Another Massacre
PBM 
Christine I don't understand what's going on these days. Can't even go to the movies anymore, or school, or the mall or a restaurant. Can you imagine this even happening. The woman who took her 3month old baby to th movie must be in complete shock. Never dreaming this could happen. WHo would? SUch a senselss crime. What a shame.
jaemae http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
The link you provided only went to CNN.
Mikeguida this can happen anywhere.. any nutjob can do this.. ! scary!! at least the caught the bastard!
darlughh Well who would take their 3 month old baby to a midnight premier of an R-rated movie anyway?
mefoley4literacy 
botheredbyu The writing is on the wall. We are finished as a society. The amount of murder and suicide is becoming staggering. Half the country is doped up on anxiety and anti depressant pills. Mothers taking a 3 month old to the movies ? And at midnight on top of that . No regard for the other movie goers and the poor baby loses life . Good parenting lady. Just a sign of the times.
jerseycash5The updated article says that a 4 month old baby was treated and released, as well as a 6 year old child. The movie is also rated PG-13, for what it's worth. I don't think a movie theater is the place for infants either, but that's beside the point.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12850048-12-shot-dead-at-dark-knight-rises-screening-in-aurora-colorado?lite
The gunman was a 24 year old graduate student in the neuroscience program of the Univ. of Colorado medical school. What a shame that with brains like that, he chose to mass murder a theater full of people in such a calculating and senseless act of violence.
Tracy Now the innocent Movie theater owner is going to be sued for lack of security, his insurance will go though the roof and he will be out of business because of this lowlife. And now we will all pay more because now there will have to be metal detectors at the door of all movie theaters and auditoriums, Insurance will now go though the roof. Thanks Asswipe for ruining America.
Mr Negative He looks like any other 24 year old guy you see anywhere. Hanging with your son, working at McD's, etc.... Nothing strange. See, you can never judge someone by how they look. Actually looks like a friend of my son. Such a shame.
moniesincere Im almost willing to beat that the gunman had mommy and daddy issues, perhaps he was bullied or rejected by his friends, depressed, or just mentally ill. Just wait and see once the media gets ahold of his personal life.
Mr. Negative, they can't make movie theaters have metal detectors, because then every single store of any kind would have to have one as well as every single school. There's no way to stop things like this.
Metsman Monie- the mother made a statement that leads me to believe she knew something wasn't right.
Activate Fitness This guy if convicted will spend the rest of his life in prison, at taxpayers expense I might ad. In contrast, the terrorist who bombed the tourists in Bulgaria was released from Gitmo to return to his murderous ways. Strange form of justice.
sam http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/alleged-shooter-s-mom-you-have-the-right-person-/2258673960/fanNews/newest/
I'm reminded of the end of a dvd I watched this week. Mothers know.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242460/
cbel I find it appalling that some people on this forum are already placing blame on other people rather than the shooter. REALLY?
Gather close friends open our hearts to all that this actt has touched .it is in my heart that they find peace .
I all so hope that justice is swift and the punishment fits the crime
Blessed be to all
Caged Animal Not blaming anyone but the shooter for what happened, but the fact that someone would take an infant or a 6-year old child to the movies at midnight is certainly cause for criticism. I freaking hate people like that.
iPhone-imal I totally blame the shooter !!!!! But its hard for me not to consider his mother,father,or whoever raised him. If I was a victim or family member of mine was a victim I would be angry with the shooter and his family( and those are real feelings). The family probably knew he had problems or was on edge.
Heard this guy was affiliated with OWS/Black Bloc.
http://cheatersflorida.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/update-occupy-black-bloc-member-james-e-holmes-shoots-up-aurora-co-movie-theater-killing-12-and-wounding-50/
Me4 6 year old, I can see. But not a 3 month old. Get a babysitter or stay home and go see the movie when you CAN get a sitter. Cant afford one, then you cant afford to go to the movies, or shouldnt be spending the little you do have on a movie. Wait for DVD or cable. Or ask neighbor or friends to sit for free. I would, though I dont get the hype over going to the opening night of a movie. JMHO!!
Pixar makes great movies for 6-year olds; Christopher Nolan, not so much.
I swear, one of these days, I'm gonna go to a G-rated movie and spend the entire time making a regular nuisance out of myself, lol.
the only connection between James Holmes and OWS in that article is a theory by that blogger looking to advertise his private investigation company
Erik B. Anderson Breaking news, neighbors describe gunman as nice, quiet kid with no known criminal history or ties to terrorism. Shocking.
This is an unbelievable tragedy. I will never understand how someone can't point a gun and pull the trigger killing an innocent person. A quote from a previous Batman movie, "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
It is terrifying how scary our world has become.
just curious!! thats the problem, nobody takes the time to get to know their neighbors, nobody takes time for friends, we're all just disconnected.
This news of course is devastating, my prayers and thoughts to all.
icicle Blame the lack of gun control as a contributing factor. I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. Keep those assault rifles and clips carrying multiple rounds legal? People are so concerned that taking those off the streets will go against their rights are just paranoid. They need to come into the current era and come out of the Revolutionary War era. IMHO.
I gotta say I thought the same thing when I heard a 6 year old was on the casualty list; "who the hell brings a 6 year old to a violent movie at midnight????" My other crucial observation is the woman with the green suit I'm watching discussing this on Fox News Live has some killer legs!
Bruin Tracy the story I read earlier this afternoon had his neighbors stating that he was quite but rather unfriendly most of the time.
Bruin, have you seen the dancing Aussie hurdler?
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/michelle-jenneke-australian-hurdler-dancing-sensation-042218109--oly.html
RIP to thosewho lost thier lives.Get well those injured.Then theres redwing blaming the gun of coarse.how about the the drunk driver who killed my cousin it wasnt the truck,the beer or the bar who served him it was the man behind the wheel!!!
Current era?theonewhen our feelings are hurt we sue or pass a useless law. any misspellings its my keyboards fault not mine.
tommy gunn Some people having been looking forward to the release of this movie for so long and what should have been a good moment was filled with tragedy instead. I feel so bad for all those impacted.
@tg - I'm sorry about your cousin's death but so far it seems as if there has been restraint on the topic of gun control. Gun control will be a logical question though.
Regarding your comment, the truck, alcohol and driver were all contributing factors. Ultimately the driver has the responsibility with "free will" but if a car wasn't involved perhaps there would have been a different outcome. It will be a reasonable question in this case, if this person was not able to purchase an arsenal (BTW we’re not talking 1 gun), would there have been a different outcome?
Bonv "They need to come into the current era and come out of the Revolutionary War era."
In my opinion, the attitude prevalent during that era is the only one that will save this country. Too many people are willing to put up with too much crap nowadays.
I don't blame the gun. I blame the people who are unwilling to have constructive debate on gun laws. How was this coward able to buy 3000 rounds of ammo and multiple automatic weapons? I'm sure the founders of our Constitution never envisioned the gun technology of today when they created the 2nd Amendment. This is more than someone's FEELINGS being hurt by the way.
tommy gun- I don't blame your keyboard for your multiple misspellings, I blame the user.LOL!
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/sussex_county_woman_injured_in.html
Looks like it was somewhat close to home. Someone that used to live in Sussex County was at the movie and was injured during all of this. It is so sad that you have to fear going to the movies or anywhere else because you just don't know who can snap and what they will do. It is the crazy people who act alone like this guy that no one can stop. All of the families and loved ones from this horrible incident are in my prayers.
sunshinenj 
mel Being fearful of going to the movies because of this nut or others like him makes about as much sense of being fearful of swimming in the ocean because you've heard about other people getting attacked by sharks. Unless you were one of the people being shot at or chewed on. Then you have my utmost sympathy.
It was 6,000 rounds of ammo, smoke grenades, a clip that held 100 rounds, and a booby trapped room (gosh knows what ammo and wmds will be found in there) that this nut had.
When will we learn that it's guns and ammo that kill people. Either we curtail what armaments we can buy OR we learn to surveillance all purchases and potential threats to weed this crap out before it escalates to this. A gun with 100 rounds has a single purpose of killing people. Is that what we want to sell to any citizen? Buying 6,000 rounds out of the blue in a short period of time without flags being raised; is that what we want to allow?
There has got to be a better way to fulfill the constitution, allow us to protect our selves, but to stop these nuts from creating these arsenals. I mean this guy was not prepping to repel a home invasion, he was prepping for an invasion. Is that what the Constitution intended?
mistergoogle You can make most guns capable of accepting 100 rounds. "clips" or magazines can be made in your basement, just some steel a piece of plastic and a metal spring. "Booby traps" are illegal, yet he made them. We can't ban massacres from happening, but we can protect ourselves and our families. He wore all that body armor because he knew someone in the audience could be armed. If this was in more rural Colorado he probably would have been killed.
Would you feel better if he had only 150 rounds of ammo, would that have made a difference? Would it be better if he set off bombs and gasoline in the movie? We see so many more children killed by handheld lighters and tens of thousands more killed by cars. Should cars be capable of going faster than 65mph? We need to protect ourselves and our families and stop looking to elected officials to create feel good laws that will not stop this from happening.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people...so why is it wrong to limit and/or be more stringent and diligent in how we provide people access to guns? I'm not for the banishment of guns (I've thought about taking shooting lessons myself so I can be prepared for that time in life when I'm older, not as physically strong, and could use a gun for home defense) but we have created a gun culture, and right or wrong, society has to adapt to it.
As McG points out, there were lots of red flags. I personally would like to see a gun (and related equipment) regulated on a federal level (I think we should have the same for driver's licenses as well so it's not just about guns.) This would allow for the monitoring of "red flag" situations. The purchase of 6000 rounds in a short period of time for a new owner is not a typical move and should raise some concern.
We have stricter control of certain cold medicines than some states have control over gun purchases. It doesn't make sense.
emaxxman 
MikeL Idiots driving cars kill far more people than guns ever will. Yet we do nothing to push for more stringent licensing and control of drivers. Heck, get a DWI, and you can keep driving till your court date, which might be postponed for many months. You'd be surprised how many people rack up a 2nd or 3rd DWI while waiting for their first trial. What does NJ do to prevent this? NOTHING.
Ever hear of the Graves Law? Commit a crime while armed and it's an automatic 5 years in prison, on TOP of whatever other sentence you got. So if you break into a house and steal a gun, you are now considered armed. So you got 5 years on top of your burglary charge sentence. All well and good until it was a legislator's son broke into a house and stole a gun. Then the law was changed. Not that it would have done much good in this latest massacre situation, but if the laws that dealt with criminals that prey on people with guns were much more draconian, we would see a lot less gun violence. Why? Because a large percentage of those that would be the target of such laws would end of going to prison and be off the streets. The remainder of wannabes might think twice about carrying/using guns when they see large numbers of their buddies going away for a VERY LONG TIME.
this is how we should deal with these wackos - an armed citizenry is our best defense - the feds can't do it, we have to do it, for ourselves
two stories -
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-10/us/colorado.shootings_1_gunman-security-guard-casings?_s=PM:US
quoted from the lnk -
"Assam, a church security guard with law enforcement experience, fired her own weapon at the invader and stopped his attack, police say."
and this one from earlier n the week -
http://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clearysnotebook/2012/07/video-63-year-old-man-stops-armed-robbery.html
"Williams is being hailed as a hero this week after he sprung into action on Friday to thwart an armed robbery at an internet cafe. Williams was present when two masked thugs walked into the Palms Internet Cafe in Marion County, Florida. One of the men was brandishing a gun while the other had a bat. They started ordering patrons around and one smashes a computer screen. That’s when Williams took action."
BrotherDog The difference between a car and a gun is that they have completely different purposes. A gun is designed to kill and that is it. A car is not. A knife is not. Yes, you could be killed by a little baby doll if the assailant was intent on using it to kill you but that is not the original purpose of the doll.
Let's stop with these ridiculous analogies. Only the most far left would suggest the gun killed the victims and only the most far right would think that guns don't pose any danger to our society. For the rest of us, how about we recognize that guns are dangerous, some people should not be allowed to own them legally or illegally (just like some people shouldn't have the right to drive), and figure out a way to meet in the middle and allow citizens their freedoms while also keeping society safe.
Emax- Society has to adapt to this culture be it right or wrong. REALLY? I will always fight against anything that is obviously wrong and not just give in. Sounds cowardly to me.
Unfortunate- Why make it easier? Just because you can illegally adapt guns and make bombs doesn't mean we should sell the clips legally. REALLY? Are more kids dying from hand held lighters? REALLY? What a joke. LOL!
Personally, I don't want a society where everyone is carrying. A WELL-TRAINED society is safer; the problem is that everyone is not smart enough to carry and use a weapon (gun or other) in a stressful situation. Look at our own military as an example. How many times do we hear of friendly fire? Military personnel are far better skilled and trained than the average gun owner and there are still accidents.
In Colorado, how many more deaths would there have been if the crowd suddenly drew and started shooting back in that smoke and panic?
http://ewn.co.za/en/2012/05/18/Father%20accidently%20shoots%20dead%20own%20daughter.aspx
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81104866/
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Girl-9-Shot-and-Killed-by-Father-155902545.html
http://wtvr.com/2011/11/14/father-accidentally-kills-himself-in-front-of-children-at-grocery-store/
this is why new gun regs only hurt law abiding citizens - these are good people- those who skirt the law could care less about doing the right thng, but these folks do care . . . . .
New York’s Bad Laws
01/23/2012
Another American has run afoul of New York City's bad gun-control laws and faces years in prison for trying to do the right thing.
Ryan Jerome, a former Marine Corps gunner who has his license to carry in Indiana, was in New York City recently to sell some gold. Although he had checked a website before he left to ensure he was in compliance with New York law, apparently the site gave him bad information, and Jerome thought he was legally carrying his concealed firearm.
When Jerome and his girlfriend went to the Empire State Building, he saw a "no guns allowed" sign and told a ticket seller that he was armed. Instructed to go to a security office, Jerome was arrested and spent two days behind bars before he could bail himself out. If convicted of illegal gun possession, Jerome could be sentenced to 3 ½ to 15 years in prison.
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg thinks people like Ryan Jerome and Meredith Graves, the medical student recently arrested in NYC for trying to abide by a "no guns" sign, should spend years behind bars for their heinous crimes.
quoted from this link - http://home.nra.org/iphone.aspx/blog/306
redwing - I don't live in a pollyanna world where I think we will actually ever get rid of gun ownership. So either we continue live in a free wheelin' society where any yokel can get a gun or we adapt and create controls where potentially dangerous gun owners are identified and potentially stopped before they commit a massacre.
I don't know what the answer is at the moment but there must be a reasonable middle ground. The problem is that all of the gun fanatics and all of the left-wingers want it all their way with no compromise.
BD - that article is more proof that gun ownership needs to be regulated on a national level rather than a local level. Guns are no less or more dangerous in NYC than they are Texas, Colorado, etc.
A lot of folks hate the thought of federal authority trumping state authority but there is a time and place for federal mandates overriding anything at the state level.
My personal theory is that James Holmes has an as-yet undetected brain tumor which influenced/determined his actions. This kind of behavior just doesn't happen with someone who has no history of mental illness.
Rebecka Wish I had though of McG myself, well maybe in my next life....
Meanwhile: yeah, the car analogy as a reason to allow this rampant abuse of guns is pretty silly. Fix both. But for guns, we have had 27 of these since Columbine many with plenty of warning missed "protecting" our "freedoms." This guy copied the Scandinavian killer in his planning so the nut-cases are learning from each other, getting smarter and better at performing these spectacles.
Do you really think a stiffer penalty for crimes-with-a-gun will deter these freaks?
Do you really think a better armed citizenry is the answer; is 300 people to firing in the smoke in a darkened theater a legitimate answer? Is having armed guards with an 007-license to kill at minor events like this the answer?
Come on people. The problem is too many guns that fire too many bullets too fast winding up in the hands of any schmuck with a fingerprint and a license so that we can protect ourselves from what? Each other? The government? The foreigners? Most of these guys only buy their weapons a short time before the act as a clear signal ---- "hey, I'm a whack job!"
There has got to be a better way to protect our rights, our constitution, and each other than allowing 27 mass killings since Columbine a decade ago. In the US alone. Over 228 killed in the American mass shootings and many more wounded. Here's what guns and bullets in America can do:
April 1999 - two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.
July 1999 - a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.
September 1999 - a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.
October 2002 - a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.
August 2003 - in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.
November 2004 - in Birchwood, Wisconsin, a hunter killed six other hunters and wounded two others after an argument with them.
March 2005 - a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.
October 2006 - a truck driver killed five schoolgirls and seriously wounded six others in a school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania before taking his own life.
April 2007 - student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, before shooting himself, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the United States after 2000.
August 2007 - Three Delaware State University students were shot and killed in “execution style” by a 28-year-old and two 15-year-old boys. A fourth student was shot and stabbed.
September 2007 - A freshman student at Delaware State University shot and wounded two other students at a campus dining hall.
December 2007 - a 20-year-old man killed nine people and injured five others in a shopping center in Omaha, Nebraska.
December 2007 - a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.
February 2008 - a shooter who is still at large tied up and shot six women at a suburban clothing store in Chicago, leaving five of them dead and the remaining one injured.
February 2008 - a man opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five students and wounding 16 others before laying down his weapon and surrendering.
July 2008 – A former student shot three people in a computer lab at South Mountain Community College, Phoenix, Arizona.
September 2008 - a mentally ill man who was released from jail one month earlier shot eight people in Alger, Washington, leaving six of them dead and the rest two wounded.
October 2008 - Several men in a car drove up to a dormitory at the University of Central Arkansas and opened fire, killing two students and injuring a third person.
December 2008 - a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit opened fire at a family Christmas party in Covina, California, then set fire on the house and killed himself. Police later found nine people dead in the debris of the house.
March 2009 - a 28-year-old laid-off worker opened fire while driving a car through several towns in Alabama, killing 10 people.
March 2009 - a heavily-armed gunman shot dead eight people, many of them elderly and sick people, in a private-owned nursing home in North Carolina.
March 2009 - six people were shot dead in a high-grade apartment building in Santa Clara, California.
April 2009 – An 18-year-old former student followed a pizza deliveryman into his old dormitory, and shot the deliveryman, a dorm monitor, and himself at Hampton University, Virginia.
April 2009 - a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York.
July 2009 - Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shooting at a community rally on the campus of Texas Southern University, Houston.
November 2009 - U.S. army psychologist Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, leaving 13 dead and 42 others wounded.
February 2010 – A professor opened fire 50 minutes into at a Biological Sciences Department faculty meeting at the University of Alabama, killing three colleagues and wounding three others
January 2011 - a gunman opened fire at a public gathering outside a grocery in Tuscon, Arizona, killing six people including a nine-year-old girl and wounding at least 12 others. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head.
We have got to get a better handle on this rather than saying: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." At least with less rounds in the clip we could reduce the carnage.
constituton prohibits the feds from infringing on the rights of the citizenry, (that's you and me as indivduals) so your suggestion cannot be implemented constitutionally, but it can be done if we are lving in a polce state
i refuse to beleve that's what you want. i know you to be a ruggedly free individual.
MrG - did you compile that list yourself, or is there a researcher or journalist or publication you should be attributing the work to? Please. When you cut and paste things without saying where they came from, it's a copyright violation. At least name the source.
"I don't know what the answer is at the moment but there must be a reasonable middle ground. The problem is that all of the gun fanatics and all of the left-wingers want it all their way with no compromise." - emaxxman
Agree. I don't know what the answer is either but am sure that while nothing can prevent all such horrible attacks, surely better regulations than what we have now can reduce them.
jd2 Mistergoogle, include ALL of the mass shooting incidents in this country, including those back to the days of one room schoolhouses. The number of casualties has increased with technology, but the act is nothing new. I trust you will find the rest of the numbers...
Gun control?!? Seriously? NTHSA 2010 statistics show more than 10,000 people died in drunk driving crashes. Have we outlawed cars? Have we outlawed alcoholic drinks? No to both. Have we outlawed drunk driving...yes. But yet there are numerous offenders. Its not the laws that are the problem its the f'd up people in the world. Try googling how many people died from fights or beatings. There have been 187 fatal dog attacks from 1988 to June 2012 according to wikipedia. Haven't outlawed fists, blunt objects or dogs...need I go on or can you pick out the sentence that describes the issue.
Rubberneck A 6-year old was one of the fatalities.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/6-year-old_girl_among_those_ki.html
The harder you make it for someone to obtain a gun ... you at least lower the probability of such things happening.
Andy Loigu More people died in OKC than all of those mass shootings combined. Perhaps we should outlaw diesel fuel and fertilizer too?
iPhone-imal, is someone in this forum saying something should be outlawed? Who are you responding to?
what should have raised a red flag? the purchase of an ar-15?
the purchase of bullets?
what regulations and process steps are actually being suggested here?
for the record, responsible gun owners and the NRA are all for background checks that include a mental history check before being allowed to purchase.
in this case, this demented soul had no mental health history that could be checked,
and in all those examples cited above, do you know how many were commited with a six shot revolver? or a hunting shotgun? are we going to ban all of those now as well? or rasie red flags? "hey he bought a six shot .22!!!" , "omg, check him out!!"
also in all of the above cases cited, if just one person other than the shooter had their own weapon at hand, the result would have been less severe. thanks for postng all of those incidents, they prove the pont that without a deterrent force those wackos can kill at will. We have to have the ability to shoot back at these nut jobs, that's exactly what the lesson is in the two stories i posted earlier. the fact that a regular right thinking person had the means to defend themselves and others reduced or eliminated the threat.
we need the ability to carry firearms with us on our person as we go about our business. if just one person in that theatre had their own weapon on them at the time, the nut case murderer would not have had such an easy time of it.
In a dark theater with a smoke bomb set off and people weren't even sure it was real let alone the location of the shooter, do we really want 5 or 6 other shooters all trying to figure out which of the others is actually the gunman? That's a recipe for another 10 victims of cross fire.
What we really need is to start teaching people all of our problems aren't solved with a gun. This guy stopped several times, a good swift kick in the back would have stopped him as well.
GC Since this is turning into a dialogue about gun control - I’m really not sure how anyone can argue that citizens should be able to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition, semi-automatic guns, etc. I really don't care if you want to have a rifle/gun but to be able to build an arsenal - no way, no how.
I also can't assume that there would have been less damage if other people had their guns on them. Most likely there would have been more damage on the basis of "friendly fire". If "ff" happens with trained soldiers, how can we assume it won't happen with a bunch of people trying to kill/injure the original "shooter". As far as assumptions go, I'd rather think that if there were limits in place we’d be looking at less injuries/death.
Quite frankly, we should have just strapped this guy to a robot and made him go into his own apartment --- perhaps then he would have told the Police what was going on. Sorry if that sounds harsh but this SOB should be given the death penalty.
An arsenal.. thats humerous. Just so you know buying 1000 round bulk ammo is very common. Cost per round is cheaper. Target shooting can go through that in no time at all.
What would it matter if he had 60,000 rounds? A box of 50 could have done the same damage.
Kneejerk: I guess people are trying to find a way to avoid something like this in the future. It's just a way of coping.
Rebecka: Duly noted. There are about 100 sources of this, it's become public, but let's go with The Telegraph of London, Newsmax, The Tribune (Colorado), Thinkingblue.com, ChinaDaily.com for now.
I don't see how anyone can sit back and say, "hey, it's life, it's freedom, it could be worse, if we outlaw guns, they will use something else..."
6,000 rounds, 100-round clips, smoke grenades, etc. --- how can we not do something?
Fertilizer outlawed -- no. But it is monitored for unlawful purchases. Just bullets and HUGE crowd control clips are not.
I just think we can do better than to let WMDs proliferate in our society without infringing greatly on our god given right to pursue protection and the ability to kill each other.
And to suggest that citizens should arm themselves to go to the movie, or maybe the kid's playground is just not the way to go IMHO. "Hey dear, where's the AK47? I need to drop sonny off at day care...."
@Kneejerk - I'm pretty sure there are at least 12+ people who didn't find it "humerous". Maybe you're right 50 could have done as much damage so that's the answer - you don't get 1, 50, 60,000 or 6,000. Why should a "right" to own a gun infringe on a person's right to live. Go figure, you've solved the whole thing.
bonv wrote - "I really don't care if you want to have a rifle/gun but to be able to build an arsenal - no way, no how. "
who gets to decide what constitues an aresenal? is it you Bonv? or is it the government?
gc - good points, crowded theatre, smoke, panic and confusion, very tough scenario to deal with, agreed, but they seemed to know the guy in the armor was the bad guy, if i was there i wouldv'e hit him hard with my .45, right in the chest and then move up to the head, even with the armor, he would've been knocked down, and then i close in for a better shot, keep shooting.
@BD, what defines an arsenal would have to be determined by the government unless someone has a better idea.
All of your "suggestions" are wonderful, really.... *sigh* .... But let me just be the devils advocate here and say that no matter WHAT laws are put into place, no matter WHAT rights are kept, taken away, modified, WHATEVER......
People...
...Who shouldn't have guns.....
.....WILL STILL HAVE GUNS.....
and WILL STILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE....
There are ways around EVERYTHING and I'm sorry, to sit here and say well this could have been prevented if........................
NO.
It honestly couldn't have.
If this whackjob wanted to get his hands on a gun and "things" were different.... Believe me.... He woulda still found a way to get what he needed and kill these 12 innocent people.
It's a darn shame and RIP to all the innocent people and their devestated families.
Casey does 3 guns make an 'arsenal' ? or is it four ? who gets to decIde? the government? you trust them? (i don't)
what if there is only one gun, can that be an 'asenal' ?
are there any other type of weapons (non-firearm) that should be considered when saying someone has an arsenal?
suppose someone has in their house over 150 antique firearms. Would that be a gun collection or an arsenal?
the word 'arsenal' itself is being used in the press to evoke a negative fearfull reaction. this fits the progressive agenda to demonize all guns and all gun ownership. the great majority of reporters covering the story in the MSM are liberal democrats, about 80 percent of them are registered democrats, and they have a driving need to tell this tragic story in terms that fits their personal narrative: guns are bad; people who like guns are bad.
"MSM" and "liberal democrats" = "arsenal" and "right thinking". Same emotional arguments only different ends of the spectrum. One is no better than the other. So is no other human on earth can see in the dark and see who are the bad guys, but if I was there I'm the one that would have been perfect and gotten the single shot off that would have prevented it all. The only way anyone even knew he had body armor was he was in the lobby/parking lot and it was all over.
Let some common sense rule and find the middle ground. The rest is pure nonsense. Including worrying so much about the politics and not realizing people are dead and they're more important.
my heart bleeds for those who were taken from our midst so violently, i have deep respect and sympathy for them and their families, and i have been praying for them all
i didn't start the blame game, it started yesterday in the press and was continued here in this very thread by those with anti-gun agendas, and i could not let it all pass unchallenged. so i responded with the best rational and substantive arguments i could construct, if they fall short of the mark, that is my fault.
and your point is acknowledged, no one, not even me has a 'perfect' shot. but having the means to defend yourself in these situations is better than not having it.
why should those with murderous intent be the only ones who have the strategic advantage? why shouldn't we have the right to meet force wth equal force?
If a regular Joe buys 2 guns, then another 2 guns, and has multiple orders for 6,000 rounds, plus a vest, throat protector, gear, canister, and so on: when is it the responsibility of those that sell people these things to sound an alarm and say, ya know this guy may not have a record, and he may pass a background check clean, but gee, it's kind of funny that he's suddenly buying these guns, or ordering things that a normal, every day person wouldn't have?
When are we going to stop thinking that the laws written years ago before semi automatic weapons, before the internet and ordering basically anonymously on occasion, and so on does not equate to way back in the day? Who needs to buy an assault weapon? Clearing a background check or not, I think someone has to start thinking of people instead of the almighty dollar.
The laws were written so we could have guns to protect ourselves, family, and property. They were not written with a crystal ball knowing that years later that there would be nut jobs, and people who want to be in social media for mass killings, and so on.
I agree with GC. What if you had 5 other people with legally bought concealed weapons? They would have been probably shooting blindly into the crowd.
Right now, I think emotions are too high. I think it's a time for prayer and regrouping. I'd like to think of the victims and not have to be paranoid the rest of my life because some whack job goes off because boo hoo he was bullied or whatever. We all were at one time.
INeedMoreCowBell @BD - the blame game started decades ago not yesterday. However, your extremism is pretty clear by calling those opposed, or wanting a dialogue on the topic, as having an "anti-gun agenda". Agenda - not so much.
I'm also really sorry you don't trust the government but I sure as h*ll don't trust a bunch of (____________) who feel that they are infallible and can make individual better decisions for the Country.
GC is right; hopefully common sense and a moderate dialogue on the topic can happen. Sadly right now it seems like the extreme left and extreme right are the ones with the loudest voices.
At the end of the day, this is a tragedy with a horrific loss of life and my prayers go out to all those affected.
If only this were a world like that of Judge Dredd where the police are tasked with being judge, jury, and executioner. Guys like this nut should get shot on sight and justice is served.
yes you are right it started long ago , but i was commenting on this latest tragedy, and it was the left anti-gun crowd who started blaming early yesterday morning and has continued to do so for two days straight, they have drawn you into it as well, so i feel the observations offered happen to have a lot of truth to them.
i'm no extremist, happen to have a balanaced approach to political questions. deciding each and every issue on it's own merits. and i would be more than happy to have a dialog on gun regulations, methods, etc. with you or anyone else at anytime. After re-reading your posts, one might describe your position as extremist, but i'm sure you feel you are not and are balanced. that word, 'extremist' is another rhetorical tactic used by those on the other side of the question to demonize and denigrate those who with they don't agree. in my mind it's a non-sequitur as it detracts from the substance of the debate.
there was nothing in the written record that would have raised any flags here in this case, a few firearms purchased at one of the biggest sports stores in the nation, what would have been alarming?
what type of controls are being suggested? i support the NRA's position that background checks on firearms purchases be conducted, and that these checks include criminal and mental history. the suspect in this case only had one speeding ticket. so no flags were raised. what do you think should have been done differently?
i do feel for the victims and their families, and have been prayng for them, this should have never happened, and yet it did. just awful.
Sometimes the events themselves shape an opinion/idea/question without having to be "drawn in" by the media. I don't know you; therefore, calling you an extremist was over the top. At the same time, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest you're open to a dialogue on the issue when you've labeled those with differing views as having agendas.
This has nothing to do with gun control. Criminals can get guns if they want to. Public place can be anywhere. Criminal or sick person can target to black day sale lines, 4th of July fireworks, local sport event, local carnival and etc. These people are sick, there is no doubt. Can a law stop them? No. Police/FBI cannot prevent stuff from happening; they can only catch them after. Until someone pull the stinking trigger at innocent people, Police/FBI are no use. Agenda is to kill people. Why they do it?? I don’t know.
Razz i haven't labeled you Bonv, i was characterising (and generalizing) the news coverage,
straight away there were multiple reports about Bloomberg, and Kathleen Maloney (who is a one issue politician) and ABC news who had to walk back and apologise for their lack of journalistic standards and false assertion on Friday.
i was speaking to those things, not you personally,
i am quite sincere in having an open dialog/discussion on this important and current topic.
i respect those who have differing views from me, and welcome and encourage an open dialog on the differences, but i still feel strongly about most (not all) of the network news people and where they are coming from, and my characterizing them as having it in for firearms. As a group (generally speaking, there are notable exceptions) they (the major network news anchors and feature reporters) have an agenda to demonize guns and gun owners. This s a problem for me. Am i wrong in saying this?
byw, Casey is so right on in her post. couldn't agree more. She has the correct logic of the dynamics of the situation.
"comment, as you see fit" ; quote from Lionel on wpix news,
BD wrote - "constituton prohibits the feds from infringing on the rights of the citizenry, (that's you and me as indivduals) so your suggestion cannot be implemented constitutionally, but it can be done if we are lving in a polce state
i refuse to beleve that's what you want. i know you to be a ruggedly free individual."
I'm a bit behind the conversation but...no, I don't believe in a police state but would it still be a police state if the Fed gave all citizens the right to openly carry? No one said the Fed had to limit rights. They can be a granter of rights - much like the right to vote.
I'm not suggesting the Fed take one course of action one way or another. I'm just suggesting we need a single, consistent standard of law for certain things.
And thank you for noticing my ruggedness. LOL!
"i am quite sincere in having an open dialog/discussion on this important and current topic." - BD
It would be easier to have such a discussion if we stick to addressing what others in this forum are actually saying and avoid muddying the waters by bringing in what one finds objectionable in the news coverage. If one does want to bring that in, to avoid misunderstanding at least say explicitly that that is what you are doing.
Peace.
I don't see anyone here saying we need to stop owning guns and I don't think stricter gun laws are the answer. But since "people kill people," why be the best at it and we are currently some of the peoplest killin peeples on the face of the planet rating right up there with failed European states and our South of the border friends and only topped by Drug Cartel Nations (although we are close to tied with Mexico).
I think it's time to do better.
We need a balanced approach of better laws, monitoring, and enforcement. Not stricter constraining laws but prudent laws. Laws to stop pure WMDs from being sold over-the-counter. 100-bullet magazines and other large clips should be illegal. Can't we agree to make some of this heavy-duty stuff illegal? If we face Falling Skies or Big Brother, isn't there a better way to get this stuff to citizens when we actually need it? First time purchasers, how about some better scrutiny. I mean did we even have a clue what this guy intended with 6,000 rounds; did he even belong to a shooting club; did he even have access to a place to use the rounds? Did we do anything beyond give him a discount, a rewards card, and an attaboy? We monitor fertilizer sales more closely than guns. And enforcement --- how about stiffer penalties for gun crimes, including ownership of illegal WMDs. Maybe if we treated them like WMD terrorist acts and we started spiriting lawbreakers away without due process like we do terrorists, we could slow some of this down. The ole "if you do the crime, we put you away in a undisclosed place, without legal representation, without arraignment, for a undisclosed amount of time" just like we do suspected terrorists today. No judge, no jury, just a long ride to a small room somewhere no one knows your name.
Sure, never gonna stop it, people kill people and especially the ones we care about the most, but do we have to be the industrialized world's poster child for mass shootings of random strangers? In the top dozen on the UN list of murder states, we stand with Mexico, Lithuania, Costa Rica, Northern Ireland, Estonia, etc., while countries like Singapore, Japan, UK, New Zealand, etc. have 1/10th the gun murder rate we do. We made mass murders headlines 28 times since Columbine polishing people off in the workplace, in the shopping center, at our schools, at our nursing homes, and now...at the movies.
I am tired of our issuing grief and condolences that should not have been needed in those numbers in first place except for guns outfitted as WMDs. Even if we could lower the body count for each occurrence that would be a victory.
I think we can work together to do better without sacrificing our second amendment rights or ability to protect our families and ourselves. Enough already.
jd2 - agreed, good point, thanks, i attempted to clarify that in the follow up posts
emaxx - the feds don't grant us any rights, our rights are inherent in our beings, our rights are part of our makeup, built into each one of us by our creator, that's how the declaration of independence defines our rights. The constitution documents the limits of federal powers so that they (the federal government) do not abridge or infringe on our God (creator) given rights that are inherent in our beings.
Casey is right, and i give her a really big and heartfelt +1,
purchases were made at different vendors over a four month period, how would that be aggregated to a point that a red flag would be raised?
one shotgun, (gander mt.)
2 glock handguns, ( i think it was Gander Mt again)
1 ar-15 rifle, (not sure where this was purchased, does somebody out there know?)
and a lot (yes even i agree, a lot of ammo) bought over four months and delivered to multiple locations, (both his home and his work place)
what mechanism currently exists to track all of that and associate it with one lone wolf individual who has (imo) crazy eyes, (every pic i have seen of him tells me straight away that he is nuts, just look at the eyes, they don't lie)
Regarding Casey's comment, I would say, on the one hand, there is much truth to it. It is very possible the exact same horror would have been perpetrated, no matter the laws and regulations. Tragically, maybe nothing would have stopped a person so determined and smart.
But on the other hand, we cannot "know" how things, in this situation, would have ended up if laws were different. We cannot "know", for example, what train of events may have been set into motion if an assault weapon had to be acquired from someone illegally, or if the buyer had been looked at more closely.
Can we all agree with this? (Agreeing does not commit anyone to any specific course of action.)
If Casey is right then it is a sad state of affairs where we can take proactive measures to stop foreign terrorists but yet are willing to accept the homegrown version because that's just the way it is, the way it has always been, and the way it will be forever.
Acceptance is defeat, insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results. We can do better, we can effect change, all without sacrificing our freedoms.
Otherwise join Casey and wait until it comes to your neighborhood or god forbids, knocks on your door.
Besides all my reasons in my post last night: Why isn't it a red flag even if it's one thing-the purchase of an assault rifle? I don't care how clean someone's record is, the name of the gun says it all - ASSAULT. Joe Schmo does not need an assault rifle. Right there, they should send people to your home. Background checks only show your online footprints or your criminal background. Big woop.
there is nothing wrong with the ar-15 rifle.
everyone should be able to be free to own one of these.
"Dear, have you seen my 357? Jr. has a t-ball game tonight and I need to be prepared..."
No Casey I do not think terrorism has or ever will stop as it has been with us since the dawn of man. But that does not mean that a prudent society does not "take proactive measures to stop foreign terrorists" which, based on the track record since 911, we have. But during the same time, the homegrown mass murders by guns continue unabated, we take no proactive measures to curtail the level of carnage. We openly sell WMDs over the counter. And thus an acceptance mindset begets our current results which are no different than the last decade. Without effecting change, change will not be effected.
How many of those 28 mass murders could have had lesser carnage if we outlawed WMD HUGE clips like 100-round cannisters this guy carried. Or the 33 rounds per clip the Tucson shooter had where at least 6 people were saved as they took him down between clips. Or the Long Island shooter with only 15 rounds in the cannister which allowed riders to disarm him while he exchanged the second cannister for a third saving a minimum of three people.
No Casey, I don't think we will stop humans from killing random humans in a concerted fashion.
But don't you agree that giving folks 100-rounds in the clip is overkill and just not needed to protect our second amendment rights? Nor to shoot game. Don't you think that if, out of the blue, someone orders body armor, smoke grenades, 6,000 bullets, 100-round clips, an assault rifle, two glocks, and a lot of explosive materials that we should check up a little more carefully than the guy who buys an over under 12-gauge whether they are bought from one supplier or many?
Do you really believe it's OK and proper to continue with things as they are today?
Congresswoman McCarthy, the widow of one of the murdered commuters from the LI incident, has a bill limiting clips to 10 bullets she has been pushing since 1991. Is that wrong? Wouldn't it have been better if this guy only had 10 bullets before changing a clip instead being able to spray 100. How many might have been saved if he had to change clips at 10 bullets?
And sure, it will take a long time to flush the crud out of the system. And sure, bad guys will find ways to get bad things. But wouldn't making it harder be an improvement in reducing the WMDs available to the nut jobs out there? I mean this guy did not build much of this stuff himself --- he just bought it off the shelf didn't he?
Do you really advocate the status quo allowing anyone to own a 100-round clip?
How many terrorist attacks on US soil have there been since 9/11? To paraphrase a quote used by many to describe the war on terrorism, "we have to be right all of the time and the terrorists only have to be right once." We will never be able to stop fighting terrorism but at least we recognize there is a problem and are doing something about it.
Attacks have been thwarted by a lot of efforts. Why is it so wrong to think that out there, there is a madman who is leveraging an "easy to own" state in his pursuit of a gun and that stricter regulations (but not the revocation of gun ownerhsip) and monitoring may help prevent another tragedy?
Right-wingers don't have a problem with the government stepping all over the rights of Muslims in the fight against terrorism but they sure get their panties in a bunch when someone utters the words "gun control."
Ineedmorecowbell...What is an "assault" rifle. The word is not in it's name. The media created the name "assault". The AR in AR-15 does not stand for "assault" rifle, it stands for armalite rifle.
In this video the police officer (who testified before congress about the "assault" weapons ban) will, as he says, "cut through the emotions" of the arguement. If you really care about gun control then get educated and watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
Redwing...Kids playing with fire is not funny at all. The NFPA shows over 100 deaths from children playing with lighters and matches from 2005-2009. Whenever you see the anti-gun crowd talk about "children" being killed by firearms they use the CDC definition of a child as someone under 26. That includes just about every gangbanger killing eachother over drugs.
Please watch the video so you can learn the differnece between a semi-auto and the evil black military looking guns.
Brother dog you have no rights you have no rights from the government and you have no rights from God watch this clip http://youtu.be/kQ7XFvniWWE
We can debate whether a semi-automatic with 100 bullets in the clip and capable of firing 50 rounds a minute is an assault WMD with the sole intent of killing humans or just an fun-loving armalite for target shooting. I am not against selling the guns.
But how many bullets in the magazine: 10, 15, 20, 33, 100?
Can't we agree to some sort of limits there?
That alone might save 50% or more of the tragedy.
Frustrated-Why don't you crusade for safer hand held lighters and matches. I will fight for better gun control. Let's see which makes a bigger dent in keeping more people safe and alive. LOL!
in 1776 at top shooter would have gotten of 12 rounds in 20mins... This guy got off over 100. I have no problem with the right to bear arms/2nd amendment, but why can't we limit the amount of ammo this guns can hold. Limit the size of clips we civilians can own?
I agree with MG, let's forget about the guns as the 2 sides will never agree, but let's focus on the magazines these guns can carry.
Maybe if this guy needed to stop and reload a few times more people could have escaped and/or someone could have stopped him earlier
darwin People are amazing how many golf clubs do you take to a game you only should be allowed 1 thats all you need.
"That alone might save 50% or more of the tragedy."
well, possibly, but in this specific case the 100 round drum magazine wasn't an issue because the rifle jammed after the first few rounds, and after it jammed the suspect had to switch to the other weapons. hand gun and shot gun, his other hand gun was still in his car.
i know that the 100 round drum is getting a lot of attention, and i have to agree it is an ugly image, and it is hard for me to defend reasonably the purpose of these, but here's the thing, they almost always jam, and always have jammed since they were invented. they are not a good design, and that's why the military doesn't use them. our armed forces require more reliability in war situations.
i happen to have background that leaves me well schooled in the subject of small arms and weaponry. (don't ask, i already know it's out of the mainstream)
we all remember the gangster movies with the tommy guns with the drum mags, but they jammed a lot back then as well, it's just not a good design for feeding bullets.
so in this case, all of this talk about capacity is a bit academic (and speculative), and serves a predetermined agenda point in my humble opinion, and the news outlets are pushing this gun control talking point heavily for days now. they just can;t stop themselves, i mean the victims are not even buried yet and the demagoguery of the talking heads with their liberal disrespectful use of the victims of this tragedy for a political talking point is just wrong, imo, just wrong,
so i ask respectfully, how many shots are being suggested? 10? 5? 1? maybe we should ban everything except a one shot bolt ac ton 22 rifle, nobody ever needs anything more than that, and since you cannot prove it to my satisfaction that you do need it, (because i won't let you), that means i'm ok in saying that you don't REALLY have a need for it and in passing legislation that prevents you from owning or obtaining anything that I don't think you should have. (what's next on the list?)
oh yeah, i almost forgot ! let's tax the bullets. i heard one news report on the sunday morning talk shows where the 'legal' analyst said that every single bullet should have 1,000 dollar usage tax added to it. i mean talk about crazy talk, that's a little crazy , correct?
Maybe we should only be allowed the type of guns that were around when the Constitution was written ie. one shot muskets? Since obviously the writers of the Constitution could not have envisioned where gun technology has taken us. That would take care of the 2nd amendment for all of the gun enthusiasts out there. That would also make the argument over how many bullets should be allowed in these often jamming clips. I guess if they jam so much per BrotherDog, why do they even sell them?
Let me answer my last question. Why sell a clip that always jams, because it's our constitutional right. LOL!
"one shot muskets"
we didn't have muskets, we Americans had rifles, the Britt's had the smooth bore muskets, and the difference between the two gave us a strategic advantage that helped us win the war. (you can read up on this)
you seem to have purposely missed the point red. but you can check out what i am suggesting for yourself, it happens to be quite correct.
Dog-So these rifles were automatics with multiple bullets comparable to current technology? Obviously you are a gun expert that could out debate me on Revolutionary guns. I just think the 2nd amendment speaks to guns and not bullets. I assume you are part of a militia since that is what the 2nd speaks to for gun ownership. IMHO. Then again I'm not a constitutional scholar just a citizen trying to get by safely in life. Then again I'm also not worried about the evils in the gov't coming to get me. LOL!
once again you seem to have purposely missed the point Wing. not sure why you are dong this, but you can check out what i am suggesting for yourself, it happens to be quite correct.
an also Wing - you are incorrect on your 2nd amendment opinion. (and you have a lot of company) it's an individual right, not a collective right, the supreme court has defined it as such in the last couple of years. it is our protected right as individuals "to keep and bear arms";
"the right of the people" means each one of us as an individual, not the army or the militia.
"shall not be infringed" means that the federal government is limited to not infringing on your right as a free American to "keep and bear arms"
and the point about what the founders could not envision 200 years ago makes no sense at all. repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more valid, just more comical. (and it is a popular liberal talking point your taking straight from the daily kos as if it was gospel)
there is a mechanism in place for updating the constitution, just can't invalidate a constitutionally protected individual right with simplistic speculation that doesn't hold water.
Dog-I guess I am just a comical joketer then. But I, who does not read the daily kos still believe that they couldn't imagine how far we would take gun technology. Please don't assume what I read to develop my opinions like I won't assume you are one of those right wing nuts that we must be armed to defend against the evil federal gov't. Thanks.
The bill that has been pushed since 1991 calls for 10 rounds in the clip. Isn't that enough to protect home and family, have fun at the range, and kill a herd of deer, covey of quail, flock of geese?
And yes, his 100-round assault rifle jammed so he turned to the 40-round .40-caliber pistol. So what's your point?
Look at the numbers I posted above. Most of these mass killers in crowded areas were jumped by brave citizens between clips or clip failure. This guy had backup with an overkill clip as well.
Shouldn't we give our citizens a better chance of survival? Isn't ten rounds a clip enough?
Look at the numbers. Look at the dates. How much longer do you want to keep doing what we are doing? Is it really good enough to say "guns don't kill, people do?" or "it's always been that way?" or "More people die from old age, cars, lighters and zombie attacks...."
None of this will bring those folks back or relieve the grief of friends and family. We can't stop people from killing people. We shouldn't abort our second amendment rights. We CAN and SHOULD decide to reduce the carnage going forward. Support the bill to outlaw clips larger than 10 bullets each. Save lives.
other than people waving the 2nd amendment in our face i have yet to see 1 rationally reason why civilian need to be able to own certain weapons. No one is saying take away the guns, just limit the type of guns/ ammo civilans can own. Why is that such an issue?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
What does "infringed" mean? Does it mean there should be no age limit to own guns? Because there is.... Does it mean there should be no criminal check before buying a gun? Because there is. Does anyone have a problem with age limit and criminal background checks?
Seems gun sales spiked after this massacre. I don't blame them. I have always been against having a gun in my home but lately I find myself looking into ownership before that right is taken away.
Darwin, my fear of limiting the types of guns/ammo civilians can legally purchase is that the bad guys don't obey laws.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21142159/gun-sales-up-since-tragedy
Aurora theater shooting: Gun sales up since tragedy
Firearm interest spikes as some seek protection
POSTED: 07/23/2012 10:52:34 PM MDT
UPDATED: 07/24/2012 05:12:45 AM MDTBy Sara Burnett
The Denver Post
"It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday.
When he arrived at work Friday morning — just hours after a gunman killed 12 and injured 58 others at the Century Aurora 16 theater — there already were 15 to 20 people waiting outside the store, Meyers said.
http://www.kten.com/story/19093595/texoma-gun-sales-up-after-colorado-shootings
DURANT, OK -- After the shooting at a theater in Aurora, Colorado that left 12 dead and injured fifty eight, Texomans flock to local gun shops, for a way to defend themselves.
"Something like that is the reason that drove me to go through the whole conceal/carry class" Says Leslie Dillard.
Area gun shops say they've seen an increase in traffic of people purchasing fire arms. Selling record numbers of guns over the weekend.
"Over the weekend we saw a pretty large increase in gun sales. And we're only open half a day on Saturday." Says Mel Carruth of Top Dollar Pawn in Durant.
Top dollar pawn in Durant said they sold more guns in that half day than they have in the past several years. They say events such as the theater shootings drive people into their shop, looking for self protection.
Who are the bad guys LV Mom? Help me identify them because its getting really blurry out there.
These guns used were all purchased legally.. and last i check the "gangs" are not walking around with these types of guns.
"but lately I find myself looking into ownership before that right is taken away. "
stop it, no one is looking to rip up the Constitution and take you rights away... hell even if people were the NRA is the most powerful organization in the world and have too many politicians in their pockets to ever have that happen.
Some just want to limit the type of guns a civilian can own. Hell let the militias own these guns too... just let's make sure they are identified, trained and monitored
These guns used were all purchased legally.. and last i check the "gangs" are not walking around with these types of guns.
states Darwin
Have you read NYC newspapers lately? There was just a 4 yr old boy killed yesterday shot in the head.
I think all of you would feel different if you were on either end of this tragedy.
NO ONE NEEDS that amount of guns! NO ONE!!
Agreed re the bad guys. While the guys doing this are very bad, I don't think in many cases, you would call them bad guys. And by selling 30, 40, 100 round clips you can be sure that bad guys, stupid guys, ignorant guys, insane guys ---- all of them will have them.
I really don't see anyone trying to take your gun LV Mom. But do you need protection or a WMD with the sole purpose of killing people? How many bullets do you really need to get off to get off?
Gun Sales have been up since the election season got hot, check the stock prices. Went up dramatically in 2008/2009 too. As a die hard liberal who loves his guns, made some good money back then on Olin, owner of Winchester. Not doubting that sales are spiking even more, but they were spiked already. You know, vote Obama, sell more guns.
Where is the downside of only selling 10-bullet clips. And if you are afraid of the black market, smuggling, altering, bad guys, etc. then there are things you can add to improve the decline rate of gun-WMDs. First, put a law in place with harsh penalites for ownership, harsher for use, harsher for use in a crime for any clips above 10. Second, put a bounty on returning existing WMD clips to help round em up.
Not perfect but every one we stop selling, every one we get back, might save your life the next time you are at a public event.
And let the police still have them. I just don't see the downside.
Here's a few of the bad guys. I guess they weren't aware of current laws in NJ?
I'm sure there are way more they haven't found.. I would hate to see these guys being the only ones around heavily armed.
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases12/pr20120510x.html
New Jersey State Police have seized over 100 illicit guns, including assault rifles, since January in investigations by new Weapons Trafficking Bureau and Street Gang Units
Division of Criminal Justice indicts 29 defendants in connection with 52 illegal guns
“We’re taking direct aim at those responsible for the proliferation of guns and gun violence in our urban communities throughout New Jersey, including gang members and convicted felons
"Mistergoogle" what are WMD's?
What is this country coming too...? Every day it seems there is some tragedy or accident and people get histerical and say "we need laws." What happened to some good old fashioned self reliance.
A boater drowned today........ lets ban boats.
I stubbed my toe on the stairs......lets ban stairs. "and sue the stair manufacturer"
A bird pooed on my car....lets restict where birds can fly.
My point is that things happen that can not be prevented. Thats life.
Im curious, this goes to all the anti-gun people on this thread. Would you have random stop and frisk searches like in NYC everywhere?
This is a real tragedy. But lets face it, as other people have said on here it is the individual that commited the crime that is responsible.
Why do they say this was the biggest mass murder in US history? The Virginia Tech shooting killed 30 + people. What am I missing??
don't think they are calling it a mass murder, they are calling it a massacre.
Va Tech 32 killed 17 wounded = 49shot
Co 12 killed 58 wounded =70shot
Maybe they are using total # of people shot?
