced; the bad guy wasn't able to just keep going about his deadly business, as at Sandy Hook."
source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kopel-guns-resistance-nra-20130115,0,955405.storyBREAKING NEWS: This just in: Apparently guns DO kill people.
So we can end this thread.
I have been researching the place names indicated in the article and I've come to the same conclusion. Everybody that got shot got shot with a gun. Some died, some didn't. It seems the author wants to draw our attention to things that didn't happen. Tha's fine, really. But if we're gonna go there I can assure you that there are *vastly* more examples of bad stuff that didn't happen in the absence of guns than there are examples of bad things that didn't happen because of a gun.
Still unanswered: guns as defense. I think all the folks that caught a bullet in those stories would not feel "defended" as much as "shot by a gun."
I've shot people in defense of myself and others. I've been shot. If you want to go back to the statement about "shot by a gun", it requires human interaction with a gun to shoot someone. Somebody has to load the gun first. I still stand by my point that you can be shot by many different mechanical devices.
I thought this thread had drifted to a gun control thread. Thus, I posted the op/ed. Sorry, my bad
I'm still waiting to hear about the gun that woke up in a bad mood, went to town by itself and killed somebody.
I may have mentioned this before but you guys DID hear about the woman who took her gun, hitched to her belt and in full sight of everyone, to her 5 year old daughters soccer game, right? She took that gun everywhere-even grocery shopping (the frozen peas isle can be rough). Her hubby was some sort of prison guard or parole officer...another fun gun guy.
well; he shot her then killed himself. No one gets this?
NY passes first US gun control law since massacre
NEWS
NY passes first US gun control law since massacre
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs New York's Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act into law during a ceremony in the Red Room at the Capitol on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013, in Albany, N.Y. Jumping out ahead of Washington, New York enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions Tuesday and the first since the Connecticut school shooting, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and mandatory background checks for buying ammunition.
Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:54:27 -0500
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Jumping out ahead of Washington, New York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions Tuesday and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?category=TopStories&id=20130115/3d5d60d9-6185-4d26-b089-e2011a318812Background checks to buy ammo? Oh my god.
Guns in America: Arming the right people can save lives
Well of course. But who are the "right" people?
Police, licensed security guards, obviously military people (although they aren't deployed within the US, typically) ... heck even in low-gun cultures like Japan those types are armed.
Then there's the grey zone of Concerned Citizens, with or without background checks and thorough training.
Then there's the dark side of criminals and mentally ill.
Where should the line be? No-one, except some of Adak's straw men, suggest complete disarmament. It's just that the US draws the line further down that list than most countries, and firepower trickles even further down.
I was just thinking of that National Lampoon album, Lemmings. Now I just realized it was actually Firesign Theater's Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand MeThe Pliers
The guy in the crowd shouting "Power to the Correct People, man!" Maybe it was Lemmings after all. Whatever. I was actually thinking about it in the context of one of Ibby's I'm being oppressed by the fascist hetero normative cis boom bah doodle doo rants, and I thought, "Power to the correct people." I wonder if she'd get the irony? That and "I can't stand intolerant people." Then I started thinking about another cup of coffee.
Firesign Theater. Did they do mr creosote?
mr creosote is monty python, the meaning of life
I'm still waiting to hear about the gun that woke up in a bad mood, went to town by itself and killed somebody.
gonna be a long wait.
likewise, I'm waiting to hear about the guy that woke up in a bad mood and went to town and shot someone with no gun.
...
Of course you need the peanut butter AND the chocolate. But.. that combo can be unacceptably violent sometimes. We all agree that SOME PEOPLE shouldn't have guns. and we all agree that SOME WEAPONS shouldn't be in the hands of non-professionals. What combinations are the bad ones? Which combos represent a risk that can be avoided, that should be avoided? Which combos represent acceptable risk? The voices that talk in absolutes are only making UNHELPFUL NOISE. Let's try to improve our dialog by reducing the amount of noise.
Come on, how is a gun *defense*?
No, I missed the LA Times op/ed.
I've shot people in defense of myself and others. I've been shot. If you want to go back to the statement about "shot by a gun", it requires human interaction with a gun to shoot someone. Somebody has to load the gun first. I still stand by my point that you can be shot by many different mechanical devices.
I thought this thread had drifted to a gun control thread. Thus, I posted the op/ed. Sorry, my bad
guns as defense, ok? let's look.
when you were shot, was that a defensive gun? when you shot people, how were they defended by your gun? "shot by a gun" sure, let's talk about that. There's no defense in shooting a gun. It's all offense. The cases cited in the article you linked to Sarge, there wasn't any defensive gun usage--it was all offense. bad guy comes to school, shoots people, is confronted by good guy, shot by good guy... that's not defense. that's one gunman's gun's offense being overcome by another gunman's gun's offense. Please, no talk about the football cliche "the best defense is a good offense". It's not defense, it's just turning the word on its head.
Guns are offensive weapons, period.
Defense? body armor is defensive. a helmet is defensive. shields are defensive. the PATRIOT and the AEGIS missile systems are the closest things to defensive systems that have projectiles. That's defense.
A gun is a defensive tool as well as an offensive weapon depending on the situation
Citizens going about their day to day lives armed and ready to defend themselves and others from violent assault, will not reduce levels of violence, it will ramp it up.
A proportion of the population armed and trained to the use of those arms is a line of defence.
I don't think so. Do you have any data to back this? Have you ever fired a gun? Why are you so eager to give away one of my fundemental rights when you don't have it in your country?
DanaC - This isn't meant to be personal. I respect you greatly. I'm simply passionate about this and I was trying to make a point. Sorry
Don't be sorry, Sarge.
Just post some photos of your wall of cards.
AND DANAC! You promised. I bought a tub of SlimFast. You need a mattress and to post some pics.
There. Ambushed both of you. Equal opportunity attack.
One thing that would help, is to work on welfare and military assignments, so fathers could be around their boys (especially), as they are growing up.
Absent fathers have a terrible impact on boys - not on every boy, but on many boys. With all of our military dads being assigned repeatedly overseas, and many welfare programs forcing welfare families to kick the dad out, so they're eligible, it's a disaster.
Go back and check out how many of these mass killers had dads around when they were growing up.
So what action do you propose?
Oh oh oh oh oh I know I know [/horschack]
Cut off men's sperms supplies and make them take some tests and training to get spermies back.
Think of the poor baby daddies.
