Looks like another shooting happened....

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mrkramer, Dec 21, 2012.

  1. macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #1
    Three people dead in Pennsylvania plus the shooter. But at least we have our right to bear arms. And more guns are definitely the solution...

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justice/pennsylvania-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    I'm not going to be surprised at all if it turns out this person obtained these weapons legally...
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    So what is your solution to the problem? Have the government go around and gather up the guns out of people's houses and dig up their backyards?
     
  3. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    That's a start.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    That would be an ok start. But maybe start with putting tighter controls on who can own guns
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #5
    Glocke12 is entirely correct, the Gundamentalists are their own worst enemy. Whenever something like this happens, they circle the wagons and shout even louder, "because ... freedom", thinking the rest of us will accept that. But it seems we find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground, and we really are getting tired of it. Before too long the NRA's rigid dogma will undo everything it has fought for and we will start digging up your backyard and taking your guns. You might try the Ruby Ridge route, but there are a lot more level-headed Americans than there are extremists. Before you put a "... my cold dead fingers ..." sticker on your car, consider that in light of the steadily mounting body count, that could well become the real choice you have to make. Because freedom is not always the best option.
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #6
    Gun ownership in the US is higher than ever. But the NRA has not grown proportionately with it. And the posts of many gun owners on this forum show that the 'stereotypical' gun owner that is commonly portrayed is a myth, and gun owners recognize the problem. Polls have indicated slightly more than half of Americans don't want more gun laws...yet people aren't running to the NRA. The NRA bas become a driving force behind gun regulation. They feed a stereotype that many liberals have bought into despite there clearly being many moderate gun owners that have recognized the problem and want to take a holistic perspective towards solving it. What we heard today essentially sums that up. And neither the NRAs refusal to compromise or even look at the issue in whole, or the condescending attitude that many liberals display towards gun owners (not saying that is anyone in particular) is going to help the underlying issue which is the deaths of many people every year.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #7
    The notion that you can stop violent people from committing violent acts by taking away one form of weapon is about as ridiculous as thinking you can stop drug use by making drugs illegal. If someone has evil in their heart taking guns away is not going to change that and that is the problem we must face as a society.
     
  8. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    The 'evil in their heart' meme is cute. It's more suited to sunday school for five year olds, but...


    How many times must it be pointed out that the US with its enormous gun ownership levels is the most violent country in the civilized world. Guns encourage violence, not safety.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #9
    But not as ridiculous as the notion that we need more guns to make ourselves safer.

    I think we all agree that the tool is just one part of the problem.

    The situation in Sandy Hook is an example of how the laws could have worked - he apparently tried to purchase guns but didn't want to wait. Had he not been able to access his mother's guns, who knows what could have been different?

    Waiting periods, stricter background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and doing something to ensure that gun owners are more responsible with their weapons are just a few things that have the chance to prevent things like this - as well as accidental shootings and suicides.

    And I really don't see the issue with banning high capacity clips and some of these higher caliber assault weapons. The NRA's complete unwillingness to budge and the ease in which they deflect blame is going to be their downfall. You would think responsible gun owners, more than anyone else, would want to do whatever it takes to ensure we're all safer.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    #10
    I don't get the whole "ban high capacity magazines" argument at all. Honestly I think more damage could be done in quicker time with a 10 round clip.
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #11
    Its true it won't completely stop it, but it will drastically reduce them, we used to have shoot outs like that in the UK before they started banning the weapons. Look at the western nations with guns banned, they have drastically lower rates of gun deaths than America. Each time a shooting happens the gun nuts chime in saying that wouldn't have happened if X had been armed, where does this end? Does every single person have to be armed to prevent gun crime?

    I think its clear that the method of pouring petrol onto the fire to extinguish it isn't working.
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    It wouldn't do anything with this particular shooting, but it would help reduce the body count in mass shootings. When s shooter stops to reload it gives bystanders a brief time to overpower him. If I remember correctly that's how the shooting in Arizona a year or so ago was stopped, he was trying to reload and a bystander was able to stop him during that time.

    ----------

    It wouldn't stop it, but it would make a lot less people die when the violent acts do happen.
     