2004 Mitt Romeny as Governor of MA extended the ban on assualt weapons saying "these guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people"
Way to go Mitt!!!
Oh wait then in 2006 he became a life long memeber of the NRA and now says new laws (like the one he put in place in MA in 2004) won't do any good.
On the news they called it "the worse mass murder in US history". Not the first time I've heard it this week either.
That wouldnt include the wounded.
MG, I have no intention of owning a WMD, but I don't believe that limiting them will prevent those who have no regard for the law from having them. If Holmes didn't have an assault rifle, he would have made a few bombs instead. To think this could have been prevented with more guns laws is ridiculous imo.
Why not outlaw alcohol to prevent drunk driving? Or for that matter, limit the type/size/weight of automobiles on the road today?
A ford truck crashed into a tree yesterday killing 12 or 13 of the 23 passengers...maybe only two passenger cars should be available to civilians?
"Where is the downside of only selling 10-bullet clips."
Being attacked by a gang of 11 people? Just playing Devils advocate, MrG (-;
LV your analogy doesn't work....unless you can prove the need for civilian to own assault rifles and that the guy in the truck intentionally bought the truck to drive it into people and kill them.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think I see the gist of it.
While scanning the airwaves this morning I came across a station playing clips from a what I assume was a documentary about the "Mean World Syndrome" that seems pertinent to this discussion (re: guns, violence and crime), ie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_World_Syndrome
FUD is everywhere, isn't it? (and no, I don't mean Elmer lol!)
justintime Darwin, why shouldn't civilians be able to own assault rifles? Who's to say when society as we know it will break down completely? You or I may not believe that it is coming any time soon, but many do. Are they not permitted to prepare for a time of lawlessness where they will no longer be able to purchase weapons, but outlaws will have them? Should they be forced to defend themselves with a single handgun with a single 10 round clip?
Jazzykatt The truck didn't drive into people, he was carrying 23 illegals, crashed and killed 14 of them. A case could be made that he bought a pick up truck to transport illegals. Make multi-passenger vehicles illegal in border states, problem solved.
Drunk drivers kills more people than guns. Every time someone drinks and gets behind the wheel it is intentional.
More gun laws only affects people abiding by the law. Criminals and crazy people will always find a way around laws.
iPhone-imal, a 12 gauge shotgun without a plug is more than enough to protect yourself. No one needs an M-16 or AK-47 to survive.
you still don't have a reason why law abiding citizens need assualt rifles? Other than iPhone-imal's Sarah Connor Terminator, end of the world example
Christine: Not to diminish the severity of the horrible senseless NYC shooting, there is no evidence of any large clip weapons. Seems to be 10-15 round hand guns which I do not think anyone will do anything more about than current. Yet imagine if josephine citizen was there with her new 40-round WMD and she let loose amongst the 100 folks hanging out in the playground. And even though this year represents the lowest murder rate across the five boroughs in 50 years, the push is on for cop "stop n frisk" tactics.
In Dodge, there was the deadline where you had to surrender your gun until you left town. Have a gun in town over the deadline, get shot dead. Perhaps our crowded urban areas do need stop n frisk to stop this stupid, stupid, use of guns in the wrong places.
IP --- oh boy, looking for more sarcasm blow back are we? Your answer: 1. dial 911. The real gunslingers will be there in nine bullets. 2. wait till the bad guys come through the door and get two for one. 3. reload. 4. have a second gun. 5. Use LV Mom's idea -- start building large bombs today. Buy ten tons of fertilzer, NTW, they don't check. Maybe put a few Vietnam era Tiger Traps in the lawn. Enjoy LV Mom's garden party!
LV Mom: I think you answered your own question when you said all it would do would force the killer to build a few bombs. Sounds good if we make it harder to kill and maybe along the way a few of these devils might just blow themselves up ahead of time. Now, you say you want to be armed but are willing to forgo the huge clip WMD level of protection. Why wouldn't you support making it illegal for the bad guys to have them. Heck, isn't one more reason to throw away the key a good thing?
Where is the downside people?
Meanwhile, Chris says NJ gun laws are strict enough. I agree. Except we need to end large clip WMD sales and ownership. And he continues that we should pause and reflect after this recent tragedy instead of opportunistically politicizing this into a cause celeb to make points in an election year. If not now, where? A week from now, a month from now?
The bill to reduce clip size to 10 bullets per clip been on the table since 1991. I started my rants on this website after the 1/2011 WMD-clip shooting in Tucson. And much earlier elsewhere. Stand up Chris, stand up now. At this point you either take the stand that WMD-level clips are a great thing or society or you stand up and stop the sales and ownership now. Make NJ truly the safest gun state in the nation.
Meanwhile, write your representative and tell them NJ gun laws are great but stop the sale and ownership of clips and cannisters over 10 bullets per. And put laws on the books to severely punish any bad guy who has them, uses them or sells them.
Let's get our own deadline.
LV Mom- Speaking to your point of only criminals and crazy people always having the ability to have guns, maybe the people who feel the need to stockpile weapons and food while they are waiting for society to break down are the crazies? Maybe they watched a little too much of that TV show Jericho? LOL!
Mr. G my point is "gangs" do get guns and they do get in the wrong hands! UGG....
Mansfield Township Police conducting extra patrols near movie theater
http://www.nj.com/warrenreporter/index.ssf/2012/07/mansfield_twp_police_conductin.html
When the constitution was created they had muskets for crying out loud!! I can't imagine someone with a musket doing this kind of damage. It's disgusting.
There is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to purchase guns like this sick man had.
Also - I don't care what anyone says - it's not guns that kill - it's people!! They will find a way to get them - yes, they will, even if it isn't legal. But maybe if there was better gun control it would happen less often.
We need better gun control. Times change people! This is not the old frontier anymore!!
smile Christine: Don't give up and don't give in to fear. Take action. Less availability for HUGE CLIP WMD equipped guns means less available. Stronger penalties for having them mean offenders spend more time away from good people.
People will always have guns, it's our right. People will always kill people, we like doing it. But the UGG part is doing nothing to limit overkill and extra carnage. Stop it --- never. Reduce it maybe. Worth a try in my book.
Write your representative saying you support 10-bullets-per-clip legislation at a Federal or State Level and stronger penalties for those breaking the NJ 10-bullet-per-clip deadline. Tell Christy to make a gun difference to reduce the carnage.
MG - "LV Mom: I think you answered your own question when you said all it would do would force the killer to build a few bombs. Sounds good if we make it harder to kill and maybe along the way a few of these devils might just blow themselves up ahead of time. Now, you say you want to be armed but are willing to forgo the huge clip WMD level of protection. Why wouldn't you support making it illegal for the bad guys to have them. Heck, isn't one more reason to throw away the key a good thing?"
I don't believe more laws would prevent the bad guys from having them. Bad guys do not obey laws. We can't make laws based on the occasional psycho.
Redwing, Janet Reno thought so. I'm personally not worried about them. Hmm, maybe I'm becoming one of them:)
If the Government illegally suspends the Constitution and institutes martial law, what will the agents dispatched to enforce that law be carrying? The average citizen has a right to sufficient firepower to defend his home and family from such an attack.
Anti-gun people like to point out that the founders of the Constitution didn't foresee these types of weapons and likely wouldn't approve. I'd like to point out that at that time, citizens and the government both had the same weapons. Now there's obviously a great disparity between the firepower of the govt and that of the common man. Should we as citizens agree to be limited to peashooters against the government's attack helicopters? I think we're entitled to at least a sporting chance...
even if you outlaw guns and somehow gather them all up from the people. you will still have many people who will make home made cannons ect. that will just spray shot all over, that will cause much more safety risks to the unintented targets then todays guns do. Heck cannons are very simple to build. we would make them in HHS TMG shop in the late 70's early 80's with help from the teacher. We would often use brass cause easy to work on lathe and many blow apart up on the canal bed where we would go to shot them off. I would never think to set off any of them today as we just ran and hid behind a tree for safety. All and all people will always have guns. IMO its much safer that we can some what know who and what type they have, rather then everyone just rigging up any old scatter gun they can build.
aguy iPhone-iMac- Do you actually waste the short time we have on this earth thinking about someone suspending the Constitution and coming after you? Jericho was just a fictional TV show. I hope you find a better way to get through life.
I never saw this Jericho of which you speak, but I suppose the Holocaust was a hoax, too, Redwing? Or, what, it couldn't happen here? Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.
As for wasting time thinking about it, I think it took me a minute forty-five to come up with that one. Not a huge chunk of my life. I also live about the most hedonistic life of anyone I know... lots of disposable income, no kids to support. Life is good. You wanna play golf sometime?
It's getting weird :>)
aGuy: so WMD 100 round clips are actually reducing the carnage by making it easy to kill less than if we made them work at it in which case they would kill more. That's whack.
LV Mom: Making it illegal to make, sell, own, and use HAS to cause less to be in the system at some point unless you believe the bad guys will open their own manufacturing, repair and assembly plants or start bringing them across the Mexican border. Oh wait, the Mexicans get them from us; they want us to make them illegal too since we are provided WMDs to Mexico's Cartels too. Of course if they could open plants, they wouldn't be bad guys anymore, they would be businessmen. By your same way of thinking, why not make illegal drugs legal ---- everybody has them anyway and then we could trade above board with the Mexicans. I just don't get how less is more. What is the downside of making HUGE clips illegal. Who suffers?
IP -- oh come on now. Next you will be giving the Falling Skies scenario. You might try the Zombie one but we all know that The Walking Dead Survivors don't seem to be smart enough to get the HUGE clips.
ianimal and ice-t (read quotes below) are correct: the purpose of the 2nd ammenment s so that we the people can protect ourselves from a tyranical goverment, and the mean that we we have access to the arms that are in use today, like the Swiss do:
Ice-T Defends Gun Rights: "The Last Form Of Defense Against Tyranny"
Ice-T: Well, I'll give up my gun when everybody does. Doesn't that make sense? If there were guns here, would you want to be the only person without one?
Krishnan Guru-Murthy, anchor, Channel 4 News: So do you carry guns routinely at home?
Ice-T: Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/23/ice-t_defends_gun_rights_the_last_form_of_defense_against_tyranny.html
who decided that 10 shots is the right amount?
maybe we should ban everything except a one shot bolt action .22 rifle,
nobody ever needs anything more than that,
and since you cannot prove it to my satisfaction that you do need it, (because i won't let you, and that's a requirement of mine that you need to prove to me to my personal satisfaction that you need something before i will let you have it),
that also means that i'm justified in saying that you don't REALLY have a need for it,
and it's perfectly legitimate to pass legislation that prevents you from owning or obtaining anything that I don't think you should really have.
btw, what's next on the list?
Redwing "I hope you find a better way to get through life."
The same could be said about reading and posting here.
I've never seen Jericho either, and Ianimal is correct, civilians deserve a fighting chance.
BD - you do know that Ice-T is the rapper that wrote a song glorifying cop killing and that the tyranny he's referring to is the police, don't ya?
Ironic that he plays one on TV. Gotta love capitalism plus I'm sure taking care of Coco requires lots of dough.
I'm sure this guy who shot up the theatre was paranoid too. Just what we need is a bunch of schizo-paranoid people with arsenals in their basements or apartments. Are all of you civilians constantly looking over your back for that tyrant? LOL!
Has it been mentioned on this thread that this theater was a "gun free zone". Did anyone tell the gunman? He wore all that armor with the thought that someone might have broken the theater's rule and was carrying a firearm. In Colorado you can carry concealed firearms, but not in certain government offices or private businesses that ban them. Just like Luby's cafeteria in Texas where 23 people were killed by a gunman. The sign said "no guns allowed", but a maniac dorve his truck into the building and started shooting. One woman who left her gun in her car (because she follows the laws) watched her parents get killed and she was shot. Not much worse than having the ability and the weapon but not being able to fight back. Just like in Aurora, probably a few right to carry license holders in the audience that didn't have their weopons.
Darwin and Redwing...If your wife or daughter was being stalked, would you place a sign in your yard that said "gun free zone" no guns allowed in this house? Mayor Bloomberg keeps beating the gun control drum, but he is protected by ARMED bodyguards. Why can't our wives and daughters protect themselves in NJ/NY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre
LOL! at the naivete' of one who hides behind her dogs for safety while hurling venomous personal insults at those who are different than she is. LOL!
where's the tolerance?
For posterity... check out the stats...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
MG "Oh wait, the Mexicans get them from us; they want us to make them illegal too since we are provided WMDs to Mexico's Cartels too."
That's a whole other topic:)
Unfortunate, thanks for that info, it's the first I've heard of it.
Unfortunate-If my wife was being stalked I would call the police and have them do their job our taxes pay for. I wouldn't run into my basement to grab an assault rifle so I can shoot someone be they a stalker or innocent bystander. I assume you mean stalked by civilians and not the tyrannical gov't soldiers who just suspended the Constitution. Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep. LOL!
Redwing "I don't blame the gun. I blame the people who are unwilling to have constructive debate on gun laws."
I think you are describing yourself. LOL!
Brotherdog, I consider being "different" than Redwing is a good thing. LOL!
911 worked really well in Aurora didn't it? When seconds count, having the police minutes away does nothing.
LV Mom-Actually I consider myself different then you and Bro Dog and I think that's a good thing too. LOL! BTW I am willing to have constructive debate on gun control but most right wingers will have none of that. Just look at the comments on this thread. Just the idea of smaller clips on guns is shot down right a way. I guess different is a good thing.
The rational is the same as with public workers and their benefits. Once you go down the slide there may be no stopping. Clips limited to 30, then 20, then 10, then 5, then 1..., then none!
iJay If you're going for different, naming yourself after a menstrual stain is one way to go...
iJay -- Nice sexist comment and wasn't your Domino theory the reason the Communist's took over America after Vietnam? If you got that one totally wrong, who's to say you're not wrong using the same theory for benefits and HUGE clips.
But folks we are getting convoluted at this point with most you siding for the right to buy WMDs over the counter after a cursory background check, supplying citizens with body armor, grenades, large amounts of bomb making materials, believing that it's your right to protect yourself from the government and "bad guys." You feel it's OK to continue to provide the same or better ready free-market access to these materials so that nothing impedes future massacres just like or worse than the 28 since Columbine. You feel that if curtailed, the government will get them and then you, the bad guys will get them and then you, and the crazy people will simply find another way to do the same thing or worse so that WMDs HUGE clips are actually saving lives. And you feel that the best answer is to arm and train our citizenry so that everyone at public events is locked, loaded and concealed with large-scale WMD-level clips which will limit the bloodshed. Wow.
A smaller number of us don't want to increase gun control, we don't want to give up our pistols, rifles or assault weapons. We advocate change though and the change is limiting clip size to 10, 10 being just a number for sales, ownership and use. Just like we limit the number of shells in a shotgun today. We advocate stiffer penalties for the same sales, ownership and use of these WMDs. And I advocate a buy-back program to help get this legacy out of our system.
Chances are you will get your way and nothing will change since if I get my way you feel your very liberty is at stake. So nothing will change, the carnage will continue as is, and more Auroras will most certainly happen, if not worse. Maybe we will add metal detectors if people stop going to large events if businesses suffer economically but I doubt it.
One of the reasons I keep the diatribe up is this is one issue where I hate to be in the "I told you so" position but frankly, after Tucson....
If we had taken action after January 2011 Tuscon massacre, this guy could not have bought the 100 round clip that jammed or the 40 round clip he carried as backup that he switched to. Sure, he could have gotten them illegally on the black market from some bad guy. Or as some of you theorize, he could have built a cannon, bomb, or other lethal device. But he didn't.
Still you opt for no change, to retain things as is, and to continue to wait for the next Aurora.
I do not.
cops were there in 90 seconds of 1st 911 call... yes I think 911 worked really well that night.
Can I have 5 20-round clips on my gun versus just one 100-round clip? I'll need it when then zombies rise from their graves:
http://blog.roflwaffle.org/2012/06/25/this-man-is-ready-for-the-zombie-apocalypse/
Unfortunate
Please show me where i said we shouldn't own guns. I am a gun owner myself. It is hand gun for protection as i don't hunt. It is locked in a safe box at my house. My wife and I are the only ones with access. We both go to the shooting range and took gun safety classes. I am not against guns for protection or hunting.
I am against assualt rifles that are not intented to be used for either protection or hunting.
I don't know why people can't see the difference between guns for portection and hunting and guns for distruction
Hey unfortunate: maybe when seconds count, having less bullets in the clip will help too. Thanks for the great seconds-count-suggestion.
Most madmen in massacre situations who are stopped are stopped........between clips. Check the notes above.
Go figure.
Exmaxx: keep that in mind in your zombie planning. Will need to have extra guns and a dedicated clip reloader with you. DO NOT watch The Walking Dead for training. They seem to favor small bore, single shot guns while driving low clearance rear-wheel drive vehicles. They would use bigger armaments but are budget constrained, can only polish off so many zombies per episode.
Don't forget that someone who wishes to cause harm has many ways in which to do so. Guns happen to be the most convenient weapon of choice, but there are many other methods available.
The automobile is the most underrated weapon, and should someone wish to do harm 2 tons would do the job nicely. Should we outlaw cars as well?
It really isn't weapons that cause harm. It's the people behind them, and those people *will* find a way if that's their intention.
Look at the link I posted earlier. There are 88 guns for every 100 citizens in the US. Give the ease of access to guns, if they were so dangerous why has violent crime been on the downswing in the last decade?
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a cilivized nation has full gun regristration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolf Hitler, 1935
And we all know how that turned out. We can't make Americans safer by making them defenseless. I heard another statement many years ago. Just food for thought. "We cannot get America by air or sea. We cannot get America by land, for the citizins are armed. We WILL get them from within." Hmmm
You people all sound crazy. "You need to arm yourself to defend you and your home?" When was the last time you had to blast someone with one of your assault guns to protect yourself?
My opinion - it makes you feel like a man to have them and your dumb to think that your going to be in the situation when it's going to help you. If anything you'll end up shooting a neighbor or family member and then say "oops".
Knock it off - guns have use - hunting for example. But give me a break!!
Just listen to yourself. A bunch of dumb hicks.
I guess it's more important that a crazy person can legally buy a clip that holds 100 bullets than it is to try to make it safer, even just a little, by outlawing these clips.
iPhone-imal blood is red be it menstrual or from innocent movie goers. Now you better go I hear your mommy calling you.
Living with the possibility that a crazy person could cause mass destruction and kill a lot of people goes hand in hand with living in a free society. Whether the weapon of choice is guns, bombs, motor vehicles or poison gas created from common household items, the danger will always be there. All gun laws do is restrict the lawful.
If this country ever gets to the point where 10s of thousands of people are killed every year by gun-wielding crazies, then perhaps we should revisit the issue at that time. But, I'm pretty sure that your chances of being killed by a maniac with a gun are right up there statistically with being killed by a lightning strike. To fly off the handle in a reactionary manner and push through some legislation in a knee jerk manner does not further the cause of liberty, which is what we should be striving for.
Redwing, who's being paranoid? Are you really that scared of an eleven round clip? Sounds pretty abnormal to me.
As for the "red wing" thing... consenting adults, privavcy of your own home. I say let your freak flag fly, dude.
Ice-T chimes in:
http://www.examiner.com/article/ice-t-gun-control-a-waste-of-time-won-t-stop-murders
Smile...Here are examples on non-hicks defending themselves, not shooting their neighbors:
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
I think those who say guns should be only for hunting are the individuals who lack intellect.
Mr. G I believe you have me confused with someone else about the Communist thing (or I do not remember)...
If this guy just had only 2 Glocks, a lot of clips, and knew how to use them more people could have been killed; remember what happened at Virginia tech...
iJay3 Thanks for posting those stories Unfortunate. I think its great when the bad guys go blown away. As for Smile maybe he/she can give out hugs If they are ever attacked.
Unfortunate - you are the one that said "If your wife or daughter was being stalked, would you place a sign in your yard that said "gun free zone" no guns allowed in this house? Mayor Bloomberg keeps beating the gun control drum, but he is protected by ARMED bodyguards. Why can't our wives and daughters protect themselves in NJ/NY?"
That is the scariest thing I have ever heard. You sound completely NUTS!!
Mayor Bloomberg has to have ARMED bodyguards because of crazies like you -you sound very unstable and ignorant "snap" and you bring out your guns on someone!!
If my wife or daughter were being stalked I certainly wouldn't strap a gun to them and send them out the door. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
smile, the police can't be there the moment you need them (if that were the case this tragedy wouldn't have happened). How do you propose people defend themselves in their moment of need? What method would you offer?
Some of the victims in Colorado had "guns strapped to them" in combat zones. Many wives carry guns and they are not crazy. Too bad they come back to America and have to be unarmed in a movie theater where they are killed without the ability to fight back like they were trained, due to those with smile's mindset and worldview. The rest of us will continue to be an integral part of the community in many facets while smile lives in her world filled of rainbows, lollipops and sunshine.
Justintime- stop it! Stop acting like you can't even walk out your door or go to the local Shoprite without having to battle it out with a mad man! Oh my, if my wife walked to her car is she going to get jumped by an armed man?
Stop making it sound like we live in some gun battling housing complex where we can't even let our kids out to play without being shot.
You should be lucky that you DO NOT live in those circumstances. Many, many people do on a daily basis.
You make it sound like you need to carry your weapon around with you because "the bad people" are coming to get you.
I will admit it. I am actually a little frightened right now thinking that you people are in my local neighborhood and that one day you’re going to think I gave you a dirty look at the Quick Check or didn't hold the door open for you and your going to "defend" yourself.
The chances of you being held hostage or gunned down are probably about the same as getting attached by a shark when swimming in the ocean.
Don't make it sound like you have to "protect yourself and be armed and prepared" at all times. That is the part that sounds ridiculous.
If you want to have a fire arm - go right ahead. I do not. That is our choice, I guess. No one is saying you can't bare arms. Just don't make it sound like you have to have a gun to keep yourself save. That just sounds ridiculous.
Unfortunately, there are extremely unbalanced people out there - we will always have crime. I hope/pray that my family is safe every day. I cannot imagine a tragedy like this happening to myself or my family. I'm sure no one does. But you will never stop that. You may be in a car accident, shot, kidnapped, raped, mugged, stabbed, molested and so on.
Don't tell me having an arsenal in your house can make it safer for you than for me. That is just nonsense. You are not stopping any of the crime by having automatic weapons and stock piling bullets.
We are discussing automatic weapons and massive amounts of ammunition here. I'm not arguing the fact that people have a handgun in their house. I'm not even arguing the fact that people hunt with guns. You are allowed that constitutional right.
But don't make it sound like we should all be stock piling guns and ammo to protect ourselves. That is above and beyond!!
Ianimal- I think your mommy is calling you. What does Redwing have to do privacy and freak flag fly and consenting adults or are you into something that freaky yourself? That's okay, you know, don't ask don't tell Dude. LOL!
BTW-Redwing refers to the hockey team I follow. Sorry to confuse you. Mommy's calling!
Unfortunate - I may live in a "world filled of rainbows, lollipops and sunshine". Thank god I do becuase I cannot imagine the torture you suffer everyday thinking about the tragedy that "may" be ahead of you.
Who would want to wake up every morning thinking it's the end of the world! I can't imagine that black cloud hanging over me day in and day out!
I'm thankful for what I have and every second I have it! I've had tragedy in my life and dealt with it. Unfortunately, that is part of life. It's made a stronger person and made me see what blessings I have in my life.
I feel sorry for you - you are the one living in "la la land". Maybe medication would help your depressing outlook on life.
Wake up and enjoy life!!
Once again, the liberal mindset, lala land types who claim to want honest debate, will always resort to name calling and belittling others points of view.
Typical...
Luckily, I don't see the "change" you're dreaming of coming any time soon.
Hope your "gun free zone" signs work for you. LOL!
iJay "The rational is the same as with public workers and their benefits. Once you go down the slide there may be no stopping. Clips limited to 30, then 20, then 10, then 5, then 1..., then none!" This is known as a Domino Theory where if one cube falls, all the cubes fall which was the exact theory for sticking our nose in and sticking it out in Vietnam. Like your pensions or bullets in the clip, the authorities were afraid that if Vietnam went under Communist control it would stream across the Pacific and get a beach head in California. Not true then, not true now.
We have had restrictions on slugs in a shotgun for years; they have not been reduced. You're just wrong.
Whitey: Fraudulant quote spoken by Heston at the NRA with no attribution to Hitler. Heston said it though, you can attribute it to his way of thinking that he believes Hitler said it.
Ianimal: this guy was lawful right up to the time he was unlawful. Then we made the rest uber easy for him. No real thought at all went into his planning.
JIT -- Amazing that a smart guy like you believes that cars could be as frequently and as easily used as guns as WMDs to preform mass murders. Why not go with a Dairy Queen softserve; given enough velocity, it can kill too. Or maybe a puppy. We could beat them to death with puppies. All silliness of your argument aside, I am glad that you advocate making massacres as convenient as possible so that the nuts don't have to struggle with your car-plan like trying to figure out how to get that Escalade into the movie. Or how many people can you kill if you drop a Ford F150 from the college tower in Texas. Or does the Delaware State University dining has a drive-though you can used to kill a dozen or so students. Thanks for some level-headed thinking. Lucky you got pistol-packing, WMD-Mclovin, need a reason to defend myself in a crowded theater -- LadyVendettaMOM on your side. Yet amazingly, the vast majority of mass murderers have chosen easy to purchase, easy to use, great destructive power WMDs HUGE clip guns and not cars, ice cream cones or puppies. Good that you want to KISS, I commend you.
And the best "we gotta get guns" theory is once again ---- wait for it ---- wait for it: the ole "peeples kill peeples, guns doesn't kill peebles" numero uno argument for ready and free access to WMDs as our blessed god-given right handed down by our founding fathers is trotted out like the old chestnut it is. That's right, Jefferson is known to have wanted to say: "I just can't wait until the day that every American can spray 100 bullets a minute right in his own back yard without fear of the government." Somewhere in the back of my head, I hear Barbara Streisand's rendition of "People......... People Killing People...... Are the Luckiest People in JIT's world.... Big clips, People buying big clips..... it's so damned easy in JIT's world"
WRONG --- guns kill people. bullets kill people. And more bullets mean more dead people. And HUGE FRAKIN CLIPS kill MORE people than small clips. Period, end of story. No debate.
Take a stand. Write your representative, tell them to take a stand against WMD clips and a stand for stronger and longer penalties for ownership, sales, and use of WMD large clips. Let NJ take the lead.
I wonder if Jesus kept him and his apostles well armed to fight the Romans? I can see it now, Jesus sitting on a pile of swords and slingshots waiting for the shadow government soldiers to attack him. Can't we all try to get along and keep each other safe. Why must we give in to evil and arm ourselves? Do we ever learn that violence breeds violence. I guess all of you gun stockpilers are all atheists because Christians would find a better way. Well I'm to my la-la land. LOL!
""""You people all sound crazy. "You need to arm yourself to defend you and your home?" When was the last time you had to blast someone with one of your assault guns to protect yourself?""""-smile
smile, when was the last time you were shot with an assault rifle? Never? Ok, according to your logic, it's perfectly ok for everyone to have one then, right?
NJ has among the strictest gun ownership laws in the nation and I give kudos to Christie for stating NO new laws are needed.
What happened was going to happen regardless of legal/illegal. No amount of legislation would have prevented that. If someone wants to do grievous harm to others, they are going to and we can only hope the damage is stopped by someone paying attention or mitigated by someone who stops them.
Mike Mc The Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets
"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office is getting an "indefinite delivery" of an "indefinite quantity" of .40 caliber ammunition from defense contractor ATK.
U.S. agents will receive a maximum of 450 million rounds over five years, according to a press release on the deal.
The high performance HST bullets are designed for law enforcement and ATK says they offer "optimum penetration for terminal performance."
This refers to the the bullet's hollow-point tip that passes through barriers and expands for a bigger impact without the rest of the bullet getting warped out of shape: "this bullet holds its jacket in the toughest conditions."
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/news/31247765_1_atk-rounds-bullet#ixzz21fWLv1z8
Yes, we have said kudos to NJ for having tough gun law. We limit to 15 rounds per clip. No kudos to Chris for 1) saying we don't need to do better, 2) castigating his opponents for taking a political profit of Aurora to further bullet restrictions and 3) taking the opportunity to pat himself on the back and congratulate himself for being there, doing nothing, and politicizing the whole event for his own credit when indeed he had nothing to do with NJ gun laws based on his past, present and now --- future actions--- in his own words. I think it was....omg....Corzine who passed the law.
Kudos to Chris Christie for "castigating his opponents for taking a political profit of Aurora to further bullet restrictions", because that's exactly what it was. An attempt to use an isolated tragedy to further erode the rights of law-abiding New Jerseyans. Good for him.
More cars more accidents.
Less cars less accidents.
Look it up!
Oh but cars only reason for existence is not to kill.
Look it up!
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
9.4. Summary
Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits
from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned
semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than
AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in
gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and
injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes
resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have
expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
the news outlets are pushing this gun control talking point very heavily for days now.
they just can't stop themselves,
i mean the victims of this tragedy are not even buried yet and the news people and the politicians are using them by demagoguing the issue,
all of these opportunistic talking heads with their disrespectful use of the victims of this tragedy for a political talking point is just wrong, imo, just wrong,
christe has it right, bloomberg has it wrong,
http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-fails-show-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked/#.UA1XiDr_TMV
Mass murders are tragic and, fortunately, rare. There is no data to support the notion that reinstating an AWB will prevent further tragedies. In fact, two of the largest mass murders in US history, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon, and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing did not even involve firearms.
Sadly, there is precious little we can do to prevent these types of attacks.
First-When will it be ok to talk about gun control. How long should we wait so gun lovers won't accuse debaters about political gain? The answer is never right?
Second-Why can't anyone at least acknowledge that maybe less people might have been shot if he had a smaller clip. Even a maybe would justify some changes. Or are you so stuck in your ways that no compromise is possible. It's a sad state of affairs we have here.
Two the people who say if some of the people in the theater would've had guns they may have been able to stop him Right it probably would have been much worse can you imagine what it was like in their people panicking some guy shooting at them your in a dark smoke choked room in some Yahoo or Yahoo's are going to start shooting at the original shooter they would have done more harm than good
smile, I get it that this is an emotional subject, and I'm sorry if you may have had an incident close-to-home that's given you the fear of guns that you have. But reality, as they say, is a bitch.
First, please see my first post in this thread; that should dispense immediately any inkling that I am "one of those people" who are afraid of the boogie man and sleep with a gun under my pillow. Quite the opposite, really.
In case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about a shooting incident so it's not like I'm inventing a false scenario in which there would be a need for self defense. Heck, our news media focuses on gun incidents almost exclusively (again, see my first post in this thread) which kinda supports the idea that it may be a good idea to be able to defend yourself, wouldn't you think? Darwin mentioned that it took 90 seconds for the police to arrive on scene after receiving the 911 call. Pretty darn good I'd say. But relinquishing the ability to defend ourselves to the police department didn't prevent the tragedy, did it?
Right you say, but stricter gun laws would have prevented it! Hmm, not so fast. Think about it for a moment. Here's a guy that, for some reason we will probably never know, decided he wanted to go and kill a bunch of people. Crazy, of course, but that was what he chose to do. I ask you What would he have done if he didn't have access to guns yet still wanted to cause harm? Nothing? Not likely. If this is what he wanted to do he would find another way, just like others who's intention is to cause harm. So the outcome, while not predictable, may have been fewer casualties or more - no one could know. But still casualties, which is the bottom line. People were killed, and some (maybe more) would have been killed if he chose a different weapon. Remember, this was his *choice*, something that no legislation can ever control and can never prevent.
And misterg: tsk, tsk, tsk. Please re-read the thread, specifically my responses, and ask yourself if your attack on me was justified? Do me a favor, can you please *try* to consider what you wrote without using fear as the justification? And FYI, the phrase WMD, or weapons of mass destruction, is a trigger phrase for - you guessed it - triggering FUD in the reader (surely you recall GWB's incessant use of the term to justify his misdeed while he was in office). Are you SURE that you want to use descriptive phrases like that to support your view? I know you're a smart guy, so don't try and pull that stuff on the thinking readership...
Oh JIT, you make me y a w n. Sorry if I trounced upon your big-clip-guns-aren't-as-bad-as-a-well-targeted-car argument for support of LCM WMDs. And if you don't think a 40-round or 100-round clip in a movie theater is not a WMD, then pass what you're smoking over this way.
Meanwhile, let's turn this around. Who feels they need LCMs and why? Bambicide? Target Practice? Clay Pigeons?
Or Protection. And if protection; how bad a shot are you? Since most of you admit that if you were locked n loaded in that theater it would be a different story, then which ones of you want to admit that they needed 40 or 100 rounds to accomplish your goal?
How many bullets do you need in the clip to do the job you intend to?
Smile...I am not asking you to change your way of life because of my belief. If you wal around scared of paranoid people with "automatic weapons", then go ahead. Who mentioned automatic weapons anyway, they have been banned since the 1920's. Most people with no knowledge of firearms think that the scary black military looking weapon is "automatic" when it is not.
To the anti-gun folks...Do you have a fire extinguisher at home? Perhaps two? Are you worried about fire all day? Do you have an old air pressured water extinguisher, or one of those new assault extinguishers that are rated 2A 10BC? Most people like to utilize the best technology to protect themselves (i.e. airbags, CO detectors, modern weapons, etc.)
"How many bullets do you need in the clip to do the job you intend to?"
Good question. Do you know? I have no idea. Which is the point, btw. You don't know. No one knows until they are in a situation that may require a solid defense.
Which is why I haven't made a single comment on the clip subject.
So in your infinite sarcastic wisdom, pray tell how is it that you know my stance on the issue if I haven't yet stated one? Let's see, if I pretend I was you writing this response I would have to say something to the effect of "pass what you're smoking over this way. It must be pretty good to cause the hallucinations you're experiencing" ;)
oldred, the tear gas may have made it difficult to aim; a very diabolical individual...
I really can't figure out who's worse: cowardly liberals who would sacrifice their (and my) full 2nd amendment rights due to fear of some crazy guy shooting them or cowardly conservatives who would surrender their (and my) 5th and 6th amendment rights out of fear of some crazy Muslim blowing them to smithereens.
I've got advice for both types... RELAX!!! You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning while sitting on the toilet than either of these things happening to you.
For all the doom and gloom spin MrG and others (especially the media) are using to advance their personal agendas, there's not actually any epidemic going on. Even using some of the more questionable examples MrG plagiarized above, we are talking about 250 victims of so-called "mass-killing" with a gun in the past 15 years. Their deaths are regrettable and tragic to those who loved them, but are they any more tragic than the approximately 250 people who have died in car crashes since MONDAY?
I mean, really, where is the outrage and demand for smaller cars that go slower? The maximum speed limit in NJ is 65... why can cars go faster than this? There are governors that can be added to engines to limit their rpms, why isnt there a law that requires them on all cars? Because unlike guns, whose ownership is a RIGHT protected under the Constitution, driving is only a PRIVILEGE, as the government loves to remind us constantly. Solve the problem of 350,000 people who die on the roads every decade and then maybe we can talk about guns.
If life is too dangerous for you, crawl under the bed. Someone will shove food under there eventually.
more guns less = less crme
less guns = more crime.
check it out , it just happens to be quite true
theatre had a 'no guns'; policy, that happens to embolden the actors, and the suspect knew that and used it to his strategic advantage, coward that he really is,
having the right to defend yourself is one of the primary rights we have as individual people.
that's why the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, ('to bear' means to carry about with you on your person)
having this means to meet force with equal force is one of the things we should be able to agree on.
Yes folks, for all your fears you are many many many times more likely to die in a vehicular accident. Some won't go to theaters now, but they will get in a car...
As if on cue...
http://news.yahoo.com/phobia-panic-attack-normal-174301519--abc-news-health.html
I wonder how many people understand the point you are making Ian?
So people want to limit our freedom for something that is statistically not a significant threat to the general population... Obama says Yes, Romney says No, and of of course Paul says No...
JIT and Ian: I not only understand, thanks justy for pointing out my intellectual shortcomings so I asked a 12-year old to explain and now I understand. Man, if you didn't keep alluding to my stupidity for not getting your message, I wouldn't even know that. And even though you think I am a cowardly liberal like the one who offed Bin Laden, I agree 100% about your cars/guns analogy. Guns kill, cars kill more, you are right on both counts.
And even though the purpose and use of each is completely different, let's go with the analogy as proper and just. One tool in your analogy is designed specifically to kill, some aspects are designed specifically only to kill humans. To paraphrase LVMom, they are used infrequently and often by bad people to commit crimes. Cars too are used to commit crimes, well mostly just to get there and back, but bad guys drive them, good guys drive them, everybody drives them.
Unlike guns, cars are used frequently. Everyday. We go to work in them, we normally don't take our guns to work. We drive our kids to soccer, we normally don't take our guns to soccer. We go to church in them, we normally don't take our guns to church. Wanna guess what would happen it we did? We let our teenagers drive them without supervision or much training; a fact unfortunately resulting in a 30% higher chance of dieing while driving as a teen.
Unlike guns, cars are not designed specifically to kill. Cars are not designed specifically to kill humans. But like guns, cars don't kill, people kill, right? And when cars kill people, they most often kill the loved ones and friends and families of those operating the cars. When not used for suicide, guns most often kill strangers especially when higher numbers of deaths occur in a single infrequent incident.
It is believed that cars most often kill due to operator error although no one knows the auto suicide rate. Guess what? This is directly due to car-control-laws which govern design safety aspects. Sounds like a cowardly liberal at work? You betcha. Likewise, criminals use cars to gain insurance paybacks and there are some accidental deaths there too.
Guns generally kill in suicide 55% of the time, only a mere 40% are murder. However when higher numbers of deaths occur in a single infrequent incident, it is always murder by intent and plan. They thought about it, they planned it, they gathered materials, and they implemented it. This never happens in a car although as noted below, crimes causing multiple deaths in a single car accident do happen but generally the car is not used as a WMD.
Unlike guns which kill more people in crowded areas and cities, cars kill less people in our cities than in our suburbs and rural areas. However cars kill more. They are our largest caused of sudden death in America. And they kill a lot. As FOX reported, 14 people died in a single crash in TX a few days ago in an F250 loaded with 23 people in the cab and bed. Of course this looks to be a crime of human smuggling, up to 16 people may be been in the bed, and it appears that a vehicle malfunction, a tire blowout, caused the crash which is probably due to improper maintenance by the criminal operator. So cars in rare instances, can be kill in great quantities in a single instance, but rarely as a WMDs, rarely thought about, rarely planned, rarely purposely implemented. The average car fatality, per incident, is most often far less than a mass murder by gun. Less than 2 fatalities per incident. Cars most often kill the responsible driver and those agreeing to ride with him, not strangers who did not agree to be with someone holding a gun.
So some similarities but enough glaring differences to make this analogy pretty thin.
But here's where I agree with your stretched thin analogy 110%. Cars are specifically designed to maximize life, not to destroy it. By law. There are many, many, many laws on the books for life-saving design-aspects in cars. There are federal motor vehicle safety standards that brought you safety glass, padded dash boards, dual braking systems, standard bumper heights, safety door latches, impact-absorbing steering columns, seat belts, child seats, motorcycle helmets, air bags, These laws, starting in 1966, were met by people like you who said: "cars don't kill people, it's people that kill people" and "it's not design, it's behavior" and "you can't stop it, it's always been that way." Amazingly, a brave liberal who you would certainly not call a coward, Lyndon B. Johnson led the charge for change. Today, there are 57 Safety Standards that auto makers must adhere to. Wanna guess how many design aspects and pages this covers? I suggest you read them and report back.
The results: in 1966 fatalities were 27/100K people, in 1997 - 16 - a 40% reduction in loss of life. Deaths per vehicle miles: in 1966, 5.7/100K miles, in 1997 - 1.7 or a 70% reduction. Think about that against the increase in automobiles and miles driven per year.
Next, let's talk about laws controlling operation and driver behaviors ---- ah, you get the drift.
So sure, guns and cars kill so let's apply the same level of safety standards and operation standards that we do to cars and then we can see how well the analogy really fits. And let's not settle for anything less than the 40 -70% improvement that we got from enacting automobile design safety laws starting in 1966. And I am sure guns have satety design aspects too but isn't limiting the size of the LCM to 10 a good safety standard just like the one restriction the number of shotgun shells in a shotgun? And isn't increasing the penalties for owning, selling or using an LCM above 10 a good operator standard to have and adhere to.
Again, why do you need more than 10 bullets in a clip? Is your aim that bad?
Including Columbine in 1999 where we had 30 die that year by WMD, over a six year period we had about 11 per year die from mass murder. Over the past 5 years, we've averaged over 21 per year. Numbers are increasing on a global basis and this latest nut copied aspects of the Scandinavian's killer's plan hoping to maximize his carnage. Sorry, but it is getting worse.
Still think we should do nothing except arm ourselves with equal or greater firepower and stand ready to let loose when the inevitable happens? Or should we take some defensive actions as well like we did for automobiles?
I have a question for the group that i don't have an answer for:
Should we have uniform national gun laws or is it best to have different laws by the states?
Would it be wiser to have the same registration, backgorund check, waiting periods, right to carrying , etc for every state instead of having so many different laws?
I am not suggesting what laws we as a nation should have, just wondering if the idea of passing 1 uniform law would best.
I think we all agree that more people die from car accidents than guns each year... no one is agruing that is not true. No one is really arguing civilians owning guns what so ever. And no one is limiting our freedom ijay, we are just asking what is the NEED for civilians to own these types of guns. (other than zombies or lawless country, or alien invasions)
If someone can give me a real rational answer to that maybe i can change my mind but to just throw the 2nd amendment in my face and say its to protect us from our government sorry i dont get that. Does anyone really think even if ordered by our government our soldiers are going to turn on us? Look at Eygpt they didn't turn on their civilians and let them overturn the gov't. I fail to believe my family members in the Marines are going to start firing at me.
darwin Obviously history was not your best subject look at the early 1920s when the government and the Armed Forces turned on veterans and also look up Japanese Americans in the early 40s there government and the Armed Forces turned on them It's happened before and it can happen again I am a firm believer in the second amendment a well armed society keeps their government in check
oldred, Darwin was trying to ask some questions. I'm sure not everyone knows every ounce of history, since anything that's ever happened ever is considered history. Thanks for the points, though. But, before you get on Darwin about history not being their best subject, I would same the same about you and spelling and grammar.
darwin, inalienable rights, once surrendered, will never be returned.
so, while you can't think of any NEED for citizens to have weapons other than small caliber handguns with 10 round clips, there is nothing to say that 100 years from now, our descendants WILL have a desperate need for them.
If nothing else, we owe it to them not to allow the government to strip them of their rights under our watch.
if you want another more libertarian answer, it's not for YOU to decide what someone else NEEDS. They are free to make that determination on their own. Whether it's a distrust of government, preparation for the breakdown of society, or just because they think they look cool hanging on the wall... their freedom, their
I'm well aware of the Japanese internment camps as i am a huge fan of George Takei and have heard him tell stories of what happened to him and his family. What i don't remember is us as a society firing on our soldiers when that happened. Did the Japanese Americans not have guns to defend themselves from the US gov't?
I also remember Kent St. but again don't remember civilians firing on our soldiers.
darwin, state's rights are protected under the 10th amendment.
It's similar to the drinking age... everyone thinks the federal government has a uniform 21 year age limit; they don't. Each state has individually set the age at 21 after being blackmailed bth Federal Government with the withholding of highway funding if they didn't raise the age to 21. Same thing with speed limits; the Fed at one time blackmailed every state into setting it at 55, but there was never any NATIONAL speed limit.
MrG, you just love to fearmonger, don't you? A gun is not designed to kill; a gun is designed to fire projectiles. It's up to the person holding the gun who or what those projectiles are fired at. Hell, one could use it to create modern art if one so desired.
Did you know that there were also Concentration Camps for German-American citizens during WWII? I think it was somewhere in Texas...
"And no one is limiting our freedom ijay, we are just asking what is the NEED for civilians to own these types of guns."
darwin, can I flip the question around and ask why we *need* big, gas-guzzling SUV's, or why we allow 18-wheeler's on the same road as passenger cars, or why motorcycles and even bicycles are allowed to travel with other vehicles on the same road? Given the grave statistics (comparatively speaking relative to gun deaths), and using the logic presented here, it should be a no-brainer to put some sort of ban in place to reduce human losses due to travel on our roads rather than argue about clips containing 10 vs 100 bullets. So why don't we?
The answer is personal choice and the understanding that some choices entail higher risks than others in a free society. Risk in life is part of the package and no amount of legislation is going to change that. Given risk assessments like Ian alluded to, as a society wouldn't we get much more bang-for-the-buck by tackling other issues?
The only reason guns are questioned is because of the emotional stigma they generate.
You know, I'm sure that I come across as uncaring at times because I'm constantly pushing back against the emotional arguments on this forum, but it's a pretty big problem IMO. Emotional arguments based on how we feel, whose legislative solutions will place restrictions upon others in society, are wrong more often than not. It may be the onset of my advancing age lol, but it seems to me that emotional decision making due to fear has been getting much worse in our society lately. 911 was the catalyst. The TSA, as an example, is the result. Scary stuff when you look at the statistics...
i still haven't heard of any event in US history where the Armed forces and civilians went to war with gunfire... please someone help me out history wasn't my best major!!!
darwin, read up on the American Indian Movement and the siege at Wounded Knee in the '70s. Ruby Ridge is another good example of an American citizen legally defending himself and his family using force against an unlawful government action. There aren't many instances in our 200+ year history, but there have been some. The courage to put one's life on the line against practically insurmountable odds doesn't come along very often.
"Thank you ianimal for once on these boards you have made a good point."
You must be new around here. I'm the king of good points on this here board. I've just been on hiatus for a while (-;
darwin You wanted an example of our government ordering soldiers to detain American citizens I gave you one whether they fired on him or not they were detained and stripped of their rights
They were not toy guns the soldiers were carrying they were not plastic machine guns in the towers overlooking the encampment's
oldred: ok, u b the history buff. When was the last time that "a well armed society keeps their government in check."??? Not in the tragic case you noted in 1924 when the Army attacked "The Bonus Army" for illegal squatting on government land: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm. Not with the Japanese (golly what do you think would have happened if you got your wish and the Japanese were armed?)
Maybe Ruby Ridge or Waco would be better examples of your intent and desire?
Ianimal: somehow when I list the death toll from mass murders by gun I neither see fear-mongering nor a world in which guns don't kill people. Somehow when I talk about 100-round clips as having the sole intent of killing people, I don't think I am fear-mongering.
Sure, they fire projectiles as does a kid's water gun or my spitball straw. Whether it be by filing projectiles as you so describe, shrapnel, cotton wad like the one that got Lee or other means, what do you think the basic goal of firing said projectiles is, the basic goal of a gun. Creating a a breeze? Come on, stretch. Why do soldiers carry guns, What is their basic aim drilled into then in basic when trained to aim. projectile?hurling?. Why do police carry guns? "Stop or I will hurl a projectile?" A basic definition of a gunman is a professional killer. And again, thanks for making my point, because when some fool nut job unleashes a 100-round a minute clip in a dark, crowded movie theater, do you really think that the design of that gun does not have one thing to do with the level of carnage that results?
OK, let's cut to the chase. You believe that citizens have the right to own as many of the highest LCM rated weapons that they feel like as ordained by the 2nd amendment as intended by our founding fathers. You have no issue and enjoy the fact that citizens are relatively free to do this. 40 shells a clip, 100 shells a clip, do you even believe in a top end? Who cares why; this is what you believe. Feel free to correct any inaccuracies, I hope I got it roughly right.
I believe that we might limit the carnage if we restrict clip size to ten bullets per clip combined with stricter penalties for making, selling, owning or using clips larger than ten. I use the current laws for rifles, handguns and shotguns as precedent for our right to establish these laws. Who cares why, this is what I believe.
While you will undoubtedly win this round, ultimately I will come out on top. The statistics are in my favor as the frequency and body count both continue to climb over the years. Sooner or later, we will say --- "enough!"
Ruby Ridge is another good example of an American citizen legally defending himself and his family using force against an unlawful government action
I do remember Ruby Ridge and i guess we differ on calling it legally defending himself using force. There was a warrent out for his arrest, he refused to appear in court and thus this stand off took place.
If there is a warrent for your arrest and the US marshalls/FBI show up to your door to take you in I don't see why you think it is ok to "defend" yourself. We can argue if the charges were justified or bogus, but if he appeared in court no lives would hve been lost.
Same can be said with Waco.
You must be new around here. I'm the king of good points on this here board. I've just been on hiatus for a while (-;
maybe i'm misstaking you for your alter ego "iPhone-imal"... so what do you do use that name to make stir the pot and make pointless remarks and use this one to make sense?
I like ianimal's logic much more than iPhone-imal's :)
When typing one character at a time on my iPhone, it is much more difficult to present complete thoughts and my short posts can come off sounding far different than what I intended. When sitting in front of a desktop, i am able to be more thorough.
BTW, I have your name proudly displayed on the rear of my car. Perhaps you could return the honor? (-;
Actually Justy as I noted we questioned the safety of cars starting in 1966 and, through CAR CONTROL, have made incredible strides in reduction of death though design laws and operation laws. Buckle up --- it's the law. You should study that more :>)
Kent State led to the ban of live ammo by National Guard/Police during riots/protest. As some you was near a riot at Ohio State Campus in '97 I was glad they switched to rubber bullets. While they still hurt as hell... I was able to walk away. Just glad my classmates didn't wipe out their AR15s to "defend" themselves.
Darwin - Just got on and read down the comments - so glad there are people like you out there!!! Couldn't agree more with everything you are saying.
Keep it up. I don't believe you have gotten an answer to your question either.
I was put off a little when reading all the other comments. Glad there others with common sense around!
fleadog I have a hardest time JIT understanding the comparison between deaths from car and death by guns. 1 are mostly caused by accidents and the other are mainly killed with intent.
If we had cases were people were driving SUVs intentionally into crowds of people with the intent to kill them, or we had cases where AR15s were accidently going off killing people maybe i could see the comparison. To me you are talking about apples and i'm talking about oranges.
I think it is a weak agruement whenever gun safety is brought up to switch the conversation to cars. Hell i saw someone on Fox News saying "swimming pools kill more people than guns should we ban those?"
But to entertain your comparison, we have made cars safer thru regulations/laws. Yet guns are getting more deadly. We can not prevent every accident just like we can not prevent every shooting like in CO... but we can put safety measures and laws in place to help prevent or minimize the damages from both of them.
Thanks fleadog. I think i can have a rational educted debate with people on both sides. I don't pretend i have the answers and an open minded which i don't think some people on either side are. I am a gun owner and am very respectful of my 2nd amendment right. I just wish our founders were not so vaige when they wrote it. It is such a powerful right i wish they would have made sure their intentions were clear and not open to so much debate.
Darwin - did you mean the riot near Ohio University in Athens as opposed to The Ohio State University in Columbus? The one where the people were upset over the yearly ritual of the time change and one less hour to drink. I guess they were too drunk to remember that in the fall, we all got an extra hour of drinking time when 2am became 1am again.....
The best time to figure out what is best for the people is not while the people are upset over a act that involves the topic that needs to be figured out. Sorta like deciding to leave a job you had for years the same day the boss gave you hell. It creates a knee jerk reaction. also one should never base there choices on fear created by others. This topic really cant be dicussed properly rite after a nut shoots up a movie threater. And what about drunk driving it kills alot of people and drinking isnt something that is needed to have a happy life. Its just something we do to enjoy ourselfs sorta like sport shoting is enjoyable to some. its land of the free home of the brave cause there is danger involved in allowing people to live freely. But that danger is much less then anything you would encounter if you allow your freedoms to be removed by gov.
mistergoogle, are you incapable of making a specific point? you start off ok, then spend 500 words going off on a tangent. I'll try to address your issues one at a time...