I don't think so. Do you have any data to back this?
I'm sure we can find data to "support" the claim. I'm sure we can find data to "debunk" the claim.
Plus, there is always the chicken and the egg fiasco. Did more guns lead to more violence or did more violence lead to more guns?
We all have our opinions and are talking about them here with the dozen or so others who care one way or the other.
If you want your voice to be heard a little more widely, take this survey by Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly. They will submit the survey results to the politicians, and since they are respected by the politicians, the results will be accepted. So include your voice. It's a very short survey/petition. It will require your name, email, and zip code. So you might get some follow up emails, and put on a list somewhere. You can choose multiple options, including not enacting any new legislation at all.
http://action.americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/page/s/pollSo... Adak. It's all or nothing with you? It sounds like you're arguing that way. If xyz idea won't completely solve the problem, then xyz idea should be discarded. And the way you are assessing whether or not xyz idea completely solves the problem is to look for any case, like the above example, that "proves" it won't work. Is this really your strategy?
Also, I'd like to repeat Pete's question, "What part of 'no mass shootings' do you have a problem with?" Are you in favor of mass shootings? If you are, please say so and I'll quit pestering you. If you are not in favor of more mass shootings, then please give me some examples of ideas you think will reduce them, or eliminate them completely.
Come on. What constructive contribution do *you* have to offer?
Well mass shootings do help with population control. (Is it too soon to make a joke?)
Nah, laughter is the best medicine. After all, a modest proposal such as yours has a long and storied history of being both funny and true.
Those who are not licensed to carry firearms, those convicted of felonies etc., when found to have guns shall do a minimum of 3 years in prison. No if ands or buts. Not talking about minors here. If you want to put your tax dollars to a solution lets build more prisons. We may solve the drive bys and the gang violence but you will never prevent nut jobs from carrying out their violent fantasies by legislating gun control..
As I say elsewhere: in a country of 350 million individuals (and counting), where an estimated 270,000,000 guns are 'out and about', total confiscation is the only answer (a long, bloody, expensive, process with no guarantee of success).
Anything less (patchworks of laws = band aid on a wound the size of the Grand Canyon) is purely emotional salve (sooth the distress by addressing symptoms; never, ever, getting to the *root).
If 'you' won't confiscate, then stop kvetching, make do with piecemeal, and get on with living.
*by all conventional accounts, the root is 'gun'...if this is the case: eradicate 'gun', solve problem, yes?
No.. why should law abiding citizens have to give up their weapons? Your theory is illogical. If some are so intent on making a new law concerning guns then they need to enforce the ones we have and make stiffer penalties for those that illegally carry.
Mass killings can occur with the use of cow manure [/hyperbole]
Nope. Perfectly logical, and confiscation is the (absurd but logical) end if folks really want to make themselves 'safe' from 'gun'.
Any other (more moderate) course is 'feel good' and nuthin' else.
Full disclosure (again): I own one gun (12 gauge coach gun...a man-killer, which is what I mean it to be, though -- in a pinch -- it works for hunting as well). I've no interest in any other firearm, and no interest in giving up what I have.
If its absurd how is it logical? ;) You and I are the same except I think those that illegally carry should have to face a stricter punishment. Again for full disclosure I have a Detroit Riot rifle and and an 1891 Winchester I don't hunt but I have shot skunks and coyotes,with the Winchester, not giving mine up either.
No.. why should law abiding citizens have to give up their weapons? Your theory is illogical. If some are so intent on making a new law concerning guns then they need to enforce the ones we have and make stiffer penalties for those that illegally carry.
Mass killings can occur with the use of cow manure [/hyperbole]
We shouldn't. It's hard enough getting a deer with a rifle, now I'm sposed to shoot them with a bow?
I also prefer to call them
firearms. It's not really a fight between me and the deer, I'm pretty much straight up killing them.
Yeah, I'd agree with absurd. And since that means it's only useful for entertainment value, I'm moving on.
hq, we have LOTS of other rules in our society (another concept I know you have an allergic reaction to) that don't use absolute, zero tolerance thresholds that still make a useful positive difference. To say it's all or nothing isn't helpful. I'm looking for helpful ideas.
Also, your plea for no kvetching is similarly doomed.
A woman woke up in the middle of the night to someone breaking down her apartment door. She grabs the gun from her nightstand as the intruder comes through her bedroom door,and shoots him dead, thus saving her life and the lives of her two young children.
Explain how this fictional use of a firearm was not defensive in nature.
He was going to kill her and her children?
A woman woke up in the middle of the night to someone breaking down her apartment door. She grabs the gun from her nightstand as the intruder comes through her bedroom door,and shoots him dead, thus saving her life and the lives of her two young children.
Explain how this fictional use of a firearm was not defensive in nature.
The apt building was on fire and the intruder was a fireman coming to rescue her two kids. :eek:
A woman woke up in the middle of the night to someone breaking down her apartment door. She grabs the gun from her nightstand as the intruder comes through her bedroom door,and shoots him dead, thus saving her life and the lives of her two young children.
Explain how this fictional use of a firearm was not defensive in nature.
Shooting the man is an offensive act. It's offense against offense. The door was defense, it was overcome by the intruder's offense, the battering and smashing. Shooting him as he comes through the bedroom door is her OFFENSE overcoming the intruder's offensive charge.
Calling it "defense" is common, but it is a perversion of the word.
A woman in Georgia knew an intruder was in her home she was on a 3 way call with her husband and 911, she had her two children with her and her gun. Her husband told her to shoot when that guy got thru the door, he had to go thru several locked doors to find them.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/09/georgia-mother-who-shot-intruder-inspires-opponents-gun-control/
GOOD FOR HERThe apt building was on fire and the intruder was a fireman coming to rescue her two kids. :eek:
Touche'.
I didn't think of this, but given the actions of an arsonist with a gun in NY a couple weeks ago, this previously unimaginable example became real.
And it brings up a good point--shooting the man coming through the door--that objective act can be interpreted differently depending on circumstances, hm? So, what is it? Shooting someone is what? It's defense? It's offense? I'm sure the bullet catcher doesn't feel defended. It's offense.
If someone was in a fire why would they shoot someone coming thru a door? that makes no sense..
Good for her!
I cheer her success at protecting her family. Good job, her counter-attack worked.
For every anecdote like that, we can find another one where some idiot uses a gun to murder their spouse/neighbour/step child/random passing stranger for no acceptable reason.
