Three officers dead because of lack of proper gun control

[Macaddicttt]

I dare anyone to defend this guy's supposed "right" to own an AK-47. :mad:

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/05/pittsburgh.officers.shot.dog/index.html)

Authorities believe Poplawski, wearing a bullet-proof vest, aimed more than 100 rounds at police, using an AK-47, Harper said Saturday.

[patrick0brien]

-Macaddicttt

Have you seen the body armor the deer are wearing these days?

[themoonisdown09]

I dare anyone to defend this guy's supposed "right" to own an AK-47. :mad:


My friend owns an M-16. He enjoys collecting guns and shooting them (at targets).

I don't have huge collection of guns, but I think it's a blast to go to a shooting range and have some fun.

[fivepoint]

I dare anyone to defend this guy's supposed "right" to own an AK-47. :mad:


Double dare?

It'd be much easier to cause more damage than that by running a truck through a crowd with your foot on the pedal. The ability to hurt people has always been there... and always will be.

Millions of guns are sold every year... to law abiding, family loving, God fearing people who have no desire to hurt another human being. Apparently a few insane nut jobs using them for the wrong reasons means that the rest of them can't have them?

I think we should outlaw cheeseburgers and cars. And alcohol. They do FAR more damage to this society than guns. Heck, they probably do more damage in one day than guns do in an entire year.

But heck, what do I know... the constitution rarely has anything to do with the decisions we make anymore anyway. :)

[sushi]

My friend owns an M-16.
A real M-16 or a CAR-15 or AR-15?

[SteveMobs]

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners.

The AMA doesn't limit a doctor's license for malpractice in one state, they would just have to move to another state and could continue practice. You mess up with a gun and you're gone for a long time.

Sure you may have nutcases like this who mess it up for others but that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to own something. According the statistics provided above, no one should practice medicine.

[themoonisdown09]

A real M-16 or a CAR-15 or AR-15?

I'm not really 100% sure. I think it might be an AR-15. I would have to ask.

[leekohler]

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners.

The AMA doesn't limit a doctor's license for malpractice in one state, they would just have to move to another state and could continue practice. You mess up with a gun and you're gone for a long time.

Sure you may have nutcases like this who mess it up for others but that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to own something. According the statistics provided above, no one should practice medicine.

While I mostly agree with you- do you have a link for those stats? I'd love to know where you got them for future reference.

[ddeadserious]

The bad people will have guns, regardless of the laws. Gun carrying laws should be more laxed for law-abiding people who go through a process, training, and testing. This would level the playing field and would likely reduce crime rates with firearms.

[leekohler]

The bad people will have guns, regardless of the laws. Gun carrying laws should be more laxed for law-abiding people who go through a process, training, and testing. This would level the playing field and would likely reduce crime rates with firearms.

Thank you! It's all about education people- just like anything else.

[SteveMobs]

While I mostly agree with you- do you have a link for those stats? I'd love to know where you got them for future reference.

Well the original numbers are said to come from the U.S. department of Health and Human Services, although are hard to find in their original form. Those numbers have been published in the Canada Free Press and other newspaper outlets, whether or not they're completely credible, I don't know, but I'm sure they're somewhat legitimate.

[themoonisdown09]

The bad people will have guns, regardless of the laws. Gun carrying laws should be more laxed for law-abiding people who go through a process, training, and testing. This would level the playing field and would likely reduce crime rates with firearms.

Thank you! It's all about education people- just like anything else.

Exactly! I'm all about owning guns, just be educated.

[iBlue]

Jesus, that's terrible! :(

<editing out gun control bit because I don't want to bother>

[Shivetya]

I dare anyone to defend this guy's supposed "right" to own an AK-47. :mad:

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/05/pittsburgh.officers.shot.dog/index.html)

Fine, I will.

Someone with a hunting rifle could have done far better than this fool with his expensive weapon.

So what now? Another ban on scary looking guns? I remember the last one fondly, striking out at guns that looked dangerous but most people avoided because they were junk.

When you get all the illegal guns off the street then come to me looking for the legal ones. One example out of millions of responsible gun owners doesn't mean much. The rate per thousand of abuse by legal owners is so low it doesn't even enter court battles because it benefits the defense

[remmy]

These gun control threads have been numerous and it is always proven that guns save lives, lead to world peace where as gun control costs the lives of cute kittens and caused the world economy to crash.

[Peterkro]

These gun control threads have been numerous and it is always proven that guns save lives, lead to world peace where as gun control costs the lives of cute kittens and caused the world economy to crash.

Strange that isn't it.:D

[leekohler]

These gun control threads have been numerous and it is always proven that guns save lives, lead to world peace where as gun control costs the lives of cute kittens and caused the world economy to crash.

Then again- you could add to the discussion. :rolleyes: But if snarky comments are all you can muster, I guess we'll have to live with that too. :)

[Peterkro]

While I mostly agree with you- do you have a link for those stats? I'd love to know where you got them for future reference.

I don't understand the relevance of the figures even if accurate,unless your suggesting the person accidently killed the policemen.

[themoonisdown09]

I don't understand the relevance of the figures even if accurate,unless your suggesting the person accidently killed the policemen.

More people are killed by physicians than crazy people with guns.

[leekohler]

More people are killed by physicians than crazy people with guns.

What you said.

[Jaffa Cake]

The thing is, those figures are comparing accidental deaths caused by doctors against accidental deaths caused by guns. Given that this latest incident wasn't accidental, wouldn't comparing deaths caused intentionally by doctors and those caused intentionally by gun-toting crazy types be better?

[Peterkro]

More people are killed by physicians than crazy people with guns.
The figures were referring to accidental gun deaths.

[leekohler]

The thing is, those figures are comparing accidental deaths caused by doctors against accidental deaths caused by guns. Given that this latest incident wasn't accidental, wouldn't comparing deaths caused intentionally by doctors and those caused intentionally by gun-toting crazy types be better?

I thought the issue was gun control. That's what the thread title says anyway. And regardless, there are crazy people in the world who do horrible things. They're going to do them no matter what we do. Denying ordinary citizens, like iBlue, the right to own guns isn't going to do one thing to stop people like this.

[bartelby]

The thing is, those figures are comparing accidental deaths caused by doctors against accidental deaths caused by guns. Given that this latest incident wasn't accidental, wouldn't comparing deaths caused intentionally by doctors and those caused intentionally by gun-toting crazy types be better?

Intent is a very hard thing to work out from coroner's reports.

EDIT (stupid hitting the wrong buttons)

So working out how many people Drs intentionally kill is near impossible.

[dmr727]

Don't we have a war on drugs too? Seems to me that if I wanted some cocaine right now, I'd be able to get some within the hour. I don't think we're going to do much better with a ban on guns. Besides, as lee mentioned, someone intent on killing lots of people will find a way to make it happen one way or the other.

Perhaps we should be focusing our attention on issues involving mental health, instead?

[Macaddicttt]

I wasn't talking about all guns. Give me one legitimate use an ordinary citizen has for owning an AK-47. Just one. It was designed to kill people in a war zone. So unless you're planning on launching an assault, there's no need for anyone, ANYONE to own an AK-47.

And comparing accidental doctor-caused deaths to this is lunacy. A doctor is not a tool made for the express purpose of killing another human being. An AK-47 is.

[Jack Flash]

I wasn't talking about all guns. Give me one legitimate use an ordinary citizen has for owning an AK-47. Just one. It was designed to kill people in a war zone. So unless you're planning on launching an assault, there's no need for anyone, ANYONE to own an AK-47.

And comparing accidental doctor-caused deaths to this is lunacy. A doctor is not a tool made for the express purpose of killing another human being. An AK-47 is.

The real question is: Is a semi-automatic any more dangerous than a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

[leekohler]

I wasn't talking about all guns. Give me one legitimate use an ordinary citizen has for owning an AK-47. Just one. It was designed to kill people in a war zone. So unless you're planning on launching an assault, there's no need for anyone, ANYONE to own an AK-47.

I believe iBlue gave you one.

[Macaddicttt]

The real question is: Is a semi-automatic any more dangerous than a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

I don't know the answer to that question, but if the answer is that a semi-automatic hunting rifle is just as dangerous as a freaking assault rifle, then we can ban those, too. I don't see the need of a "sport" that requires a semi-automatic rifle. Sure, hunting's a legitimate sport, but not when you're mowing down deer with semi-automatic rifles.

[bartelby]

I believe iBlue gave you one.

It's gone now though...

[Macaddicttt]

I believe iBlue gave you one.

Jesus, that's terrible! :(

<editing out gun control bit because I don't want to bother>



:confused:

Although I'd be interested as to what it was. Launching a coup?

And Lee, I thought I was on your ignore list.

[WinterMute]

The real question is: Is a semi-automatic any more dangerous than a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

In trained hands a 12 gauge shotgun is more dangerous than an assault rifle, no self respecting military professional would run an automatic weapon on full auto, single or 3 shot is the norm.

The fact that the weapon is semi-automatic or an "assault rifle" is irrelevant, it was bullets that killed those officers.

America's stance on gun-ownership has left a market saturated with weapons, and regardless of how legislation is now termed, the bad guys will always have access to weapons. Owning a semi-auto AK47 is no worse than owning a semi-auto Glock or some stupidly overpowered handgun like the Desert Eagle.

Clearly what killed these poor officers was the basic training this man received in the military, allowing him to hit what he was shooting at regardless of what he was shooting with.

[Peterkro]

Something that interests me is illegally held guns in the US. Where do they come from, admittedly there may be a small home manufacturing industry but I would have thought the majority of them were at one time legal. So the path from legality to illegality could throw some light on how criminals get these guns.( I'm aware that some originate in other countries but assume they were legally manufactured also).

[remmy]

Then again- you could add to the discussion. :rolleyes: But if snarky comments are all you can muster, I guess we'll have to live with that too. :)

Even if it was proven beyond reasonable doubt would the US limit gun control, or even members on this forum? The thread on gun control always makes me feel down.

[No1451]

As stated by many, controlling the weapons is not going to work, control the people who commit these crimes. Either lock them away or put them down like animals, they are the problem not the weapon.

[Macaddicttt]

As stated by many, controlling the weapons is not going to work, control the people who commit these crimes. Either lock them away or put them down like animals, they are the problem not the weapon.

So this sort of thing happens all the time in Europe? Give me the statistics that prove it's not the guns, but the people. And are you even sure you want to be proving that Americans are more mentally unstable than their European counterparts?

And how do you suggest we control these people? Lock up those who have a good chance of going crazy in the off chance that they kill someone? Doesn't sound very American to me. I think that is more expressly protected in the Constitution than the "right" to assault rifles.

[hulugu]

Something that interests me is illegally held guns in the US. Where do they come from, admittedly there may be a small home manufacturing industry but I would have thought the majority of them were at one time legal. So the path from legality to illegality could throw some light on how criminals get these guns.( I'm aware that some originate in other countries but assume they were legally manufactured also).

I believe, and I'll try to find some figures to back this up, that the majority of guns used in crimes here are from legal purchases that are then stolen, or otherwise transfered, to a criminal. Although there's some market for 'illegal' guns, including a market for Chinese (or Vietnamese) made weapons, the majority of guns used in crimes were once legally purchased. Often, a single weapon will be traded through criminal circles, so one gun may be used repeatedly in different kinds of crimes.

[WinterMute]

It happens less frequently in Europe, but it does happen, the UK's gun laws were formulated after Dunblane, where lots of people died without the use of semi-automatic weapons.

Currently the youth of England is slaughtering itself with knives more than guns, because they can't get guns easily, but the point is they are still dying.

People kill people, guns just make it easier to do it from a distance.

[iBlue]

:confused:

Although I'd be interested as to what it was. Launching a coup?
...

Actually/luckily I still have it on my clipboard because I command X'ed it so here it was:

______

For what it's worth, not everyone who collects various firearms is a murderous lunatic. I've owned an AK-47 and I've even posted photos of me shooting it on this very forum. It had only ever been pointed at inanimate objects and was just something I had more for the sake of collection than anything else. It sounded like a fun thing to have at the time. Even I was surprised that it was completely legal for me to own it. (it was semi-auto and this was washington state several years back, FTR.) It was kept and used responsibly and I never made a big deal out of it. I don't miss it after moving to the rather gun-free UK either.

It's just a side note. I am not about to argue for the right to have a firearm like that, especially not after reading a story like this. I just wanted to point out that legislating everyone for the stupidity/evilness of a few is not always the best policy.

__________

I originally took it out because I don't feel strongly enough one way or the other about gun control to debate it but I'll put it back since it was mentioned.

[leekohler]

So this sort of thing happens all the time in Europe? Give me the statistics that prove it's not the guns, but the people. And are you even sure you want to be proving that Americans are more mentally unstable than their European counterparts?

And how do you suggest we control these people? Lock up those who have a good chance of going crazy in the off chance that they kill someone? Doesn't sound very American to me. I think that is more expressly protected in the Constitution than the "right" to assault rifles.

That's the price of living in a free society. Some people abuse their freedoms. Those who do, lose their freedom. You can't possibly control the actions of others.

Guns are banned in Chicago, yet gun violence is common in bad neighborhoods. So what did we accomplish by banning guns?

I took you off my ignore list a few days after I put you on it.

Actually/luckily I still have it on my clipboard because I command X'ed it so here it was:

______

For what it's worth, not everyone who collects various firearms is a murderous lunatic. I've owned an AK-47 and I've even posted photos of me shooting it on this very forum. It had only ever been pointed at inanimate objects and was just something I had more for the sake of collection than anything else. It sounded like a fun thing to have at the time. Even I was surprised that it was completely legal for me to own it. (it was semi-auto and this was washington state several years back, FTR.) It was kept and used responsibly and I never made a big deal out of it. I don't miss it after moving to the rather gun-free UK either.

It's just a side note. I am not about to argue for the right to have a firearm like that, especially not after reading a story like this. I just wanted to point out that legislating everyone for the stupidity/evilness of a few is not always the best policy.

__________

I originally took it out because I don't feel strongly enough one way or the other about gun control to debate it but I'll put it back since it was mentioned.

And I thought it was a great post.

[Tomorrow]

The bad people will have guns, regardless of the laws.

There's some truth in this - but the reality is that without guns, bad people would find other ways to kill people.

The thing is, those figures are comparing accidental deaths caused by doctors against accidental deaths caused by guns. Given that this latest incident wasn't accidental, wouldn't comparing deaths caused intentionally by doctors and those caused intentionally by gun-toting crazy types be better?

I would also be interested in seeing how many people are intentionally killed by guns versus intentionally killed with other weapons. As far as I'm aware, no special permit or waiting period is required for buying a knife, or baseball bat, or axe, or rat poison, or plastic bags, or phone cords, you get the idea.

[Sun Baked]

Let's get rid of cars next, since all those people go nuts in cars and drive though crowds.

[WinterMute]

Let's get rid of cars next, since all those people go nuts in cars and drive though crowds.

Aye, and stop people smoking and taking drugs too...

oh, wait...

[themoonisdown09]

I wasn't talking about all guns. Give me one legitimate use an ordinary citizen has for owning an AK-47. Just one. It was designed to kill people in a war zone. So unless you're planning on launching an assault, there's no need for anyone, ANYONE to own an AK-47.


I believe I gave you a reason in my first post. People enjoy collecting guns and shooting them. An AK-47 is no different.