"Ianimal: somehow when I list the death toll from mass murders by gun I neither see fear-mongering nor a world in which guns don't kill people. Somehow when I talk about 100-round clips as having the sole intent of killing people, I don't think I am fear-mongering. "
You are trying to convince people that 100-round clips present some kind of clear and present danger to the general public. They don't. You are capitalizing on the sensationalism of this case in Colorado to further your agenda. That is fear-mongering.
"Sure, they fire projectiles as does a kid's water gun or my spitball straw. Whether it be by filing projectiles as you so describe, shrapnel, cotton wad like the one that got Lee or other means, what do you think the basic goal of firing said projectiles is, the basic goal of a gun. Creating a a breeze? Come on, stretch. Why do soldiers carry guns, What is their basic aim drilled into then in basic when trained to aim. projectile?hurling?. Why do police carry guns? "Stop or I will hurl a projectile?" A basic definition of a gunman is a professional killer. And again, thanks for making my point, because when some fool nut job unleashes a 100-round a minute clip in a dark, crowded movie theater, do you really think that the design of that gun does not have one thing to do with the level of carnage that results? "
80 million private citizens own approximately 255 million guns in this country. 99.999999% of those people have never killed another human being. Apparently, there is some other utility that these weapons provide other than killing people.
"OK, let's cut to the chase. You believe that citizens have the right to own as many of the highest LCM rated weapons that they feel like as ordained by the 2nd amendment as intended by our founding fathers. You have no issue and enjoy the fact that citizens are relatively free to do this. 40 shells a clip, 100 shells a clip, do you even believe in a top end? Who cares why; this is what you believe. Feel free to correct any inaccuracies, I hope I got it roughly right."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Does the restriction of 10 bullets to a clip "infringe" upon my rights? I would say yes. Protecting the freedoms of the Constitution are far more important to me than increasing your perception of safety resultant from a restriction in clip size.
Shall we water down the rest of the Bill of Rights as well? Cowards on the other side of the spectrum from you would love to eliminate the illegal search and seizure portions of the Constitution. "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is their mantra. I will disagree with them as vehemently on this point as I do with you on the 2nd amendment. I take no sides politically; I use the logic that I was blessed with to make a decision based on reason, not hysteria and fear.
"I believe that we might limit the carnage if we restrict clip size to ten bullets per clip combined with stricter penalties for making, selling, owning or using clips larger than ten. I use the current laws for rifles, handguns and shotguns as precedent for our right to establish these laws. Who cares why, this is what I believe."
So you seek safety over individual liberty? We know how Benjamin Franklin felt about that; I tend to agree with him.
"While you will undoubtedly win this round, ultimately I will come out on top. The statistics are in my favor as the frequency and body count both continue to climb over the years. Sooner or later, we will say --- "enough!""
As the government continues to erode our personal liberty and convinces the uneducated populace that this a good thing, I fear that you will ultimately be correct... hopefully, I'm dead before then.
"This is how democracy dies in America, not through protests or riots but cheers from the uneducated masses who willingly give their civil liberties away to the same government they protest paying tax money to. There is no longer a need for extremists to bomb us as they very obviously achieved their goals. we are losing our rights guaranteed to us by the constitution day by day while our citizens cheer big brothers take over as "keeping us safe from terrorists."" - posted by some guy named truthinwrite on nj.com...
I happen to agree with him and believe you can add "keeping us safe from maniacs with guns" to complete the picture. Both the left and the right are marching into captivity, cheering all the way.
darwin, to be honest I used the cars-as-weapons example just to demonstrate that guns don't have the exclusive ability to kill (it was another poster who jumped on it and turned it into something it was not). There are likely thousands of everyday items that could accomplish the same thing, the only difference being one of convenience: Guns are the most convenient weapon to use if one's intention is to kill. (which, if I read everyone correctly, is what makes them undesirable)
"1 are mostly caused by accidents and the other are mainly killed with intent."
Absolutely, with "intent" being the key word. But if it's so easy to kill (or be killed) in a car how difficult could it be to use it to intentionally kill? Not hard at all - if that is one's intention. What I'm trying to get at is that if one's INTENTION is to kill, they will. Gun or not. I know it's been said before, but it really isn't the gun that kills, it is the person behind it who INTENDS to use it. There's nothing to prevent that person - the one with INTENT - to choose another method. Nothing at all. If all guns were outlawed sick crimes would still be committed because someone, somewhere will intend to cause harm. I'm sorry to say that's the nature of humanity and there's not a law on the books that will ever change it.
Before I continue, can we agree that "intent" is the driving force behind all malicious acts?
(btw, thanks for the civility)
Don't expect this forum to embrace Libertarianism. I do hope at least one person looks into further and sees it for what it is. You can start with the "101" link..., happy reading:
http://www.libertarianism.com/content/libertarianism-101/lib_101
Sorry for the complexity, I will try to KISS for you.
No, I am not capitalizing on Colorado nor is anyone sensationalizing this tragedy; I am discussing the 28 mass murders by gun that have occurred since Columbine, the latest only being Aurora and asking, "can we reduce the carnage?" And yes, these incidents have increased in frequency and intensity in the past six years. What fear-mongering? That's just a term you heard on conservative talk radio. Quit the connotative buzzwords you heard from the spin doctors, it's beneath you. I just list the numbers, the stats. One or two incidents a year; only 21 dead per year for the past five years. If it scares you, sorry. I am not scared, I want to do something to reduce the carnage.
The fact that not everyone has used a gun for killing does in no way disprove that the main purpose for a gun is killing. Targets are practice; practice for what? What is the purpose of hunting? When you have a gun for protection, what do you intend if you use it? Come on.
NO ONE ON THIS thread wants to take away your right to bear arms. We do have the right to legislate designs safety measures like clip size and have done so for assault weapons, shotguns. There is precedent. NO ONE in this conversation wants to take your guns. How many times do we need to say it.
Did you use liberty with helmet laws, really? Did you lose liberty with seat belts, air bags, shatterproof windshields, etc. Come on.
The rest is drivel, then again I may be too uneducated to understand.
misterg, if you understood the definition of liberty you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
FYI, communication requires words, each word having a specific definition so that both parties to the conversation understand each other. Please post your definition of liberty so that we can understand each other. Here's one that's appropriate:
Liberty:
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
ijay, I actually agree with a lot of the libertarian views. The selling point for me with any libertarian running for office would be his views on immigration. It's not enough to just be ineligible for welfare.
aguy, I agree. Drunk drivers have taken many more lives than assault weapons yet alcohol is still legal and not limited...I disagree that it's not needed to have a happy life:)
MG, I actually do have a problem with helmet laws (for those over 18) and seatbelt laws (for those over 18). I don't think it's about safety at all, it's all about issuing tickets, just like Kylies law. I have no problem with insurance companies requiring both but to think the state has our best interest at heart is naive imo.
Darwin, we have had cases of planes being flown into buildings to intentionally kill, and the death toll was huge. Should we ban planes?
I really think we have to look at the odds of these things happening and understand that people who want to kill a large number of people at one time will find a way.
Ianimal, I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. You saved me a lot of writing.
Some argue the positions represented by rich men in suits (and manipulated by teams of strategists and marketers) to the point of blows with family, friends and neighbors of opposing views on a few tangential (though extremely hot-button) issues. Yet we fail to see that we are being led, ultimately, down the same path.
Obama is Bush lite. Romney will be Obama lite.
jjmonth4 Why would you think I listen to conservative talk radio? I can't stand "conservatives" any more than I can "liberals". If your politics can be defined that easily, you don't have a brain of your own.
28 mass murders in the past 15 years. When you look more closely at some of the "reaching" you have to do to consider a specific case a mass murder, I'd say it's even less than that. But why let reality get in the way of a good "statistic"? 28 mass murders totalling 250+/- deaths in 15 years. About 17-18 per year on average.
I know you don't like the comparison to automobile fatalities. How about E. Coli? That kills about 100 people per year. How about lightning? Around 55 people on average. I could list a hundred other things that kill more people annually than mass murders. So, when you look at REAL statistics, mass murder is about the least of our problems.
And if safety is the goal, why limit the lengths we will go to effect it at limiting clip size? Why not install cameras and microphones in everyone's home so that the government can make sure that no one is planning a mass murder or any other crime? Wouldn't that be more effective than just limiting the number of rounds in the clip? I know there would be a logistical problem with the govt monitoring that many households, but there's an elegant and simple solution. Broadcast the audio and video live over the internet. People love to watch reality TV; they will love watching their neighbors even more. There will be at least one busybody in every neighborhood to keep tabs on everyone and report their misdeeds to the authorities.
And why should your fear of 11-round clips be the only fear that needs to be addressed? Plenty of people are afraid of illegal immigrants and drugs. Let the police search and ID anyone they please, enter any house without a warrant and deport any illegals they find. It's all about "safety", after all. The added bonus is that they can also find all those people running around with oversized clips, marijuana, bootleg copies of Hollywood movies. What a wonderful world that will be. Crime will be eradicated in no time.
And for the record, your car safety comparisons are garbage too. Seatbelts do not make the car safer for those outside the car, nor does a larger clip cause a greater danger for the person holding the gun. That is not an apples to apples comparison to a smaller clip. A real comparison would be to mandate that a car can not weigh more than a thousand pounds and may not go faster than 25 mph. Seatbelts, airbags, etc. could be compared to putting a silencer or flash suppressor on a gun, so that the user did not damage his ears or eyes from the report or flash.
And yes, the fact that most guns are not used for killing certainly DOES illustrate the fact that their primary purpose is NOT for killing. If I am mugged and show the mugger a gun and he runs away, did I not use that gun for a purpose other than killing? If I don't use it for killing, am I not by extension using it for some other purpose, whether it be protection, peace of mind, a walnut cracker, whatever? Of course I am.
Today, you want to limit the clip size to 10 rounds. Once you have that concession, you will move on to some other evil that guns represent that needs to be outlawed. And so it goes until we have an impotent, unarmed society who can be terrorized by anyone who chooses to break the law and have our other rights taken away by a government that has no fear of the people it holds dominion over. I refuse to believe that relinquishing any of our rights is a good thing, for anyone.
more guns equals less crime and provides and protects more freedoms
less guns equals more crime and results in fewer freedoms
this has been proven all over the country, and it is supported by FBI crime stats.
the demagoguing of this issue by those who want more gun control is appalling.
chicago has the toughest gun controls in the country, and the violence and murder rates there are out of control, more restrictions end up causing more violent crime than prevents it.
this 10 round clip restriction is just another feel good, knee jerk reaction, the 100 round drum jammed after a few rounds so it was not a factor, obsessing over the 100 round mag and labeling rifles WMD's is absolutely fear mongering propaganda at it's worse, and to deny that it was being done is intellectually dishonest, but that is par for the course for the long winded one. by repeating the big lie often enough and loud enough, pretty soon it becomes the truth, that's exactly how Goebbels did it, and it is a regular technique that is employed here.. shameful behavior, but the ones propagating and exacerbating the fear are quite shameless. just can't see themselves for how they truly are, (that's pretty sad if you ask me)
that dog just don't hunt
Take my 1853 Enfield Musket or my 1861 Springfield, slap a bayonet on them, and according to NJ Law you now have an assault weapon. These are the same firearms that during the civil war, a trained infantry soldier could fire 3 aimed shots in one minute.
John C LVMom -- Harsh, very harsh. The state capitalized on Kyleigh (correct spelling) to make money? I am sure you did not mean to communicate that?
I mean I don't agree with that law for other reasons but certainly I would not say it was done for the cash? That's cold.
PS --- A number of times, I have been given the seat belt ticket in lieu of a far, far greater transgression as I exercise my vehicle freedoms. You see, for me seat belt laws do save money :>)
r-man.
I seen both 1st hand, went to OSU and we beat ND AWAY and the students at OSU rioted...unreal. Walked by and got hit by a rubber bullet.
Also been to OU and still can't figure out why every yr daylight savigns turns into a riot but it does.
, we have had cases of planes being flown into buildings to intentionally kill, and the death toll was huge. Should we ban planes?
Another really brilliant comparison.... hey guess what b/c of what happen we now have a bans on box cutters switch were the reason the planes were taken over. A great example of our gov't stepping in and even though the odds of it happening again are so small, they still made changes to help prevent it going forward.
unless you feel its your constitutional right to carry knives on to planes? Do you LV mom?
Planes are private property. The rights of the property owner trump the rights of someone wishing to gain access.
"unless you feel its your constitutional right to carry knives on to planes?"
I can't speak for LV mom but I don't have a problem with box cutters in anyone's luggage or carry on. I have a problem with anyone who would want to use them.
Would you have a problem sitting next to someone trained in jujitsu, karate, or any other skill that could be used to instantly cause harm to you or a fellow passenger? If not, why?
Brotherdog - you stated that "obsessing over the 100 round mag and labeling rifles WMD's is absolutely fear mongering propaganda at it's worse"
Don't you think that the people who claim they need to have these weapons so that they can "protect themselves when the government "If the Government illegally suspends the Constitution and institutes martial law, what will the agents dispatched to enforce that law be carrying? The average citizen has a right to sufficient firepower to defend his home and family from such an attack." that is straight from someone in this forum - or how about the one that said he needed these weapons "if his wife or daughter were being stalked"?
Don't you think that they are they are the ones with the "fear mongering propaganda theory??
In my eyes we both have some sort of "fear" level - we fear that people who obtain large amounts of ammo or assault weapons are wrong - however, you and several others seem to fear the government or the situations that you may be and need to use your weapons.
Seems wrong for you to call out the "fear mongering" when infact you are doing it also!
One doesn't need to fearmonger to protect the rights that we already have. Fearmongering is used to justify taking those rights away.
Those statements you quote were in response to the question of why someone could possibly NEED large-capacity magazines or so-called "assault-rifles". Just hypothetical what-ifs to defend a position that really doesn't need to be defended.
The correct answer is that it's none of your business why someone else feels they need it. They are free men in a free society free to make decisions for themselves. Personally, I feel that a 15-round clip is perfect for me and my purposes. If someone else feels that they need a larger capacity magazine, that is their choice. I am not arrogant enough to believe that whatever is good for me should be good enough for everyone else.
so JIT i guess you have no problem with people carry bombs on to planes... just with people who want to use them.
And how do you tell the difference between the 2? If someone sitting next to you has a bomb strapped to him do you have no problem with that up to the point where he's about to set it off?
And to answer you question, sorry but i haven't seen Chuck Norris hijack any planes so i don't care how skilled someone is, they don't get to the cockpit unless they have a weapon.
Darwin asked a question that hasn't been answered:
"what is the NEED for civilians to own these types of guns"? He even stated he is a gun owner himself and isn't looking for that right to be taken away.
So far the only answers posted were:
" to protect themselves when the Government illegally suspends the Constitution and institutes martial law, what will the agents dispatched to enforce that law be carrying? The average citizen has a right to sufficient firepower to defend his home and family from such an attack."
here is another brilliant statement-
"if his wife or daughter were being stalked"? (are you kidding me?)
Mistergoogle also stated - "NO ONE ON THIS thread wants to take away your right to bear arms. We do have the right to legislate designs safety measures like clip size and have done so for assault weapons, shotguns. There is precedent. NO ONE in this conversation wants to take your guns. How many times do we need to say it."
Can you give an answer for having these that is not based on "fear"? Stop OBSESSING (your word) over the fear mongering and answer the question!
coffeetogo1 A gun in possession of the right person saves lives.
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
Calico696 ok ianimal I am starting to agree with you and you points... so what about registering the clips as well as the guns. Should there be some "big Brother" ( i know what an awful word) monitoring who has what?
We register our cars, shouldn't every gun, clip be registered? Again i don't have the answer.to why not so someone let me know why we shouldn't register every gun.
Other than Right to Privacy, give me a reason why it would not benefit us as a society if every guns was registered? NJ knows about every gun we own I fail to see how that hurts me.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and some people chose not to evacuate but to remain and defend their homes... do you know that the government sent agents door to door and confiscated all legally registered firearms, leaving those people essentially defenseless against looters? For that reason, I am personally opposed to having to register your guns (or ammunition) with the government. However, that right has already been relinquished and will never be returned.
Even in Pennsylvania, where firearm registration is NOT required, they still have to fill out the Federal paperwork (Form 4473) on the purchase, so even though "Little Brother" in Harrisburg has no record, Big Brother in Washington does.
Oops, didn't answer the question... no, I don't think registering the large-capacity magazine will erode our freedoms any more than resgistering the guns already does. But it could triple the amount of paperwork that needs to be processed which means a larger government using resources to compile a database that is used to what purpose?
coffee, what is your NEED for taking away the right of others to own a particular object? Your answer, if I understand correctly, is because you fear that the item *will* be used to cause harm. Get it? You want to use YOUR FEARS to justify controlling the actions of another. As I've tried to point out over and over again there are any number of items that can and have been used to cause harm other than 100 magazine AR-15's. Do you fear them as well? If not, then why not? Why not use your fear of other things to limit you neighbors access to them?
See, that's the real problem here. You and many others are looking for justification (that YOU agree with, of course) to control others in a free society. Do people NEED 100 clip magazines? I have no idea. For the life of me I can't fathom why someone would want one, but so what? It's only a problem if they *INTEND* to use it for a nefarious purpose.
INTENT to cause harm, rather than the instrument chosen to inflict that harm, is what you should really fear. The real problem is how can society deal with intent when it's unknown until after the fact? You want to deal with it by removing certain emotional "trigger" objects (ie gun magazines, etc) but I must insist that, by your own logic, you must also remove every other instrument that can be used by evil people to cause harm. Dismissing the logical outcome stemming from your own positions is ludicrous IMO. Ever hear the phrase "slippery slope"? Think about it. The logic you use won't ever be satisfied unless every single person is controlled 100% of the time. Know what I mean?
"JIT i guess you have no problem with people carry bombs on to planes"
darwin - really? C'mon man, get real. A bomb can't be used for self defense, can it? I suppose you could wrap it into a landmine or booby trap in your backyard, but I don't know how that can be considered defensive. So no, I would not advocate taking a bomb on a plane (duh).
BTW, you do know that probably every flight you take there are guns on the plane, right (US Marshalls)? Why don't you complain about that, since it's the gun that's evil and not the person having the intent to use it?
"And to answer you question, sorry but i haven't seen Chuck Norris hijack any planes so i don't care how skilled someone is, they don't get to the cockpit unless they have a weapon."
lol, so Chuck Norris would need a box cutter? Uh huh. A box cutter. Really?
Oh, I almost forgot:
"Before I continue, can we agree that "intent" is the driving force behind all malicious acts?"
What say you? Agree or disagree?
Calico: Again, no on in this thread is saying NO to guns. However, did this guy need a 15, 30, 40 or 100 round clip? Did the bad guy say: "wow, big clip, I give up!" I think not so thanks again for providing a great example where a large clip was most certainly not needed to get the protection job done.
As to the rest of you, we legislate restrictions on your freedoms every day most often without severely damaging your liberty. Many of these laws you adore. Some you hate. Some, like the personal privacy erosions we have recently seen, gosh --- JIT and I probably agree--- were at the same time necessary, scary, and should be rescinded. Cameras, drones, warrant-less wiretaps all fall into this category since 911. But what about your loss of freedoms that you like. Car safety, food and drug protections, poison and hazmat laws, even your precious fertilizer -- lots of good safety laws that restrict our freedom. Would you allow freedom for folks to shoot heroin in public in front of your kids? Can I be free to dangle my johnnies while at ShopRite as long as a park in the nudie spot? Can we have the liberty and be free to blast our stereo's while shooting off fireworks in Collegeview? Heck, folks here don't even want us to be free to weed-whack before 9am.
How free to you want to be?
So let's stop the ridiculous analogies and talk large clips, their place in our society. The rest is poppycock.
I agree with you, JIT. But, you're getting away from the real point here.
Our Constitutional freedoms were paid for with the blood of our ancestors. It is our OBLIGATION to preserve ALL of those rights for future generations who will live in a society that we can not predict. Allowing those freedoms to be eroded by people who feel inconvenienced or threatened by them means that we have failed in our duty. I'll admit that I don't have the capability to ensure that the Constitution is preserved, but I won't sit quietly (or cheer alongside the clueless) while it's rendered toothless.
MG, I apologize for the incorrect spelling but I communicated my thought correctly.
Of course, I believe Kyleigh's mother had only the best intentions for this feel good law, but I'm sure the state saw dollar signs.
Darwin, I think a knife ban is fair , but we also know that passengers have boarded planes with knives since this ban took place. And, there was a gun ban at this movie theater, didn't stop the killer anymore than a gun ban could have, imo.
No JIT i have no problem with US Marshalls with guns on the plane. What i would have a problem with is "Bob from Texas" with a gun on a plane. As you said its' all about intent. Well please help me identify the person who intends to use the gun for harm... do the have a crocked face? some sort of tell that will let me know if they intent to use the gun to protect me or harm me.... Maybe we can go back to the old west and have the bad guys wear black hats so we can figure out who they are?. I have pretty good idea the US Marshalls intent is to protect us on the plane, i have no clue or way of knowing what anyone else who is on the plane intent is.
And yes even the great Chuck Norris would still need at least a box cutter to get to the cockpit. :)
would you feel safer if ever adult on a plane had a gun or if only a US Marshall on the plane had a gun?
"And yes even the great Chuck Norris would still need at least a box cutter to get to the cockpit. :)"
They haven't built a plane large enough to contain Chuck Norris's greatness anyway... so it's a moot point (-;
LV Mom,
Putting a "no guns allowed" sign at the movie theater was pointless. If they really wanted to make sure they had no guns they would have had metal detectors at every entrance. And had no way of being able to prop open a backdoor. Then maybe this would have been prevented.
"What i would have a problem with is "Bob from Texas" with a gun on a plane"
Why? Why would you assume that Bob is going to do harm? Do you leave your house in fear every day, expecting to see Bob on the road next to you, in your office, at the supermarket or at the local bar?
Serious questions.
"would you feel safer if ever adult on a plane had a gun or if only a US Marshall on the plane had a gun?"
No, but it wouldn't bother me. As I've said before, if another passenger wanted to cause harm there are an infinite number of ways to do so.
LV Mom: Wow, I stand uncorrected. Cold very cold that you think our State Government is that callous, that low. Wow.
Ianimal: I am not inconvenienced or threatened. And what makes you think a LCM will be the answer in the future. You really just don't have a clue what the future holds. No one does.
JIT: I find it most distasteful whenever you enter your "teaching mode" telling others they don't understand, that they aren't communicating, and then begin to instruct your proposed student using a teacher's tone. It's condescending to act like this towards others so here's your chance to tell us how it feels.
FYI, communication is defined, by Webster, as "the act or process of transmitting information." Note the word, word, is not there. There's nonverbal communication (as in no words), there's emotional communication (with or without words), there's signs, symbols, pictures, behavior, hand gestures (here's yours ! ) etc. etc. All of these forms of communication can be without words. So when you say: "FYI communication requires words," you are just plain wrong. What else might you be wrong on?
FYI, in communication, each word does not have a specific definition as you so dogmatically postulate. Once again you are wrong, this time on many fronts. You know that definitions change all the time, it is the nature of language. I will not belabor your wrongness on the specificity of definitions but there can also be differences due to many valid reasons including geographic location. A sub to folks living n Annapolis might have a different primary definition than a sub in say, to people in Philadelphia for example. Most words have multiple definitions and the primary definition might change for you depending on race, religion, ethnic origin or geographic location. But at a deeper level, and taking advantage of Noam Chomsky's Transformational Generative Grammar theories, you certainly realize that in linguistics, the set of rules known as grammar, uses deep structure and surface structure to derive actual meaning. Thus we can have two different ways (forms) of saying the same thing or two things can be the same in form but different in meaning. I know this is deep for you, so try this, Chomsky's famous: "The shooting of the hunters was terrible." I would gather you understand the definitions of the words (or look them up) but do any two people agree on the meaning of the sentence. Did they die or just suffer from bad aim? So while words MAY have specific meaning (which they do not necessarily), due to TGG or Generative Grammar as we like to call it, very different meanings can be construed in communication of a single sentence even when the grammar is well and proper. Imagine the complexity of meaning in the real world with typos, misspellings and grammatical errors. So once again you are wrong, but I will let you research more and study up on these concepts as I am apparently lacking in understanding and communication skills to convey the meaning to a guy like you.
Likewise, your definition of liberty is only a partial definition and you (as I have been told) should quote your source when you cut n paste. Amazingly this is the part of the definition of the noun liberty that most of the right-wing and survivalist groups abridge and pick up on. You should use the complete and comprehensive definition and you should explain any constraints (like you are only defining the noun and not the verb). Of course, please show your work :>)
Here's what I agree with: Liberty, whatever the definition, is a state of mind. I don't think anyone would say forcing shatterproof windshields on us is a loss of liberty since we all agree --- it's a good law, a good restriction. We are still free. Likewise the loss of freedom to be at liberty to drink and do drugs openly on the streets is probably of good loss of our freedoms. Apparently on seat belts and then the size of clips, it's a different story. On seat belts, I think even those of us who feel a loss of liberty there would agree that we are being stupid. I know I am.
Communication, according to Webster, is the act of transmitting information, and I agree that it's nice when both parties agree to the meaning but you know in your heart that it does not happen often. So keep asking questions, looking for clarification and a common understanding and try to turn down the condescending teaching attitude that puts so many readers off their bacon. Did you like the lesson so far?
So let me communicate what I mean about these HUGE WMD worthless clips that erode our basic freedom to congregate in public settings and destroy the liberty of so, so many needlessly slain victims, their families and friends. 28 incidents since Columbine; one or two a year for the past 5 years at a death rate of over 21 people slain each year for the past five years. Most often with large clips. But I can make it even simpler with thanks to Bob D., for communicating in a form we all can understand and for telling us where the answer to all this lies. All I can add JIT is how many deaths will it take? how many more?
How many roads most a man walk down
Before you call him a man ?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand ?
Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned ?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Yes, how many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea ?
Yes, how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free ?
Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see ?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Yes, how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky ?
Yes, how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry ?
Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died ?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Write your legislator. Let's at least attempt to reduce the carnage per incident and get stiffer penalties on the abusers. Take action and tell us you did.
darwin " If they really wanted to make sure they had no guns they would have had metal detectors at every entrance. And had no way of being able to prop open a backdoor. Then maybe this would have been prevented."
Both of those ideas are better than a gun ban, imo and probably more effective.
forget limiting the size of clips gun owners should have, i am now petitioning a limit to the size of MG's posts on these threads.
100 words or less MG!
Was loving Mistergoogle and his points - but I'll say he totally lost me on that last point and I didn't even read it - PUT THE COFFEE DOWN and step away!
Just kidding Mistergoogle - I agree with you 100%. There are restrictions everywhere - and I believe without them it would be unruly.
I must admit I do not agree with them all but I do obey them.
misterg, this is what I got out of your post:
1- Definitions are pointless, they change frequently and can be whatever we want them to be.
2- Communication happens in ways other than in written form (even on a forum???).
3- I am condescending because I am trying to convey my views.
Close? ;)
Look misterg, you really do need to relax a bit. I get it that you don't like my views (big surprise there, lol) and that you don't like the way I write (I know what you mean), but there *IS* a reason I write. When I allow some of my frustration to slip through it's 99.99% because another poster thought it wise to take that road first. No excuses, just an explanation.
Now, back to the thread. There are several asked and as-yet unanswered questions floating about. darwin, I'd like to continue the discussion if you're interested.
MG "Here's what I agree with: Liberty, whatever the definition, is a state of mind. I don't think anyone would say forcing shatterproof windshields on us is a loss of liberty since we all agree --- it's a good law, a good restriction. We are still free. Likewise the loss of freedom to be at liberty to drink and do drugs openly on the streets is probably of good loss of our freedoms. Apparently on seat belts and then the size of clips, it's a different story. On seat belts, I think even those of us who feel a loss of liberty there would agree that we are being stupid. I know I am."
Shatterproof windshields, I don't agree it's a good law. I think it would be a better business move for auto manufacturers and a reason for insurance companies to discount rates. Same with seatbelts. I don't believe gov't intervention was necessary, it would have happened anyway. I don't believe a cop should be allowed to ticket anyone over 18 for not wearing a seatbelt. It's just another way to collect revenue. We need way less laws than we have on the books right now, imo.
Waiting for the nice, but slow, Japanese couple in front of me to tee off...
Write your legislators and let them know that the cowards do not rule and that you are not willing to surrender your freedoms and the freedom of future generations to appease their cowardice. Defend the Constitution.
darwin, I was specifically thinking of this:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/435905#t438509
Was there something you had asked but haven't yet had answered?
MG,
More than 21 people a year take their lives due to 24 hour a day harrassment that has been enabled by youtube, facebook, formspring, myspace, texting and rich-media SMS messages. Will you join me in the rush to ban the use of the internet and text/SMS capable phones in the U.S. for anyone but the military and law-enforcement? Obviously, these technologies and devices in the hands of the public are WMDs and we need to restrict them to those groups that have the proper intent.
Another terrible example.
r-man - you said it yourself "take their lives".
We only discussing the NEED for civilians to own these types of guns.
I have not seen 1 answer to that question.
coffee, NEED isn't the point. We don't NEED many things. For instance, we don't NEED seat belt laws: Just don't get into an accident! We don't NEED guns: Just lay down and die when you're being attacked. We don't NEED asparagus: That's just disgusting lol!
Getting serious for a moment, the question has been answered many times already. No one NEEDS those type of guns. That's what you've been wanting to have validated, right? No one on this thread disagrees with you. Not one single person that I can see.
Now that you've scored that "victory", can you take a moment to view the complimentary version of the question, which is Why does anyone NEED to ban these types of weapons? My responses in this thread have been from this perspective. Not everyone NEEDS to have them banned, but some do. Just as not everyone NEEDS to own a 100 ammo clip, but some do.
When compared to many other high-risk activities, the statistics don't merit a ban. So my question for you is: What makes this statistically low-risk object such an important one to ban?
sorry JIT didn't see you post before MG's novel. I guess the ball is in my court..
Why? Why would you assume that Bob is going to do harm? Do you leave your house in fear every day, expecting to see Bob on the road next to you, in your office, at the supermarket or at the local bar?
I do not assume ppl are going to harm me, in fact I live a pretty non paranoid life., hence why I keep my gun at home. However since I do not racially profile people like the George Zimmermans in the world, it is hard for me to know anyone's intentions. I feel safer if the people around me DIDN'T have guns, I guess some of you would feel the opposite. Some feel we should all be John Wayne walk in to bars, planes, trains, etc with our gun. One of my offices is in a bank, if I see a guy walk in with a gun on his belt and no badge how am I to know what his intent is? Should I just go about my business or should I keep an eye on him?
I see articles like the one Calico696 posted and think maybe civilians with guns in public would be a good thing... then I see the Zimmerman story I change my mind. I don't have the answer, I don't know if we would be safer if we all carried. I would not want this to turn into the Wild West...
And yes the key is intent, but ppl can also reactive, hot headed so intent can change quickly. I would rather see a fist fight than a gun fight break out.
BTW if i saw someone with a AR15 I would his intent is to kill me, but hey that's just me
Ianimal: now you've gotten down to it. If we don't see things your way, we're cowards. Wow. I think this one is a winding down now.
Darwin, whether you believe it or not our views are nearly the same. I'd prefer not to have a society where everyone walks around with a firearm strapped to their side. I do NOT own a gun btw. I've considered it but at the present time don't feel it's necessary, mostly because I fear (yes, I do have fears lol) a situation where my children would inadvertently find and use them.
The only thing I've tried to do is point out that a lot of what we legislate is reactionary in nature, implemented because of fear (thus my constant use of the word "emotion") and not because of fact. When I look at the whole gun issue I don't give it a high priority, not because there isn't risk involved but because in the grand scheme of nature it's a relatively small risk. IOW, there are plenty of other things for me to worry about that a far more likely to affect me.
Which is the point. My choices, my outlook on life, are different from everyone else. Should I force my views on you just because something bad may happen somewhere, someday, involving a 100 round clip? No, just as you shouldn't force your views on me. Remember, statistically this is a very trivial discussion. It's the emotion attached to it that's in the drivers seat...
What I thought was a good analogy came to me as I was standing over a six foot putt.... (I missed).
The 2nd amendment is not the only amendment to be restricted. For instance, there is the famous decision that says you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Imagine that this was what happened in this case... someone did not open fire, they YELLED fire and in the panic, we had the same exact carnage. Same number dead, same number injured in the ensuing stampede. There is a law against yelling Fire, just as there is a law against opening fire with a weapon. Both actions were committed by a deranged individual with the intent to hurt as many people as possible.
MrG and those who think like him would then obviously come to the conclusion that the word "fire" must not be used ever again, not by anyone, anywhere, under no condition, not in any context. Because if you allow people to keep using the word, it will eventually be yelled in a theater again, with the same results as before... or worse.
Pretty silly, huh? But that's exactly their rationale...
Wow, I was just thinking that exact thing as I watched the Japanese couple in front of me. They were Buddhists too. Now I understand my wrong-headed thinking.
Not.
Nope. Non sequitur. Reductio ad absurdum for sure.
The putt was not the only thing you missed.
There is already this restriction on the First Amendment. It is legal to say fire, but illegal to say it as you mentioned. What I am suggesting is to make mfg, ownership, distribution and use of LCM WMDs illegal and to have strict penalties for those who do.
If you choose to break the law, you should be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, punished if you break either of these laws.
Sorry coffee, but I see the internet and cell phones as the weapons. The videos, texts, pictures with captions, etc are the bullets. The weapon (internet and cell phones) has the capability to "fire" unlimited bullets. Regardless of whether the person took their own life or those doing the harrassing kill them, death is the result. I think that prosecutors are agreeing with my logic and charging people with manslaughter and murder in cases like this.
Yet I don't see anyone advocating that we shut down the internet and limit cell phone services over people dying as the direct result of their existence.
PS> Although I am outraged at people who use the internet and cell phone services in this way, my posts contain healthy amounts of sarcasm and a play at devil's advocate.
Oh my God I can't believe you people are still ranting over this. You live in NJ. It is against the law to " legally own " (you need a letter from God to get a permit for one legally) such a weapon. Unless your a criminal. Go to a state where these weapons are legal. Find a local forum and rant till the cows come home. Spewing your retoric whether it be pro or con doesn't matter in this state. Colorado has the strictest gun laws in the country. That loon still got one, planned it, carried his intentions out and people died. No matter how much you belly ache about it, no matter how many laws there are. It made no difference. IMO, this crazy was caught red handed. Don't waste my time on boo hoo trials at the taxpayers expense. This guy should have been hung already. Done and done. He doesn't deserve a plate of food or a warm bed!
Forget about bullying. Is the Internet not the source for 99.99% of all the child pornography traffic in the world? Is it not the primary source for pedophiles to seduce little children into meeting for sexual trysts? Yet, it's ammo clips that the deluded focus on... sad. Do people really NEED the Internet?
nope , they don't NEED the internet, and it is used for all kinds of really bad criminal things like child porn on a regular basis.
no one has made any kind of convincing argument for why they need the internet that i agree with
and it is a given that if you cannot PROVE to me, to my complete satisfaction that you NEED something, (because I won't allow you to prove it to me), then I am perfectly justified and empowered to enforce a rule that you says you cannot have the things that you falsely clam that you NEED.
no one really NEEDS it, so it should be done away with, now sit back down on the floor and eat your daily ration of rice
"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" (StarTrek, The Borg)
I'm pretty sure it is legal to Yell Fire in a crowd if there is actually a FIRE!!, which from the storys we heard he threw gas or smoke bombs so it was legal to yell FIRE.
Another brilliant agruement
LVMOm Brotherdog and Ianimal: It would be a sorry, sorry America if you gentlepersons had your way. Thank God you don't.
You espouse freedom at the level of complete chaos even to the point of causing harm.
You hold the Constitution as sacrosanct even though it was invented to be amended.
And except for LVMOM who keeps it civil, anyone who sees the rest of you for what you are is branded a coward", "deluded", a "clueless" "fear-monger" "demagogue" and worse. and told to "sit back down on the floor and eat your daily ration of rice ."
No I won't accept that.
Even JIT isn't as dogmatic as you except on his favorite issue of "The Rule of Law" which he believes is a black and white red-letter gospel to answer all questions. JIT, even the rule of law has a number of "schools of thought" and varied interpretations. If not, why do we need Constitutional Lawyers? Why bother with a Supreme Court?
The world is not black and white, it is not grey --- it is full living color! Things change, people change, and with new information might come new ideas on how to live, prosper and govern in our society. That's why the founding fathers wisely invented a system of check and balances. That's why the founding fathers provided a means to change even bedrock documents like the Constitution. That's why the Bill of Rights is an addition. It's proof of our ability to change built into the very bedrock of our democratic process.
Change is the nature of OUR democracy. Why even on this site, change has occurred over time. Who would have thought we could have this discussion without calling for control on guns? And not long ago, we could not have this discussion without the gun-supporters picking a fight; today only an animal would attempt such a thing. Change happens. It is the nature and rule of law in our democracy.
I just don't see that putting controls on clip size is a bad thing. Nor do I see it as a gross infringement on our freedoms. And the precedent already exists in assault weapons, shotguns, NJ, and elsewhere. I just don't see where tougher penalties for making, owning, selling and using illegal arms is a bad thing.
And I certainly wouldn't call you a "cowardly deluded clueless fear-monger" for thinking otherwise. Gotta go to the Farmer's Market, kvetch to you later.
darwin, don't you know that brilliance is defined only by how each of us perceives brilliance - didn't you read misterg's earlier diatribe? Get with the program man! ;)
still waiting for coffee to come back for nice cup of tea so we can further discuss my last question posted to him/her. BTW, since it applies to your view as well feel free to take a crack at it...
(auntiel - that's why the thread is still going, because there's more to discuss)
ok JIT change NEED with BENEFIT
no we don't NEED many of the things you mentioned as well as numerous other things. However we do BENEFIT from them. So what is the BENEFIT of civilians owning assualt weapons. What day to day activities to they serve/improve?
I again fail to see the need or benefit of owning them so would help finding a rational reason to how my fellow americans benefit from owing them.
Darwin, also gun "fire" but that's not the point. We are finding out that the suspect was being treated by University staff for Schizophrenia. We can't always place order in this world; there is no 100%. 100% does not exist. Your screen name by its very definition (darwin) gives the answer as to what happened in Aurora...
Here is a snippet from darwin above "I do not assume ppl are going to harm me, in fact I live a pretty non paranoid life., hence why I keep my gun at home."
WRONG. Anything can happen, the evolution of species...; in this case the evolution of man.
Time to change your screen name darwin since you don't seem to be embracing its ethos.
The only thing bringing up not being able to yell "fire" in a crownd does is prove there are limits when it comes to our rights. The 1st amendement gives me the freedom of speech but even that has limits. There are certain things i can not say... and even certain WORDS i can not say. Those words are bad and evil... so we limit the English language.... so why not limit which guns/ammo/clips we can use?
You can show me all the data on car vs gun deaths, but i have yet to see any data on the # of deaths caused buy words.
look at me making a stupid comparison like you guys do
Why is it OK to limit what others do just because you see a BENEFIT?
I know you absolutely hate analogies, but if there is a barrier that prevents a viewpoint from being clearly understood an analogy can often help clarify. Wouldn't you agree?
It's been said before: Where is the line? By that I mean where is the line to be drawn between each of us being individuals, by definition owners of our own lives, and the sacrifice that must be made to live in a society with other individuals, each of whom also owns their own life?
You have just argued that as long as there is a benefit to outlawing what you don't like it should be done. Think about that for a minute. Think about all of the umpteen million analogies that have come before in this thread, how there would be benefits to outlawing cars, knives, airplanes and the like. Certainly there would be life-saving benefits, right? Serious question darwin, do you agree there would be benefits to outlawing those items?
When we get drawn into discussions like this it is best to take aguy's advice:
"The best time to figure out what is best for the people is not while the people are upset over a act that involves the topic that needs to be figured out."
IOW, the emotion of the despicable act takes over our reasoning power and causes people to go to any length to justify the removal of someone else's rights. And make no mistake, that's what you are talking about, creating a law to inhibit the rights of another.
For benefit, you say. Of course, there would be a benefit. But the cost of that benefit is HUGE when compared to the actual benefit. In this case, how many deaths can be estimated to be prevented by banning 100 round magazine clips? I have no idea, but if the previously stated statistic of 17-18 deaths per year in "massacres" (that are NOT attributed to high-magazine counts btw) is close to being accurate you are talking about further reducing the rights of 313 MILLION people and all of their descendants! So that quantifies your benefit: .0000058% of the current population *may* be saved. MAY! And that assumes that the person having the intent to kill doesn't find another way to accomplish his goal. Is it unreasonable to think that he would find another way? I certainly don't think so.
Do you understand now how huge the cost is of the current mentality in our society, that we can arbitrarily remove the rights of others one by one until we quite literally will have no rights left. That's not a stretch either. Just because it might not happen in your lifetime doesn't make it untrue.
Do you get what I'm saying here?
This entire argument has devolved into nonsense. Look, society can limit or ban any damn thing it wants to through the action of its elected representatives, provided those restrictions are consistent with the constitution. The court decides that consistency.
You can make ridiculous analogies about cars or the internet, but it's not relevant as NOBODY thinks it's in the public good to ban these things. Many people think it's in the public interest to limit the availability of certain weapons. The open questions are 1 what does the majority believe are reasonable gun laws? And 2, are those laws consistent with the constitution?
Gadfly "Why is it OK to limit what others do just because you see a BENEFIT?"
all i am doing is asking the question JIT. I don't have the answer. I think i have proven i am being very open minded on this thread. so i am simply searching for the answer. If the answer is we as a society dont' benefit from owning these types of guns, then i think it is ok to discuss banning them. If we as a society find a benefit to being able to own assault rifles then we as a society can come to the agreement to keep owning them.
But i think asking how we benefit from something is a fair question to ask. One that you have not provided an answer to.
Wow, Mr.G ... someone must not like you. Many of your posts apparently get delayed for hours. I didn't see them at all yesterday. Allow me to respond in as civil a manner as I can muster. (But for the record, smarmy condescension, such as you like to use, is not typically considerd to be civil.)
"Ianimal: now you've gotten down to it. If we don't see things your way, we're cowards. Wow. I think this one is a winding down now."- MrG
No, it has nothing to do with "seeing it my way"; it has to do with you volunteering to surrender the rights of others to assuage your own sense of safety. I'm not sure how Webster defines coward, but that's as good a description as any.
"There is already this restriction on the First Amendment. It is legal to say fire, but illegal to say it as you mentioned. What I am suggesting is to make mfg, ownership, distribution and use of LCM WMDs illegal and to have strict penalties for those who do." - Mr. G
How about we make the use of these clips in the commisssion of a crime an aggravating factor in a criminal case? There's no reason to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.So it will be legal to own them, but illegal to use them in an illegal fashion.
"LVMOm Brotherdog and Ianimal: It would be a sorry, sorry America if you gentlepersons had your way. Thank God you don't.
You espouse freedom at the level of complete chaos even to the point of causing harm.
You hold the Constitution as sacrosanct even though it was invented to be amended." - Mr. G
Now, who's being insulting? Telling someone that if they got their way, that society would be ruined, isn't fundamentally any different than calling them clueless, is it?
Who's espousing chaos? As a very wise man named Robert Heinlein once said: "An armed society is a polite society." Look at the areas in this country with the strictest anti-gun laws; there's a hell of a lot more chaos there than in pro-gun areas.
I am espousing maintaining the status quo when it comes to gun rights. Are you saying that we are currently living in a world of complete chaos? Not from where I'm sitting, but your kitchen may be different, I guess.
Yes, the Constitution was made to be amended... by a 2/3 majority vote and then it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. You seem to be indicating that legislation should be passed based on a simple majority. I have no problem with adding an amendment to the Constitution if you can get the required 67% and 75%. I don't think you can. I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it as the Constitutiionally mandated will of the people.
Would you support legislation whereby we altered the rights in the 4th-6th amendments not to apply to illegal immigrants? Allow for searches without probable cause to demonstrate citizenship and then hold them in camps indefinitely without due process until we get around to deporting them? A lot of people would vote for that. Do you think 51% should be enough to make it the rule of law? I don't.
Unlike liberals, I believe in the entire Bill of Rights, not just the 1st and those whose sole purpose seems to be allowing criminals to avoid jail time. Unlike conservatives, I believe in the entire Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd and the 10th.
My second state Vermont is armed by default. It is a rural state where purchasing a gun is like purchasing a nice drill. I have been going to Vermont since the 70s and have never seen or been involved with any craziness involving guns. In fact, the closest thing was in NY State in the 1980s which has strict laws.
darwin, your turn... (-;
"I'm pretty sure it is legal to Yell Fire in a crowd if there is actually a FIRE!!, which from the storys we heard he threw gas or smoke bombs so it was legal to yell FIRE.
Another brilliant agruement" - darwin
The point of the analogy was simply to demonstrate the flaw in the rationale for supporting clip limits. The scenario in the analogy involved no smoke bombs, merely the words. You are arguing against points that weren't even made. And then you magically dismiss the non-existent argument as "brilliant" to further the point. What's the benefit in that?
My point was that we WOULDN'T outlaw the word "fire" as result of the incident; so, why should we outlaw large capacity magazines? Please feel free to respond to THAT if you wish, but don't try to change my words around because you think a point that I DIDN'T make is easier to refute. Thanks.
"ok JIT change NEED with BENEFIT
no we don't NEED many of the things you mentioned as well as numerous other things. However we do BENEFIT from them. So what is the BENEFIT of civilians owning assualt weapons. What day to day activities to they serve/improve?
I again fail to see the need or benefit of owning them so would help finding a rational reason to how my fellow americans benefit from owing them." - darwin
If people didn't get a "benefit" from them, why would they buy them? For assault weapons, maybe they get a rush from firing them like skydivers do from jumping out of airplanes. For large capacity magazines, perhaps it's something as simple as not having to reload as often when ripping off a thousand shells during an afternoon of recreational shooting. I don't know. I don't own either and I don't have any use for either. But, I respect the fact that others obviously do. As long as they aren't using them criminally, more power to them. What's the harm?
more guns results in less crime
more guns protects more freedoms
less guns results in more crime and makes life more dangerous
less guns results in fewer freedoms
this has been amply demonstrated by the crime statistics from the last ten years (or more)
there is no need for more restrictions, maybe the therapist should have alerted somebody about this unstable and dangerous person?
and for today's rant - the ones who use name calling and ridiculing as a standard debating technique have no standing to claim that they are now suddenly offended when treated in the same fashion as they have been treating others who differ from them all along. once again the level of intellectual dishonesty is both appalling and telling. quite revealing as to their true character, ( or actually the lack of it) they can dish it out, but can't take it when it's given back.
Nah cbel, guys just like to hear themselves talk (or in this case type lol) :)
darwin, I appreciate your responses and I hope the view I've been trying to convey has become more clear.
"If the answer is we as a society dont' benefit from owning these types of guns, then i think it is ok to discuss banning them. If we as a society find a benefit to being able to own assault rifles then we as a society can come to the agreement to keep owning them."
I think this is where our perspectives come into play. I see society as a whole bunch of individuals, people who have their own individual hopes, desires, goals, and that we are first and foremost individuals and not citizens. Being a member of society comes second. When you (well, any of us actually) want to pass a law what you are doing is telling your fellow members of society that they can't do something. Assuming the request falls withing the bounds of our Constitution (which this one doesn't IMO), is it too much to ask to evaluate the request to see what the real benefit to society is? The benefit to society here would be what, exactly? I know it sounds rough, but I really do believe that the desire to ban these clips is 100% due to fear - 100% - and fear alone is not a valid reason to place restrictions on your fellow citizens (if you've read any of my posts about the TSA you'll know what I mean). Like I said, we are all fearful of something, but isn't a careful analysis of that fear at least worth a look? The analogies in this thread were meant to do just that, to provide a comparison for the reasons stated for wanting this ban, using real world statistics to demonstrate.
"But i think asking how we benefit from something is a fair question to ask. One that you have not provided an answer to."
I have darwin. "We" don't have to benefit from any good or service. Most goods and services in the US aren't meant for "societal" consumption anyway. Does society benefit from twist ties, Christmas lights, or even toe nail clippers? No, individuals with individual requirements benefit from them. Why would I even consider how 100 round clips benefit society when they are not meant to; they're just another product that has a demand, just like nearly every other good you can buy. So I believe the question is invalid because by our very nature individuals benefit from goods, not society. Society benefits from a rule of law that is applied fairly and equally to everyone, where individuals are allowed to seek what they desire as long as they don't cause harm to another. That's why I've said that it's not the good (the clip in this case) but the person committing the crime that's the problem. Our laws already handle anyone who causes harm to another. Preventing everyone from this particular item will not stop crime. What it will do, though, is to alleviate people's fear of the *possibility* that it would stop a crime. Alleviating your fear, while I'm sure it feels good, won't change the person intent on causing harm.
Help or hinder?
(sorry cbel - another long-winded reply, uhhgg!)
Ah yes, let's have a Heinlein moment or two or three.... One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein was prolific, sexist, solipsistic guy who wrote sci-fi, children's books, lots and lots of shorts. So let's kick off the next over-the-top, way-too-long, rant.
Cbel: as reason to our lengthy tomes, to quote a wise man, Robert Heinlein, "“Once a month, some women act like men act all the time.” I guess, according to Heinlein, we're just men being men. Sweeeeet description from a lover of women, as long as they behave :>(
And for Ianimal: "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
I guess that sums it up although I would not be comfortable living next to Ianimal or Hunter Thompson, God rest him, so I think Heinlein is wrong in his conclusion about which political mindsets make the best neighbors since, in truth, good neighbors make good neighbors and not based on some political stereotype generality. That's why generalities and stereotypes should not be part of the debate; they do not define the individual (as Heinlein would be the first to say). Likewise, an analogy is used as a bridge to make the complex seem simple and when both have the same attributes it can work; when they don't, it's a bad analogy. Cars are the most frequent analogy known to man: wanna guess why?
The interesting part is Robert Heinlein started his life as a liberal, read Ayn Rand and saw his light, and became a devout libertarian. While conservatives love him, his John Gault libertarianism sort of puts him at the fringe of that camp. The problem with quotes, and I fall prey to this too, is that the quoted generally have said many things. Sort of like expecting a moment of truth from these lame gun analogies when the real truth is so much more complex than a simple: "its like cars...." So when you have a man who makes a sea change in his life, is a little whack to begin with, you get a truck load of fodder to filter from. Thus, according to Heinlein:
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” Yet again sounds like a great neighbor if you 100% agree with his morals. Otherwise, better ask for his list......
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” Ah, the old 100% inclusion rule. Seems a might steep for getting anything done in a group setting. Wanna bet whether he ran his house that way....
“The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.” Well, so much for depending on the Church for charity.... Maybe if we could get 100% of the people to vote for welfare.......
And so on and so on. Some pretty harsh stuff but you can see where certain folks might resonate to one quote or another. If you think this is whack, google Winston Churchill's quotes. Makes Heinlein look like the cowardly lion Ianimal attributes to me.. But I can forgive Ipanimal for his name calling, his lies through false attribution and other methods, his blatant stereotyping and generalities because, like Heinlein says:
“Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.”
"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.”
“Don't handicap your children by making their lives easy.”
Not sure that those who called him "Dad" have great childhood memories; maybe they had group therapy with the Hemingway kids.... As rigid, dogmatic, and ideological as Heinlein seems to be, bear in mind that he said:
“Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.”
"Never try to outstubborn a cat.”
“There is no such thing as "Just a cat.”
“How you behave toward cats here below determines your status in Heaven.”
“Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.”
“I have spent too much of my life opening doors for cats—I once calculated that, since the dawn of civilization, nine hundred and seventy-eight man-centuries have been used up that way. I could show you figures.”
ýWomen and Cats do what they do; and there is nothing a man can do it about it.”