And if my understanding of the statistics is correct, the "genuine legal defense" cases are badly outnumbered by the "criminal killing" cases.
And further, the suicides outnumber both.
Really ? counter attack?
Yes.
Look... no context...
woman shoots gun at man.
what happened?
it's an attack, bang bang bang bang. if the man was just walking along, it's an attack. if he was charging at her with a knife, it's a counter attack. Yes. I stand by my choice of words.
Really ? counter attack?
Yes, as in defense.
Oh I get why you choose to use inflammatory adjectives, my comment stands> REALLY? I supposed she should have used her toothpaste on him :rolleyes:
Inflammatory?
defense is as inflammatory as offense, they're complementary, right? attack is neutral. it is the same word in both directions.
I've said nothing about her choice of weapons, I'm saying she attacked him with a gun, after he threatened her. Could you say she defended him with the gun? she didn't do anything to her kids with the gun. she didn't offend or defend or attack her kid. what she DID do with the gun was attack the guy coming at her.
sounds like it was justified, sounds like it was a good idea, sounds like it was successful. she "defended" herself by attacking him with the gun, an offensive action.
Obtuse thy name is Big V ;)
If someone was in a fire why would they shoot someone coming thru a door? that makes no sense..
In my post, the woman did not know the apt building was on fire,
and was meant only a snippy response.
But to be argumentative... my posit was quite sensible.
Given even one gun in a home, especially with children present,
the odds are much higher for an accidental/unintended shooting
than for an illusionary "NRA-stand-your-ground" defense.
If you want to put your tax dollars to a solution lets build more prisons.
No new prisons, just legalize pot and there'll be plenty of room.
So, what is it? Shooting someone is what? It's defense? It's offense? I'm sure the bullet catcher doesn't feel defended. It's offense.
Despite your verbal gymnastics, the LAW says defense.
Who better to defend against a gun attack than the Secret Service guarding the POTUS? And who couldn't do it?
Guns are no defense against guns.
Lets all cherry pick anecdotal evidence to back our pro or anti-gun views!
and really how else is a debate done?
"If its absurd how is it logical?"
Since when do 'logic' and 'absurd' mutually exclude one another?
#
"...those that illegally carry should have to face a stricter punishment."
I got no problem with that (or any other option, large, small, moderate, extreme, etc.)...I just don't think -- long term -- it'll make any difference.
Sure will make lots of folks 'feel good' though.
#
"not giving mine up either."
:thumbsup:
"To say it's all or nothing isn't helpful."
Never said 'all or nuthin'.
I merely point out what could work versus what just makes folks 'feel good'.
Interpret that as absolutist if you like (but that ain't what I said).
#
"I'm looking for helpful ideas."
Since I was answering Spexx's question (not yours) can't say I give a flip what you're looking for.
HA!
No, not 'obtuse', but 'sophist'.
...does anything other than 'soothe' the public?
Which of the following does anything other than make folks 'feel good'?
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Since the POTUS doesn't make laws there's only so much he can do except prod congress and give direction to existing agencies that have discretion.
1, 2, and 3 will help if they get serious about background checks, there's a lot of information not going into the database.
9, may help cut down straw purchases for gang bangers.
14, when Biden & Co tryed to come up with solutions, everyone they asked said there's no data.
That wasn't an accident.
16,
that's no accident either.
It won't stop anything but it's a start.
It depends on the implementation, but most of those look substantive to me. Except stuff like "national dialogues" or "national campaigns", which are the "feel good" side.
HA!
No, not 'obtuse', but 'sophist'.
:haha: That would imply he was skilled in deception, not so ;) strawman comes to mind...
16. leaves me a bit squeamish I don't think it's any of my Drs biz if I have a gun. If the Dr is a Psychiatrist maybe...
Calling it "defense" is common, but it is a perversion of the word.
So...
She successfully offended herself and her children?
HA!
I amend myself, then: 'unskilled sophist'.
##
"I don't think it's any of my Drs biz if I have a gun"
Agreed, which is why I'll tell the doc, 'that ain't germane to nuthin', move on, Doc.'
The doc can ask me anything he or she likes...no compulsion on my part, however, to answer.
##
"we have LOTS of other rules in our society (another concept I know you have an allergic reaction to)"
Yes, and I ignore most of them, hence my *shrug* regarding any and all suggestions (moderate or extreme) that come down the trestle on how to control guns and/or gun owners.
Ban away! Restrict away!
Catch me, if you can... :neutral:
16. leaves me a bit squeamish I don't think it's any of my Drs biz if I have a gun. If the Dr is a Psychiatrist maybe...
My doc asked mainly to be sure we practice good "gun hygiene" in the house. Locked out of reach of the kids, ammo kept separately, etc etc.
"Pearl High School in Mississippi; Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee; Appalachian School of Law in Virginia; a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pa.; Players Bar and Grill in Nevada; a Shoney's restaurant in Alabama; Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City; New Life Church in Colorado; Clackamas Mall in Oregon (three days before Sandy Hook); Mayan Palace Theater in San Antonio (three days after Sandy Hook).
There's a reason that you never heard much about the places on the second list. The number of innocent people killed was much smaller — sometimes, none. In each of them, the "active shooter" or potential shooter was confronted by an armed defender who happened to be at the scene when the attack commenced; the bad guy wasn't able to just keep going about his deadly business, as at Sandy Hook.
Sometimes the hero was an armed school guard (Sullivan Central High). Sometimes it was an off-duty police officer or mall security guard (Trolley Square, Mayan Theater, Clackamas Mall and the Appalachian Law School, where two law students, one of them a police officer and the other a former sheriff's deputy, had guns in their cars). Or a restaurant owner (Edinboro). Or a church volunteer guard with a concealed carry permit (Colorado). Or a diner with a concealed carry permit (Alabama and Nevada). At Pearl High School, it was the vice principal who had a gun in his car and stopped a 16-year-old, who had killed his mother and two students, before he could drive away, perhaps headed for the junior high."
NY passes first US gun control law since massacre
NY passes first US gun control law since massacre
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs New York's Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act into law.
Jumping out ahead of Washington, New York enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions Tuesday and the first since the Connecticut school shooting, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and mandatory background checks for buying ammunition.
AND because they rushed into doing this, it was poorly written and virtually every police officer in the state is in violation.
YAY FOR POINTLESS EMOTIONAL DECISIONS!