Like I said, my friend has an M-16 and he doesn't go around shooting people. He likes collecting guns. He enjoys shooting them (as I do).

Just because a couple crazy (and sick) people use the weapon in the wrong way, doesn't mean it should be banned for everyone else.

[Peterkro]

Let's get rid of cars next, since all those people go nuts in cars and drive though crowds.

The logical conclusion from that type of logic is to get rid of humans.

[Peterkro]

I believe I gave you a reason in my first post. People enjoy collecting guns and shooting them. An AK-47 is no different.

Like I said, my friend has an M-16 and he doesn't go around shooting people. He likes collecting guns. He enjoys shooting them (as I do).

Just because a couple crazy (and sick) people use the weapon in the wrong way, doesn't mean it should be banned for everyone else.


What's your position on SAMs or Landmines?

[WinterMute]

What's your position on SAMs or Landmines?

Good for killing people, illegal to own privately in the USA. (I'd have thought)

[Sun Baked]

The logical conclusion from that type of logic is to get rid of humans.

Been tried before, and it always comes back as crimes against humanity.

Of course if some of these people go nuts when they lose their jobs, what will they say if you tell them, "You've been deemed redundant, please check yourself into the nearest organ bank."

[themoonisdown09]

What's your position on SAMs or Landmines?

I don't know... I've never thought about it. I don't think that's something that you could just find at a gun show.

[bruinsrme]

my father in law collects knives and swords.
People get stabbed all the time should knifes be out lawed too?

I wonder how many of the guns the taliban and al queda are registered.

People responsible will strive to use guns and other weapons responsibly. Others will obtain them regardless and do whatever they want with them. I truly think it is as simple as that

[Peterkro]

Good for killing people, illegal to own privately in the USA. (I'd have thought)

I thought the relevant bit was "the right to bear arms" no mention of what variety, making SAMs illegal is surely unconstitutional .:)

[Peterkro]

I wonder how many of the guns the taliban and al queda are registered.



Who would they be registered with?A large number could easily be traced back to their US,Chinese or Russian manufacturers though.

[Sun Baked]

I thought the relevant bit was "the right to bear arms" no mention of what variety, making SAMs illegal is surely unconstitutional .:)

I don't know, I think the Fed will stop at genetic manipulation and cross species arm transplantion -- and it definitely isn't fair to the bears.

[WinterMute]

I thought the relevant bit was "the right to bear arms" no mention of what variety, making SAMs illegal is surely unconstitutional .:)

Godammnit, I gotta go get me a Karl Gustav right way!!

[hulugu]

I thought the relevant bit was "the right to bear arms" no mention of what variety, making SAMs illegal is surely unconstitutional .:)

Like everything else in the Constitution, there are limits and reasonable restrictions.

On the idea of a SAM, the detriment to society (a single downed 747) is exceedingly high compared to the "right" for one person to own one. Land mines would be similar, although a land mine is fairly easy to cobble together out of household items, a SAM on the other hand is exponentially more difficult.

Godammnit, I gotta go get me a Karl Gustav right way!!

A Gustav? I want one of those HUMMVEE-mounted Stinger launchers. I want to be able to reload.

[Peterkro]

a SAM on the other hand is exponentially more difficult.




Although not that difficult give me a unlimited supply of number 8 fencing wire and an assortment of odds and sods shouldn't be too difficult:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922432/posts

[patrick0brien]

As stated by many, controlling the weapons is not going to work, control the people who commit these crimes. Either lock them away or put them down like animals, they are the problem not the weapon.

-No1451

If we're to control anything, control the consumable: the bullets.

What's your position on SAMs or Landmines?

-Peterkro

They're a bit hard on the trunk of the car when I'm taking them for a deer-obliterating.

[Iscariot]

Two other officers, Timothy McManaway and Brian Jones, were injured. McManaway was shot in the hand and Jones, who was trying to secure the rear of the house, broke his leg trying to get over a fence, Harper said.

Taking this in a different direction; why is a police officer breaking his leg trying to scale a fence? A recent study in Toronto of police officers saw a self-reported "overweight" rate of 65%, with 20% being diagnosed as obese. Firefighter recruits have been increasingly overweight, and a report [source:Firehouse.com] concludes that 3 out of 4 firefighters are overweight.

As much as the loss of those three officers is tragic, it seems to me that it might also help to paint a bigger picture: our emergency workers are dangerously under-trained and under-prepared. While it may not have made a difference in this situation, enforcing a better minimum fitness standard across emergency workers may help to save hundreds if not thousands of lives each year — including their own.

[WinterMute]

Taking this in a different direction; why is a police officer breaking his leg trying to scale a fence? A recent study in Toronto of police officers saw a self-reported "overweight" rate of 65%, with 20% being diagnosed as obese. Firefighter recruits have been increasingly overweight, and a report [source:Firehouse.com] concludes that 3 out of 4 firefighters are overweight.

I'm definitely going with the answer: Doughnuts.

I see a lot of overweight police in London, less so the fire department, as they have regular and rigourous fitness tests, including having to be able to lug a full hose reel up 8 flights of stairs in a very short time.

Firemen need to be able to haul unconscious humans out of burnin buildings, that takes muscle and fitness. Policemen need to be able to run quickly enough to catch drunkards on a Saturday night. (I jest).

[hulugu]

Although not that difficult give me a unlimited supply of number 8 fencing wire and an assortment of odds and sods shouldn't be too difficult:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922432/posts

That guy's building a cruise missile, but a SAM is a bit different. A Surface-to-Air-Missile requires not just a very fast rocket motor, but also the guidance system.

Yes, you might be able to wire guide your home-built SAM, but you better be aiming for something low and slow.

Taking this in a different direction; why is a police officer breaking his leg trying to scale a fence? A recent study in Toronto of police officers saw a self-reported "overweight" rate of 65%, with 20% being diagnosed as obese. Firefighter recruits have been increasingly overweight, and a report [source:Firehouse.com] concludes that 3 out of 4 firefighters are overweight.

As much as the loss of those three officers is tragic, it seems to me that it might also help to paint a bigger picture: our emergency workers are dangerously under-trained and under-prepared. While it may not have made a difference in this situation, enforcing a better minimum fitness standard across emergency workers may help to save hundreds if not thousands of lives each year — including their own.

That's interesting. The firefighters I know are always in very good shape, although you'll notice that fitness level declines as they move up the chain, police officers on the other hand gain weight almost immediately upon graduation from the academy. The problem for police officers, especially those assigned to cars, is they're sedentary for long periods interspersed with moments of stress.

[Macaddicttt]

That's the price of living in a free society. Some people abuse their freedoms. Those who do, lose their freedom. You can't possibly control the actions of others.

Guns are banned in Chicago, yet gun violence is common in bad neighborhoods. So what did we accomplish by banning guns?

I took you off my ignore list a few days after I put you on it.



And I thought it was a great post.

Gun violence is common in bad neighborhoods because they are bought elsewhere. Imagine that all of the US banned them. Who would have them? Sure, criminals would, but this guy who was merely having a bad day, who never had the intention of going on a shooting spree, certainly wouldn't, at least not an assault rifle.

Lee, you surprise me. You'd fight tooth and nail to get the right of gays to marry each other, claiming that to not is a violation of one's freedom, yet the best idea you have for dealing with people who kill other, depriving them of EVERY freedom, is to lock away those who kill. That is madness. I don't know about you, but I'd happily give up the right to marriage if I could be assured that I wouldn't be gunned down while I was trying to do my job, or at least assured that my neighbor didn't have an AK-47.

Sure, things like this will always happen, but when guys like this lose their temper, a lot fewer people are going to die if he doesn't have an AK-47 just lying around.


There's some truth in this - but the reality is that without guns, bad people would find other ways to kill people.



I would also be interested in seeing how many people are intentionally killed by guns versus intentionally killed with other weapons. As far as I'm aware, no special permit or waiting period is required for buying a knife, or baseball bat, or axe, or rat poison, or plastic bags, or phone cords, you get the idea.

Yes, but you don't snap and pick up rat poison and take out the police officers who are trying to do their jobs. How much easier is it to kill someone with an automatic weapon? It's good for crimes of passion, and you're physically removed from the violence. So sure, there are always weapons around, but let's give them the easiest ones to use, right?

I believe I gave you a reason in my first post. People enjoy collecting guns and shooting them. An AK-47 is no different.

Like I said, my friend has an M-16 and he doesn't go around shooting people. He likes collecting guns. He enjoys shooting them (as I do).

Just because a couple crazy (and sick) people use the weapon in the wrong way, doesn't mean it should be banned for everyone else.

I don't care if you derive pleasure from shooting a gun that was designed to kill people. Hell, maybe landmines are a hoot, too. Let's get you one. I think the right to live trumps any concern about the "right to have some fun firing guns" any day.

Good for killing people, illegal to own privately in the USA. (I'd have thought)

Probably fun, too. Let's give one to themoonisdown09, and anyone else who wants them. I mean, if someone dies, it's his own fault, right? And we can just take away the perpetrator's rights by putting them in jail. That solves everything, right?

[WinterMute]

Probably fun, too. Let's give one to themoonisdown09, and anyone else who wants them. I mean, if someone dies, it's his own fault, right? And we can just take away the perpetrator's rights by putting them in jail. That solves everything, right?

The operative part being "illegal to own privately"

I made no comment as the the morality of these weapons.

Straw man.

[Macaddicttt]

The operative part being "illegal to own privately"

I made no comment as the the morality of these weapons.

Straw man.

I wasn't knocking you down. Merely showing the lunacy of saying, "Well of course landmines are illegal, but you can't take away my AK-47."

No one can tell me that owning an AK-47 is more legitimate than owning a landmine.

Landmines don't kill people, people who bury landmines kill people.

[themoonisdown09]

Probably fun, too. Let's give one to themoonisdown09, and anyone else who wants them. I mean, if someone dies, it's his own fault, right? And we can just take away the perpetrator's rights by putting them in jail. That solves everything, right?

I'm so glad you're not in a position to make decisions.

By the way, when did I say that I wanted a land mine?

[mactastic]

I predicted that with the removal of right-wing politicians from office -- and particularly with the ascension of a black man to the presidency -- that we would begin to see an increase in these kinds of right-wing, eliminationist, anti-government militia types. This guy obviously believed everything he heard from the right-wing news media, and took it to the next level over at Stormfront.

It's not the guns that caused this. It's the inevitable result of pumping toxic hatred out to the masses. Sooner or later someone dumb enough to heed the call to arms hears it.

And sadly we're going to see more of this type of right-wing ideology-fueled violence throughout Obama's presidency. Let's just hope it doesn't make it to Oaklahoma City levels...

[Macaddicttt]

I'm so glad you're not in a position to make decisions.

By the way, when did I say that I wanted a land mine?

You didn't, but since you enjoyed AK-47s, I figured you'd like a landmine as well. Both have the same purpose: killing people. I know you'd probably just blow up cans with it.

My point is, tell me why you won't defend landmine ownership, but you will defend assault rifle ownership.

EDIT: I'm so sad that you are in a position to make decisions with your vote, and defend the "right" of assault rifle ownership.

[WinterMute]

I wasn't knocking you down. Merely showing the lunacy of saying, "Well of course landmines are illegal, but you can't take away my AK-47."

No one can tell me that owning an AK-47 is more legitimate than owning a landmine.

Landmines don't kill people, people who bury landmines kill people.

A well placed brick will kill someone, should we also outlaw houses?

Easy target, easy argument.

Guns are bad in the wrong hands, much worse than bricks, but your constitution guarantees you the right to bear arms, an AK47 is within the permitted classification of "arms" your government deems that you can bear, a land mine or a SAM is not.

It's true to say not everyone has an AK47 in America, in fact I'd imagine not many do at all.

By contrast, every Swiss home contains an automatic assault rifle by law, which is the safer place to live?

[themoonisdown09]

You didn't, but since you enjoyed AK-47s, I figured you'd like a landmine as well. Both have the same purpose: killing people. I know you'd probably just blow up cans with it.

My point is, tell me why you won't defend landmine ownership, but you will defend assault rifle ownership.

EDIT: I'm so sad that you are in a position to make decisions with your vote, and defend the "right" of assault rifle ownership.

I guess we should just agree to disagree. I'm sure there are many things that you would vote to defend that I would be sad at.


Guns are bad in the wrong hands, much worse than bricks, but your constitution guarantees you the right to bear arms, an AK47 is within the permitted classification of "arms" your government deems that you can bear, a land mine or a SAM is not.

I don't think that Macaddicttt understands this.

[Macaddicttt]

A well placed brick will kill someone, should we also outlaw houses?

Easy target, easy argument.

Guns are bad in the wrong hands, much worse than bricks, but your constitution guarantees you the right to bear arms, an AK47 is within the permitted classification of "arms" your government deems that you can bear, a land mine or a SAM is not.

It's true to say not everyone has an AK47 in America, in fact I'd imagine not many do at all.

By contrast, every Swiss home contains an automatic assault rifle by law, which is the safer place to live?

What were bricks made for again? Killing people? Is that their only purpose? No?

I can build a house with a brick. The ONLY reason an assault rifle was made was to kill people. I can live just fine without it.

And just because an AK-47 happens to fall under the definition of arms my government approves means I should just accept it? Are you willing to admit that the only real difference between a landmine and an assault rifle is what my government says about it? Your argument seems to say, "Well, the Constitution says it, so it must be true." Do you see how you're not providing any argument for gun ownership other than, "The government tells me to?"

I can give you a reason for owning a brick. Give me a reason for owning an assault rifle that isn't, "My government tells me it's okay," or, "It's fun." Both are horrible arguments.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Gun violence is common in bad neighborhoods because they are bought elsewhere. Imagine that all of the US banned them. Who would have them? Sure, criminals would, but this guy who was merely having a bad day, who never had the intention of going on a shooting spree, certainly wouldn't, at least not an assault rifle.

Lee, you surprise me. You'd fight tooth and nail to get the right of gays to marry each other, claiming that to not is a violation of one's freedom, yet the best idea you have for dealing with people who kill other, depriving them of EVERY freedom, is to lock away those who kill. That is madness. I don't know about you, but I'd happily give up the right to marriage if I could be assured that I wouldn't be gunned down while I was trying to do my job, or at least assured that my neighbor didn't have an AK-47.

Sure, things like this will always happen, but when guys like this lose their temper, a lot fewer people are going to die if he doesn't have an AK-47 just lying around.

First of all, your comment towards Lee is completely irrelevant. I would strangle every living chimp if it could save all the people dying of AIDS, but you know, chimps and dying of AIDS aren't connected and neither are marriage and guns. Irrelevant.

You've made a complete three-sixty here, too. Do you really think if people can get guns from elsewhere living in Chicago, they can't get guns from elsewhere if we make a ban on the whole US? Remember Prohibition? Have you seen how effective the war on drugs is? Yeah, that about sums up the whole reason right there. You are either against gun ownership or not. You say you understand hunting, but you can't understand recreational target practice? Both hunting guns and war rifles can be used to kill people, so there is no difference if we're going by your argument. So which is it? No guns, make the average gun owner a criminal and accomplish nothing, or leave people be and achieve the same result?

And I'm not sure if that last paragraph is really true. My grandpa owns a taser, which is illegal here. He's owned it for many, many years and has never used it. It's "just lying there if he gets mad one day," but yet it's still illegal...hmm...and here I thought, according to you, banning assault weapons meant no one would have them anymore? Damn.