And one of my favorites, from "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls:" “Butterflies are not insects, they are self-propelled flowers.”
I do love Heinlein the author, but like Mel Gibson or Bill Clinton (oh shoot, an analogy), you need to separate the works from the man and realize that all men have many facets, no man is a stereotype, and keep the discourse to the topic not personal attacks, innuendos, or just a lack of polite chatter.
So Ianimal. I am not a coward. I have been buckshot, I have looked down the barrel, I did not flinch. If you see "smarmy condescension" or insults point them out and I will apologize. I do find your views on personal freedoms to the point of causing harm making America sorry; I did not say ruin society, you made that up. And where's the word clueless? You made that up too. I believe you know exactly what you mean when your espouse additional personal freedoms like reduction of restrictive laws like seat belts, helmets, even safety glass. And yes, I think you take the desire for personal freedoms to the point where, we would have more liberty, and the amount of chaos in our society would be increased. People flying through windshields, windshields lacerating bodies, even more bullets flying --- seems more chaotic to me.
I talked about modifications to the Constitution, I did not talk about modifying the process to a simple majority vote. Again, you made that up.
When you say "Would you support legislation whereby we altered the rights in the 4th-6th amendments not to apply to illegal immigrants?" I say non-sequitur. I have been talking legislation on limiting clip size.
When you say "Allow for searches without probable cause to demonstrate citizenship and then hold them in camps indefinitely without due process until we get around to deporting them?" again I say non-sequitur and see previous comment re simple majority fabrication.
When you say "Unlike liberals, I believe in the entire Bill of Rights, not just the 1st and those whose sole purpose seems to be allowing criminals to avoid jail time. Unlike conservatives, I believe in the entire Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd and the 10th." Who are you to speak for all liberals or conservatives for that matter? What makes you think liberals do not support the Bill of Rights? Again, another fabrication.
Again we are not talking about taking anyone's guns. We are talking clip size and we agree with you that the toughest penalties should be applied to any crime with a HUGE clip. We both know this will not stop loons like the Aurora killer. We also need tougher penalties on manufacture, sales, and ownership of clips.
We do know that most mass killers with HUGE clips in crowded areas, when stopped, are stopped between clips not by citizens with guns but by citizens who can take action between the clips We should try to give them a better chance.
In closing, yes I love the works of Robert Heinlein although I am not sure I would attribute the word "wise" to him. And I would hope that this changes your mind, but I know it won;t because, as Heinlein said in one of my more favorite quotes: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and besides it annoys the pig.”
OK I know: analogy, stereotype, and insult. I apologize (to the pig ;>) OK, I really apologize in advance for my transgressions, both of them.
Well, if your soliloquy did nothing else, it introduced many more of Heinlein's pearls of wisdom to the Forum than I would ever dare to bore people with myself. Thanks for that. The rest is just more of the same... Deflection and misdirection. If you don't wish to answer the questions posed to you, just say so. Instead you spend 2000 words why you shouldn't have to answer them and probably just to hear yourself talk.
However, this thread has served to prove my point to a degree. You have apparently been deemed a "criminal" on this site and your posts are held until some moderator has the time and inclination to read through your lengthy diatribes and deem it acceptable. I'm not sure what you did to get on the "sh*t list", nor do I care. However, if EVERYONE got put on it because of what you did, then the Forum would be a desolate place. There's no need to punish everyone for the acts of one or even a few.
i've read all of Heinlein's books, and short stories, even those from amazing stories magazine form the late 40's
one of the greatest scifi authors of all time, thanks for the great quotes.
i would offer that if he were still with us, Heinlein would come down on the side of not further restricting gun rights or clip sizes, he would opt for personal freedom over government control
the older i get the more libertarian i am becoming in my outlook on life.
Heinlein changed positions dramatically once in his life from liberal to libertarian, so I do agree with BD except --- when you look at the Goldwaters, McCains and other staunch conservatives, one does tend to see moderation in time. Matter of fact, I kind of liked the new old Goldwater....:>) It is the lack of moderation that makes any political bent extreme.
The steady increase of mass murder in a single crowded location with large clips might have moderated his thought; otherwise I would agree with your conclusion.
But then again, most ideologues of any political bent are, well I said it, a bit bent.
I don't think the murderer had any clips at all...Please learn a little more about the objects you are speaking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF21sihEgOU
Which murderer were you talking about, be specific.... Meanwhile I was talking about that thingee what u put lots n lots n lots of bullets in soes you can fire ad nauseam ad infinitum until the thingee that u puts all dem bullets in is empty and then you just snap another thingee in and start again.
Often clip and magazine are used interchangeably especially by us Hollywood types. But I really don;t care. It's the number of bullets than can be fired before reloading that is the issue, not the method of delivery.
And whether clip, magazine, drum magazine, belt, it don;t matter. Same issue. And whether pan, tubular, box, rotary, casket, helical or horizontal magazine -- same issue too.
Bandoliers are OK though.
Here comes a lengthy reply, but one that actually ANSWERS your points, unlike
"So Ianimal. I am not a coward. I have been buckshot, I have looked down the barrel, I did not flinch. If you see "smarmy condescension" or insults point them out and I will apologize. I do find your views on personal freedoms to the point of causing harm making America sorry; I did not say ruin society, you made that up. And where's the word clueless? You made that up too. I believe you know exactly what you mean when your espouse additional personal freedoms like reduction of restrictive laws like seat belts, helmets, even safety glass. And yes, I think you take the desire for personal freedoms to the point where, we would have more liberty, and the amount of chaos in our society would be increased. People flying through windshields, windshields lacerating bodies, even more bullets flying --- seems more chaotic to me."
Causing harm to the point of making America sorry (actually, "a sorry, sorry America" to quote you accurately) and creating total and complete chaos... is that not essentially the same thing as "ruin"? Forgive me for wrapping up your wordy rant into a single equivalent syllable.
"And I certainly wouldn't call you a "cowardly deluded clueless fear-monger" for thinking otherwise. Gotta go to the Farmer's Market, kvetch to you later." - mistergoogle 1 day ago - There's the word clueless... which you say you didn't use. I guess that makes you a liar? I never said you specifically called ME clueless. You said that my beliefs would cause complete and utter chaos blah blah blah... which would certainly MAKE me "clueless" if what you say were true.
Seatbelts? I'm sorry, did you not spend 1,000 words on sticking to the topic and then launch into a diatribe about safety glass and seatbelts? You aren't very good at practicing what you preach, are you? For the record, I am all for laws that require automobile manufacturers to outfit cars with airbags, seatbelts and safety glass. There also exists a huge market for motorcycle helmets. The only thing I propose is that an individual be allowed to CHOOSE whether or not to use them. Ooooh... bring on the "chaos". What makes you think that if seatbelt laws were rescinded today, that people who currently use them would stop using them?
And when did I ever "espouse the elimination of safety glass"? As far as "lies" go, that's a doozy.
Since I have already defined "coward" in the context of individual rights and those who would seek to erode them, let's move on to "deluded" - someone who believes that stricter gun laws will make America safer; as far as delusions go, that's pretty much the king. Clueless, we've touched on. Fear-monger... someone who uses a sensational act to use fear to further their own political agenda and convince people that a real danger exists, where none does. That wraps up your position pretty much to the tee. It's not like I've used any of these words incorrectly.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"I talked about modifications to the Constitution, I did not talk about modifying the process to a simple majority vote. Again, you made that up."
Who's being disingenuous now? How many amendments to the U.S. Constitution that restrict gun ownership are there? The answer is NONE. Gun laws are enacted by simple majority vote and you must know this, so again, I guess that makes you a liar. If we are lucky, some of the gun laws that get passed are eventually deemed "un-Constitutional" if people spend enough money to fight to regain the freedom that they shouldn't have lost in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you say "Would you support legislation whereby we altered the rights in the 4th-6th amendments not to apply to illegal immigrants?" I say non-sequitur. I have been talking legislation on limiting clip size."
We have been talking about freedoms and the Bill of Rights. If the 2nd Amendment is not sacred, neither are the rest. Answer the question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you say "Allow for searches without probable cause to demonstrate citizenship and then hold them in camps indefinitely without due process until we get around to deporting them?" again I say non-sequitur and see previous comment re simple majority fabrication."
If the 2nd amendment rights may be restricted by simple majority vote (see the previous comment re: simple majority FACT), so may the rest. Imagine a world without an ACLU to protect criminals.. it could happen. Answer the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you say "Unlike liberals, I believe in the entire Bill of Rights, not just the 1st and those whose sole purpose seems to be allowing criminals to avoid jail time. Unlike conservatives, I believe in the entire Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd and the 10th." Who are you to speak for all liberals or conservatives for that matter? What makes you think liberals do not support the Bill of Rights? Again, another fabrication."
Liberals and Conservatives speak for themselves. The country consists of maybe 10-15% "Liberals", 10-15% "Conservatives" and then there's the rest of us. A Liberal is an absolute term defining one who subscribes to the full liberal mantra, including the abolition or severe restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Likewise for "Conservatives". The rest of us have a middle ground that falls somewhere in between and can have some "liberal" views and some "conservative" views. For example, the character that Rush Limbaugh plays on the radio is an example of an absolute "Conservative"; if you believe everything he says, so are you and you have my sympathy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again we are not talking about taking anyone's guns. We are talking clip size and we agree with you that the toughest penalties should be applied to any crime with a HUGE clip. We both know this will not stop loons like the Aurora killer. We also need tougher penalties on manufacture, sales, and ownership of clips. "
If you know it won't stop "loons like the Aurora killer", what is the purpose of your proposal?!? At that point, you basically admit that it is an arbitrary infringement without any benefit to society whatsoever. Not good enough.
---------------------------------------------------------
"We do know that most mass killers with HUGE clips in crowded areas, when stopped, are stopped between clips not by citizens with guns but by citizens who can take action between the clips We should try to give them a better chance."
"Most mass killers"? You sound like you are doing a statistical analysis based upon a population of thousands of mass killers. There have been closer to a handful of REAL "mass-killers". Not even close to being a high enough number for meaningful statistical analysis. Nor is it sufficient to justify eroding the rights of law-abiding citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------
As ridiculous as your arguments are, at least one interesting thing has come out of your new definition for WMD... you can't say that we didn't find any in Iraq. I guess Bush was right after all.
"Meanwhile I was talking about that thingee what u put lots n lots n lots of bullets in soes you can fire ad nauseam ad infinitum until the thingee that u puts all dem bullets in is empty and then you just snap another thingee in and start again. "
My smarmy condescension alarm just went off... thought I'd let you know.
"The steady increase of mass murder in a single crowded location with large clips might have moderated his thought"
Have you posted a link that shows this trend? If you did, sorry, I missed it. Can you please redirect me to it? Thanks.
btw moderators: sounds like you guys and gals have a fun job. Wouldn't want to be you... ;)
"We do know that most mass killers with HUGE clips in crowded areas, when stopped, are stopped between clips not by citizens with guns but by citizens who can take action between the clips We should try to give them a better chance."
Nice circular logic you've presented!! When citizens with guns stop a crime, it prevents it from becoming a mass killing and therefore, your premise regarding "clips" becomes true. Take a look at this example (know known as OTHER Aurora Colorado shooting)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/suspect-in-colo-church-sh_n_1450313.html
what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
realitycheck rc ?
"one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard"
what are you refering to? and what's up wth the personal attacks??
yeah r/c, who was that post directed to? Pretty harsh!
(btw, did you read the WHOLE thread yet. It's a doozie!)
It's a quote from Billy Madison... don't you guys know anything? Sheesh... (-;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
Apparently not Ian. :) Never saw the movie and frankly have no interest in doing so.
But still, an insult was thrown, so r/c: Who has the privilege of defending themselves, or are you just going to be a hit-and-run insulter? ;)
man i take a day off on this thread and it takes me forever to read thru these novels to get caught up. MG, sorry but i have stopped reading your posts. I value my time too much.. but i will tell you what i will do.... i will copy them to a word document and then next time my power in my house goes out i will sit down with a glass of wine and read them all at once.
OK JIT balls back in my court.... would you be oposed to putting ban on assualt rifles, ban on large clips on the next presidential election ballot? Let us as a society decide for ourselves if we should have these weapons. I am prety sure we as a group would never vote for a ban like that, but would be interested to see the results. If my fellow american vote to keep these types of weapons available, so be it...
Sorry I missed so much on this since the last time I was here!!
Seems like a few days at the beach building sand castles and looking at bathing beauties in bikini's was just what I needed.
Interesting reading all the posts.
I am still unsure why "regular" civilians needs these types of weapons.
I'll try and check back in from time to time to read!!
still reading thru the ones from over the weekend...
Man who knew so many people are opposed of seatbelt laws...really who thinks about it that much. Isn't just 2nd nature by now, get in your car turn the key and put your seatbelt on. And WHY be opposed to it? It is designed to save your life..is anyone against that? Anyone questioning if they realy work.Is it really uncomfortable for some people or are you just opposed to being told what to do?
"What makes you think that if seatbelt laws were rescinded today, that people who currently use them would stop using them?"
No i don't think us adults who are so use to wearing them would stop wearing them, but i'm afraid the 17/18 year olds would not wear them. And that worries me
Darwin:
Individualism is at the base of most of this and literally every law, being a restriction to someone, has it's detractors claiming loss of liberty.
The best was LV Mom's "Shatterproof windshields, I don't agree it's a good law. I think it would be a better business move for auto manufacturers and a reason for insurance companies to discount rates." Unfortunately I attributed this earlier to Ianimal in error, my bad, but what a concept.
Two for one -- Darwin: this might answer your vote question as it appears it will be up to the moderates and a lot of them will need to say "enough" to take any action. A lot.
Ianimal noted: "The country consists of maybe 10-15% "Liberals", 10-15% "Conservatives" and then there's the rest of us." According to Gallup as of 1/2012 "40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates"
Inanimal further states: "A Liberal is an absolute term defining one who subscribes to the full liberal mantra, including the abolition or severe restrictions on the 2nd Amendment" which is nebulous in that a liberal is an "absolute term" wholly inclusive on the "liberal mantra" but an either/or proposition on the 2nd Amendment. Is the mantra half full or half empty? Did you get that definition from Webster?
"OK JIT balls back in my court.... would you be oposed to putting ban on assualt rifles, ban on large clips on the next presidential election ballot? Let us as a society decide for ourselves if we should have these weapons. I am prety sure we as a group would never vote for a ban like that, but would be interested to see the results."
If it was to be made a Constitutional ammendment? Not likely. If not, yes I would be opposed. Someone accused you earlier, I think, of not knowing your history. I won't make that assumption so I'll just point to the reason why (for overview purposes only - the rest you'll have to research on your own ;) by directing you to the system of government we have (or at least have on paper) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
"A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.
In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches.[1]
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic."
The key word in all of that is "limit", something that no one seems to think is appropriate in the "modern world" for governments, although everyone seems to think it's just peachy for the citizens.
"No i don't think us adults who are so use to wearing them would stop wearing them, but i'm afraid the 17/18 year olds would not wear them. And that worries me"
For all of the effort and energy put into our education system, are you saying that the informed person would still choose to not wear a seatbelt? Obviously I would like to see my fellow citizens educated in the physics of car crashes. That alone should cause everyone to wear a seat belt.
Is your worry about young people getting injured in car crashes because they weren't ordered to do so by the government, or about our education system failing to teach them about the mathematical formulas relating impact forces to mass and velocity and the parabolic result?
Educate or dictate, that is the question...
Since you've chosen to focus on the semantics of liberal versus conservative, I can safely assume that means you have no substantive answers to any of the REAL questions posed to you. Fair enough....
"According to Gallup as of 1/2012 "40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates" "
It's possible that seventy-five percent of people would describe themselves as "good-looking", too. Most of them are just kidding themselves. What's your point? People like to take sides. Saying that you are moderate seems wishy-washy to many people. They want to be on one of the "teams". There are far more actual "moderates" than extremists, there have to be. If we really have 40% "true" conservatives in this country, we're in trouble, lol...
I'm concerned that my (hypothetical) son might get some girl pregnant or catch AIDS. Should the government mandate that no one can have sex without a condom? Or, should I teach my son to be careful and let everyone else, who i have no business trying to control, live their own lives? Actually, mandatory condoms might not be such a bad idea....
Views on Gun Laws Unchanged After Aurora Shooting
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 26-29, 2012 among 1,010 adults, shows that relatively few Americans view the shooting in Aurora as a sign of broader social problems. Two-thirds (67%) say that shootings like this one are just the isolated acts of troubled individuals. Only about a quarter (24%) say shootings like this reflect broader problems in American society. This is similar to the public reaction after the Tucson shooting in early 2011, which 58% thought of as the isolated act of a troubled individual and 31% connected to broader social problems. Americans were more likely to see broader problems behind the Virginia Tech shooting five years ago – at that time, 46% thought the event reflected broader societal problems
http://www.people-press.org/2012/07/30/views-on-gun-laws-unchanged-after-aurora-shooting/
Ianimal: Simmer down oh petulant one; I am trying to get to all your questions whether on topic or not. Please feel free to submit them in an orderly list without the fanfare and I will be sure to think about possibly responding. Although since your latest response was basically "they lied on the survey" does tend to place restrictions and limitations on our rights to reasearch :>)
Ianimal: On your Bill of Rights non sequitur. I have no idea about my feelings about the the 4th-6th amendments, illegal immigrants, etc. This thread has become about guns. Perhaps you should start another thread to discuss these other aspects of the Bill of Rights and your opinions and I will think about it.
As to the sacred nature of the Bill of Rights, that is your right to hold it sacred although again, not sure why it is germane to our discussion. I think most people might differ on your level of zeal, but I, for one, have parts I like more than others. On the whole, I give the document a 10 out of 10 in keeping with the season, however, as the process defined by the Founding Fathers, it is changeable over time. For example, we changed it to cover all races rather than just white men. I think it is harder to change sacred documents having not seen amendments to the Bible, Koran or Torah.
I honestly didn't start this Bill of Rights discussion, I was just responding. At at no point have I suggested we infringe upon the second amendment. Don't think we have to, but then again, I am not a Constitutional Lawyer although any legislation passed in this area is heading to a Constitutional show down but like the Assault Weapons Ban, will be found Constitutional IMHO.
As for simple majority as being the process for legislation, again I don;t know what you are talking about since any Federal Legislation is so far from simple majority as to make your head spin. Are you talking Supreme Court? State? What? Very unclear.
Ianimal: I apologize that my intended self-deprecating humor fell short of its mark and was seen as what you call "smarmy condescension." It was meant to reflect on my lack of knowledge of the different LCM types. I stock more basic firearms. My bad, thought I was making fun of myself, did not intend for you to feel stupid.
And in closing for the night Ianimal, you said "Causing harm to the point of making America sorry (actually, "a sorry, sorry America" to quote you accurately) and creating total and complete chaos... is that not essentially the same thing as "ruin"? Forgive me for wrapping up your wordy rant into a single equivalent syllable."
Not meaning to be "wordy," but what single syllable did you wrap up the rant with? "ruin?" Are you talking very, very fast? Thanks for the chuckle before bed (and that's chuckle -- one word, two syllables ;>)
"Not meaning to be "wordy," but what single syllable did you wrap up the rant with? "ruin?" Are you talking very, very fast? Thanks for the chuckle before bed (and that's chuckle -- one word, two syllables ;>)"
At last... Something funny. Thanks for the early morning laugh. Nice catch.
R-man: Not sure if I would call that logic circular, but you certainly have a point and I stand corrected. My original statement regarding mass killers in crowded areas and how they were stopped stands. And I said most, not all. Yet I do agree, now, it's possible that mass killings have been stopped by citizens with guns and, further, we may not even know it. Especially if the citizens are fast and accurate.
However, in your example, there is no proof positive that this nut was going on a spree. Probably was, we'll never know. His gun had already misfired before he got the killing round off and no one will ever know his intent thereafter, glad to say personally. Nor do I know whether he was packing an LCM, do you? Or did the hero need an LCM? Nonetheless --- I buy your premise of possibility.
However, this is not the case in the 28 mass killings over the past 10-11 years where most of the killers, when stopped, were stopped not by gun-toting citizens but between reloads by incredibly brave unarmed citizens. Thus the more reloads, the better your chance of survival. Or, the more bullets in the LCM, the higher potential of death.
But let's be really honest. Most often these nuts aren't stopped until they finish. It would be better if we could slow them down or make things more difficult for them to rack up such a high body count.
Dog poop laws are tougher than gun laws: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/kristof-safe-from-fire-but-not-gone.html?emc=eta1
Here's more constructive solutions to our gun problem WITHOUT taking away your guns.
thx JIT for the history lesson, i was UNAWARE of how our constitution works until you told me. I am aware of what would need in order for my questions to be even a reasonable debate, but in an effort to not be drawn out like MG, I choose just to ask the questions. But if we continue to try and have a debate and the only answer we get is, "can't do it" "read the constitution" then there is not point of talking about it right?. I mean why bother discussing anything that would require changes to the almighty constitution... i mean that has never changed... oh wait it has.
since you like including links, here's one for you. http://www.vote.org/
I am bored with this topic and moving on.... see you on another thread.
MG, just because something is a good idea and good for us doesn't mean our gov't needs to mandate it into a law. Consumers are very effective in bringing about improvements without the gov'ts interference. Before we know it, some idiot will decide to hide formula from new moms because breastfeeding is better...and what's worse is that a lot of people will go along with it because it is better.
darwin - "I am bored with this topic and moving on.... see you on another thread."
Me too. See you around:)
darwin, you asked me a question and I answered it. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you have to be a wise ass.
You asked the question from the point of view that we live in a democracy when we don't, at least not on paper anyway. How am I supposed to know that you are aware that we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy when you phrased the question the way you did? Definitions are important (regardless of what others may say). Anyway, why would you be insulted by my not knowing the extent of your knowledge?
If you and everyone else want a democracy why don't you push to get rid of the Constitution instead of just giving it lip service? With the Constitution out of the way the 51% would be able to do whatever they want without limitation. That's what you want, right - no limitations on how you control other people as long as you have a majority standing beside you?
Anyway, no condescension is intended darwin. Words and their definitions *are* important regardless of how certain others may feel.
LV - on one hand, no one would argue with your premise. On the other hand, most prudent people would argue with your stance on shatterproof windshields. Consumers are effective in a perfect market, but the market is imperfect. Corporations are effective at protecting profits and sometimes put profits above people.
And if you say"what's worse is that a lot of people will go along with it because it is better" what can I say but....wow, again.
Shouldn't you change your name to GV Mom as a blow against legislated name changing during WWII.
Aquarius Well, JT is right that the a: definition for Democracy is majority rule followed close in Webster in the number 2 or b. definition as: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Got that -- system of representation. Hmmm sound like us? Well, close, but no cigar.
Now a Constitutional Republic, being a made up term consisting of two words, is not in Webster but prevailing thoughts are that it means: "A constitutional republic refers to a form of government, where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and which governs in accordance with existing constitutional law. It is a government of laws not of men. Since the governing body is elected and their decisions are subject to judicial review the state is named as republican." from US Legal.
So clear we are not a Democracy, but are we a Constitutional Republic? Most think so or a Federal Republic, or, as I do, a Federal Constitutional Republic. But you know me --- more words, more words!!!
Tony the Tiger summed up what we are the best: We'rrrrrrre Grrrrrrreat!!!!
MG "Wow"
At least we are both thinking the exact same thing when read each others post. That's one thing we have in common:)
JIT: if you are referring to a Heinlein trend towards moderation, I used the word "might." as in maybe. If you are referring to the steady increase of mass murder by guns in crowded areas by using large clips (which I am told should be called magazines or LCMs), I used the 28 mass killings over the past 10-11 years noted above and parsed in half, time-wise. The last five years shows a steady increase over the previous five. Or course, ten years is probably not enough for your statistical taste, but satisfies me in this case.
Ianimal: Well, almost caught up; think I only have one more of your plethora of questions.
Why am I calling LCMs WMDs? Small arms kill more people across the globe in any given year than nuclear bombs, chemical, or biological agents. From WIKI, according to "the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki"."
We have the right to bear arms, but let's face it --- guns are tools designed to kill. Some guns are specifically designed to kill humans. Target practice is just practicing to kill. A gun for defense is a gun waiting to kill. So sure, most guns don't kill humans. But design intent and implementation are two different things.
My use of WMD has precedent. It has heavy connotations but when it comes to LCMs above 10 bullets, I think it is appropriate since such devices are intended to cause massive harm sometimes 10-times higher than a 10-bullet mag or clip.
The phrase is not "Put it on stun," or "Aim to Maim," or "Just wound em," it's "shoot to kill."
misterOgoogle, If I ever need a defense lawyer I know who to call. You try to spin just about anything, huh? :)
From the narcissist thread...
1. They are never EVER wrong.
2. They never admit to anything.
Two for two, Mr.G... seek help. I'll meet you there (-;
So you ask a plethora of questions.
Then you browbeat me for not answering. Multiple times.
Then I not only explain myself, but provide support.
And you respond by branding me via a nice name-calling session.
Sweet.
I asked relatively simple questions that could have been answered simply days ago. The ones you answered, lengthily, were ones that I didn't even necessarily pose.. or were just an offhand joke, like the Bush WMD thing. Kofi Annan? Really? That's the guy who you're going to use to back you up? Whatever. I wish you well.
As for the point of continuing the argument, you lost me when you said "I have no idea about my feelings about the the 4th-6th amendments". You're either lying, or you are nowhere near the intelligent person I gave you credit for. Either way, I'm done.
I didn't brand you anything. I merely pointed out some traits that we both obviously share and recommended (as a joke) that you seek help and that I should join you.
I honestly like you. Obviously, i disagree with your ideas that the government should control every aspect of our lives, but I think you have some funny lines from time to time about other things. i'll concentrate on that aspect of your personality and refrain from the political debate because it is of no real benefit to me and often puts me in a foul mood. I don't like to be in a foul mood; I prefer to be happy. Life is short.
Good luck and godspeed, friend.
Sorry, I didn't know there was a timer... Well for your latest attempt at duologue, I think you merit what is becoming know as "the Sandusky serenade" sung by savvy prisoner-neighbors:
"No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone"
Ianimal said: "Most mass killers"? You sound like you are doing a statistical analysis based upon a population of thousands of mass killers. There have been closer to a handful of REAL "mass-killers". Not even close to being a high enough number for meaningful statistical analysis. Nor is it sufficient to justify eroding the rights of law-abiding citizens."
Nope, just the 27 or so cases since Columbine and my numbers are valid; there has been an increase in the past five years. What is the right number for you? And which of these deaths were not real?
Mother Jones used FBI stats from the past 30 years using the FBI data and mass murder definitions (FBI says a score-4 deaths per incident is "mass"). Most were sole shooters. Columbine and one other school incident included two killers, each of which scored 4 or more. Four were sprees that might included multiple locations close together over a very short time. 56 mass murders across 30 states in 30 years. So you will find many quoting no increase in incidents since the 2 per year is pretty steady over the past 30 years. But in looking at the last five years, it seems that the new notoriety is spurring a more egregious up-tick since there indeed is an up-tick in the death toll: one can hope it's not long lasting trend. But I don't think so.
Let's go to the guns: for these incidents, 132 guns were used. 60 were semiautomatic, 34 were assault weapons, a mere 20 revolvers and only 18 shotguns. I could mention that the shotgun is restricted, by law, to small number of shells, but we all know the reason the weapon of choice for mass murder is what it is. I guess you would call it "ease of use."
... out of a population of 313 million misterOgoogle.
Thirty years ago the population was about 231 million, meaning our population has increased by more than 35%. If you wish to cite statistics from 30 years ago add 35% to the number to get an accurate per capita comparison to today. This type of crime has gone down.
Boy am I glad I stayed out of this one.
Truly, America being as obese as it is, we need to limit people's access to eating utensils.
JeffersonRepub Yes, junk food has killed many more but people still have the right to buy the mega-size potato chip bag and gobble it up...
hmmm, misterOgoogle: well, I guess fair's fair mist knotintime (extra points for triple entendre, think about it).
As I said earlier, when is enough, enough, and after Tucson, that's enough for me to balance the cost against that value. Perhaps this level of carnage is in the noise and a drop in the bucket compared to death by auto and death by lightning. Then again, I support auto safety rules and global warming initiatives so WTH. Enough is enough.
While MURDER by gun is down, and mass murder incidents remain stable, the quantity of death per incident is up in the past five years and I smell a trend towards notoriety. You know, funny masks, splashy effects, big numbers. And sure, like 30 years is too much for you, I am sure 5 years is not enough. But tell me, goldi-locks-in-time, what is just right for you? What is your tipping point in mass murder headlines to get you to say --- "gee, maybe people don't need ready access to LCMs and 10-in-the-mag is enough?"
And before you go off and tell me that the loons will always find a way, I will respond, "perhaps, but how easy do you want to make it for then?" And do we really need more than 10 in our LCMs to protect and hunt?
From this whole effort, I will say I have modified my stance. I have never been against guns. Own em, collect em, use em. Since Tucson, I have been against LCMs about 10 bullets a mag, a clip, a belt, whatever. Who needs em. And if you want em, we need education. You used to want cigarettes too. I also am for tougher penalties for ownership, sales, manufacture, and use ---- especially use. But, like I said, I have modified my stance to include tougher and lengthier background checks and more budget for police intervention for illegal guns. Hopefully not enough to send the drones over your house, but enough to lower the numbers that the gangbangers have. Thanks for educating me.
My next, and final (oh stop the clapping) tome will be on the famous "more guns, less crime" stats and proponent Lott has put together. Enjoy.
You want less than 10 bullets in a clip? Then what you are saying is to go back to six shooters (revolvers). Revolvers have their place as very reliable firearms (don't jam) but limiting a clip to less than 10 makes no sense other than to restrict rights. And once the restriction starts, a clip holding 1 bullet could be the likely outcome over time...
If I can only have a gun that holds 6 rounds, I'll just...wait for it.... buy more guns. So then you'll want to restrict how many guns I can own. Where is this not infringing upon 2nd Amendment rights?
Just like Bloomberg's ban on sugar drinks over 16oz... If I want more than 16oz, I'll simply buy more drinks. So how does this law even WORK? It doesn't. What's next, restricting the number of sugar drinks I can purchase in a given time period?
Listen guys - you're just not getting it. It doesn't matter at all what the subject is. What matters is that certain individuals (quite a large number in our society today) only want to control others based on their own personal belief system - "if I don't like it then we must legislate it!".
Forget common sense, forget statistics, forget that your are an individual, forget that you are not a slave, forget that your choices belong to you and that you must take responsibility for them, forget that decisions based on fear are almost always wrong, heck, forget logic.
Go along with the majority because that's the winning team! Yay, go team! Allow them to dictate to you what you do in your life because, well, the majority always knows what's best for you. Not gonna hurt anyone? Too damn bad, you're still restricted because, well, ya know, some day you might. Uh huh, makes so much sense, doesn't it? Dictating to others based not on what they actually do but on what they might do at some point in the future. And here I thought that pre-cogs were just fiction! Silly me!
Spend effort and public money on educating the public? Nah, people are too stupid to understand anyway. The only thing people understand is how to follow orders. Must...issue...more...orders...by...government...decree...must...must...must...it...is...the...only...way...
:) How am I doing in the sarcasm department there misterg? Not bad I think! You must be rubbing off on me ;)
That's right guys, I want to restrict the mag to 10 bullets just like your shotgun is restricted today. It's been done before, let's do it right again. No, I don't want to restrict guns, no I don't want more later just like we never came back for your shotgun to add further restrictions. Ask yourself:
And are you really that bad a shot that you need more than 10?
Are you so lazy at the range that you can't reload before you split the target in two?
How many are coming at you in your home invasion? 40 or 50?
Or do you fear the police state?
Maybe a take-over by the Marines?
Or do you just like to mutilate your game before skinning and picking out the copper?
Justi got it right, just get more guns if you have really bad aim or like to spray for protection. I have no problem with each criminal or loon who needs 100 bullets carrying 10 guns. At least we'll have a better chance of seeing them coming in the movie theater.
And if you fear that this is just the start, that we will want more, and will surely take you guns. What can I say? You got no proof, no precedent, but hey, its a free country.
But, as promised, here's the one area where you might have a point: "more guns mean less crime" or is it "more guns mean a higher chance of extreme violence?"
I have been called a sensationalist for taking advantage of a recent horror in a fear-mongering attempt to manipulate the masses. Frankly, if not now when? These "horrors" as I call them or aberrations, rarity's, and drops-in-the kick-the-bucket as LCM supporters call them happen twice a year. When can you talk about it without being relatively close to an occurrence?
Plus, you can look back at the threads --- I got on this boat in Tucson and have never gotten off. I have had enough. There is no sound reason for citizens to carry LCMs for fun, protection, or even desire. And you can't take hazmats in the Lincoln tunnel. You must put your baby is a car seat. You can't smoke at work. Get used to it. We can fulfill the second amendment without LCMs. IMHO.
So, at last, and I mean it --- the finishing tome, the last rant, the last hurrah except for all the hurrahs heard shortly thereafter! At least until the next mass murder by LCM which means between six to 12 months from now when I will try again.
Now let's look at the "more guns equal less crimes, less guns equal less crimes" mantra.
On the face of it, this one looks true. Places with the toughest gun laws like Washington DC, California, and the latest poster child, Chicago, have increasing gun fatalities while Texas with loose gun laws is doing better. And the nation is doing better too: death down, guns up.
From the NYT, after the 2008 Supreme Court Decision supporting gun ownership, Dissenting Justice Breyer wrote:
“The upshot is a set of studies and counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusion.” As Justice Breyer wrote, "violent crime in Washington has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. “Indeed,” he continued, “a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.”
But he continues: “As students of elementary logic know, after it does not mean because of it."
When we look at these "islands of gun control," there are many factors skewing the results as even many of you supporters of LCMs have noted. For example: some of you noted that criminals break gun control laws, law-abiding individuals don't so that in islands of gun control like Chicago and Washington, the effect on criminal ownership is nil, nada, zippo. Likewise, criminals are less likely to pursue "hot spots" of suspected gun ownership, so they might not only be emboldened in gun control zones, these islands might even see criminal migration from surrounding areas with less gun control. No one knows.
Its not that the data is wrong, it's just that it might not be right. You can't draw conclusions from an island in the storm.
Likewise, the simple conclusion that we have more guns today and less crime by gun may not include effects of many, many other variables such as aging population (older folks shoot less people), more criminals behind bars (less crime), etc. Again, we really don't know.
And Chicago, Washington, have no death penalty, in California they have it but don't use it much, while in Texas they have it big time. Matter of fact 30% of all executions occur in Texas. Who really knows if this plays in the mind of the criminal.
And to pull similar stats for international countries only increases the same question of cause and effect on a global basis adding even more cultural variables into the skew. Or ask yourself this: if more guns equal less crime, and the US has more guns per population, per household, per individual, per closet, per pillow, than any other country included in the study, then why does that US have a death toll by gun at a 5x rate to these other countries? Clearly there is something else in play beyond just the number of guns.
Or, going one step further. Why are the countries with really the most guns usually at war killing each other at will?
I guess my point on the data is that it seems to go both ways. If you like, I can destroy the Lott data that is the basis for this "more guns, less crime" mantra with support from studies from Stanford, Rutgers, and more. Empirically, quantitatively, and statistically, they have eviscerated Lott.
But more important -- I don't want your guns. I can live with Lott being right, I am OK with more guns. More guns, less crime, yippee! What I suggest is that we limit the LCM size and increase the penalties for ownership, sales, manufacture, and use of LCMs. Especially use. Don't like 10 per mag, think 10 = 6 and that's not enough for you. I can go 15. Don't like it since it was the weapon-of-choice in at least one of the mass killings, but I could compromise there. But 30, 40, 100 --- just seems like overkill. Likewise, from this research you had me do, it appears that background checks and police targeting of illegal guns works wonders too. And even though some say "more guns, less crime," nobody is saying more bullets per reload means less crime. Nobody.
Here's my final point. The attached photo is from Scotty Starnes Blog. He's about as hardcore a gun advocate as you can get. I tend to agree with the picture's sentiment, but note: no LCMs except for invasion repelling!! I think LCMs are intended for war, for invasion, for pretty heavy stuff. I think when the time comes that we need them, we won't need to have had them stockpiled in the closet, we will ban together and get em from the armory, the barracks or the police station --- where they belong, for the soldiers and police. And if we fear our police, government, or military forces having them while we don't, that's beyond sad they we can not trust our brethren citizens.
if there is gong to be a limit on bullets, how are we going to track the ones who do reloading? (like we do), we could easily reload thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo, and no one would ever know t!!
that can't be allowed can it? the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about ammo. doesn't everybody 'NEED' to know exactly how much ammo and how many guns every ones else has?
i mean it's all for the common good, what have you got to hide? it scares me not to know what you have.
i 'NEED" to know exactly what you have stored in your house, but you do not have any real 'NEED" to have it at all, so you should be happy with what I have decided to allow you to keep for yourself. you should be very grateful to me that i didn't take away your guns, just limited the amount of ammo that i have allowed you to own and keep for yourself. if i don;t like what I see in the news, I will decide to limit your 'non-needs' even further, so don't get too used to what you have right now, I may just have to re-visit your rights at any time I think it's appropriate. enjoy your freedoms.
"Now Barney, where's your bullet?" ; quote from Andy of Mayberry (deep in the sixties)
and another massacre in wisconsin. no, there is no problem. where is that deep sand to stick my head in?
What was that? A comment and not an insult? How nice for a change r/c! ;)
Do you really believe, for one minute, that this kind of thing will ever stop?
wow, didn't take close to 6 months on this round in Wisconsin.
7 dead so far, semi automatic used. bald white guy sporting 911 tat probably thought they were muslim, but they weren't. ooops. well, I guess these things are just gonna happen. stuff happens. crazy people everywhere. what can you do? hey, more people get hit by lightning. more people die in car accidents. cancer kills more people. more people die from old age, you don't see us limiting how many birthday candles on the cake. even if he didn't have an LCM, he would have figured some other way to dispatch a few people in a parking lot and then move to the building to finish off the rest. good thing he didn't have to re-load, carry an extra clip or have another gun. don't want to limit his freedom.
hey, what are you going to do? oh well.
I worry about all the militia hate groups that have increased since Obama became president.
And I wonder , also, how would any of you feel towards gun control if a member of your own family had become a victim of these latest shootings.
It is funny that guns n ammo sales starting picking up well before Aurora in line with the election ramp. And, as I said earlier, I did quite nice on guns n ammo stock when Obama was first elected. Caught wind of the phenomena when I saw lines forming around Cabella's. Made some nice money on them too!
How much more? How easy are we going to make it for the loons to have a field day?
How many rounds do we really need in the clip, mag, or belt to fulfill our second amendment rights?
If you have had enough, write your legislator and tell them to outlaw LCMs above 10 bullets, to strengthen penalties for manufacture, ownership, distribution, sale and use ---- especially use. Tell them to rationalize comprehensive background checks and to strengthen enforcement to get illegal guns off the street. Tell them we need to do this as a nation, not as islands in the storm that surrounds us.
Or you could rationalize and understand the situation, that being there are more people in this world than ever before, and some of those folks are distressed due to the current climate in our society, and that distressed people will always lash out. Sure, you could make it more difficult by taking weapons away from law abiding citizens (surely that's where you're going with this misterg; I doubt even you believe the restrictions you are asking for would do a darn thing to reduce these types of events) but as was mentioned over and over again in this thread someone who wishes to cause harm will always find a way to do so.
Enough already.
Justy. You are part way there young padawan....
No one wants to take your guns.
Let's just give them less bullets per clip, mag, or belt to kill us with
By definition, they can kill less people per reload if they have less bullets per reload
Whenever citizens w/o guns stop these loons, it is between reloads so citizens might have more chances to stop them and less chances to die
The rest of us might get by with less bullets per reload if we wanted to potentially reduce the carnage, by gun, without giving up our guns
No we wil not stop the loons. The loons can always find a way. We just don't have to make it so damned easy.
Loons don't "always" find a way. Some potential terrorist attacks by loons have been thwarted, for example. Undercover officers could stop some planned massacres if the powerful weapons to be used were illegal. We can all think of other ways that loons will be stopped some of the time. (Note the frequent use of the word "some".)
The world is a complicated place, not given to easy answers.
Another terrible tragedy --- this time at a campus in Oregon.
Ten innocent lives taken.
How many times does it take for these mass shootings to occur before we as a supposedly civilized nation ban guns.
Ever read history? Violence tends to be a pretty common trait of the human race. Ban violence and you might be onto something but banning the tools will do zilch. Sounds good though.
Have these things per capita gotten worse? Can't recall at the moment...
Justintime--
You must be kiddng.
If this person went in with nothing more than his fists fighting, it would be a totally different outcome.
Yes, you are right . Ban that *tool* ---- the dreaded GUN.
More people are killed by drunk drivers happiest girl. Should we ban cars and alcohol too? Go back to getting brainwashed by the liberal media that beat stories for their agenda to death.
NoHopeForHumanity NoHopeForHumanity ---
The difference is that those are accidents. Not pre-meditated murders.
Those people did not get into a car and say "let's see, I think I will get on Rt. 80 and slam into some cars and kill people because I WANT to kill people."
You would thinnk differently if you had a family member slaughtered by someone with a gun.
Think about it.
Mark Mc. No you think about it! Going out, getting drunk, getting behind the wheel and killing a family is an accident? So take away the guns. Now all the mental cases that still want to kill people will use kitchen knives, home made bombs, baseball bats, swords, tire irons, etc.. It's time to look at the bigger picture. Why are so many people going bat s*%t crazy? You really think that by taking away the tool that you solve the problem??? Don't be so stupid.
WRONG, Mark Mc.!!
The difference is INTENTION.
They did not use their car to kill intentionally.
That was an accident.
But they MINDFULLY used their gun as a weapon to kill.
You can pry my guns out of my cold dead hands!
Condolences to all in this tragedy, but banning guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer!
What does intent have to do with my statement?
So if I accidentally kill someone with my gun it's my fault but if I do it intentionally it's the gun's fault?
That's the equivalent to what you're saying.
If we are all abiding citizens, why the need of guns, Calico?
And if some are NOT law abiding citizens, why do you think it is OK to let them buy guns to kill people just like yourself ..... because that is what is happening.
Really I didn't know the laws against murder were exempt for people who wanted to kill me
Mark --- are you so paranoid that you think the world is out to kill you?
However, I am saddened that the youth of our country can be snuffed out --- while in college no less --- by some person with a gun whose intention is simply to KILL .
How can you think that is OK.??
How can you live with that reality when --- if that person did not have that gun -- those students would still be alive?
You sound like someone who has no family and is so isolated from relationships or feelings that you cannot see or feel the tragedy of this.
What rock do you live under where you think people aren't intentionally killed by things other than guns?
Who said I'm okay with people being murdered?
However I view people who want to restrict my rights based on the actions of other people as a few levels below pond scum. So look up and say hi to the algae happiest girl.
Typical of you to insult, Mark.
Congragulations on exposing yourself once again as rather crude.
I did not say people aren't intentionally killed by things other than guns. That is not what is being discussed.
But the truth of the matter is -- if that person did not have a gun, most likely those 10 students would not be dead. But I guess you don't care because you don't know them.
You haven't shown me an ounce of respect on this site. You reap what you sow.
This person didn't go in looking for a fist fight, and just happened to have or find a gun, so your "if" and "most likely" outcomes are irrelevant.
You're right, I didn't know any of them. I also didn't know any of the 5 people, on average, killed with knives today. That doesn't make me feel any more or less guilty for having my pocket knife handy.
"Reap what you sow"?? --- perhaps you should try to live by that.
You're WRONG --- the person didn't just go in looking for a fist fight --- and *happen* to have or "find" a gun....... as you state ------------- he HAD a gun. He went IN with a gun. He USED that gun to KILL 10 people and wound many others.
Knives? Who is discussing knives?? They are in our kitchens. Leave it to you to always try to diminish the topic by turning to irrevelent things.
Plenty of people here respect me, what I sow is fine.
Your argument was "if he didn't have a gun... 10 people wouldn't be dead." That's a ridculous argument, because A) there are crimes where more than 10 people have been killed by other weapons and B) you can make up anything to follow "if".
If Hitler was a nice guy, millions of Jews wouldn't be dead... its irrelevant because he wasn't a nice guy.
If Sandy wasn't a hurricane, thousands of homes wouldn't be destroyed... irrelevant because Sandy was a hurricane.
See the logical fallacy of your argument? There's actually a name for it :
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/107-hypothesis-contrary-to-fact
"It's time to look at the bigger picture. Why are so many people going bat s*%t crazy?" -NoHopeForHumanity
Now THAT is the question, NoHope. I think the answers are right in front of us, but we don't want to address them. Or are we so blind we can't even see them anymore?
No Mark, there is no logic to your statement,
This has nothing to do with Hitler. That person was sick and did horrendous things. Or Hurrcane Sandy - which was an act of nature.
We are talking about a WEAPON --- a gun --- that an INDIVIDUAL person uses to kill people intentionally. Wonder how may times I have to say it before Mark gets it ??
Back to my original comment, he killed anyone who was Christian. As I said great job by Obama, and the media of deflecting attention away from that FACT, and turning it into a gun control debate. You can be assured if someone asked all the Muslims to identify themselves to be slaughtered their would be an outpouring of moral outrage from the media, and the white house in addition to the gun control debate.
Denis "How many times does it take for these mass shootings to occur before we as a supposedly civilized nation ban guns."
I see the public school re-education system (and/or the liberal university system) seems to be working just fine.
"Back to my original comment, he killed anyone who was Christian. As I said great job by Obama, and the media of deflecting attention away from that FACT, and turning it into a gun control debate. You can be assured if someone asked all the Muslims to identify themselves to be slaughtered their would be an outpouring of moral outrage from the media, and the white house in addition to the gun control debate."
+1000 I'll be waiting for a White House press conference. And I'll be waiting for the president to say he killing Christians but only injuring other religions. I won't hold my breath.
I didn't write this, a friend did, but I'm reposting it....
I'm telling you the stats ARE accurate (that violent crime rates continue to drop)-I've been involved in crime investigation for a couple of decades and it's simply a fact
The homicide rates in the 80's make today seem like a dream compared to then.
Today, outside the crime epicenters- Baltimore, DC , Chicago etc , the crime rate is even lower than the stats suggest, because the outliers pull it up; NYC has seen a MASSIVE drop in violent crime.
We are talking hundreds of people a year that would be dead now, still alive compared to the bad old days.
Recently we set a 42 yr low for Part I crimes and for homicide specifically nationwide. The press even try to make police shootings sound out of control...
In a recent year with a service population of 9 million, and over 35000 cops, NYPD shot 30 people. Think about that - One person shot by cops for every thousand cops; one out of 30,000 people in NYC shot by police that year.
The press does not give an accurate portrayal.
School homicides (stabbing and shooting etc) are 25 to 40 killed per year for k thru 12...Out of a 50 MILLION student population.
20 times more are killed by poisoning in the home. Almost as many more drown in swimming pools at home or bathtubs.
So again, I HATE the way these scumbags get press, but killings are FAR FAR FAR from becoming 'more frequent'.
Our gun laws have NEVER been more liberal than they are ... Expost Heller and McDonald. And literally MILLIONS of more people are able to legally carry now vs four decades ago when our violent crime rate was MUCH higher So 'surely they do not need to be reviewed'.
I was heartened that nobody had yet done the inevitable gun law thing... Had to happen sooner or later. I'd rather respect the victims than read gun law nonsense.
FBI: Gun murders continue to fall
http://freebeacon.com/issues/fbi-gun-murders-continue-to-fall/
"If we are all abiding citizens, why the need of guns, Calico?"
If there was some imaginary lala land of totally law abiding citizens, people would still need guns to hunt and for use in other age old sports. Wouldn't they?
"And if some are NOT law abiding citizens, why do you think it is OK to let them buy guns to kill people just like yourself ..... because that is what is happening."
I said it was ok? Anyone with a felony criminal record cannot legally buy a gun. But that certainly won't keep them from buying an illegal gun from another criminal. How do you propose to stop that by passing more laws? People who do illegal things don't care about laws.
Hapiest girl, of course there is no logic to those statements, they were EXAMPLES of the logical fallacy method you used to make your argument.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
This campus was a gun free zone, even the lone security guard read that sign and had no way to protect himself. Yet this latest monster did not adhere to the regulation and carried a gun onto the campus.
News Flash
The lawless and insane do NOT follow the law and never will.
Yet we still hear the cry for even more regulation. The real question was asked above, why are so many of our younger generation becoming so mentally unbalanced. Could it be the endless political correctness, the programming in schools, the reliance on psychotropic drugs, the entitlement expectation, the loss of family values, morals, the value of life.
Mark The value of life. Does it surprise anyone that the value of life has been greatly reduced in a country that aborts over 1 million a year? America has become a culture of death, the leading cause of which is abortion.
Over 1 MILLION per year. Nobody blinks an eye.
Oh this is great, I absolutely HAVE to hear happy girl's plan to remove ALL guns from our country!!! Certainly you have a plan right happy girl? Please let us know
Darrin JR, I've read that legalized abortion is a leading cause of the huge reduction in crime since the '80s that you quoted before.
No wonder the far right is so opposed to abortion; look at all that money the prison-industrial complex is losing out on...
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
*Guaranteed replies*
Also, this is the stupidest argument anyone can possibly have on the internet at this point. It's basically the "ban guns" crowd finding new and creative things to jam into their ears to ignore logic or sense.
Common Sense In protection of more guns:
- "the leading cause of (death) which is abortion.
- "The lawless and insane do NOT follow the law and never will"
- "Could it be the endless political correctness, the programming in schools, the reliance on psychotropic drugs, the entitlement expectation, the loss of family values, morals, the value of life."
- "People who do illegal things don't care about laws."
- "Gun murders continue to fall"
- " but killings are FAR FAR FAR from becoming 'more frequent'.
- "If Hitler was a nice guy, millions of Jews wouldn't be dead... its irrelevant because he wasn't a nice guy."
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
It's obvious that there are improvements in the current laws that might help and certainly do not hinder any responsible person from owning guns. One would think responsible gun owners would advocate said improvements. Clearly there is something else going on here.
strangerdanger calico said: "Anyone with a felony criminal record cannot legally buy a gun. But that certainly won't keep them from buying an illegal gun from another criminal."
and she is right!
the current federal background check system has prevented over 2.6 million gun purchases to unqualified individuals who are either CONVICTED felons, or mentally unstable people as adjudicated by a court judge. (going from memory, please help me verify)
can the system be improved? yes, but not at the cost of HIPPA protections. (like they did in NY state, going door to door and confiscating firearms from folks who were in counseling, didn't matter what for, marriage counseling, depression, group therapy, if you were in it, you were targeted by the state of NY for removal of your guns)
good to see the facts coming out form the FBI crime stats, good work JR,
the majority of NRA members are ok with a stronger background check system, but not ok with surrendering our fundamental freedoms for a knee jerk reaction, (like what happened in NY state a couple of years ago)
the current background check system has been quite successful, and it could be set up at weekend gun shows, and i think this at a minimum could be accomplished,
and it's typical for this failed president to lecture us about how bad Americans are without detailing out any specifics on what to do about it, typical for one who leads from behind, he's the president, why not present a plan instead of just wagging his finger at the nation he leads? (because he has none, there is no there, there with this cowardly clown in the whitehouse, he just whines and moans, that's his whole management style)
Ian,
The people who are opposed to abortion are opposed because it's murder.
Right/left and religion has nothing to do with it.
Anyone who has watched the Planned Parenthood videos and ISN'T aghast, isn't human. Maybe that's you,IDK.
Why are responsible gun owners the only ones arguing against background checks, registration, etc... perhaps there is something you are missing (or maybe not... you think if a little government is good, more must be better).