Frikkin idiots. Addressing the scary looking "assault weapons" which accounted for .872% of the fatalities is ignorant. illogical and does virtually nothing to prevent these crimes.
From what I have seen, the rifle the Sandy Hook POS brought was found in the car, the two weapons he actually used to kill all the children were semi automatic pistols. One was a Glock and the other a SigSauer, both of which were stolen from his mother. Both of which had 15 round clips.
By the way, where was the outrage day after day, week after week, month after month while hundreds of black children were being killed? I must have missed all that. Heck, in Chicago alone with ridiculously stringent gun restrictions, more people were killed (Over 220) than all troops killed in Afghanistan last year.
I hear you! My thoughts exactly
My doc asked mainly to be sure we practice good "gun hygiene" in the house. Locked out of reach of the kids, ammo kept separately, etc etc.
Our pediatrician asks pretty regularly too. I'm in favor of the question. If the simple question can get an idiot gun owner who isn't practicing safe gun storage around kids to pause and think for a minute about what they are doing, then it's worth it. It's like asking if you smoke or drink or do other things that increase your risk of getting hurt. Simple patient history questions.
My doc asked mainly to be sure we practice good "gun hygiene" in the house. Locked out of reach of the kids, ammo kept separately, etc etc.
Do you?
Indeed.
Don't expect much support from this crowd, however.
I made the same point with my comments about 'response' versus 'reaction' and my post was met with silence.
Again: passion (anger, hate, fear, frustration) is the enemy of response and is the bedrock foundation for reaction.
*shrug*
Absolutely. We are very hygienic at our house. Not helpful in the event of intruders, but we don't get too many out here.
What's unfortunate (for those in favor of tighter controls)...
Not a one of these orders (or the laws that may eventually extend out from them) address the estimated 270,000,000 guns (and accompanying ammunition) 'out and about' now.
Maybe if the NRA hadn't effectively declawed the ATF and made it impossible to track dealers' inventories, we'd have a better idea.
Maybe if the NRA hadn't effectively declawed the ATF and made it impossible to track dealers' inventories, we'd have a better idea.
Someone watched the Daily Show...:p:
But, Dana, you Brits did have a better idea.
As I point out several times up-thread: while it would be a long, expensive, bloody endeavor (with no guarantee of success), confiscation is the ticket.
If 'gun' is the problem, then remove the problem, yes?
*Isn't this what you folks did on the Great Isle?
As law, hasn't confiscation worked there?
*not exactly confiscation, I know, but as close to it as possible...strict controls on what is allowed and who is allowed to own and use, with severe penalties for illegal possession and use
Sort of yeah. The rules were tightened up and made very restrictive, at the same time there have been intermittent amnesties on firearms.
It's been a few years since the last time they did an amnesty. But it is amazing how many guns they bring in with those.
It hasn't solved gun crime in this country. There have been several gang related shootings in recent years and a few incidents involving children. But the numbers are very low nationwide, and comparatively low even in our hotspot areas.
But, the UK is a very different proposition on something like this. Guns weren't so ubiquitous to begin with. The number of guns in the country at any one time, even when ownership wasn't so regulated, just wasn't on the same level per capita as it seems to be in the States. The cultural associations are very different. Not to say there aren't/weren't any such associations, but they are a much smaller part of the national psyche.
The opposition to gun control was there, and it was vocal and heated at times, but the ban on hunting foxes with hounds caused more popular debate and passion.
We're also a pretty small island. And we only have 2 or 3 legislative and jurisdictional areas to come to agreement in order to take action. On a purely logistical level the idea of removing all guns from all but a qualified few, in a country as large and legislatively fragmented as the US seems an exercise in futility.
Our pediatrician asks pretty regularly too. I'm in favor of the question. If the simple question can get an idiot gun owner who isn't practicing safe gun storage around kids to pause and think for a minute about what they are doing, then it's worth it. It's like asking if you smoke or drink or do other things that increase your risk of getting hurt. Simple patient history questions.
And even the ones that choose to lie to the doctor(you can do that), may think about cleaning up their act on the way home. No harm, no foul. :thumb:
[YOUTUBE]hR3t7j2tUec[/YOUTUBE]
:notworthy
"On a purely logistical level the idea of removing all guns from all but a qualified few, in a country as large and legislatively fragmented as the US seems an exercise in futility."
Oh, it would (again) be a long, bloody, expensive process, but, as I think on it, *confiscation could work.
*not only by way of directly seizing guns, but also by way of raising the requirements for ownership, possession, and use to inhuman levels; by making manufacturers, sellers, importers, etc. jump through impossible hoops; by -- in the manner of 'hate crimes' -- appending awful penalties to crimes where a gun was even present; and on and on. Only after it's nigh-impossible to have a gun and be legal does the legit door-to-door confiscation need to happen.
And, of course, the most successful tactic is simply redirecting the herd toward 'gun = bad'...change the nation's heart (so to speak) and mass voluntary disarming follows (in in drips and drabs, certainly, over the long haul, but disarmed is disarmed, yes?).
It won't happen in a year, or five, or even ten, but over a twenty year frame, with the application of incremental change, America would be gun-free.
I, of course, will never see that having been shot down for refusing to hand over my Stoeger and shells...small price to pay, I guess, for utopia...*shrug*
I can't hear the audio...what wise course does he suggest?
Gun free isn't the goal. The UK isn't gun free. Don't expect it ever will be. Wouldn't want it to be. They're a tool, they have their place. I just dont think that place is in the bedroom, the kitchen, the classroom or the restaurant. I also don't think it is necessarily healthy for a society for huge swathes of it to be routinely armed to the teeeth and ready for action.
There should be restrictions in place on the number and power of the guns available to buy for private use and controls on how they are stored and used.
You aren't allowed to drive a car on public roads without a driving licence and appropriate insurance. I don't see why firearms training and licences can't be a requirement for gun ownership. And I don't see why it would be unreasonable to expect that someone wishing to accrue a collection of firearms as a hobby or interest should have to observe certain safety protocols. Nor do I think it is unreasonable to register sales of guns. In order to make it easier to track firearms which have made their way into black market or criminal fraternity.
None of that would require anybody to come and take away your Stoeger and shells
"Gun free isn't the goal."
Not there, perhaps.
#
"You aren't allowed to drive a car on public roads without a driving licence and appropriate insurance."
Not about 'allow' but about 'catch me if you can'.
