[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[yoda]

Dear god some unbelievable stuff written in there. Mind boggling retarded stuff.

Some of its that bad Im sure they are taking the kean, but I really cant be sure.

No they are not taking the @#/?, they are in denial, the common factor in all is the gun,

Jim had a wobbly above but it needs someone to wake up the Yanks and smell the coffee (I know Yanky coffee is the pits)

[FGS5635]

1 comment from that link

dratman 2 days ago

The obvious solution is to arm everyone, especially grade school children. Admittedly there are questions about arming those U.S. citizens who are under 6 -- though of course they, like the rest of us, enjoy the right to do so without infringement. For that matter, so do newborns. If we arm newborns (in a user-friendly fashion appropriate to their age level), I have a feeling that all these problems will be over within a few years. I for one would hate to face an angry week-old baby in a gunfight.

:blink:

[FGS5635]

[email protected]

• 3 hours ago

People cannot see the forest for the trees on this one. What are the commonalities between MOST of the shooters? They all appear to have mental illness of some type in the family. With this in mind, what is the likelihood their mothers were taking prescription anti-depressants while, or just before, they became pregnant? The blood supply is shared with her growing fetus during the most crucial years of development. I certainly hope our country's medical staff is taking some time to consider this.

Seriously... An article on school shootings and the countrys medical staff need to investigate....

[Audax]

[email protected]

• 3 hours ago

People cannot see the forest for the trees on this one. What are the commonalities between MOST of the shooters? They all appear to have mental illness of some type in the family. With this in mind, what is the likelihood their mothers were taking prescription anti-depressants while, or just before, they became pregnant? The blood supply is shared with her growing fetus during the most crucial years of development. I certainly hope our country's medical staff is taking some time to consider this.

Seriously... An article on school shootings and the countrys medical staff need to investigate....

I agree, I will go further.

In America, most of those mass shooters, are more or less mid-20s, 25 to late teens.

Most of them are known to the system as being unstable but this does not mean most patients who are mentally challenged (using whatever language is correct nowadays) are of a violent nature.

And most or some of these shooters were taking "Psychotropic" drugs.

Jared Laughner, shooter in Tuscon Arizona wounding Gabby Giffords, Representative and killing others, Laughner or Loughner known to authorities, under medication.

James Holmes, Colorado Theater Shooter, same sort of deal.

So I think quite a few of these fit into this general description.

--------

And I can't rule out video games either, some of these were into those as well.

[FGS5635]

The latest school shooter was 19yrs old. To young to buy a beer, but old enough to buy a gun to murder kids

[yoda]

The common denominator GUNS

[Audax]

Adam Lanza, Connecticut shooter, same sort of deal, medicated. System knew about him, played violent video games.

[Audax]

The common denominator GUNS

Are there cases where people have defended themselves from intruders resulting in those acting in self-defense saving their own LIVES, I'd think yes.

[yoda]

Are there cases where people have defended themselves from intruders resulting in those acting in self-defense saving their own LIVES, I'd think yes.

What,

Is that like, think of a scenario and make an argumen to to support it

[Steve Moss]

The general pattern for school and other mass shooters seems to be the same:

1. Young men;

2. On psychotropic drugs of some sort;

3. Known to the wider medical/law enforcement community as having mental health "issues";

4. Generally suicide or surrender as soon as they encounter armed resistance.

Banning guns will not work in the USA. They are ingrained in our culture and our sense of personal freedoms. Pontificate all you like, it isn't happening.

Gun registration, whether it's in Conn.(http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17491-connecticut-gun-owners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty), New York, California (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/us/california-gun-control-law-runs-into-rebellion.html) or New Jersey(http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/26/nyregion/new-jersey-law-to-limit-guns-is-being-ignored.html), or any other state that has tried it, has been an absolute failure. Some estimate less than 5%-25% of owners registered their high capacity magazines in Conn.(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3115418/posts), despite a recent law that they do so. Historically, this tends to be the pattern. Must gun owners tend to be contemptuous of government efforts to register or ban weapons, and most politicians who try pay a price as these gun owners tend to vote and have long memories. Some Conn. elected officials seem to be waking up to the fact that they may have done their careers some damage and are now walking back (quietly) their efforts in that regard.

[Tom]

Banning guns will not work in the USA. They are ingrained in our culture and our sense of personal freedoms. Pontificate all you like, it isn't happening..

Whilst that is undoubtedly true it's ridiculously backwards

[yoda]

The general pattern for school and other mass shooters seems to be the same:

1. Young men;

2. On psychotropic drugs of some sort;

3. Known to the wider medical/law enforcement community as having mental health "issues";

4. Generally suicide or surrender as soon as they encounter armed resistance.

Banning guns will not work in the USA. They are ingrained in our culture and our sense of personal freedoms. Pontificate all you like, it isn't happening.