You don't see criminals/gangs attending hearings, meetings, town halls, etc. because they don't give a damn about whatever laws, or "improvements" are proposed. Those laws change absolutely nothing about their behavior or ability to acquire firearms.
right, abortion as an option was pushed heavily by a racist eugenicist who wanted fewer African-americans in the population. looks like she has been quite successful in keeping that population in the minority. she was an avowed racist who proposed and pushed for more abortions in the black community because she was afraid of them taking over the majority of the population.
as time has shown, she has been quite successful in effectuating her racist, eugenics based agenda.
watch those Planned Parenthood videos, horrific, just horrific, they are retailing baby body parts to the highest bidders, the FBI and the DOJ both need to investigate the criminal (and inhumane) practices that Planned Parenthood is performing on a daily basis.
and it's telling that all of the gang related gun violence in cities like Chicago and baltimore are being ignored by the politically correct brainwashed blue state progressives who are calling for action today. why are they ok with the black on black gun crimes in the big cities? why not speak out against them?
Except that it's NOT murder... and apparently it helps reduce the number of ACTUAL murders.
But we should really keep it to one polarizing rhetorical argument per thread. I believe this one is already reserved for gun control. I apologize for going off-topic, but you did it first (-;
Lets keep the national topic on gun control too... worked out well for the Democrats in the mid-term elections.
"NoHope. I think the answers are right in front of us, but we don't want to address them. Or are we so blind we can't even see them anymore?" Rebecka
Right on the money, Rebecka. It's the age old question. You will live with your choices.
Old Gent I'm with Darrin. If guns are banned and collected. What will they do with them? Burn them, ship them to the moon, sell them to other nations? I assume the government would take on this task. I would like to hear from all the anti gunners what that plan of action should be. Simple question.
auntiel It's too bad that this guy didn't have a gun yesterday. Less people would have been injured or killed if he had.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/forget-oregon-s-gunman-remember-the-hero-who-charged-straight-at-him.html
Down through history, governments have disarmed their citizens only to tyrannize those citizens once they were disarmed.
Most of the gun laws on the books are Jim Crow era laws designed to forward racism - why do you think the Chief of Police in a municipality has the right to deny a Purchase Permit or a FID card with no explanation..
The 2nd amendment guarantees the first!
Skippy Thanks for posting that story, Calico. Chris Mintz is a true hero. I'm glad that his son will still get to have such a man in his life.
It's easy to get guns away from law abiding citizens, as in NY, they did it.....I want to know your plan to get guns away from Criminals, who have illegal guns.....anyone? Certainly you must have a plan right? I mean you are always on here saying we have to do it, so how do you want to do it?
Or do we just take away the guns from responsible owners, and let the criminals keep theirs, that way, we are utterly defenseless to someone with a gun, much like these poor souls in this school shooting. Defenseless due to laws which did not stop a criminal.
CRIMINALS BREAK LAWS = MORE LAWS IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!!!
Anyone think to wonder why people are loosing their minds to the point of doing such a act? They can do it with anything from a gun to a pressure cooker bought on sale from BB&B....I mean come on people, saying guns are at fault is a complete cover up for the mental health issues in this country. Time to focus your efforts to something that will actually fix a problem
+1 Calico. Guns SAVE far more lives than they take. Many times without a shot even being fired.
But we've all been through this before. And common sense has been prevailing in recent years, as more people learn history, and learn the true statistics of gun violence/usage.
"Except that it's NOT murder..."
And that perfectly illustrates the problem. Thank you.
Agreed Darrin, who will be taking on the task of getting them away from the criminal?? And then there is the "cost" of such a task.
There is an old saying, "out law guns and only outlaws will have guns." so very true.
Rather than debate the pros and cons of carrying guns, which does get heated, why not discuss how you think we, as a nation, could stop this. Why is it happening? Is it bullying? Is it the availability of the internet which is full of hate, ability to obtain weapons or info needed to carry out their awful deeds - what is it? I have been around for quite some time and I never had to worry about schools being attacked or movie theaters being targeted. I don't believe all attackers are mentally ill, since we always had those individuals with mental problems and I don't believe it is guns, although they can and do easily get into the wrong hands. Is it the breakdown of the family? I feel so awful for the kids growing up in today's world with so much to worry about. They can't just be kids, like I was allowed to be.
justwondering justwondering,
Good post, and I don't know the answer. But I do know if that 10 students would still be alive today if they didn't have bullets in them. I also think if the people who posted here knew any of them personally, they might have a different perspective on the issue.
"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
--Thomas Edison
"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
--Thomas Edison
Quotes like these are so ridiculous. Spoken as if the world were an idealistic place. It is not. It is a REALISTIC place. Thomas Edison's "advice", in the quote above, only works for those who CHOOSE to abide by it- just like gun control laws. Imagine what the world would be like now had the United States and our allies taken his advice in WWII.
"I also think if the people who posted here knew any of them personally, they might have a different perspective on the issue."
That would not change my position on gun laws. Do you really think that I, or any of the other 2nd Amendment supporters, don't get upset about these poor victims whether they are known to us or not? Of course we do. Senseless acts of violence are disgusting to me.
I'm not sure why you constantly assume that people who own guns are cold and heartless. Why do you think we are constantly arguing for the right to carry concealed weapons? We would like to be able to protect ourselves and others from these lunatics if a situation were to arise.
I think you might have a different perspective if your life, or the life of one of your friends or loved ones, was saved by a good guy or gal with a concealed carry permit.
"I'm not sure why you constantly assume that people who own guns are cold and heartless."
--Calico696
Don't lie about me.. I never said that nor do I believe that.
CBS News headline on Facebook today
CBS News
4 hrs ·
Survivors and their families say the killer asked people at Umpqua Community College if they were Christians, but the gunman's motive is still unclear:
I've had my bags searched at airports, because they are on the lookout for terrorists.
I'm not a terrorist, but I didn't get all upset about the inconvenience. Sometimes we are subject to inconvenient rules and regulations, for the public good.
No sensible person would ever say all gun owners are bad people.
We're just trying to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of psychotic people, that's all.
If I had all the answers, I'd be running for president.
[ Skippy Posted ]
"Down through history, governments have disarmed their citizens only to tyrannize those citizens once they were disarmed!"
So True Skippy.... 100% True
The wives Grand mom ( from Europe ) said to her, "Dolly, Don't ever let them take your guns!"
Also, " The America should be friend with either Russia, or China!" "Never allow Russia to be Friends with China!" ..... "That will be the finish of Freedom in America!"
That was something I heard her say in 1963.
Embryodad Plenty of people who have had loved ones murdered by a criminal with a gun have still come out in defense of the 2nd Amendnent, even some from Newtown.
The media wants nothing to do with them or their opinions.
"Don't lie about me.. I never said that nor do I believe that."
Maybe not in so many words. You certainly call most of us many colorful names on here. Many that suggest you think we are the scum of the earth. You certainly have called poor Mark more names than I care to mention.
I guess you have no opinion on the final statement in my last post.
"The media wants nothing to do with them or their opinions."
Of course they don't Mark.
Embryodad, Your Grandmas warning is the ONLY reason I have belonged to the NRA all these years.
Is it unreasonable for a background check to be completed? As it stands now, as I understand it, if the background check is not completed in 72 hours the gun can be sold.
OnTheEdge OnTheEdge that's incentive for the government to properly staff their investigation divisions. Otherwise they'd hire one person and say sorry, BG checks take 3 years due to the backlog.
In other words, backdoor gun control counter to the intent of the legislation
Calico-
If you deny that Mark, or others, have not name-called then you lie again.
If you so badly need a reply to your last statement -- no, my perspective would not change. I am against guns.
On this very thread -- look up and you will see Mark said I was a few levels below pond scum.
Where did she deny anything?
I don't deny it. You lob about 20 insults our way (mostly to me) and then cry foul when one gets vollied back.
I didn't deny anything. I didn't think I had anything to deny. Regarding the name calling between you and Mark, I recall you firing the first shot in that one many moons ago. I also recall you calling me some choice names as well. Maybe because I ate some chicken or something, I can't recall.
So if someone who was carrying a gun legally saved your life by shooting some psycho with a gun that was about to kill you, you wouldn't thank him or her? Pity.
You say you are against guns. To what extent? How do you feel about police officers carrying guns? Is that ok? Or are you of the opinion that if the general public was disarmed the police wouldn't need guns? What about the armed forces? Should they lay down their weapons too?
Hey happy girl, if your anti gun, you should be anti bomb too. Look up the Bath School disaster. It is the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history to this day. Bet you never heard of that one...
As you can see by the date, this crap has been going on longer than you anti gunners realize.
This thread isn't about name calling, so why are you changing the subject.
......."you wouldn't thank him or her? Pity" -- Calico
I never said that. There you go again saying lies about me..
And why all your concern for Mark. What are you ---- in love with him or something?
lol
You always seem to want to pick a fight with me but I'm not going to do it.
Find someone else to fight with.
If gun owners were as violent as anti-gun people makes them out to be, there probably wouldn't be many anti-gun people.
One-Eyed Poacher Guys, I have been convinced for awhile that happiest girl is either a teenager or a college student, or at least of that age. We are really wasting our talents dealing with such a naive person.
Makes me think of the quote attributed to Churchhill (altho he didn't say it- it's still true):
Those who are not liberal when they are young have no heart. Those that are not conservative when they grow up have no brain.
Give hapiest girl time... to get into the system, get a job, pay taxes, by a house, have kids, learn more about politics and government.... she'll come around (maybe)
oh, and just to make sure I don't offend here, I'll add "lol"
On the edge "Is it unreasonable for a background check to be completed? As it stands now, as I understand it, if the background check is not completed in 72 hours the gun can be sold." - that's only for a NICS check - which NJ does their own and cals it an NJSBI check. In NJ you still need a permit to purchase pistol / revolver and Firearms Purchaser ID card - before you get a to an NJSBI check.. these are issued by the municipal police department - or in towns without them the NJSP. These PPP's can be denied for any reason necessitate fingerprints, letters of recommendation, and at times an interview. In the case of a denial they take an appeal to the Superior Court to overturn.. NJ does NOT need more gun laws..
Once I get my SC permit I can bypass background checks at FFL's. In the meantime I can bypass them in private purchases. Freedom is great.
Talking to yourself now HH/mg/sd? ;-) j/k
I agree 100% with justwondering. We really need to stop talking about fixing "symptoms" and turn the discussion to the root causes. What do we need to do collectively?
Well, it shouldn't be a surprise that IMO the first thing is to stop trying to control every little human action. Those who seek control over their neighbors - and don't seem to understand that the imposition of control inevitably leads to hate and animosity - I think need to put themselves in the shoes of those they seek to dominate. And we need to stop accusing everyone of being guilty all the time. Things done in the name of "safety", as one example, whether it be the TSA, security cameras within view everywhere we go, "random" checks that are done on the assumption of guilt rather than suspicion of guilt, etc., all lead to an unconscious vein of fear and lack of trust.
IOW, those who use fear to justify using authority over others need to reflect on the consequences of the forceful actions that stem from those fears. People who feel like they are backed into a corner tend to lash out. Shouldn't be all that surprising.
Here's what I know. One would think responsible gun owners would advocate improvements to mitigate mass murder by gun. Instead we focus on:
abortion as murder (legally no)
government confiscation of guns (isn't that why you have the guns?)
guns protecting the first amendment (I thought it was the Constitution?)
criminals getting guns no matter what we do (are they smarter than us?)
guns save more lives than they take (uh, guns don't kill plus you can't prove this)
all the other things we can use and do to kill people
people who are teens can not intelligently contribute to the conversation
and so on and so on.
You gun owners have a powerful and proven successful lobby to get things done. It's obvious that there are improvements in the current laws that might help and certainly do not hinder any responsible person from owning guns. I just don't understand how you can think the status quo is OK and that there is no need for your lobby to effect positive change especially the ones you are talking about in this thread.
For example: "I mean come on people, saying guns are at fault is a complete cover up for the mental health issues in this country. Time to focus your efforts to something that will actually fix a problem" So get the NRA to push for results. This recent guy is a perfect example. Plenty of written universally available warning flags but since no legal action, no problem with having a slew of guns. Our current mental health gun tracking is not universal and fractured in approach. And identification is only the first part of the issue; we need to "fix the problem" if we can also.
Another example "Most of the gun laws on the books are Jim Crow era laws designed to forward racism - why do you think the Chief of Police in a municipality has the right to deny a Purchase Permit or a FID card with no explanation." So ask the NRA to put together rational guns laws that are universal for all gun sales in all states. When many of the NJ guns found at crime scenes come from Florida, I think we have an issue beyond NJ at that point.
And another example: " can the (background check) system be improved? yes, but not at the cost of HIPPA protections........ the majority of NRA members are ok with a stronger background check system, but not ok with surrendering our fundamental freedoms for a knee jerk reaction, (like what happened in NY state a couple of years ago)" So ask the NRA to get a rational UNIVERSAL background check system including gun sales, gifting, and gun show sales ----- universal and rationale. The world would love the NRA if they took positive actions here.
I mean even amidst of your dutiful diatribe of ordnance defense you have posed some great ideas that a lobbying group like the NRA could probably instantly get action from Congress. None of these should affect responsible gun owners beyond some annoyance and might reduce mass murders by gun. We'll never know but doesn't make common sense to try? Isn't even stopping one a good thing?
The idea not mentioned but that buggers me is helping police to track a crime gun. For example, they are still looking into this shooter's guns, they don't have the answer. Why the wait? Because it's still a onerous paper trail requiring phone calls, fax machines, emails, and finally, someone going to a file cabinet to find a paper invoice. Probably will have this answer pretty quick but for lower profile tracking, it takes weeks. I say let the NRA manage the system electronically for instantaneous tracking. The NRA can assure privacy by cutting all network ties and can better assure total database destruction in the event of government or foreign entity takeover. Gun shops can't do that.
It's obvious that fighting the NRA is tough. Only gun owners and the NRA can effect positive change. I just hope they follow up on your suggestions. Write them.
So I have a question, do we know where this POS got his guns from?
Because if we don't, how can you even claim the gun system is broken
Mark - This is the third or forth time she has mentioned our love affair. Damn, I'm sure glad my husband doesn't read this forum. ;-)
I guess it has to be a long distance, phone sex type of affair now since your move. LMAO!
We can make fun of each other all we want, and yes it is fun, or hurtful to some......but I am very interested in hearing exactly why she feels this way, and what her idea of fixing it is. If you cannot answer those questions you are really just aimlessly and uselessly complainin. So again I ask (for the third time).......
Me too Darrin. But every time I ask questions about her statements I get accused of picking on her, picking a fight or being in love with Mark, who I have never even met. LOL
"I guess it has to be a long distance, phone sex type of affair now since your move. "
This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for fun.
(Don't you find it amazing that all of us cold hearted, paranoid, nasty gun owners are the only ones with a sense of humor and camaraderie around here?)
I am sorry calico, I am just jealous it is not me being accused of having a secret love affair with Mark ;-)
"So ask the NRA to put together rational guns laws that are universal for all gun sales in all states. When many of the NJ guns found at crime scenes come from Florida, I think we have an issue beyond NJ at that point." - understood but again its a states rights issue. States have the right to exceed the federal restrictions. I agree with you SD - the 2nd amendment is my permit.
This will never change. America is the land of beer, boobs, and guns. Pointless discussion.
Larry JeffRepub -
That was quite an asinine verbiage. Your *ass*umption of me is wrong on every account.
Since you take the liberty of hauling insults, I guess you won't mind my saying you sound like a crotchety old grump ........(oh, like you said ...... no offense, LOL)
hapiest girl
You DO realize I was making fun of YOU using the "lol" in a vain attempt to seem like you weren't insulting people.... right?
Of course not. Because they don't teach debate tactics in middle school.
Thats funny Darrin since one of the issues with crime guns is that the NRA has made them very tedious to trace even when there are records.
See descriltion above.
Well, isn't this interesting...
http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/oregon-mass-shooter-on-terror-list-obama-refused-to-take-from-russia/
From the linked article:
"Chris Harper Mercer, had previously been identified by electronic intelligence specialists within the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as being an Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) adherent after he had attempted to gain passage to Syria via Turkey during the first week of September, 2015."
"And the information relating to the black-Islamist terrorist Mercer “leaked” into Reedus by the SVR/FSB is, to say the least, shocking and disturbing–including that immediately after the Oregon mass shooting, his Internet personal profile was changed from his true identity as an ISIS/ISIL terror supporter to one of his being a “white conservative Republican”."
Oh, so now I'm 20 years old, don't have a job, don't pay taxes, don't own a house, don't have a family, and I'm a liberal.
LMAO
JR & Calico don't pick on Happy she was the Valedictorian of her class. She is smarter and better than all of us. Didn't you get the memo??
Oh no.... guns..... SAVE people???? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/?utm_source=GSL
hapiest girl,
I'm not saying that at all, merely that you SPEAK like someone who's in middle school, doesn't have a job, doesn't pay taxes, etc... it's all "feel-good" policies with you. "Stop the killings! More gun control!" Let me let you in on a little secret. The only answer to a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun (see my previous post).
“What is the best way to argue with a liberal?” This is silly, because there is no best way to argue with a liberal. They're beyond argument. You might as well argue with your pit-bull. Take it from someone who argues with his pit all the time. :)
Baloney, JR.
You have also said on other posts that you think I am some college student.
Your post above with your "description" of me says it all.
Why are you so threatened when you hear someone say they are against guns?
I have my opinion, and your opinion will not change mine.
JeffRep-
Wnat to know a little secret? I lived in the Bronx for 1/2 of my life. All of my family lived there too (grandparents, parents, aunts& uncles, cousins, etc) None of us ever owned a gun or needed one to defend ourselves.
Your little picture above sings of paranoia.
as a former police officer who as worked the "41" in NYC when "flown" you are incorrect - it is a community of hard working people in 200-300 sq foot cells they live in and protect dearly and would defend to the death if necessary - I don't know where you were from but the BX is a stronghold of pride and self protection.
Chicago- some of the strictest gun control in country.
Chicago- some of the highest gun violence in the country.
You were saying?
5catmom that's not my first reaction 5catmom - my first reaction was sadness - then I watched the news and saw that Oregon had the sense to preserve campus carry - CCW holders protected students
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Ht57AdBA
I was saying you're paranoid, JeffRep. Living in Hackettstown & feeling you need a gun?
Skippy - if you haven't lived and traveled thru the Bronx you have no idea.
I have not lived there but I worked there - and JeffRep and I both migrated south to more friendly skies :)
Working there as a cop is not the same as living in the projects in the 60's & 70's --- or riding the subways through the Bronx at that time, for instance.
However, we all survived without needing to use a gun..
People knew how to fight with their hands, or sprint away from trouble if needed.
We were survivors, and survive we did without guns.
"Don't you find it amazing that all of us cold hearted, paranoid, nasty gun owners are the only ones with a sense of humor and camaraderie around here?"
Yes, amusing for sure. But getting old.
"It would never work between us Darrin... I own a Ford."
Ford is ok, Dodge is a deal breaker! :D
ok so you lived in the "PJ's" ? Marble Hill Houses?- you admit needing to fight with your hands against a perceived threat - what happened if the threat was a firearm or other threat of deadly force..
tell me what stop you got off that train happiest girl - http://web.mta.info/nyct/maps/subwaymap.pdf here is a map
I say enough already. I don't agree or disagree with anyone but this bantering has gone on long enough.
I especially do not like a poster being tagged teamed because of a difference of opinion.
positive I don't know what Marble Hill Houses are.
We lived in south Bx and I took the 4,5,6, train or the 2 depending on where I was going.
Later we moved a couple of times to different locations like the Grand Concourse
Then it was the D train.
Why do you ask?
Thank you positive. They all are a gang of bullys, aren't they.
Whether it's anti-gun, or being a vegetarian, etc.
Just gane up on someone that is different than you.
Lovely.
They are all just a collective bunch of wimps.
Well I really like and respect the opinions of the majority of the posters on here..I just feel that this thread has gotten too personal and out of hand..that's all.
We have a problem with mental illness in this country that evidently is not being dealt with effectively.
We have a lot of "time bombs" walking around out there, filled with paranoia and resentments ... and what is being done about it?
We have a lot of "time bombs" walking around out there, filled with paranoia and resentments ... and what is being done about it?
We are giving them access to weapons meant for killing. The minority aka NRA, who seems to speak for the majority, don't give a damn. When will the majority rise up and tell the gun lovers to shut up? You are entitled to your guns but the laws have to be modified to protect the majority of the people who are sick of the rhetoric spewed by the NRA and their "lemming like" followers.
A red flag, to me, would be when someone starts buying automatic weapons.
Uh, I might ask, you really need this to hunt bears or deer? Very "sporting" of you.
Again, another hot button issue that often reduces people to polarizing personal insults and grand sweeping statements without the capacity to reason, reflect and compromise. If all are unwilling, even for a millisecond, to listen or consider other's points of view, then we are joining in with our congress' inaction and juvenile, polarizing, news-geared performances. That's right everyone, stand tall, build the brick walls in front of yourselves and your perspectives, put on your noise-cancelling headphones, scream louder than the person next to you and act like the sheep our congress assumes we are.
pmnsk Where is there a sporting requirement for firearms ownership Andy?
That's like saying the First Amendment only applies to entertaining speech.
agree pmnsk, good post
question: what change in regulations would have prevented this tragedy?
redwing? happiest? do either of you have a view on what should be done?
it was a cop with a gun who stopped this shooter according to reports.
what law or regulation would have prevented it from happening in the first place?
rw said - "You are entitled to your guns" ; thank you, which guns will you allow me to be entitled to?
rw also said - "We are giving them access to weapons meant for killing" - which guns would you restrict from others owning? how will you decide which ones others can own or not own? what criteria will you use to tell others that they cannot own certain firearms? if some of your personalized list of banned weapons are currently owned, would you require that they be turned in?
please be detailed in your response, and leave the insults behind, as pmnsk said, they serve no purpose here
Paranoid/exercising my 2nd Amendment rights....potAto/potAHto....
Besides, "need" is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the issue. But you're young a new at this, so I understand that you've formed your opinions on very little information... as you grow up and learn more, your opinions will evolve over time. At least they will if you actually study the issues and don't just repeat the progressive dogma taught in our public school and university systems.
"The minority aka NRA, who seems to speak for the majority, don't give a damn. When will the majority rise up and tell the gun lovers to shut up?"
You're free to get 5+ million of your friends to create a group that counters the NRA, NSSF, GOA, SAF, etc.
Just "liking" something on Facebook doesn't count, but just as a comparison:
NRA: 4,321,136 likes
Gun Owners of America: 1,095,955 likes
Second Amendment Foundation: 374,933 likes
National Shooting Sports Foundation: 348,014 likes
Everytown for Gun Safety: 877,126 likes
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: 186,903 likes
Americans for Responsible Solutions: 173,969 likes
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: 109,147 likes
Remember, the "pro-gun" groups typically charge for membership in addition to the free Facebook likes, whereas the "anti-gun" groups are very small, but vocal, groups (constantly changing names) that rely on keyboard commandos and only have one or two billionaire sponsors at the top.
As far as "attacking people for their opinions", EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is guilty for that- it's called DEBATE. hapiest girl has given no REASON other than her "feelings" that no one needs a gun. That is an opinion, based on nothing. If she'd like to discuss the issue, the least she could is have some actual facts backing her position- like MisterGoogle does. Ah, the good ol' days....
And, hapiest girl- if you're not young and inexperienced, and still hold these opinions you do, I'm sorry. Sorry that you haven't woken up yet! Tell you what: I'll your constitutional rights alone if you leave mine alone. Deal?
My guns haven't killed anyone. And if they ever do it will be someone who made the choice to die by threatening me or my family. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
Ianimal, re: here:
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/435905#t709407
You could get the same results by using the death penalty to punish all criminals convicted of any serious crime, or by castrating sexual deviants, or by cutting the tounges from those who say things the majority doesn't want to hear.
Remember that not all anti abortion positions stem from religious reasons. Protecting the weak from the strong is a legitimate use of government authority, and IMO it's twisted to ignore that fact when it suits ones desires.
Lame article, lame reasoning. Sorry.
5catmom, agreed. But what is the problem, guns ir the folks behind them? Definitely agree to work the problem!
5cat - the difference is intent.
Considering it's tough to have intentional mine disasters or hurricanes, comparing those to gun violence is a non sequitur.
When someone *intentionally* runs over a person with their car, exactly what congressional action is taken?
If you want to compare accidental gun deaths to accidental vehicular deaths, well... go right ahead. You won't like the results.
5catmom,
You act like NOTHING has been done in over 200 years to regulate firearms lol. They've been regulated up the wazoo. There's not much more that can be done before an outright ban.... unless that's what you're actually after...
Another unimaginable tragedy turned into a pissing match by the pro gun lunatics. Giggling like schoolgirls and attacking anyone who dares to try to find answers.
yankeefan Another insult by a anti-gun person. Why does being pro-gun make you a lunatic? I would like to hear your answer to that yankeefan. Also, what is so insane about wanting Constitutional rights upheld?
"Giggling like schoolgirls and attacking anyone who dares to try to find answers.
What "answers" have been proposed?
yankeefan, the easy answer is to legislate banning guns. The hard answer is to solve the problem of why the person CHOSE to use a gun in he first place.
Remember, even if guns are removed the person who would use them is still angry and looking for a way to inflict harm. So he doesn't use a gun. Ok. Will he just decide to not act out because of it?
strangerdanger answered your questions quite nicely in a previous post:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
It's obvious that there are improvements in the current laws that might help and certainly do not hinder any responsible person from owning guns. One would think responsible gun owners would advocate said improvements. Clearly there is something else going on here.
Oh you mean like more gun free zones and universal background checks?
Just like Oregon has?
yankeefan, I guess that makes you an anti-gun lunatic.
"the easy answer is to legislate banning guns"
Only if revolution sounds "easy", because that IS what will happen.
Not to mention that an outright ban of guns wouldn't stop this stuff anyway. It's been shown over and over again.
I have asked three times to know what happy girls answers are, and have not once received a answer or a acknowledgement. It really seems bantering is the ultimate motive.
I love the fact that happy girl starts sh**, then crys victim, then try's to start sh** again with "They are all just a collective bunch of wimps" If you are looking to have a conversation about the topic on hand, I have been here asking and asking, if you want to just argue, keep doing what you have been doing.
But again I ask HAPPY GIRL, or ANYONE who feels we should ban guns....What would you like to see done to ban ALL guns from our country? Do you have any concern about mental health in our country? You can say ban guns all you want, but if you cannot come up with a plan, what's the point in saying ban guns? Talk is cheap, make a plan and lets hear it!
I am not paranoid, I just hunt, target shoot, and am able to protect myself god forbid that time ever came ;-)
A good note: "protect yourself" is not just from other humans....I own 40 acres in the Poconos, when I am out in the middle of bear country, by myself, clearing trails, I carry a loaded .45 on my hip, because a knife just will not cut it when it comes to a angry bear, and I pray that a .45 will.
Ah, JR equating conservatism with the wisdom of experience and liberalism with the innocence of youth.
What else do you get with old age? I think we have a lot of proof regarding the advances of senility with age. So which comes first with aging: conservatism or senility? I think the jury has spoken :>)
Redwing: I think we have spoken up, it does not work. Until responsible gun owners show responsibility and advocate that their most excellent lobby, the NRA, evokes positive change in the very laws they know to be less than responsible, we are where we are.
Our murder rate is middle of the world pack. Out of 218 countries we are ranked 111. We are flanked on the high side by Niger, Yemen, Albania and on the low side by Latvia, Micronesia, and Georgia. It's not a nice neighborhood. Our rate is at least 4 times that of any country we would consider reasonable.
About 70% of all homicides by weapons are by gun and 70% of those are by handgun. While it's easy to say homicides are down, and they are, it is painfully clear we have too many and most are conducted with a gun. Why? Because it's easy. Easy to get, easy to use. Just pay, point and click.
Worse than that is guns kill children. So far this year 554 up to age 11 have been mowed down often because of irresponsibility. Often no one is legally punished because it's a tragedy and they have be punished and suffered enough. Add another 2,000 to get to age 17. A total of 265 people have perished by gun in mass killings this year. Track the killings and you will find a higher number in states with loose laws, and lower numbers in states with tight laws. And if we could stop loose states from exporting guns, we could do better. That's Chicago's real problem, not their gun laws, other contingent locales with loose gun laws.
With the total of 2015 gun deaths approaching 10,000 once again, we should note that there are about 9% or 906 of these being a defensive gun use of which only about 100, or 11% conclude with death. The difference in these defensive numbers with your views is these are sourced and verifiable. Yours are not.
Point is we have more guns and gun deaths that any other civilized country in the world and I, for one, do not feel safer because of your abuse of the second amendment. We are talking more guns and gun deaths on an astronomical level: ten times the guns, four times the murder rate, it's a big number.
We can forget all that by talking abortion, car deaths, the ease of making a pressure-cooker bomb or by lambasting young liberals with funny retorts. But until responsible gun owners lobby their lobby, the NRA, to effect rational change to make our laws regarding this as responsible as they are, we will continue our success in being the gun murder mavens of the modern world.
Universal background checks for all sales and gifting as the law of the land.
Automate the gun tracking and search capabilities from the distributed paper database we have today
Universal mental health reporting including some diagnosis not adjudicated as the law of the land
By the law of the land I mean set a minimum baseline that all states must adhere to. If states want to do more, well that's state's rights. Like I said, it's not up to the folks on my side of the fence, but it's up to the NRA and the responsible gun owners who support and fund that organization. Only they can free the logjam and effect positive change. If not, it's a guarantee that tens of thousands of Americans will die by gun in their own neighborhoods, thousands of kids will die, and very few will be protected by someone with a gun. Sure, auto accidents are worse, but this one is in your hands to fix.
Part of the solution involves family and friends taking their heads out of their Shangri-la daze and admitting that someone they are close to is mentally ill, angry, and antisocial, and doing something about it. It would not save all, but many. Hate hearing "we're so shocked." Really? I do know the government makes helping the mentally difficult. But stop looking the other way when guns and illness are together in the mix.
The solution is not to take reasonable weaponry away from responsible citizens.
maja +1 maja. Guns are just the diversion to a political end (disarming the populace). They are not THE problem. The real problem is mental illness and the devaluation of life in this country.
"Our murder rate is middle of the world pack. Out of 218 countries we are ranked 111. "
I assume you used the Wikipedia list...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Note that they have this disclaimer:
"This chart does not use the very latest data due to differences in how intentional homicide is defined and calculated for each country. "
For example, I believe in Britain it's only classified as murder if they actually get a conviction. Unsolved crime? Not a murder.
http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html
Yes Mark, you are correct, it is the latest data available and there are definitional differences across the globe.
Do you think a complete apples-to-apple will affect the sea change you are looking for?
In the case of your link, and from the link, the conclusion of definitional differences is "The murder rate in the UK according to US standards is double or higher than their reported rate. It may be impossible to produce an actual apples to apples comparison number from official sources. It is not 15% of the US rate."
OK, they are at 30% of our rate, no 60%, you can double it, triple it, whatever and your own proof is not even close to significant. I mean if you really stink, is stinking a little less the improvement you are shooting for?
Just saying by disclosing the true calculation for one variable, we've already significantly closed the gap in the difference in murder rates. You're smart enough to know that there are many variables between countries, not just guns/no guns, that affect crime rates.
Were you guys interviewed for this article from The Onion?
CHARLESTON, SC—In the hours following a violent rampage in downtown Charleston in which a lone attacker killed nine individuals and seriously injured one other, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Wednesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Oklahoma resident Kenneth Barrows, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five and a half years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless
Stink is stink and being dead last amongst developed 1st world nations is dead last even if you close the gap.
yankeefan, I'll ask again: would banning guns prevent people from causing harm to others?
Not a trick question.
I have not seen one anti gun person answer any of our questions..........
But these same people are so quick to point out when we do not answer their questions, even if they are not topic based
Ok, say we ban guns. How would that work? I'm sure the government would need to go house to house and search for them, unannounced of course. Who's willing to be the first?
Hot corner It's funny that as soon as another mass gun killing happens that lights a small fire under anti-gun people, the pro gun people bring out the BIG lie "they want to ban guns"! They don't say that maybe we should sit down and discuss ways to maybe prevent this from happening again. I don't have any definite solutions but I would be willing to talk about it without infringing on our rights. But nooooooooo, we have to hear the scare tactic, BAN GUNS. No matter how often people say "we don't want to ban guns" gun lovers hear "they want to ban guns". Those lemmings keep jumping over that cliff and the NRA keeps making money for those gun companies. LOL!
You do realize that after Newtown, New Jersey legislators tried to ban .50 caliber rifles (even though it had nothing to do with the crime)
You do realize, that in New Jersey, the following firearm models are banned (and other proposed legislation would have expanded this list):
Algimec AGM1 type
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"
Armalite AR-180 type
Australian Automatic Arms SAR
Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms
Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms
Bushmaster Assault Rifle
Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900
CETME G3
Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88 type
Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2, AR 100 types
Demro TAC-1 carbine type
Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types
FAMAS MAS223 types
FN-FAL, FN-LAR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms
Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns
G3SA type
Galil type
Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1
Intratec TEC 9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms
M1 carbine type
M14S type
MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9 mm carbine type firearms
PJK M-68 carbine type
Plainfield Machine Company Carbine
Ruger K-Mini-14/5 F and Mini-14/5 RF
SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG PE-57 types
SKS with detachable magazine type
Spectre Auto carbine type
Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48 type
Sterling MK-6, MK-7 and SAR types
Steyr A.U.G. semi-automatic firearms
USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun
Uzi type semi-automatic firearms
Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms
Weaver Arm Nighthawk
Big lie? I think not. Maybe you should actually start paying attention.
Chew on this anti gunners...Look what happened when they tried to ban alcohol. If you wanted it, you could still get it. You think bad guys "follow the law"? Make all the gun laws you want. They are just for us law abiding gun owners.
Where is the big lie redwing?
A known anti-gun posted said "How many times does it take for these mass shootings to occur before we as a supposedly civilized nation ban guns." - happiest girl
It is very clear most of us that are pro-gun have been asking and asking for a conversation about ideas and plans, but nobody has come up with any. All we keep getting is posts like yours
NoHopeForHumanity- Maybe we should stop making any laws since only law abiding people follow them? Make everything legal.
Darrin-Oh yeah it's very clear that most pro-gunners have been asking for discussions about ideas and plans. Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees.
Mark Mc- Maybe you should list all the guns that ARE available before I'm going to feel sorry for you. I'm guessing that list would dwarf your banned list.
I never asked you to feel sorry for me, but don't weasel out of it. The fact is, that after these events occur (and when legislators think it's politically possible) they propose firearm bans. Plain and simple.
"NoHopeForHumanity- Maybe we should stop making any laws since only law abiding people follow them? Make everything legal. "
Yes, we absolutely have too many laws. Most aggressions can be tried under existing laws - new laws are only put in place to nitpick finer details that would already be covered by other laws.
From my comment above, a couple of reasons why IMO our society is the way it is:
"Well, it shouldn't be a surprise that IMO the first thing is to stop trying to control every little human action. Those who seek control over their neighbors - and don't seem to understand that the imposition of control inevitably leads to hate and animosity - I think need to put themselves in the shoes of those they seek to dominate. And we need to stop accusing everyone of being guilty all the time. Things done in the name of "safety", as one example, whether it be the TSA, security cameras within view everywhere we go, "random" checks that are done on the assumption of guilt rather than suspicion of guilt, etc., all lead to an unconscious vein of fear and lack of trust.
IOW, those who use fear to justify using authority over others need to reflect on the consequences of the forceful actions that stem from those fears. People who feel like they are backed into a corner tend to lash out. Shouldn't be all that surprising."
All I have been saying for some time now is that responsible gun owners should make the laws on the books work. Make them a universal benchmark, not the Swiss cheese loophole filed concoction we have today and make them work.
That means:
Universal background checks for all sales and gifting as the law of the land.
Automate the gun tracking and search capabilities from the distributed paper database we have today
Universal mental health reporting including some diagnosis not adjudicated as the law of the land
Beyond the numbers which the NRA has assured will be gobbledygook why wouldn't responsible gun owners push the NRA to make these current laws already on the books effective while not limiting the 2A or limiting any responsible gun owner from ownership and, at worst case, adding no more inconvenience than we have with our current transportation system.
I just don't see where improving current laws to be more effective increases "the vein of fear." In the case of automated gun tracking, my proposal to have the NRA control the database should even remove the current process of seizing gun shop records which happens in bankruptcy and many other situations.
I believe responsible gun owners could be an effective force for positive change putting the monkey on someone else's back to take the next step like mental health recovery programs, pursuit of criminal guns, and the like.
We don't need more laws, we just need a universal benchmark that works.
I actually like stranger dangers idea - it would aid in investigations and the nra is already a very pro police organization
"Tracing" guns is largely a waste of police resources.
Canada had a long-gun registry. Abandoned it because it didn't solve any crimes and cost a lot of money.
Now you're listening to Canada.....that's rich, eh?
One of the main reasons the Canadian registry failed was cost overruns. Also, the failed registry was for long guns, knee-jerked after a tragedy, and as you know, long guns are the minor portion of gun crimes so kind of a red penguin.
Of course I was talking gun tracing, not registration. I realize registration is part of it, but bear in mind I am not talking about changing the registration law beyond universality (if that's not currently there), but I am talking about gun tracing and specifically automating the tracing system we already have today. In other words, I am looking to modernize the current system that depends on a piece of paper in some gun sellers file cabinet that takes much manual effort on the taxpayer dollar and a critical waste of time using 1960's data technology. We should move the proces into our century.
Additionally my recommendation would put the entire data base in the hands of the NRA which I believe would be a far safer data storage system than you have today. Already due to failed gun sellers, disasters like Katrina, and more, there are millions of records already stored by the Federal Government. Thanks to the NRA none of these records can be data based but must be scanned, a most expensive process.
In the event of JR's expected government coup, which is safer, a distributed network of gun sellers running for their lives or the NRA with a planned data base destruction program and a red button? Let them process all the records securely, maintain them in an un-networked data island, and put all the nuclear options on it they want. Just respond to legal requests at the speed of light.
You are correct that there are no statistics as to the ultimate value of a gun trace. We know that about 70% of traces result in the original owner. However, that even the highest profile trace takes a minimum of 24-hours and routine traces take a week. Low profile cases can take weeks.
But it is data relative to the crime and plenty enough police do rely upon it each and every day. Additionally a crime gun trace can provide new clues to other crimes even if the original owner is not the criminal is question. Thousands of gun traces have resulted in major gun trafficking violations for example. That's a good thing for responsible gun owners.
I just can't imagine why responsible gun owners would not want a safer system that is more responsive to solving crimes rather than being an onerous, time-consuming, expensive process. But certainly the Canadian attempt to register long guns is not a reason not to.
Pray for the families and friends of the ten innocent victims who lost their lives senselessly, and for their spirits to find peace... their lives so tragically and abrubtly ended.
+1 pray for them, but now it is ten? Anyone notice how the news was fast to say 17 and 20 injured? Not that it is any better or worse, I would much rather not have this crap happening from mentally unstable people, but the media was awful fast to try to make up some numbers.
Also, even bigger, I noticed that JR's post went somewhat unoticed.....the killer was recognized on a terror list, and nothing was done about it. Shall we start there in making claims about what wrong with our country before we hop the gun debate? Or is this just another excuse to ignore the real issue and try to even further lock down guns?
http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/oregon-mass-shooter-on-terror-list-obama-refused-to-take-from-russia/
Until we focus our efforts on the REAL issue at hand, nothing is going to change in this country, it's very sad that people cannot see this.
SD "I just can't imagine why responsible gun owners would not want a safer system that is more responsive to solving crimes rather than being an onerous, time-consuming, expensive process. But certainly the Canadian attempt to register long guns is not a reason not to."
We have been over this time and time again, and the answer is because America won't just stop there, plain and simple.
And use NY as your example. No harm in registering all your guns right? Then door to door confiscation when they had everyone re[port what they had.
The proof is in the pudding.
Gun owners will never trust the government to "fix" the system, because it has been proven "fixing" the system is not their ultimate goal.
Darrin,
First gun registration and automating a gun trace are two different things and two different data bases.
It would be nice if gun registration could be used to trace a crime gun but Darrin, how many states require registration of all guns? How many states require registration of hand guns?
Given the answer is very few, it is the sales receipt held by the FFL (gun store) that provides most of the traces of the original owner. Note original owner because unless you are an FFL, there is no receipt in the data base for most of those other transactions.
My recommendation is for the NRA to data base the sales information protecting it for responsible gun owners everywhere and being responsive to law enforcement legal requests for a trace. Their data base could be as protected and unconnected to the network as the NRA wants and they could put all the nuclear options in they want to protect against government or foreign intrusion.
Darrin, that's all I have been saying. But if the NRA wanted to take on that responsibility for the states for registration, that would be a win-win too.
If the event of a NY scenario, who is better at legally addressing and stopping such intrusions, the NRA's legal team or 6-gun joe in New York? Just saying.
Point is that the NRA could be a positive agent for change making things better for both you and me by supporting universal background checks, mental health tracking, and automated gun traces. The NRA supports better mental health tracking, wish they would really push the issue. I think most NRA members support universal background checks, make the NRA push the issue through. I would think if the NRA owned the gun trace databases you would be safer than ever, the 2nd amendment remains intact, and I know I would feel safer as well. I could see the same for gun registration but given the low acceptance at the state level, not sure of the priority unless the NRA gets uber proactive about progess. Otherwise we can continue beating our respective drums and heads against the wall effecting no change whatsoever.
Sorry, suns out, got to go, suggest you do the same :>)
SD, with one big issue in your idea, Even with the NRA holding that info, heck, I could hold that info, at any given time the government can demand that information and imprison those that do not give it up, and then do as they wanted with it, so just making a database alone is problematic.
Sure seems like a good way to trick gun owners into registering their guns though, "Oh don't worry, the NRA is handling all of this." And reality is that in 3 months from then there is a massive leak of information and now anyone can get it.....get my drift?
Also it will never happen, there are too many guns already out there that have no trace-ability, and never will, so again this will not stop illegal weapons, nor will it stop shootings like this.
Care to talk about mental health?
SD - If you want the NRA to change their policies, get the remaining 313M Americans that aren't NRA members to join and voice their opinions. Whining about it here isn't going to help.
Quit asking "somebody else" to do something that should be within your power (with enough of your friends that agree).
Why would the teacher even get involved?
Obviously the solution is to just hang one of these on the fence and call it a day.
"Why would the teacher even get involved" ----- Mark Mc.
It's all lost on him, 5catmom!
We trust signs to keep guns out of school... certainly a sign could handle a rock.
5catmom,
I think you and many others would want to see this -if you already don't know about it.
http://everytown.org
" http://everytown.org\"
Paid for courtesy of billionaire Michael (you're not allowed to drink soda) Bloomburg and Shannon Watts - a PR exec from Monsanto, a company that brought you such wonderful things as DDT and Agent Orange.
Children are not adults and the guidance provided by a sign and teachers (who in cooperation with the childrens' parents) should be teaching and guiding them at a young age to do what is right, i.e. NOT throw rocks to begin with.
The analogy of just "giving other kids rocks" doesn't carry over to the argument of allowing responsible adults who have gone through proper safety training with testing (IMHO) to purchase a firearm to allow for home defense, hunting, etc. It also doesn't carry over to allowing for adult personal carry of a firearm (after attending personal safety and defense classes with testing as well IMHO).
Firstly, obviously the teacher should both apprehend and bring the student to the appropriate authority for discipline, although wait, schools aren't allowed to do that anymore, unless someone brings a digital clock they assembled to school. The parents also should be involved in the situation, but as we know, parents are now in many cases just their childrens' besties, rather than parents and their Johnny or Sally would NEVER throw rocks at any other children and the school security video must have been doctored via a great school conspiracy against their child. In the other cases of those parents that would provide some sort of punishment for their child, automatically they are reported to DYFS for having the temerity to do something within reason to discipline their child. (NOT abuse, for that's entirely wrong and teaches the wrong message, but DISCIPLINE, which helps guide them).
For a proper analogy, the teacher would allow those student volunteers who have undergone training and been deemed stable children to carry rocks if they wish in order to defend themselves and other children if one child "goes rogue" and starts to continuously throw rocks at other children, while other children call for the appropriate authority (911) so that the teacher (police) who can't be in all places at all times can come and apprehend the offending child.
Phil D. 
unfortunately the fallacy of gun control is that by controlling legal guns, you stop illegal activity. Gun control is imposed on those willing to follow the law, and criminals, by their very nature, do not.
Another straw-man fallacy is whether gun related deaths are reduced is completely irrelevant and makes little sense to consider. The argument at hand is whether overall deaths are reduced the sample set also includes law enforcement and accidental / suicide deaths is essentially anecdotal.
CraftBeerBob Skippy,
do you know the number of guns owned by criminals who have stolen them from law abiding citizens.?
Pretty mind-boggling.
.......and --- I STILL want to know why you don't believe I am from the Bronx
because I believe you are from Riverdale - I agree mental health is an issue - and I believe that legal gun owners safe guard their arms because they don't want the liability
"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
I believe Riverdale is classified as the Bronx -- isn't it?
But that is not where I lived (I wish)
What made you think Riverdale?
you are smart articulate and educated. I don't think you are a product of the NYC public schools - it wasn't an insult - and riverdale is in fact part of westchester county
Will it ever stop?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/california-teens-arrested-for-shooting-plot/vi-AAf5lAP
https://www.google.com/#q=another+mass+murder+averted+in+calif.
I went to PS. 67. --- and then a specialized high school that required an entrance exam to get into.
You shouldn't think that a child in a NYC public school will not exceed.
That is prettty biased and not taking into account who the parents are, and the mindset and drive of the student.
What kind of detective are you that you don't know where PS 67 is?
(NO OFFENSE) ... just look it up.
I went to school there from 2nd grade --- and I have no recollection what school I went to before that in the other neighborhood.
I will ask my mom/
I was never a dt - I was an ESU guy - it is what it is - if you want to argue - email me - so we don't bore the straights lol
I have no idea what an "outlier right" is.
All I know, when I was in 2nd grade living right near Tremont Ave near the Bx Zoo it was a total war zone and that's when we moved to the Fordham Rd / Grand Concourse area.
Then like your name you should be the hapiest (sp?) you have ever been. Cheers.
Congrats, your family had the money to move... how did the rest of the people on Tremont Ave fare after your departure?
It's amazing how many anti gun people argue about the lack of need for self defense from behind their gated community walls.
Absolutely, CraftBeer Bob.
Positive --- taking notes?? An insult to me....
However I used to not be "hapiest" until the moderators would not let me post with my original name.
HAPPY now, CraftBeer?
this site is owned by google and very PC - we all have been denied. it is what it is..
Not sure why that was deemed an insult. I meant I was happy you got out and your as happy as you have ever been. Cleaning my guns right now after I shot them last night. Cheers!!!!
again - I will no longer engage you here - if you want to debate I welcome it - click the envelope - I consider you a worthy adversary - I hope you email me - and we can have protracted discussions. i think this forum is disrupted by our discourse so I willfully disengage.
Mark Mc --- my family was poor. We had no money..
My immigrant grandfather saved his pennies after coming to this country and worked his tail off and eventually had enough to buy a small 6-apt house in the Bx.
He sent money to Europe, little by little, like many other immigrants, to bring other family members over.
He never hired anyone to fix anything in the house he managed to buy --- he did it all by himself. That is one way he saved money.
His 4 children all worked hard and saved and our family was able to better ourselves --- you could call it the American Dream. That's when such a thing was possible.
"It's amazing how many anti gun people argue about the lack of need for self defense from behind their gated community walls" ---- quoting Mark Mc.
I have no idea what you mean, but you are being disrespectful once again.
My family lived in the ghetto, and now I live in Hackettstown. Not a gated community.
We never owned guns, never needed guns and our family will never own guns. If you can not respect that, then that is YOUR problem.
Try to look at it this way..Mark gave a dig since apparently you guys have some type of a past on HL? On the other hand Skippy gave you a major compliment.
I'm not against you hapiest...
I am happy. People seem to get so upset about adult discussion. Very strange phenomena.
Craftbeer ...
sorry I took it as an insult because I was once "happiest" but when this site did not allow me to post with that name, I had to change it to hapiest. Then, I got many insulting comments insinuating I did not know how to spell.
I even got one from Jeff Repub saying I had bathroom problems and that is why I had to drop a "P"
Happiest it's obvious that you are intelligent and have morals and convictions. I applaud you for that. Why fall into the insulting back and forth trap?
Who cares what others think about you and your opinions. As long as you believe in yourself that's all that matters.
Only this one can start arguments with some of the nicest, unbiased people on the forum, utterly amazing....smh!
And if you can't respect that some people STILL live in the ghetto, still need guns for self defense, etc then that is your problem.
You're projecting a "solution" based only on YOUR current environment, forgetting that there are 313M OTHER people in this country that may not share your safe community, responsive police force, or apparent ability to fist fight.
The NRA supports the right of psychotics to butcher large numbers of innocents with military grade hardware.
So now there's a story about how this murderer shot a woman in a wheelchair.
Not sure why she didn't just run away or fight back with her fists, eh hapiest girl?
I can totally respect someone who doesn't want to have guns and doesn't like them, that is your choice, but don't expect the other billions of people to give them up because of your feelings. We will listen to your ideas to fixing a system you think is broken though, I have asked for input going on 6 times now and it has gone ignored, are you here to sling insults or here to discuss? Right now it seems like the first.
"SD, with one big issue in your idea" Yeah, I guess if the NRA can't protect your information it is better off in the combined hands of the government (for every failed gun store and they fail a lot) and individual gun store owners because you know they're harder to breach than a secured off-line system with a nuclear option.
"SD.........Whining about it here isn't going to help....... Quit asking "somebody else" to do something that should be within your power."
Again as I have oft of late noted, unless responsible gun owners stand up for positive change, no change will happen. Instead of looking for improvement in a win-win scenario, you dig in to do nothing. While you have won so far, ultimately a rage against gun violence will create the Tsunami that will sweep you away. It is in the best interest of responsible gun owners to lead the way to make gun ownership even more responsible in it's protection of the 2A.
Your NRA has proactively seen to that by forcing 20th century technology for gun traces, blocking any statistics of value by CDC and other government entities, and basically gridlocking any attempts at improving any law. If responsible gun owners do not effect positive change, there will be no gains over the status quo.
But yes Mark, I have done my part both with the NRA and other venues. And labeling me a whiner is beneath you.
You make it sound like trace data is going to magically peel back the curtain on cartels and gangs, as if they keep detailed transaction records on all of their guns... The only one dumb enough to do that was California Senator Leland Yee. All it will normally do is point to the last time the gun was *legally* sold or stolen... (or the BATFE - Fast and Furious anyone?)
It took Canada billions of $$ to learn that lesson, and they have a lot fewer guns.
Not to mention, even the most robust, detailed system on the planet is easily defeated by on of these...
Another victory for the no gun control group. Would a law that requires gun owners to keep their shotguns secured when not in use get through the NRA blockade? Just asking.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-boy-11-shoots-girl-8-argument-puppy-article-1.2385429
If you read the story, it mentions him having bullied the girl from the time she moved there. I would say that there were mental issues involved with the young man, besides perhaps having been left behind, since the normal age for a 5th grader at this time of the year is 10.
There are other stories of youngsters having used the family shotgun to defend their family home against armed robbers when their parents weren't home, so do we deny someone responsible that opportunity? That's hard for me to say, but in any case, I feel sad for the family of the young lady who was killed. It shouldn't have happened and I'm pretty sure the defense of "not guilty by mental defect or disorder" will be used in the case when it comes to trail. I would definitely say that the parent(s) should also be brought to task if there was any indication of a volatile temper, etc. or if they themselves and the family have "issues".