#
"I don't see why firearms training and licences can't be a requirement for gun ownership."
Hey, I'm all for that!
I, of course, decline to participate
Not at first, no.
See the law in New York.
One year to register.
Imagine that federalized.
Me: not doin' it.
I can't hear the audio...what wise course does he suggest?
Here's a link to the vid at YouTube, Henry, maybe it'll work better for ya.
It's more detailed than this, but, one of his ideas is to stop glorifying the killer in the news. To let the poor miserable fuck die the way he lived, invisibly. Everybody knows the killer's name, it's repeated in the news ad nauseam, but no one ever remembers the guy who stopped him. No more "They'll remember my name forever!"-type thing.
Guy makes some other good points, too.
Chew on this, too. Y'all.
[ATTACH]42518[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]42519[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]42520[/ATTACH]
More of the infographic,
with sources,
here.
Could one of our Australian dwellars please tell me if the info here bears out, or, if the info has been manipulated, or somesuch?
[YOUTUBE]yUTzyc0BT4s[/YOUTUBE]
*ahem*
Yesterday, a conservative friend of mine posted on Facebook that gun crime numbers in the UK have gone through the roof since the government banned guns. Of course they didn't ban all guns, but that's beside the point. It took some pushing to find out his source. It came from Jim Hoft's blog on the site of the libertarian magazine Human Events. The Human Events blog post was, in turn, a block quote of a column on the far right site Townhall by News Editor Katie Pavlich. The quote my friend gave began with this:
Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture two weeks ago during Sunday Night Football, we've heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don’t have problems with gun crime. We've also heard the reason the United States has a "gun crime problem" is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.
That's Pavlich's introduction to a block quote from the British conservative tabloid, The Daily Mail. Here's the key part of the Mail's article:
The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? That sure blows a hole in the liberals' argument that fewer guns make us safer. Not only does it not make us safer, it makes us less safe. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns! And, for some reason, fewer guns seems to make criminals more likely to use theirs. So, why aren't we hearing about this on the news? Yes, I know the mainstream media is run by anti-American liberals, but why aren't we hearing about on Fox or talk radio? Could it be that it's complete BS? Yes, it could. If Pavlich had bothered to look at the top of the page on the Mail article, she would have noticed that the article was published on January 10, 2003, Those "Government's latest crime figures" refer to the 2001/2 reporting year. The figures are over ten years old.
Locating the correct figures and making sense of them took some work. When I did find them, this is what my crunching revealed. The British reporting figures are for England and Wales only. Northern Ireland is omitted because they are a special problem. Scotland has a different legal system, so the the definitions of crimes don't match up with those of its two southern neighbors. In the England and Wales statistics, total gun crimes includes air guns and fake guns. I eliminated air guns, which made up about half of the total gun crimes statistic. For the first two years below, fake guns were not separated out. The real gun figure should be a couple hundred smaller. The Daily Mail article includes fake guns in its figures.
In 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre, there were 6063 gun crimes in the UK (that includes fake guns).
In 1997, the year they phased in the new law outlawing handguns, the number went down to 4904, a 17% drop in one year.
In 1998, they separated fake guns from the real gun statistics.
In 2000/1, the number of gun crimes was up to 6683. That's the first number the Daily Mail article mentions. It's a huge increase. The UK was in the midst of an epidemic of drug-gang violence at the time.
In 2001/2, the second year in the Daily Mail article, the number had gone up to 8778, however, this number was inflated by some changes in definitions and reporting. In any case, everyone agrees that it was an increase over the year before.
Beginning in 2003, the numbers started going down and have continued ever since.
In 2010/1, the last year for which figures are available, the number had dropped to 5411. That's about ten percent lower than in the year of the Dunblane massacre. For comparison, in that year, the US had over 300,000 gun crimes.
These figures do not support the popular conservative argument that more guns equals less crime. Even if there was a rough correlation, it's naive to think that that one variable is the only factor determining how much crime we have. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
PS: At some some point, Pavlich did find out that the Mail article is extremely out of date and admitted it (Hoft has not). Rather than simply say "oops" and move on, she went hunting for different statistics to support her argument. The Mail came to her rescue with a 2009 article referencing the 2007/8 figures. I guess five year-old figures are better than ten year-old figures.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year--a rise of 89 per cent.
I went back to my sources to figure out what the hell they're talking about. Both Mail articles used figures that included fake guns. My figures for real guns are 4643 in 1998/99 and 7403 for 2007/8. That's a 62% increase--big, but it's not 89%. That increase needs to be taken in the context of a six year trend of gun crimes decreasing and that the newer number uses methods that result in higher numbers than the earlier figure.
That's all fine and dandy, but what explains the difference between 89% and 62%. Here's something I missed my first time through. After the handgun ban went into effect, fake gun crime increased. In 1998/99 there were 566 fake gun crimes and in 2007/8 there were 2562, well over four times as many. The lesson here is that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will use toys.
http://johnmckay.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/mini-snopes-vs-british-crime-statistics.html?showComment=1358551084069The lesson here is that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will use toys.
:lol2:
Those motherfuckers will die with a toy in their hand, then, if they bring that shit to my house.
...outlaws will use toys.
:headshake...Goddamn.
Also, in America if you take a toy pistol (fake gun) into a bank, and say "Gimme money!", guess what you get charged with?
Armed robbery. No different from a 'real' gun.
[Size=1]I think.[/Size]
You're right. If you use a fake gun in a crime it's charged as if the gun were real. Taking the fake guns out of the crime stats was a dishonest manipulation.
So is claiming that 88.8% of the USA's population owns guns and that number is what is reducing crime in America compared to Great Britain. So is not owning up to the different ways the governments in both countries report crime. If Grav's site source has its base statistic wrong, how can anything else it is saying have any real merit?
In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm.
In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6).
From here:
http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/us-and-uk-murder-rate-and-weapon-updated/
Yes. The years of measurement are different, but I think the numbers tell the story.
My point was that in the article quoted, the author was dishonest in taking statistics and pulling data out of them in order to change the results to what he wanted. I didn't comment on anything else.
I don't care what the politics of an author are; I do care whether the numbers are honestly reported and correct. I realize that both sides manipulate numbers, but I was only commenting on the article at hand. This author was dishonest. Admittedly, he was upfront about his dishonesty.
Otho, i'm sorry, I wasnt really responding to you, I was just piggybacking off your post so that I could add my two cents about Grav's previous post.