[Macaddicttt]

I don't think that Macaddicttt understands this.

Oh, I understand it perfectly well, I just don't see how a government for the people, by the people, has the ability to define what an "arm" is, and not let me express disagreement with that definition. No one has given me a reason why an AK-47 should be allowed that couldn't also be applied to a landmine besides, "The government says so."

[themoonisdown09]

Oh, I understand it perfectly well, I just don't see how a government for the people, by the people, has the ability to define what an "arm" is, and not let me express disagreement with that definition. No one has given me a reason why an AK-47 should be allowed that couldn't also be applied to a landmine besides, "The government says so."

Because somewhere, there was a bunch of people that voted that the land mine be illegal. Does it really matter?

[ZiggyPastorius]

Ha.

[Peterkro]

^^ "you are either against gun ownership or not" where did that come from?

[.Andy]

Guns belong in museums as a relic of a more violent society that we've left behind. They're not a symbol of freedom. Quite the opposite. They're a symbol of fear, violence, and inadequacy. If you feel the need to buy/own a weapon you're part of the problem.

[themoonisdown09]

Guns belong in museums as a relic of a more violent society that we've left behind. They're not a symbol of freedom. Quite the opposite. They're a symbol of fear, violence, and inadequacy. If you feel the need to buy/own a weapon you're part of the problem.

I own a gun. That means that I helped kill those cops. Fail.

[hulugu]

A well placed brick will kill someone, should we also outlaw houses?

Easy target, easy argument.

Guns are bad in the wrong hands, much worse than bricks, but your constitution guarantees you the right to bear arms, an AK47 is within the permitted classification of "arms" your government deems that you can bear, a land mine or a SAM is not.

It's true to say not everyone has an AK47 in America, in fact I'd imagine not many do at all.

By contrast, every Swiss home contains an automatic assault rifle by law, which is the safer place to live?

I'm not entirely thrilled by this argument. A brick (or any hard object really) can kill a human being, but guns are a significant difference in technology.

Yes, a well-trained man could kill dozens with any blunt object (read the annals of Miyamoto Musashi), a gun changes that equation, allowing a well-trained man to kill dozens at a distance and with a probably higher mortality rate.

You're correct in noting that the AK-47 is an outlier, it's far more dramatic a story when there's an "assault rifle" used, but many more are killed by cheap pistols.

Ultimately, the law will have to balance the rights of the 2nd Amendment crowd with the needs of society, and this is always going to be difficult. I'd argue that those who fear the gun shouldn't look for bans, but rather stricter enforcement of current laws and better system for licensing and background checks.

[mactastic]

... but this guy who was merely having a bad day, who never had the intention of going on a shooting spree...

...when guys like this lose their temper...
This wasn't just some guy who had a bad day and lost his temper. He had a history of violence, ex-girlfriends with restraining orders, a lot of guns and ammunition, had an extreme right-wing political viewpoint, and appears to have frequented white supremacy websites calling for violent overthrow of Obama's Zionist one-world government.

He appears to have been on a violent trajectory for quite some time now.

[ZiggyPastorius]

^^ "you are either against gun ownership or not" where did that come from?

Was that directed towards me? My point was that Macaddicttt sees a need for "hunting" guns, but not "assault" guns, when both are just as deadly, and the reasons for owning each are just as arbitrary. Sure, hunting guns have the added bonus of being able to be used for food, but they're used for recreation just as often, and so are assault weapons. If he's going to be for a gun ban, he should be consistent, and recognise that his parameters for allowing hunting guns, but not assault guns is arbitrary.

[Macaddicttt]

You've made a complete three-sixty here, too. Do you really think if people can get guns from elsewhere living in Chicago, they can't get guns from elsewhere if we make a ban on the whole US? Remember Prohibition? Have you seen how effective the war on drugs is? Yeah, that about sums up the whole reason right there. You are either against gun ownership or not. You say you understand hunting, but you can't understand recreational target practice? Both hunting guns and war rifles can be used to kill people, so there is no difference if we're going by your argument. So which is it? No guns, make the average gun owner a criminal and accomplish nothing, or leave people be and achieve the same result?

No relation to prohibition. You can't make assault rifles with minimum effort in you basement with household ingredients. Let's just make everything legal, right? Because if you outlaw anything, it'll be the same effect as prohibition: everyone will have one. We should have learned when as soon as landmines were outlawed, everyone and his uncle got one.

And the difference between recreational hunting and assault rifles is that you can't go nuts on people and spray bullets at anything that moves with a simple, non-automatic hunting rifle. Sure, I can still kill someone with it, but I can't indiscriminately mow down any police officer that sets foot on my property.

And, by my argument, there is no difference with landmines, which no one here seems to defend. Why is that? Why can you understand recreational assault-rifle shooting, but not recreational blowing stuff up with landmines?

And I'm not sure if that last paragraph is really true. My grandpa owns a taser, which is illegal here. He's owned it for many, many years and has never used it. It's "just lying there if he gets mad one day," but yet it's still illegal...hmm...and here I thought, according to you, banning assault weapons meant no one would have them anymore? Damn.

Where did your grandpa get his taser? Did he get it from criminals in a black market? No? He went to a neighboring state and got it? Hmm... I see how this applies to a nation-wide banning of assault rifles. Makes sense.

[WinterMute]

Guns belong in museums as a relic of a more violent society that we've left behind. They're not a symbol of freedom. Quite the opposite. They're a symbol of fear, violence, and inadequacy. If you feel the need to buy/own a weapon you're part of the problem.

Sorry andy, much as I'd like to live in this less violent society of the past I really don't think it exists.

Our society is violent, racist, sexist, capitalist and ugly, regardless of how many good people there are.

My point about the brick was not that it's the same as a gun, I was illustrating the easy approach to debate, i.e. the straw man...

My points about the AK47 still stand however, I see no difference between that and a handgun in trained hands.

[themoonisdown09]

And, by my argument, there is no difference with landmines, which no one here seems to defend. Why is that? Why can you understand recreational assault-rifle shooting, but not recreational blowing stuff up with landmines?

I haven't said anything about land mines because I don't think it has anything to do with the conversation. The discussion is about guns.

[leekohler]

Gun violence is common in bad neighborhoods because they are bought elsewhere. Imagine that all of the US banned them. Who would have them? Sure, criminals would, but this guy who was merely having a bad day, who never had the intention of going on a shooting spree, certainly wouldn't, at least not an assault rifle.

Lee, you surprise me. You'd fight tooth and nail to get the right of gays to marry each other, claiming that to not is a violation of one's freedom, yet the best idea you have for dealing with people who kill other, depriving them of EVERY freedom, is to lock away those who kill. That is madness. I don't know about you, but I'd happily give up the right to marriage if I could be assured that I wouldn't be gunned down while I was trying to do my job, or at least assured that my neighbor didn't have an AK-47.



WTF? I don't see any correlation between the two. See what ziggy said.

And you can never be assured you won't be gunned down, no matter how many laws you make. If you think that's possible, you're not living in reality.

[Peterkro]

Was that directed towards me? My point was that Macaddicttt sees a need for "hunting" guns, but not "assault" guns, when both are just as deadly, and the reasons for owning each are just as arbitrary. Sure, hunting guns have the added bonus of being able to be used for food, but they're used for recreation just as often, and so are assault weapons. If he's going to be for a gun ban, he should be consistent, and recognise that his parameters for allowing hunting guns, but not assault guns is arbitrary.

Yes it was directed at you,unfortunately several people posted before I could get it together. I was just trying to point out that there are many positions possible other than agin or for guns.

[Macaddicttt]

I'm not entirely thrilled by this argument. A brick (or any hard object really) can kill a human being, but guns are a significant difference in technology.

Yes, a well-trained man could kill dozens with any blunt object (read the annals of Miyamoto Musashi), a gun changes that equation, allowing a well-trained man to kill dozens at a distance and with a probably higher mortality rate.

You're correct in noting that the AK-47 is an outlier, it's far more dramatic a story when there's an "assault rifle" used, but many more are killed by cheap pistols.

Ultimately, the law will have to balance the rights of the 2nd Amendment crowd with the needs of society, and this is always going to be difficult. I'd argue that those who fear the gun shouldn't look for bans, but rather stricter enforcement of current laws and better system for licensing and background checks.

Cheap pistols should be outlawed as well. I'd like to see people who need a pistol to take out a deer, but can't use a rifle.

This wasn't just some guy who had a bad day and lost his temper. He had a history of violence, ex-girlfriends with restraining orders, a lot of guns and ammunition, had an extreme right-wing political viewpoint, and appears to have frequented white supremacy websites calling for violent overthrow of Obama's Zionist one-world government.

He appears to have been on a violent trajectory for quite some time now.

And had he not had access to an assault rifle, or a pistol, or any other gun that is made for the purpose of shooting another person, he would have done far less damage.

Was that directed towards me? My point was that Macaddicttt sees a need for "hunting" guns, but not "assault" guns, when both are just as deadly, and the reasons for owning each are just as arbitrary. Sure, hunting guns have the added bonus of being able to be used for food, but they're used for recreation just as often, and so are assault weapons. If he's going to be for a gun ban, he should be consistent, and recognise that his parameters for allowing hunting guns, but not assault guns is arbitrary.

By that logic, banning landmines is just as arbitrary, too.

But it's not arbitrary. If you're in a room with you and five other people, which gun could you use to take out all five before they got to you? A non-automatic rifle? A Baretta? An AK-47? You point a pistol at my head, I'm dead, and so are the other people in that room. You point a big rifle at my head, chances are slightly higher that it'd take a lot longer for that gun to be pointing at my head, and if it's not an automatic, potential victim #2 would have plenty of time to get potential victims #3-#5 to swarm the guy and keep it from being pointed at any other people's heads.

[ZiggyPastorius]

No relation to prohibition. You can't make assault rifles with minimum effort in you basement with household ingredients. Let's just make everything legal, right? Because if you outlaw anything, it'll be the same effect as prohibition: everyone will have one. We should have learned when as soon as landmines were outlawed, everyone and his uncle got one.

And the difference between recreational hunting and assault rifles is that you can't go nuts on people and spray bullets at anything that moves with a simple, non-automatic hunting rifle. Sure, I can still kill someone with it, but I can't indiscriminately mow down any police officer that sets foot on my property.

And, by my argument, there is no difference with landmines, which no one here seems to defend. Why is that? Why can you understand recreational assault-rifle shooting, but not recreational blowing stuff up with landmines?



Where did your grandpa get his taser? Did he get it from criminals in a black market? No? He went to a neighboring state and got it? Hmm... I see how this applies to a nation-wide banning of assault rifles. Makes sense.

This is a common counter-argument, and unfortunately, a bad one. You claim my argument is equivalent to "let's make everything legal because it will happen anyways." The difference is, you're advocating making the OWNERSHIP of a gun or the purchase of one, illegal. This makes anyone who wants to own a gun and not hurt someone or violate someone else's rights, a criminal. Just because I want guns to remain legal doesn't mean violating someone else's rights or killing someone should be legal, too, and that correlation is, unfortunately for you, overly-used and terribly flawed.

With the right training, you can do that with any gun. Hell, you can do it with a knife. If assault weapon violences just happened to occur right when a bunch of people are in a big line waiting to get shot, then this argument might have some validity.

I can.


He got it from a friend of his. Who cares where they get it. The whole point is that obtaining a gun for the sake of violence will happen regardless of whether it is illegal or not, but if it's made illegal all-around, then everyone who wants a gun becomes a criminal.

Yes it was directed at you,unfortunately several people posted before I could get it together. I was just trying to point out that there are many positions possible other than agin or for guns.

Yes, I get that. My comment was directed specifically at Macaddicttt's case and argument, and I hope my response-post to yours clears that up a bit.

[Macaddicttt]

WTF? I don't see any correlation between the two. See what ziggy said.

This is more of a private conversation, but if you don't see any disconnect between your rabid defense of one right, and your lackadaisical support of the ownership of instruments made with the explicit purpose of removing all rights from someone, then I just don't see how the conversation can progress.

[.Andy]

I own a gun. That means that I helped kill those cops. Fail.
You might not have killed the cops directly but you certainly vocally and physically contributed to a society for which civillian ownership of gun(s) is synthesised as a symbol of freedom and virtuous. This is the inevitable result as well as the multitude of other mass shootings you've had. Like I said, you're part of the problem. The whole paradigm of gun ownership needs to change in the US. Who knows what it will take for you to see the forest of the trees.

Sorry andy, much as I'd like to live in this less violent society of the past I really don't think it exists.
There's plenty of places in the world where one can live and have a quality of life equal to or exceeding the US where one isn't required to own guns for safety. There's no reason why this can't go for the whole of the US.

[themoonisdown09]

You might not have killed the cops directly but you certainly vocally and physically contributed to a society for which civillian ownership of gun(s) is synthesised as a symbol of freedom and virtuous. This is the inevitable result as well as the multitude of other mass shootings you've had. Like I said, you're part of the problem. The whole paradigm of gun ownership needs to change in the US. Who knows what it will take for you to see the forest of the trees.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at that. I guess I look at this a lot differently than you.

[ZiggyPastorius]

This is more of a private conversation, but if you don't see any disconnect between your rabid defense of one right, and your lackadaisical support of the ownership of instruments made with the explicit purpose of removing all rights from someone, then I just don't see how the conversation can progress.

Yawn. The reason he doesn't agree with it is because you're arguing from a false premise. In order for him to agree with that, he has to agree that assault weapons have no useful purpose besides killing people. All guns were designed for the purpose of killing "things," so let's just use semantics to formulate our arguments, shall we?

Anyways, time for work.

[hulugu]

...He appears to have been on a violent trajectory for quite some time now.

Very good point. These stories always include the "he was so nice, then he just went batsh*t insane" but after some momentary digging we always find a history of behavior that's chilling.

The VA Tech guy followed a similar trajectory and so did McVeigh.

Was that directed towards me? My point was that Macaddicttt sees a need for "hunting" guns, but not "assault" guns, when both are just as deadly, and the reasons for owning each are just as arbitrary. Sure, hunting guns have the added bonus of being able to be used for food, but they're used for recreation just as often, and so are assault weapons. If he's going to be for a gun ban, he should be consistent, and recognise that his parameters for allowing hunting guns, but not assault guns is arbitrary.

Well, "assault" rifles can be used for hunting, and the average hunting rifle is pretty good at killing a human being. Entire wars were fought using rifles as primitive as the flintlock, and the bolt-action rifle was used in WWII.

It's worth noting that in 1966, Charles Whitman killed 14 and wounded 32 others using a sawed-off shotgun, a bolt-action rifle, a M-1 carbine, and a pump rifle.

[Iscariot]

Firemen need to be able to haul unconscious humans out of burnin buildings, that takes muscle and fitness. Policemen need to be able to run quickly enough to catch drunkards on a Saturday night. (I jest).

Physically fit emergency workers (AND a general populace) are also extremely useful in natural disaster relief efforts. How many more lives could have been saved in Katrina if a higher level of physical fitness and competency had been observed?
That's interesting. The firefighters I know are always in very good shape, although you'll notice that fitness level declines as they move up the chain, police officers on the other hand gain weight almost immediately upon graduation from the academy. The problem for police officers, especially those assigned to cars, is they're sedentary for long periods interspersed with moments of stress.

