So I haven't read all of this thread. How many people have stated that if "they were there" with a gun, or if the faculty at the school could have had guns of their own, someone would have easily stepped up and gone John McClane, saving the school and showing their omnipotent situational awareness by shooting the kid (and obviously without the possibility of catching a panicking kid in the crossfire- thus making two people who shot innocents that day)?
Because that's what lawmakers here in Michigan seem to think would have worked.
Or am I wonderfully wrong in my cynical-ness and this has stayed civil and constructive?
Looks like the Westboro Baptist Church is at it again... though I think protesting Sandy Hook might earn them an upgrade to "suicide cult"
Well, I think they have been of the mindset for a long time that "bad press is still press" when it comes to getting attention, which is their obvious goal.
Adding that my opinion is that arming everyone and their brother is a horribly reactive way to approach such acts of violence It is in absolutely no way proactive.
My wife is a teacher and she is of the feeling that if they (teachers) didn't have their hands tied so badly when it comes to dealing with students with severe problems (or when they are in situations that can spiral downwards if unchecked), they could be much more proactive and stop things like this when the situation is in it's infancy. Or not even have the kids look towards this outlet at all.
And today, one city away from me, a 3 year old managed to get his hands on a gun and somehow shoot himself in the head.
And the deaths of children like that will outnumber the number of children killed yesterday in every year. Yesterday was shocking because it happen all at once and we have a big number of dead in one incident, so it makes it 'easier' to care.
It's the same with car accidents. If an elementary school bus rolls over and kills 27 kids it will be on the news and we will have candle-light vigils. But how many grade school age children die each week in car accidents that nobody hears about or spends any time thinking about?
Of course to me the death of the 3 year old is not a result of gun ownership as much as it seems to be a result of irresponsible gun ownership, but the result is the same.
If there was a child from that school would have died in the hospital his face would be on be national media as the last victim. But since the kid just accidentally killed himself the national media doesn't care, just a statistic and not a neatly packaged tragedy...
d-usa wrote: And today, one city away from me, a 3 year old managed to get his hands on a gun and somehow shoot himself in the head.
And the deaths of children like that will outnumber the number of children killed yesterday in every year. Yesterday was shocking because it happen all at once and we have a big number of dead in one incident, so it makes it 'easier' to care.
It's the same with car accidents. If an elementary school bus rolls over and kills 27 kids it will be on the news and we will have candle-light vigils. But how many grade school age children die each week in car accidents that nobody hears about or spends any time thinking about?
Of course to me the death of the 3 year old is not a result of gun ownership as much as it seems to be a result of irresponsible gun ownership, but the result is the same.
If there was a child from that school would have died in the hospital his face would be on be national media as the last victim. But since the kid just accidentally killed himself the national media doesn't care, just a statistic and not a neatly packaged tragedy...
Well that's the bottom line isn't it? The Media doesn't actually care about any of this. The story du jour is spun and sensationalized in the name of higher ratings and has been suggested earlier in this thread this can inspire copy cats. A single life just doesn't make good copy.
Now get out there and get me photos of Spider-man d-usa!
Well, part of me is pissed at both sides. If people care about the tragedy, the they should care about the single daily deaths. If they don't care about the daily deaths then they shouldn't care about the tragedies.
Because let's face it. All the shootings this year probably won't put a very big bump into our national annual gun-related homicide statistics.
d-usa wrote: Well, part of me is pissed at both sides. If people care about the tragedy, the they should care about the single daily deaths. If they don't care about the daily deaths then they shouldn't care about the tragedies.
Because let's face it. All the shootings this year probably won't put a very big bump into our national annual gun-related homicide statistics.
Which on a positive note have been declining for like two decades.
An interesting tidbit that someone on facebook pointed out is that after the Dunblane Massacre at a school in Scotland in 1996, the UK banned private ownership of all handguns, and there have been no school shootings since. A bit of brief research on the topic seems to confirm that this is indeed true.
A guy attacks 22 children at a school with a knife and that's not enough? People only face reality if the children die? It's mind-boggling that people can even believe the guy in Connecticut needed a gun to kill all those little children. Here's a number: 2977. The number of people murdered in a single day at the hands of motivated and deranged men armed with box knives. They didn't need guns, but you can bet your ass we'd never hear the end of it if they used them instead.
We've had all these "Columbines" since the 90's, yet people are so quick to blame the gun culture we've had for over 200 years. How is that even remotely logical? Interesting that the early 90's gave us the Gun-Free School Zones Act. What a fantastic coincidence. Our military bases were made gun free zones in the 90's too. Are people even aware that they had to wait for an off-base civilian police officer to show up to stop Hasan?
AegisGrimm wrote: So I haven't read all of this thread. How many people have stated that if "they were there" with a gun, or if the faculty at the school could have had guns of their own, someone would have easily stepped up and gone John McClane, saving the school and showing their omnipotent situational awareness by shooting the kid (and obviously without the possibility of catching a panicking kid in the crossfire- thus making two people who shot innocents that day)?
Too bad we don't have a real life example like Joel Myrick.
We've had all these "Columbines" since the 90's, yet people are so quick to blame the gun culture we've had for over 200 years. How is that even remotely logical? .
Maybe because you've had a fething violent history for 200 years?
I mean, I don't really want to argue one way or another, these stories are fething disgusting, and one of them was way to close to me for me to have an unbiased outlook toward it, but to me it's seems entirely possible that this is some kind of horrifying 'meme'. The 'gun culture' wouldn't then be a cause, but an enabler.
The real cause would probably be the (historically new) inclusion of kids in school for such a long amount of time, and the alienation some suffer in a standardized schooling system. But how do you fix that?
We've had all these "Columbines" since the 90's, yet people are so quick to blame the gun culture we've had for over 200 years. How is that even remotely logical? .
Maybe because you've had a fething violent history for 200 years?
I mean, I don't really want to argue one way or another, these stories are fething disgusting, and one of them was way to close to me for me to have an unbiased outlook toward it, but to me it's seems entirely possible that this is some kind of horrifying 'meme'. The 'gun culture' wouldn't then be a cause, but an enabler.
The real cause would probably be the (historically new) inclusion of kids in school for such a long amount of time, and the alienation some suffer in a standardized schooling system. But how do you fix that?
We've had all these "Columbines" since the 90's, yet people are so quick to blame the gun culture we've had for over 200 years. How is that even remotely logical? .
Maybe because you've had a fething violent history for 200 years?
I mean, I don't really want to argue one way or another, these stories are fething disgusting, and one of them was way to close to me for me to have an unbiased outlook toward it, but to me it's seems entirely possible that this is some kind of horrifying 'meme'. The 'gun culture' wouldn't then be a cause, but an enabler.
The real cause would probably be the (historically new) inclusion of kids in school for such a long amount of time, and the alienation some suffer in a standardized schooling system. But how do you fix that?
Online schooling?
Good thinking, that's already starting in a few schools over here.
We've had all these "Columbines" since the 90's, yet people are so quick to blame the gun culture we've had for over 200 years. How is that even remotely logical?
The obvious reason would be that gun culture in the United States isn't what it was more than 200 years ago.
Also, there were plenty of school shooting prior to the 90's.
The real cause would probably be the (historically new) inclusion of kids in school for such a long amount of time, and the alienation some suffer in a standardized schooling system. But how do you fix that?
Enable teachers to do something about it other than tell someone higher up. It's a daily frustration with my wife when she sees kids in trouble.
You've never been able to openly carry or concealed carry your own person firearms on military bases. You (theoretically) register your weapon with the armory, and you check it out and check it back in when you're done with it. It's pretty safe.
Captain Fantastic wrote: You've never been able to openly carry or concealed carry your own person firearms on military bases. You (theoretically) register your weapon with the armory, and you check it out and check it back in when you're done with it. It's pretty safe.
Depends on the base/branch I guess. In the AF the only time I've had to keep my fire arms in the the Armory was when I lived in the dorms. I live in on-base housing right now and all 5 of my guns are in my household.
It's DoD policy. Since I was the armorer I had to do the PoW counseling. Part of ours was telling guys in the B's which guys had safes. Because you know what Auston doesn't like dealing with? Pvt Snuffies prize 870 that I have to clear space in the cages for.
Do you think that proves the USA has not got a gun problem?
No, it's the statistics that suggest that.
And we don't. What we do have is a limp-Richard white boys who can't handle the overwhelming pressure of living a life without genuine hardship in middle-class suburban America problem.
Do you think that proves the USA has not got a gun problem?
No, it's the statistics that suggest that.
And we don't. What we do have is a limp-Richard white boys who can't handle the overwhelming pressure of living a life without genuine hardship in middle-class suburban America problem.
Amen. Couple that with a media that turns them into celebrities, you get these folks who used to hang themselves in the basement now wanting to make a name for themselves when they go out.
AegisGrimm wrote: So I haven't read all of this thread. How many people have stated that if "they were there" with a gun, or if the faculty at the school could have had guns of their own, someone would have easily stepped up and gone John McClane, saving the school and showing their omnipotent situational awareness by shooting the kid (and obviously without the possibility of catching a panicking kid in the crossfire- thus making two people who shot innocents that day)?
Well, I have, for one, because I believe it to be true. I don't have the link on this computer, but if memory serves, it's 93 of these spree killings that have been halted by an armed civilian since the late 70s. 94 if you want to count Clackamas, I suppose.
They receive a lot less attention. The Appalachian School of Law shooting, for example. Widespread media coverage, but just about nobody mentioned the fact that the shooter was stopped by two students who ran to their cars to get guns of their own - it was yet another Gun Free Zone, naturally.
Seaward wrote: What we do have is a limp-Richard white boys who can't handle the overwhelming pressure of living a life without genuine hardship in middle-class suburban America problem.
But I also haven't shot up any schools lately, so I'm curious why you'd care either way. Unless you're going to try and make some hilarious point about how growing up in Richville, Connecticut and having your mom take care of you until you're 20 is hard in its own way.
But I also haven't shot up any schools lately, so I'm curious why you'd care either way.
You insinuated that our (the United States) problem is the presence of "white boys" that cannot handle their lives, which lack genuine hardship. If I made such a point I would have in mind an idea what "genuine hardship" is, and so I'm curious as to what your understanding of the concept is.
Unless you're going to try and make some hilarious point about how growing up in Richville, Connecticut and having your mom take care of you until you're 20 is hard in its own way.
Seaward, Your posts are inflammatory and quite frankly offensive to anyone who has ever had to deal with any kind of mental illness. And the kind of bully culture and social ostracization that is an inherent component of almost any standardized schooling system.
Who are you to judge someone else's life and how hard it is? Mental illness, despite the notion pedaled by those not knowledgeable in the field, is not exclusive to "limp-Richard white boys who can't handle the overwhelming pressure of living a life without genuine hardship in middle-class suburban America" It is experienced by millions of people, all around the world, the only reason that this stereotype exists is because this particular group has slightly better capabilities to deal with and diagnose this problems, as opposed to say, someone in a rural third world country.
cptbravo wrote: Seaward, Your posts are inflammatory and quite frankly offensive to anyone who has ever had to deal with any kind of mental illness. And the kind of bully culture and social ostracization that is an inherent component of almost any standardized schooling system.
Who are you to judge someone else's life and how hard it is? Mental illness, despite the notion pedaled by those not knowledgeable in the field, is not exclusive to "limp-Richard white boys who can't handle the overwhelming pressure of living a life without genuine hardship in middle-class suburban America" It is experienced by millions of people, all around the world, the only reason that this stereotype exists is because this particular group has slightly better capabilities to deal with and diagnose this problems, as opposed to say, someone in a rural third world country.
So of all the spree shootings we've seen over the past decade, all of them were the result of mental illness? I find that difficult to believe, especially given how hard and how fast autism researchers and support foundations have insisted this had nothing to do with autism.
Not all of the spree killers of the past couple decades have been white, but especially with the school shootings, it's a dominant factor. Young white dudes in suburbia. As a former young white dude in suburbia, I'm curious what the hell they could find so difficult about the lifestyle.
In all fairness Seaward, not all mental illness is brought on by specific events in a persons life. Even depression can be purely brought about by a chemical imbalance instead of a chain of gakky events.
djones520 wrote: In all fairness Seaward, not all mental illness is brought on by specific events in a persons life. Even depression can be purely brought about by a chemical imbalance instead of a chain of gakky events.
That's true, but it doesn't negate the fact that not all sufferers of mental illness decide to shoot up a school, and the majority of the ones who apparently do are young white males. Young white males who appear to have a pattern of being social outcasts.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are school shootings separate phenomena to workplace shootings or public shootings (malls, cinemas)?
I don't believe so, though I'm certainly less familiar with them, largely because they tend to make less of a cultural impact save in extreme cases. School shootings are a whole other level of horrific.
Every time this comes up we have the same argument. DUSA and Seaward are right I think, when they say that solutions from other countries are unlikely to work in the United States. But there's definitely something cultural going on to make these spree killings so much more prevalent than in other countries.
Like I said though, Germany had quite a few (though not nearly as many) and it's got strict gun control. I think it is definitely a cultural rather than gun control issue.
That's not to say I'm not in favour of gun control of course. I think any society where you have to be armed to be safe is not someplace I'd call civilised. And as a teacher, I'd be really uncomfortable if I had to accept carrying a firearm and getting trained in how to use one for my job. It's not why I became a teacher.
Da Boss wrote: Every time this comes up we have the same argument. DUSA and Seaward are right I think, when they say that solutions from other countries are unlikely to work in the United States. But there's definitely something cultural going on to make these spree killings so much more prevalent than in other countries.
Like I said though, Germany had quite a few (though not nearly as many) and it's got strict gun control. I think it is definitely a cultural rather than gun control issue.
That's not to say I'm not in favour of gun control of course. I think any society where you have to be armed to be safe is not someplace I'd call civilised. And as a teacher, I'd be really uncomfortable if I had to accept carrying a firearm and getting trained in how to use one for my job. It's not why I became a teacher.
In most places in America you don't have to be armed to be safe. Some places you do. Statistically speaking these events are extremely rare. There is 98,000 public schools in this country. As far as I am aware there was 2 mass shootings in public schools this year.
So the odds of this happening are extremely small. To put it this way you are more then twice as likely to intentionally kill yourself (suicide) then you are to be intentionally killed by someone else, by a fire arm. You are more likely to die in a plane crash then being involved in a mass school shooting. The odds of dying in a school massacre are almost the same as being involved in a state sanctioned execution.
Judging by the article, self-loading rifles and SMGs.
Remember the disdain you felt for those idiots during the election who were talking about "legitimate rape" and things of its ilk? People who clearly felt strongly about something, yet hadn't bothered to do even the basics in terms of learning about the subject they were trying to legislate?
That's pretty much how I feel about "assault weapon" folks like the guys who wrote that article.
djones: Yeah, I know the US isn't that violent. My point was that some of the rhetoric about needing a gun to stay safe makes it seem much more violent than it really is.
Da Boss wrote: djones: Yeah, I know the US isn't that violent. My point was that some of the rhetoric about needing a gun to stay safe makes it seem much more violent than it really is.