:p:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be testy ... I normally stay out of this thread. :)
If anyone is really interested they can go to CDC's website and look up stats for deaths by all causes.
If guns are the issue themselves why are the streets of Canada not running red with blood as the streets of the US are ?
That would be liquid littering which is rude and un-Canadian. :haha:
If violent movies and video games are the issue themselves why are the streets of Canada not running red with blood as the streets of the US are ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-winning-battle-against-inner-city-gun-crime-8463957.html
Figures out next month are expected to confirm the long-term decline in gun crime which resulted in 39 people shot dead in 2011/12 compared with a high of 96 ten years earlier.
SNIP
But improved intelligence-led operations, poor quality guns and munitions, better community links to divert gang activity, and improved surgery for gunshot victims have all contributed to reduced deaths from gun violence, according to experts and police.
A comparative shortage of guns in circulation has triggered a price spike in the underworld firearms market, according to detectives.
More at the link.
Our most basic right is the vote. The vote is limited - one vote per person per election, must be a citizen, must be registered to vote, citizens in prison can't vote, must be 18 or older to vote, etc. Why is that we can limit voting rights, but not gun rights?
what happened foot? Did she sneak them out??
I'm so sorry for what is going on with you right now...I don't pretend to know what it is but I know you're hurting and I'm truly sorry.
what happened foot? Did she sneak them out??
I'm so sorry for what is going on with you right now...I don't pretend to know what it is but I know you're hurting and I'm truly sorry.
I guess so. Thanks. I know it will be over by summer. The key is to keep things amicable as long as the kids are minors.
happy place...
ugh.
I don't know what to say that doesn't sound---platitudinous...maybe you could smash some dishes?
Don't stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Don't stop, it'll soon be here,
It'll be, better than before,
Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone.
You've got to many cool happenings on the horizon, another mile of bad road is a piece of cake. :thumb2:
Could one of our Australian dwellars please tell me if the info here bears out, or, if the info has been manipulated, or somesuch?
[YOUTUBE]yUTzyc0BT4s[/YOUTUBE]
Haven't watched the video - crappy download speeds - but found this:
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-faking-nra-pro-gun-americans-abuse.html#ajTabs
Which should answer all your questions. If you can read around all the annoying adds.
ETA Short version:
While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia. Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15 percent of these resulting from firearms. Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occured in Australia.
Homicide and suicide rates have declined in Australia since the 1990s. Deaths results from firearms have plunged even more dramatically. In Australia, mass shootings similar to Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield have not occurred for over a decade.
If you can read around all the annoying adds.
*cough*
adblock*couch*
This 4-page article is the first in a new series on the gun industry in the US.
NY Times
MIKE McINTIRE
1/26/13
Selling a New Generation on Guns
Threatened by long-term declining participation in shooting sports,
the firearms industry has poured millions of dollars into a broad campaign
to ensure its future by getting guns into the hands of more, and younger, children.
The industry’s strategies include giving firearms, ammunition and cash to youth groups;
weakening state restrictions on hunting by young children;
marketing an affordable military-style rifle for “junior shooters” and
sponsoring semiautomatic-handgun competitions for youths;
and developing a target-shooting video game that promotes brand-name weapons,
with links to the Web sites of their makers.
The pages of Junior Shooters, an industry-supported magazine
that seeks to get children involved in the recreational use of firearms,
once featured a smiling 15-year-old girl clutching a semiautomatic rifle.
At the end of an accompanying article that extolled target shooting with a Bushmaster AR-15
— an advertisement elsewhere in the magazine directed readers to a coupon for buying one
— the author encouraged youngsters to share the article with a parent.
“Who knows?” it said. “Maybe you’ll find a Bushmaster AR-15 under
your tree some frosty Christmas morning!”
<snip>
[ATTACH]42596[/ATTACH]
The overall objective was summed up in another study, commissioned last year by the shooting sports industry,
that suggested encouraging children experienced in firearms to recruit other young people.
The report, which focused on children ages 8 to 17, said these “peer ambassadors”
should help introduce wary youngsters to guns slowly, perhaps through paintball,
archery or some other less intimidating activity.
“The point should be to get newcomers started shooting something,
with the natural next step being a move toward actual firearms,”
said the report, which was prepared for the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Hunting Heritage Trust.
<snip>
Well, now we know what all those tobacco marketing executives are doing now. :mad:
Learning to properly handle,(and learning by mistakes every kid is bound to make), a single shot 22, is a smarter option. If a kid makes the ultimate mistake of shooting a person, including themselves, a 22 gives a good survival rate.
I don't approve of minors shooting high powered rifles. They kick, and kick hard. Children should not be subjecting their still growing joints and connective tissue, to repeated heavy blows.
Sure, they get thumped playing sports and general rough-housing, but that's not the same. A day at the range would be like hitting themselves with a hammer, in the same spot, about a hundred times.
If only kids understood what a burden this huge penis is... sigh :o
Well, the plan from the "don't increase gun laws" contingent is "don't increase gun laws" and only "don't increase gun laws".
Good idea. Been working so far, let's stick with it.
Well perhaps if we actually enforced the laws we have instead of kneecaping the FTA we might get somewhere, because new laws that are equally unenforced will service just as well as ones that are not there. One a side note I think the name of the FTA should be changed to Firearms Alcohol and Tobacco and then they will be called the FAT squad.
They are in charge of explosives, too- FATE.
Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - reports
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-Pistorius-shoots-girlfriend-reports-20130214
South Africa is a high crime country, and if you didn't have legs, you'd feel extra vulnerable, and want to spring to your defence. I understand him being armed and ready to use. Pity he seems to have skipped the "target identification" step, and jumped to a conclusion. Legally, I don't think he has a leg to stand on. He must feel like a real heel.
Did I miss any?
Yep, missed one.
Dang, that was quick.
See
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3szmvh/
Did I miss any?
He was handy - capped her ass
Well perhaps if we actually enforced the laws we have instead of kneecaping the FTA we might get somewhere,
That would require more agents and more prisons, which would increase gubmint spending.... and that will go nowhere in a repubican controlled house.
Next!
90-Year-Old Killed, Suspect Arrested in Bucks Co. Standoff
Cairns, according to authorities, opened fire on officers around 7:40 Tuesday night. Police fired at least four rounds in return. During the gun battle, a downstairs neighbor, a 90-year-old woman, was shot and killed,
If only the old gal had been packing heat, she might be alive today! :rolleyes:
Learning to properly handle,(and learning by mistakes every kid is bound to make), a single shot 22, is a smarter option. If a kid makes the ultimate mistake of shooting a person, including themselves, a 22 gives a good survival rate.