One wonders what kind of changes could be made to the operation of firehouses and police stations that could help workers maintain their physical fitness without making their jobs more demanding.

[.Andy]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at that.
Are you laughing because you're uncomfortable reading it and/or unable to rebut? Mass shootings and gun crime come out of the essence of your society. To which everyone contributes. Even me. I want to see things differently in a way that doesn't contribute to the problem. i.e. solving violence with more violence. The root cause is always the best place to target for sustainable intervention.

[hulugu]

Physically fit emergency workers (AND a general populace) are also extremely useful in natural disaster relief efforts. How many more lives could have been saved in Katrina if a higher level of physical fitness and competency had been observed?

I'd say the bolded word is really the most important aspect. The problems in New Orleans were a result of poor-planning and even worse execution of emergency services, including FEMAs complete inability to manage the situation, at times exacerbating the problem.


One wonders what kind of changes could be made to the operation of firehouses and police stations that could help workers maintain their physical fitness without making their jobs more demanding.

I'm not sure. Currently, some cops are encouraged to work on bicycle patrols, but with a city as spread out as Tucson and with relatively few cops, the squad cars are a necessity to patrol their beats. This is a tough policy question for departments.

[themoonisdown09]

You're laughing because you're uncomfortable reading it and are unable to rebut. Mass shootings and gun crime come out of the essence of your society. To which everyone contributes. Even me.

I'm not uncomfortable reading that at all. I realize that there are a lot of sick people out there. I say that we should spend time fixing that before we think about guns.

Like people were saying, the guy that did this had a history. I think that this event could have been stopped if someone along the way took their time to help this man with the problems, rather than trying to ban the gun that he happened to use.

[.Andy]

I'm not uncomfortable reading that at all. I realize that there are a lot of sick people out there. I say that we should spend time fixing that before we think about guns.
You have been quite vocal about having guns and have money invested in them. So you've been active in that regard. What have you done/do you plan to do to help your society to address the problem of mental heath? Presumably if it's a greater problem and would be of greater benefit you have invested money and time in that arena too?

[mactastic]

And had he not had access to an assault rifle, or a pistol, or any other gun that is made for the purpose of shooting another person, he would have done far less damage.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he would have channeled his destructive energies into bombmaking, and this situation would have been worse. Who's to say?

The point is, this guy swallowed an extremist ideology that is only a hop, skip, and a jump from the stuff spouted everyday by Jabba the Nut, BillO, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and the like. Take a small hop to the right, and your in anti-government militia land. A skip from there, and you're in David Duke-ville. One jump from there, and you're hanging out at Stormfront, openly espousing overthrow of the government that's coming to take your guns and force you to interbreed between the races.

And it was this ideology that encouraged him to arm himself, and to kill the cops who were coming to take his guns away.

[themoonisdown09]

You have been quite vocal about having guns and have money invested in them. So you've been active in that regard. What have you done/do you plan to do to help your society to address the problem of mental heath? Presumably if it's a greater problem and would be of greater benefit you have invested money and time in that arena too?

The point I was trying to make is for people that are vocal about banning guns. Rather than try and do that, they should focus on the real problem.

[leekohler]

The point I was trying to make is for people that are vocal about banning guns. Rather than try and do that, they should focus on the real problem.

Agreed. It's the same issue that causes many of our other problems too.

[.Andy]

The point I was trying to make is for people that are vocal about banning guns. Rather than try and do that, they should focus on the real problem.
Who is being vocal about banning guns? I'm certainly not. The horse has already bolted in that regard. You've got the wartime bodycount of your fellow civillians to prove it.

My point is that by buying guns and continuing to confound them with freedom and virtue that you're being part of the problem. You've illustrated this well. When it comes to the spectre of crime you're more than willing to spend your cash on weapons. However when it comes to the problem of mental health (and all the issues that contribute to crime - poverty, education, equity in healthcare) you appear less than willing to invest your money which would have more tangible benefit. What do you think would happen if the US population instead invested their weapons and firearms budget into the medical system and research into mental health?

If you've identified the "real" problem surely it's your job to be an advocate and lead by example without palming off responsibility to an anonymous "they"...

[themoonisdown09]

If you've identified the "real" problem surely it's your job to be an advocate and lead by example without palming off responsibility to an anonymous "they"...

I currently don't know anyone with enough problems that would take a gun and start shooting people. When I do come across a friend that is showing signs of this, I will for sure take a stand and make sure that they get help.

[leekohler]

Who is being vocal about banning guns? I'm certainly not. The horse has already bolted in that regard. You've got the wartime bodycount of your fellow civillians to prove it.

My point is that by buying guns and continuing to confound them with freedom and virtue that you're being part of the problem. You've illustrated this well. When it comes to the spectre of crime you're more than willing to spend your cash on weapons. However when it comes to the problem of mental health (and all the issues that contribute to crime - poverty, education, equity in healthcare) you appear less than willing to invest your money which would have more tangible benefit. What do you think would happen if the US population instead invested their weapons and firearms budget into the medical system and research into mental health?

If you've identified the "real" problem surely it's your job to be an advocate and lead by example without palming off responsibility to an anonymous "they"...

Many of us are more than happy to see money put into mental health issues. Unfortunately, it's been politicized along with universal health care. We can only do what we are able as individuals. It would be awfully nice to see mental health addressed in a meaningful way in our society. Sadly, that is not the case.

[Iscariot]

I'd say the bolded word is really the most important aspect. The problems in New Orleans were a result of poor-planning and even worse execution of emergency services, including FEMAs complete inability to manage the situation, at times exacerbating the problem.

Physical competency is often overlooked in the name of physical fitness. Being strong and being able to use that strength dynamically are two different things.
I'm not sure. Currently, some cops are encouraged to work on bicycle patrols, but with a city as spread out as Tucson and with relatively few cops, the squad cars are a necessity to patrol their beats. This is a tough policy question for departments.

I have some ideas, but I'm not a police officer. It's something I'd like to see studied: can a physically fit officer accomplish more police work in 7 hours than an overweight officer in eight? It might be beneficial, then, to have compulsory daily exercise in exchange for less hours spent on the beat. I'm sure there is some way to leverage fitness for a net gain, and when that gain is the health and safety of the officers who put their lives on the line, it really ought to be investigated.

[Shivetya]

We will lose many times more people to car wrecks, specifically teenagers, yet where is the outrage there?

Most deaths by guns in the US are suicides. I wonder how they would "go out" without guns? I guess falling on a knife is too hard.

More people will die from drunk driving than will be killed those who misuse firearms in any given year.

As for removing guns reduces crime, Washington DC which has/had some of the strictest rules has the highest gun death rate per 1000. Violence against women and the elderly increased as well.

The problem is that we have so many indicators as to people who are not fit to drive or own a gun yet when society tries to impose limits on these activities too many have a hissy fit. Too many are ready to jump to the courts to prevent those unfit from being allowed what fit people are allowed.

Yes the deaths are not excusable but even countries with strict limits we get stories of lunatics who do the reprehensible. It really comes down to figuring out what makes these people tick, identifying it early, and doing something about it.

Considering the number of guns in the US the rate of misuse is very low. That is why they make big news when they are misused. Thank goodness it still is big news when it happens. I would hate to think it is common place.

For a nation so wrapped up in race as well the majority of gun crimes are versus one's own race. Whites kill less blacks than vica versa but breaking out who is "white" one week from the next is difficult even with government numbers

[Shivetya]

Physical competency is often overlooked in the name of physical fitness. Being strong and being able to use that strength dynamically are two different things.


I have some ideas, but I'm not a police officer. It's something I'd like to see studied: can a physically fit officer accomplish more police work in 7 hours than an overweight officer in eight? It might be beneficial, then, to have compulsory daily exercise in exchange for less hours spent on the beat. I'm sure there is some way to leverage fitness for a net gain, and when that gain is the health and safety of the officers who put their lives on the line, it really ought to be investigated.

We have physical fitness standards where I am at, however there are many exceptions which include age, sex, and in some cases medical (like obesity being defined as a disability)

[bbotte]

When the zombies come, you will wish there was no law....

[Rt&Dzine]

Gun carrying laws should be more laxed for law-abiding people who go through a process, training, and testing.

Aren't most of the pro-gun people against having more restrictions like testing, registering, wait periods, etc.?

[leekohler]

Aren't most of the pro-gun people against having more restrictions like testing, registering, wait periods, etc.?

Not at all. Not me anyway.

[themoonisdown09]

Aren't most of the pro-gun people against having more restrictions like testing, registering, wait periods, etc.?

I'm all for more paper work, registrations, etc. It's not like I'm in a huge hurry when I'm trying to get a new gun.

[Sun Baked]

Not really a big against assault rifle restrictions either, heck some of the hunting rifles are more powerful if limited in the rate you can cycle through cases of ammo.

If you really wanted you can really make it tough on people with body armor with a simple 50 caliber pistol and/or a shotgun firing slugs.

---

The assault rifle restrictions are a political move that wouldn't be too unexpected with the recent events or the Mexican Cartel's war.

[KingYaba]

Aren't most of the pro-gun people against having more restrictions like testing, registering, wait periods, etc.?

The key word in his sentence is gun carying. And yes most "pro-gun" people are against more restrictions because they, as I, feel they are not needed.

It should be noted that Mr. Poplawski was discharged from the military. I'm going to go on a limb and throw out the possibility that he was dishonorably discharged for this incident:

Margaret Poplawski told police her son had enlisted in the Marine Corps a few years ago, but was discharged for assaulting his drill sergeant in basic training, according to the complaint link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/05/pittsburgh.officers.shot.dog/index.html)

Now, I'd like CNN or actually find out for a fact what happened. Was he dishonorably discharged or was he discharged under less than honorable circumstances? I also want to know if he purchased this firearm from a federally licensed dealer or a private sale. I guess I won't get my answers. The point of reporting these crimes is to stir up emotion.

g.) Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

[hulugu]

... What do you think would happen if the US population instead invested their weapons and firearms budget into the medical system and research into mental health?...

We'd have the right to bear MRIs.

[Delta608]

I wasn't knocking you down. Merely showing the lunacy of saying, "Well of course landmines are illegal, but you can't take away my AK-47."

No one can tell me that owning an AK-47 is more legitimate than owning a landmine.





No one has to tell you anything...A land mine is not "arms" ...The constitution is specific regarding arms as it is your right to make your dribble unlawful...We both dont have to like it...

[hulugu]

No one has to tell you anything...A land mine is not "arms"...

Well, considering the Bill of Rights is rather vague on this subject, why do you think a land mine is not an "arm?"

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.

[leekohler]

Well, considering the Bill of Rights is rather vague on this subject, why do you think a land mine is not an "arm?"

Wouldn't it be considered a concealed weapon in the truest sense? Wouldn't that automatically make it illegal?

[big_malk]

If someone really wants to premeditatedly kill people, any law isn't really going to stop them. The argument that if guns were illegal people could still get them, so they might as well be legal, makes as much sense as saying 'you might as well just make murder legal', it'll happen anyway, right?

Arguing that cars are just as dangerous doesn't hold much weight anyway, cars have a valuable purpose, society just couldn't continue as it is without them. Guns aren't nearly as important, as many of you have said, their for fun.

What about kids who take their parents guns to school and kill people who bully them etc?
If their parents didn’t have guns, could a child really get their hands on them? Maybe. Maybe their parents would have a gun anyway, but probably not.

Just think, if it was you, or your friend, or someone in your family who was killed by a killing spree. If even just that single killing spree hadn't happened because guns were illegal, would you still honestly say it was worth those deaths, so you could own a gun?

Even if guns had to be held in secure locations, like at guns ranges or hunting parks, if it saved lives, wouldn't it be worth it? Sure, some killings would still happen, but wouldn’t it be worth it even if it only saved a few lives each year?

[hulugu]

Wouldn't it be considered a concealed weapon in the truest sense? Wouldn't that automatically make it illegal?

What if you put up a "Warning Land Mines!" sign?

[Tomorrow]

What if you put up a "Warning Land Mines!" sign?

My parents actually have one of these from when we lived in Guantanamo years ago. The base sold them as souvenirs so that people wouldn't take them off the barbed wire separating us from the real mine fields.

[Desertrat]

Harking back to the question about the source of the comment about accidental deaths in hospitals due to the medical profession (doctors and nurses, both): The number of around 100,000 was first published some years back in the New England Journal of Medicine. As I recall, it included wrong medications, missed diagnoses and oopsies during surgeries.

There is no known way for any sort of controls on any acquisition of firearms to prevent misuse of a firearm. The purest of hearts can fill out reams of paperwork and meet all standards of skill and ability--and someday go totally nutzoidal.

The public at large tends to see any serious effort at gun control as a direct threat of a right. That shows in voting at the ballot box, and in voting with their billfolds. Ever since Clinton got the assault weapons ban passed, firearms sales have been at an increased level. The long term average of five million per year took an approximately eighty percent jump in 2008. NICS checks through October were some 7.8 million, with over a million logged during November. I've not seen the numbers for December. Sales are still way high, and ammo is almost unobtainable. Obama has been wonderful for the firearms/ammo industry.

Further, self-defense training classes are being booked into late 2010, where a year or so back a six-month wait was more typical. These classes are themselves of a growth industry.

'Rat

[EricNau]

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.
That's a false analogy. Doctors provide life-saving services, whereas guns provide no life-saving utility in relation to accidental deaths.

So, of those 120,000 annual accidental deaths via physician, how many would have died without immediate medical interference anyway? ...In the absence of all physicians, how many more people would die as a result of illness or injury? ...You could prevent accidental deaths by removing the right of physicians to practice, but the result would be catastrophic and result in even more deaths.

In the absence of all guns, how many accidental deaths would still occur in the same manner?

[dukebound85]

If someone really wants to premeditatedly kill people, any law isn't really going to stop them. The argument that if guns were illegal people could still get them, so they might as well be legal, makes as much sense as saying 'you might as well just make murder legal', it'll happen anyway, right?

Arguing that cars are just as dangerous doesn't hold much weight anyway, cars have a valuable purpose, society just couldn't continue as it is without them. Guns aren't nearly as important, as many of you have said, their for fun.

What about kids who take their parents guns to school and kill people who bully them etc?
If their parents didn’t have guns, could a child really get their hands on them? Maybe. Maybe their parents would have a gun anyway, but probably not.

Just think, if it was you, or your friend, or someone in your family who was killed by a killing spree. If even just that single killing spree hadn't happened because guns were illegal, would you still honestly say it was worth those deaths, so you could own a gun?

Even if guns had to be held in secure locations, like at guns ranges or hunting parks, if it saved lives, wouldn't it be worth it? Sure, some killings would still happen, but wouldn’t it be worth it even if it only saved a few lives each year?
i find it funny on these forums people predominantly want to legalize pot yet at the same time, many on this forum want to take away my rights to have guns

[Tomorrow]

That's a false analogy. Doctors provide life-saving services, whereas guns provide no life-saving utility in relation to accidental deaths.

Wrong again. Many a robbery, break-in, rape, or assault has been thwarted because someone was carrying.

Here in Texas, many people think twice before crossing someone - there are a lot of CHL's here, you never know when the person you're about to p**s off is carrying.

[EricNau]

Wrong again. Many a robbery, break-in, rape, or assault has been thwarted because someone was carrying.