Hmm, Joe Biden comes to mind for some reason, ban everything but shotguns, but then a girl stabbed her Mom to death after watching an ISIS video (on the same website)... .
"I would say that there were mental issues involved with the young man." Yeah most certainly that was the problem when he grabbed a loose shot gun and had at it. Of course, he could have used a knife. Of course then he would have had to actually go outside.
"so do we deny someone responsible that opportunity?" So what kid at 10 is responsible enough to have a shotgun by himself, alone? And if he is that mature, how about a combination lock. Probably not responsible enough to handle that.....
"I would definitely say that the parent(s) should also be brought to task if there was any indication of a volatile temper" Really. Bad temper, bring to task. Loose gun, it's a walk.
" ban everything but shotguns, but then a girl stabbed her Mom to death after watching an ISIS video (on the same website)... " Where's my RPG?
Not many are calling for bans which will never happen anyway. It's just the 2A zealots who see bans around every corner to sow FUD. But perhaps a more prudent set of universal background checks, universal mental heath tracking, and automated crime gun tracing might slow things down a bit.
We have over 560 stories of kids under 11 killed or injured by guns this year in the US. In New Jersey, a kid in Trenton got winged by a man in a mask knocking at the door. Two kids got it in Long Branch this month in a probable love spat murder suicide. Then a kid got it at a cookout in Newark in June. So NJ looking pretty good.
Only a couple of accidents for NJ, don't think any kids so far.
==============================================
Mark says: "You make it sound like trace data is going to magically peel back the curtain on cartels and gangs" Actually I never mentioned cartels and gangs nor a magic bullet.
What I did say was "You are correct that there are no statistics as to the ultimate value of a gun trace. We know that about 70% of traces result in the original owner. However, that even the highest profile trace takes a minimum of 24-hours and routine traces take a week. Low profile cases can take weeks.
But it is data relative to the crime and plenty enough police do rely upon it each and every day. Additionally a crime gun trace can provide new clues to other crimes even if the original owner is not the criminal is question. Thousands of gun traces have resulted in major gun trafficking violations for example. That's a good thing for responsible gun owners."
But I can understand why you personally don't want gun traces automated: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/nyregion/tracing-the-gun-used-to-kill-2-new-york-city-police-officers.html?_r=0
One might not want to make it harder to get crime guns since stores might be closed. I don't agree, but can understand that just stopping one store does not stop gun sales to criminals; it's impossible so why even try. There's just too many guns already, the 2-week plus trace times don't work, and they would use knives anyway.
From ThinkProgress: "Although 57 percent of guns recovered and traced to crimes originate from just 1.2 percent of the nation’s gun dealers including Arrowhead, the government has taken little action to prevent illegal sales. Lawsuits against individual dealers are usually settled when the stores agree to short-term monitoring or minor changes in their sales policies."
Wait, gun traces prove we can shut down only 1.2% of the dealers and make 57% of the gun crime buyers go somewhere else. Nah, that couldn't make a dent in anything. You can't stop criminals from getting guns, it's inevitable.
"For the last eight years, Georgia has been a top five source for guns recovered in crimes in New York state." My goodness we just don't need to know that. That would make it almost sound like loose gun law states are a conduit for crime guns to tighter gun law states. So gun traces are proving that if we had universal background checks that Smith n Wesson International sales to Mexico would skyrocket for re-importation with illegal aliens mule-ing guns to US criminals. That's just wrong, can't have that.
From the ATF: "In 2014, more than 246,000 firearms were recovered and traced in the United States."
Here's some stories of just a couple of the major crimes uncovered during a trace not necessarily the crime the gun was traced for: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TEVGXocF5j0J: https://www.atf.gov/file/11891/download+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Totally worthless. You should see the yearly take. Even bigger and more worthless.
Just as an example, here are some stories you normally don't see listed that show children as young as 10 defending themselves and/or their siblings, etc. from home invaders, etc. (found with a quick google search):
http://lawnews.tv/examples-of-kids-using-guns-to-defend-themselves/
I'm not saying that there should be unsecured firearms all over the place, in fact, when I lived in PA and had been in the College Rifle Target Club, I later owned a .22LR semi-auto pistol for personal target practice. I never could have used it to defend my home however, since I kept it unloaded in the case with the ammo for it in a separate area, but that was my own choice and I was the only one living there.
If the government can make money on it (meaning anything) it will be hard to stop it. This reminds me of the movie "Lord of War". A must see for those who are anti gun.
Strangerdanger are you retired?
So 246,000 traces results in a handful of results that fit on 2 pages, with 1/3 not even due to a trace (the criminals were caught for other reasons and they just determined the guns were stolen.) Heck if my gun gets stolen I'll gladly give the police its serial number - if/when it's ever recovered I should have it returned to me, right?
Other than that, the government should have no knowledge of who owns what. How people exercise their civil rights is not their business. Imagine how many more crimes could be solved if we didn't have the 4th or 5th amendments (although they are working on those too).
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." - Sir William Blackstone
When registration data is used to unconstitutionally confiscate or restrict "innocent" gun owners, the utility of that data to catch a "guilty" criminal is tempered.
The Chapter noted it was some examples, not an exhaustive list.
"Other than that, the government should have no knowledge of who owns what."
I never suggested that.
I never suggested anything comparative to the long gun registration program in Canada that failed, for the obvious reason that it's expensive to database guns not frequently used in crimes especially when you overspend to begin with.
We already currently database sales origin information; all I am suggesting is using 21st century technology to do it combined with NRA third party control, security, and nuclear options. The entire system could be off-net, there is no hacking without a wire.
Mark, I just don't know in what universe a trace of a gun used in a crime is a bad thing. Are you really saying that a gun found at a crime should be dusted, printed, and then not traced to potentially find not only the criminal but perhaps any criminals attached to the trail of said gun?
Apparently these traces also turn up other crimes as well as pinpointing FFLs who are a revolving door for criminal gun acquisition.
IMHO we should deploy modern technology versus paper records in millions of file cabinets in thousands of locations. I further suggest that the NRA create a foolproof, secure and private system that would protect your records far better than they are protected today PLUS putting the NRA in the middle so if legal battles need to be fought over silly searches like in NY, they can do much more than they do today both physically and legally.
"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent." "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. . . . I'd do it again in a minute." Dick Cheney.
Not that I agree, just saying :>)
Blackstone also said:
“certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained”
“The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness.”
"The husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband."
"The law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind."
So you really don't have a clue what Blackstone felt about gun traces. But you left out the other recommendations for universal background checks and universal mental health tracking. Two thumbs up for them?
Without registration exactly how do you propose a comprehensive trace database?
Besides the blatantly obvious issue that criminals won't register their firearms (or perform background checks on each other), the Supreme Court has decided that criminals are *not required* to register their guns (a protection under the 5th Amendment) in Haynes vs. US (1968).
And no, I don't support universal background checks (especially tied to a 4473 record of sale). Let's assume even if I did, what's your brilliant plan to actually enforce it? They are just words on a piece of paper, not a physical barrier to a firearm transfer.
As far as mental health, who will make the list of disqualifying conditions? Criminal justice experts and lawyers or mental health professionals? Who has been making the lists so far? Where's the due process? So in short, no, not any way you would likely propose.
So we'll just let total anarchy run its course?
Jeb Bush's response to all this was simply, "stuff happens. ... we're in a difficult time in our country and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this."
He knows he needs the votes of millions of people who have been convinced by the right wing media and all the hate groups that all sales of weapons will be forbidden and the bogeyman will come to take guns away from responsible owners. Fear, fear, fear.
So, we don't even want to START THINKING of ways to keep guns out of the wrong people's hands ... if no perfect plan is yet in place, they want no creative thinking to take place at all? ... to even just cut down the probability of future disasters?
The gun industry is producing millions of guns each year, and with that many guns in circulation, surely too many will invariably end up in the wrong hands.
Is that what we want?
That's their MO justintime...
Oh you don't like gun control? Let's just make murder legal then! etc. etc. etc...
For the record, I'm fine with murder being illegal. I'm fine with assault with a firearm being illegal. I'm fine with possessing a firearm (or replica) during the commission of a violent crime being illegal. I'm fine with firearm theft being illegal.
I'm not fine with possession of a gun, and nothing else, being illegal. I'm not fine with state legislated gun free zones where people are defenseless (I do think property owners can make that decision if they wish, where I have the option do business elsewhere). I'm not fine with telling anyone not accused or under indictment for any crime how many bullets (or what type) they can have in a magazine.
See the difference... ACTIONS have consequences. What somebody "might" do is not supposed be a crime.
Isn't it more important what the majority is fine with versus what you are fine with Mark Mc? I always liked the Spock quote, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". The problem is the minority yells louder. Let the anarchy continue! LOL!
Many of the same arguments are being used against the knife enthusiast community. I personally have a few knives and the legal issues of carrying a knife are both involved and complex. If you check any of the knife magazines out there, you'll get an idea of the insanity involved. In some cases, just the fact that you are carrying a knife is taken by the police as "intent" that you meant to use it for nefarious means. I nearly always have one or more pocketknives on me, for different uses.
They are tools and if you ever watch any of the survival programs on TV that's one of the most important tools to have besides a means of starting fire and many times a good knife is integral to that process. If I'm at a family event such as a Birthday or Christmas and presents are being opened, everyone knows that if there's tape that need cut or stubborn wrapping or clamshell plastic, just pass it to Uncle Phil because he always has a knife and can get it open for you.
Guns themselves are also tools which can be used and/or misused and to assume that just because someone possesses one or more of them means that they have nefarious intent in their usage is just as wrong as to assume that of someone that carries or owns one or more knives. I have known people that have the ability to kill just as many people with a revolver or bolt action rifle as many of these unstable murderers have with semiautomatic weapons.
There are also people that are able to kill any number of people that are in close proximity with anything from a knife, a knife magazine, or the pencil or pen used to fill out a subscription card. Should we take the fact that they are able to do such things as "intent" that they have nefarious ideas on using that ability. Do we outlaw that type of training or outlaw their ability to own or even possess anything that could be used as a weapon? We as a society entrust that these people will actually use these "skills" for good and not for nefarious reasons, though some people actually do.
It seems that there are many that would indict the whole firearm-owning community as a bunch of mentally unstable people that own those firearms for nefarious means. "Why would anyone need a semiautomatic weapon to hunt deer, bear, etc.? is often asked as an example also of questioning why any normal person would need a weapon that fires amy more than one shot without performing a physical operation on their part other than just pulling the trigger.
Hunting itself takes a lot of skill on the part of true hunters and due to a sudden gust of wind, or any unpredictable circumstance that makes it such that the first shot does not make for a quick and clean kill, it is much better to be able to keep on target and follow it, being able to squeeze off another shot to be able to keep the animal from suffering rather than to have it disappear into the brush while wounded, afraid and suffering for perhaps miles while being tracked until a kill shot is able to be used or the animal finally stops due to loss of blood and exhaustion. Even as a non-hunter, I am able to understand the practical uses for the semi-auto "tool", rather than the single shot, bolt action "tool".
The same carries over to self protection. Unless one is trained and continuously qualified such as members of the Military or Law Enforcement chances of survival of an attack are much greater with a semi-auto than a revolver or even an old one or two shot shotgun. Even those who are well-trained, such as in the case of the police a couple of years back in NYC with shots coming back at them, adrenaline rushing, etc. many shots missed their target (the perpetrator).
The tool has no mind of its own and is dependent upon the will of the person using the tool. A sane user of the tool with good intentions will normally achieve "good" results, a mentally unstable individual or person with bad intentions will achieve "bad" results. The point being to punish those who use these tools for the wrong reasons and keep them out of the hands of those convicted of crimes of violence or those who have been deemed mentally incompetent, unable to differentiate right from wrong, a danger to themselves and/or others, as well as various other related qualifiers.
Unfortunately, the laws have failed us in a number of recent cases, such as databases not "linking up" properly to show that a person that should not be allowed to purchase a firearm was allowed to purchase it because "time was up" to show that they shouldn't be allowed tp purchase it, so they were green lighted, even though they shouldn't have been. The loopholes such as this that have been found do need to be closed in my opinion and current laws need to be enforced properly by both prosecutors and the judiciary. How someone who possesses marijuana for personal usage or other non violent offenses can get a larger sentence than someone using a firearm in a crime befuddles and frustrates me.
Redwing, you really think the minority is pro-gun? Think again
43% of people want to see tougher gun laws, and that is not even saying that 43% dont want guns, that number is even lower at 26% wanting to see a ban on handguns
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/415903
Hate to say it, but you got that one backwards
Hapiest Girl states the following:
"The difference is that those are accidents. Not pre-meditated murders."
"Those people did not get into a car and say "let's see, I think I will get on Rt. 80 and slam into some cars and kill people because I WANT to kill people."
"But I do know if that 10 students would still be alive today if they didn't have bullets in them."
"We are talking about a WEAPON --- a gun --- that an INDIVIDUAL person uses to kill people intentionally."
Well we should add airplanes and box cutters to your list of weapons. 19 men got on a plane with full intentions of using it as a weapon and destroy as many lives as possible. NO GUNS...just box cutters.
I do know that over 3,000 people in NY alone would be alive today if we banned air planes and box cutters.
This was no accident but in fact was premeditated. They got on the plane for one purpose and that was to kill.
My point is this:
When there's a will there's a way. Banning guns will not solve the problem. Just like drugs that are banned, if a person wants it, they will find it. Legally or not.
What are the "needs" redwing? Statistically, mass shootings are still very rare, much much less likely to occur than other forms of harm or death. Put the threat into context is all many are saying.
About the true democracy you are referring to, no, it's very bad because that's how things like slavery are justified. Live and let live, protect individual rights and punish those who harm others. Mob rule can never be a good thing in the long run because those with power will always seek to take advantage of the weak.
Edit: to clarify, I'm once again speaking from the position of believing in voluntary action over coerced action. If you are a Trek fan and have watched the movie where that quote was made famous, did Spock act voluntarily or did he use his position of authority and force someone else (perhaps a red shirt lol) to do his bidding?
Coercive force used for "good" is still coercive force.
So where is the line; concealed carry in our schools, bowie knives at shoprite, large mags in our cars, rpg's for u and me, land mines protecting our homes?
No more pool fences, throw out those car seats, cut up the seat belts....
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
Phil,
I agree with 95% of what you usually say. In your last post the thing I disagree with is calling a 3 day limit a "loophole".
This was not an oversight that people are taking advantage of. It was an intentional inclusion in the legislation. Without it, the government has carte blanche to just indefinitely delay anyone's rights. Remember, NICS is the National *Instant* Criminal Background Check System.
Before changing anything, where is any data showing how many 3 day holds were processed incorrectly versus those that weren't? The gun shop is still free to not complete the transfer if they so choose, Federal law just doesn't make it mandatory that they do.
The anti gun camp always wants a "compromise" law, and then when we follow it, immediately claim we're taking advantage of loopholes (written into the law) that needed to be closed. They want both halves of the cake.
Oh come on, the beauty of all the gun control laws is that there's more loopholes than a piece of swiss cheese. There is no universality nor common sense.
The background check laws are so fractured that literally everyone, except Mark, is in favor of improvement as in Universal Background Checks. Over 90% are in favor. Mark is against.
I will agree with one thing you say... there is no universality or common sense.
So let's fix that... any states CCW permit is good in every state, for starters. Deal?
And "literally" everyone, except me? Wow, even if your numbers were correct, I didn't know I was 31.8 million people all by myself.
Mark
I have no disagreement with a 3 or maybe even extending that to a 5 day limit unless there is a clear need for immediate protection. I'll try to find which shooter it was that recently escaped through that "loophole". I term it that only because it turned out to be one for them, not because I feel it's a loophole for the general public that needs to be closed.
There was a distinct lack of "hookup" between certain agencies that made it such that his psychological record did not show up in the database used for the check and since it passed the 3 day limit he was allowed to purchase a firearm. In that case, the original intent of having a 3 day limit unfortunately worked against us and for him. Break time's over so it will have to wait for lunch or later for me to look for the appropriate info.
I believe it was the shooting at the church here in SC.
Again, as with anything, there will be cases where the laws put in place to ensure everyone's individual rights are protected do not function to stop every single crime.
We could probably catch a lot of criminals if search warrants weren't required either, but those are the limitations imposed on the government in the Constitution.
Mark Mc.
Glad the storm didn't reach you either by the way. I wasn't sure if you were down there or up here, but by the amount you were posting I could tell you must have been OK, lol.
Yeah lots of rain, but nothing compared to the center/coast areas of the state. My grandmother's neighborhood in Murrel's Inlet had flooding, but she is OK. I'm actually going out there next week, so hopefully there isn't too much damage.
Make sure you're packing when you go to granny's. Just in case there's a bad man with a gun or a good guy with a gun you may mistake for a bad guy. Have a nice trip.
You better not pack, Mark. Since it's been declared a state of emergency down there, they may confiscate your guns.... just like they did in Katrina. ;)
See Redwing, here's the thing. I possess this skill called critical thinking that so many here seem to lack.
If there's someone pointing a gun at me, chances are he's a bad guy. If there is someone peacefully going about their business with a holstered sidearm, chances are he's a good guy.
Tough, right?
How about when the good guy is having bad day, or you stupidly crunch into his bumper.
BTW, notice its always guys who go on these rampages. Seems to be all about guys, what could it be? Is a cigar just a cigar?
I'll have to check on that JR. In SC your vehicle is considered an extension of your home so it's legal to always have a firearm there.
In that case MrCharlie, if he decides that he wants to attack me for accidentally crunching his bumper, I can defend myself (SC has the equivalent of Stand Your Ground).
I possess this skill called critical thinking that so many here seem to lack.
---- Mark Mc.
I guess Mark's "critical thinking" tells him the bad guy always makes his move obvious.
You can't defend yourself if you're shot in the back unannounced.
That's got nothing to do with critical thinking, it's called situational awareness.
Perhaps something even you could learn from the NRA (and it has nothing do with guns):
http://women.nra.org/refuse-to-be-a-victim.aspx
hapiest girl - why, especially as an educated woman, would you want to be at a disadvantage in the occasion of an attack on your person. This is a good blog for you to review
http://thewellarmedwoman.com/women-and-guns/concealed-carry
I meant your "critical thiking" makes you not realize that possibility.
If you're walking somewhere and people are walking behind you --- you can't know if someone decides to take out their gun and shoot.
Perhaps if there are questionable people around, I don't let them walk right behind me.
Perhaps while waiting for the elevator in a dark parking garage, I stand with my back towards the wall.
Perhaps I don't walk around with my face buried in an iPhone and headphones plugged into my ears.
What's your solution? You must have one since you are so critical of my methods, right?
The solution would be if that bad person didn't have a gun.
You can give your elevator / iphone examples but in reality there are an infinite number of scenarios.
For instance, you cannot walk down a city street with people all around you, cars going by with people in them, not to mention the buildings that have windows.
Situational awareness can not help you there.
Apparently being detached from reality and having a closed mind is what you truly prefer.
GunsnRoses -
Your analogy is faulty. An airplane is not a weapon, it is a vehicle.
What you are saying is the equivelent to a staircase being a weapon if you kill yourself falling down it. Or food is a weapon if you choke to death on it.
There are tools ... pens, hammers, etc. ... these can all be used to cause death.
You can choke someone with a cord.
But these things are not weapons.
A GUN is a weapon ..... it's purpose is to shoot bullets.
ok hapiest girl - you get the fact that if all firearms were made illegal this minute that does not eliminate them from the planet...
A weapon is an item designed *or used* for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
Are you too lazy to even look up a simple definition. Stab someone with a pencil and see if you don't have a weapons charge on your arrest record.
Mark -
I think if you don't accept that city street scenario that I decsribed above as a reality.......... you are the one detached from reality.
To answer me with a put-down (I am detached from reality and have a closed mind) is your typical way out of addressing someone's statement when you have no defensive answer.
Wrong Mark.
A pencil is not a weapon. Like I said, things can be *used* as a weapon.
Another *insult*? Don't call me lazy.
There are plenty of things you can do in a city to maintain situational awareness. I'm sure it's a core training element for any police officer, security guard, etc. That's also why there are courses available to the public, as I linked above.
There's also risk assessment. What's more likely? Stepping into the path of a car I didn't hear or worrying about an assassin tracking me from the rooftop? Situational awareness isn't just about guns.
My response wasn't an insult, it was an observation.
Pro tip... go to Google.
Type "define:weapon"
If it's used to harm someone it IS a weapon.
A baseball bat is sporting goods, right?
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/06/trenton_woman_arrested_after_baseball_bat_attack.html
Explain the weapons possession charge...
If you're worried about risk, you would live in a cave.
Stepping in front of a car is not what we are discussing.
Pro tip .... go to google.
Type "pencil definition"
Now ........ don't be *lazy* and not look it up, Mark!
@Hapiestgirl-"The solution would be if that bad person didn't have a gun."
AND AGAIN, what would you like to see done to assure us that bad guys won't have guns? You name it, I want to hear your ideas!!!!
We get it, you want no guns, you have beat that into our heads, time to move on from repeating the same point over and over and state some ideas, because as of now, you still have not.
so - You believe we should just give up our individual rights so we can try to create a society that has never existed and for which you can’t give even a theoretical template?
So what you're saying it's its the *intent* of the person holding the pencil as to whether it's used as a weapon to harm somebody or used as a tool to accomplish some other task.
Thanks for agreeing with what we've been saying all along...
I am still waiting to hear skippy, this is like the 8th time I have asked, and I am being ignored. Poor MGSD is not even getting any attention, I just want to know what HG wants to see done, and how she would like it done.
I think you know that I would like to see no one have a gun, Darrin.
Criminals get their guns in various ways, but I was surprised to see the
huge number of guns in their possession that are stolen from citizens.
Young people including children get their parents guns in their hands.
My solution is to ban the sale of bullets & guns and little by little confiscate them from everyone.
Only law enforcement should have firearms.
I expect to get *rude* *shouting* and *insulting* comments from some of you.
I will not respond to those.
Which society? I see guns being used in theae recent shootings as the ultimate end to life if someone wanted to do a lot of harm to a lot of people. Obviously getting rid of guns is not the answer. I just do not know what the answer is since mental health seems to be an issue here too.
3wbdwnj The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
No insulting comments, I really want to hear your plan
HG, So we would start with legal gun owners? Owners who have broken no laws, but say we take them away anyways, leaving them defenseless against criminals (crime will go up fyi) and now how do we get the illegal guns?
Also how many business will be put out of business?
I'm not saying all guns should be banned and all gun owners should surrender their guns.
Just to clarify.
That would be like saying, because cars cause deaths, all cars should be banned.
Cars do get registered and drivers need to have a license, which is granted upon meeting a certain criteria, and which could be taken away with cause.
Would be nice, if a similar registration and licensing system were in place for guns. Sure, some maniacs would still get guns and kill somebody, just like cars get stolen and deaths result, and sometimes parents give kids the car keys when they really should not, but at least something would be done to minimize the number of incidents.
At least make an effort to keep guns in the hands of people who have proven they are sane and responsible --- it would help cut down the number of random murders by the psychotic time bombs who are out there.
Just saying. I know the world will never be perfect --- I get that.
"Also how many business will be put out of business?"
263,223 jobs to be precise
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/robert-farago/reasons-to-be-cheerful-nbc-reveals-u-s-gun-biz-stats/
The "big bad gun industry", this huge conglomerate of death, is approximately twice the size of.... Netflix (as far as sales revenue).
"263,223 jobs to be precise"
I would think that number is higher when you consider all the gun and ammo stores.
I want to hear plans because my honest opinion is that at this point in time it is really a impossible feat and criminals will still get guns. I also feel it will vastly raise crime rates. Imagine the break ins if burglars did not have to worry about a home owner having a way to defend themselves?
"Cars do get registered and drivers need to have a license"
Only for cars desired to be driven on public roads. Anyone, licensed/insured/registered or not, can buy any car they want for use on private property.
The funny thing is, there are race car drivers piloting cars with 3 or 4x the horsepower of your every day sedan, driving in dangerous and deadly proximity to others, who aren't even old enough to have their driver's license.
So sure, let's handle it the same way. And I'll reiterate the point that SD ignored above... once I DO get my license, it's valid in every state, and to a point, almost every country on the planet.
"And "literally" everyone, except me?" Yes Mark, if we stand 10 people up, 9 would be on one team and you would be along. 20 people and you have a friend. 30 people and you have a club........ I would say 90% is literally everyone and you are in the weeds.
"If there's someone pointing a gun at me, chances are he's a bad guy." So if you point first, you're a bad guy. If you point second, did you become a bad guy? "Chances are....." Honest, chances are he was a baaaaaad man....
Don't want to be critical of your situational thinking but not sure you are aware.
Meanwhile, with guns stores being flooded across the Southern States, the federal government will be in receipt of thousands of new gun records from failed FFLs. Like Katrina, these water-soaked records will now become wards of the state. Yeah buddy, it's a far, far better data system than I have ever designed before. It's a dickens all right.
Still waiting for those answers on gun registration Darrin......
I would make strict criminal laws.
I would build plenty of jails and house any offender of gun violence in them for a very LOOOOOONG time. So long that someone would think twice about using a gun for robbery, and I would mandate a life sentence if a life was taken.
We are too easy ----- everything has to be "politically correct" Our present system woud give them three square meals, exercise & fresh air. In my opinion, if they killed someone, they don't deserve those rights. Bare minimum is all they get while serving their life sertence. I believe if this happened the crime rate would go down fast and soon.
At some point, it would be mandatory for citizens to turn in all guns.
If a law-abiding citizen is caught with a gun (well --- not 100% law abiding if they were mandated to turn them in........) they would have their guns confiscated and have to pay a large fine.
All those new jails would create plenty of jobs.
hapiest girl:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison-population-total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All
justintime -
Not sure what your point is, but this just tells me that our country indeed has too much crime. Continue rounding up all the criminals, put them in jail, and make our country a safe place to live.
"Guns SAVE far more lives than they take."
This might be the most ridiculous statement I've come across in a long time.
I loved the President's response to the Oregon shooting, first because he finally said what politicians are loathe to admit..."Our thoughts and prayers ARE NOT ENOUGH."
Yup, that's right people. Praying won't do a darn thing to help bring back the dead, nor keep tragedies like this from happening again. But also, he said "We are the only advanced country on earth to see these kinds of shootings every few months." And it's true.
The question I have is why? What is it about the United States? Why are we so deficient as a nation? Why do we as a nation seem to have such a hard-on for guns, fighting like hell to protect our sacred devices designed with only one purpose in mind...to kill. What the hell is wrong with us?
eperot Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families - what don't you get?
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/09/24/everyday-in-the-usa-2191americans-use-their-gun-in-self-defense-fbi-there-are-32-guns-purchased-every-minute-in-the-united-states/
Skippy,
I am betting no one on this forum has shot someone to protect their family.
statistically I bet you are correct - please understand as well - a gun doesn't need to fire to protect you, ergo, cases where imminent deadly force was presented and removed from the scenario due to the presence of a firearm. e.g. - a draws a knife in the effort to commit a robbery and the victim possesses a firearm and neither occurs.
. "Legally-owned firearms saved the lives of far more Americans than those lost during ((TIME's)) 'seven deadly days,' " the advertisement stated. "According to noted criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University, every year some 650,000 Americans use firearms to thwart criminal assault. That's 12,500 a week."
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html
Skippy, you do realize that Jefferson was living in a time when there was no possible notion of things like automatic weapons, chemical warfare, nuclear bombs, full scale military defense systems and operations including aircraft, drones, satellite technology...all of which the government has. And yet you still think your little gun is going to keep tyranny at bay? I guess if that helps you feel safe, go with it.
Sd, what i are you waiting for from me? I must of missed it.
HG, what is the plan for hunters being your plan involves no more guns? Also how shall we pay for more jails? Our nation as a whole is trillions in debt.
And just a example, as i have stated before, i wear my gun on my belt while working on my property in PA. I do so because bears are not very nice and inviting creatures, my point...guns are not just designed to protect people from other people, they protect people from danger. If i do not have my gun, i certainly would not walk out in dense woods.
"And yet you still think your little gun is going to keep tyranny at bay? I guess if that helps you feel safe, go with it."
The American populous doesn't have the balls to rebel, you're right. Not now anyway. Maybe at some point in the future when they have been fully disarmed (and couldn't rebel even if they wanted to), sure, but not today. ;-)
Funny thing about Americans: we seem to think that violent human action applies to others, but never to us. Given time, I think history is pretty clear on how that one will turn out...
"This might be the most ridiculous statement I've come across in a long time."
Only because you apparently don't care to look at the FBI's actual statistics, preferring to stick to your preconceived and baseless notions on what you think reality is.
"I loved the President's response to the Oregon shooting,"
Of course you did.
"The American populous doesn't have the balls to rebel, you're right. Not now anyway. Maybe at some point in the future when they have been fully disarmed (and couldn't rebel even if they wanted to), sure, but not today."
I think you're wrong about that. Not TODAY, but certainly BEFORE we are completely disarmed. As I've said, a line will eventually be crossed- heck, look at NY's SAFE Act- that was a line, many thousands of legal gun owners refused to surrender their firearms. That's civil disobedience, but it's only a matter of time before it turns uncivil, if the govt keeps attempting to confiscate firearms in one way or another.
And that was NY state- down south, all bets are off.
It's not yet necessary to rebel, because, by and large, all the additional gun control that has been pushed since Sandy Hook has failed thanks to the efforts of the American people. EVEN NJ managed to stem the tide.... this go 'round.
"That's civil disobedience, but it's only a matter of time before it turns uncivil, if the govt keeps attempting to confiscate firearms in one way or another.
And that was NY state- down south, all bets are off."
If/when this happens, will the uncivil disobedients be referred to as "thugs" and "animals" on here? or "Patriots"? It's interesting to me how similar actions have much different perceptions based upon your point of view. (Not you, specifically, JR... just a generality).
Once again JR spreads FUD. This time about NY SAFE Act. He has zero idea about how many own illegal guns, whether they are actively protesting, and who has refused to surrender illegal firearms. Nor does he ever mention same for registration of legal assault weapons.
"many thousands of legal gun owners refused to surrender their firearms." Point of fact, why is JR saying surrender? Why would they surrender their firearms? JR, the SAFE act allows all "banned" weapons to be grandfathered. Of course if you don't register them.......
He is probably right re registration where 23,000 folks have registered about 45,000 "assault" weapons. While no one knows, most feel this is a low number.
According to USA Today "Since the major provisions of the law took effect in March, a total of 1,291 charges had been issued under the SAFE Act through Dec. 17, according to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services. Of those, 1,155 were for felony possession of an illegal firearm, which had been a misdemeanor prior to the new gun laws." Most of these were NYC but advocates point to success of the law at stronger penalties for criminals.
Gun owners not complying with either may be protesting, may be lazy, may be gambling that legal challenges will hold and law enforcement will be lax in enforcement. I see inertia combined with hope of overturn more than active protest.
So far legal challenges have not met with success except to knock out the magazine limit.
Sooner or later, as legal challenges get knocked down, more not complying will either comply or meet with arrests. Doubtful an orchestrated effort will result beyond legal requests and a few standoffs.
Meanwhile sure as shooting, these folks will be hiding those weapons. And that's a good thing IMHO. Keep em in the closet at all times. Better lock them up though, there's a law for that.
Keep spreading that FUD Jr, don't let those pesky facts get in your way
(Darrin --- states that require registration of all guns, states that require registration of hand guns only are the unanswered questions)
very good point Ian; thuggery is indeed the 'new black' sad to say, but there is truth there
one man's patriotism is another man's treason,
so no one has suggested a changed inlaw or regulations that would hve prevented this tradgedy.
not mgsd, not hg, not rw and not 5cat who seems to like posting pics that add little to to the discussion other emotional knee jerk reactions. may of them not even close to logical or cogency
Seriously. Like, just have em propped up against buildings and stuff, ready and waiting for use. We will all be SO safe then!
Massacre happens via guns, many innocent people dead or wounded.
HL'ers: "Protect the Guns!!!!!!"
Awesome priorities.
vous; eperot;
what specific suggestions for change do either of you recommend?
both of you have posts that are are just venting your spleens, but offer nothing concrete to the discussion, other than emotional feedback,
honestly, what law or regulation would you change/implement to prevent another tragedy like what happened in Oregon last week?
SD "(Darrin --- states that require registration of all guns, states that require registration of hand guns only are the unanswered questions)"
I am sure that is something you can find out by searching the internet, dare I offer google? ;-) Sorry but I do not have the time to do that research for you right now. I for one am not for registration, as I have stated before the government cannot be trusted with that information, it is well known their ultimate goal is complete confiscation, just look at NY.
ianimal "If/when this happens, will the uncivil disobedients be referred to as "thugs" and "animals" on here? or "Patriots"? It's interesting to me how similar actions have much different perceptions based upon your point of view. (Not you, specifically, JR... just a generality)."
They would be considered patriots because they would be defending the constitution, something our country is built from.... not looting and robbing stores just because they can.
Also, SD "He has zero idea about how many own illegal guns"
Do you know how many illegal guns there are? Thats like saying yeah I know where the missing people are but I will just leave them there. Obviously if the law knew about illegal guns they would deal with it as law does, there is no way of telling how many illegal guns there are, because if it was a known fact the next question would be why hasen;t anything been done about it?
There are more and more of those killing machines being manufactured every day, and there are people who want to sell them.
And there are politicians who want to stay in office who take money to fund their campaigns from any source who will give it to them.
That's our state of affairs in 2015 America.
Eperot says
"Massacre happens via guns, many innocent people dead or wounded.
HL'ers: "Protect the Guns!!!!!!"
Awesome priorities."
Never mind that massacre (Boston) that occurred with on sale items from bed bath and beyond............
The point, When there is a will there is a way, stopping the problem is not going to happen by one by one eliminating the tools. We need to look at the problem....awesome priorities
"There have to be limits."
Then get everyone who agrees with you (apparently, according to some, I'm literally the only one who doesn't) to elect the right Congress, hold a Constitutional Convention, etc...
Until then, I expect the government to follow the Constitution as written, just as they expect me to follow the law as written, and there are a heck of a lot fewer words in the Constitution so it should be very simple for them..
You started the registration rant i asked for clarification. Maybe you should follow your advice and quit harping on HG
The other day I wrote."Just keep your eye on the Pentagon JR. I don't think any thing will ever happen in this country with the citizens. Most don't care one way or the other"
We are a country of woozy's. The most successful way would be a military take over of the government. We stuck our nose in other country's business, and destroyed our own country. IMO
This article gives a lot of scenario's, and the comments look like the Hackettstown Life forum.
http://shtfjournal.com/war-and-peace/second-united-states-revolution-look-like/
And Andy, you think it is needed that the right to bear arms should be changed to nobody can bear arms?
What makes anyone's life more important then mine that they can protect themselves and I cannot?
Why can't I hunt? It is the basis of survival
Who is to tell me how many bullets I need to protect my family or myself when I am in the woods?
Just Sayin
When will we, as citizens, stop rolling over for the NRA? Smart gun technology exists, and it seems to me, in many, many cases, this technology would have saved lives. Why are we not getting behind the development of such technology?
www.triggersmart.com
RosieG Gee, I wonder why it's called the 2nd Amendment...
My point is, if enough people/states don't like it, there's a process to change it, and its not a bastardized mix of executive actions and judicial opinions that pick and choose which parts are important.
SD "You started the registration rant i asked for clarification. Maybe you should follow your advice and quit harping on HG"
Hold on a second, asking for ideas is harping? You asked for clarification that you know damn well you could find yourself, you are just trying to make a point and I do not currently have the time to play games with you, it is information you have the ability of finding.
Follow my own advice? what would that be? Someone continuously posts take all guns away, but that is their only idea, I want to know what they would like seen done. But I guess asking questions is harping?
Continual repitition of questions with a hint of sarcasm is harping.
A question is a question. You can look it up too; there are a confined number of answers.
So let's both back off.
Wait. . Isn't this entire thread garpind
We need MORE guns. Like a LOT more. Like millions of fully loaded assault rifles literally just strewn about the country.
RosieG
While that seems like a good idea and many users with children in the home, etc. could find it valuable, there are drawbacks to this, especially the idea of "smart zones".
Would the police be carrying said "smart weapons", if so, going into a zone where there is an active shooter would disable their firearms, as well as those who could otherwise have provided earlier assistance.
What if the person is injured and someone else tries to use their weapon in order to stop a shooter. It wouldn't work for them either. Is the system failsafe to lock the firearm up in the event of battery or other failure. I have too many questions on the practicality of ths technology to be able to use it, however I DO feel that there are many who as I stated before may wish to use it, whether they have children at home or not, but that should be their choice, not what is thrust upon them. Technology can nearly always be defeated, as well.
It's my understanding, the 2nd amendment was put into place "not" for the citizens to overthrow The United States Government. It is there for the United States citizens to "protect" our Government "from" tyranny. Example: ISIS. It was happening during and before our founding fathers life time, it is happening in our life time and it will go on after us. The people of the land need to protect their government, their country. Our military, our police force are not big enough or armed adequately to defend all 320+ million citizens. In a free society having it's citizens armed for the protection of it's government is something most people on earth only dream of and most Nations fear. My grandfather told me in 1963 and I have never forgotten it. They cannot overthrow us from sea, air or land, because Americans have the freedom and right to protect our Government. He said they will get us from within our boarders without firing a shot. The man who killed those kids was a monster. He was on a mission and he succeeded. All the laws in the world cannot stop a man with a dark evil heart.
Seems like a lot of paranoia around here. Thanks Wayne for pumping up your people. All hail the NRA.
Ian... that depends on who's doing the name-calling. The answer will be, both. And history will show the winners as being the "correct" ones.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
In DC v heller the SCOTUS interpreted the second amendment to mean an individual had the right to bear arms
"Gee, I wonder why it's called the 2nd Amendment...
My point is, if enough people/states don't like it, there's a process to change it, and its not a bastardized mix of executive actions and judicial opinions that pick and choose which parts are important."
Exactly. And you know why they haven't attempted that yet?
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE'S SUPPORT.
The police also have no duty to protect anyone. Personal safety is everyone's responsibility.
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) - District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police did not owe a specific duty to provide police services to the plaintiffs based on the public duty doctrine.
people, people.... all we need are more gun free zones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYL0yN110go
Phil D, My thought is more along the lines that this technology should be researched. Our government isn't putting any funding in it, and I don't understand why. If private enterprise has developed this thus far, why not seek the possibilities that this type of technology has to offer. It's obvious that we are not getting anywhere on the path we are currently following. To keep doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome...
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2015/01/30/seattle-smart-gun-symposium-part-3/
"TriggerSmart technology is trivially jammed"
This product was so bad they NJ AG actually rejected it to trigger the "smart gun law"
RosieG
I definitely understand your point and actually there have been efforts in the past to require "smart gun technology" on guns made past a certain date, the only problem is that nobody has made a satisfactory system that could be referenced as one of "x" amount that be the required ones to satisfy such a law. The main problem being the inherent flaws in such a system.
Unless the Kanamit come and stop all war and violence famine/hunger in order "To Serve Man" better:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734684/
then the only technology that would truly work is one that would scan our brain waves, discern our intent and either allow the weapon to fire or not based on that intent. But then who gets to decide what intent is "allowable and proper"?
Believe me, I'm not trying to be facetious here, just trying to show how large the problem is with respect to developing "smart guns" as required technology.
Just building larger jails won't do either, as there are already a large amount of jails holding huge amounts of prisoners whose care we pay for. The Federal system just released thousands of prisoners mainly based on new sentencing guidelines for drug infractions. The "war on drugs" has put, or perhaps I should say "warehoused" non-violent offenders for marijuana violations. You could also include people such as moonshiners who run afoul of Federal tax law, something that our first civil uprising after the Revolution was based on (Whiskey Rebellion).
I agree with harsh sentencing for violent repeat offenders, but at the same time how do we get them to give back to society while we are keeping them with 3 hots, a cot, medical, dental, visual and health club? That's something many in society don't have. Obviously, however the conditions that they get these "benefits" can hardly be called easy and in fact are downright harsh, but sadly the harshness of the conditions make violent offenders more likely to do anything possible NOT to go back. Any non-violent offenders stuck there with them learn to become violent or are preyed upon so that's a system that needs reform as well.
Coddling kids and being their "bestie", telling them that they can do "anything" isn't working. I unfortunately do not know what exactly will work and I'll be the first to admit that. I DO know however that children around the world MUST be equipped with an education and especially here, since this is our country and we must first be responsible for our own. We also somehow need to find the root causes of drug abuse to stop this whole mess at the source, rather than having to interdict later.
Last of all and as important as the rest is addressing mental health issues. On CBS Nightly News Monday night Patrick Kennedy, who of course lost two famous Uncles to gun violence said this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/voices-against-violence-patrick-kennedy/
I definitely concur!
I would definitely like to see people who are mentally ill or suffering temporary / situational depression be given the option to temporarily transfer their firearms without stigma.
In most states you can...face to face transfer, no background check required (as long as the family is in the same state).
In NJ it would be a felony without all the proper permits. Add Oregon to that list too. If someone "took" this murderers guns in an attempt to sort out his mental health issues (without performing a BG check) they would be breaking the law.
However, the government would love to take them... temporarily of course... (/sarcasm)
People are saying that I'm saying they should have their guns taken away.
I've never said that.
I don't look at this as an either/or proposition, OK?
I don't have any specific legislation to offer, because anything you put out there is subject to compromise, if you want the House and Senate to agree on anything.
What upsets me is that there are people who don't even want to work on the problem.
Andy,
As I have said, that is because guns are not the problem.
The government WANTS guns to be the problem so they have reason to ban, confiscate, and further deny us of freedom and rights. They have done it in NY, I have used this as an example multiple times, if you do not believe it, look it up.
As a briefing, NY made mandatory registration of all guns and magazines. A few months later changes the capacity limit and sent letters to all owners that were now registered as having the once legal items. (pic attached of a actual letter)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/27/the-gun-confiscation-notice-nyc-resident-reportedly-received-will-likely-send-chills-down-your-spine/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/
I can post the 40,000 results in google from looking up NY gun confiscation letter, but you can look too.
This proves that the government cannot be trusted with laws, registration, etc.
This is souly why everyone (pro-gun people) is/are against ANY change.
If people were throwing ideas out about working on the REAL problem, I would be all for it.
"The government WANTS guns to be the problem so they have reason to ban, confiscate, and further deny us of freedom and rights. They have done it in NY, I have used this as an example multiple times, if you do not believe it, look it up.
As a briefing, NY made mandatory registration of all guns and magazines. A few months later changes the capacity limit and sent letters to all owners that were now registered as having the once legal items.
I can post the 40,000 results in google from looking up NY gun confiscation letter, but you can look too.
This proves that the government cannot be trusted with laws, registration, etc.
This is souly why everyone (pro-gun people) is/are against ANY change.
If people were throwing ideas out about working on the REAL problem, I would be all for it.
Darrin"
Game, set, match.
......LOOOOOONG time. So long that someone would think twice about using a gun for robbery, and I would mandate a life sentence if a life was taken.......
If death row and execution doesn't stop murderers from killing do you honestly believe they would think twice about using a gun?
....All those new jails would create plenty of jobs.......
All those prisons would create plenty of taxes for everyone to pay.
OK Darrin, I'll bite.
You are mixing two different places and laws: NYC and NYS. And you got some weird numbers too.
"I can post the 40,000 results in google from looking up NY gun confiscation letter, but you can look too" Are you talking google results? Because I can post the 50,000 Miley Cyrus results I got. That does not make her more important than the 2A.
According to FOX News, the "NY gun confiscation letter" actually was only for long guns capable of housing more than 5 shells and did not confiscate but instead called for such guns to be "surrendered, altered or taken out of the city." Most of us in NJ who have such guns know how to easily alter them. According to FOX the letter went to 500 people in support, not of the SAFE Act, but of a 2010 ordinance. Actually the law has been on the books for 22 years, but hey, it's FOX.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/
"As a briefing, NY made mandatory registration of all guns and magazines. A few months later changes the capacity limit and sent letters to all owners that were now registered as having the once legal items."
Again are you talking NYS or NYC because NYS does not require "made mandatory registration of all guns and magazines." Matter of fact, I don't think you have to register each magazine at all. And they didn't change the magazine capacity limit but instead they changed the number of bullets that could be housed in the magazine. It was 7 bullets maximum, and mags up to 10 bullet capacity. Now it's 10 and 10. This virtually had no effect on gun owners except to make them shake their heads but shotgun owners had been doing that for years.
This seems to be more disinformation aimed at increasing FUD amongst gun owners that you're spreading Darrin. It seemed to work without question by some here already.
OK, I'll go for the hat trick: "If people were throwing ideas out about working on the REAL problem, I would be all for it."
Ideas for working the real problem: conduct large scale statistical analysis to prove or disprove that "more guns equals higher rates of homicide" so we can decide whether improvement is needed as well as statistically answering all the other questions and suppositions that both pro gun and anti gun forces are talking about.
All you have to do is get those jack-booted NRA troglodyte thugs to allow the CDC to scientifically conduct the study instead of blocking funding as they have for over decade. Even though gun death is a leading cause of death, number two in some age groups, we can't allow the CDC to statistically study it.
Your retort (choose one or more)
1. Shouldn't politicize government spending
2. CDC promotes gun control, they are a leftist, euro socialize cabal
3. Guns are a leading cause of death but they are not a health problem, people are
4. I just don't like those guys
The real reason is that blood is good for gun sales and gun sales are good for the bloody NRA. Lots of shootings, more gun sales. Home invasions, more gun sales. Mass murder, great for sales. Blood is their business and they have you duped into believing it's the American way to protect our Constitution that we need to sacrifice a few, especially the children, in order to do the right thing --- sell more guns.
I think the NRA pulled their version, but they call statistical analysis "demonizing," Sounds like the Salem Witch Trials don't it. http://www.therightofanation.com/2010/01/04/nra-%E2%80%9Chow-your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns%E2%80%9D/
I always smile when the guys with guns are scared by the guys without guns. Who's the demon?
I say we don't really know the problem, statistically speaking, so let's find out. I, for one, am not afraid of the truth. Are you?
Or
"Col. Jessep: I'll answer the question!
[to Kaffee]
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to.
Col. Jessep: *You want answers?*
Kaffee: *I want the truth!*
Col. Jessep: *You can't handle the truth!*"
Let's all stand on that wall and learn the real truth. Are guns a major health issue, statistically speaking and all the other questions and suppositions that both sides of the issue have ----- statistically speaking. Tell the NRA to let the statisticians work.
Your retort: statistics lie so let's just call the whole thing off. Like Santa Claus and seat belts, it's just better to not know.
is this where we're heading??? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/08/woman-with-concealed-gun-permit-shoots-at-fleeing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/?tid=sm_fb
You might want to stay out of the Walmart parking lot then. There seems to be a lot of shoplifters there and you never know when a "good guy with a gun" will try to take down the "bad guy without a gun". Just for kicks.
Millions of CCW permit holders, and you use one example of irresponsiblity as "where we're heading"...
Yet I bet you were quick jump to the defense of certain religions/cultures based on people's response to actions from a small (but certainly more than one) subset of that population. I'd have to go back to those threads to search, but that's a bit of a pain on the phone browser...
The issue at hand is why are people feeling the need to massive kill people they do not know?
They do it with guns, bombs, anything they can get their hands on legally or illegally. After all if your overall goal is to kill yourself in the end, what does any law mean to them?
Cracking down on guns will just make them find another illegal way to do this, guns are NOT the problem, mental health is. It has also been completely ignored that this guy was on a terrorist watch list, yet nothing was done about it...........how about we talk about that? Again, pulling hairs on data is not solving any issues. Also talking about something that is not the CAUSE of the issue is not solving any problems. If we want to solve problems lets talk, if we are looking for excuses to further lock down freedoms, I am not interested
FYI 5catmom SHE shot at the tire. They are looking for a car with a damaged tire.
Just saying.
"Some one likes guns."
Sure do. The more important question nobody has brought up yet is...
Why are prices so high on ArmsList? Seriously people, used guns shouldn't cost more than new ones...
I gotta make a trip to come down and visit the two of you (Mark and Skippy) I have a feeling we could have some fun ;-)
Actually, I haven't even gone shooting since moving down here.
There's a free range about 10 minutes from my house, but I'd basically have to take a day off work to use it (I'm sure it's more crowded on weekends).
The best part? It looks kinda like a middle finger to the anti-gunners ;)
iJay The mental health component to these tragedies is, like most issues, not as easily addressed as one might think. Though some of the murderers were known by mental health professionals prior to their actions, most weren't. Truth is, far more individuals than you might think "sound" or "look" capable of violence during certain times in their lives - even to mental health professions - than actually act, and some aspects of the "mental health issues" reported, may actually be developmental emotional struggles that would almost never result in anger. It would be great if we knew, for certain, that if a person said some things, or acted in some way, they were prone to violence. Now that doesn't apply to those who were clearly describing intent and expressing strong desire and ability to commit violence. But, parsing out those who are in a somewhat off developmental trajectory from those who are actually at risk of acting on their fantasies is not clear cut. However, I do think that there should be more screening/alerting to those who are in the group most likely to act on their distorted emotional reactions (I hear protests of profiling, and rightful concerns about the impact of false identifications)... but just to add a comment, it's really not a simple, clear or definite solution.
Another shooting in Arizona.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-shooting-reported-northern-arizona-universitys-flagstaff-campus/story?id=34363113
The second amendment has been deliberately misread by the NRA and the firearms industry to further their profits. There has never been anything wrong with owning an ordinary hunting firearm, but military weapons should be solely for military. Those who want to use one should join up.
Blackcat And from Tennessee since May 2015, land of ez guns, suffer the children of guns.
10/6 "CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. — Police are still searching for a suspect in a shooting that left a 2-year-old dead and put one adult male in the hospital Sunday" leaf-chronicle
10/6 "UPDATED STORY: The family of an 8-year-old White Pine girl who authorities say was shot and killed by an 11-year-old neighbor will receive friends Wednesday night." wbir white pine
Not to worry about the rest, they's only wounded. Buck up spanky, stiff upper lip.
5/5 ""I was mopping and he came in and shot bullets in the air. He took me as a hostage, he took me to the cash register, he took money, and he shot again and that bullet hit my cousin," said Parth Patel. "It hit her in the leg. She is going to be okay, but it was very scary for her and all of us."
5/20 "Shots from a BB gun hit Caldwell and two other juveniles while they were outside playing at the Oneida Church of God on Wednesday night. Police say the man who pulled the trigger is Lieutenant Michael Wilson with the Scott County Sheriff's Office. Caldwell says Wilson was shooting at them from his front porch." local 8 now
6/11 "Chattanooga Police responded to reports of a drive by shooting in the 3800 block of Youngstown Road Thursday afternoon. Officers found out a vehicle with unknown suspects fired multiple rounds at a residence. Two 4-year-olds playing in the front yard were shot," wdef
7/4 "A 9-year-old girl was injured by an stray bullet someone fired into the air in downtown Nashville Saturday night." wkrn
7/31 "The aunt said she stepped outside the room around midnight while the children were playing inside. Police said the children were playing with toy guns, which is when a 14-year-old somehow produced a real gun. Police said Boyd was playing with a toy cap gun and pointing it at other boys who were in the room playing video games. The 14-year-old, who has not been identified by police, had a .22 caliber revolver, pointed it at Boyd and pulled the trigger." wsmv
8/29 "Lorenzo, 7 months, was taken to Le Bonheur in non-critical condition. Police said a bullet grazed his arm. They said at least 10 people were inside the home, including six or seven children, but this was the only injury." commercial appeal
9/30 "The victim’s mother told WMC Action News 5 she and her 2-year-old daughter were sleeping in the living room when they heard five to six gunshots outside the apartment. That’s when she noticed her daughter had been hit in the cheek and ear." wmc action news
Contrast that with NJ for the same period.
dead
9/1 " A man fatally shot his partner and their two children before setting their Jersey Shore house on fire and killing himself, prosecutors said Friday, confirming investigators’ early suspicions that the deaths were a murder-suicide." ny post
just wounded so no big deal, not a life changer.......