Gun registration, whether it's in Conn.(http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17491-connecticut-gun-owners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty), New York, California (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/us/california-gun-control-law-runs-into-rebellion.html) or New Jersey(http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/26/nyregion/new-jersey-law-to-limit-guns-is-being-ignored.html), or any other state that has tried it, has been an absolute failure. Some estimate less than 5%-25% of owners registered their high capacity magazines in Conn.(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3115418/posts), despite a recent law that they do so. Historically, this tends to be the pattern. Must gun owners tend to be contemptuous of government efforts to register or ban weapons, and most politicians who try pay a price as these gun owners tend to vote and have long memories. Some Conn. elected officials seem to be waking up to the fact that they may have done their careers some damage and are now walking back (quietly) their efforts in that regard.

What about the personal freedom to live?

Ingrained my arse, do what you have always done and you get what you have always got

Donovan had/has a solution

He's five foot two and he's six feet four

He fights with missiles and with spears

He's all of thirty-one and he's only seventeen

Been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain

A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew

And he knows he shouldn't kill and he knows he always will

Kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he's fighting for Canada

He's fighting for France, he's fighting for the U.S.A.

And he's fighting for the Russians

And he's fighting for Japan

And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way

And he's fighting for Democracy, he's fighting for the Reds

He says "It's for the peace of all"

He's the one who must decide, who's to live and who's to die

And he never sees the writing on the wall

But without him

How would Hitler have condemned him at Labau?

Without him Caesar would have stood alone

He's the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war

And without him all this killing can't go on

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame

His orders come from far away no more

They come from here and there and you and me

And brothers can't you see

This is not the way we put the end to war

ie no killers, no dead

[Steve Moss]

What about the personal freedom to live?

Ingrained my arse, do what you have always done and you get what you have always got

A personal freedom to live? I believe the law already makes at an offense to kill without justification. Unless you believe one can legislate against death itself?

An interesting fact is that it is a crime to be intoxicated and drive. But 10,228 people died in drunk driving traffic accidents in the USA in 2010 (http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics)as compared to 11,708 firearm related homicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States). Of these 11,708 firearm homicides (2010) figures, only 358 homicides involved a rifle (including a so called assault rifle).

A flippant response might be that we should ban booze before we ban assault rifles. A more realistic person might look at the following:

1. As of 2009 there were at least 310 million firearms in private ownership. That number has grown since.

2. Historically the majority of American gun owners ignored gun bans and/or registrations.

3. There are, allegedly, 2.5 million crimes each year prevented by gun owners; others have criticized this study and alleged only 250,000 or so, though the 2.5 million study seems to be gaining more scholarly acceptance based on more recent studies.

4. The UK's homicide rate has increased since your gun ban, though the opposite appears true in Australia.

Practically speaking, banning guns will still likely result in 200 million plus being in private ownership. It may reduce the number of crimes stopped by law abiding gun owners. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to assume that homicide numbers will increase in the USA, considering the culture and the sheer quantity of firearms out there. A gun ban does not equal no guns. With that on the ground reality, I don't think a USA gun ban would do much good and may do a lot of harm.

Others are free to disagree, but it seems the alternative view is driven by: 1) We're civilized and you're not, and you should be more like us; and, 2) emotion. Neither of which I think are good policy foundations for dealing with the USA homicide problem.

[ABBEY]

steve I ask then , WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR AMERICA TO BAN GUNS? HOW MANY DEATHS? 100? 1000? 10000000000 ?

[yoda]

A personal freedom to live? I believe the law already makes at an offense to kill without justification. Unless you believe one can legislate against death itself?

An interesting fact is that it is a crime to be intoxicated and drive. But 10,228 people died in drunk driving traffic accidents in the USA in 2010 (http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics)as compared to 11,708 firearm related homicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States). Of these 11,708 firearm homicides (2010) figures, only 358 homicides involved a rifle (including a so called assault rifle).

A flippant response might be that we should ban booze before we ban assault rifles. A more realistic person might look at the following:

1. As of 2009 there were at least 310 million firearms in private ownership. That number has grown since.

2. Historically the majority of American gun owners ignored gun bans and/or registrations.

3. There are, allegedly, 2.5 million crimes each year prevented by gun owners; others have criticized this study and alleged only 250,000 or so, though the 2.5 million study seems to be gaining more scholarly acceptance based on more recent studies.

4. The UK's homicide rate has increased since your gun ban, though the opposite appears true in Australia.

Practically speaking, banning guns will still likely result in 200 million plus being in private ownership. It may reduce the number of crimes stopped by law abiding gun owners. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to assume that homicide numbers will increase in the USA, considering the culture and the sheer quantity of firearms out there. A gun ban does not equal no guns. With that on the ground reality, I don't think a USA gun ban would do much good and may do a lot of harm.