I don't approve of minors shooting high powered rifles. They kick, and kick hard. Children should not be subjecting their still growing joints and connective tissue, to repeated heavy blows.
Sure, they get thumped playing sports and general rough-housing, but that's not the same. A day at the range would be like hitting themselves with a hammer, in the same spot, about a hundred times.
If only kids understood what a burden this huge penis is... sigh :o
Addie, age 5, has been shooting a .22 for over a year now. My oldest daughter, age 19, shoots my .45-70 & .577 Snider. I think this year, I will introduce Addie to my 8 gauge double or my 7 bore elephant gun
“Download this gun”: 3D-printed semi-automatic fires over 600 rounds
And the Department of Justice says there's nothing illegal about it, either.
Yeah, that's gonna take gun control from difficult to effectively impossible.
Yeah, that's gonna take gun control from difficult to effectively impossible.
Oh noes! Then we'll be faced with addressing the real problems in this country.
That's nothing, I've downloaded the plans for a thermonuclear hand grenade.
[COLOR="Silver"]When I went through US Army basic training, the hand grenade training was conducted by a cadre with imagination. Recruits were seated in outdoor bleachers on a firing range as an instructor presented a lecture followed by a demonstration in which the instructor threw a grenade (inert; but, the recruits didn't know it) out to a predetermined spot on the range. When the dummy grenade hit the ground, another cadre member set off a nuclear explosion training simulator (a relatively new pyro-technique that sent up flames and smoke in a massive mushroom cloud) prepositioned on that spot. The results were spectacular and the recruits gave the demonstration a standing ovation. The legend of the thermonuclear hand grenade was born.[/COLOR]
I didn't realize there was a thermonuclear handgrenade.
I guess we already have addressed the real problems in this country, so never mind.
Of course we've addressed the real problems in this country. They're addressed: White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20500, Capitol Building E. Capitol St. NE and First St. NE Washington DC 20004, and Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street NE Washington DC 20543.
[YOUTUBE]Z54-QHEZN6E[/YOUTUBE]
I didn't realize there was a thermonuclear handgrenade.
I guess we already have addressed the real problems in this country, so never mind.
Of course we've addressed the real problems in this country. They're addressed: White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20500, Capitol Building E. Capitol St. NE and First St. NE Washington DC 20004, and Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street NE Washington DC 20543.
I'm seeing a solution.
The problem is untrained people trying to solve their problems with a pistol or shotgun. ;)
Finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard until you have decided to shoot. Even I know that. Idiot.
At least his sign is properly punctuated.
That's nothing, I've downloaded the plans for a thermonuclear hand grenade.
Well, not quite a hand grenade, but about as close as you can get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
tl;dr recoilless rifle, range 2 km, yield 0.02 kilotons, nasty radiation.
Imagine if plans for the Ned Kelly device had been realized. Probably would have looked just like that except with a can of Fosters at the front.
The NRA was off the mark by a few mils. Arm the students! That's the ticket.
That's nothing, I've downloaded the plans for a thermonuclear hand grenade.[COLOR=Silver][/COLOR]
Here.Bloomberg
By Greg Stohr
Apr 15, 2013
New York Gun Limits Intact as High Court Rejects Appeal
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a rebuff to gun-rights
advocates including the National Rifle Association,
leaving intact New York’s requirement that people wishing to carry a
handgun in public show a special need for protection.
Refusing for now to be drawn into the fractious nationwide debate over firearms,
the justices today let stand a federal appeals court decision that said
the century-old New York law didn’t infringe the Constitution’s Second Amendment.
The court made no comment, turning away an appeal by five New York residents
and a gun-rights group as part of a list of orders released in Washington.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]In upholding New York’s law, which requires applicants to show “proper cause"
to get a permit to carry a weapon, a federal appeals court pointed to what it called
“a longstanding tradition of states regulating firearm possession and use in public because
of the dangers posed to public safety.”[/COLOR]
<snip>
New York’s requirement that people wishing to carry a
handgun in public show a special need for protection.
Does "I live in New York" count? :eyebrow:
(CNN) -- A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said.
Little Caroline Starks died Tuesday in Burkesville, in southern Kentucky, according to Cumberland County Coroner Gary White.
"The little Crickett rifle is a single-shot rifle and it has a child safety," White said of the weapon. "It's just a tragic situation."
Starks' autopsy is scheduled for Wednesday, but the shooting has been ruled accidental, according to Kentucky State Police Public Affairs officer Billy Gregory.
"The mother was home at the time of the incident but she had stepped outside," Gregory said. "It's just one of those nightmares -- a quick thing that happens when you turn your back."
Gregory said young children in the area are often introduced to guns at an early age.
"In this part of the country, it's not uncommon for a 5-year-old to have a gun or for a parent to pass one down to their kid," he said.
The Crickett website features three different .22-caliber rifle models for kids, with shoulder stock colors ranging from pink to red, white and blue swirls. "My first rifle" is the company's slogan.
Caroline Starks' death comes in the wake of two other incidents in recent months involving young children shooting others. In early April, a 4-year-old boy in Tennessee shot and killed a 48-year-old woman, and just days later, 6-year-old Brandon Holt was killed in New Jersey after being shot in the head by his 4-year-old playmate
A couple thoughts: guns don't kill people. People kill people. In this case, a FIVE FUCKING YEAR OLD BOY killed his little sister.
"Responsible" gun owners, which if I believe some, are most gun owners, SHOULD BE OUTRAGED.
Five years old FFS.
And marketing "My First Rifle" in pretty colors and stuff for kids. Mother fucking god.
This kid got "My First Murder" a two for the price of one. Guess who's going to be fucked up the rest of his life? Well, considering that his mother "just stepped out for a minute" while her FIVE YEAR OLD was packing heat, I doubt he had much chance anyway.
It's not just 'one of those nightmares, a quick thing that happens when you turn your back' Officer Billy. It's not 'just a tragic situation' Coroner Gary. This mother should be prosecuted for the death of her child.