You don't need it to be always safe, but there are some situations where sometimes it may be necessary to be safe. But taking them away from the law abiding will make everyone less safe. Washington DC and Chicago are clear examples of that. Chicago effectively bans them, and twice as many people were killed in that city during the period of the Iraq war, then actual soldiers in Iraq.
I can see that, alright. When I first joined this forum I had a different viewpoint on american gun control, but the arguments here actually changed my mind. One of the reason I like OT.
I'll never argue that guns are the cure all. But they will allow us good folks to level the playing field with the bad folk who don't give a damn about any laws that may be passed with the best intentions.
Isn't an assault weapon just a weapon that can select between semi-auto and fully auto-matic fire? You then get sub categories do you not? For instance an assault pistol is different from an assault rifle which is different from a sub machine gun with select fire.
Plus, fully automatic fire is only really more deadly than semi-auto when one is just "spray and pray"ing?
Da Boss wrote: djones: Yeah, I know the US isn't that violent. My point was that some of the rhetoric about needing a gun to stay safe makes it seem much more violent than it really is.
You don't need it to be always safe, but there are some situations where sometimes it may be necessary to be safe. But taking them away from the law abiding will make everyone less safe. Washington DC and Chicago are clear examples of that. Chicago effectively bans them, and twice as many people were killed in that city during the period of the Iraq war, then actual soldiers in Iraq.
Wouldn't a better comparison be the fire arm related homicide rate for the times before and after the ban? I mean the fact that they killed more people in chicago than soldiers in Iraq is nothing more than coincidence. They're completely unrelated statements.
Isn't an assault weapon just a weapon that can select between semi-auto and fully auto-matic fire? You then get sub categories do you not? For instance an assault pistol is different from an assault rifle which is different from a sub machine gun with select fire.
That, of course, is what most people think. I suspect it's what "assault weapon ban" legislators wanted people to think.
Here's Wikipedia's definition, which I happen to agree with:
Assault weapon is a political term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range," sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.
The term was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger. In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.
An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.
rockerbikie wrote: Blame bullying... I think bullying led to that kid developing that mental illness in the first place.
Bullying's been around for a while now. If it's truly at fault, then I'll choose instead to blame our "participation trophy" culture that doesn't equip kids to handle adversity of any sort, including that of getting picked on.
rockerbikie wrote: Blame bullying... I think bullying led to that kid developing that mental illness in the first place.
Bullying's been around for a while now. If it's truly at fault, then I'll choose instead to blame our "participation trophy" culture that doesn't equip kids to handle adversity of any sort, including that of getting picked on.
Yeah, that is true. Though, we do have to intervene and stop the ammount of bullying that is happening at Public and Private Schools today.
Judging by the article, self-loading rifles and SMGs.
Remember the disdain you felt for those idiots during the election who were talking about "legitimate rape" and things of its ilk? People who clearly felt strongly about something, yet hadn't bothered to do even the basics in terms of learning about the subject they were trying to legislate?
That's pretty much how I feel about "assault weapon" folks like the guys who wrote that article.
It would be good if you would give a useful definition of assault weapons.
Would bolt-action rifles be included, for example?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's not the way it is used in the article.
No, it isn't. I'm not sure what your point is. After all, I can point to no less than twenty articles right now describing this Lanza donkey-cave's AR-15 as an assault rifle, despite the fact that it does not meet the requirements to fall under that definition.
The media doesn't know drek about firearms. Nor do politicians.
Fun fact: if I add a telescoping stock to my AR-15, it's an "assault weapon" under the criteria used by the original law. If I put a standard stock back on it, it's not.
An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.
Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from? Which is a Select fire weapon capable of either fully automatic or semi automatic firing using a rifle cartridge?
Ratbarf wrote: Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from? Which is a Select fire weapon capable of either fully automatic or semi automatic firing using a rifle cartridge?
Good, now go up to the search box on that site and type 'assault weapon'. See what you get.
In order to use that line of logic, by the way, you'll have to ignore the fact that the "assault weapons" ban did not actually ban legal assault rifles. I'm sorry that both terms have "assault" in them but mean different things. It trips a lot of people up.
I didn't get that off of a site. I'm not a gun nut, but I am not exactly the uninitiated when it comes to fire arms.
I had always kind of figured that Assault weapon was just a catch all for machineguns and assault rifles, and possibly automatic pistols with augmented magazines.
Ratbarf wrote: I didn't get that off of a site. I'm not a gun nut, but I am not exactly the uninitiated when it comes to fire arms.
I had always kind of figured that Assault weapon was just a catch all for machineguns and assault rifles, and possibly automatic pistols with augmented magazines.
Nope. It exclusively referred to semiautomatic weapons in the law in which the term was officially introduced. It's a misleading and ultimately meaningless term that's a perfect example of fear politics. Calling something a semiautomatic rifle doesn't excite quite the same level of panicked reaction as calling the exact same firearm an assault weapon.
So hard it obliges you to shoot up an elementary school, apparently.
I guess Klebold and Harris showed us that being outcast nerds who had trouble getting laid is on a similar plane of difficulty.
Klebold was later determined to be a sociopath through his writings he kept and his love of extreme violence. Harris was simply a weak-willed follower who'd been tormented by bullies and was taken in by Klebold.
The 'mental illness' card is an excuse most of the time.
I have a friend who has a 'high functioning' form of autisum, and while he can get moody, (espeically if some jerk is being a huge bully), he's never shown signs or symptoms of wanting to go out and mass murder innocent people.
This kid wasn't some hyper abused violent sadist like the recent Firebug who was sentanced the other day in Toronto, who genuinely wanted to maim and kill people with his fire-setting. Nor was he some violent paranoid schizophrenic like Vince Lee who beheaded and cannabalised a fellow Greyhound bus passenger.
This kid had an issue most likely, but simply wasn't strong enough to deal with it. Did he have other issues? Perhaps very likely. Does it excuse the fact he planned & organised the act and make him not criminally culpable? Hell no!
Kilkrazy wrote: That's not the way it is used in the article.
No, it isn't. I'm not sure what your point is. After all, I can point to no less than twenty articles right now describing this Lanza donkey-cave's AR-15 as an assault rifle, despite the fact that it does not meet the requirements to fall under that definition.
The media doesn't know drek about firearms. Nor do politicians.
Fun fact: if I add a telescoping stock to my AR-15, it's an "assault weapon" under the criteria used by the original law. If I put a standard stock back on it, it's not.
My point is that if mass killings are done preferentially with certain types of weapons -- for example, semi-automatic pistols rather than shotguns -- then we might be able to use such information to help understand how such attacks happen, and how to reduce them.
What if world governments passed some kind of "Anonymous Cowards" Act? In the case of a mass shooting/suicide like this, or terrorist attack like Norway, each nations media is forbidden from publishing the name/picture of the perpetrator?
Might this have some meaningful impact on preventing future attacks?
Kilkrazy wrote: My point is that if mass killings are done preferentially with certain types of weapons -- for example, semi-automatic pistols rather than shotguns -- then we might be able to use such information to help understand how such attacks happen, and how to reduce them.
Going purely based off of memory, I'd say the majority are probably committed with semiautomatic handguns.
Same goes for the majority of lawful self-defense shootings.
d-usa wrote: Read an article today that basically said "he shot his way through the door, that's what assault weapons will do for you"...
I've spent far too much of my morning on HuffPo growing increasingly closer to dying of stroke at the tender age of 30 due to the omnipresent conflation of "automatic" "semiautomatic" "assault rifle" and "assault weapon." I think my favorite was a comment that stated no one needs semiautomatic weapons - a rifle for hunting, sure, and a pistol for home defense, but there's just no need for a semiautomatic!
DutchKillsRambo wrote: The fact you get that worked up over someone mislabeling your precious guns and think its comparable to rape is extremely telling.
I get worked up over people treating an extremely serious issue, in the wake of a horrible tragedy, with such cavalier disregard as to not even bother to verify what it is they're talking about. I get worked up over people who eagerly support legislation despite not being able to tell you what the legislation actually does. I certainly get worked up over people deciding that they know best while actively proving the opposite.
Gun safety is an extremely serious issue in this country. If we want to take positive steps to do what we can to ensure another atrocity like this never occurs, it might help to know what the feth we're actually talking about before we just open our mouths and spout platitudes.
To be fair. Unless you know what you are looking for in the first few seconds then an assault rifle M-16 and a non-assault rifle AR-15 look exactly alike. Having AR in the name likely doesn't help, and having had an "assault weapon ban" that was misnamed and didn't follow the definition for assault weapons also just causes confusion.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: The fact you get that worked up over someone mislabeling your precious guns and think its comparable to rape is extremely telling.
I get worked up over people treating an extremely serious issue, in the wake of a horrible tragedy, with such cavalier disregard as to not even bother to verify what it is they're talking about. I get worked up over people who eagerly support legislation despite not being able to tell you what the legislation actually does. I certainly get worked up over people deciding that they know best while actively proving the opposite.
Gun safety is an extremely serious issue in this country. If we want to take positive steps to do what we can to ensure another atrocity like this never occurs, it might help to know what the feth we're actually talking about before we just open our mouths and spout platitudes.
So not accurately labeling a gun is "extremely serious"? The pain you feel about someone not using the correct term for a gun is the same pain a rape survivor feels when the GOP opens up its mouth on the subject? Get over yourself.
Assault Weapon. A weapon used in an assault. There you go.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: So not accurately labeling a gun is "extremely serious"? The pain you feel about someone not using the correct term for a gun is the same pain a rape survivor feels when the GOP opens up its mouth on the subject? Get over yourself.
Assault Weapon. A weapon used in an assault. There you go.
Let's talk about car safety, because automotive accidents kill far more people per day in this country than firearms. First, most driving instructors will tell you to keep both hands on the gas pedal. That's this round thing that you use to steer the car. Because accurate terminology doesn't matter, it's all the same. Especially when we're proposing legislation that affects gas pedals and steering wheels.
d-usa wrote: So a baseball bat is an assault weapon? A car is an assault weapon? A knife is an assault weapon? My fists? All are weapons used in an assault.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: So not accurately labeling a gun is "extremely serious"? The pain you feel about someone not using the correct term for a gun is the same pain a rape survivor feels when the GOP opens up its mouth on the subject? Get over yourself.
Assault Weapon. A weapon used in an assault. There you go.
Let's talk about car safety, because automotive accidents kill far more people per day in this country than firearms. First, most driving instructors will tell you to keep both hands on the gas pedal. That's this round thing that you use to steer the car. Because accurate terminology doesn't matter, it's all the same. Especially when we're proposing legislation that affects gas pedals and steering wheels.
Look I own guns. I like guns. I was merely commenting on the idiocy of your post that the term "assault weapon" is comparable to rape comments. Hearing the term "assault weapon" should not cause you any physical discomfort, much less what a rape survivor would feel. If it does, then I feel sorry for you. Its a gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So a baseball bat is an assault weapon? A car is an assault weapon? A knife is an assault weapon? My fists? All are weapons used in an assault.
Yes. I'm no lawyer but isn't the charge for all those crimes "Assault with a Deadly Weapon?"
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Look I own guns. I like guns. I was merely commenting on the idiocy of your post that the term "assault weapon" is comparable to rape comments. Hearing the term "assault weapon" should not cause you any physical discomfort, much less what a rape survivor would feel. If it does, then I feel sorry for you. Its a gun.
Then you missed the point entirely. I'm not sure how, but whatever. "Assault weapon" is comparable to "legitimate rape" in that both are nonsense terms made up by politicians, not in that they cause physical discomfort.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Look I own guns. I like guns. I was merely commenting on the idiocy of your post that the term "assault weapon" is comparable to rape comments. Hearing the term "assault weapon" should not cause you any physical discomfort, much less what a rape survivor would feel. If it does, then I feel sorry for you. Its a gun.
Then you missed the point entirely. I'm not sure how, but whatever. "Assault weapon" is comparable to "legitimate rape" in that both are nonsense terms made up by politicians, not in that they cause physical discomfort.
I get just as ticked off at people using the term "assault weapon" in a way that has nothing to do with the actual definition as I do at people that pretend that the guy could still have killed 26 people without any firearm. It is a serious topic and both sides need to stop making up terms or new meanings for other terms.
If people want to call an AR-15 a tactical weapon, I wouldn't have an issue. If the "assault weapon ban" would have been called a "tactical weapons ban" it would probably have helped the current situation.
As it is used by the media and the Facebook crowd the term "assault weapon" has absolutely nothing to do with how fast a weapon can shoot or how deadly it is. It just has to look scary to be one.
d-usa wrote: Read an article today that basically said "he shot his way through the door, that's what assault weapons will do for you"...
I've spent far too much of my morning on HuffPo growing increasingly closer to dying of stroke at the tender age of 30 due to the omnipresent conflation of "automatic" "semiautomatic" "assault rifle" and "assault weapon." I think my favorite was a comment that stated no one needs semiautomatic weapons - a rifle for hunting, sure, and a pistol for home defense, but there's just no need for a semiautomatic!
This post here. Your talking about the physical discomfort of trying to show people what an assault weapon really means. Ergo your lying when you just said that you weren't trying to equivocate the pain of assault weapon with the pain of legitimate rape.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: This post here. Your talking about the physical discomfort of trying to show people what an assault weapon really means. Ergo your lying when you just said that you weren't trying to equivocate the pain of assault weapon with the pain of legitimate rape.
Oh, man. I'm going to have to explain hyperbole to you now, aren't I?
And no, I was talking about the frustration of watching people who have no idea what they're talking about endorse legislation that they cannot understand to solve a problem they cannot identify. I was not saying the misidentification of a type of weapon causes me physical pain.
Yes I understand hyperbole. What you fail to understand is why the "legitimate rape" is not comparable to "assault weapon". Rape comments hurt rape survivors. Assault weapon hurts no one.
Assault weapon is part of the American lexicon now. Its not going anywhere.
But I'm hung over and about to go watch the Bills lose. Have a nice day.
Dude, the comparison between using the term assault weapon and the term legitimate rape was reasonably apt. It's just people talking out of their ass on a subject they don't understand but want to have an opinion on.
And that's the part that grinds my gears about our society - you'd think with the vast informational resources at our fingertips people could take five minutes and educate themselves.
That's why the legitimate rape dude looked so infuriatingly stupid, and why people who use this story as a reason to rant and rave about assault weapons and automatic weapons evoke the same feelings in some.
Then you don't understand why the legitimate rape comments were so awful. They're not comparable. And I don't remember saying I was for any ban.
I think the comparison was that they're pretty much made up and are defined in a broad and confusing manner so as to allow them to mean practically anything under the law.
While most people who talk about rape refer to a very specific act, the laws regarding it define rape so broadly that a wide variety of consensual acts are considered 'rape'. In some places, having unprotected sex while unmarried is classified as 'rape' even if consensual, for example.
That said, guns continue to be blamed, for much the same reason that drug addicts blame everyone but themselves, because it's easier than dealing with the problems our society faces.
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
Still, he understands the public perception – and extensive media coverage – when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. “There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening.”