Here in Texas, many people think twice before crossing someone - there are a lot of CHL's here, you never know when the person you're about to p**s off is carrying.
Again? Where are my other false statements?

In any case, you must not have read the original analogy, which was a direct comparison of accidental deaths by physician to those of accidental deaths by gun. The events to which you refer are completely unrelated and irrelevant to my statement.

[NT1440]

i find it funny on these forums people predominantly want to legalize pot yet at the same time, many on this forum want to take away my rights to have guns

I find it funny that people can't seem to notice a definite difference in completely different issues....

[Desertrat]

Per the Center For Disease Control, accidental deaths involving firearms average about 1,000 per year. For children 14 and under, it's about 100 per year.

Several school shooters or would-be school shooters were stopped by teachers who were able to go to a car and retrieve a personal firearm.

Carry permits bring a measure of uncertainty to the minds of would-be robbers and muggers. It was noted in Florida that after the passage of their concealed carry law, the patterns of crime changed. For instance, there was an increase in car-jackings of rental units, particularly from airports. Interviews with arrestees brought out that they knew tourists coming in via air flight would not be armed. Locals might be armed. There was an increase at that time of robberies at roadside rest stops, with the same reasons given. Robberies of taxicabs declined, as did muggings.

"Gun control is the idea that it is more moral that a woman be raped and murdered than for her to have the means to defend herself." Don't believe me? Go to http://www.corneredcat.com and see what Kathy has to say. Some years back, she was pretty much anti-gun.

Another lady with rather storng view is Tamara at http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/ whose Monday, April 6th comments are pertinent. She's referring to this commentary: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDVjOTMzNWVkODdmMWEyZGE4ZmUzMDJlNGFkZTEwNDA=

Somebody explain to me how I'm supposed to be able to depend on law enforcement for my personal security?

I have the sole responsibility for my personal survival. Each and every individual who has posted here lives in that same circumstance.

'Rat

[dukebound85]

I find it funny that people can't seem to notice a definite difference in completely different issues....

theres more similiarities than you think but with opposite effects:rolleyes:

[NT1440]

theres more similiarities than you think but with opposite effects:rolleyes:

Just in how people approach the issue, the issues themselves are entirely different.

[big_malk]

i find it funny on these forums people predominantly want to legalize pot yet at the same time, many on this forum want to take away my rights to have guns

I don't really see the connection, ignoring the arguments for/against cannabis at worst it harms the user and perhaps a passive smoker, guns kill other innocent people, and perhaps the user.

Wrong again. Many a robbery, break-in, rape, or assault has been thwarted because someone was carrying.

Here in Texas, many people think twice before crossing someone - there are a lot of CHL's here, you never know when the person you're about to p**s off is carrying.

Perhaps some assaults and rapes were prevented by guns, which people would argue may or may not be 'reasonable force' as self defence. But as you point out 'you never know when the person you're about to p**s off is carrying', is someone p*ssing me off really justification for shooting them?
Do people in Texas wander about in fear of annoying people, in case they suddenly find a bullet in their head?

[EricNau]

I said it once before, and I'll say it again:

Guns aren't the problem in the US; it's the people. We've failed. All of us, as a society are to blame.

The solution no longer lies with gun control; either banning guns altogether or making ownership laws less strict, it doesn't matter. There are other countries with extremely lax gun laws with extremely low violence rates, and likewise, there are countries with extremely strict gun laws with extremely low violence rates. However, for the US, it's too late for that debate.

Our crime rate is pathetic, after all, what's the universal argument in defense of gun ownership: we don't feel safe in our own homes. In comparison to other countries, our homicide and incarceration rates are appalling. We have to get the the root of the problem: us.

So you all can argue about gun laws all you want, but that ship has sailed, and we all missed the boat.

[NT1440]

I said it once before, and I'll say it again:

Guns aren't the problem in the US; it's the people. We've failed. All of us, as a society are to blame.

The solution no longer lies with gun control; either banning guns altogether or making ownership laws less strict, it doesn't matter. There are other countries with extremely lax gun laws with extremely low violence rates, and likewise, there are countries with extremely strict gun laws with extremely low violence rates. However, for the US, it's too late for that debate.

Our crime rate is pathetic, after all, what's the universal argument in defense of gun ownership: we don't feel safe in our own homes. In comparison to other countries, our homicide and incarceration rates are appalling. We have to get the the root of the problem: us.

So you all can argue about gun laws all you want, but that ship has sailed, and we all missed the boat.
But what can we do?

[Tomorrow]

Do people in Texas wander about in fear of annoying people, in case they suddenly find a bullet in their head?

I wouldn't say it's "fear" - I would say it's more along the line of common sense. For the sake of example:

Someone cuts you off in traffic. You decide to confront him, so you follow him, eventually stopping in the parking lot of the same hardware store as he. You step out of your car and walk toward him in his car. He has no idea why a stranger is approaching his car with a scowl on his face.

Now, does he have a gun or doesn't he?

My point is that many of us here err on the side of caution and assume he does, so we don't follow him in the first place.

[big_malk]

I said it once before, and I'll say it again:

Guns aren't the problem in the US; it's the people. We've failed. All of us, as a society are to blame.

The solution no longer lies with gun control; either banning guns altogether or making ownership laws less strict, it doesn't matter. There are other countries with extremely lax gun laws with extremely low violence rates, and likewise, there are countries with extremely strict gun laws with extremely low violence rates. However, for the US, it's too late for that debate.

Our crime rate is pathetic, after all, what's the universal argument in defense of gun ownership: we don't feel safe in our own homes. In comparison to other countries, our homicide and incarceration rates are appalling. We have to get the the root of the problem: us.

So you all can argue about gun laws all you want, but that ship has sailed, and we all missed the boat.

I don't want to pass judgement on the people of a country I've never been to, but that sounds about right.
In britain there's a shocking knife crime among kids in some areas. The more knife crime there is, the more kids carry knifes for 'protection', but the more knifes they carry, not surprisingly, the more knife crimes there are. I'd hate to see the damage they would do to each other, and people who annoy them, if guns were easily available to them.

[big_malk]

I wouldn't say it's "fear" - I would say it's more along the line of common sense. For the sake of example:

Someone cuts you off in traffic. You decide to confront him, so you follow him, eventually stopping in the parking lot of the same hardware store as he. You step out of your car and walk toward him in his car. He has no idea why a stranger is approaching his car with a scowl on his face.

Now, does he have a gun or doesn't he?

My point is that many of us here err on the side of caution and assume he does, so we don't follow him in the first place.

I'd rather live in a country where I'd feel safe to say to someone if I thought they'd wronged me or driven badly, without assuming they might kill me for it.

Fear of death is hardly the best way to decide whether to tell someone they just cut you up on the road or not.

[dukebound85]

Fear of death is hardly the best way to decide whether to tell someone they just cut you up on the road or not.

if one needs to really go tell someone that they cut them off, then they shouldnt be driving a car. i mean no good can come of it

theres nothing that can change it

[Rt&Dzine]

In britain there's a shocking knife crime among kids in some areas. The more knife crime there is, the more kids carry knifes for 'protection', but the more knifes they carry, not surprisingly, the more knife crimes there are. I'd hate to see the damage they would do to each other, and people who annoy them, if guns were easily available to them.

That's what I'm thinking. I'll have to get a gun to protect myself from the people running around with guns to protect themselves from the criminals. Double threat: from the criminals and the vigilantes.

p.s. We do have a rifle but it's not easy to carry around.

EDIT: After reading further in this thread I have to change my Double Threat to Triple Threat: from the criminals, the vigilantes, and myself (or family).

[big_malk]

if one needs to really go tell someone that they cut them off, then they shouldnt be driving a car. i mean no good can come of it

theres nothing that can change it

Maybe not, but if you think about people arguing for whatever reason (road rage just being one example), should those people really have to fear for their lives, incase the other gets too annoyed and kills them?

He has no idea why a stranger is approaching his car with a scowl on his face.

Now, does he have a gun or doesn't he?

If I should have be in fear to either walk towards someone with a scowl on my face, or have someone walk towards me with a scowl on their face, incase they have a gun... that's enough of a reason to not allow people to freely carry guns.
In a civilised country, there's no excuse for citizens living in fear.

[dukebound85]

Maybe not, but if you think about people arguing for whatever reason (road rage just being one example), should those people really have to fear for their lives, incase the other gets too annoyed and kills them?



If I should have be in fear to either walk towards someone with a scowl on my face, or have someone walk towards me with a scowl on their face, incase they have a gun... that's enough of a reason to not allow people to freely carry guns.
In a civilised country, there's no excuse for citizens living in fear.

usually the person that commits the cause for someone's road rage isnt the one you are worried about in terms of starting violence....its the one who makes it a point to confront the guy who cut him off

[FX120]

You might not have killed the cops directly but you certainly vocally and physically contributed to a society for which civillian ownership of gun(s) is synthesised as a symbol of freedom and virtuous. This is the inevitable result as well as the multitude of other mass shootings you've had. Like I said, you're part of the problem. The whole paradigm of gun ownership needs to change in the US. Who knows what it will take for you to see the forest of the trees.By this logic, anyone who has every purchased or consumed alcohol has contributed to everyone killed as a result of an intoxicated driver, which in 2005 was just shy of 17,000 people killed.

There's plenty of places in the world where one can live and have a quality of life equal to or exceeding the US where one isn't required to own guns for safety. There's no reason why this can't go for the whole of the US.And there are plenty of places in the world that gun ownership is well accepted, and yet isn't plagued with the sorts of crimes and horrific acts that occasionally occur inside the US.

I find it funny that no one made a similar post after the Oakland incident, which ironically happed in California, where assault weapons are not only outlawed, but the lunatic also had a prior criminal record of violent felonies, which would have prohibited him from owning firearms in ANY state, and yet he still managed to get a hold of several firarms, including a dreaded "assault rifle".

Of course, the whole idea that the AK-47 pattern rifles available in the US are so horrible is laughable considering the availability of much more lethal rifles, which are not classified as "assualt" rifles, are also available in the US, yet never come under the same attack.

Hell with a little bit of training, a Winchester Model 1875 lever action rifle, can be just as lethal, and just as fast firing as the dreaded AK-47.

The point being that while this whole incident is unfortunate, the AK-47 isn't what enabled it to happen. It could have been any weapon, even something as "innocent" as a pump-action shotgun, or as horrific as a home-made pipe bomb.

There are sporting purposes for "assault" rifles, I participate in several, in the shooting world it's known as action shooting, where you have a limited ammount of time to shoot multiple targets at varying range, from provided cover. It's great fun, and completley safe.

[Tomorrow]

I'd rather live in a country where I'd feel safe to say to someone if I thought they'd wronged me or driven badly, without assuming they might kill me for it.

And I enjoy living in a country where people don't approach me if they think I cut them off.


If I should have be in fear to either walk towards someone with a scowl on my face, or have someone walk towards me with a scowl on their face, incase they have a gun... that's enough of a reason to not allow people to freely carry guns.

No, you're missing the point - it's reason enough to stay in your car and mind your own damn business.

In a civilised country, there's no excuse for citizens living in fear.

I don't live in fear. I also don't own a gun. I just mind my own business and expect others to do the same.

[EricNau]

But what can we do?
Education. Education. Education.

It's the most undervalued aspect of today's society, and yet, unequivocally the most important. Every aspect of this country's future is dependent upon the emphasis placed on education today.


Just a quick expert from a University of California, Davis study (http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/gunconf.html):
Compared with areas of low criminal gun activity, those with high activity were more densely populated, had higher unemployment rates and had many younger residents, more single parents, higher residential vacancy rates, lower housing values and rental rates, fewer high-school graduates, more residents receiving public assistance and more single mothers living below the poverty line.

[leekohler]

Education. Education. Education.

It's the most undervalued aspect of today's society, and yet, unequivocally the most important. Every aspect of this country's future is dependent upon the emphasis placed on education today.


Just a quick expert from a University of California, Davis study (http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/gunconf.html):
Compared with areas of low criminal gun activity, those with high activity were more densely populated, had higher unemployment rates and had many younger residents, more single parents, higher residential vacancy rates, lower housing values and rental rates, fewer high-school graduates, more residents receiving public assistance and more single mothers living below the poverty line.

I could not agree more.

[NT1440]

Education. Education. Education.

It's the most undervalued aspect of today's society, and yet, unequivocally the most important. Every aspect of this country's future is dependent upon the emphasis placed on education today.


Just a quick expert from a University of California, Davis study (http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/gunconf.html):
Compared with areas of low criminal gun activity, those with high activity were more densely populated, had higher unemployment rates and had many younger residents, more single parents, higher residential vacancy rates, lower housing values and rental rates, fewer high-school graduates, more residents receiving public assistance and more single mothers living below the poverty line.

:o

I should have mentioned my question was purely rhetorical. Of course PROPER education is the answer, as it is with many problems in the world. In fact I think you and I had a little back and forth on this in another thread.

Will it solve all problems? No, of course not, it would be foolish to think so.

Will it DRASTICALLY help? Hell yes.

[Desertrat]

I've watched a lot of changes in behavior through the decades. I started elementary school in 1941. It was common for kids in that age group to have BB guns, and have access to .22 rifles when visiting relatives on farms or ranches. I had my first .22 rifle of my very own at age 12.

Most of us kids had a pocketknife, all the time we were outdoors and "naturally" at school. At recess or lunch period, we'd sometimes whittle on sticks or play "mumblety peg". Any schoolyard fights were strictly one-on-one fistfights, with onlookers ready to stop anything seen as unfair.

Austin, Texas, was about 110,000 people when the war ended. Looking back, I vaguely recall one incidence of an accidental hit from a .22 rifle, somewhere out in the country. Absolutely zero violent crimes in any of the junior high schools or in the high school.

Not very many people ever really thought about personal self-defense, and handguns were not really all that common among most adults. Lots of deer hunters and bird hunters, but very little pistol shooting.

I boomed around the world for about a dozen years and returned to Austin in 1963. I began hearing of inter-highschool fights between groups, and even groups-on-one. We had the Charles Whitman thing in August of 1966, with citizen rifle fire responsible for making it possible for the police to get out onto the tower's observation deck and deal with him.

Then the murders of JFK, RFL and MLK and the rise of gun control efforts on a grand scale. Since 1968 we've had law after law after law passed, with ongoing increases in violence and violent crime. Guns have been ever harder to acquire legally*, but the crime rate with firearms has only varied with the demographics of age: When there are fewer males between 16 and 25, the rate of violence decreases.

Probably the only real way to significantly reduce the amount of violence involving firearms would be legalization of some drugs, reducing the turf wars among sellers and reducing the muggings and robberies to acquire the money with which to purchase black market drugs.

But there is no way of preventing insanity.

'Rat

* Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, the postman would deliver your handgun, rifle or shotgun to your door, purchased by mail order from anywhere else in the country. Sears & Roebuck, among other gun sellers.

[iBlue]

And the difference between recreational hunting and assault rifles is that you can't go nuts on people and spray bullets at anything that moves with a simple, non-automatic hunting rifle. Sure, I can still kill someone with it, but I can't indiscriminately mow down any police officer that sets foot on my property.

And, by my argument, there is no difference with landmines, which no one here seems to defend. Why is that? Why can you understand recreational assault-rifle shooting, but not recreational blowing stuff up with landmines?