Others are free to disagree, but it seems the alternative view is driven by: 1) We're civilized and you're not, and you should be more like us; and, 2) emotion. Neither of which I think are good policy foundations for dealing with the USA homicide problem.

Just a few points

What is the death rate in dry states for the offenses on the road,

How did gun owners prevent 2.5 million crimes, by threatening to kill someone?

How would a gun ban cause harm, if carried out in a way to indentity the risks involved.

The, we are civilised and your not point, is bunkum

The way to stop killing is remove the tools of killing, after all that is what your military try to do before putting boots on the ground

[Tom]

You just can't discuss things with gun nuts I find they are so blinkered by it all that the obvious negatives are ignored

[T.J.Newton]

Even seriously trying to attempt to ban guns in America would lead to a civil war(which is what a lot of "theorists" think is trying to be instigated, by whom I don't exactly know)

I personally think that Americans should be allowed to keep the guns to keep protecting their liberties & freedoms that they still have(as corny as it sounds!) unlike this country where we have very little freedom and our lives are dictated by the government, the us government should be putting their efforts into identifying and helping people and children with mental health issues before they snap.

[yoda]

Even seriously trying to attempt to ban guns in America would lead to a civil war(which is what a lot of "theorists" think is trying to be instigated, by whom I don't exactly know)

I personally think that Americans should be allowed to keep the guns to keep protecting their liberties & freedoms that they still have(as corny as it sounds!) unlike this country where we have very little freedom and our lives are dictated by the government, the us government should be putting their efforts into identifying and helping people and children with mental health issues before they snap.

You don't know you are born, try living in some other European countries not to far away, like France for instance, to find out about government control

[T.J.Newton]

be

You don't know you are born, try living in some other European countries not to far away, like France for instance, to find out about government control

ill take your word for that, but its besides the point,

Americans still have freedoms that we can only dream of(though many of them don't even realise or take advantage of those freedoms) America is still the land of opportunity, but its being deliberately deconstructed by one of the most insidious governments on the planet ever(their own)

[Steve Moss]

steve I ask then , WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR AMERICA TO BAN GUNS? HOW MANY DEATHS? 100? 1000? 10000000000 ?

Probably the 10,000,000,000 figure. The others wouldn't do it.

Just a few points

What is the death rate in dry states for the offenses on the road,

How did gun owners prevent 2.5 million crimes, by threatening to kill someone?

How would a gun ban cause harm, if carried out in a way to indentity the risks involved.

The, we are civilised and your not point, is bunkum

The way to stop killing is remove the tools of killing, after all that is what your military try to do before putting boots on the ground

1. I don't know about states (as no state completely prohibits alcohol) but the death rate between dry and wet counties appears to indicate that dry (ban alcohol) counties have a higher DUI death rate than do wet (allow alcohol). http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/DrinkingAndDriving/20060517124659.html#.UubshRDn_IU

2. Yes. I suspect that the 2.5 million crimes prevented statistic has to do with at least displaying a firearm (let the criminal know that you're armed). Though you would have to look it up for details.

3. If 200+ million in firearms remained in circulation despite the ban, you'll only have achieved the disarmament of the most law abiding citizens. Which means they'll be easier to victimize by the criminal element they previously deterred by remaining armed.

4. I'm merely restating the argument of Jim and others. I, for one, give it no credence but I put it out there for sake of completeness.

5. Removing the tools of killing sounds all well and good but it is a practical impossibility in the USA. So rather than focus on some theoretical construct that will never come to pass, its probably more productive to think of solutions which will have a chance of being accepted and implemented by the public. I think those include:

A. A greatly expanded police (or even National Guard) presence in the most violent, drug riddled neighborhoods.

B. Increased funding for education in those same neighborhoods.

C. Tax incentives for encourage businesses to remain, and hire, within those neighborhoods.

D. Increased funding for school security nation-wide.

E. Improved reporting and monitoring of those who suffer from maladies requiring them to use psychotropic drugs.

Those 5 things I think would have a dramatic impact driving our homicide rate downward, and would not engender opposition from any significant portion of the electorate. But A-C won't happen as too many politicians either don't care about minority populations and/or don't want the bad PR associated with an armored vehicle sitting on their street corners. D-E won't happen as it is the NRA answer and liberals (or more accurately, progressives) don't want to accept the NRA recommendations.

[ultrablue]

To my knowledge no 'liberal' in govt has ruled out D. Legislation on funding for school security hasn't been on the table. What the NRA has been suggesting is that school security should include more guns in schools in the form of armed security. This is the suggestion that 'liberals' and probably the vast majority of people find unacceptable.