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
Still, he understands the public perception – and extensive media coverage – when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. “There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening.”
Mass shootings going down in overall numbers is in large part due to an aging population. Just like overall crime rates - the older average age of your population, the less crime on average, since the majority of crimes are commited by younger members of society.
Compare just how many murderers/mass shooters/etc... there are between say the ages of 16-40 as compared to those aged 41+. The younger group has a far higher proportion of crimes commited.
On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”
And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.
I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’ mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys — and their mothers — need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.
Rather powerful article.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: This unsettling look at mental illness in youth is worth a read.
Chief Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver has released the names of those killed by 20-year-old Adam Lanza on December 14. Besides proving anew that the lives of far too many innocent people were taken by a cold blooded criminal, the report suggests that the killings were carried out in an act of revenge.
According to the report, Lanza shot the 20 child victims -- eight boys and 12 girls -- at close range and shot each victim between three and eleven times.
Other reports indicate that Lanza "visited Sandy Hook Elementary the day before [the shooting] and was involved in an altercation with four members of the staff of the school." Three of those four are now dead.
People who knew Lanza have said his mother expected a lot from him, "that she pushed him really hard to be smarter and work harder in school." He killed his mother before killing the school staff members he allegedly fought with; he then ultimately took his rage out on the children.
Reports indicate the Connecticut shooter had three firearms in his possession when he drove to the school on Friday -- a Glock 9mm, a Sig Sauer 9mm, and an AR-15 (reportedly a Bushmaster).
That's two handguns (Glock and Sig Sauer) and one rifle (AR-15).
These are semi-automatic weapons only, which is a fancy way of saying they fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. NONE OF THEM ARE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.
This begs the question, why in the world did Rupert Murdoch send out a text hours after the shooting that read: "Terrible news today. When will politicians find the courage to ban automatic weapons?"
Although only semi-automatic, it is important to note that Lanza broke Connecticut laws by possessing the handguns, because you have to have a permit to own and carry a handgun in Connecticut. The paperwork on both handguns was in his mother's name, which means the guns weren't even his to possess and he had no permit carry (he was not legally eligible for a permit to carry because he was only 20 -- you have to be 21 to get that permit).
Regarding the AR-15 it is what politicians commonly call an "assault rifle" (although the "AR" does not stand for that). It has a completely different set of Connecticut laws by which its owner must abide, many of which Lanza broke just by taking the gun into his possession, transporting it to a school, and transporting it in a way other than is legally stipulated for the transport of an assault rifle in Connecticut.
Glock, Sig Sauer, and Bushmaster make some of the most popular guns in the U.S. and the world. And these semi-automatic weapons didn't cause the crime that happened Friday. Far from it, they were illegally used in a crime by a mad man named Adam Lanza.
An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.
Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from?
In true Godwinian fashion: Hitler.
Sturmgewehr doesn't translate as Assault Rifle. It means Storm Rifle. In the same way that Sturmtruppen means Storm Troopers and not Assault Troopers.
And technically a B.A.R. should be classified as an Assault Rifle, and it dates back to 1918.
No, Sturmgewehr means assault rifle, and that is where the term assault rifle originated. In a military context, "assault" is a pretty good translation for Sturm. Assault troops is also a pretty good translation for Sturmtruppen. The organization we call "Stormtroopers" in English was the SA, or Sturmabteilung, from which "Stormtroopers" is really more of an idiomatic term rather than an exact translation.
The StG44 is an assault rifle because it was semi-automatic/fully automatic (i.e. select fire) and fired a smaller cartridge than the full-sized rifle cartridges of something like a Kar98k, but a bigger round than a submachine gun like the MP40. Kind of the best of both worlds: more power and accuracy than a SMG and less recoil than a full-size rifle round.
I would make the argument that an AR-15 is an assault rifle just as an M-16 is, based on the size of the round and the semi-automatic capability, but I do think the media's use of the term is generally inaccurate and irresponsible. They call everything that they think looks scary an assault rifle or assault weapon. A 9mm is a "high-powered" pistol? I want to know what kind of a firearm they would consider "low-powered."
Chief Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver has released the names of those killed by 20-year-old Adam Lanza on December 14. Besides proving anew that the lives of far too many innocent people were taken by a cold blooded criminal, the report suggests that the killings were carried out in an act of revenge.
According to the report, Lanza shot the 20 child victims -- eight boys and 12 girls -- at close range and shot each victim between three and eleven times.
Other reports indicate that Lanza "visited Sandy Hook Elementary the day before [the shooting] and was involved in an altercation with four members of the staff of the school." Three of those four are now dead.
People who knew Lanza have said his mother expected a lot from him, "that she pushed him really hard to be smarter and work harder in school." He killed his mother before killing the school staff members he allegedly fought with; he then ultimately took his rage out on the children.
Reports indicate the Connecticut shooter had three firearms in his possession when he drove to the school on Friday -- a Glock 9mm, a Sig Sauer 9mm, and an AR-15 (reportedly a Bushmaster).
That's two handguns (Glock and Sig Sauer) and one rifle (AR-15).
These are semi-automatic weapons only, which is a fancy way of saying they fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. NONE OF THEM ARE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.
This begs the question, why in the world did Rupert Murdoch send out a text hours after the shooting that read: "Terrible news today. When will politicians find the courage to ban automatic weapons?"
Although only semi-automatic, it is important to note that Lanza broke Connecticut laws by possessing the handguns, because you have to have a permit to own and carry a handgun in Connecticut. The paperwork on both handguns was in his mother's name, which means the guns weren't even his to possess and he had no permit carry (he was not legally eligible for a permit to carry because he was only 20 -- you have to be 21 to get that permit).
Regarding the AR-15 it is what politicians commonly call an "assault rifle" (although the "AR" does not stand for that). It has a completely different set of Connecticut laws by which its owner must abide, many of which Lanza broke just by taking the gun into his possession, transporting it to a school, and transporting it in a way other than is legally stipulated for the transport of an assault rifle in Connecticut.
Glock, Sig Sauer, and Bushmaster make some of the most popular guns in the U.S. and the world. And these semi-automatic weapons didn't cause the crime that happened Friday. Far from it, they were illegally used in a crime by a mad man named Adam Lanza.
Hat tip to AWR Hawkins for these stories.
I just find the "protect the guns!" reaction as nauseating as the frenzied media coverage.
Yes, the crazy murderer used the guns his mother (not clear on the ownership of the AR-15?) obtained legally. So...the guns are innocent victims? Other than clarifying that these are semi-automatic weapons, which I appreciate has some relevance, what is the point of this article?
All I am seeing is that if he didn't have such easy access to firearms then his act of "revenge", which would certainly have happened anyway, would have had a much different outcome. Are they implying that he would have found a way to obtain firearms no matter what? Because I find that very hard to believe in this case.
Though if the weapons were not legal to own at all, he couldn't have so easily taken them from his mother who was keeping them in the same house as him. Seems to be arguing on a technicality really, yes he wasn't the permit holder when he helped himself to the guns his parent legally owned in the same house. So he broke the law when he helped himself to the several guns being kept in his house, doesn't seem a great argument against the issue with the legal ownership of guns in general if they are going to be so easily acquired by people who aren't supposed to get them.
I do wonder why his mum felt the need to keep so many guns and a rifle in the house but I guess that's just part of the culture us Brits won't understand. Personally, I'd be happy with one gun if I needed one at all. The AR-15 is a pretty serious bit of kit, is that really justified as home defence?
An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.
Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from?
In true Godwinian fashion: Hitler.
Sturmgewehr doesn't translate as Assault Rifle. It means Storm Rifle. In the same way that Sturmtruppen means Storm Troopers and not Assault Troopers.
And technically a B.A.R. should be classified as an Assault Rifle, and it dates back to 1918.
Fernseher means Remote See and yet it translates without argument into television. Your argument is elementary and incorrect. So basically you're batting 1.000 ITT.
Haven't done the research, but I have seen a few family members mention the Clackamas Town Center Mall shooting last week and that a concealed carry holder drew on the shooter. Said he never took a shot at him since he never had a clear line of fire but after the gunman saw him behind the pillar with his weapon drawn he withdrew to the stairwell and shot himself.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Though if the weapons were not legal to own at all, he couldn't have so easily taken them from his mother who was keeping them in the same house as him. Seems to be arguing on a technicality really, yes he wasn't the permit holder when he helped himself to the guns his parent legally owned in the same house. So he broke the law when he helped himself to the several guns being kept in his house, doesn't seem a great argument against the issue with the legal ownership of guns in general if they are going to be so easily acquired by people who aren't supposed to get them.
I do wonder why his mum felt the need to keep so many guns and a rifle in the house but I guess that's just part of the culture us Brits won't understand. Personally, I'd be happy with one gun if I needed one at all. The AR-15 is a pretty serious bit of kit, is that really justified as home defence?
Making something illegal has never deterred madmen. High explosives require extensive licenses and safety inspections to make and use. And yet, two nuts, a truck, and some patience led to the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I'm glad he used guns. Imagine if he'd used a carbomb like madmen do in England and Ireland.
As far as an AR 15 being justified for home defense: yes. I live in an area where police response time is 30 min plus. There have been 15 armed robberies in five miles of me this week alone. When they hit my house, they were driven off, because we were armed.
It's a big part of the discussion that is being ignored IMHO.
If there is a problem with mentally ill people getting a hold of weapons and using them for mass killings, then why would you say "we need to do something about guns" and ignore an entire half of the problem?
Of course in these parts we will have the two discussions:
"Gun control? Government is going to take away my guns and then we will end up in concentration camps!"
and
"Mental Health reform? They are going to screen us all and force treatment and put us in concentration camps!"
She's not adam lanza's mother, she's smart enough not to have a small arsenal around her son which is great. Have all the discussions about mental health you want, it's a distraction.
She makes some great points but lets be honest here, her son might do something violent, might kill someone with a sharp or blunt object, but right now he doesn't have access to a firearm and my guess is his harry potter fan club membership isn't going to get him the correct street cred to get in with the kind of individuals who would sell him a firearm illegally. Short of stealing one from a friend of family member, his violent antisocial behaviour probably isn't going to end in a mass killing, at least for now. She's basically saying, don't worry about guns, give me more financial aid for my crazy kid who costs me a lot financially and emotionally.
Yes the states needs to deal with mental health, access and affordability of health care and of course the entirety of the prison industrial complex. But you just muddy the waters by making this solely a "mental health" issue. It's a cop out.
There will always be crazy people, making them take their meds is pretty damn hard, keeping them on their meds is pretty damn hard. Diagnosing the nameless name of their various conditions is hard. Paying for their meds and various treatments is hard. Keeping as many as possible from accessing effecient death machines is much much more achieveable of a goal.
Crablezworth wrote: But you just muddy the waters by making this solely a "mental health" issue. It's a cop out.
Quite true, but simply making it solely a "gun rights" issue is a cop out, too. In the end, it's not just guns and it's not just the mentally ill, it's the mentally ill with guns. Many argue vehemently that the issue could be solved simply by restricting access to firearms, and many more argue that the solution lies in better services for the mentally ill. Of course, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Crablezworth wrote: But you just muddy the waters by making this solely a "mental health" issue. It's a cop out.
Quite true, but simply making it solely a "gun rights" issue is a cop out, too. In the end, it's not just guns and it's not just the mentally ill, it's the mentally ill with guns. Many argue vehemently that the issue could be solved simply by restricting access to firearms, and many more argue that the solution lies in better services for the mentally ill. Of course, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I agree completely, just lately I've noticed that shifting it to mental health and solely mental health seems to be the only tactic the "pro gun" lobby have been able to employ with any effect. I have no doubt that a mandatory psych test as one of the peaces of the puzzle in legal gun ownership is a good thing. I just believe that shifting focus entirely to some vague concept of "mental health" or "affordable meds" or affordable treatment or crime and punishment just serves to muddy's the waters because where the hell do you start? She describes like half the problems facing America in one go, you split people off in seventeen different directions with no where to start and you've effectively crippled any critical mass that the last incidents have built up. It's divide and conquer.
The problem isn't really gun crime, the problem is crazy people committing mass murder, as the situation in china recently showed, it's a lot harder to do with a knife than a firearm. You can't stop all the crazies; you can certainly take common sense steps to reducing the crazy’s access to efficient death machines.
Anytime you try and go down the road of sensible gun control, the super bat gak crazy build the “our secret muslim president wants to ban guns” strawman. And the slightly more sensible gun owners who still fear they might lose access to their preferred pass time, be it target shooting or hunting go with the “mental health” route.
Crablezworth wrote: She's not adam lanza's mother, she's smart enough not to have a small arsenal around her son which is great. Have all the discussions about mental health you want, it's a distraction.
She makes some great points but lets be honest here, her son might do something violent, might kill someone with a sharp or blunt object, but right now he doesn't have access to a firearm and my guess is his harry potter fan club membership isn't going to get him the correct street cred to get in with the kind of individuals who would sell him a firearm illegally. Short of stealing one from a friend of family member, his violent antisocial behaviour probably isn't going to end in a mass killing, at least for now. She's basically saying, don't worry about guns, give me more financial aid for my crazy kid who costs me a lot financially and emotionally.
Yes the states needs to deal with mental health, access and affordability of health care and of course the entirety of the prison industrial complex. But you just muddy the waters by making this solely a "mental health" issue. It's a cop out.
There will always be crazy people, making them take their meds is pretty damn hard, keeping them on their meds is pretty damn hard. Diagnosing the nameless name of their various conditions is hard. Paying for their meds and various treatments is hard. Keeping as many as possible from accessing effecient death machines is much much more achieveable of a goal.
Maybe, just perhaps, it's an issue which needs to be handled on both front.
Violent, deranged people with guns is an obvious no no. There's at the very least two facets to the issue, and tackling any one of the two is a good thing.
d-usa wrote: Haven't done the research, but I have seen a few family members mention the Clackamas Town Center Mall shooting last week and that a concealed carry holder drew on the shooter. Said he never took a shot at him since he never had a clear line of fire but after the gunman saw him behind the pillar with his weapon drawn he withdrew to the stairwell and shot himself.
This is correct. His name is Kevin Meli. Studies have shown that the average spree killer suicide or surrender once confronted by armed individuals. While this is not definite proof, it is extremely likely that the Clackamas incident was so mercifully short because of this armed citizen.
There will always be crazy people, making them take their meds is pretty damn hard, keeping them on their meds is pretty damn hard. Diagnosing the nameless name of their various conditions is hard. Paying for their meds and various treatments is hard. Keeping as many as possible from accessing effecient death machines is much much more achieveable of a goal.
Which is why the focus should be on mental health care reform. There's a couple hundred million firearms in this country. Taking them away because of a few nuts would be far more difficult and far more expensive them taking steps to deal with the nuts directly.
sorry. i have always been a believer in mental illness = cop out. you can't handle your own head? then you sucked at life. no troll. i just know how to spot a crutch when i see one. mental illness. *scoff*
is quite sad in my eyes. Anyone thinking that way is sad.