You do realize that when people are defending right to own firearms that the reference is for legally owning them. As far as I know there is NO fully automatic weapon which is legal in the hands of a civilian, except in VERY VERY rare circumstances, and those people are not exactly the murderous rampage type. The legal AK's (such as my own) are/were SEMI auto, just like a huge amount of other guns out there.

And I imagine no one is defending your landmine argument because it's a very flawed analogy. Besides, they'd make lousy collectibles.

We'd have the right to bear MRIs.
:D Not with rogue shrapnel you don't!

i find it funny on these forums people predominantly want to legalize pot yet at the same time, many on this forum want to take away my rights to have guns
Even though the issues are entirely different, some of us think that LESS government legislation is better in general. So in that way I suppose there is a correlation. Gun people may not care about the plight of pot, but one day when the government comes knocking on their door a gun person may wish they had stepped up for the rights of ALL and not just their own personal interests, and vice versa. The bigger picture is begging to be seen and all of our personal freedoms depend on it.

[big_malk]

And I enjoy living in a country where people don't approach me if they think I cut them off.

No, you're missing the point - it's reason enough to stay in your car and mind your own damn business.

I don't live in fear. I also don't own a gun. I just mind my own business and expect others to do the same.

I think your missing my point, I haven't and probably will never see anyone get out their car to moan about stuff like that, but it isn't a fear of guns that stops us.

[themoonisdown09]

But what can we do?

Don't go around shooting people.

[Desertrat]

Road rage violence is news because it's uncommon and exciting, so it sells media ads.

Land mines? The usual irrelevant red herring.

Those who don't like guns probably shouldn't bother owning one.

FWIW: The mass-murder record before Charley Whitman was achieved via an axe; 13 in one night. We had Richard Speck and his hunting knife, scoring seven dead nurses. The U.S. record for single-even murder was something like 84 dead--via a can of gasoline into a crowded nightclub in NYC.

If only one percent of the US population is nutzoidal, that's over three million crackpots. Gasoline, knives, clubs, diesel + fertilizer, all manner of means of implementation of harm beside firearms.

Hey, be careful out there. And don't upset your significant other.

'Rat

[big_malk]

Road rage violence is news because it's uncommon and exciting, so it sells media ads.

Land mines? The usual irrelevant red herring.

Those who don't like guns probably shouldn't bother owning one.

FWIW: The mass-murder record before Charley Whitman was achieved via an axe; 13 in one night. We had Richard Speck and his hunting knife, scoring seven dead nurses. The U.S. record for single-even murder was something like 84 dead--via a can of gasoline into a crowded nightclub in NYC.

If only one percent of the US population is nutzoidal, that's over three million crackpots. Gasoline, knives, clubs, diesel + fertilizer, all manner of means of implementation of harm beside firearms.

Hey, be careful out there. And don't upset your significant other.

'Rat

Pretty much anything can be used to kill someone, but your list 'Gasoline, knives, clubs, diesel + fertilizer', they all have useful purposes other than killing things (depending on the type of knife).
And even knifes that are designed for killing, guns make it easier to kill from a distance, and harder to disarm the person without getting killed trying.

Just because some people will always find a way to kill people, is not argument for making the most effective weapons commonly available. Quite the opposite.

[r.j.s]

Now, I'd like CNN or actually find out for a fact what happened. Was he dishonorably discharged or was he discharged under less than honorable circumstances? I also want to know if he purchased this firearm from a federally licensed dealer or a private sale. I guess I won't get my answers. The point of reporting these crimes is to stir up emotion.

g.) Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

In this case, it was probably either Under Less Than Honorable Conditions or a General Discharge ...

[.Andy]

By this logic, anyone who has every purchased or consumed alcohol has contributed to everyone killed as a result of an intoxicated driver, which in 2005 was just shy of 17,000 people killed.
You need to read what you quoted again. This would only follow "my logic" if drunk driving was encouraged and lauded as virtuous and an issue of freedom.

[r.j.s]

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/pittsburgh_shooting;_ylt=An7hcsp2Zb2IbqQyQqXzeqhG2ocA)

PITTSBURGH – Three police officers killed while answering a call about a woman fighting with her son didn't know the man had weapons, but a 911 operator did. She just didn't tell anyone.
The operator, who was hired in November, should have asked for more information and didn't relay even the basic information she had to police dispatchers, the official in charge of county dispatchers said. She is now on paid administrative leave and is receiving counseling because supervisors are concerned about her well-being.
The three officers killed Saturday morning will lie in state at the City-County Building on Wednesday, and all three will be honored at a memorial service Thursday. Richard Poplawski, 22, is jailed on a suicide watch without bond on criminal homicide, attempted homicide and other charges.
Robert Full, Allegheny County Chief of Emergency Services, said the 911 operator is too distraught to be interviewed, so officials don't fully understand why she didn't press for more information about the guns. She apparently inferred the weapons weren't a factor because her conversation with the mother was casual and because Poplawski didn't report being threatened, he said.
"If we were told there were weapons in the house, we should have told that to the police officers," Full said.
When officers arrived at the house, Margaret Poplawski opened the door for them. She later told police that she didn't know that her 22-year-old son was standing behind her with a gun.
Police say Richard Poplawski shot officer Paul Sciullo II, 37, in the home and officer Stephen Mayhle, 29, on the front stoop within seconds. He then shot officer Eric Kelly, 41, in the street as he arrived to back them up, prompting a four-hour siege and gun battle with police, authorities said.
Poplawski was wearing a bulletproof vest and was armed with a variety of weapons, including an AK-47 assault rifle, although police have declined to say what kind of weapon he used to kill the officers.
He is also charged with firing into two neighboring homes, injuring nobody, and at nine other police officers, including one who was wounded as he tended to Kelly.
Poplawski faces an April 17 preliminary hearing. His public defender has declined to discuss the case.
An expert on 911 procedures told The Associated Press that dispatchers generally should relay as much unfiltered information to police as possible.
"Never send a response unit to any dangerous or potentially dangerous situation without some advisory about weapons," said Bob Smith, director of strategic development for the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International, based in Daytona Beach, Fla.
Smith wouldn't comment specifically on the Pittsburgh shooting, but he said dispatchers should try to find out if weapons are present, if they are being used, what type they are and where they are located.
"Even if (the weapon) is just available ... we provide that information to responders," he said. "There's no such thing as too much information."
According to a recording of Saturday morning's call played for reporters, Margaret Poplawski sounded impatient as she asked for police to come take her son out of the house.
"Are you moving or what?" she asks.
"Does he have any weapons or anything?" the 911 operator asked.
"Yes," the mother said. After a long pause, she added, "They're all legal."
"OK, but he's not threatening you with anything?" the operator said.
Without answering, Margaret Poplawski mother said, "Look, I'm just waking up from a sleep. I want him gone."
"OK, we'll send 'em over, OK?" the operator said.
"Sounds good," the mother said, as the call ends.
County council's Public Safety committee plans to meet next week to review 911 policies to "have a better understanding of how and why this happened," Councilman Jim Burn said Tuesday.
Thursday's memorial service will be held at the Petersen Events Center at the University of Pittsburgh. The 12,000-seat basketball arena was chosen because authorities expect police and other dignitaries from around the country to attend.
City Councilman Jim Motznik on Monday said he and his fellow officials were at a loss to say anything meaningful to the slain officers' families.
"What can you say? We offer our services any way we can to assist the families," he said. "But the one thing that they want is their loved ones back, is something that we can't provide."
(This version CORRECTS shooting suspect's age to 22.)

[NT1440]

Don't go around shooting people.

My god! Why didnt anyone think of this before!?

[r.j.s]

My god! Why didnt anyone think of this before!?

Because common sense died a long time ago.

A Eulogy (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:An_eulogy_for_common_sense_and_responsibility)

[Desertrat]

Competent 911 operators are not all that easy to find. Some of them are fantastically good at the job. Handle panic-stricken callers quite professionally. There is that percentage that just can't do the job. And you'll never know which one takes your call.

big_malk, your comment, "Just because some people will always find a way to kill people, is not argument for making the most effective weapons commonly available." just isn't germane to the issue of self-defense. When you have to defend yourself against gratuitous violence from some competent source, you absolutely want the most effective weapon possible. A loud scream just doesn't do the job. (Realize of course that the availabilty of a gun does not necessarily mandate its use. It's just another form of insurance against Bad Things.)

The odds against need for deadly force in self defense are very, very high. The problem is that the stakes are even higher. This is not some "You bet your life" TV show where nobody ever really loses anything.

'Rat

[Iscariot]

The odds against need for deadly force in self defense are very, very high. The problem is that the stakes are even higher. This is not some "You bet your life" TV show where nobody ever really loses anything.

The stakes are even higher if the engines on a commercial flight fail. Do you always pack your parachute? Roll cage installed in your car? Moat around your house, which is then on stilts in case of a flood? Panic room in every closet? Bulletproof vest on under your coat? Fish in an Ursus Mark VI? Life jacket when it rains? Or are you only interested in the kind of fear response that makes you look macho? Can't pew-pew an earthquake like John Wayne, am I right?

"The stakes are high" is the height of absurdity. The stakes are way higher every time you get behind the wheel of a car. The stakes are higher when you catch the flu. The stakes are higher if you keep eating one donut too many.

[FX120]

You need to read what you quoted again. This would only follow "my logic" if drunk driving was encouraged and lauded as virtuous and an issue of freedom.

I can't recall the murder of police being encouraged, even by the most extreme pro-gun rights activists.

The right to consume alcohol, while it may not be a hot topic of today, if you go back to the prohibition years in the US I am sure that many would agree that it was. Today I would say that it was an issue of freedom to be able to consume alcohol, and I am sure that the majority of the public in America today would also be against another ban on the sale and distribution of alcohol.

Like gun ownership, in the hands of irresponsible people the consumption of alcohol inevitably leads to undesirable consequences in some percentage of those who consume it, be it a vehicular accident as the result of intoxication or by other alcohol related means.

So if you feel that every gun owner has somehow contributed to these types of incidents, simply because they own a gun, I think it is very fair to say that you should also blame everyone who has ever consumed alcohol, for every alcohol related death in history. After all, without alcohol there would be no such thing as an alcohol related death.

[.Andy]

I can't recall the murder of police being encouraged, even by the most extreme pro-gun rights activists.
You've missed the point again. Here it is again;
You might not have killed the cops directly but you certainly vocally and physically contributed to a society for which civillian ownership of gun(s) is synthesised as a symbol of freedom and virtuous.
If the point is still too nuanced send me a PM and I'll explain it to you in more detail.

[big_malk]

You might not have killed the cops directly but you certainly vocally and physically contributed to a society for which civillian ownership of gun(s) is synthesised as a symbol of freedom and virtuous.

I concur.

[themoonisdown09]

You've missed the point again. Here it is again;


I think you missed FX120's point.

You told me that because I own some guns, I am partly to blame for the murder of the police officers. So by sticking to that logic, what FX120 said about alcohol would be the same thing. If you've drank alcohol are like to drink, than you are partly to blame for someone being killed by a drunk driver.

[Lord Blackadder]

A terrible tragedy.

The deaths could have been avoided or the risk greatly lessened had the dispatcher informed the officer that the suspect could be or probably was armed.

You might not have killed the cops directly but you certainly vocally and physically contributed to a society for which civillian ownership of gun(s) is synthesised as a symbol of freedom and virtuous. This is the inevitable result as well as the multitude of other mass shootings you've had. Like I said, you're part of the problem. The whole paradigm of gun ownership needs to change in the US. Who knows what it will take for you to see the forest of the trees.

I disagree strongly with the way you are casting this. First off, we all bear some responsibility for this tragedy as members of this society. But you are stereotyping gun owners and oversimplifying the issues, and I think you're being either intellectually lazy or simply malicious.

Supporting the principle of private firearms ownership is NOT the same thing as casting "civillian ownership of gun(s) ... as a symbol of freedom and virtuous". Some people feel that way, and I totally disagree with them. Others claim that civilian gun ownership causes them to live in constant fear. I respect their opinion but I think they are not looking at things in a completely rational manner. Unfortunately, my voice will be drowned out in the shouts of these extreme pro- and anti- gun activists. Both of those groups are wrong IMO and should stop trying to "beat" the other side and look more seriously towards compromise.

We as a society do not have to be totally or nearly totally disarmed in order to live together peacefully. Nor do we need firearms to preserve such a peaceful state.

There's plenty of places in the world where one can live and have a quality of life equal to or exceeding the US where one isn't required to own guns for safety. There's no reason why this can't go for the whole of the US.

Good luck with that. Every single nation on this planet has its ghettos and lawless areas. In all of these the inhabitants are at great risk from illegally owned guns, despite any and all laws restricting or prohibiting them. I defy you to contradict that statement. This isn't to say I think people need to arm themselves for protection, but to point out that firearms and gun crime will always exist whether you legislate against them or not. Most gun crime happens with illegally acquired weapons. They won't disappear just because you pass a law banning them. It can be reduced greatly, but we need to focus more on the crime and less on the guns.

By the way, I have handled these so-called "assault rifles" enough to laugh at the "boogeyman" status that they seem to have acquired among those who get all their info from the mainstream media (who must have whole staffs of reporters devoted to starting "assault weapons" scares). Semi-auto AR-15s and Kalashnikovs can sustain a pretty high rate of fire with a cartridge that features very high penetration (i.e can penetrate most ballistic vests and kill though several walls etc.), but you could say the same about most semi-auto hunting rifles and in the hands of a person of average skill even a bolt-action rifle can be fired rapidly enough that Joe Blow might think it's a "machine gun" or a semi-auto. Banning certain types of "scary" guns is stupid if you're trying to reduce gun crime, because most gun crime takes place with other types of weapons anyway. Getting rid of Ferraris just because they can go very fast will have almost no impact on traffic deaths.

What we need is more education about firearms and firearms safety, and a more efficient and effective enforcement of the existing gun control legislation. Unfortunately, what we are more likely to get is some sort of silly "assault weapons ban" that will have little affect on gun crime. I wish people looked more objectively at the issues rather than letting their emotions run away with them. I feel terrible every time I read about one of these horrible crimes and I completely understand how people with little knowledge about firearms get caught up in the media firestorm over guns. But ultimately a lot of that emotion gets channeled towards useless, politically-driven legislation and people will keep dying as a result. Many gun owners exacerbate the issue by taking a very defensive stance, fearing that knee-jerk legislation will result in comprehensive firearms bans or even forced surrender of legally owned guns. This is equally unhelpful, though I also somewhat understand the sentiment.

Back when the "assault weapons" ban was in force, you could still buy a rifle that was just as dangerous as the evil, scary guns that were banned. Just because a rifle looks like a military rifle does not make it more or less dangerous than a hunting rifle (reference the farcical bans on bayonet mounts in some states: utter, complete madness.). It was and is a stupid, useless approach to combating gun crime. I don't think an assault weapons ban will save a single life.

[AP_piano295]

I think you missed FX120's point.

You told me that because I own some guns, I am partly to blame for the murder of the police officers. So by sticking to that logic, what FX120 said about alcohol would be the same thing. If you've drank alcohol are like to drink, than you are partly to blame for someone being killed by a drunk driver.

Exactly.

Many of the people on these forms (myself included) are in favor of relaxing regulations on recreationl drugs (even very dangerous ones) and this is not an unreasonable stance to take. We feel that the government is stepping out of line by illegalizing these substances and that we have the right to use them.