6/14 "A boy was shot in the head and a man was shot in the arm while attending a Newark cookout on Sunday, according to the Newark Police Department." nj.com
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives NJ an A- for gun law strictness and Tennessee an F. They back that with examples. Many NJ crime guns come from Tennessee, a fact we wouldn't know without gun traces, and a fact we could know sooner if gun traces were automated.
Those who feel that gun control is bad should talk to these wounded children, explain to them how guns don't hurt, people hurt. And then tell them that the scars they bear are badges of honor to protect the 2A.
I do not ask for your guns. I just ask that responsible gun owners do the right thing and speak out for universal background checks, universal mental health tracking, and automated crime gun traces. And now, thanks to Darrin's urging, let's let the CDC run statistical analysis on all the questions we all have been asking regarding guns, gun problems, and people problems that use guns for solutions.
So speak out, or better yet, act up.
Now they are saying Obama "is using the shooting in Oregon to further his gun control agenda."
Huh?
You think he WANTED it to happen?
That's as bad as the people who said Bush wanted 9/11 so he could have an excuse to invade Iraq.
As Cris Carter would say on ESPN'S Mike and Mike, C'mon, man.
"I do not ask for your guns. I just ask that responsible gun owners do the right thing and speak out for universal background checks, universal mental health tracking, and automated crime gun traces."
So whatever happened to you "asking" for magazine limits, "assault weapon" bans, etc.? Forgot about those, just keeping them in your back pocket for your next round of requests?
I've had plenty of background checks... if they work so well why don't you trust me with a standard magazine, or a flash suppressor? I mean, if they prevent crime it shouldn't matter what firearm I buy long as a background check was performed, right?
And "universal mental health tracking"... quite a broad brush there... details please. Are you suggesting each firearm purchase is preceded by a psych evaluation? Do you agree with the VA that inability (or lack of desire) to properly account for one's finances is grounds for a mental health restriction on 2nd Amendment rights?
@SD "Those who feel that gun control is bad should talk to these wounded children, explain to them how guns don't hurt, people hurt. And then tell them that the scars they bear are badges of honor to protect the 2A."
Man SD, and you say I try to strike FUD........I think your last post was a 100% attempt to strike emotion, man do you sound like our media! pot meet kettle!
Why do we even keep involving guns.....we need to find out why PEOPLE are so F*ED up, stop pulling guns into this!!!! It's not "JUST" people looking to buy guns and It's not about the tool used, it is about the PEOPLE. Why is there such a want to be violent, and why are kids doing this at such a early age. Take guns away (figuratively), and the problem will STILL EXIST!!!! When there is a will there is a way, and you will continue to ban, prohibit, lock down, chasing the real problem.
The sad part is if people are so worried about the violence (like SD claims to be) I have yet to see one concern from him about knives or pressure cookers......after all not to long ago 3 were killed and 264 injured by common household pots. Should we ban them too? But that never comes up, guns are the problem, got it
Agreed its a mental health issue - and also a healthcare issue - mcveigh used fertilizer fuel oil and a rental truck - all still legal to purchase without a permit or background check.
We are not your enemies SD - we are the people who have been trained, proven to be sane and sober through background checks and proved proficiency with a firearm to get permits to carry / purchase. I can guarantee you none of us would brandish or be in a situation to have a negligent discharge because we don't want to lose our rights to carry. It's the people who fall through society's safety nets and become murders that we need to address.
Of course we can never stop all violence and killing. What we can do is take reasonable steps to make mass killing more difficult, while protecting the individual right to self-defense, and the ability to, for example, slice vegetables.
For example, do we all agree that suicide vests should be illegal?
Darrin says... "I have yet to see one concern from him about knives or pressure cookers......after all not to long ago 3 were killed and 264 injured by common household pots. Should we ban them too?"
According to the CDC, in the U.S. in 2011, there were 21,175 suicides by firearms, and 16,121 homicides. Household pots comparison is ridiculous. Responsible gun owners should welcome efforts to reduce the carnage instead of making lame defenses.
The democrats wanted universal healthcare where the government can access our medical records, but are now fighting that releasing mental health information on patients is attacking their rights? The one link between all of these gun, knife, etc. attacks is mental health issues.
Do we blame cars or the people driving them for DUI accidents that kill people?
Do we blame knives or the person thrusting it?
Should we blame guns or the people shooting them in these massacres?
Drunk drivers obviously chose to drink, but many of which have a serious health issue called alcoholism. A real problem with a real diagnosis. Some go undiagnosed, some have to go to meetings, others go to rehabs for months at a time to better themselves.
Mental health issues are handled in a similar fashion. Most are undiagnosed, some go to meetings (usually one on one with a Dr.) and there are mental health facilities that some go to for months at a time to better themselves.
Of all the legally owned gun owners in the US, most are responsible. There are the few nuts you see in the news, but what you don't hear about is the ordinary man in North Dakota supplying food for his family for the winter by hunting. It's too blah to do a story about.
Another question...is heroin Illegal? What about cocaine? Meth?....you get the point. BEING ILLEGAL HAS NOT STOPPED THESE THINGS FROM EXISTING! The bad guys will find a way to smuggle them just as people found ways to drink alcohol during prohibition in the 20's and how heroin is actually on the RISE!
A lot of this inner city gun violence is committed with unregistered, illegally purchased/stolen guns.
Now, do I believe that we need to vet these wannabe gun owners a little better before they can purchase? YES. We have to take a written driving test and then actually get behind the wheel and take another road test before we can drive. Lets make future owners take a mental health test (like police officers have to take) to establish they're not crazy (yes, some may squeak through, but that's with everything, and better then what we have) and then make them take the "road test" at the range where they can be taught about guns and how they work. This will be more expensive to the potential gun owner, but so be it. If you want a gun, you'll do it.
It never ends, it never ends, the arguments and the shootings will just go on and on.
A sign of the impending apocalypse, when God says, 'ENOUGH ALREADY' ... or at least something to that effect.
Was there ever a culture in a country where there were no Killings? If there was ,I doubt it lasted very long. All humans all have many different out looks on life. Just saying.
"A sign of the impending apocalypse, when God says, 'ENOUGH ALREADY'"
I'm not a very religious person, but I believe somewhere in the bible, Jesus recommends people sell their robes to buy a sword, if they didn't already have one. He saw the value (and morality) of being able to defend oneself.
Life is pretty futile with out God and the promise his son gave us on the cross. Amen
sha44ss Yes, Jesus did tell the disciples (as a group) to get a sword, if they did not have one. Then in Luke 22, verse 38:
"The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied."
That makes me think of the scene in "Indiana Jones" where Indy notes that the other guy brought a knife to a gunfight.
Ah, but there are various opinions of what he meant. He didn't say "they" are enough... but "it" is enough.
Did he mean those particular swords were suitable for the purpose he describedc for those two men? Did he mean that he wanted to speak no more on the subject?
Either way, at the cusp of their journey (without him in their lives) along a path fraught with evil, and thieves, and beasts, he wanted his followers to have arms to defend themselves.
Mark, I believe he was talking to all the disciples as a group, not just two men.
Oh well, maybe something was lost in translation or in a bad Middle Ages copying job.
My church took 'Onward Christian Solders" out of the hymnbook. It's a bad PC message. How PC was Jesus in the temple.!!! I pray for those that stood up professing there faith around the world. I am sure they will be rewarded for there action.. IMO
Lots of Bible quotes by themselves get taken out of context.
Isn't one of the 10 Commandments "Thou Shalt Not Kill?"
Just asking.
Another version said You shall not murder.
I don't think it's taken "out of context" much as it's just a "rule" that is violated by those that care naught for its authority over their actions.
In other words, Commandments are the religious equivalent of a gun free zone, only followed by those who choose to follow them.
"That makes me think of the scene in "Indiana Jones" where Indy notes that the other guy brought a knife to a gunfight."
I don't think Indy ever said that, although he DID shoot the guy who was swinging the scimitar around. I believe you may be thinking of Sean Connery in The Untouchables:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d5jXDvrOu4
I remember the scene where Indy Jones shot the guy after that impressive display of sword skill. I also remember him having tarantulas crawling all over his back.
Some minor league baseball players have told me that when they played in the Texas League, there were tarantulas crawling all over the locker rooms. Talk about paying your dues to reach the majors!
It's been said for so many years, the gun is the great equalizer if you don't have someone else's strength and athletic ability.
That fight in Indiana Jones wasn't part of the script. Harrison Ford had the squirts and didn't want to shoot a long scene.
Thanks Ian, you're right, though my mind thinks of the saying every time I watch the movie:-)
Andy - As I understand it, the proper translation of the glyph used is actually translated as "murder", rather than "kill" and the earlier translations were slightly off. It was the nuance that the translators didn't comprehend at the time. The outcome of the words are the same, however the intent would be different. If you couldn't kill another human, than you couldn't defend yourself and your family and flock(s) from others from the human(s) who would murder you to take those things from you.
Mark - It's funny how much better the scene turned out because of that though, isn't it!
What the Pro-Gunners have done to try to fix this:
NICS needs to be fixed. States are inputting incorrect into the database, or not putting in complete records. The gun industry has a campaign to solve this: http://www.fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm
Remember the Lafayette movie theater guy? - GA removed his info from NICS, allowing him to buy a gun from a pawn shop.
Dylan Roof, the Charleston Church Shooter, had been arrested for drug charges and was pending trial, making him a prohibited person blocked from purchasing. The reporting agency didn't put the data in correctly and when Roof bought his gun, he was passed by NICS.
The NRA recently backed a bill to improve the NICS system but it's been sent to committee.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035
The Umpqua shooter bought his guns at a store and went through background checks
Dylan Roof bought his gun at a store and went through a background check
Alexis Aaron, the Navy Yard shooter bought his gun at a store and went through a background check
Eliot Rodgers, the Isla Vista shooter bought his gun at a store and went through a background check. Since he was in California, he also when through a waiting period, firearms registration, and magazine capacity bans.
Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, bought his guns at a store and went through a background check
James Holmes, the Aurora movie theater shooter, bought his guns at a store and went through a background check
It's almost like background checks did nothing to stop those crimes... oh wait, that's exactly what they did (not do). Maybe it's because they weren't *universal* background checks. Yeah that's it...
(Don't forget Elliot Rodgers killed just as many with a knife and a car that day... gunman? Why not knifeman? Or carman?)
So is your point that background checks don't help Mark? Got proof or just some more egregious examples?
Speaking of egregious, someone pulls the Jesus sword quote and Mark concludes:
"He saw the value (and morality) of being able to defend oneself."
"Either way, at the cusp of their journey (without him in their lives) along a path fraught with evil, and thieves, and beasts, he wanted his followers to have arms to defend themselves"
Clearly this man needs to read a tad more on the teachings of Jesus, the actions of Jesus, the actions of his disciples.
Or lose all the guns except two......
I think Skippy posted the proof, SD. Darn near every high profile mass shooting in recent memory has been accomplished with legally purchased firearms after the (eventual) murderer successfully passed a background check.
Not to mention the other thing they have in common... the crimes were committed in gun free zones, whether by state law or school policy.
Now, if you can ever figure out how to do Foreground Checks... predicting the future... then you may be on to something.
I think the point is we have laws on the books to deal with this stuff - they're not enforced and malfeasance happens with data entry. In addition 250000 people lie on. 4473 every year and very few are prosecuted - that's a slam dunk conviction. Why is nobody Perusing that angle.
yf said - "Responsible gun owners should welcome efforts to reduce the carnage" - what are you suggesting?
vous - please explain where you get your take on the 2nd amendment, the majority of america and the supreme court says something quite different from you.
responsible use of firearms prevents an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year according to government reports. i can match your subjective one-sided anecdotal copy and pasted reports of misuse and beat them ten fold. easily.
btw, guns are not a disease, they are items made of steel, wood, plastics, the cdc is not set up to study inanimate objects, they study diseases, and firearms are tools not a virus, not a cold germ. just not a disease unless you stretch the meaning of disease to illogical levels. it's a strawman to keep 'harping' on the cdc issue. (by the anti-gunner's constant use of the gobbels technique, the 'truth' is what they say it is and if they say it often enough their lies about firearms and diseases will become the truth) and it's obnoxious the way they do it, it's a non-starter.
and yes, they are coming to take the guns, they just can't stop, they will keep coming for them untill they get them. just like in Australia, just like NY state and Connecticut is doing, just like NJ is on the way to doing, they won;t stop, they have decided that you don;t need a gun, and they think that if you feel that you do need one, then there is something wrong with you. it's past time to fight their non-sense.
as the verses in Luke correctly reveal, even Jesus knew that after he was gone his disciples would need to have the means to protect themselves going forward. he knew they would face fierce trials and opposition that would threaten their very lives, (and he was right about this) that's what that chapter in Luke is getting at. (good reference btw) study up on it and read it in the context of how it rolls out and the meaning and intent is quite clear.
I think we should be able to squeeze one more mass shooting in before Thanksgiving! Go team America!
That's 48 days away... enough time for 80,000 people to die of heart disease.
Get your deep fryer ready!
(But be careful, 336 people will die in home fires before Thanksgiving too).
For those unfamiliar with the process, every time someone buys a gun from a FFL, they are put through the National Instant Background Check system that was proposed by the NRA when the 94 Brady Bill went through. The NICS system takes the info filled in on the ATF 4473 and checks it against a FBI database and returns either PROCEED / DENY / DELAY. It's only as good as the info that gets put into it. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
"Now, if you can ever figure out how to do Foreground Checks... predicting the future... then you may be on to something."
That's just as I mention further above with regard to why "smart gun" technology can't truly work. Nothing will truly work until "intent" can be judged, and who shall be the arbiter of that?
Gonna buy a hammer, need a brain wave scan to figure out if you're going to "be a carpenter" with it!
In the meantime I might just be in love with "Hammer Girl", but be forewarned,
this is a VERY graphic clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTrJa197dSk
Posting something on skippy's behalf here - I think he overloaded the server or something ;)
Stopping things before they start:
Remember the phrase, an ounce of prevention? We need to put more resources into that.
Violence interruption work such as what Dr Gary Slutkin does -
http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease/transcript?language=en - this has worked everywhere it's been tried from Chicago to Iraq.
See also Richmond California's efforts which led to a 2/3 reduction of murders - http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/richmond-california-murder-rate-gun-death - stop likely offenders before they turn into murderers by making them productive
members of society. - warning: this involves police work and community outreach.
SD, how many of those shootings in Tennessee besides the officer with the BB gun were done with a legally purchased firearm? I bet the majority were illegally purchased.
kb2755 Skippy, seems you have a talent to put things into it's proper prospective..alleviating quite a bit of tension.
Many kudos to you skippy.
know what - it is difficult to respond to posters who filter in via googles analytical strategy of who's posts should be reviewed and held back - if someone in authority would explain the ground rules we could abide by them
+
a thought regarding "guns don't kill, people do" and the desire for "better" background checks (properly filed - of course), and the "mental illness" screening suggested by some... the idea that it is the people firing the guns who kill, is, of course, logical and appropriate, the difficulty is that with individuals whose aim is to kill a large number of people quickly, guns are too readily available, and if they don't have their own, they make use of their parents' their grandparents' etc. They may be legal tools for some, but in the wrong hands... as with many things, I know. Mental health screening will NEVER be the answer - mental health issues that lead to ultimate violence aren't always apparent (though sometimes clear and recognizable) and families/friends are often unwilling to alert others to their sons/friends statements... as I posted earlier, the anger/rebelliousness/statements of violence that are common in some adolescent developmental streaks don't always result in action and so it isn't as clear as one would like
Yes Skippy, very interesting stuff backed up by a variety of statistical studies each of which shows progress to differing degrees. While I sort of discount the "reductions up to 86%" results, one of the earliest studies by the Department of Justice (hey, what are they doing studying crime?) covering seven sites across 3 years using three statistical methods concluded a 16%-34% drop in shootings. Results were not even across sites which makes sense given the sites selected and the personnel resource deployed. Some sites had large partner organizations, strong support infrastructures, etc.; others had little or no partners. Personnel used general guidelines but very individual instinctive approaches. This method is by no means using a cookie cutter approach that is easily replicated. Maybe never can. Improvement was consistently positive though.
Before the gunnies get warm n fuzzy about finding the holy grail, they probably need to think twice. This is a social program of the tenth degree. Funding has always been a problem, the State of Illinois already dumped the program during a budget crunch. It is a social program just like welfare or school loans and probably not cheap per life saved. And we're talking inner city only, not gunny central.
Second it is a very targeted approach susceptible to fishbowl results and not necessarily transferable to other non-target areas or national scaling. Right now the program targets inner city poverty and gang areas often using ex-cons as counselors. It targets retaliation reductions only, that is, once a violent crime has been committed, the program kicks in targeting associated people prone to retaliate for that specific crime and sending out ex-con mediators. Sort of like grief consulting for anyone associated with a recent violent crime that might retaliate.
So in our highest crime areas and targeting those in the mood to get even, they pour much personnel and time to mitigate revenge. In more suburban areas we might call this family and I doubt the ceasefire or now as they are called, cure violence, would ever target Bryan Mills :>) Given the targets and the prevalence of violence in that community and culture, it's nice results but again, not sure if its replicable outside of that environment.
http://cureviolence.org/results/scientific-evaluations/
There are generally two general approaches to solving public health problems: environmental or behavior modification.
The environmental approach seeks to limit access like cigarette sales by raising the price with sin tax, limiting geographical places you can legally use cigarettes, limiting marketing and stopping mfg's from making product with more lethal distribution systems than naturally occur. The behavior modification approach you see everyday on TV....
For guns, the environmental approach (see any of my posts above), and the behavior modification approach, the carrot (social programs like this and NRA training programs) and the stick (jail or worse).
Given the size and scope of the problem, like cigarettes, chances are we can stoke every approach we have and still have a problem at the end of the day. I applaud this approach, love a good social program, but in no way see that it's a replacement for environmental cures.
For example, this program will never touch a suburban place like Diamond Hill where I understand there are way too many guns stockpiled like Halloween corn stalks. And no rival gangs to speak off to target. Here there are people who feel the government has grown too large, the government has overstepped it's boundaries, and it's only a matter of time until the next government takeover. It' not a matter of if but of when and who will fire first. They may even be willing to shoot people just for trespassing. Here only environmental controls can help.
"They may even be willing to shoot people just for trespassing."
Ah, nice digs at JR there...
Here in SC, just the fact that someone unauthorized forcefully enters, or attempts to enter, my home or vehicle (while I'm inside it) is sufficient cause for use of deadly force. You cross my threshold or bash in my car window and the automatic assumption is that you have violent intent. How's THAT for creating an "environment" that discourages crime?
(The threshold is higher in public, where there needs to be an attempted assault in order to justify deadly force, although we do have a "stand your ground" law as well.)
Thank you, thank you Mark, but it does show your point that laws can constrain the innocent, not that there's a law for JR's meanderings.
As to you other stuff: “And I'll reiterate the point that SD ignored above... once I DO get my license, it's valid in every state, and to a point, almost every country on the planet.”
Point is that I tend to ignore the pointless, if you get my point he said pointedly. OK, universal for the US it is, NAP combined with universal background checks, automated gun traces, and universal mental health tracking for confirmed diagnoses, not just adjudicated. NAP. Just run your idea up the NRA flagpole Mark and see who salutes you with your own posted anti-gun single digit salute, a classy poke if I ever saw one.
“The "big bad gun industry", this huge conglomerate of death, is approximately twice the size of.... Netflix (as far as sales revenue).” Why do gun guys fixate on size?
“Gee, I wonder why it's called the 2nd Amendment...” Apparently placement is mucho importante too.
“Until then, I expect the government to follow the Constitution as written, just as they expect me to follow the law as written, and there are a heck of a lot fewer words in the Constitution so it should be very simple for them..” For those of you who are not Markitutional Scholars, that means “if I like it, it’s defined as Constitutional” and, if you are against guns, you are simple.
“In most states you can...face to face transfer, no background check required (as long as the family is in the same state). In NJ it would be a felony without all the proper permits.” You talking long guns or handguns? You talking gifting or private sale? Cuz I think this was a long gun gifting experience you were attempting to describe. Isn’t that just a FID card and the crime comes back to the original owner in NJ? (Since gun traces don’t work, who cares :>). I am not really clear on that one. NJ laws may be strict but they certainly are a clusterfarce to figure out.
"Point is that I tend to ignore the pointless, if you get my point he said pointedly"
Is it even possible for you to make a point without the associated novella?
"Why do gun guys fixate on size?"
I guess all women gun owners must *really* be compensating for something, eh?
"if I like it, it’s defined as Constitutional” and, if you are against guns, you are simple."
No, if it's in the Constitution, it' Constitutional, and vice versa.
"NJ laws may be strict but they certainly are a clusterfarce to figure out."
And you want to expand that to a national level?
Good guy with a gun stops a bad guy...
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151010/PC16/151019902
One less armed robber to victimize other businesses/people. Wonder how many lives that gun saved today?
Thanks for that, JIT, lol.
Comment: Hopefully, the shooting victim really was perpetrating an armed robbery. If so, the outcome is a positive. Lucky that no one else was hit.
An obvious concern would be - since police seem to sometimes imagine someone being armed, no doubt a good guy with a gun can imagine that also.
But okay, this one seems good.
Mark, the article says "the suspect". Hopefully the suspect really WAS an armed robber, and deserved his fate. If not.....
If not, a victim for sure.
So what can be done to reduce criminals getting guns through private sales?
Open a public, smartphone accessible NICS portal to allow private sellers to prevent unlawful transfers - not perfect but better than nothing and a positive defense against trafficking charges. See the Coburn proposal for additional details. It should be kept in mind that the last time this was brought up, the people screaming for UBCs voted in lockstep against this, which speaks volumes about just how much they care about fixing the problems.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140221175255/ http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=eb18f2cc-8391-4e19-837c-fd0a00b3e818
40% of criminals get their guns from private sales per Bloomberg?
Nope. Not true. That's based on a study that came out before the background check even was in place in 1998. On top of that, a study from U Chicago just came out that surveyed inmates in for violent crimes and they asked where they got their guns from.
2% said a store.
70% said family or fellow gang members. In IL you have to have a FID to get ammo, never-mind a gun, so these enterprising lads would have a girlfriend with no rap-sheet buy a bunch of guns, report them stolen, and turn them over to the gang. The rest came from street connections such as drug dealers who'd been traded guns for drugs.
So the "gun show loophole" isn't really a problem. Criminals state flat out that they don't like buying them from strangers because they worry about stings.
Works Cited:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/915770/university-chicago-survey-finds-crooks-get-guns-from-pals-dont-keep-them-long
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/276724037
Policy changes regarding dangerous persons with mental health issues:
There need to be clear reporting policies for people who are a danger to themselves and others. This is tough because on one hand you don't want to prevent people getting help.
On the other hand, Holmes told his therapist about wanting to kill people before Aurora and she sent his journal by snail mail instead of getting the cops out there. Aurora was the result. Lanza was supposedly getting committed.
Alexis Aaron had several episodes including hallucinations prior to shooting up the Navy Yard. As did Hauser in the Lafayette Theater shooting. Cho, the Virginia Tech Shooter had court ordered psych evals too. The guy from Umpqua apparently was kicked out of the army for attempting suicide, had and was on several psych meds as well.
Rep Tim Murphy has also seen the problem and he has plans on what can be done: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/guns-congress-and-murphys-law-090049362.html
Works cited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting#Mental_health_issues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Psychiatric_evaluation
http://murphy.house.gov/helpingfamiliesinmentalhealthcrisisact
Good segment about guns on Saturday Night Live tonite... showing the perversity of carrying around guns.
What has it got to do with sense of humor?
You're seriously getting your viewpoint on guns from the same show that brought us riveting documentaries like "Oops I crapped my pants" ?
Another armed robber discovers his "occupational hazard"...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/cafe-patron-shoots-armed-robber-dead-because-concealed-carry-again/
I guess it's just another "perverse" concealed carrier stepping in with a defensive gun use that never happens (according to some)...
“responsible use of firearms prevents an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year according to government reports.”
BroDog: I would like to see a link for this since no one tracks it, best guesses only, and the government is precluded from studying the disease we call gun homicide thanks to the NRA’s massive lobbying effort to stop statistical analysis using public funds. Intelligent minds just need to know, the NRA, not so much.
“btw, guns are not a disease.” No, violence which often results in death by guns is a disease. Read farther down as your co-conspirators talk about.
“it's a strawman to keep 'harping' on the cdc issue” Really. So scientific statistical research into gun death, which I have to imagine everyone sees as a problem, is a strawman. The first line of the CDC mission: The CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.” Basically the CDC studies health threats of which death by irresponsible and lapsed responsible gun owners are a leading cause. The NRA works to stop the CDC from understanding how and why gun deaths occur and well as the potential health benefits of guns like you noted above in your wildly assumptive guess about crime prevention which then you claimed the government reported.
You are seriously getting your viewpoint on guns from a website named "Thetruthaboutguns.com". That would be their opinion of the truth I assume. Obviously the information on this site isn't bias. LOL!
Good people with guns do stop criminals at times Mark.
But even at Waffle House, there's a case of a good cook with a gun shooting a customer because they were arguing and water was thrown: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/person-shot-fulton-county-waffle-house/ngKjW/
Then the Waffle House waitress shot a customer complaining of slow service. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-sc-waffle-house-waitress-shoots-customer-af/nD9fd/
Point is for every good guy with a gun story, there's a good guy got pissed story or a good guy who missed story too.
It would be nice to statistically study and assess which is the better outcome. I honestly think it's good guy stops crime but anecdotal data is not statistical proof, it's just some nice or nasty stories.
Likewise, the fairytale that good guys miss less often than police has no statistical support either, just stories and estimates. Be nice to really know.
And without data, we will never figure out how to reduce the good waitress/cooks gone bad versus those we may want to be amongst ready to serve.
But not knowing sells more guns. The NRA just does not want us to have knowledge on these subjects.
Redwing, if you can't see the difference between a site that posts news stories (with links to source materials) and a parody/satire *comedy* show then I don't know how to help you.
Why are you still harping on this SD?
The CDC did in fact research and report on exactly what you asked for in 2013.
The report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence", which we've referenced and linked to several times above was politically buried when it didn't further the Obama narrative/agenda.
(Not to mention the mountains of data from more applicable departments like the FBI and ATF, which document that violent crime is decreasing year over year.)
This is why mark. Counting is a pretty basic form of statistics and the CDC is basically compiling versus running detailed statistics.
Here's the story: http://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research
“I think Skippy posted the proof, SD. Darn near every high profile mass shooting in recent memory has been accomplished with legally purchased firearms after the (eventual) murderer successfully passed a background check” No, Skippy posted anecdotal data which in no way proves background checks are beneficial or not.
According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, we’re at about 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook and close to 300 this year.
But I will give you that, statistically speaking, according to a study covering 30 years of mass shootings done by Mother Jones, over 75% of the guns were legal. So, if we could only stop 25% of the illegal guns procured for mass shootings, that’s an opportunity to stop or slow 250 mass shootings since Sandy Hook and 75 shootings so far this year. Statistics are always more meaningful than anecdotal data.
Imagine what would happen if the NRA would call off their lobbying dogs and allow the CDC to really study this stuff.
Oh, you mean the site that is (self-admittedly) propaganda...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/shootingtracker-com-owner-admits-site-is-pure-propaganda/
...and includes BB guns incidents (where no deaths occurred) as mass shootings?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/shootingtracker-com-uses-pellet-guns-to-boost-mass-shooting-numbers/
That one?
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it propaganda. Intentionally and knowingly misleading using false data and misrepresentation is...
TTAG is pretty balanced. They even have a series of "Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day" articles... i.e. gun owners calling out other gun owners that do something stupid. The inverse is not something you'd likely see from WAPO, NYT, MotherJones, etc.
They also didn't get where they are by being in the pockets of the manufacturers. Go do some research on what Remington thinks of TTAG (hint, they get kicked out of the Remington booth at firearm shows, because they were honest and critical of the company and their products.)
An off-duty police officer died today after being shot multiple times, the 4th Memphis police officer to be fatally shot in slightly more than 4 years.
Nobody is denying that crimes happen with guns, but that story (and another where a man was shot in Texas) make it to the front page of CNN.
Maybe it's just my search skills on my phone, but when I looked for "Waffle House" on CNN for an article on the failed armed robbery, the first result is about some football player wearing a Waffle House arm band (and no links to the defensive gun use). Fair and balanced journalism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SwEyBItsXkw
Amy Schumer's "PSA" on SNL that HG referenced.
“I think your last post was a 100% attempt to strike emotion”
“Why do we even keep involving guns.....we need to find out why PEOPLE are so F*ED up, stop pulling guns into this!!!! It's not "JUST" people looking to buy guns and It's not about the tool used, it is about the PEOPLE”
“The sad part is if people are so worried about the violence (like SD claims to be) I have yet to see one concern from him about knives or pressure cookers......after all not to long ago 3 were killed and 264 injured by common household pots. Should we ban them too? But that never comes up, guns are the problem, got it”
I am glad that kids being killed by guns being makes you emotional Darrin. And yes it would be nice to stop humans from doing bad things. When good guys with gun anecdotes are posted, you don't have the emotional upheaval, that's good too.
It is the guns. More guns equal more gun deaths. More guns equal more homicides. More guns equal more suicides. People kill will guns more than other objects and are more successful each time they try with guns than with other objects.
We have more guns than any other developed nation on the earth. Way more. We are very loose in many states about who we sell them or give them away to.
We have a homicide rate that’s last amongst developed nations and touches on the rates in the third world. Places with stricter gun laws are safer than places with loose gun laws. More crime guns are bought in loose gun law places and even exported to places with strict gun laws.
I am more concerned with guns than pots n knives, that’s just more FUD Darrin but you’re darned tootin I am more concerned with guns for good reason. You know the numbers but you tossed that turd on the table anyway. These tools aren’t even in the ballpark with homicide or suicide by gun and there are many more “misfires” by these weapons versus the success rate with guns. And for the pot FUD, you have to imagine we do control pots given the size and scope and secrecy re: Homeland Security and the war on terrorism. We just won’t tell you because we don’t have to. Tell you what, place an on-line order for six pressure cookers and see what happens. I am betting you know better.
So, OK Darrin, let’s put the same tools we have on pots on guns. Let Homeland Security protect us from you gunnies using the same tools and Constitutional nuances that we use to control terrorism in the U.S. We will be a gun safer place, I will guarantee you that.
Meanwhile once again here are the numbers which I say indicate that gun owners are not being responsible and that the NRA appears to be more interested in bloodshed and selling guns than they are in protecting America.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics
I mean look at this and tell me Houston, we don’t have problem here, it’s the people…….. I mean tell me that you honestly believe that if guns weren’t everywhere that these homicide numbers would transfer to knives, pressure cookers, and cars. Is that what Mark and Darrin really believe? Because it's not true in other developed nations across the globe.
Mark asked why I stopped “asking" for magazine limits, "assault weapon" bans, etc.?” noting the gunnie paranoia that I was waiting for the next round. First Mark, I never asked for an assault weapon ban, I said it was useless and unfounded. I have stopped asking for magazine limits and have been suggesting that to get anything done, it’s up to you ---- the supposed responsible gun owners to get the NRA to take positive steps to better gun responsibility in America. I have limited my recommendations to things the NRA and most of you, at least at times have supported: universal background checks and universal mental health monitoring. On top of that I have added automated gun traces since it’s just stupid to do in the arcane way we are. It’s embarrassing.
Now Darrin suggested we need to get to root cause; why people kill people. I say that's a good thing but not enough. Let the NRA let the CDC also determine was the problem with guns is or is not. Let’s get the statistical answer to “does having more guns equate to more death?” OR not. And, if yes, (and I guess Darrin is already there), then we can drill back to why.
Skippy, you made some good points re: mental illness and reporting, the problem is, though, many of those were reported after the fact - the truth is, there are many folks, in different emotional places, that spout what could be violent thoughts, ideas, etc.. it's just not as always clear what will ultimately lead to action - certainly mandatory reporting has been in place for decades - when it is clear that harm to others is intended - but what are the limits, you can never really KNOW what will prompt an action, you can only suspect - we can improve or rather increase reporting, narrowing things down, but most are not in treatment - or not obviously violent - just "taking a medication" also doesn't mean violent tendencies - not to be overly negative, but though the mental health identification should be part of the answer, it will never be enough to prevent what has been happening - its something people are grabbing on to, logically, I agree, and really gets to the primary problem, but it will never be enough, and can only mildly improve things, unless we are willing to require assessments of everyone of a certain age, monitoring - and reporting/evaluations made available to the government... exchange of freedoms anyone? what do we value most? and what are we willing to sacrifice for it? safety/specific freedoms/privacy, etc.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx
According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.
Is it bad that when I watch the SNL video the biggest problem I see is the horrible lack of trigger discipline?
Ha, Skippy... most anti-gun people wouldn't know the first thing about gun safety even if it bit them in the butt. Yet we're to trust them when it comes to gun safety legislation... ok...
The number of posts on this thread has now far outdistanced the number of posts on the MLB thread, which has been here since March. Guess that means in H-town, guns are more popular than baseball.
I really liked a guy "who had a gun," Alex Ochoa LOL
That's just because responsible gun owners won't participate believing the status quo is OK
Andy, shooting is an Olympic sport (both summer and winter). Baseball was voted out of the Olympics ;)
Just saw an article on CNN... the US government air dropped 50 *tons* of ammo (small arms, hand grenades, etc.) for the Syrian rebels. But God forbid we carry more than 10 rounds...
Do you think all the rebels had background checks?
No ammo shortage here... my large mags are all ready to go.
Skippy, I picked up ~1000 rounds of .22 at the local shop over the weekend. Less than 6 cents/round which is pretty good in today's market. Stopping by tonight to grab another box if they still have some.
“Oh, you mean the site that is (self-admittedly) propaganda...” “?...and includes BB guns incidents (where no deaths occurred) as mass shootings?”
Propaganda? Since when is a listing of shootings considered propaganda? It’s a listing of shootings supported by news stories.
Admittedly the site’s definition of mass shooting is broader than the FBIs definition of mass murder. They qualify four being shot as a mass shooting. The FBIs is four being shot in the same location to be a mass murder, not shooting. And the FBI definition states if murdered by the same person in different locations on the same day it is not counted. That's a rampage. But the sites definition is upfront, as I have been if I have used it. To me, wounded by gun is still a pretty traumatic affair completely changing one’s life forever. It’s a crowdsourced data base and the data is usually confirmed via second sources, usually the press.
Not sure where your site came up with the owner information, the actual site creator can be found in these stories.
But without definitional caveats, Politifact says it’s a half truth. I don’t agree. It is what it is, as defined.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/how-many-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/
I believe the pellet gun shootings have been removed.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/mass-shooting-tracker-redditors-challenge-fbi-data/
I personally use another site that second sources input but is a little cleaner to use. But it does use the same definition of mass shooting but because of crowdsourcing, the totals will be different. Get used to it, mass shootings will be reported as well as mass homicides going forward. Continue to not believe.
https://mises.org/library/gun-control-fashionable-prohibition-modern-lawmakers
"88,000 deaths per year are attributed to alcohol abuse...There were 36,000 gun-related deaths (including suicides and accidents) in the US in 2013"
SD - what does your ideal firearms legislation look like - just curious
in re the politifact article
I've already written to the author:
Hi Amy – I recently read your Politifact article on mass shooting and was….a little shocked…it was given a “half true” when one source is the Congressional Research Service VS an anti-gun website forum. The term “mass shooting” shouldn’t be defined by one side or another. Either the FBI, or the CRS should be the definitive source.
25 Vs. 294 isn’t half, it’s less than 10%. No reputable organization is claiming 294 other than gun control advocacy groups.
Without bias, this is less than half true.
this is also a person who does not know the difference between a socialist and a democrat
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/30/chris_matthews_to_debbie_wasserman_schultz_whats_the_difference_between_a_democrat_and_a_socialist.html
The difference between a Democrat and Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure everybody has an opportunity to succeed and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists," she said.
Apparently all I need to do to get a "Half True" from politifact is make a website that says I was I say, then cite the website to poltifact.
her claim has no basis in any accepted definition of "mass shooting",
The fact that the quote was from Wasserman Shultz (not exactly an unbiased source of information lol) not withstanding...
Whois the good guy and Whois the bad guy in this scenario?
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/10/12/shooting-home-depot-parking-lot-leaves-1-dead/73821358/
Redwing,
Obviously Mark Mc. doesn't realize his statements like the one above make him lose all credibility.
Isn't it hysterical how Mark Mc. is his own worst enemy?
LOL
It's got to be pretty bad there... even the Detroit chief of police suggested everyone tool up.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/25/detroit-police-chief-less-crime-home-invasions-way-down-amid-rising-gun-ownership
Courtesy of Bob Bernotas of WNTI's Just Jazz...his personal musings. Reposted because it lays out my thoughts exactly on the situation. Thanks Bob, for being a man of reason (and for so many great Jazz shows!)
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.”
Americans, you do not possess an absolute and unfettered
“Second Amendment right” to own a gun. Nothing in those
twenty-seven words above grants you that dubious “right.” Nothing.
Only in recent years did the Supreme Court endorse the (mistaken)
notion that the framers of the Constitution wrote the Second
Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled,
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is
it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence,"
and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal
government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that
the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types
not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” That’s called “gun control.”
So what is this whole “militia” thing about? Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution specifies that the role of a militia is to “execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections” – including subduing the
Natives and capturing runaway slaves – "and repel Invasions." At
that time the US did not have a federal standing army, so state
militias were necessary for these purposes. They no longer are. And
“personal self-defense” was never the role of these militias.
“Ebola?” If you want to talk about an “epidemic,” consider this: In
the United States today you have an infinitely better chance of dying
from a gun shot than from Ebola — especially if you’re a school kid.
And what “virus” caused this epidemic? A gross misinterpretation of
the Second Amendment by a small cadre of reactionary judges.
You're right, nothing in the Constitution "grants" any rights. It simply bars the government from infringing upon those natural rights automatically endowed to all men.
"it's Detroit ....... everyone is a bad guy." ---Mark Mc.
Again, what an idiotic statement.
Lol, I like how you respond to the same message twice... want to paste it in here again?
I don't "paste" and I don't know what you mean..
Another attempt of yours to be argumentative, perhaps?
You can keep up being the way you are Mark, I still (like many) have no respect for you when you respond the way you do.
I am a senior and do not have computer skills like you do.
And what I meant by "I don't know what you mean" meant I don't understand your statement about my "pasting & posting" the same answer when I did not.
It did not mean I do not know what copy & paste means ----- although I do not know how to do that.
You really think the way you joined this site and immediately started attacking me earns you any respectful discussion?
I (and others) have debated with various members here for *years* without 1/10th the disrespect you tossed around in your first days/weeks (even earning rebuke from some people that I have rarely seen get angry on this site).
So, you made that bed... and don't be so presumptuous to claim that you speak for "many".
The way I "joined this site"???
What does that mean???
You say I joined this site and *immediately* started attacking you???
You seem paranoid.
Just when do you think my "first days/weeks" (as you say) were, Mark ??
Let's have the date when you think I first posted on this forum.
I challenge you to do that ---- and then to date the first time you think I "attacked" you!!
I have been posting here for many years........possibly more than you.
To imply that I am new on this site is a distortion ---- like alot of what you say.
good work skippy, it's good to see some us having an open honest discussion about these issues. it's hard when many of those on the other side just hurl demeaning insults while at the same time not adding anything substantive to the debate.
the NRA has consistently promoted gun safety and enforcing the law, has supported prosecutors and DA's across the country in bringing all associated gun law violations to the courts. NRA supports significant jail time for crimes committed with a gun. Has promoted safety courses for adults and children for decades now. The NRA has done more for firearm safety than any other organization you can name. Many of these anti-gunners are just arm chair quarter backs who never actually get involved with real life. Last I heard we have a republic that is based on a participatory democratic process. We are a nation that is represented/governed by the people.
Ah, so you just changed your name then. ..
I believe your first post here under this alias was asking about the stock market, and why it goes up and down.
Soon to follow you jumped into one of the gun threads, and started slinging insults about how I just needed to go buy more ammo or something, an insult (not really offensive, but still disrespectful) that you decided to carry over to completely unrelated threads when you had nothing else to respond with to some of my (on topic) comments.
Ringing a bell? The question is... what was your original handle here, and why did you change it?
Interesting question Skippy; need to do some research on background checks so beyond "universal" can't add more, but I will at some point. Universal means all sales and transfers, even gifting. Universal also means setting a national benchmark, the lowest acceptable bar that states can add to if they so wish. I still need to finish some research as to what bars on a background check; my feeling is that the federal benchmark is too low.
For mental health tracking first step is also setting a national benchmark and having all states comply with data submission in a timely fashion. Today not all states comply and some only data warehouse at the state level. Some states take up to 30 days to report. 30 days, give me a break.
Second, the federal law calls for adjudicated cases only to be submitted. This is where we get into a slippery slope because beyond that you are asked for MDs to submit based on diagnosis or because someone is self committed, needs a guardian, found not guilty by insanity, found incompetent to stand trial, etc. The slippery slope is between doing everything in our power to make it easy for folks to seek treatment without feeling punished and avoiding it. Or DRs from not wanting to make diagnosis or fearing liability if they don't diagnose and someone goes on a rampage. The NRA is pushing for full compliance at the adjudicated level. That's a good first step, but not enough. We need to somehow find a level beyond adjudication that does not stymie people from seeking treatment. A slippery slope.
Third we need a national process for getting off the list whether by court or by recovery. If someone can be and is cured, get them credit. If someone thinks it's a mistake, give them a path for justice.
Lastly, automated crime gun traces. These have proven valuable to trace a gun used in a crime uncovering potentially many crimes from illegal transfers, illegal gun running organizations, to gun shops whose majority business is selling guns to criminals, to the actual culprit of the crime. Here I have been pretty clear that the NRA should take on creating and housing the database for legal access upon warrant in a off-line secure fashion. IMHO it's in the NRAs best interest to protect non-gun owners and gun owners alike and this would be a major step in improving that for all. Not to mention putting the NRA top-dead-center in legal bru-ha-ha's like NY's Safe Act giving their lawyers vested interest.
You're forgetting one thing Skippy. His universal background check is still tied to a 4473, which the ATF mandates must be available for inspection at any time, and must be surrendered to the feds if an FFL closes. Pay no attention to the sleight of hand suggestion that the NRA will house/protect that data...
Also, how to enforce that UBC's even occur without the government knowing what S/N's you are "allowed" to have at any given time (aka full registration, which again negates the "only the NRA will know" theory).
Mark-
really now .........
1- I did not change my name. This site wold not let me post with the previous. It has happened to other people too.
2-Yes I did talk about the stock market. Then YOU carried this over to an Unrelated thread --- slinging an insult about me --- saying I *did not care about my financial future* (how stupid is that...)
Ring a bell ????
http://liberallygeeky.blogspot.com/2015/10/its-not-nra-lobbying-blocking-new-anti.html
It's not NRA lobbying blocking new anti-gun laws - it's grassroots voters and gun owners
So is this shooter a good guy or bad guy for what she attempted to do?
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2015/10/13/woman--home-depot-shooting-charged/73863544/
she is certainly misguided - you only use a firearm to stop the imminent threat of deadly force as a last resort. She interjected herself into a situation she and her firearm had no business in.
I guess we are lucky that their was no other 'good guy' shooters in that parking lot that mistook her for a 'bad guy' and started a gun fight between 'good guys'. I think more guns would have helped this situation. LOL!
it definitely may have looked like an active shooter scenario - but the rules of engagement are much different, get to cover stay there and only respond if engaged, firearms are a last resort.
lol - for the amusement of all I post this
https://whisper.sh/search?q=concealed%20carry
Nah Darrin ....
I enjoy a good dinner.
What did you have ------
cup-a-soup?
....sorry, couldn't resist either.
To be honest I worked a 16 hour shift yesterday and am doing the same today, so I didn't even get a chance to eat dinner with my family, and actually a cup of soup would of been nice compared to what I had.
So wait, now I don't have any creativity? You don't even know me and your insulting me !
I can certainly see why Marc gets into it with you, you got a mouth (or fingers) that just will start a fight with anyone hu?
"It's not NRA lobbying blocking new anti-gun laws" Uh, yes it is.
"Why aren't 4473s mandated to be electronic at this point." Uh, NRA.
"His universal background check is still tied to a 4473, which the ATF mandates must be available for inspection at any time, and must be surrendered to the feds if an FFL closes. Pay no attention to the sleight of hand suggestion that the NRA will house/protect that data..." Uh, ATF gets 4473's when FFLs go belly up because no one is there to take them. They then go into boxes (see pic) and are scanned to preserve the decomposing paper. They are not data based. Why..... Uh, NRA. Taxpayers pay billions for this inconvenience and for the inconvenience of the ATF rummaging through the crap when they do have to search it for a crime gun trace. I am sure the ATF would be fine will turning over the whole affair to the NRA.
ATF does not mandate trivial searches of data but instead: "ATF may inspect individual Forms 4473 containing personally identifying information held by FFLs only for limited regulatory or law enforcement functions-specifically, during inspections, and in the course of investigations (for example, when tracing firearms linked to individual criminal investigations). " As far as any time, come on, if it's a crime gun trace, I think the concept of anytime applies all the time.
The "inspection" process. http://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-guns-get-traced
Now if we could use modern techniques on crime gun traces I am sure we could catch more criminals. Not only might the original culprit be caught but all those conducting illegal activities along the path of that gun might be caught. I have given examples where FLLs who gain most of their profits from selling guns to criminals have been fingered in this process as well as major gun running operations.
The NRA is all about protecting gun owner's guns and non gun owners alike. I see it in their best interest to their direct constituency and to all Americans alike to automate this data, secure said data, and provide faster, legal access, when requested, by law, to trace a crime gun. Sure, the downside is a central database versus file cabinets all across America. The upside is the ATF would not have to get failed FFL records and the data would be as secure as the NRA could make it. One easy step is to keep it off-net ending any hacking except by NRA employees. NRA could do the "step n fetch" upon request and only deliver the legally requested record. Nuclear options would protect it from government takeovers in a way the FFLs never could. It also would literally place the NRA in the middle of any seizure of 4473's like supposedly happened (it didn't) in NYs Safe Act. The NRA could deploy all of it legal resources before turning any record over for any reason versus the FFL forklifting everything over at the first sight of a black SUV with tri-lettered be-suited guys with sunglasses inside. The only interesting part would be how the record gets from the FFL to the NRA and I am sure they could work something out here, whether encryption or private delivery system.
The end result could be a safer collection of records for gun owners and faster, more accurate, traces for law enforcement attempting to put criminals away.
"it's hard when many of those on the other side just hurl demeaning insults while at the same time not adding anything substantive to the debate."
"Many of these anti-gunners are just arm chair quarter backs who never actually get involved with real life"
Hmm, I would be insulted but I am just an armchair fantasy quarterback.
Well Darrin, I believe you started .......saying it "must be past my bedtime" .......... insulting my age.
You guys need to grow up.
If you can't take the punches, don't swing first.
how come those who support a womans right to choose, equal pay for women and all other women's rights are so against a woman's right to defend herself with her own weapon? why not fully support all women's rights? including the right to carry a firearm with them for their own defense??
why not support that right as well?
Ah, playground rules, the classic but you started it, now I know what book we are playing by at least.
I don't know your age, so how would i insult your age? Everyone has a bedtime happy girl, it was not meant as a insult, my first recommendation would be to stop thinking everything people say to you is insinuating a insult and maybe you would be able to have a healthy conversation with people on this forum.
No..... YOU started it. Look up about 8 posts.
I said nothing about you prior to your post. (or ever for that matter)
Your post came out of the blue.
I have made references to my age group.
SO......
If your "comment" wasn't meant as an insult, what was it meant as then??
Jeez louise happy girl you are so argumentative it makes me sick, I think you mis-understood my post, read it again please.
To answer your question, I just explained it, look two posts up.
In all honesty I tend to ignore most of your posts, just because they are constant augmentation, so I do not know your age group, nor do I really care (since we are being honest). I specifically told you it was not a insult, if you want a description of what it is, I guess a non insulting comment on a public forum would suffice as a valid description?
You need to take a breath and relax, it would be best for everyone.
UN-constituional laws should be blocked, that's a good thing
the overreach by government using centralized databases is rife with constitutional violations.
wake up and smell the coffee,
centralized registration in electronic database form have already been used for confiscation efforts by NYC, NY state and Connecticut, they will keep coming to take guns away from lawful citizens who obtained them legally. this years legally owned guns will be subject to removal next year when some out of control government body passes another draconian ban of some firearms.
wake up; smell the coffee; get real; be aware;
wake up and smell the cofee,
Well Darrin, my comment about you was not an insult!
You can't take a joke.
I was referring to your **not** having "pounded pork chops ala cvs workteams".
Stop thinking people are insulting you!
You need to relax.
Maybe it's past your bedtime ???
"how come those who support a womans right to choose, equal pay for women and all other women's rights are so against a woman's right to defend herself with her own weapon?"
Who says they don't?
why not fully support all women's rights? including the right to carry a firearm with them for their own defense??
why not support that right as well?
Why do you think someone is picking on women's 2a rights? Your femine side feeling a bit out of sorts?
As far as i can tell this is one area women have reached equality. Perhaps you should kavetch about the other right you mentioned.
Like I said my idea of a free country allows a same Sex married couple to defend their marijuana fields with a suppressed full auto AR - now that murica!
That's a funny one skippy;-) Doan be a tellin' me you beez an Appalachian murican LOL! I think I'm gonna go down na holler ana grub me up a possum fer stewin an sutch, mabes shoot me a squirrly one or two jes to add me sum extra flaverins!
come on down! YEEE HA! - I am actually Scots Irish so theoretically a "Hill Billy" :)
don't women have the right to carry a weapon for their own protection? do they have a right to carry a firearm with them for their own defense??
Skippy
Actually Mark's met me before and I too am part Scots-Irish, but then part of my German and Polish roots are from the Highlands of their respective countries too, so I'm theoretically one as well. Add in the fact that my Dad's from central PA's coal, steel and RR country and I was born in GA, raised mostly in the South and VA is always in my heart and I'll leave it up to y'all to figure all what the heck that adds up to!
I still have the small book "How To Speak Southern" from when Carter was elected because people couldn't understand him part of the time. Bush wasn't the first who was "dialect-challenged" - LOL!
Sssh.. Phil... I'm supposed to be the anti-social gun nut that hates everybody around here (and vice versa).
Knowing that I've met a handful of HL members in person, and everyone walked away alive and happy ruins my street cred.
Sorry if I ruined part of your street cred. I think maybe we should trump up some kind of story that we were out plugging Bambi's Mom full of lead or something. I'm thinking I need some street cred too, but then again I've met a number of HLifers and come out alive, as have they and may even have met strangerdanger without realizing it at the time, though I'm not sure on that.
It used to be nice when more folks used to meet each other other libations, be they alcoholic or not (for heaven's sake why anyone would say that though...anticipating Calico's reply to the "or not").
I've got some good news for everybody.
If you haven't murdered anybody and have not frightened anyone with psychotic behavior, you get to keep your gun... even if we have strict gun control.
I am interested in hearing what people would think if our cars were connected to the internet and reported us to the police for speeding or driving erratically, and we automatically got a ticket. I would say infringement of freedom out one side of my mouth, and out the other side I would say, well you shouldn't be breaking the law.
Compare this to your thoughts on guns and steeper laws.
What would you think if everything were done that way Darrin? The best case would be an ID chip implanted under the skin at birth - would that be of any concern to you?
I'm always of the view of assumed innocence rather than assumed guilt. Just makes more sense to me.