But is it not a good idea to also take steps to ensure that the people with firearms are the people who don't pose a danger to others? It seems that (better) background checks, (longer) waiting periods and perhaps ammunition limitations might help some without impacting the fundamental rights of gun owners.
sorry. i have always been a believer in mental illness = cop out. you can't handle your own head? then you sucked at life. no troll. i just know how to spot a crutch when i see one. mental illness. *scoff*
is quite sad in my eyes. Anyone thinking that way is sad.
d-usa wrote: Haven't done the research, but I have seen a few family members mention the Clackamas Town Center Mall shooting last week and that a concealed carry holder drew on the shooter. Said he never took a shot at him since he never had a clear line of fire but after the gunman saw him behind the pillar with his weapon drawn he withdrew to the stairwell and shot himself.
This is correct. His name is Kevin Meli. Studies have shown that the average spree killer suicide or surrender once confronted by armed individuals. While this is not definite proof, it is extremely likely that the Clackamas incident was so mercifully short because of this armed citizen.
There will always be crazy people, making them take their meds is pretty damn hard, keeping them on their meds is pretty damn hard. Diagnosing the nameless name of their various conditions is hard. Paying for their meds and various treatments is hard. Keeping as many as possible from accessing effecient death machines is much much more achieveable of a goal.
Which is why the focus should be on mental health care reform. There's a couple hundred million firearms in this country. Taking them away because of a few nuts would be far more difficult and far more expensive them taking steps to deal with the nuts directly.
No amount of "mental health care reform" is going to prevent people who do not want to take their medications from ceasing their medications. Nor will it encourage people to actively seek help given the stigma associated with seeking help with a mental illness.
This is one of the biggest problems with the treatment of mental illnesses. It is also one of the biggest reasons why it is easier to focus upon firearms as a factor to change rather than mental illnesses.
sorry. i have always been a believer in mental illness = cop out. you can't handle your own head? then you sucked at life. no troll. i just know how to spot a crutch when i see one. mental illness. *scoff*
is quite sad in my eyes. Anyone thinking that way is sad.
Its a pretty common viewpoint in quite a bit of the USA(at least where I am).
Ok so what reccomdations on the mental health front are we hearing?
The mental health thing is a copout, full stop. There will always be crazy people, there will always be firearms and we need a legislative firewall between them and firearms. Some people will be prefectly sane, own firearms and then one day snap, I'm under no illusion you can prevent every massacre, but you can certainly mitigate the damage.
Is it easier to create a system in which the entire population is forcibly assessed by mental health professionals OR create a comprehensive level of checks and balances including psych test for those wishing to acquire firearms? And maybe go one further and standardizing the process because some states are far worse than others in terms of gun control and cun crime.
The reason it’s difficult in many states to involuntarily commit individuals is that you have to prove that they are an imminent threat to themselves or others, which can be incredibly difficult. And even then as is shown its a temporary solution.
It’s very hard to make legislation to force people to take their meds. There will always be crazy people, the states just happens to have their fair share of them. Legislation to start forcibly assessing people and force feeding them medication is incredibly complex and inefficient.
This isn't an insult due to being a statement of fact.
No I agree with you
There's a large social stigma focused on mental illness in the USA. People tend to view it as a more "quack" type of doctoring, often due to over prescription of meds for some of these people or because as that poster said "crutches".
sorry. i have always been a believer in mental illness = cop out. you can't handle your own head? then you sucked at life. no troll. i just know how to spot a crutch when i see one. mental illness. *scoff*
is quite sad in my eyes. Anyone thinking that way is sad.
Yeah, wonderful attitude no?
That's pretty much the worst post ever on Dakka. And there's a lot on Dakka that competes for that title.
d-usa wrote: Haven't done the research, but I have seen a few family members mention the Clackamas Town Center Mall shooting last week and that a concealed carry holder drew on the shooter. Said he never took a shot at him since he never had a clear line of fire but after the gunman saw him behind the pillar with his weapon drawn he withdrew to the stairwell and shot himself.
This is correct. His name is Kevin Meli. Studies have shown that the average spree killer suicide or surrender once confronted by armed individuals. While this is not definite proof, it is extremely likely that the Clackamas incident was so mercifully short because of this armed citizen.
There will always be crazy people, making them take their meds is pretty damn hard, keeping them on their meds is pretty damn hard. Diagnosing the nameless name of their various conditions is hard. Paying for their meds and various treatments is hard. Keeping as many as possible from accessing effecient death machines is much much more achieveable of a goal.
Which is why the focus should be on mental health care reform. There's a couple hundred million firearms in this country. Taking them away because of a few nuts would be far more difficult and far more expensive them taking steps to deal with the nuts directly.
No amount of "mental health care reform" is going to prevent people who do not want to take their medications from ceasing their medications. Nor will it encourage people to actively seek help given the stigma associated with seeking help with a mental illness.
This is one of the biggest problems with the treatment of mental illnesses. It is also one of the biggest reasons why it is easier to focus upon firearms as a factor to change.
So we can't put the crazies on a list and add that to the background check process? I honestly don't give a gak if they take their meds or not, identify'em, classify'em.
d-usa wrote: Haven't done the research, but I have seen a few family members mention the Clackamas Town Center Mall shooting last week and that a concealed carry holder drew on the shooter. Said he never took a shot at him since he never had a clear line of fire but after the gunman saw him behind the pillar with his weapon drawn he withdrew to the stairwell and shot himself.
This is correct. His name is Kevin Meli. Studies have shown that the average spree killer suicide or surrender once confronted by armed individuals. While this is not definite proof, it is extremely likely that the Clackamas incident was so mercifully short because of this armed citizen.
Not many "spree killers" actually surrender. The Aurora shooter was a bit of an abnormality in that regard.
Nor did I say they do. When they do it's after being confronted by armed individuals. That's the same point when most of them suicide.
Ehhh...that's actually not true.
The majority of spree shooters suicide long before confronted. The exact psychology of these spree shootings is up in the air. There are some which seem to just walk in, cause as much mayhem as possible and then kill themselves while there are others who do the same except for the suicide bit. They instead force the police into a situation to fire upon them.
There will always be crazy people, making them take their meds is pretty damn hard, keeping them on their meds is pretty damn hard. Diagnosing the nameless name of their various conditions is hard. Paying for their meds and various treatments is hard. Keeping as many as possible from accessing effecient death machines is much much more achieveable of a goal.
Which is why the focus should be on mental health care reform. There's a couple hundred million firearms in this country. Taking them away because of a few nuts would be far more difficult and far more expensive them taking steps to deal with the nuts directly.
No amount of "mental health care reform" is going to prevent people who do not want to take their medications from ceasing their medications. Nor will it encourage people to actively seek help given the stigma associated with seeking help with a mental illness.
This is one of the biggest problems with the treatment of mental illnesses. It is also one of the biggest reasons why it is easier to focus upon firearms as a factor to change.
So we can't put the crazies on a list and add that to the background check process? I honestly don't give a gak if they take their meds or not, identify'em, classify'em.
The question is HOW do you identify them.
There is practically nothing which can be used as an indicator for something like this beyond voluntary admissions on the part of the perpetrator reported to a mental health professional or an outcry witness who could make report it to the proper authorities.
d-usa wrote: I am all for better screening and treatment, and even placing people on a list.
But placement on a list wouldn't have made a difference here, since he didn't buy any of the weapons.
Which is what we keep coming back to. So the hell do we do?
Serious gun control (bans, confiscations, etc) are untenable and ineffective and it seems nutcase control has similar issues. Everything has holes in it regardless.
Only good news is that this stuff really is on the decline along with crime overall if the numbers are to be believed
Well, I'm not saying that it screening and treatments wouldn't have made a difference. Although so far he doesn't seem to come across as a crazy mental type pre-shooting.
And I do think that gun laws can be improved. Trigger guards and gun storage devices should be mandatory, but would your kids know the combinations and then take the guns anyway?
It's not an easy fix and "hurr durr ban all guns" won't work.
People can go undiagnosed until the day they die. Maybe they had a bunch of differing episodes that were written off as merely stress or too much to drink or the result of divorce or other social situation. There's no way to just force everybody in the country into therapy or the loving arms of psychopharmacology.
What you can do is test those who wish to purchase and own firearms legally. The wait periods are probably the most effective tool beyond all others. From my understanding the reason this individual had to steal his mother’s firearms was because he had attempted to purchase a firearm with his brother’s ID and would have had to wait to receive said firearm.
Crablezworth wrote: She's basically saying, don't worry about guns, give me more financial aid for my crazy kid who costs me a lot financially and emotionally.
Crablezworth wrote: She's basically saying, don't worry about guns, give me more financial aid for my crazy kid who costs me a lot financially and emotionally.
Mental health testing for firearms is probably not going to happen anytime soon. Just political suicide to push for that. Must have insurance to get that exam, would insurance cover "mental fitness exams for gun ownership", would any psychiatrist be willing to sign of on the "won't kill people" paper and risk being sued by the family of survivors, etc etc etc
I am in favor of a waiting period , I am also in favor of fixing the gun show craziness that we seem to have.
Crablezworth wrote: She's basically saying, don't worry about guns, give me more financial aid for my crazy kid who costs me a lot financially and emotionally.
You've just failed basic reading comprehension.
I didn't get that impression at all.
Really? Because the conclusion of the article was :
Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, "Something must be done."
I agree that something must be done. It's time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That's the only way our nation can ever truly heal.
No mention of money, or guns, or any actual suggestion on how to solve the issue. Just a basic call for an honest discussion. From the point of view of a mother of a violent sick child, the important factor will be the sickness. How could anyone twist that into request for funding, I do not know...
d-usa wrote: Well, I'm not saying that it screening and treatments wouldn't have made a difference. Although so far he doesn't seem to come across as a crazy mental type pre-shooting.
And I do think that gun laws can be improved. Trigger guards and gun storage devices should be mandatory, but would your kids know the combinations and then take the guns anyway?
It's not an easy fix and "hurr durr ban all guns" won't work.
Depends on the age of the kid. I remember my best friend's dad's safe's door was heavy enough that one of us alone had trouble moving it when we were putting the .22 we'd just finished cleaning up. That was at... thirteenish or so? (door needed some WD-40...)
It boggles my mind that some people own guns without a basic locker or safe of some kind...
Crablezworth wrote: She's basically saying, don't worry about guns, give me more financial aid for my crazy kid who costs me a lot financially and emotionally.
You've just failed basic reading comprehension.
I didn't get that impression at all.
Really? Because the conclusion of the article was :
Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, "Something must be done."
I agree that something must be done. It's time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That's the only way our nation can ever truly heal.
No mention of money, or guns, or any actual suggestion on how to solve the issue. Just a basic call for an honest discussion. From the point of view of a mother of a violent sick child, the important factor will be the sickness. How could anyone twist that into request for funding, I do not know...
Gee, maybe it's the "no one is helping me (or us)" vibe of the whole thing, or the characterization of education as free daycare... She's not wrong in the sense that any gun control legislation that passes will do sweet FA for her or her son and that' exactly my point, her article is great but shifts the argument entirely to the mental health side of things which in turn will do sweet FA about mass shootings or crazy people getting guns. I'll worry about getting them help after I subdue them and remove their means of harming others thanks.
And that's not to say my heart doesn't go out to her, it seems her situation really sucks. And yeah, chances are in the long run her problems and her sons problems might become everyone's problem from a crime standpoint. Still, she brings up half of america's problems in her little microcosm. That's like the first sentance in a congressional hearing on gun control being all about globalization or tort reform.
There are plenty of people out there who want to pretend the problem is solely crazy people and has nothing to do with guns, for which I say the problem very much is crazy people.... WITH GUNS.
d-usa wrote: Why not capitalize the crazy people in your post as well then?
Because crazy people without guns are starting bar fights, harming small animals or watching fox, not murdering 27 people with a fireaerm. And the odd ones who attempt to without a gun aren't meeting much success.
So we can ignore them and not spend any time focusing on them?
Because there is a pretty long list of crazy serial killers who have a list of victims that can be longer than many mass killings who never once picked up a gun.
Or we can stop playing "the other side is completely at fault" and admit that there are two district and equally important issues here. Undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues AND easy access to weapons.
It boggles my mind that some people own guns without a basic locker or safe of some kind...
It should not, especially since they justify it with the same argument that people who want to justify owning these guns.
"What if I need to protect myself?"
Keep a small gun safe that is bolted to your night stand with a quick pin-number combination (that makes sure you are at least somewhat awake and cognizant before you handle your weapon)?
Truthfully, the only time your gun should be out of your safe and/or trigger lock is when it is being cleaned or on your person.
Not sure if it's been posted in here or not already... But CNET ran an article saying that the group "Anonymous" posted certain members of the Westborough people's information, in retaliation to them announcing plans to protest at the school in CT.
It would seem that even groups like Anonymous who reportedly cause all sorts of mischief and mayhem online also have a collective conscience, and want those who were slain to be remembered properly.
The same article also talked about a petition on the white house webpage requesting that the Westborough Baptist Church be officially recognized as a Hate Group, and treated as such. The petition, according to the article and it's posting time, has 46k signatures.
d-usa wrote: Or we can stop playing "the other side is completely at fault" and admit that there are two district and equally important issues here. Undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues AND easy access to weapons.
Right, and the proposed solutions to the undiagnosed/treated of mental health problems are what exactly? Oh right, it's incredibly complicated, there are no easy answers because it encompasses everything from the drug industry, the healthcare industry, the criminal justice system, parenting or the lack of it and oh yeah the jail industrial complex... unlike the gun control side in which there are some incredibly easy answers, like closing the gun show loophole for one.
Crazy people will flip out and do terrible things. Not all or even most crazy people, but the rare disturbed individual. For the most part (or so it seems) due to the lack of mental healthcare diagnosing and providing actual aid to these individuals as witnessed by the "Anarchist Soccer Mom" in her "Thinking the Unthinkable" article.
How do we stop them?
It is worth noting that crazies have armed themselves with a variety of weapons besides firearms ranging from less destructive to massively more so. (Oklahoma City for example)
Second issue, it seems that crazies do have the capacity to arm themselves without much interference. American gun control blocks criminals from the new purchase of firearms well enough with the majority of criminal guns being stolen or obtained through illegal secondary sources* it does not however account for nutcases.
That leaves us the following as I already said above, how do we stop them?
* The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons , James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi,
National Institute of Justice (U.S.), 1985
* Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997.
It boggles my mind that some people own guns without a basic locker or safe of some kind...
It should not, especially since they justify it with the same argument that people who want to justify owning these guns.
"What if I need to protect myself?"
Keep a small gun safe that is bolted to your night stand with a quick pin-number combination (that makes sure you are at least somewhat awake and cognizant before you handle your weapon)?
Truthfully, the only time your gun should be out of your safe and/or trigger lock is when it is being cleaned or on your person.
I can certainly protect myself just fine and I have a safe, biometric single pistol safes work great for behind the nightstand, though I have a holster set up on the head board of my bed for nighttime stowage. Otherwise it's in the steel box with the rest of the weapons.
d-usa wrote: Or we can stop playing "the other side is completely at fault" and admit that there are two district and equally important issues here. Undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues AND easy access to weapons.