And that's all I got to say about that. :headshake
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2Who in there right mind thinks a 5 year old is responsible enough to own a gun?! How is that even legal?
the Darwin awards are for people who do such stupid things it takes them out of the gene pool before they have a chance to reproduce. But it's cruel to prevent the reproduction after the fact like they did here. It would have been better if they took themselves out before the kids were born.
Today after Obama mentioning how he would like to see Guantanamo closed I saw a quote from Lindsey Graham when it was last proposed saying:
“Simply stated, the American people don’t want to close Guantanamo Bay, which is an isolated, military-controlled facility, to bring these crazy bastards that want to kill us all to the United States,”
But he just voted against any change or increase background checks for gun purchases when the majority of Americans want them increased.
Oh the irony! :confused:
Who in there right mind thinks a 5 year old is responsible enough to own a gun?! How is that even legal?
It's worse than that.
While most of the news services are saying that the 5 year old received the gun as a gift and the general public is reading that as "recent gift", a few other news services have revealed that the 5 year old had been given the gun over a year earlier as a 4th birthday present.
I was thinking of Big Sarge when I heard this on the radio.
It was a rifle.
It was for hunting.
Family lived in rural Kentucky and used guns for hunting and the boy went out with his Dad.
Sarge has taken all his kids hunting.
But Sarge was in the military and the Police.
He would never had left a gun in the corner of the room. A loaded gun?! NO.
In this specific case I don't believe anything or anyone is to blame except for the irresponsible parents. That's like putting a corrosive liquid in a lemonade bottle in the fridge. Children all over the world play "Bang, bang you're dead." The boy would have known better than any English child what happens when you shoot a gun. There is a tiny chance he is a budding psycopath, but there is a far greater chance that the lad was playing and never expected his toy to be primed for slaughter.
^WSS^
Now son, Daddy's 303 is too big for you, so we got you this special lil' .22. It's yours, but it sits in the gun cabinet, all locked up, with the other guns. Then, when we go shooting, you can carry it, and I'll stand by you and hand you the bullets one at a time so you can shoot them.
Nope, seems Daddy's an idiot. Sad.
Nice one from the Atlanta Journal/Constitution:
Here is one gun that did...
FOX 12
YACOLT, WA
Aug 11, 2013
Man slips, fatally shoots himself near Yacolt Falls
The Clark County Sheriff's Office has identified the Yacolt man who
investigators say accidentally shot himself with his own gun Sunday morning.
Investigators said 26-year-old Benjamin White and his girlfriend were
looking for their lost dog near Yacolt Falls when she says he slipped and fell,
causing his gun to fire.
White was shot in the face and died before paramedics arrived.
Members of the Volcano Rescue Team were brought in to assist in recovering White's body.
It took several hours due to the remote location and steep terrain.
Investigators said White's death appears to be a freak accident.
Sad, but nature's way. You do stupid shit, you get fucked up and/or die.
A very good perspective on an intelligent gun control measure:
...
Arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a jarring 28 years to life at Attica, I entered prison. For many years I sifted through a host of rationalizations, but today I accept responsibility. I’m sorry for killing Alex, sorry for taking all the life he could have had.
With this in mind, I wish to add some perspective to the gun-control debate. My first gun was a chrome .25 caliber automatic with a pink, pearl handle. It was beautiful. But it was a killing machine, and at 14 years old I had the same hole in my heart that President Obama, in a Chicago speech, stated other child killers had. I had no business with that gun. Yet making guns accessible to troubled souls is business as usual in America.
Here’s how the game works. Criminals manipulate people with clean records -- cash-strapped students, vulnerable women, drug addicts -- to buy guns for them in states with minimal oversight, like Virginia. The criminal transports the guns to New York, then resells them or trades them for drugs that he’ll take back to Virginia to sell. This was the hustle when I was out in the ‘90s. I’m sure some form of it still continues.
...
Likewise, it’s bizarre that the bazaars selling guns aren’t regulated. Websites like Armslist.com provide a buffet of leads for charismatic criminals to buy guns from private sellers. These sites are like perpetual gun shows, which are truly the ultimate forums to make connections for criminals who blend in well -- like me.
Bottom line, criminals create an indirect demand for gun manufacturers and merchandisers. For most criminals, purchasing a gun isn’t a one-shot deal. I had two separate gun-possession charges before I killed with an assault rifle. These are my convictions, but they hardly represent the number of guns I went through during my criminal career.
Engulfed in an orgy of violence, my last month of freedom was chaos. Home invasions, robberies, murder -- at the center of it all were guns: They would be disposed of, tossed after shoot-outs, then bought again. Easily. And I always bought new guns, so the notion that criminals just use stolen guns, acquired from a neighborhood burglar, is absurd. (The paper trail may suggest that, because the people making straw purchases also file false reports claiming the guns stolen.) Like most criminals, I created an extraordinary demand for the gun sector.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/a-convicted-murderers-case-for-gun-control/278824/Today after Obama mentioning how he would like to see Guantanamo closed I saw a quote from Lindsey Graham when it was last proposed saying:
“Simply stated, the American people don’t want to close Guantanamo Bay, which is an isolated, military-controlled facility, to bring these crazy bastards that want to kill us all to the United States,”
But he just voted against any change or increase background checks for gun purchases when the majority of Americans want them increased.
Oh the irony! :confused:
Well, Chris, tell me please how doing the antigenocide thing
could add up to crazy?
Before you go demonstrating your ignorance of the three prerequisites to get a genocide going, consider that being a well-armed electorate physically prevents a genocide from being successful.
Doesn't stop the odd murder while running drugs, particularly when you note that users are dealers, but it does stop genocides.
We went over this many moons ago UG. Britain: gun control, no guns, no genocide. Iraq: no gun control, place is lousy with AK47s, genocide.
If you can't reasonably explain this, you MUST change your mind, if you are capable.
Wasn't there a recently released study showing Russia, which has strict gun control, has a very high gun violence rate? I believe it also showed Norway with a very high gun ownership rate but with the lowest gun violence in Europe.
Anyway, my 5 year old shoots guns and I hope she kills her first deer this year. Addie's "stepdad" and I are in the same hunting club
We went over this many moons ago UG. Britain: gun control, no guns, no genocide. Iraq: no gun control, place is lousy with AK47s, genocide.
If you can't reasonably explain this, you MUST change your mind, if you are capable.
Agreed. It is more about how violent the society is at the time. Violent societies with guns....gun violence. Non-violent societies with guns.....low gun violence. Violent societies without guns.....non-gun violence.
tw must have lost his password.