That does not make us responsible for the deaths of people who use the drugs (od etc.). Nor does it make us responsible for the damage done by the people taking the drug.

[leekohler]

I think you missed FX120's point.

You told me that because I own some guns, I am partly to blame for the murder of the police officers. So by sticking to that logic, what FX120 said about alcohol would be the same thing. If you've drank alcohol are like to drink, than you are partly to blame for someone being killed by a drunk driver.

Exactly- that whole line of thinking is grossly flawed.

[Sdashiki]

Exactly- that whole line of thinking is grossly flawed.

Unless one truly believes that line of thinking to be true, why not that parallel?

Devil's Advocate s'all.

[leekohler]

Unless one truly believes that line of thinking to be true, why not that parallel?

Devil's Advocate s'all.

I'm saying I agree with moonisdown09. It's .Andy's line of thinking I find fault with.

[.Andy]

I think you missed FX120's point.

You told me that because I own some guns, I am partly to blame for the murder of the police officers. So by sticking to that logic, what FX120 said about alcohol would be the same thing. If you've drank alcohol are like to drink, than you are partly to blame for someone being killed by a drunk driver.
No. You've missed my point as well. My point is not that by owning guns that you're contributing to the problem. That is a strawman that yourself, FX120, and apparently Lee are propagating that bears no reflection on my argument.

I'm arguing that it's the confounding of the ownership of guns as an issue of freedom and a virtuous act that is flawed thinking and a paradigm that needs to be changed. That doesn't make for intelligent decisions on firearms at any level - national or individual.

I disagree strongly with the way you are casting this. First off, we all bear some responsibility for this tragedy as members of this society.
We do. Myself included. And I for one intend to speak out and take action everytime I can to attempt to change the issue.

But you are stereotyping gun owners and oversimplifying the issues, and I think you're being either intellectually lazy or simply malicious.
I don't think it's unfair to say that gun ownership in the US is confounded with an issue of freedom and something that is virtuous. The fact that there's special amendment in your constitution for firearms shows just how integral they are to your society and how the two have been inextricably linked.

I doubt there's a single pro-gun website out there (happy to be proven wrong) that doesn't have a large portion of content about the constitution replete with eagles and american flags. How many gun threads can we count here that have constitutional arguments forwarded? The issue of being able to should never come into a discussion of whether one should.

Supporting the principle of private firearms ownership is NOT the same thing as casting "civillian ownership of gun(s) ... as a symbol of freedom and virtuous". Some people feel that way, and I totally disagree with them.
No it doesn't need be and shouldn't be. I agree with you. However see previous paragraph. It's very rarely that the they aren't "cast" in the same argument.

Good luck with that.
Thanks. It's something to work towards that is entirely possible without throwing one's hands in the air in defeat.

[Desertrat]

Iscariot, all that stuff about airplanes and cars is not only silly but it's irrelevant. Life is full of uncertainties, and my deal is to reduce them as much as possible to some manageable level.

I'm fatalistic as to air travel. That's a voluntary acceptance of good-odds risk. I exercise as much skill and caution as possible when driving; again, a voluntary acceptance of risk. However, I don't expect either activity to be risk-free.

Again, odds are meaningless when the stake is my life--but there is no such thing as perfect odds and risk free. I just live with it and don't worry about it.

[.Andy]

Iscariot, all that stuff about airplanes and cars is not only silly but it's irrelevant. Life is full of uncertainties, and my deal is to reduce them as much as possible to some manageable level.
Which "uncertainties" does owning a firearm objectively reduce to a "manageable level"?

[leekohler]

No. You've missed my point as well. My point is not that by owning guns that you're contributing to the problem. That is a strawman that yourself, FX120, and apparently Lee are propagating that bears no reflection on my argument.

I'm arguing that it's the confounding of the ownership of guns as an issue of freedom and a virtuous act that is flawed thinking and a paradigm that needs to be changed. That doesn't make for intelligent decisions on firearms at any level - national or individual.


I don't see how I missed your point at all. I think we all got it. Again- the problem is not gun ownership and never has been. Gun ownership is indeed an issue of freedom, but I'm missing the virtuous part. That seems to be something you've inferred yourself. I don't know anyone who thinks owning a gun is a "virtue". Your strawman is still a strawman.

[Lord Blackadder]

We do. Myself included. And I for one intend to speak out and take action everytime I can to attempt to change the issue.

Fair enough, but you aren't the only one speaking. I want to emphasize my opinion that placing the blame for gun crime on gun owners is bad logic and an oversimplification of the situation.

I don't think it's unfair to say that gun ownership in the US is confounded with an issue of freedom and something that is virtuous. The fact that there's special amendment in your constitution for firearms shows just how integral they are to your society and how the two have been inextricably linked.

I don't think they are "inextricably linked". I do think that private gun ownership does have a long history in the US, and as with any nation that history is unique. We need to take that into account when deciding how to interpret the law or pass new laws. The fact that something works in one context is no guarantee that it will work in another.

I doubt there's a single pro-gun website out there (happy to be proven wrong) that doesn't have a large portion of content about the constitution replete with eagles and american flags. How many gun threads can we count here that have constitutional arguments forwarded? The issue of being able to should never come into a discussion of whether one should.

In regards to your last sentence, I could say the same about some anti-gun websites, which rely on fear-mongering and misinformation to overplay the role of firearms in violent crime. I think that is every bit as dangerous a viewpoint as a blind, hyper-patriotic pro-gun stance. Saying that getting rid of guns is the best way or most effective way to reduce violent crime or even just gun crime is dangerously downplaying other, more important factors.

I think you're pulling things out of context here. The presence of the constitutional defense of firearms ownership is hardly put of place in a setting devoted to firearms. There are a number of very active special interest groups who want to ban many, most or all firearms in the US, and I don't think it unusual that people on the opposites side of the issue would take such efforts seriously and use their own websites to lay out their case (whether one agrees with it or not).

No it doesn't need be and shouldn't be. I agree with you. However see previous paragraph. It's very rarely that the they aren't "cast" in the same argument.

That's because the issues of gun crime and the legal status of firearms ownership are almost always "cast" in the same argument". It's a complex issue and it's become impossible to separate the two in the context of political debate.

It's true that a large percentage of gun owners see firearms as one means by which citizens preserve their rights under the constitution; I happen to disagree with that viewpoint (or rather, I consider it obsolete). But keeping a firearm legally for that reason, even if other people do not agree with that, hardly constitutes an argument against gun ownership so long as the laws are obeyed.

Often the two issues are conflated. Gun bans would affect every legal gun owner directly but criminals only indirectly, and we don't know that an gun ban will reduce violent crime or how much (and I believe they don't work). That is why most gun owners wear their feelings on their sleeve - it is an ongoing political debate and the stakes are particularly high for a group that is always poised to lose not only what is currently interpreted as a right, but potentially property as well.

Thanks. It's something to work towards that is entirely possible without throwing one's hands in the air in defeat.

And the first step is to work very hard to avoid invoking stereotypes when discussing the issue. I am a gun owner. I don't have a big bald eagle poster in my house, or a big belt buckle with a deer on it, or a cowboy hat. And hey, you know what? You might think that subculture weird (I know I do), but there's nothing wrong with it. Casting all gun owners as hyper-patriotic hicks is just as damaging as casting anti-gun activists as whiny lefty radicals when it comes to making real progress on the issue.

We need to agree to disagree on less important issues while genuinely making ourselves willing to compromise on big issues, and right now I really don't see either side doing that effectively in the context of gun control, gun rights and crime prevention.

[Iscariot]

Iscariot, all that stuff about airplanes and cars is not only silly but it's irrelevant. Life is full of uncertainties, and my deal is to reduce them as much as possible to some manageable level.

No, owning a firearm for the sake of self-defense due to a "what-if" scenario is what's silly. Each and every one of those scenarios has as much if not greater relevance to your personal safety than the prevention of a physical attack. If you want to "reduce" them as much as possible to a manageable level, you'd be much, much better served by having a roll cage installed in your car or living in a clean room, or having your own hands sawn off because you're twice as likely to off yourself as to have somebody else pop you. Why are all these things "silly", and keeping a loaded weapon in your pocket isn't? Why is it silly to be afraid of natural disasters, car accidents, diseases and infections, but being so afraid of your fellow man that you're prepared to kill them at a second's notice is considered pragmatic or even heroic?

The equivalent to driving with skill or choosing a reputable airline is locking your doors at night and not walking down dark alleys by your lonesome.

[Gelfin]

Iscariot, all that stuff about airplanes and cars is not only silly but it's irrelevant. Life is full of uncertainties, and my deal is to reduce them as much as possible to some manageable level.

I'm fatalistic as to air travel. That's a voluntary acceptance of good-odds risk. I exercise as much skill and caution as possible when driving; again, a voluntary acceptance of risk. However, I don't expect either activity to be risk-free.

Again, odds are meaningless when the stake is my life--but there is no such thing as perfect odds and risk free. I just live with it and don't worry about it.

I think you've perfectly illustrated his point, actually. You're demonstrating an almost universal flaw in the psychology of risk-assessment: we overestimate risks we believe we cannot influence, and underestimate those we believe we can. People fear flying more than they do driving because they feel safer being in control of a car than putting their life into the hands of a pilot. The substantially greater risk of driving, as you so astutely observed, is meaningless, not because there is an infinite in the equation when one's life is at stake, but because people rely on an intuitive shortcut for risk assessment even when actual risk data is available.

This phenomenon explains the appeal of firearms justified in the way you have just done, probably even better than the "penis prosthetic" hypothesis. You fear "random" violence that is less likely than drowning in the bathtub, and you overestimate it because the randomness places it outside your influence. Owning a gun offsets the illusion of risk with the illusion of control.

Frankly, I suspect you might be less safe with the gun. Violence is rarely truly random, and the illusion of control offered by the gun could lead people to brush off real, observable signs of dangerous situations. The little voice that would ordinarily sagely say "maybe we should avoid going through that neighborhood at 2am" gets offset by the cocksure voice that says "we can handle it: gun!"

[Desertrat]

I really doubt that I overestimate risks. As far as a need for self defense, I've said repeatedly in threads of this sort that it's a matter of very low probability. And all the stuff about cars and airplanes is irrelevant. Control or lack thereof is irrelevant. Actual risk with cars and airplanes is irrelevant.

All I'm interested in is being able to defend myself if need be, and nobody else can do that for me, nor is anybody obligated by law to do that for me. I've not had the need, so far. My ex-wife, on the other hand, had four occasions to be quite happy that because of her having a gun, nothing bad happened. (Nothing ever happens around my house when I'm at home. No idea why.)

If there is any virtue in being armed, I guess it would be the virtue of accepting responsibility--that of being responsible for one's own well-being and that of one's family. Me being rather one-way on the issue of personal responsibility for the consequences of my decisions and actions, I can readily agree with the idea.

None of which matters. Insofar as gun control, it doesn't matter what is tried. There will be little to no reduction in crimes committed with firearms. Never has been. And guns are far harder come by nowadays than in the Way Back When of few gun control laws. The only people who are affected are those honest folks who never have been a problem and who never will be a problem.

'Rat

[QuantumLo0p]

I dare anyone to defend this guy's supposed "right" to own an AK-47. :mad:

Are you questioning rights granted under the second U.S. constitutional amendment or this particular person's rights regardless of his criminal record or mental condition?

You seem to be assuming the perp legally owns an AK-47 which is a fully automatic weapon. That type weapon requires a special permit (not easily obtained) and are laden with an extensive back ground check and many restrictions concerning ownership, use, potential criminal and civil liabilities. Serious criminal convictions nullify the right to bare arms.

I have to question the article stating the weapon was an AK-47. It is not a common firearm and the media, who is generally anti-gun and loves to sensationalize, commonly overlooks the difference between semi and fully automatic. IMO if the media mistakes a semi auto firearm for a full auto firearm then they are being negligent. If they knowingly misprint the type of firearm then they are being fraudulent. Either way they are discrediting themselves. Back in the Clinton era, democrat lawmakers scared people into supporting more gun control by deliberately misidentifying common semi auto firearms as machine guns and duping the public into believing long guns were a huge crime issue when, in fact, they were used in a very small percentage of violent crimes. Yeah, so much for serving the People.

Most gun control laws are illogical and ineffective because tighter gun control laws are obeyed only by law abiding people. Criminals are criminals because they do not obey laws and the fact is criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.

The perp could have used a knife, a baseball bat, acid, a car, a pencil or anything else that can used as a weapon. Where do we draw the line on personal safety? Defending yourself is a right. Assaulting/killing someone is a crime. Which side of the line would you rather be on?

People I have met who experienced a violent attack, know someone who was a victim of a violent attack or have studied early US history seem to have much better comprehension of the issue than those who don't.
;)

[Lord Blackadder]

You seem to be assuming the perp legally owns an AK-47 which is a fully automatic weapon. That type weapon requires a special permit (not easily obtained) and are laden with an extensive back ground check and many restrictions concerning ownership, use, potential criminal and civil liabilities. Serious criminal convictions nullify the right to bare arms.

It was not an "AK-47", but probably semi-auto Kalashnikov, probably a WASR-10 in 7.62x39mm if I had to guess. Scarier looking than your average hunting rifle, perhaps, but the only functional difference is the higher-capacity magazine, which doesn't really change this scenario - ambushing three policemen could have been done effectively with just about any rifle, or even a handgun. Since the officers didn't know they would be facing an armed suspect, they probably were not even wearing body armor.

[.Andy]

Gun ownership is indeed an issue of freedom
My point exactly. Politically the purchasing of a weapon is too much about freedom and far less objectively about whether it's actually beneficial (from a safety/crime POV) in any way whatsoever. Doing something because you can is the most ridiculous reasoning.

but I'm missing the virtuous part. That seems to be something you've inferred yourself. I don't know anyone who thinks owning a gun is a "virtue". Your strawman is still a strawman.
It's not a strawman at all. The asserted "virtue" in owning a weapon comes up in every gun thread (and I'm not exaggerating). Desertrat on this very page has demonstrated it beautifully with a weapon is taking responsibility for one's own self and family. Could there be anything more emotively designed to scream virtue? The corollary is that if one doesn't have a weapon they aren't taking responsibility for their own safety and are therefore semi-complicit in anything adverse that happens to them.

And the first step is to work very hard to avoid invoking stereotypes when discussing the issue. I am a gun owner. I don't have a big bald eagle poster in my house, or a big belt buckle with a deer on it, or a cowboy hat.
Nobody claimed that you did on indeed most gun owners do :confused:. I'm not sure where you're still getting charge that gun owners are unfairly stereotyped. I stand by my assertion - by and large those who are pro-gun conflate freedom and virtue with gun ownership when that's not the issue at all. This thread is a perfect example - QuantumLo0p has pulled the argument out two posts above this one. Defending the ownership of an AK-47 on grounds of it being a constitutional right. I agree with the rest of you post in places but your opinions and ideas really aren't an adequate refection of any other posters here on the issue.

And hey, you know what? You might think that subculture weird (I know I do), but there's nothing wrong with it.
Can you really claim that owning a gun is a "subculture" in the US? Isn't it playing the same underdog unfairly targetted card christians try?

edit: or by "subculture" were you referring to dressing up in cowboy hats with eagles and flags?

[Iscariot]

If there is any virtue in being armed

There isn't.
edit: or by "subculture" were you referring to dressing up in cowboy hats with eagles and flags?