Right, and the proposed solutions to the undiagnosed/treated of mental health problems are what exactly? Oh right, it's incredibly complicated, there are no easy answers because it encompasses everything from the drug industry, the healthcare industry, the criminal justice system, parenting or the lack of it and oh yeah the jail industrial complex... unlike the gun control side in which there are some incredibly easy answers, like closing the gun show loophole for one.
The loophole wherein you have to get a background check like anywhere else you buy?
So ban every single gun, or just enact any sort of sensible gun control law.
Tomorrow is "gun control day +1", hurray now crazy people can't buy guns legally anymore.
What's that over there? A giant pile of legally purchased and legally owned firearms that we accumulated over the last 200+ years that are all around people with mental illnesses? Don't worry about them, it doesn't matter, we made sure they can't buy any NEW guns so the problem is solved. Crazy people will never use weapons that were around for over 200 years now that we have a new law regulating the purchase of new weapons. So just keep on ignoring the dismal state of mental health treatment in the United States because guns are no more, except all the ones already around of course...
Yep, real simple solution there. I also like how you ignore the point aboit mentally ill serial killers who kill for decades without ever picking up guns.
She makes some great points but lets be honest here, her son might do something violent, might kill someone with a sharp or blunt object, but right now he doesn't have access to a firearm and my guess is his harry potter fan club membership isn't going to get him the correct street cred to get in with the kind of individuals who would sell him a firearm illegally.
Buddy, I've lived in places where $50 cash was all the 'street cred' you need to buy illegal guns. Guys with 'street cred' get offered weapons stolen straight from the US military. Buying a sawed off doesn't take 'street cred'. Buying a crate of Stingers or a surplus tank or howitzer that somehow failed to be demilled does.
Let me put it this way: I have all the right paper to make this legal, but once upon a time I bought, in pieces, an entire 40mm oerlikon. Each part, individually, is totally legal to own and purchase without any sort of background check (though the receivers are hard to find NIB) and absolutely minimum licensing. You can even get them through the mail. It's only when you put them together do you have a weapon restricted under the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Crazy people will never use weapons that were around for over 200 years now that we have a new law regulating the purchase of new weapons.
The newly formed United States first mass murderer was a veteran of the Revolution who had the charming habit of locking people in their houses and burning them down.
You'd be amazed how frequently arson has been used since then. It's cheap, effective, and hard to trace. Guns just grab headlines. Right up until someone nails the doors shut and burns down an elementary school.
Crazy people will flip out and do terrible things. Not all or even most crazy people, but the rare disturbed individual. For the most part (or so it seems) due to the lack of mental healthcare diagnosing and providing actual aid to these individuals as witnessed by the "Anarchist Soccer Mom" in her "Thinking the Unthinkable" article.
How do we stop them?
It is worth noting that crazies have armed themselves with a variety of weapons besides firearms ranging from less destructive to massively more so. (Oklahoma City for example)
Second issue, it seems that crazies do have the capacity to arm themselves without much interference. American gun control blocks criminals from the new purchase of firearms well enough with the majority of criminal guns being stolen or obtained through illegal secondary sources* it does not however account for nutcases.
Wow, that's almost as if looking at the big picture actually helps, instead of blaming anyone not approaching the issue from the same angle as you do of 'coping out'.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, gun laws need to be ramped up. If a country is going to allow guns, then very strict regulations need to put upon them.
***We have them.
Someone owning a gun would need to have a background check.
***We have that.
Only specially licensed shops should sell them, and there should not be many of them.
***We have that.
The idea of selling guns in hypermarkets is ridiculous!
***They don't. You have to be a licensed dealer.
A person should only be allowed to own one gun and a limited amount of ammunition. Finally, only small handguns should be sold.
***Why? If i am a nutjob I could kill a bunch of school children with a baseball bat. Its not hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Having the rifle doesn't matter since of was left in the car, was not used, and didn't kill a single person.
Doesn't matter to those who want to ban it. The real question is why are all these known nutjobs roaming around free? I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazies, but crazies should have mandatory treatment.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Well, a legal right should normally be founded in a moral one. A law enabling mass murderers isn't very well founded, and modifying it would be justified.
Of course, that's if it's impossible to curb availability without changing the 2nd Amendment. Which I have no clue about.
A person should only be allowed to own one gun and a limited amount of ammunition. Finally, only small handguns should be sold.
***Why? If i am a nutjob I could kill a bunch of school children with a baseball bat. Its not hard.
Maybe, but then the PE teacher got access to an armory to match yours, and top it 30 times. Guns, not so much.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Well, a legal right should normally be founded in a moral one. A law enabling mass murderers isn't very well founded, and modifying it would be justified.
Of course, that's if it's impossible to curb availability without changing the 2nd Amendment. Which I have no clue about. .
Sure but enabling several million people to defend themselves IS fairly moral.
Given the most conservative estimate I've found is that there are approx 100,000 defensive gun uses yearly (which high numbers into the millions) I'd say that's pretty morally grounded.
Ratbarf wrote:The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia.
Bull Gak
Other than the state of Fantasy none of them require a "mental health background check"
And the funny thing about the only background check they do, the NICS, is that its national.
The NCIS has a requirement for mental state. you can't have been interned or whatever the word is. I'm for making that more severe.
I should note I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't have a tacticool rifle or want one. I just want a deer rifle with a nice scope, and not even to hunt with, just pop paper. I don't have a tacticool shotgun with lights and all that crap, just an 870 thats longer than a house.
Its not a comfort, but those children are innocent and in heaven now. They will never know any more pain, or loss, or hurt. Only joy.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Which is entirely open to interpretation by the Supreme Court as necessary.
The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era. An era when the United States was a nation fresh from a war to earn its independence and a nation which was primarily unspoiled wilderness.
The Second Amendment was intended for a nation where the army of the time had no distinct advantage over the regular citizenry with their muskets and rifles.
For the Second Amendment to have any applicable logic for today citizens would have to be allowed to own tanks, attack helicopters, anti aircraft weaponry, anti armor weaponry, and advanced night vision equipment.
I don't see any of those beyond the night vision equipment being allowed currently.
Also, gun laws need to be ramped up. If a country is going to allow guns, then very strict regulations need to put upon them.
***We have them.
Someone owning a gun would need to have a background check.
***We have that.
Only specially licensed shops should sell them, and there should not be many of them.
***We have that.
The idea of selling guns in hypermarkets is ridiculous!
***They don't. You have to be a licensed dealer.
A person should only be allowed to own one gun and a limited amount of ammunition. Finally, only small handguns should be sold.
***Why? If i am a nutjob I could kill a bunch of school children with a baseball bat. Its not hard.
If we're going to make this argument, "a nutjob could kill a bunch of school children" using their hands.
REGULATE HANDS!
This idea that it is simply "a nutjob" performing these things is preposterous. It's a strawman from the pro-gun side.
d-usa wrote: Having the rifle doesn't matter since of was left in the car, was not used, and didn't kill a single person.
Doesn't matter to those who want to ban it. The real question is why are all these known nutjobs roaming around free? I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazies, but crazies should have mandatory treatment.
Why in the world do people insist on using the term "nutjob" and "crazies"?
Most of these individuals are as functional as the rest of society. There is no hard or fast rule for what causes them to perpetuate these acts of violence.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Which is entirely open to interpretation by the Supreme Court as necessary.
Well have I got news for you! They have, it's still valid and it still applies. In fact under those interpretations Illinois's concealed carry ban was just struck down.
d-usa wrote: It's a big part of the discussion that is being ignored IMHO.
If there is a problem with mentally ill people getting a hold of weapons and using them for mass killings, then why would you say "we need to do something about guns" and ignore an entire half of the problem?
Of course in these parts we will have the two discussions:
"Gun control? Government is going to take away my guns and then we will end up in concentration camps!"
and
"Mental Health reform? They are going to screen us all and force treatment and put us in concentration camps!"
This is an interesting analysis... I want to preface this with a question: When comparing numbers to other counters, are the reported incidents counted the same way?
Oh... one other thing...UK is more violent? Say whaaat? I've tried some google-fu and the data is all over the map. o.O According to Wiki, US has 470 per 100,000... which wouldn't put us in the top 10 list below if that list is accurate.
WARING: Link contains gruesome image, NSFW.
whembly, please warn folks about this kind of thing in the future. Thanks! ~Manchu
I thought it would be useful to assemble in one place factual data refuting the Left’s instinctive demand for gun control in response to the Newtown tragedy. In no particular order, I’m setting out their arguments and the factual counter arguments: 1. America’s out-of-control guns make it the most violent place in the world.False. First of all, there are two different types of violence. The first is violence by a government against its people. The second is violence by a people against each other.
Thankfully, America is still way, way, way low on the list of violence by a government against its people. I’m sure that the beleaguered citizens in North Korea, or China, or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, or Gaza and the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or in any other dictatorship around the world would love to have a chance to live in America. They would laugh at what we call “violence,” because they understand that the worst violence is always that visited by an armed government against an unarmed citizenry.
As for the people against people violence, putting aside fairly anarchic places such as Brazil or Peru or Mexico, America still doesn’t even rank near the top of the list. The most violent place to live if you’re afraid of your fellow citizens is . . . drumroll please . . . England, a country with ferociously stiff gun control laws. (See the chart, above.) Incidentally, the violent crime rate in England increased dramatically from the moment the Labour government put extremely harsh gun-control laws in place. Not only was there more gun crime, there was more of every kind of crime. If you read the British papers, you learn that the Brits got very creative about violence, resorting with ferocity to knives, broken bottles, head stomps, drowning, choking, poisoning, etc. People who want to kill will kill.
2. Countries with strict gun control laws don’t have mass murders along the lines of Columbine or Newtown. False. There are three types of mass murderers: (1) ideological killers, who are usually Muslims with the random Timothy McVeigh thrown in for good measure; (2) insane people; and (3) professional killers, along the lines of the drug gangs Mexico. These people are driven to kill and will do so regardless of any limitations placed upon them.
Your crazed or professional killers will always get guns and bombs, as Anders Breivik did when he killed 77 people, mostly children, in strict-gun-control Norway. They will use fertilizer and box cutters to turn trucks and airplanes into bombs, as Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma and Al Qaeda did on 9/11. They will turn cities into charnel houses, as the Mexico drug gangs have done in Mexico, despite Mexico having some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. (Of course, the interesting twist to the Mexico murders is that Attorney General Eric Holder ignored Mexican law and ran hundreds of illegal weapons into Mexico, courtesy of Operation Fast and Furious.) They will blow up buses and subways, as Muslim extremists did in London; and trains, as Muslim extremists did in Spain. They will slaughter school children, as one madman did in Scotland. Islamic extremists in Mumbai were not slowed down even a little bit by India’s strict gun control laws. Germany, another country in love with strict gun control, also couldn’t stop a mass murder at a school. Gun control does not stop mass murder. 3. Gun control in America will lower the number of gun related murders.False. Even if one concedes that ideological killers, insane people, and professional killers are in a class by themselves, and operate outside of gun control laws, won’t gun control laws stop garden-variety criminals, suicides, and impulse killers? No. Emphatically no. Guns are a very useful deterrent, especially for women. Men have a physical advantage over women, but they don’t have any advantage over a trained and armed woman. (The picture above is of Sarah McKinley, an 18-year-old widow and mother of a small child, who killed home intruders seeking drugs.) Homeowners are sitting ducks if robbers know that they are unable to defend themselves. If you doubt these assertions, just look at the statistics.
Howard Nemorov kindly assembled some statistics and they show definitively what the NRA has always claimed: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns: Collating gun ownership rates with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) homicide data underscores the above conclusions:
* States with the lowest firearms ownership average the highest firearm and non-firearm homicide rates. * As firearms ownership rates increase, homicide rates generally decrease. * States with the highest gun ownership have the lowest firearms homicide rates.
[UPDATE: I've also been reminded that Switzerland and Israel, both of which arm their citizens, have amongst the lowest violent crime rates in the world.]
4. At the very least, gun free zones are safe places. False. Gun free zones are barrels and those in the zone are the fish. Gun free zones are the one place in the world the mass murderer knows that he cannot be stopped. This is true whether the gun free zone is an army base, a school in Columbine, or a university in Virginia. In each of these locations, mass murderers took advantage of everyone else’s unarmed status to go on gleeful killing sprees. Here's the USA Today piece pointing out the problems with this:
Spoiler:
"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."
Plenty of people — especially among America's political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They'd be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.
There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.
In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.
This vulnerability makes some people uncomfortable. I teach at a state university with a campus gun-free policy, and quite a few of my students have permits to carry guns. After the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, one of them asked me if we could move class off campus, because she felt unsafe being unarmed. I certainly would have felt perfectly safe having her carry a gun in my presence; she was, and is, a responsible adult. I feel the same way about the other law students I know who have carry permits.
Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.
Fortunately, the efforts to punish "the people who didn't do it" are getting less traction these days. The Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that under the Constitution, honest people have a right to defend themselves with firearms, inside and outside the home, something that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently acknowledged in striking down Illinois' gun-carry ban. Given that gun-free zones seem to be a magnet for mass shooters, maybe we should be working to shrink or eliminate them, rather than expand them. As they say, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.
5. Congress should outlaw guns. False. Even if you think Congress should, it can’t. Like it or not, the Second Amendment stands in the way, stating as a matter of contract between government and people that the American people the right to bear arms. There is only one mechanism to bypass the Second Amendment — more amendment. Or, as Article 5 of the Constitution says:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Funnily enough, gun control advocates seem disinclined to attempt either of the options the Constitution provides for its amendment.
6. America’s culture is violent. Sort of true, but let’s figure out where to place the blame. I say “sort of true” because, while America certainly isn’t up there with Britain or certain other European countries when it comes to violence, we’re certainly a more violent country than Iceland or Japan. (Although Japan has an insanely high suicide rate, so lack of both violence and guns doesn’t mean lack of suffering.) Because we are a ginormous, heterogeneous country with a huge influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, we are never going to have the social unanimity that other countries use as a counter to violence. We cannot mimic Iceland or Japan because our population is too differently constituted. In this regard, it’s worth noting that Nordic countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark that have opened their Leftist hearts to a vast influx of Muslim immigrants who don’t subscribe to Nordic social norms have seen a huge increase in one very specific type of violence: rape.
There’s another reason America has a violent culture: our entertainment industry celebrates it. Movies, TV shows, video games, and music are all blood-soaked. They are also all the product of a dominant Progressive industry. Yup — the people who are selling American disarmament are also the same people glorifying an extraordinarily violent culture. My suggestion is that, before the Progressives take away my Constitutional right to bear arms, they give some thought to changing the message they sell to America and the rest of the world.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Which is entirely open to interpretation by the Supreme Court as necessary.
Well have I got news for you! They have, it's still valid and it still applies. In fact under those interpretations Illinois's concealed carry ban was just struck down.
Which does not prove a single thing about the constitutionality about the right for individuals to own "assault weapons", which is a big sticking point for both sides of the gun debate.
The ability to conceal a handgun on your person != the right to bear arms, by the way.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Which is entirely open to interpretation by the Supreme Court as necessary.