  13. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #13
    It's a lot harder to massacre 26 people with a weapon other than a gun. There is no way that gun violence wouldn't be reduced if we started taking all of the guns off the street.

    It's just a cop out excuse that the gun nuts like to use because they don't want to acknowledge that the real problem is that we have too many damn guns.

    The fact that Columbine High School had an armed sheriff deputy who was a 15-year veteran of the force on campus and it didn't prevent 13 people from dying is proof that this argument is crap.

    Exactly. If you try to fight fire with more fire, you're only going to get burned.

    Yup. That reload time is a possible window for a bystander to try to jump on the shooter and stop it.

    You're not going to be able to murder 26 people with a knife in 3 minutes without any resistance like you could with an AR-15. 2 or 3 guys could pretty easily disarm a guy with a knife. A gun? Not so much.
     
  14. macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #14
    This happened in Geeseytown. I know right where thats at and sadly I'm not surprised. The entire area is littered with crazies with guns. This area is insanely small too. Its pretty much just a road that goes from Frankstown mountain through Geesytown where if you blink you'll miss it and on to Canoe Creek.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    Pick up the Chicago paper and this will be just about every weekend.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #16
    Hold on, hold on. You can't compare drugs with guns. People don't kill people with drugs, they kill them with the guns they can by at every gun store, convention or backyard. Also, this should not be about stopping violent people but to prevent them from becoming violent.

    In relation to the war on drugs, if the government legalized all drugs but heavily regulated and taxed them, they will take the crime out of trug trafficking; it'll create a new legit market, new jobs and less people will be killed senselessly to get the money to buy the drugs or defend one's stash.

    In relation to mass shootings, if the government would put more restrictions on gun purchases and ownership while putting more money in healthcare and education to prevent young people from falling through the cracks, you will diffuse the situation from both sides.

    Will this stop every gun crime committed after putting this in effect? No, but it'll reduce gun crime to a manageable and bearable number while society can prosper intellectually.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #17
  18. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    Why focus on Chicago? If you're looking for the worst U.S.cities you should look at ...

     
  19. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #19
    But doesn't Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation? You would think that would be the safest place in the entire nation.

    The biggest problem with the whole assault weapons ban (or any ban for that matter) is that you don't keep them out of the bad guys hands. If some mentally ill person or criminal wants to do something they will find a way. The only thing laws like that effect are good law abiding citizens who follow the law. Yes you will keep them out of the hands of the good people with those laws, but the bad guys will still get them.

    As far as this fantasy that some have that police should come knocking on every door to seize all guns from law abiding citizens I must ask are you serious? Could they even do that without changing the Constitution? What if people say no I want to keep my legally owned property? Do you support using lethal force on those people to get the guns? This is such a radical idea I cannot comprehend it.

    Columbine took place during the last assault weapons ban. That should have stopped it.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #20
    Seems like restrictions and regulations are doing a decent job keeping them out of bad guys hands in Europe considering firearm crimes and deaths per capita are much lower there than there are in the US.

    Not if the guns used there weren't subject to the ban. That's just more proof that the ban needs to be more widespread.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    Apparently they're doing okay in Chicago as well, which is a mere 2 points above the nation average for the top 50 cities in the U.S., and not the shooting gallery some imagine it to be.
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #22
    Ok well then get ready to re-write the Second Amendment banning all civilians from owning any sort of firearm and see how that goes for you. I don't believe ratification will be as easy as you think.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #23
    The surrounding counties do not have the strict firearms restrictions that Chicago and Cook County have. There are three Municipalities that have magazine and clip restrictions.

    The stats below are based on city population, not MSA. Which is what the CDC report used.

    Chicago proper has a population of 2.7 million - 493 homicides (427 firearm related)
    http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/

    New Orleans has a population of 360,740 - 182 homicides, not broken out by type.
    http://www.nola.com/crime/murders/


    In certain neighborhoods, it is.
     
  24. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24
    Or at the other end of the spectrum, New York City at a 4.0. Apparently, their gun laws are working.
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    All that proves is that smaller populations have smaller numbers of homicides.

    Who would have guessed?

    IMO, the rate per 100,000 is a much more accurate measure.

    YMMV
     

Share This Page