Well, cowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scene
He goes to the reservation, drinks, and gets mean
He drove the desert, fired his rifle in the sky
And says, God if I have to die you will have to die

[.Andy]

Well, cowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scene
He goes to the reservation, drinks, and gets mean
He drove the desert, fired his rifle in the sky
And says, God if I have to die you will have to die
Sounds like Cowboy Dan has some issues and needs some counselling.

[leekohler]

It's not a strawman at all. The asserted "virtue" in owning a weapon comes up in every gun thread (and I'm not exaggerating). Desertrat on this very page has demonstrated it beautifully with a weapon is taking responsibility for one's own self and family. Could there be anything more emotively designed to scream virtue? The corollary is that if one doesn't have a weapon they aren't taking responsibility for their own safety and are therefore semi-complicit in anything adverse that happens to them.

Oh come on. That's really reaching and quite exaggerated. There may be some people who look at things that way, but it's FAR from the majority of people (or even gun owners) in the US. If you're going to continue with this, I suggest you provide some proof of this assertion.

[Zombie Acorn]

I dare anyone to defend this guy's supposed "right" to own an AK-47. :mad:

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/05/pittsburgh.officers.shot.dog/index.html)

You don't throw the rights of many away to counteract the misuse of few. Similarly you don't throw away your freedom for a false sense of security (hello patriot act). This is counter what our country was founded on. I can't speak for all parts of the country, but there is probably a 2:1 ratio of guns to people in my town and we have never had a shooting. Strangely enough, we don't have much crime or break-ins either (maybe they are afraid people will actually protect their right to safety?)

[mactastic]

Sigh... this isn't about the guns. This guy believed that Zionists were in charge of the government, and that the Obama administration was coming to take his guns away. He wondered why the Jews would want to bring down the economy now that they'd finally cemented control over everything.

He is a product of the right-wing fever swamp, and he will not be the last of his particularly loathsome ilk to blast his way onto the news cycle as long as a Democrat (particularly a black Democrat) resides in the White House.

[leekohler]

Sigh... this isn't about the guns. This guy believed that Zionists were in charge of the government, and that the Obama administration was coming to take his guns away. He wondered why the Jews would want to bring down the economy now that they'd finally cemented control over everything.

He is a product of the right-wing fever swamp, and he will not be the last of his particularly loathsome ilk to blast his way onto the news cycle as long as a Democrat (particularly a black Democrat) resides in the White House.

Of course it's not about guns. It never was in the first place.

[.Andy]

Oh come on. That's really reaching and quite exaggerated. There may be some people who look at things that way, but it's FAR from the majority of people (or even gun owners) in the US. If you're going to continue with this, I suggest you provide some proof of this assertion.
It's only reaching in the sense that owning a gun is at all virtuous. Back up my assertion? It's stating reality. For starters I stated desertrat's post right there in what you quoted. Do you really want me to copy and paste the gazillion threads here where the issue of guns being virtuous doesn't come up? It beggars belief to even suggest that it's not the case. I could also copy and paste speeches by politicians, articles from the nra, newspaper articles etc etc. It isn't a hard thing to illustrate at all. Do you honestly think that the lions share of American's who own guns don't do so with the sense that it's taking steps for their own safety - i.e. a well armed militia and all that?

Owning guns for safety is one of the primary ways that they're sold to the American populace and defended.

edit: here's a gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/Americans-Guns-Danger-Defense.aspx) to illustrate just one part of my point on virtue (last figure). 42% of americans think that a gun in their home makes them safer. Just less than the amount that think that it makes the house more dangerous. And of course the highest rates of safety perception is amongst those who own guns.

Do Guns Make Households Safer?

The safety of guns in the home is a major point of debate. On one hand, a gun could provide valuable protection against home invasion. On the other hand, misuse of a gun could lead to a tragic accident. Americans are divided on the topic, with 46% saying that having a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be, and 42% saying guns make households safer. The most recent results represent a slight shift from 2000, when 35% of Americans thought guns made a household safer, and 51% thought guns made households more dangerous.

Not surprisingly, gun owners are significantly more likely than non-owners to believe guns make households safer. Seventy-one percent of gun owners think so, compared with 23% of non-owners. Interestingly, people who have been victimized by crime in the past year are not more likely than non-victims to think a gun makes a home safer.

[leekohler]

It's only reaching in the sense that owning a gun is at all virtuous. Back up my assertion? It's stating reality. For starters I stated desertrat's post right there in what you quoted. Do you really want me to copy and paste the gazillion threads here where the issue of guns being virtuous doesn't come up? It beggars belief to even suggest that it's not the case. I could also copy and paste speeches by politicians, articles from the nra, newspaper articles etc etc. It isn't a hard thing to illustrate at all. Do you honestly think that the lions share of American's who own guns don't do so with the sense that it's taking steps for their own safety - i.e. a well armed militia and all that?

Owning guns for safety is one of the primary ways that they're sold to the American populace and defended.

I give up.

[.Andy]

I give up.
No you don't. You'll be back with the very same arguments later in this thread or the very next one :D!

It doesn't chance the issue though. The current gun paradigm in the united states of guns being a symbol of freedom and ownership a virtue is abhorrent. We need to start looking at guns and secondary inevitable violence in a completely different manner if we want things to change.

[Iscariot]

I give up.

This isn't a matter where you can agree to disagree. Gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense is the very definition of a race to the bottom. The optimal outcome for the entire group of participants [society in this case] results from cooperation of the participants, but is put in danger by the fact that the perceived optimal outcome for each individual is to not cooperate while the others do. This is made evident by the appalling rates of homicide and violence in many parts of the United States that stands in stark contrast to much of the rest of the first world. If guns were protection, then the people would be protected.

It's not a matter of equating guns with "violent" or "bad", it's a matter of removing the connection between guns and "virtue" or "good". Anyone who views a weapon — any weapon — as either a necessary or virtuous part of individual freedom is contributing to the problem. Someone who sleeps with an axe under their pillow is considered insane, but a loaded pistol in the nightstand is pragmatic. This is the kind of association that does nothing but damage society and perpetuate the idea that heroism is found on the right side of a gun.

[Lord Blackadder]

He is a product of the right-wing fever swamp, and he will not be the last of his particularly loathsome ilk to blast his way onto the news cycle as long as a Democrat (particularly a black Democrat) resides in the White House.

I agree. The news media likes to focus on the firearms aspect of things, but the reasons this man chose to do what he did are more important.

[Desertrat]

.Andy, if you don't take responsibility for your own safety/security, are you not complicit by allowing some harm to come to you due to your inaction?

If not, how not?

If you are not somehow responsible, who is? If you are not willing to assume that responsibility, what are you?

'Rat

[leekohler]

This isn't a matter where you can agree to disagree. Gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense is the very definition of a race to the bottom. The optimal outcome for the entire group of participants [society in this case] results from cooperation of the participants, but is put in danger by the fact that the perceived optimal outcome for each individual is to not cooperate while the others do. This is made evident by the appalling rates of homicide and violence in many parts of the United States that stands in stark contrast to much of the rest of the first world. If guns were protection, then the people would be protected.

It's not a matter of equating guns with "violent" or "bad", it's a matter of removing the connection between guns and "virtue" or "good". Anyone who views a weapon — any weapon — as either a necessary or virtuous part of individual freedom is contributing to the problem. Someone who sleeps with an axe under their pillow is considered insane, but a loaded pistol in the nightstand is pragmatic. This is the kind of association that does nothing but damage society and perpetuate the idea that heroism is found on the right side of a gun.

However- banning guns also does nothing to fix the underlying problem, which isn't about guns in the first place.

[synth3tik]

Lee's right. A gun is just a tool. Here a gun was used as a tool.

A tool will just be replaced when you take it away, unless you deal with the real issues. the reasons.

[emt1]

Crazy people kill people, not guns.

[Iscariot]

.Andy, if you don't take responsibility for your own safety/security, are you not complicit by allowing some harm to come to you due to your inaction?

If not, how not?

If you are not somehow responsible, who is? If you are not willing to assume that responsibility, what are you?

'Rat

That's just the same coloured language that you've been repeating for as long as I've been on these forums. Owning a gun doesn't mean you're taking responsibility for your safety, it means you have no grip on reality and are so terrified of your fellow man that you're prepared to kill him at the drop of a hat. That's not responsibility, that's cowardice, and justifying the ownership of firearms on that platform is massively irresponsible.
However- banning guns also does nothing to fix the underlying problem, which isn't about guns in the first place.

I didn't once mention banning guns.
Lee's right. A gun is just a tool. Here a gun was used as a tool.

A tool will just be replaced when you take it away, unless you deal with the real issues. the reasons.

No, it isn't. It's a weapon.
Crazy people kill people, not guns.

Another empty soundbite.

[dmr727]

I didn't once mention banning guns.


So what do you think is the solution?

[Iscariot]

So what do you think is the solution?

Solution to what? Violence?

Comprehensive health care, poverty assistance, ending the war on drugs, an overhauled immigration system, progressive mental health care, and so many more. Glorifying violent self-defense and a total lack of risk analysis while vilifying your fellow citizens certainly isn't one.

[.Andy]

.Andy, if you don't take responsibility for your own safety/security, are you not complicit by allowing some harm to come to you due to your inaction?

If not, how not?

If you are not somehow responsible, who is? If you are not willing to assume that responsibility, what are you?

'Rat
Beautiful illustration again of guns being manoeuvred as an issue of virtue.

Here's one for you Rat. Is a rape victim that doesn't carry a weapon complicit in the crime against them if they don't carry a gun because they didn't take adequate responsibility for their own safety?

Comprehensive health care, poverty assistance, ending the war on drugs, an overhauled immigration system, progressive mental health care, and so many more. Glorifying violent self-defense and a total lack of risk analysis while vilifying your fellow citizens certainly isn't one.
Couldn't agree more. While all those initiatives quoted are complex, costly, and difficult to implement, they're only a fraction of the social cost of the current gun-related death count in the US.

[leekohler]

I didn't once mention banning guns.

Then what is your point? Honestly- none of this is making any sense to me. If someone wants a gun for hunting, protection, or just for fun, I don't see a problem with that. As long as that person is licensed and has been trained well, it shouldn't be an issue. If you want to argue that this particular individual shouldn't have been in possession of firearms, there really no argument there. I think most people would agree. He had a history, and something should have been done sooner. That's a failure of poor enforcement of the law in the first place.


No, it isn't. It's a weapon.

Really? In the case of hunting I would think it's a tool.

[Iscariot]

Then what is your point?

That a healthier and more accurate mentality about firearms would lead to a safer society.
Really? In the case of hunting I would think it's a tool.

Still a weapon. Using a bow and arrow to hunt, and the bow remains a weapon. Use a sword to open a can of beans; still a weapon.

[leekohler]

That a healthier and more accurate mentality about firearms would lead to a safer society.

That may be a small part of it, but it's certainly not the main problem.


Still a weapon. Using a bow and arrow to hunt, and the bow remains a weapon. Use a sword to open a can of beans; still a weapon.

So is an ax. It can be a tool or a weapon, depending on how it's used. So can a gun. Sorry- we're going to have to agree to disagree here. No one object is simply one thing or another.

[Iscariot]

So is an ax. It can be a tool or a weapon, depending on how it's used. So can a gun.

No it can't. You can't use a gun to repair a shed. Redefining it as a "tool" is a game of semantics played by people to legitimize their ownership of a firearm when their other arguments fail the litmus test of logic. The definition is only important insomuch as it's used to dishonestly reframe the argument in a light that would be more favourable. It's a meaningless soundbyte to change focus. A much more accurate statement is that a gun is a gun, and simplifying it into a category is little more than a distraction.

ax vs. axe just made me realize that American English is more efficient, and efficiency is something I crave and desire, like a plant craves the sun or a carnivore blood.

[leekohler]

No it can't. You can't use a gun to repair a shed. Redefining it as a "tool" is a game of semantics played by people to legitimize their ownership of a firearm when their other arguments fail the litmus test of logic. The definition is only important insomuch as it's used to dishonestly reframe the argument in a light that would be more favourable. It's a meaningless soundbyte to change focus. A much more accurate statement is that a gun is a gun, and simplifying it into a category is little more than a distraction.

ax vs. axe just made me realize that American English is more efficient, and efficiency is something I crave and desire, like a plant craves the sun or a carnivore blood.

I disagree. If you're hunting for food, a gun is an extremely effective tool used to accomplish that end.

BTW- you can't use an ax to repair a shed either, my darlin'. ;)

[mactastic]

Use a sword to open a can of beans; still a weapon.
Having attempted such a feat, I will attest to the fact that there are far better ways to open a can of beans. :p

[mactastic]

Use a sword to open a can of beans; still a weapon.
Having attempted such a feat, I will attest to the fact that there are far better ways to open a can of beans. :p

[Lord Blackadder]

Redefining it as a "tool" is a game of semantics played by people to legitimize their ownership of a firearm when their other arguments fail the litmus test of logic.

I don't think I need to prove that a gun is useful or beneficial in order to argue that I should be allowed to own one though. Certainly nothing in the current US laws requires some sort of justification for gun ownership.

I don't have any problem calling a gun a weapon (though, speaking as an anthropologist, there's nothing wrong with calling it a type of tool either). Weapons, like tools, have a number of legitimate uses, though people argue endlessly over what constitutes a legitimate use. Then again, since when did we something have to have a legitimate use in order to be legal to own?

I've gotten more than a few Christmas gifts that I can honestly say I have no legitimate use for. ;)

[Iscariot]

I don't think I need to prove that a gun is useful or beneficial in order to argue that I should be allowed to own one though. Certainly nothing in the current US laws requires some sort of justification for gun ownership.

Then, wouldn't that very admission exempt you from my argument? Especially since the crux of my argument is that an unhealthy and unrealistic attitude about guns is… unhealthy and unrealistic.
I don't have any problem calling a gun a weapon

See above.
I've gotten more than a few Christmas gifts that I can honestly say I have no legitimate use for. ;)

Humbug!

[Lord Blackadder]

Then, wouldn't that very admission exempt you from my argument? Especially since the crux of my argument is that an unhealthy and unrealistic attitude about guns is… unhealthy and unrealistic.

Yes.

I wasn't specifically responding to that debate, but wanted to point out that the self defense/tool argument isn't the only one out there, even if they are perhaps the most commonly discussed.

[leekohler]

I don't think I need to prove that a gun is useful or beneficial in order to argue that I should be allowed to own one though. Certainly nothing in the current US laws requires some sort of justification for gun ownership.

I don't have any problem calling a gun a weapon (though, speaking as an anthropologist, there's nothing wrong with calling it a type of tool either). Weapons, like tools, have a number of legitimate uses, though people argue endlessly over what constitutes a legitimate use. Then again, since when did we something have to have a legitimate use in order to be legal to own?

I've gotten more than a few Christmas gifts that I can honestly say I have no legitimate use for. ;)

I guess this is what I've been trying to say all along. One of these days I'll learn to be more clear.

Me Talk Pretty One Day. :)

[Iscariot]

Yes.

I wasn't specifically responding to that debate, but wanted to point out that the self defense/tool argument isn't the only one out there, even if they are perhaps the most commonly discussed.

Noted. I have no problem with people owning guns, I have a problem with people promoting unsound and dangerous ideas. That's why I weighed in when I did, and how I did.