Well have I got news for you! They have, it's still valid and it still applies. In fact under those interpretations Illinois's concealed carry ban was just struck down.
Which does not prove a single thing about the constitutionality about the right for individuals to own "assault weapons", which is a big sticking point for both sides of the gun debate.
The ability to conceal a handgun on your person != the right to bear arms, by the way. !
Actually according to the Supreme Court's decision on Maryland and DC vs. Heller yes it does. (AND the 7th Circuit's decision to strike down Illinois's concealed carry ban also focuses on RKBA along with the USSC's recent strike downs in Maryland and DC, along with a few other 2A related rulings)
Now since you used a made up term, define assault weapons for the rest of the class please. Do you base your definition on the cosmetic 94 AWB? Or something else?
whembly wrote: This is an interesting analysis... I want to preface this with a question: When comparing numbers to other counters, are the reported incidents counted the same way?
Oh... one other thing...UK is more violent? Say whaaat? I've tried some google-fu and the data is all over the map. o.O
According to Wiki, US has 470 per 100,000... which wouldn't put us in the top 10 list below if that list is accurate.
The UK includes all categories of assault in its violent crime figures, whereas the US only includes the more serious ones. This makes comparison between the two difficult, to say the least. The person who posted that has not done their homework sufficiently.
d-usa wrote: Mental health testing for firearms is probably not going to happen anytime soon. Just political suicide to push for that. Must have insurance to get that exam, would insurance cover "mental fitness exams for gun ownership", would any psychiatrist be willing to sign of on the "won't kill people" paper and risk being sued by the family of survivors, etc etc etc
I am in favor of a waiting period , I am also in favor of fixing the gun show craziness that we seem to have.
I'm ok with the latter. All firearms sales should be through FFL after a proper check. While I don't see the positive of the former I'd be ok with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: [Truthfully, the only time your gun should be out of your safe and/or trigger lock is when it is being cleaned or on your person.
The Second Amendment was intended for a nation where the army of the time had no distinct advantage over the regular citizenry with their muskets and rifles.
For the Second Amendment to have any applicable logic for today citizens would have to be allowed to own tanks, attack helicopters, anti aircraft weaponry, anti armor weaponry, and advanced night vision equipment.
I don't see any of those beyond the night vision equipment being allowed currently.
Um...considering I own everything on that list but the attack helo, legally, though I grant they require licenses and permits, I have to call shenanigans on your argument. Any US citizen, as long as they pass the correct checks and are licensed, can own howitzers, bombers, tanks, and pretty much anything else. The reason the average joe does not is not that they're illegal, it's that they're expensive to purchase and maintain. Parts for even a lightly used tank are hell, and some tanks it's hard to find qualified mechanics for in the US. God help you with a WW2 Panther. The parts for those are insane and a lot of time it's cheaper to make your own. That and Germans did not go in for ease of replacement like the US did with Shermans.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I thought the laws for owning a tank also means you have ot have the weapons disable.
Not necessarily...
If they were old weapons from WW2 in Germany, the weapon my have been disabled in order for it to be delievered into Civilian hands... but, once here, we can refurbish it as appropriate licenses are filed.
The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.
You're in such good company Kan.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Cute.
Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response as to why gun control should not be enacted.
Kanluwen wrote: There's a reason I put "assault weapon" in quotations.
It is, as you noted, a made-up term. It has no real application beyond a catch all for both sides to argue themselves hoarse over.
Well since they don't exist, it isn't a problem is it?
While the category is made up, it does not change that there is in fact an issue with the availability of firearms at large to the general populace.
I'd say "Assault Weapons" as defined by the 94 AWB aren't much of an issue and the facts/Congress agree.
Fact: Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.”
Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics,
assault weapon recovery rates
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the
average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”
-House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work, New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15, quoting Philip
McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc.,
Fact: Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994
Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”
- Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.
You're in such good company Kan.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Cute.
Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response as to why gun control should not be enacted.
Not his fault he's right, those noted "luminaries" agree completely that guns don't belong in the hands of the people.
The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.
You're in such good company Kan.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Cute.
Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response
Just because I quoted you doesn't mean I'm relying on you.
Kanluwen wrote: There's a reason I put "assault weapon" in quotations.
It is, as you noted, a made-up term. It has no real application beyond a catch all for both sides to argue themselves hoarse over.
Well since they don't exist, it isn't a problem is it?
While the category is made up, it does not change that there is in fact an issue with the availability of firearms at large to the general populace.
I'd say "Assault Weapons" as defined by the 94 AWB aren't much of an issue and the facts/Congress agree.
Fact: Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.”
Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics,
assault weapon recovery rates
I want to see these "facts". Especially what they are categorizing as criminals.
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the
average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”
-House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work, New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15, quoting Philip
McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc.,
Gee.
It's almost like the majority of violent crime is committed within situations where a large firearm cannot be readily concealed.
Fact: Even the government agrees. “... the weapons banned by this legislation [1994
Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”
- Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
That does not really change anything, since the 1994 FAWB was in response to the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Not his fault he's right, those noted "luminaries" agree completely that guns don't belong in the hands of the people.
Of course they did.
They came to power, barring Adolf Hitler and to an extent Qaddafi, through "guns in the hands of the people".
I cited all my facts, my source and their source. Go wild.
Ruby Ridge has no connection the '94 AWB... it is an excellent example of the over reach of Fedeal LEAs resulting in the murder of multiple citizens. We can confirm it was an over reach because of the massive controversy, the 3.1 Million settlement paid to the Weaver family, the COMPLETE overhaul of Federal LEA deadly force use, and got at least twelve FBI agents drug over the coals professionally speaking.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I thought the laws for owning a tank also means you have ot have the weapons disable.
Tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. all fall under the auspices of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as “other destructive devices.” In general this means they may be privately owned, subject to the payment of a transfer tax, and filling out all of the requisite paperwork.
To buy one, you have to get the signature of the local police chief, pass a background check, and register it with BATF. You also have to get ATF permission to cross state lines with it. Corporations can be the registered owners, so as long as you are an employee with a letter on company letterhead stating you have company permission, you can have it without getting all the paperwork yourself. (Note, this is how mercs can drive tanks around in the US legally)
The US defense department has to demill everything they sell to private citizens, but it doesn't mean you can't buy it from someone else. You're usually looking at either foreign made or a generation or two old for private sales from out of country, but don't underestimate old. Some tanks have (again, legally acquirable) upgrade packages long after their initial production.
Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review
"due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=96
hotsauceman1 wrote: I thought the laws for owning a tank also means you have ot have the weapons disable.
Tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. all fall under the auspices of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as “other destructive devices.” In general this means they may be privately owned, subject to the payment of a transfer tax, and filling out all of the requisite paperwork.
To buy one, you have to get the signature of the local police chief, pass a background check, and register it with BATF. You also have to get ATF permission to cross state lines with it. Corporations can be the registered owners, so as long as you are an employee with a letter on company letterhead stating you have company permission, you can have it without getting all the paperwork yourself. (Note, this is how mercs can drive tanks around in the US legally)
The US defense department has to demill everything they sell to private citizens, but it doesn't mean you can't buy it from someone else. You're usually looking at either foreign made or a generation or two old for private sales from out of country, but don't underestimate old. Some tanks have (again, legally acquirable) upgrade packages long after their initial production.
All of this of course is insanely expensive.
But awesome.
If I had the money I'd have a T-34 in the garage by now now.
If I had the money I'd have a T-34 in the garage by now now.
I... seem to remember someone telling me they had a T-34 for sale recently, but the problem was paying for shipping from England. It was still in operational condition, but they were offering to have it demilled if required.
Personally, I with I had the spare change for one of those Yugoslavian war veteran M-18 hellcats that people have been restoring. Too bad that a half mil is beyond my reach atm.
If I had the money I'd have a T-34 in the garage by now now.
I... seem to remember someone telling me they had a T-34 for sale recently, but the problem was paying for shipping from England. It was still in operational condition, but they were offering to have it demilled if required.
Personally, I with I had the spare change for one of those Yugoslavian war veteran M-18 hellcats that people have been restoring. Too bad that a half mil is beyond my reach atm.
I saw that one actually! It did need some restoration work if we're thinking of the same armored vehicle. Didn't even want toooo much for it. about 29,000 more then I can afford still, but now bad.
I saw that one actually! It did need some restoration work if we're thinking of the same armored vehicle. Didn't even want toooo much for it. about 29,000 more then I can afford still, but now bad.
Kanluwen wrote: Which does not prove a single thing about the constitutionality about the right for individuals to own "assault weapons", which is a big sticking point for both sides of the gun debate.
The ability to conceal a handgun on your person != the right to bear arms, by the way.
Oh and look. Here comes Whembly with blog posts!
"Assault weapons" are only a sticking point for the anti-gun side, actually.
As far as the ability to conceal a handgun goes, the court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to "bear" arms did in fact mean the right to carry them, as simply being allowed to have them in your home wouldn't meet the definition of bearing, but keeping.
I'd go with the Easy 8 for Shermans during the war, and post was the M-50 Super Sherman (it was an Israeli upgrade using parts from AMX 13/75s and Panzer 4s, a regular Frankentank).
Firearm sales are through the roof right now, by the way. My local shop had sold over 20 AR-15s by noon today. Ammo shelves are bare. Even online there's not a bolt carrier group worth buying available.
Seaward wrote: Firearm sales are through the roof right now, by the way. My local shop had sold over 20 AR-15s by noon today. Ammo shelves are bare. Even online there's not a bolt carrier group worth buying available.
The latter's been true for awhile now but yeah it was similar here. I was picking up a Marlin lever action I had bought and I had to WADE through. You can't find 5.56/.233, .22 or any of the popular hunting rounds at Walmart or any of the major sporting goods stores. Dick's Sporting Goods were down to 1/3 their normal stock of weapons. Walmart sold out of black rifles completely in three locations.
You're relying on bs history given to you by liars. The claim that Hitler put in place gun control is a long discredited myth. The idea that gun control in China, while admittedly very strict, would have any meaningful impact on a society built on subsistance farmers as Mao's China was, is just plain weird. Just... feth. This 'dictator's don't let you have guns!' is just so fething stupid. Plenty of dictators had relaxed laws on guns - look no further than Saddam Hussein. It doesn't matter whether you have access to guns or not, because that just isn't how power works.
I'm not, by the way, trying to make an argument for or against gun control*, I'm just sick of this debate being fought with nonsense yet again.
*I only popped my head in here as a friend mentioned the thread to me in pm, and sure enough its the same old nonsense as always.
Kanluwen wrote: Which does not prove a single thing about the constitutionality about the right for individuals to own "assault weapons", which is a big sticking point for both sides of the gun debate.
The ability to conceal a handgun on your person != the right to bear arms, by the way.
Oh and look. Here comes Whembly with blog posts!
"Assault weapons" are only a sticking point for the anti-gun side, actually.
Bollocks.
The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.
As far as the ability to conceal a handgun goes, the court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to "bear" arms did in fact mean the right to carry them, as simply being allowed to have them in your home wouldn't meet the definition of bearing, but keeping.
The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.
That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Firearm sales are through the roof right now, by the way. My local shop had sold over 20 AR-15s by noon today. Ammo shelves are bare. Even online there's not a bolt carrier group worth buying available.
Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.
Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!
The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.
I'm not sure what your point is. That happens to be true.
The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.
That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.
No, they made pretty clear that the right is to carry them.
Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.
Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!
Actually, it's because rhetoric immediately after indicates that politicians might try to ban guns, so it's time to go ahead and pick up what you need now.
As far as that belief, I'm not sure it's wrong. I'm aware of many mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder; I'm aware of none where a CCW holder was present but didn't stop the atrocity.
The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.
I'm not sure what your point is. That happens to be true.
That it is, as I said, a sticking point of both sides.
Rather than attempting to educate the opposition about why they are wrong, the pro-gun side for the most part just refutes it because "That is not a real thing!".
The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.
That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.
No, they made pretty clear that the right is to carry them.
Right...which is not the same as carrying them at all times and in all places.
That is why Illinois was given 180 days to write a bill which would be considered acceptable.
Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.
Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!
Actually, it's because rhetoric immediately after indicates that politicians might try to ban guns, so it's time to go ahead and pick up what you need now.
Only to the more gullible individuals.
History continually tells us that despite the rhetoric, there is practically nothing done. The gun lobby is too entrenched to be dealt a death blow like the gun lobby continually purports will happen.
As far as that belief, I'm not sure it's wrong. I'm aware of many mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder; I'm aware of none where a CCW holder was present but didn't stop the atrocity.
The phenomenon of mass shootings is primarily associated with individuals who want infamy. The majority of these incidents will take place in areas where CCW is not allowed, as the individuals do not want a "fair fight" or any other such nonsense.
The statement of "assault weapons" is continuously used by the pro-gun side as an implication that the anti-gun side has no clue what they are talking about.
I'm not sure what your point is. That happens to be true.
That it is, as I said, a sticking point of both sides.
Rather than attempting to educate the opposition about why they are wrong, the pro-gun side for the most part just refutes it because "That is not a real thing!".
Mostly because even when we take the time to educate it's thrown back in our faces or blatantly ignored. The definition of insanity and all that
The court, in striking down Illinois' ban, ruled that the right to bear arms is not limited simply to the home.
That is not the same thing as the right to carry them, at all times and in all places.
No, they made pretty clear that the right is to carry them.
Right...which is not the same as carrying them at all times and in all places.
That is why Illinois was given 180 days to write a bill which would be considered acceptable.
Now you're just into semantics, is there an actual point here?
Firearm sales always spike after events like we saw.
Because every individual out there who remotely qualifies to handle a gun thinks they could stop something like this, if only they had been there!
Actually, it's because rhetoric immediately after indicates that politicians might try to ban guns, so it's time to go ahead and pick up what you need now.
Only to the more gullible individuals.
History continually tells us that despite the rhetoric, there is practically nothing done. The gun lobby is too entrenched to be dealt a death blow like the gun lobby continually purports will happen.
Yup, but it will get Obama another "NRA Rifle Salesman of the Year" award.
As far as that belief, I'm not sure it's wrong. I'm aware of many mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder; I'm aware of none where a CCW holder was present but didn't stop the atrocity.
The phenomenon of mass shootings is primarily associated with individuals who want infamy. The majority of these incidents will take place in areas where CCW is not allowed, as the individuals do not want a "fair fight" or any other such nonsense.
They want to be assured of a measure of fame.
Multiple mass shootings have been still stopped by CCW holders however. The Oregon incident last week to cite a recent example, even if the active shooter just suicided at the first sign of armed resistance.
Kanluwen wrote: That it is, as I said, a sticking point of both sides.
Rather than attempting to educate the opposition about why they are wrong, the pro-gun side for the most part just refutes it because "That is not a real thing!".
I spend a lot more time than I should trying to do just that, but it's usually dismissed as mere semantics that don't change the fact that "WE NEED TO GET THESE MACHINE GUNS OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS!"
Right...which is not the same as carrying them at all times and in all places.
That's certainly true, but places where you can't carry in a state which has CCWs are usually the exception rather than the rule.