Others seem to value more controlling others due to sometimes rational, but mostly irrational, fears that can be easily quantified by statistical data.
Pick your poison and see which fits you best.
Speeding? What speeding? There are laws against that, so it never happens.
Also, it's OK if tens of thousands of people die in cars each year, because it wasn't *their* car, and how else would they get to the can can sale at Shop Rite...
They put GPS in our company vans, send my boss where I am at any time, start and stop times of my van, route taken, how fast you are going, if there is a passenger in the car, fast acceleration, hard stops, dangerous cornering. It sends a warning email to our boss if you go over 75, and a email to boss, you and corporate if you hit 80. So I am very familiar with being watched.
It was more of a question to the anti-gunners. I wanted to know how they felt about a system like that. It's so easy to recommend laws when they do not affect you, but when it does effect you, it is a different ball game. Get my drift?
I just don't see where universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun traces have any comparison with the idea you have posed Darrin. But for some reason gunnies can see it.
Now if before you got your license we had to run a UBC, UMHT, and if you are in an accident and it's a crime, an automated car trace search, I would be OK with that.
I would think responsible gun owners would be all for making sure gun purchasers are responsible just like responsible car drivers would like to be sure before we grant a license. But no, you think we want to plant a GPS chip.
"Now if before you got your license we had to run a UBC, UMHT, and if you are in an accident and it's a crime, an automated car trace search, I would be OK with that.
Would you be OK with that if it had to be done before every car or gasoline purchase? THAT would be more analagous.
Want to run a UBC on me? Go ahead, then give me a "gun buying license" and send me on my way to buy as many/any model guns and as much ammo as I want, without ANY further checks.
To renew your driver's license for the remainder of your life, all you have to do is prove your identity, not your driving competence.
Again, SD, as I have shown, the government has shown their true motives and desire to eliminate civilian guns, so they cannot be trusted with any laws in the gun owners eyes, we wont give because w know they will just take if they really wanted to. If they had a valid idea, then it would be implemented, you really think the NRA is standing in the way of our entire government? Don't be silly.
See, we have hit this wall of fact, the point is, pro gun have a point, and anti gun have a point, but there is this wall of factual intent that stands in the way. You can thank our government for that.
"the government has shown their true motives and desire to eliminate civilian guns, so they cannot be trusted with any laws in the gun owners eyes, we wont give because w know they will just take if they really wanted to."
So you won't do the right and moral thing because you don't trust your own government. Cool.
Do you have any actual facts to back up your paranoia?
One man's "right and moral" decision may not necessarily be right and moral to the next man. Imposing your beliefs on others is not the way to go about this.
Me, personally, I feel it is right and moral for people to be able to defend themselves from bad people.
SD, I have posted them numerous times, just because they did not meet your criteria, objectives, or likes does not discount them as being facts
And lets not resort to name calling, so far you and I have been good, lets keep this a respectable debate.
nothing about gun control has ever been "reasonable" or a genuine compromise
http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/126179875315/gun-control-master-post
right on mr. skip - theyare coming for the guns, little by little, bullet by bullet, type by type, feature by feature, always another compromise, always coming to ban or outlaw something, it's never stops, it's a relentless march to disarming the people.
it.needs.to.stop
the law abiding citizen should not have their individual right to keep and bear arms infringed on by any governmental authority
having said this, I still support expanding the instant background check system to the weekend gun shows, and in pursuing 'strawman' purchasing. (like the street gangs are doing at great profit to themselves and their turf wars, this also needs.to.stop.)
the current loose talk about 'universal' is scary without clear and exact definitions of what everyone is talking about written out in black and white for all to discuss thoroughly.
Sorry, was talking about your actions, not you, but gotcha.
And the paranoia extends all ways. Many favoring gun control believe it means registering, stopping sales of certain models, and worse. I think that's just paranoid. For example, it's not necessarily the model of the gun but it may be the size of the magazine for all guns. Taking out the model will change nothing; the size of the magazine may change everything and the "role model" would be the limitations on shotgun magazines we all have become used to. But the paranoid effort to ban assault weapons reduces any magazine debate to noise ending any possible compromise on the subject. Which is why I moved on from that discussion to one promoting responsible gun ownership and positive NRA advocacy through my desire just to make existing laws efficient, effective and as easy as possible on 2a infringement. So universal background checks, universal health care tracking and automated crime gun trace ---- yea!!!! Gun bans ---- boo.
Still like to see one example of ""the government has shown their true motives and desire to eliminate civilian guns." speaking to true motive and the elimination of civilian guns. Note: regulation and limitation is not elimination.
You've got numerous, pick one.
Not 100% sure but "right and moral" may be absolute. Little tired so I might have that wrong so feel free to example this too. For example, I have no problem with your moral right to defend yourself whether from bad people or just standing there all by your lonesome. Not sure that is mutually exclusive with anything I have proposed re guns.
"Still like to see one example of ""the government has shown their true motives and desire to eliminate civilian guns." speaking to true motive and the elimination of civilian guns. Note: regulation and limitation is not elimination"
SD, what happens when you ban to extinction? ELIMINATION
Who is the government to tell me how many bullets I "should" have to defend myself?
Be it a bear on my property, a bad guy, or a zombie poster at the gun range.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo
Now gun death's will be going down some more. If you want to commit suicide, just go to California. They will do it for you. Hurry up, it's only going to last for 10 years.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/euthanasia-begins-in-california-as-gov-brown-unleashes-population-control-right-to-die/
If that's you example I would say it does not portray "the government has shown their true motives and desire to eliminate civilian guns."
No gun was eliminated.
Limitation is not elimination.
The Constitution, as upheld by the Supreme court, does allow for limitations on all of our rights. There is a manner of readdress if you don't agree.
We limit our freedoms every day; we need to wear seat belts to be legal; that's a limitation to some. Our free speech has limitations, no false yelling fire in move theater, threats may be limited. And that is right numero uno.
I think Jefferson summed up the dichotomy between the two sides of law and freedom: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
So within limits of the equal rights of others and law as the tyrants will violating individual rights lies the truth. Limitations are just unless you feel you are under tyrannical rule.
Skippy provides a very interesting cut on the stats. I did not check all the sources. I can personally vouch for the level of violent crime cited in the UK.
But, I think the discussion has drifted far afield. The subject is not all crime, violence, or even gun violence in general. The subject is the periodic gun massacres that occur in the US, seemingly at random.
This is a very distinct problem, a very socially destructive subset of overall gun crime. Suicide, murder among thugs, murder in robberies, etc ain't so nice, but not the same. They occur to one degree our another in all societies.
Gun massacres are easy, and increasing in frequency. That is an undeniable problem, and the solution is not having two people blasting away in a crowded room.
Both sides are guilty of generalizing the problem to fit their broader agenda.
It doesn't matter if there other countries that have similar occurrences. We have our own problem and ought to address it.
Not solving the problem tears at our society: do we stop going to crowded places? I'm sure there are people who have withdrawn from society out of statistically unwarranted fears.
Do we turn all of our open gatherings into formally or informally armed and guarded camps? That sounds like some people's solution, but I think it's just as paranoid as the hermit solution. It the used solution for airports, and personally I've given up flying to avoid the pointless hassles.
We need a narrowly focused solution. As far as I can see it has to address the intersection of mental health and guns.
I agree with MrCharlie. The possibility of you or loved ones becoming victim of a massacre are seeping into our conscientiousness, and starting to affect how we live, for some anyway.
Right now we seemingly cannot address the issue, because many are focused on winning pro-gun or anti-gun arguments. Let's keep an open mind on things.
Dangerous weapons in the hands of the wrong people - IF there are reasonable ways to prevent this, we should. Are guns in the right hands necessary and/or useful in stopping some bad things from happening - certainly.
Thanks MrC - I agree with you how ever we need to be concerned about all massacres that occur in the US, seemingly at random - not just firearms related ones. I would say that a better angle is to focus on the mental health of the actors. Almost every mass murderer in recent memory has had some sort of mental health problem. Is it not coincidental that mental health care in the US is in a shambles.
this sums it up for me lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CLjNJI54GMM
joyful Skippy, have I missed something? Have there been non-gun massacres that I haven't heard about?
That sounds difficult, and personal. I'm sure there have been cases of multiple murders with a big knife, but random attacks?
A bombing would certainly be similar to the kind of gun massacres we've seen recently. It has the same terroristic effect, but for some reason we're not experiencing an epidemic of bombing. I think it's more difficult. If you want to kill a bunch of people, and you are just concerned with numbers not individuals, the gun seems to be the way to go.
How do we keep crazies away from guns and ammo?
@SD "no gun was eliminated".....100% INCORRECT...
I believe mark posted the extensive list of guns we are not "allowed" to have. The proof is in the pudding buddy.
Further restrictions will surely double, if not triple that list.
Darrin: the example given was gun magazines and I was responding to that. You are correct when you add that mark has posted banned models. This is a better example that again I would say guns were not eliminated but there were limitations placed on certain types.
At the federal level, basically nothing is eliminated, we have put NFA firearms under heavy registration since 1934 but for $200 and some forms, the gun is yours. Although in 1986, Reagan stopped sales of new machines guns, existing models can still be resold. So at the Federal level, no elimination but some control through registration of NFA firearms.
At the state level, yes certain models in certain states are banned. Most are defined as assault weapons however one can debate on that definition and models that qualify. However, not eliminated; you can move. Limitation not elimination.
I am guessing that at some level you feel control and limitation are prudent. Or do you feel that RPGs, bazooka's, machine guns should be purchasable by any citizen passing the background and mental health checks?
If not, well that's one view.
If so, then the question at the state level, is where is the line? However, the guns are not eliminated, you are just limited to purchase in states that allow them. With only about 7 states having bans, there's 43 more to choose from.
Just saying.
More important is that there is no proof that universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun background checks, or any gun control law leads to a gun ban. No proof. It is your feeling that they're coming to take your guns.
For someone who is all about tightening up the system, you are certainly all for limitations.
There are other states that allow them jusy move is NOT a valid statement, and ". This is a better example that again I would say guns were not eliminated but there were limitations placed on certain types." Is a total contradiction.
You are speaking out both sides of your mouth sd, you say limitations are good, and somehow limitations that KEEP you from getting certain guns are not elininations......um, yeah that eliminates the gun buddy.
You want stricter laws in all states, okay so now they ban (eliminate) those guns in the remaining 43 states.....now what? Is it still a limitation, or now is it a elimination?
What is it you want, background checks or limitations, you are bouncing back and forth on both sides of the fence to avoid the facts.
sure MrCharlie - the Boston marathon bombing for one off the top of my head.
My point is that it's not just guns and ammo you have to worry about - it's what is turning people into murderers. Seems fairly straightforward to me. You only ought to lose your gun rights the same way (ideally) you lose any other right: through due process of law. Anything short of due process is incompatible with the philosophical foundations of our system of government.
OK, Darin, I think I have been clear but let me clarify.
You know what I proposed and advocate: universal background checks, universal mental health tracking and automated crime gun trace.
You brought up your opinion that any gun law passed is tantamount to allowance, acceptance and ultimate passage of gun bans eliminating guns indicating that you had numerous examples.
You then offered a magazine limitation as example of a gun elimination followed by using mark's example of specific model bans, as one of your numerous examples.
I responded with Jefferson's brilliant quote and unlike JR who cuts, pastes, and runs, I believe in what I pasted here.
But I did indicate in Jefferson's brilliant passage "the dichotomy between the two sides of law and freedom" that "within limits of the equal rights of others and law as the tyrants will violating individual rights lies the truth. Limitations are just unless you feel you are under tyrannical rule."
So yes, in general as a concept of the Constitution and the original framers, I think limitations to protect the equal rights of others is a good thing unless the individual rights of others are trampled by tyrannical rule. But that's the concept of limitations of rights pertaining to all rights, not just the 2A. It is part of our rule of law.
In regards to state's banning guns, I just listed them saying that Mark was right that certain models, not all guns, are banned in certain states, and certainly not all states, by far. I do not see that as elimination of all guns anywhere and certainly don't see that as a follow-on to the things I am advocating. It's not elimination but limitation of the gun models you can legally own.
I can't speak to my feelings on specific state choices per each model, but in the past I have noted that, in general, a ban on assault weapons seems ridiculous in the scheme of things. Likewise, the federal treatment of sawed off as NFA seems weird, I can understand, but weird.
Yet I defend the concept and right of limitations in general under due law and you have both legal redress and other options to mitigate. Since only 7 states have bans, it should not be to hard to have your cake and eat it too. In general I am not for banning assault weapons however I do not see such bans as tyrannical rule trampling the rights of the individual. Pinched maybe but not trampled.
Check sum: So I advocate three things and see no direct linkage to making existing laws work and elimination of guns. I see the current gun bans in 7 states as a limitation not elimination of guns: you have plenty of guns to choose from to serve your needs even in those states. And if your wants are different, you have options to fulfill said wants. And while I personally don't feel assault weapon bans are beneficial, I still support the concept of limitations which, in this case, is the ban on certain models not the elimination of guns.
Hope that clarifies and gives me back my one true face.
Darrin though, you did not answer once again my question: "I am guessing that at some level you feel control and limitation are prudent. Or do you feel that RPGs, bazooka's, machine guns should be purchasable by any citizen passing the background and mental health checks?"
Do you believe in any limitations in citizenry choice of guns or do you believe all makes and models, calibers and capacities, should be obtainable?
Because if you do, then the argument is not about limitations but on where the line is drawn for specific gun limitations. And that's a different thought than you first opined.
You might want to check with Hillary about no one really calling for confiscation HH/mg/sd:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/17/clinton-suggests-shed-consider-mandatory-gun-buy-backs-sparking-fears/
I know it's from Fox but I'm assuming it's accurate as far as the quote...
SD "It's not elimination but limitation of the gun models you can legally own. "
Again, a total contradiction. If you do not allow someone to buy a particular gun, you are in fact ELIMINATING that gun.
Okay, sorry, I will answer some of your questions.
SD "Darrin though, you did not answer once again my question: "I am guessing that at some level you feel control and limitation are prudent. Or do you feel that RPGs, bazooka's, machine guns should be purchasable by any citizen passing the background and mental health checks?""
RPG's, bazookas, they are not guns, they are rockets....so lumping them into this discussion is just silly and quite honestly a pry at ridiculous emotion from those who do not know any better.
As far as machine guns, absolutely, I have shot a G36 and a M249 SAW, and it was AMAZING! I, personally, am okay with having to go through the steps to get a class 3 licence to purchase these guns, but am not okay that they will not let civilians even attempt to get this licence. Again, another thing they "offer" but do not allow
@SD Do you believe in any limitations in citizenry choice of guns or do you believe all makes and models, calibers and capacities, should be obtainable?
All should be obtainable. If the police find it necessary to defend themselves with it, I find it necessary to defend my family with it. Police and military weapons are on complete different scales.
One of the laws that pisses me off the most is that NJ is technically a shall issue state, but will never issue a CC to a regular civilian. Because of this "glitch" or lie in the law, I cannot get my CC in Pennsylvania. So crappy laws here in nj are messing up my rights in other states.
It is 100% proof that if a law is written, it can be interpreted any way the government wants, which why I am against ANYTHING new. You can blame the NRA, or "gunnies" or Santa clause if you'd like, but in fact this is our government that has created this valid fear of confiscation and limitation.
How you you feel if you were told you could only buy a 100hp car? you cannot handle a 300hp car, those are for race car drivers only???? Sounds silly, but so does these gun laws.
great article on this tact
http://mystudentapt.com/2015/10/06/theres-a-way-to-stop-mass-shootings-and-you-wont-like-it/
in re-social isolation and mental illness
I have concurred that the models Mark has noted have been eliminated in up to seven states in America. However, I find the fact that you can still get them in 43 states to be more of a limitation to being able to own these models in America. I mean have fireworks been eliminated in NJ? OK, bad analogy, but point is you just have to move a few miles to be in gun heaven for those models that you miss.
From the Oxford Dictionary: "Gun: A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise."
So not that silly and trust me, you have already unleashed all feelings anyone getting emotional over the topic.
Sorry it took so long to lead you to water but I think we have it. With regards to the 2A, you believe there should be no limitations and I believe that the Constitution, the original framers, and the Supreme Court have allowed for "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
Almost all of our Constitutional rights come with legal limitations. I believe in that and the process that supports it; you do not.
In the case of the 2A, you feel any limitation is force of tyrannical rule.
However, even here you use a definitional boundary, right or wrong, wrong in this case in the strict definition of the term gun, to set your own definitional boundary of what citizens can own.
Even for the machine gun you are willing to be limited through registration.
So like I said before, in some sense we both agree to limitations, although you just can't get yourself to say it, the only question is: where is the line?
Again, this is a discussion now about the Constitution and legal limitations, not necessarily guns and again, I have said I think assault weapons bans are not fruitful improvements to the issue I have with responsible gun owners not acting responsibly.
So let's flip this. If the 2A is to be without limitation, should we remove the other limitations placed on our rights in the Constitution? Any laws I find tyrannical? >)
JIT: I have no issue with gun buy backs; it's the American way to offer to buy things. Gun bans on the other hand, which seem to go hand in hand with the Australian gun buy back are trickier and I am guessing Hillary duffed it when she selected Australian buy backs. However, I do respect the process of putting limitations on guns if done legally according to the Constitution. I just can't think of any I would do beyond those covered by the 1934 NSA and it's updates.
Listen SD, I know how I feel, and I can post how I feel myself just fine, i don't need, nor do I appreciate you speaking my feelings on my account while adding your own interpretations and/or sarcastic remarks yet claiming they are how I feel.
Speak for yourself and I will speak for myself otherwise we wont be having a conversation anymore.
Lighten up. It was just my opinion of what you said as a summary. Feel free to correct any inaccuracy. Or not.
I am all for having a honest debate, but 0% interested in playing the he said she said game. Seems to happen every time. I am here talking to you, I don't need to know how Mark feels....through you, and I don't need to know how JR feels....through you.
If you want to debate, lets do it, if you want to compare notes, I will have my secretary handle it. (I don't have a secretary)
If you think the debate is dishonest, cease.
There is nothing dishonest in attempting to summarize someone else's dissertation. Like I said, feel free to correct.
It does seem a little weird to ask others to pile on though. What's next, a poll?
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/crime/2015/10/18/report-made-wake-mass-shootings-suggests-change-gun-laws/74191158/
NJ report made in wake of mass shootings suggests no change on gun laws
In response to the good guys with guns anecdotes proving the value of guns by telling a few stories, let’s head to Mark’s new home state of South Carolina, home of loose gun laws and I guess therefore safer. So how did the children fare since May? Here are a few stories just abut the kids.
On July 15, and noting this was a drug dealer: “Four people were found shot to death in Wright’s home at 7050 Old State Road, Holly Hill on July 15. They were two of Wright’s daughters – Tamara Alexia Perry, 14 and Shamekia Sanders, 17 -- his fiancée, Krystal Hutto, and a male acquaintance, Jerome Butler. His 8-year-old son, Dreamzz Nelson, was also shot in the head. Nelson is receiving medical care at a Charleston-area hospital. Pascoe said at Wright’s bond hearing Friday that the killer shot each of the victims “execution-style.” The Times and Democrat.
On July 14, a 3-year old was grazed when he fired his father’s hand gun near his face. Gun was loaded and accessible. Neighbors said they were shocked since their kids play there but the incident was a valuable lesson about keeping guns away from kids. (10WIS) Go figure. Apparently he failed his NRA training but got a great lesson. No charges because it was a terrible misfortune.
On July 5th rival rappers had a verbal argument that ended in gunfire as teens let loose and an 8-year old was hit in the arm. The Post and Courier. Ah, the joy of singing. Guess the NRA missed this bunch too.
And on May 30 in Myrtle Beach two people were shot in reaction to the accidental shooting of a 3-year old. ““At this time, it appears that the child may have unintentionally found a firearm in a dresser drawer and accidentally caused it to discharge,” “Horry County police do not plan to file any charges.” MyrtleBeachOnline. Of course no charges, it was just one of those things. The second shooting occurred outside the hospital, I guess someone was miffed about the terrible accident of leaving your gun laying around. In the second shooting there will be charges because reacting to an accident is no accident. Important lesson the NRA should build into it's training for what to do after your kid gets shot.
.
In early June a 5-year old at the playground was hit in the back and will never walk again. Details on why the shooting were not provided. The Post and Courier.
So against NJ’s tough gun laws and a couple of children shot, SC with looser gun laws hits the target six times for the same period. Aim small, miss small. The anecdotes seem to point to stricter gun laws = less children shot, maimed or killed with guns. Of course it's not the gun, it's often just one of those terrible accidents.
hey darrin, the other side can't win an argument or a debate unless they get to construct both sides of the question, stuff statements unsaid into someone else's mouth, then argue against that self-inflicted fantasy and then finally declare themselves the winner. it's as weird as it is sick, and it's as dishonest as it is ridiculous, as ego driven as it is pathetic, as if they are the final arbiter of all things. what ego it must take to think that much of yourself to elevate yourself above everyone else, as if that's the correct way to behave( hint: it isn't)
i give that debate technique a chump score of 10 out of 10.
A few more stories.....
In my favorite gun free state of Florida, that state that exports more crime guns to NJ, how have the kid done…… Florida has some of the loosest gun laws in the US and is a watershed for crime guns ultimately found in NJ crimes. Again, compare this with the couple of kid shootings in tough gun law state NJ during the same period.
On Oct 8, at 8-year old was wounded in a drive-by. Sun Sentinel
On Sept 27, it was an 8-year old girl’s turn to be grazed in a drive-by. WPBF25
On Sept 24, in four shootings in Fort Myers, perhaps connected, 7 people including a 5-year old were injured in driving shootings around town.
On August 11 in Lakeland. a 13-month old was grazed in the leg by a 3-year old who found a gun homeowners said they didn’t know where it came from. The gun was moved from the scene and no criminal charges have been filed. Investigations are ongoing since the police think it’s suspicious. WFTV.com Ya think?
On August 4, a 3-year old shot himself in the head when he found his Dad’s gun in a drawer. “We both have firearms. We always secure it. We had it locked up but obviously our son is a very curious boy, he want to start climbing stuff,” said Jean. “Please don’t bash us because it was in a secure area, don’t bash us as parents because we are good parents.” At this point, it just seems that it was an accident and a tragedy,” said Sgt. Freddie Cruz. “This is a perfect example as to why these weapons should be secured at all times.” CBS Miami Yet another terrible tragedy without any arrests. The problem is curiosity.
On July 18th in Polk county, a mother shot her father and her 6 year old hiding their bodies in plastic bins in the shed. She got the idea from Criminal Minds to do it that way and report them missing. She said her daughter was a difficult child, had an argument with Dad and kid got caught. Police don’t believe her. WESH2
On July 10 in Liberty City, a child was in stable condition after being shot in the neighborhood. Local10.com
Also on July 10, a 7-year old was shot in the face by his 6-year old brother after finding Dad’s gun. He is in stable condition and no charges have been filed, but in this case investigations are being conducted.
On July 1, in Plant City, a 9-year old was shot in the face when he and his 11-year old brother found and were playing with Mom’s gun. The boy will survive. The guns were In a padlocked room where the boys removed the hasp and went in. After 45 minutes of target practice they put the gun back but went back later to retrieve it. Doubtful that any charges will be filed due to extreme curiosity.
On June 27th, in Greenacres, a Grandmom polished off her daughter, herself and two young girls, 7 and 2. No known motive. CBS News Ah, she could have done it with a tea spoon.
On June 3 in Miami, a 10-year old was shot while riding a bike on the basketball court. They caught a gangbanger. CBS
On June 1, in Jacksonville, two women were killed and a 2-year old went to the hospital when shots were fired into their home. New4Jax
On May 17th, in Augustine, a 4-year old was OK after accidently being shot in the abdomen. No charges filed.
On May 15th, in Venice, a 1-year old was shot by a 3-year old when they found a gun in the car they were in. No charges are being filed although police are investigating the fact the boys were left alone in a car. NBC News You're right, cars are more dangerous than guns.
Again, when you compare this with NJ's kid shootings over the same period, there is no comparison.
Road rage
A 4 year old girl was shot and killed today by a gun..
Over Road Rage.
When it is your child that is killed, you will change your mind about guns.
.
How about forget the debate, just implement the death penalty and actually follow thru when someone is murdered..
I guess next you should regulate hammers to avoid the many deaths from them.....are your hammers registered ?
We need real punishment for people's actions and disregard for life.
People will always find ways to kill each other..
Steven Steven,
Don't forget to ask your wife or you children if they feel more threatened by someone holding a hammer .............or a gun .
Trying to keep this going despite one of your threads being locked and the other one deleted?
"When it is your child that is killed, you will change your mind about guns."
Tell that to Bonnie Schaar... mother of a Umpqua College victim (shot but survived) Cheyenne Fitzgerald, who then subsequently stated “I say, America, we need to pack guns, if this is what it’s coming to to protect ourselves.”
Tell that to Mark Mattioli... father of Newtown victim James Mattioli, who then subsequently stated "I don't care if you named it 'James' law,' I don't want (another law)."
Many other parents chose to simply not inject themselves into politics one way or the other, and just grieve/heal privately after experiencing such a situation. But that doesn't make good reality TV.
So again, stop being so presumptuous that you think you speak for anyone other than yourself.
happiest girl - do you support a woman's right to choose?
if yes, then will you support the 'shall issue' CCW permit law here in NJ?
an abused woman who has a court order of protection or a court issued restraining order from a judge should have the right to choose what's best for her, correct? (yes/no??, and why/why not??)
do women have the right to choose to carry a firearm for their own protection? can they freely choose to carry a firearm with them as they go about their daily life?
"... feel more threatened by someone holding a hammer...or a gun"
Wouldn't that depend on how the inanimate object was being held? I mean, do you feel threatened when around police? If not, why?
We need real punishment for people's actions and disregard for life.
Guns, Hammers, rocks, pipes, etc., they have and will continue to be utilized as weapons by the criminals...they have no consequences for their actions.
Read the stats on deaths by hammer's, anyone can access this .
My point is, the criminals have minimal deterrents....they kill people during crimes, then get room and board for life ( and all their "entitlements" at the expense of the taxpayers )
Just my opinion, no intention to offend anyone..
Wielding a hammer at me will result in two rounds of critical duty to the cardiothorasic vault.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
Overall violent crime is down, firearms-related homicides are down.
Knife and blunt object homicides are up.
http://www.nssfblog.com/the-fbi-stats-are-in-crime-in-the-u-s-fell-again-in-2014/
the proliferation of concealed carry is making the US safer
David Anderson: The U.S. Doesn't Need More Gun Control - even the huffington post agrees
https://archive.is/TQXYq
We need MORE guns - not less
— Conyers, Ga., May 31, 2015: A permit holder was walking by a store when he heard shots ring out. Two people were killed. The permit holder started firing, and the killer ran out of the store. Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said: “I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have [been] hit by a gun[shot]. . . . So, in my opinion he saved other lives in that store.”
— Chicago, April 2015: An Uber driver who had just dropped off a fare “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.” Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.” — Philadelphia, Pa., March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barber shop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. Police Captain Frank Llewellyn said, “I guess he saved a lot of people in there.”
— Darby, Pa., July 2014: Convicted felon Richard Plotts killed a hospital caseworker and shot the psychiatrist that he was scheduled to meet with. Fortunately, the psychiatrist was a concealed-handgun permit holder and was able to critically wound Plotts. Plotts was still carrying 39 bullets and could have shot many other people.
— Chicago, July 2014: Three gang members fired on four people who had just left a party. Fortunately, one of these four was a military serviceman with a concealed-handgun permit. He was able to return fire and wound the main attacker while keeping the others at bay. The UK’s Daily Mail reported, “The night might have had a very different outcome had the incident occurred a year earlier [before Illinois’s concealed-handgun law was passed].”
— Plymouth, Pa., September 2012: William Allabaugh critically wounded one man inside a restaurant and murdered a second man on the street outside. Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Jarrett Ferentino said that without the concealed-handgun permit holder who wounded Allabaugh, “we believe that it could have been much worse that night.”
— Spartanburg, S.C., March 2012: Armed with a shotgun, Jesse Gates kicked in a door to his church. Concealed-carry permit holder Aaron Guyton drew his gun and held Gates at gun point, enabling other parishioners to disarm Gates. Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright called the churchgoers heroes. Though Gates was stopped before anyone was harmed, he was still charged with one count of kidnapping and three counts of pointing and presenting a firearm.
Work Cited: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don%27t-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do
Way out West where the gun laws are lax and the days are long, we all figure those rural guys are really John Wayne responsible with their guns. Basically we're right unless there are large urban areas.
Wyoming
June 1, Cheyenne. The child had been staying at a relative's home on Bade Rd. The family was outside with the child when he was allowed to go into the home by himself to use the restroom. While inside the child found the gun and shot himself one time in his left foot. (KGWN)
June 26, Lingle. A 53-yr old killed a 4-mth child before killing himself. (Star Tribune)
Montana
June 8, Deer Lodge. 5 dead, husband, wife and 3 kids in murder, suicide (Missoulian)
June 27, 4-year old killed. He was alone with his Mom Police chief said no charges “just an absolutely tragic accident.” He said it was a “no fault situation with unthinkable consequences for everyone involved.” (The Courier) Especially for the 4-year old.
Iowa
August 1, Des Moines. A kid playing with family and friends was grazed near his eye by a neighbor kids from behind the fence. Neighbor was playing with Mom’s 22. (KCCI) Of course, no charges.
Minnesota
June 19, Felton MN. A 22-month is in stable condition after shooting self. Family questioned and no charges filed. (WDAY)
June 18th, Minneapolis, MN. Mother and 15-mth old shot and in stable condition as innocents in related shooting. (CBS)
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Idaho: The children were safe. The kids are alright
Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, not so alright, a dozen or so per usually in the urban areas.
Bernie Sander's wild and wooly Vermont: zero. (just tossed VT in since BS is running)
So it seems pretty clear, anecdotally, that tougher gun laws means less dead kids, but not statistically valid, just some anecdotal data. There are anomalies though like Vermont and the West. Without statistical studies we’ll never really know what's happening and the NRA has successfully blocked all Federal Funding into statistical research into even accidental gun deaths.
The Northeast is much safer for kids from guns than the South. But there’s something else going on here too because Vermont seems to handle loose gun laws well.
Obviously rural versus urban has an effect no matter where in the country you are. Perhaps that is the Vermont explanation. The West, up to the coast, has loose gun laws and is relatively gun safe for kids except in the urban areas.
But what’s going on in the rural South: does warm versus cooler temperatures matter? Is there a Bubba effect? Could it be the grits?
Yet across the land, rural and urban, north and south, one problem is prevalent and pervasive: kids are finding guns. Kids are killing others and themselves. And most often, no adult is charged with doing anything wrong except being part of a terrible tragedy. Sure, it’s a small number. Marginal at best. Compared to other accidents, barely a blip on the radar screen. Just seems strange that if you leave a kid in a parked car and you’re toast and a national pariah. Leave some medicine or poison in easy reach and you’ll be in big trouble. Leave a kid in the living room with a loaded gun and it’s just an accident where you’re the tragic victim.
I think we can all agree that there is a problem with guns. Guns are a leading cause of death in America. And we kill by gun more than other developed nations on the Earth. Is it too many guns? Is it our culture? Our punishment system? The grits?
The problem with good guys with gun or child with a gun anecdotes is that they don't statistically answer the question: why is there a problem here. Remember, tobacco does not kill, people using tobacco kills. Look how long it took to get a statistical handle on this and what we found the tobacco industry was doing to consumers. Tobacco had a very strong lobby and I daresay there were not many responsible smokers out there.
Guns are different. There are many responsible gun owners. But unless responsible gun owners force the NRA to push for statistical studies determining the answers to many of these questions and anomalies, we will be mired in anecdotal data, dead kids, and too many gun homicides.
PS: to answer the hammer question, first the stats say you are safer with a hammer. Far less occurrence and, perhaps more important, far less success rate when used.
"I think we can all agree that there is a problem with guns."
As Darrin said earlier... speak for yourself. You have no idea what we can "all" agree on.
"Guns are a leading cause of death in America."
Guns are barely on the radar as a cause of death. Murder? Sure... Overall death? Hardly a blip. Banning bacon and doctors would save an order of magnitude more people from death each year...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Nearly 75% of all deaths in the US are attributed to just 10 causes, with the top 3 of these accounting for over 50% of all deaths. Over the last five years, the main causes of death in the US have remained fairly consistent, although unintentional injuries (accidents) became the fourth leading cause of death in 2013, while stroke became the fifth.
The most recent data (2013) reveals that annually there were 2,596,993 deaths registered in the US, which equates to:1,2,41,44
1,306,034 males
1,290,959 females
An age-adjusted death rate, which accounts for the aging population, of 731.9 deaths per 100,000 US standard population
A life expectancy at birth of around 78.8 years.
Heart disease
Cancer (malignant neoplasms)
Chronic lower respiratory disease
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
Alzheimer's disease
Diabetes (diabetes mellitus)
Influenza and pneumonia
Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis)
Suicide (intentional self-harm).
"Without statistical studies we’ll never really know what's happening and the NRA has successfully blocked all Federal Funding into statistical research into even accidental gun deaths."
The numbers speak for themselves.
Top Contributors, 2013-2014
Contributor Amount
National Rifle Assn $952,252
Safari Club International $694,640
Gun Owners of America $270,157
National Assn for Gun Rights $175,650
National Shooting Sports Foundation $169,250
Ohio Gun Collectors Assn $35,500
Dallas Safari Club $9,250
Work Cited : https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q13
About $2.3 million. Compare that to the Environment sector, where the top contributor alone put in $4.3 million in the same time frame. Look at the Communications sector, Comcast lobbyists alone have put in $3.93 million. In fact, at $2.259 million, lobbying from *Microsoft alone* comes close to equaling *the entirety of lobbying done by the NRA*. In the energy sector, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association put in as much as the entire firearms lobbying sector.
Gun industry's *monetary* influence on politics is negligible
Works Cited
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q11++
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E
There are an estimated 80-100 million gun owners in the United States. That means "1 in 5 gun owners" translates to roughly 16 to 20 million voters. That's 4 times the number of members of the NRA - that is why new legislation is blocked and studies don't get done.
Guns help protect innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives. There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country alone every single year.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w
Quite simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often than they hurt them. When guns are harming more innocent lives than they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to further limit guns.
Nobody is stopping anti-gun organizations from lobbying *for* funding (or paying for it themselves)... except that pesky bit about not having millions of private citizens willing to pony up membership fees and donations to pay for that lobbying.
Plenty of people will tweet and Facebook snarky anti-gun cartoons all day long, but ask for $35 annual or $500 to $1000 lifetime memberships to Mom's Demand Action, and you'll see how shaky their *membership* numbers actually are.
The NRA has 5 million paying grassroots members (with plenty of those members ALSO paying for the state level NRA groups like the ANJRPC). Anti-gun groups are what we term "astro-turf". Fake grass roots organizations that "appear" to have a wide base but wither away if one or two billionaires at the top pull their support elsewhere.
"As Darrin said earlier... speak for yourself. You have no idea what we can "all" agree on." You do get the humor in this don't you Mark?
I said "I think we can all agree" so I certainly entertain that you don't agree that there is a problem with guns. And I certainly won't attempt to summarize what Darrin says, ever again. Good luck with that.
Yet "Guns are a leading cause of death in America." In the CDC totals you list, suicide ranks usually around number 10. Over 50% of those are by gun. Another 15% on top are suicide attempts by gun that are not successful. Homicides by gun basically double the total number of deaths by gun bringing you in at over the number 10 manner of death in America. Put on top of that another percent or two for accidental deaths by gun which the CDC tosses into the accidental death bucket, and the number of deaths by gun rises again. Almost every anecdote noted above for a child shooting themselves or another child is treated as a accident.
Guns are a leading cause of death in America. When you segment the population by age, the CDC shows for 1999 to 2013 an even more disturbing picture. From age 1 to age 45, homicide is the 3rd to 5th leading cause of death in each segment. About 70% of those would be by gun. It is only for the 45 and above segments that heart disease and malignant neoplasms (cancer) rise above homicide.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html (click on leading causes of death and then click on submit request)
And when it comes to a favorite comparison, the car, deaths by gun are getting closer and many estimate will overtake death by auto: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/
There is no dispute that good guys with guns have stopped bad guys. But there is no statistical proof much less statistical proof that more guns or cc are of benefit. Would love to see a quantitative analysis for this. Defensive gun stats usually use a loose set of estimates based on self-reporting looser yet around unreported crimes or crime attempts supposedly thwarted with a gun.
If one want to compare crime attempts then we should add in gun shot wounds and near misses to the death stats. For wounds alone, one study estimates 20,000 kids a year hit ER rooms with gunshot wounds. That's just kids. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/guns-wound-30-percent-kids-study-finds/story?id=14741514 Imagine if we stretch this out to all Americans and then estimate near misses as well which IMHO are life altering events.
Skippy posts a number of good guy facts; in a future post I will cherry pick one that concludes: "Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)."
That same report concluded "In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the United States as the result of a firearm-related incident." Over 30,000 dead. Other conclusions:
"U.S. has highest rate of firearm-related deaths among industrialized countries, despite violent crime rate decline"
"Existing data are weak: Difficult to answer questions about occurrence and risk factors or to evaluate programs"
So Mark, I understand that we all might not agree that there is a problem with guns.
However, guns are a leading cause of death in America especially in the 1 - 45 age segment(s) when you account for all gun deaths including homicide, suicide, and accidental death.
Gotta love the constant pry at emotion from the anti gunners
Stories bring nothing to the table. There is a multitude of stories for every one of yours, where guns saved peoples lives. (just take into account all the cops that have discharged their weapons for a start)
Or we can compare to dunk driver related deaths, or deaths from kids who buy sports cars who cannot handle the power....same goes for boats. Do we make special measures for drivers and tell them what power ratio they are "fit" to buy...no. Yet they are a danger to themselves and everyone else on the road.
I still don't understand why anti-gunners bring suicides or attempted suicides to the table, what does that have to do with guns? Do you really think those people wouldn't of attempted that if there were no guns? Do you think they went out and purchased a weapon specifically to kill themselves with?
I support the right to defend myself and my family, by the means I find necessary. Be it from a bear, a criminal, or anything or one else that tried to harm myself or my family. I have no problem with gun safety programs, teaching gun owners proper weapon handling either....It is really a clear cut stance.
My problem comes in when the government tells me what I "need" or "should" need to defend myself and my family. How is that a deciding factor of theirs? Especially when their security guards live by different rules.
I will respond to your post at length - getting a rebuttal together - but suicides should not factor in - this is not a public threat - these are people who decided to take their own life by any means necessary and firearms provided that venue - If not firearms another means would have presented itself
According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, close behind tobacco use. An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic.
The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide.
When are we going to have the fast food-control debate? I am tired of these needless deaths!
and SD please answer my response to the NRA prevents studies on gun violence - i worked hard on that :)
"Gotta love the constant pry at emotion from the anti gunners"
You also have to love when they make a grandiose statement (i.e. guns are a leading cause of death in the US) and when you call them out on it, they whittle away at the conditions (cherry picking age ranges, states, etc.) to find a slot where it is even remotely true. All the while, just because something is 3rd or 5th (on a whopping list of 10) doesn't change the fact that the causes of death above homicide are 3-7x as likely to happen.
Don't forget, even in that narrowly defined slot, the CDC isn't indicating what percentage of those homicides are justifiable. Maybe gang bangers just stop banging when they're 45 (either they've all killed each other or they attacked the wrong armed citizen in their younger days)...
I agree with Darrin (even though he didn't assume I would)... suicide shouldn't even be included for two reasons. A) The person didn't pick up a gun and THEN decide to commit suicide just because of what was in their hand, and B) suicide should be one's personal choice to make.
I love the ones who have nothing better to do in life but scour the internet looking for articles that have to do with death from guns. That's not only sick, it's deranged.
Auntiel, It was on the evening news today.
Happened right by a school that I once worked in.
I presume you must think scouring the internet for pro-gun statistics is deranged??
lol
A CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday shows 52 percent of Americans oppose more gun control laws compared to 46 percent who want the government to tighten regulations.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/gun-control-poll-americans/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/20/faith-in-the-fruitless-why-gun-control-wont-work/
woman was stabbed to death yesterday by an ex-boyfriend who she had a restraining order on, why doesn't NY allow her the right to defend herself?
happiest girl - do you think she should have had the right to choose to defend herself with her own firearm?
it's horrific that the state and city of NY has blood on their hands by not allowing this threatened woman the opportunity to defend herself with her own gun, restraining orders are just a piece of paper. only thing they can do is possibly give you a paper cut, they dont restrain anyone really, sad, very sad,
where's the outrage over this story???
Restraining orders are apparently just as effective as the law that says you cannot stab people hu?
hmmm, wonder how all these new gun laws people want can relate?
"Gotta love the constant pry at emotion from the anti gunners." "Stories bring nothing to the table. There is a multitude of stories for every one of yours, where guns saved peoples lives." I have only listed stories about the children gunned down in response only to good guy stories. Some say retelling stories about how innocent kids are gunned down is "sick and deranged." And yet I have to pry at your emotions?
I have constantly agreed with you re the value of anecdotal data, i.e. stories, though.
"My problem comes in when the government tells me what I "need" or "should" need to defend myself and my family." That's fine within legal limitations, a process agreed upon by the framers which apply to all of our Constitutional rights, including the 2A. We can not legally yell "fire" in the movie theater.
Skippy, some fine research and I cannot disagree with you on the facts, just on your comparison. You have portrayed the NRA monetary contributions to candidates perfectly. And then you list other industries where more money is at play. Yes, there is much lobbying and political contributions. I guess the question is how much is enough? You might also want to look at comparative pro and con dollars like environmentalists versus the corporations looking for less environmental regulations.
At the same time the NRA put in the about $2.3M you listed the gun control advocates put in $423,750.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=Q12++
So if you are right, and contribution money talks...
With the NRA good for 900K, most years they top $1M. This plus the 5M members Mark noted gives the NRA unique lobbying power in D.C. As to Mark’s ascertain that the NRA is a grassroots organization, they have a lot of small donors but they are funded mostly by the gun manufacturers. If money talks.......
Note that was the entire gun control sector; if we listed the entire gun rights sector, the values would be much larger than just the NRA. Gun control dollars, led by the
NRA, dwarfs what the gun control advocates put in.
With regards to the NRA’s lobbying efforts, using your source, and using your selected cycle for 2014, the NRA ranks 289 of 16,872 Open Sourced entities tracked, ranks 151 of 4,070 in 2014 for lobbying dollars, and ranks 10 of 186 in Outside spending dollars. I would say that’s pretty powerful on the dollars. Wanna guess where the gun control lobby ranks?
Eighteen of the 35 NRA lobbyists held government jobs; they know government. And the biggest money role the NRA has in outside spending. In your selected year of 2014, they spent over $28M in outside communications and other “independent expenditures.” $15M of this was spent not for candidates but against candidates (better known as negative ads). The NRA ranks number 10 in outside spending; that’s 10 out of about 200 tracked entities Skippy. If you don’t think that influences politicians to see a plethora of negative ads come out. If negative money talks......
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
Hope that helps show the kind of monetary pul the NRA exerts against gun control. Based on the dollars for pro and con; the pro’s have it hands down. And they are good with a buck too; with 50% of their lobbyists coming from government, their troops have walked that mile in the guys boots they are trying to sway.
" As to Mark’s ascertain that the NRA is a grassroots organization, they have a lot of small donors but they are funded mostly by the gun manufacturers"
more lies, this is not true, the bulk of NRA funding comes from the NRA membership;
Mark is right as rain as usual and the gun control crowd is lost in the weeds of anti-gunnery tomfoolery;
the NRA is a grass roots organization of over 5 million members,
the NRA is you and me, your neighbors, the people you work with, your kids friends and their families,
that's who the NRA is, it's us, as e are free citizens in a free land, and that's why the NRA is so influential, the NRA is Americas oldest civil rights organization. the NRA protects the civil rights of ordinary Americans, even those Americans who are part of the anti-gun crowd. the NRA protected the civil rights of freed blacks after the civil war when the southern states attempted to outlaw them from exercising their god given rights as enumerated in the declaration and the constitution.
that's good stuff right there. and the NRA working to protect the civil rights of free Americans continues to this very day,
stop it already with the anti-gun grabbers myths, lies and deceits. They're not honest, not accurate and not true, i'm sick and tired of this nonsense. it's time to have a reality check,
skippy ; get back in here!
https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from
It's from 2010, but feel free to pull the NRA's more recent tax returns to compare.
Compare to Everytown for Gun Safety (or whatever they call themselves this year) and I bet it will be one big pie with Mike Bloomberg's name on the slice. Grassroots versus astro-turf...
All you anti gun people should request training from local government on "how to call for help" with your non threatening phone" and what you can do to protect yourself and your family while waiting for the police to arrive.
When someone breaks your door down, or you encounter a burglar in your home...ask if they can wait while you make a phone call..
That is your choice ...let others make their choices ( ie; registered, legit gun owners )
I believe a focus on stricter enforcement and penalties are a better and more immediate direction to quell the violence....Just my thoughts..
"Both men exchanged gunfire, and one was killed, she said."
Sounds like a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.
More could of been injured, thank god a good guy had a gun!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/
Obama is the best gun salesman ever - The average gun owner now owns 8 guns — double what it used to be 20 years ago
On your next links again I commend you Skippy for your post. I will focus on the “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent says a new report issued by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).” The report pretty much covers your other links as well.
A major conclusion of the report was that available statistical data was not comprehensive and further analytical study is warranted. The recommended list for statistical study (which the NRA does not support) is far too long for this post.
Report conclusions: "In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the United States as the result of a firearm-related incident." Over 30,000 dead.
"U.S. has highest rate of firearm-related deaths among industrialized countries, despite violent crime rate decline"
"Existing data are weak: Difficult to answer questions about occurrence and risk factors or to evaluate programs"
“Nonfatal violence often has significant physical and psychological impacts, including psychological outcomes for those in proximity to individuals who are injured or die from gun violence.”
“Firearm safety education programs are widespread in public schools, but they are inadequately studied and the few evaluations that have been conducted provide little evidence of effectiveness.” Hmm, so we really don’t know if NRA training works…..
The report pretty much agrees with many of my posts and I thank you: I will be pasting more of it in the future. I highly recommend it as reading for anyone interested in the subject of guns and the list of recommended statistical analyses..
In regards to good guys with guns, guns for self-defense, the report says:
“Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).”
It's not exactly a compelling story much less a conclusion by the CDC. Somehow using a source with questionable accuracy, a variety of data sources and definitional differences to determine quantifiable answers seems a bit less than concrete especially when dealing with self-reported data without confirmation. And the conclusion based on this quality of data is that one report might suggest that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent is clearly NOT a CDC conclusion to fact. Far from it.
Other exerpts from the guns for self-defense section of the report:
“Some studies have concluded that persons who keep a firearm in the home may have a greater risk of suicide and homicide (Kellermann et al., 1993). Hmm, so guns might promote suicide versus, say, hammers….
“In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent (Vigdor and Mercy, 2006).”
“Research on restricted access to firearms in 46 large U.S. cities from 1979 to 2003 indicated that restricted access was associated with reduced firearm and total intimate partner homicide (Zeoli and Webster, 2010).”
“Strengthened community policing and place-based interventions in certain “hotspots” have shown effective and compelling results in several places: Indianapolis, Kansas City, Missouri, and Pittsburgh are notable examples (NRC, 2005).” Note: this speaks well to the program discussed in the TED Talk above, Operation Cure Violence, although the report says further research into benefits and long-term results is needed.
Hope that helps clarify Skippy; I just needed to pull the report to see what they really said.
Darrin -----
Resorting to lies?
What a juvenile comment.
What a blatant lie.
They don't even know who the killer is -- he hasn't been found yet.
You have lost all credibility.
No happy girl, that quoted statement was from the article you posted, did you read it?
Also I see you are resorting to name calling again hu?
HG "They don't even know who the killer is -- he hasn't been found yet."
Those details are not in the article you posted
That information is within the link I posted. It also has a video.
Did you watch it?
The article did NOT say:
"a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. More could of been injured, thank god a good guy had a gun!"
That was YOUR juvenile comment.
That was a lie.
Sorry you're so sensitive, but saying a commment is juvenile is not name calling.
How about the fact that the college allowed people to shoot dice in the courtyard and fight. Try that at centenary and see what happens.
Darrin -
The incident has been reported all over the news.
Don't you follow what's going on?
As far as your conclusion ..... If that's what you think it *sounds* like, then it is practically impossible to have *an* adult conversation with you.
Skippy - you'd be surprised what goes on at Centenary.
Do you know what quotations are?
I very specifically quoted the part from the article. The rest was very obviously my take on the situation. A take I am allowed to post, never did I say the article said that....i said SOUNDS LIKE........
The video specifically said it is unclear if the shooter is on the loose, so who is lieing now? There is clearly no information given on the "shooter" but You claimed differently
Your way of responding makes it practically impossible to have a adult conversation
Just because I posted something you did not like it is "juvenile"......but is not a insult, okay, I will stop being so "sensitive" but you will do the same right?
HG "The incident has been reported all over the news.
Don't you follow what's going on?"
No, I actually hardly ever watch the news because it is very clear to me the news tries to brain wash people into their own agenda......then we get people like you
I do my OWN research and make my OWN conclusions based off my findings before taking everything I hear as fact, it makes for a much more healthy lifestyle.
HG "practically impossible to have *an* adult conversation with you."
I don't think you have been able to have an adult conversation with a single person on this forum actually, so coming from you, that means absolutely nothing to me. But that's just my take
I wish people wouldn't post about a dispute that resulted in a shooting under the "Another Massacre" thread. When I see the thread back on top, I worry that there was another massacre. It's not the same thing. (Probably should post this comment on the vent thread) Maybe there should just be a gun ownership opinion thread.
The point to all of this is:
Regardless of how far you think humans have evolved or how enlightened/non-violent we have become compared to our ancestors from thousands of years ago, human beings operate on two very different, but basic modes:
1) by reason
2) by force
If someone wants something which belongs to you or to do something to you and they try giving you a list of reasons why they deserve it or why you should give it to them, you have a choice of saying yes or no.
If someone wants something which belongs to you or to do something to you and they want to take it by force, the only way you that you can say no is with force. You cannot use reason to deal with force. If they are armed and you are not, then you are at a severe disadvantage. However, if you are armed too, you have a chance to stop them.
If an assailant is a 200 pound male trying to rape or worse a 100 pound female, being armed gives the female a way to equalize the disparity in the level of force being used against her. I could argue that gun rights is a women's rights & safety issue given the frequency of how often women are raped in the US (the statistic is one woman raped every 2 minutes). I have a fiance and female friends --I want them to be able to protect themselves against rape and murder by a large male assailant.
Here's what most people don't understand. You can use reason to deal with reason. Force always trumps reason. Reason never trumps force, ever.
Now God forbid any of us ends up in that situation - you can try to convince your assailant not to kill you or worse - you can put your life in their hands. As for me and my family and friends - we intend to NOT be a victim and fight back.
"No, I actually hardly ever watch the news" ----- Darrin
Who said anything about television?
"the news tries to brainwash people into their own agenda ........then we get people like you" -------- Darrin
Resorting to insults again, Darrin ???
"I do my OWN research and make my OWN conclusions...." ---- Darrin
Based on your ridiculous conclusion:
"a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. More could of been injured, thank god a good guy had a gun!" --------- it is obvious you did NO research.
ohhhh, sorry you are so sensitive HG, it was not meant as a insult, it was a joke
you said "he incident has been reported all over the news.
Don't you follow what's going on?"
key info: "reported all over the news" "Don't you follow what's going on"
forget conclusions, your posts, from the get go, are total ridiculousness
awful annoying when people treat you the same way you treat others hu?
Expect to be treated the same
Commenting is no longer available.