The arguement you make in point 3. is one often made by the right. My major problem with it is that everyone is a law abiding citizen until they suddenly break the law. We don't live in the world of Minority Report. We dont know who will commit the next crime. And for that reason I find the NRA's mantra about 'good guys with guns', their idea to put armed people in schools and the wbole concealed carrying permit to be rather insidious and backward.

And the worst thing is, the more murders there are, the more profits the NRA members make. They have no accountability or alligence, only money. The NRA have policies that aim to create fear and suspicision, thereby ensuring their own future.

You can remove the 'good guy' from the NRA mantra. There are no good guys. theex police captain who shot someone for texting in the cinema, the LAPD officer who went on a ramage against his colleagues. These were both the architypal good guys until suddenly they werent.

So what you have left is 'the only thing that stops a gun is a gun'. So there's the NRAs answer. Everyone buys a gun.

[ultrablue]

be

ill take your word for that, but its besides the point,

Americans still have freedoms that we can only dream of(though many of them don't even realise or take advantage of those freedoms) America is still the land of opportunity, but its being deliberately deconstructed by one of the most insidious governments on the planet ever(their own)

What on earth are you talking about? What freedoms can we only dream of? What are Americans not taking adcantage of? What opportunities is the government eroding? Any examples to back up your hyperboly?

[Audax]

You have plenty of cases of "Self-Defence" where lives may well be saved, that doesn't balance out the lone nut who goes on a rampage as bad as when say 29 children and others are killed at Sandy Hook Connecticut, there are no excuses for that but I'd still remember we are talking about a country with a sizeable population, 300 million so yes, the press shows these stories but what about the other stories where people defend themselves with guns??

Here's an example and just for the record, to a high degree of likelihood, all of the participants are black when this happened in Detroit: It happened outside of Martin Luther King high school, the gals were basketball players. So, yes, this may be stereotyping but most likely nonetheless.

Coach, 70, Shoots Teens During Robbery Outside Detroit School

An attempted robbery of an assistant basketball coach outside a Detroit high school Friday evening has left one teenager dead and another wounded.

Local news station WDIV reported that two teens walked up to 70-year-old Ernest Robinson outside of Martin Luther King High School at 7:30 p.m. Friday while he was escorting two female basketball players to their cars.

When one of the teens reportedly pulled out a gun and grabbed the coach, he took out his legal, licensed firearm and shot them, according to WDIV.

"They announced a robbery, a struggle ensued and he pulled a weapon and fired," police spokesperson Officer Cassandra Lewis told The Associated Press.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/coach-shoots-teens-detroit/2013/02/07/id/489301#ixzz2reP9lXiC

So what happens here if the intruders, the robbers have guns but the innocent parties, this 70 year old and 2 female students do not have a gun?

Then, since it is not so difficult to find these stories, you have innocents saved. Too bad one of the robbers died.

Then, in turn, I'd surmise those advocating gun control would be responsible for innocents who then would be unable to defend themselves and their fates. Maybe this is an extreme case. I have no gun, I'd hope I'm keen enough to stay out of any dangerous situation, maybe other ways to defend myself, I don't really have a personal care on this issue but it should nonetheless be resolved in a just manner.

Per the above source, Newsmax, Newsmax or whatever source, this story happened.

----------

This kind of crime too is why, unfortunately there are some relatively hostile areas in America, some cities, not all. This is why states like Louisiana, Florida and Texas, Ohio too, end up executing prisoners, have the death penalty. Just saying that's the why and how of it.

[Audax]

For the record, apparently no charges were filed against this coach, Ernest Robinson in Detroit over this event.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/02/14/No-charges-against-Detroit-prep-coach/UPI-12711360867790/

Sounds like it was ruled Self-Defence, the two female students surely said what happened as well and were witnesses.

[thenodrog]

The common denominator GUNS

Indeed and there is another common denominator ......HUMANS

What about the personal freedom to live?

Ingrained my arse, do what you have always done and you get what you have always got

Donovan had/has a solution

He's five foot two and he's six feet four

He fights with missiles and with spears

He's all of thirty-one and he's only seventeen

Been a soldier for a thousand years

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain

A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew

And he knows he shouldn't kill and he knows he always will

Kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he's fighting for Canada

He's fighting for France, he's fighting for the U.S.A.

And he's fighting for the Russians

And he's fighting for Japan

And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way

And he's fighting for Democracy, he's fighting for the Reds

He says "It's for the peace of all"

He's the one who must decide, who's to live and who's to die

And he never sees the writing on the wall

But without him

How would Hitler have condemned him at Labau?

Without him Caesar would have stood alone

He's the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war

And without him all this killing can't go on

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame

His orders come from far away no more

They come from here and there and you and me

And brothers can't you see

This is not the way we put the end to war

ie no killers, no dead

EEEh... I rem the song but I'd forgotten Donovan Leitch wrote it. 60's pop poet.