Only to the more gullible individuals.
History continually tells us that despite the rhetoric, there is practically nothing done. The gun lobby is too entrenched to be dealt a death blow like the gun lobby continually purports will happen.
Aside from the Assault Weapon Ban, of course. Feinstein said today that she'd be introducing the bill to get it back in January. So, anyone who wants to pick up a tacticooled AR-15 wouldn't necessarily be unwise to do it now.
The phenomenon of mass shootings is primarily associated with individuals who want infamy. The majority of these incidents will take place in areas where CCW is not allowed, as the individuals do not want a "fair fight" or any other such nonsense.
They want to be assured of a measure of fame.
That sounds like a good argument for ditching "Gun Free Zones" to me.
I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse. She sounds fairly unstable herself if that's true, and crazy people living together isn't healthy, they feed each others' paranoia.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse. She sounds fairly unstable herself if that's true, and crazy people living together isn't healthy, they feed each others' paranoia.
sebster wrote: Plenty of dictators had relaxed laws on guns - look no further than Saddam Hussein.
Yes, but there's also a difference in the Saddam was gambling that he could create a functional resistance to US occupation by arming anyone who wanted a gun. (To a degree, he was not incorrect. He just assumed he would be leading it is all...)
I will say this: as many countries have learned, the number one first line of defense against terrorism is the armed civilian. The reason is simple: while the Army, etc, are very good at their jobs, they're not everywhere. Civilians, by nature, are everywhere, at all times. An armed civilian has better odds of stopping a suicide bomber than even the best prepared security force. The real issue is that most US civilians are idiots when you hand them a gun. Most of them can barely aim, let alone keep focused while under fire, and they tend to do stupid gak like fire with a gun in each hand (only useful with certain very uncommon guns) or some other John Woo gak that does not work in the real world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse
I hate that term, because it's applied to everyone ranging from the legitimately prepared to the radical fringe. There is nothign wrong with being prepared for lack of basics. It happens a lot, even in the 'West' that you might have things like natural disasters. Or even man made ones.
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, but there's also a difference in the Saddam was gambling that he could create a functional resistance to US occupation by arming anyone who wanted a gun. (To a degree, he was not incorrect. He just assumed he would be leading it is all...)
No, guns had been freely available and were common for years before Saddam came to power, and throughout the period in which he was your man in the region. Iraq had a gun culture, not as strong as the US but not that different. And when Saddam came to power all those meant nothing, because Saddam was very popular among lots of the people with guns, and among the others... well there's a big fething difference between owning a gun and being willing and capable of mounting a genuinely meaningful resistance.
I will say this: as many countries have learned, the number one first line of defense against terrorism is the armed civilian. The reason is simple: while the Army, etc, are very good at their jobs, they're not everywhere. Civilians, by nature, are everywhere, at all times. An armed civilian has better odds of stopping a suicide bomber than even the best prepared security force.
fething what? How many cases can you mention in which a civilian with a private weapon has stopped a suicide bomber? Exactly how does a civilian go about picking out a suicide bomber anyway, just wave his gun around and proceed with the pat down?
Seriously, guns are fun to go shooting with, and hunting can put some cheap meat on the table. And that's it. Everything else is people playing imaginary games in their in which going dropping some cash on a gun means they're suddenly capable of fighting their government or an invading army. Or buying a pistol means they're now manly male protectors of their homes from the evil home invaders.
Now, against that, there's basically zero evidence that any practical level of legislation will stop a crazy getting his hands on some guns. Most massacres like this are carried out with legal, licensed firearms, and outside of extended clips in the Ft Hood massacre I don't think any of them would have played out that differently if the 'scary' kinds of mods hadn't been available. More gun laws just aren't going to solve this problem.
To me, the issue is not with guns, but with the crazy ass culture that surrounds guns in the US. The problem is with the assumption that people need some kind of lethal tool on their person, in some cases they believe they need such a thing on their person at all times, in order to be safe. It's with the assumption that getting a gun in your hand makes you a powerful, potential resistance fighter against your government or some invading army.
Keep drilling those fantasies in to people's heads, and sure enough a few on the fringes of normality will tip over into violence.
Of course, there's no legislation that'll fix that problem, so no-one talks about it.
sebster wrote: fething what? How many cases can you mention in which a civilian with a private weapon has stopped a suicide bomber? Exactly how does a civilian go about picking out a suicide bomber anyway, just wave his gun around and proceed with the pat down?
We don't often have suicide bombers in the US. I'm fairly certain there are other forms of terrorism than suicide bombing, however. There have been an awful lot of mass shootings stopped by a civilian with a concealed weapon. And, interestingly, every mass killing in recent history, save one, has been in a place where guns have been banned.
Seriously, guns are fun to go shooting with, and hunting can put some cheap meat on the table. And that's it. Everything else is people playing imaginary games in their in which going dropping some cash on a gun means they're suddenly capable of fighting their government or an invading army. Or buying a pistol means they're now manly male protectors of their homes from the evil home invaders.
Well, that's just not true at all. You should read the fact sheet Kalashnikov posted a few pages ago. According to ATF statistics, for example, 6850 violent crimes are prevented per day in America just by showing a gun.
and that's the conservative estimate, the numbers go into the millions with other surveys.
So that's one hundred thousand, rapes, murders, kidnappings, assaults, home invasions and muggings foiled PER YEAR in the United States.
Not all DGUs (in fact the majority) involve shots fired or dead/wounded bad guys. Mostly, like Seaward said all it takes is drawing down to make the scumbag du jour decide to leg it.
Here's an interesting take on the forthcoming new CCW laws in Illinois from a Chicago dweller who has actually had to defend herself just trying to make it home at night. She's not alone in her story, there are many millions like it, but having a weapon better then pepper spray certainly can't be a bad thing.
Kinda fun basic logic image from the "Why yes, I do carry thanks" perspective.
And just for funsies people ask me why I get defensive about firearms, or why I can be hostile to the opposition in general when it comes to gun control debates. I admit it's very much dependent on the group of people and the individuals I'm talking with, but when the group opposing you includes nutcases like these you lose the desire to be polite.
sebster wrote: Plenty of dictators had relaxed laws on guns - look no further than Saddam Hussein.
Yes, but there's also a difference in the Saddam was gambling that he could create a functional resistance to US occupation by arming anyone who wanted a gun.
Saddam relaxed gun laws for his supporters, he didn't arm anyone that wanted a gun.
It is worth recalling that there is a distinction between banning access to something, and the subjects of the ban being able to obtain access to it.
Kinda fun basic logic image from the "Why yes, I do carry thanks" perspective.
Not really, honestly it is pretty lame.
The first problem is that they begin with "innocent life" instead of "life" which, alone, breaks the argument. I mean, what is 'innocent' life? That in itself is a complicated question.
Then we get to the yes/no disjunction regarding innocence. If no, the obvious conjecture is that innocent is not tacit to valuable, meaning that I could easily prefer to protect a valuable person instead of an innocent person; or presume that my innocent/valuable life is far more innocent/valuable than any other life presently at risk. The follow on being that I would love it if only the people I valued were permitted guns, I give no damn about the rest of you; and I know of no one important that wants to ban guns.
I would further like to know in why life , apparently, only given meaning by self-defense.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I read this morning that the killer's mother was some sort of 'survivalist' that was stockpiling food and guns for the apocalypse. She sounds fairly unstable herself if that's true, and crazy people living together isn't healthy, they feed each others' paranoia.
If you read it, it must be true.
No need to be a wiseass, it was reported in a newspaper and I did add the caveat 'if true', I don't believe everything I read. But as it seemed to be a new dimension to this story it seemed worthy of mention.
Howard A Treesong wrote: No need to be a wiseass, it was reported in a newspaper and I did add the caveat 'if true', I don't believe everything I read. But as it seemed to be a new dimension to this story it seemed worthy of mention.
You're right, I apologize.
It could well be true. Even it if is, as Baron pointed out, there are many different levels of "survivalist." Some are what you would consider unreasonable, some are probably not.
The BBC news this morning were reporting that she was a member of a 'Doomsday Cult' but beyond that, they didn't really go into much details (at least, not in the bulletin I saw) other than to say she stockpiled arms, food, supplies that sort of thing, in anticipation of some sort of world ending catastrophe. The BBC said it was quite a popular trend in the US, apparently.
The "right to bear arms" is a relic of a bygone era.
You're in such good company Kan. Keep fighting the good fight.
Cute.
Maybe you can actually present some kind of argument rather than relying upon garbage spouted by individuals who cannot formulate some kind of logical response as to why gun control should not be enacted.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control. And lets not rely on the police and the US justice system for our rights shall we? Their view of our rights is...limited. Else we wouldn't have a warehouse full of cases where the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were violated and have no need for the NAACP and the ACLU. These are the same guys that will try to arrest you, if you are a bystander videoing them beating someone. This is the group who should LEAST be listened to in terms of our human rights.
Do you want the guys hey played hey diddle diddle on Rodney King or helped hang civil rights workers in charge of your civil rights. feth that.
Ruby Ridge has no connection the '94 AWB... it is an excellent example of the over reach of Fedeal LEAs resulting in the murder of multiple citizens. We can confirm it was an over reach because of the massive controversy, the 3.1 Million settlement paid to the Weaver family, the COMPLETE overhaul of Federal LEA deadly force use, and got at least twelve FBI agents drug over the coals professionally speaking.
I hate that term, because it's applied to everyone ranging from the legitimately prepared to the radical fringe. There is nothign wrong with being prepared for lack of basics. It happens a lot, even in the 'West' that you might have things like natural disasters. Or even man made ones.
'Always Be Prepared' is a hell of a motto.
Indeed. We typically have three months of dry food that can be prepared in a barbeque pit, because, when you live in hurricane zones, thats what the government tells you to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yellowfever wrote: @kanluwen. So your saying that more areas allowing ccw would prevent more shootings
In Israel, the teachers are armed to protect against terrorists. In other countries the schools have armed persons on campus. Heck at my kids schools they have police and the local police can be there in 30 seconds. The Wife's ex was ejected by one. Inner city schools also have similar security.
Crablezworth wrote: But you just muddy the waters by making this solely a "mental health" issue. It's a cop out.
Quite true, but simply making it solely a "gun rights" issue is a cop out, too. In the end, it's not just guns and it's not just the mentally ill, it's the mentally ill with guns. Many argue vehemently that the issue could be solved simply by restricting access to firearms, and many more argue that the solution lies in better services for the mentally ill. Of course, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
I agree completely, just lately I've noticed that shifting it to mental health and solely mental health seems to be the only tactic the "pro gun" lobby have been able to employ with any effect. I have no doubt that a mandatory psych test as one of the peaces of the puzzle in legal gun ownership is a good thing. I just believe that shifting focus entirely to some vague concept of "mental health" or "affordable meds" or affordable treatment or crime and punishment just serves to muddy's the waters because where the hell do you start? She describes like half the problems facing America in one go, you split people off in seventeen different directions with no where to start and you've effectively crippled any critical mass that the last incidents have built up. It's divide and conquer.
The problem isn't really gun crime, the problem is crazy people committing mass murder, as the situation in china recently showed, it's a lot harder to do with a knife than a firearm. You can't stop all the crazies; you can certainly take common sense steps to reducing the crazy’s access to efficient death machines.
Anytime you try and go down the road of sensible gun control, the super bat gak crazy build the “our secret muslim president wants to ban guns” strawman. And the slightly more sensible gun owners who still fear they might lose access to their preferred pass time, be it target shooting or hunting go with the “mental health” route.
1.) Individual Psych tests aren't exactly 100% trustworthy. The problem with the various "paths" is that they are generally good at lying, especially to someone who doesn't have an intimate relationship with them to help and spot the behavioral ques. The only way to really discern if a person is crazy or not is prolonged observation. 2.) Arguably, for the exact reason that the insane are difficult to detect without intense scrutiny and screening everyone should be allowed to carry guns at all times, barring of course those who have already been successfully identified as belonging to those with incompatible mental health issues. This of course must be taken in tandem with a program of gun education and responsibility. Making the innocent vulnerable does nothing but encourage those considering perpetrating.
Spoiler:
Crablezworth wrote:Ok so what reccomdations on the mental health front are we hearing?
The mental health thing is a copout, full stop. There will always be crazy people, there will always be firearms and we need a legislative firewall between them and firearms. Some people will be prefectly sane, own firearms and then one day snap, I'm under no illusion you can prevent every massacre, but you can certainly mitigate the damage.
Is it easier to create a system in which the entire population is forcibly assessed by mental health professionals OR create a comprehensive level of checks and balances including psych test for those wishing to acquire firearms? And maybe go one further and standardizing the process because some states are far worse than others in terms of gun control and cun crime.
The reason it’s difficult in many states to involuntarily commit individuals is that you have to prove that they are an imminent threat to themselves or others, which can be incredibly difficult. And even then as is shown its a temporary solution.
It’s very hard to make legislation to force people to take their meds. There will always be crazy people, the states just happens to have their fair share of them. Legislation to start forcibly assessing people and force feeding them medication is incredibly complex and inefficient.
1.) If you're saying that it's a cop out on the grounds of because of x we have no need to discuss y then yes. If it's on the ground that claiming mental issues excuses someone from being in control of their actions, then that's demonstrably false, and highly ignorant of the facts of the issue. 2.) Encouraging responsible gun ownership would actually mitigate the damage, as has been stated repeatedly. 3.) Again, psych tests are not trustworthy. They only work with a good degree of accuracy if the test taker is 100% honest. Especially if you want something and know that certain answers will lead to you not getting it. Unless the person is dumb they obviously won't answer yes to questions such as "Do you hear voices" on a background test they have to take because they wish to purchase a firearm. Take it from someone with a decent number of run ins with the mental health institution. 4.) Involuntary committal is pretty much a legislative problem. In Ontario all you need for someone to be committed for 72 hours observation is to sign a document stating that you were witness to them stating an intention to hurt themselves or others and you believed them to be serious. The follow up may be crap but the actual process for identification is pretty good in Ontario, as long as someone comes forward. 5.) Legislating someone to take their meds/treatment is easy. Effective enforcement is expensive and unpalatable due to a history of abuse of power and isolation.
Spoiler:
d-usa wrote:Well, I'm not saying that it screening and treatments wouldn't have made a difference. Although so far he doesn't seem to come across as a crazy mental type pre-shooting.
And I do think that gun laws can be improved. Trigger guards and gun storage devices should be mandatory, but would your kids know the combinations and then take the guns anyway?
It's not an easy fix and "hurr durr ban all guns" won't work.
Agreed, responsibility in the ownership of firearms is the number one way to prevent their misuse. My father is a perfect example of this in my opinion. (note our firearms are not for immediate need self defence) He keeps all of the bolts and firing pins in a separate locked safe from the firearms themselves, which all have trigger guards locked and in place. Ammunition for all weapons is stored in a separate safe. None of the safes are in the same room, and my father and mother are the only ones who know the combinations to the safes, as well as the location of the keys for the trigger locks. It might seem overboard, but there is no way in hell that I would be able to access their guns without them present and their permission short of a heavy duty welding torch and a several of hours or free time.
Crablezworth wrote:
d-usa wrote: Why not capitalize the crazy people in your post as well then?
Because crazy people without guns are starting bar fights, harming small animals or watching fox, not murdering 27 people with a fireaerm. And the odd ones who attempt to without a gun aren't meeting much success.
Not true, it's just the mass killers, not the serial killers, that use guns. Even then if they didn't have guns it's quite likely they would use other means. Enough propane to cause a sizable explosion is not difficult to gather by any means. Really, the only difficulty with that kind of set up is trigger mechanism.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Not sure if it's been posted in here or not already... But CNET ran an article saying that the group "Anonymous" posted certain members of the Westborough people's information, in retaliation to them announcing plans to protest at the school in CT.
It would seem that even groups like Anonymous who reportedly cause all sorts of mischief and mayhem online also have a collective conscience, and want those who were slain to be remembered properly.
This is most likely just the doing of a few individuals, by and large Anonymous seems to think the WBC are either crazy, hilarious, or rage inducing. That said, from what I've seen on the site the last few days they don't give two flying feths as to remembering the victims properly. The number of jokes image macros and overall dark humour that has sprouted from this affair would point to the contrary. Though that's pretty much par for the course with everything on there.
Spoiler:
Frazzled wrote:
Crablezworth wrote: Notice how knives are a far less efficient tool for killing people?
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Gun laws are protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms rights are not just laws but an actual right enshrined under the Second Amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, gun laws need to be ramped up. If a country is going to allow guns, then very strict regulations need to put upon them. ***We have them. Someone owning a gun would need to have a background check. ***We have that. Only specially licensed shops should sell them, and there should not be many of them. ***We have that. The idea of selling guns in hypermarkets is ridiculous! ***They don't. You have to be a licensed dealer. A person should only be allowed to own one gun and a limited amount of ammunition. Finally, only small handguns should be sold. ***Why? If i am a nutjob I could kill a bunch of school children with a baseball bat. Its not hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Having the rifle doesn't matter since of was left in the car, was not used, and didn't kill a single person.
Doesn't matter to those who want to ban it. The real question is why are all these known nutjobs roaming around free? I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazies, but crazies should have mandatory treatment.
The problem is getting the population to accept widespread screening as well as the expense of the care for the "crazies" unless of course one opts for the rabid dog solution.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
Agreed. I live in a democracy where even the police do not carry guns as a matter of course. I've never seen a live firearm outside of a military base in the UK - and I'm proud of my country because of it.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
Agreed. I live in a democracy where even the police do not carry guns as a matter of course. I've never seen a live firearm outside of a military base in the UK - and I'm proud of my country because of it.
Good for you. Its not in your constitution, niether is your right to free speech.
There are all sorts of problems with the idea of screening the whole population for mental disorders.
The gunman in this incident had no apparent mental disorder other than being a disruptive, intelligent loner, until he flipped. The same was true of the Hungerford gunman in the UK.
Most mass killers are men under some fairly ordinary stresses, who suddenly flip after a triggering event such as redundancy.
The cinema gunman seems to have been an exception in having an expressed prior history of mental disturbance.
Its a coherent argument, and the one the Founding Fathers subscribed to. All authoritarian entities love gun control.
You are at risk of a syllogism.
If all authoritarian entities love gun control, that does not mean that all entities who love gun control are authoritarian.
Nearly every major democracy in the world has more gun control than the USA. That does not make them dictatorships in any shape.
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
I will after you show me the USA 200 years from now.
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Iceland's got the US beat by about eight hundred years there Frazz. Also Switzerland by a couple hundred years, and The United Kingdom of the Netherlands if we're counting constitutional monarchies in the mix as well.
Oh and Ireland, though they probably count towards the UK for most of it.
No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...
The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...
Nah, realistically Ireland has only been self governing for the last 90 or so years. And "governing" is a strong word for what our political class occupy their time with
Good to see some more discussion of the culture of violence and gun worship in the US getting some mention. I think it must have a lot to do with what's happening, and that's where the push should be heading. I mean, if individual states want to tighten their gun laws up as well, I see no harm in that either.
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.
Iceland's got the US beat by about eight hundred years there Frazz. Also Switzerland by a couple hundred years, and The United Kingdom of the Netherlands if we're counting constitutional monarchies in the mix as well.
Oh and Ireland, though they probably count towards the UK for most of it.
Iceland has 8 people all related to each other and have no concept of the greatness of queso - savages!
Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.
Wait, the Netherlands is a country? Seriously? You're pulling my leg right, come on.
Hedgehog wrote: No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far,
Hedgehog wrote: No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...
The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...
You don't have a right to free speech. There is nothing keeping your speech from being determined as "hate speech" if you get the right judge.
Am I wrong - show me where.
Da Boss wrote: Nah, realistically Ireland has only been self governing for the last 90 or so years. And "governing" is a strong word for what our political class occupy their time with
Good to see some more discussion of the culture of violence and gun worship in the US getting some mention. I think it must have a lot to do with what's happening, and that's where the push should be heading. I mean, if individual states want to tighten their gun laws up as well, I see no harm in that either.
Of course you don't. You don't theat right. I do. Pardon me if I give your opinion less weight as a consequence.
Hedgehog wrote: No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...
The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...
You don't have a right to free speech. There is nothing keeping your speech from being determined as "hate speech" if you get the right judge.
Am I wrong - show me where.
Hedgehog wrote: No country in the world can be regarded as having universal democracy before 1893. In the US the date is 1920 - by this measure the US has been a full democracy for less than a century so far, and most other western nations have been full democracies for longer...
The UK doesn't actually have a single written constitution, but that doesn't mean that our rights to free speech don't exist. Personally I think that this is an advantage - it means that there is no 'bible' of rights - which subsequently becomes extremely hard to change as societies and technology changes. Dogma is one of the greatest enemies of individual thought and conscience...
You don't have a right to free speech. There is nothing keeping your speech from being determined as "hate speech" if you get the right judge.
Am I wrong - show me where.
Article 10, Human Rights Act 1998.
That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?
Switzerland has more assault rifles per person than the US - by law.
No idea about specific classes of guns, but the US has twice the number of guns per capita than Switzerland.
The law of the internet requires you to cite your sources, the both of you
Wikipedia will be allowed, but not Cracked.
Swiss law, back in the day, had their males with awesome Sigs under their beds. Evidently Swiss chocolate and high mountain passes keep everyone calm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland There's an argument that crazy (serial and mass killers) are partially driven by societies in flux. This accounts for the US, China, Japan slightly earlier. Its an interesting theory.
That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?
It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.
Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.
Kanluwen wrote: Except the funny part is that was NOT the killer who had "Liked" Mass Effect.
And it was only Jack Thompson talking about it. Nobody cares about Jack Thompson anymore except for silly folk.
The morning news shows are hammering not only guns, but the "Hollywood glamorization of violence and above all violent video games that these loners play." Jack Thompson ain't on any of them.
One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
If your government really turned against you, it wouldn't be like the Waco incident, they wouldn't be worrying about any collateral damage. You would get to see the full might of federal government in action and that might has more firepower than you do.
Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?
What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.
As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.
Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.
Yes, true, but I doubt things have changed massivly in the last 5 years. Nither country has undergone huge changes in that time and I don't think the Small Arms Survay dose this kind of work every year.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan. It becomes even murkier when you consider that, while the majority of law enforcement and military personnel aren't 'gun guys,' the ones that are might well end up on the other side.
But I don't own guns to overthrow a tyrannical government. I own and carry guns partly because I have to, and partly because I do not believe "Trust in the benevolent intentions of everyone you meet," to be a good personal security policy.
Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?
All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.
What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.
Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.
As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.
I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.
That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?
It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.
Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.
NO. NOT THE SAME. It takes the votes of 2/3 of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. Thats why there are so few of them.
That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?
It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.
Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.
So in other words you don't actually have the right to free speech, if the judge decides what is hate speech or isn't.
Offensive speech is not limited in the US.
Fighting words are only limited in situational moments when they might lead to a physical fight. Even then they're generally ok. You're citing a doctrine that doesn't really exist.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with thier government. It's the basic mindless robot argument thats about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with thier government. It's the basic mindless robot argument thats about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.
Yesterday:
Coming from family outing to Fuddruckers - a rarity now with teenagers. Wife hits same curb she always hits.
Frazzled to GC: see. Don't do that.
Teenager to GC: yea don't do that. You'll never pass your test.
Mrs. Frazzled: What are you people talking about? I never hit curbs.
Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.
Wait, what? What does a video game company have to do with it?
They're violent, and thus leading our children down the narrow path to sodomy, rampant drug use, and sex with alien chicks... Also violence...
I've been playing violent video games for years, I was a wow addict for a solid 3 years (anti-social, low confidence, all those social stigmas that come from WoW playing, except for bathing and eating I still did those things), and never once did I think, "I'd like do this in real life."
Edit: Frazz, is GC younger than I thought? I could have sworn you mentioned something about college a year ago with her... I might just be crazy...
0.o Woah, people are being really conservative with their viewpoints on this thread.
"Your country has silly laws" "No your country has the stupid laws", and so on...
Personally I don't think its the availibility of the guns that's the problem, its the way society's devloping. I mean you still get cases of mass murder in the US that don't involve guns, it just happens that they're ridiculously easy to obtain.
^^ The notion that you could all get together and form some sort of resistance movement against your government is a cute one, aww pet. I assume that a few of ya'll are Nathan Holn supporters.
AustonT wrote: It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with thier government. It's the basic mindless robot argument thats about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.
Yeah, I edited that in after kicking myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: ^^ The notion that you could all get together and form some sort of resistance movement against your government is a cute one, aww pet.
Better let those Syrian rebels know they're violating the laws of hilarity.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.
And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.
Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?
All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.
Most people only have a handsaw.
In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.
What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.
Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.
I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.
What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?
A compromise needs to happen in regards to firearms, because it sure will not happen with treating the mentally ill without some serious violation of individuals' constitutional rights.
As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.
I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.
Seaward wrote: I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.
It's not universal, but it is pretty much national...
It's tiresome to read comments from people saying stuff like "no guns = no shootings!" Well, duh. Good luck getting all the guns out of america or any other country.
The guy in the spiked article has a definite point about social atomisation and exaltation of self esteem above all else. That is the dogma that is preached in educational psychology lectures, at least in my training course- that self esteem is the single most important facet of psychology, and that it must never be compromised. Definitely seemed to me that many of the lecturers I dealt with had a chip on their shoulder from "mean" teachers in their own education. A more common problem than low self esteem these days is delusions of grandeur brought on by constantly inflated self esteem, whether from parents who tell their kids that they are superior to others or through a system that lauds the most mediocre of accomplishments as though they were amazing and the most banal of qualifications as if they were useful.
I dunno. Like most people, I'd love a window into the head of someone like that, so that we could analyse the factors leading to these horrific actions and then minimise their occurrence in society.
Guns aren't the issue so much as the choice to use guns to slaughter innocents. If you'd taken away his guns, he could still have wreaked havoc with any number of explosives or gases, provided an internet connection access to some fairly common materials. Perhaps the glorification of guns in culture helped him to choose that as his modus operandi over gas or bombs, but the issue is still the motive, not the means.
Also thanks Frazz and Steve, though I'd be curious about the articles that Steve linked, as the information they're drawing from is 5 years old.
Wait, what? What does a video game company have to do with it?
They're violent, and thus leading our children down the narrow path to sodomy, rampant drug use, and sex with alien chicks... Also violence...
I've been playing violent video games for years, I was a wow addict for a solid 3 years (anti-social, low confidence, all those social stigmas that come from WoW playing, except for bathing and eating I still did those things), and never once did I think, "I'd like do this in real life."
Edit: Frazz, is GC younger than I thought? I could have sworn you mentioned something about college a year ago with her... I might just be crazy...
Well, I guess its Restrictions on the Bill of Rights for Everyone Weee!!!
OT but GC just turned 14 and The Boy is about to turn 18. he's on the launch pad for college and co-ed party time!.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with their government. It's the basic mindless robot argument that's about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.
I do not think that as many members of the militaries and police would side with the citizenry that people believe.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan. It becomes even murkier when you consider that, while the majority of law enforcement and military personnel aren't 'gun guys,' the ones that are might well end up on the other side.
But I don't own guns to overthrow a tyrannical government. I own and carry guns partly because I have to, and partly because I do not believe "Trust in the benevolent intentions of everyone you meet," to be a good personal security policy.
Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?
All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.
What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.
Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.
As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.
I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.
Okay that's fair comment... in that situation, but "giving them a run for their money" isn't the same as going toe to toe on equal terms. A group of citizens holed up in a ranch with a cache of weapons wouldn't stand a chance against the full force of a federal attack.
Running off into the woods or hiding in the cities, going all Red Dawn is a different scenario. Especially as they usually involve everybody fighting against an enemy invader. Just image how bloody a 2nd civil war would be?
Yes you are correct, a saw is a saw, but you do have different saws for different jobs. You wouldn't buy 5 of the same course cut saw to do the same job.
That argument still stands. If you are defending a house why would you need 2 or more types of gun, or in fact 10,000 rounds of ammo? If you are in a situation where your home is being stormed, then you up the creek no matter what.
As to your situation, you're correct I haven't and I have no response to that. The genie is out the bottle, how it's controlled I don't know.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.
And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.
Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?
All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.
Most people only have a handsaw.
In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.
What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.
Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.
I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.
What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?
A compromise needs to happen in regards to firearms, because it sure will not happen with treating the mentally ill without some serious violation of individuals' constitutional rights.
As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.
I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.
And let's not pretend your experience is either.
Wait people have hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition?
1. Who's the millionaire?
2. So what? That just means they're either: Competing and have a corporate sponsor (such a thing does exist actually), or have to much money that they need to give to me.
3. Why do you want to oppress them again?
That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?
It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.
Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.
NO. NOT THE SAME. It takes the votes of 2/3 of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. Thats why there are so few of them.
Again, your legal system is diffrent to ours. That dose not make the UK laws worthless. And typing in bold DOSE NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Under the same argument it takes a majoraty vote in both the house of commons and the house of lords to repeal an act of parlement rather than the one house in the US. The reason there are so few is more to do with the political power of the constitution in the US.
Repealing an act of parliment in the UK is not easy, and anyway, you were saying we do not have protection of free speech when we do. How difficult or easy that is to remove is irrelevent. The fact is you are wrong and we do have free speach laws.
That just enfoces EU law. An Act can be repealed.
What about hate speech?
It's a UK law. We have a diffrent system of law to the US. Yes, it can be repealed, equaly you could say the US constitution could be ammended, or ignored.
Hate speech is a specific acception to the law and dose not deminish the right to free speech in the UK and more than the restrictions on free speech do in the US. the "Hate Speech" restrictions cover very simelar areas to the "Incitement" and "Fighting words and offensive speech" restrictions the US has to free speech.
So in other words you don't actually have the right to free speech, if the judge decides what is hate speech or isn't.
Offensive speech is not limited in the US.
Fighting words are only limited in situational moments when they might lead to a physical fight. Even then they're generally ok. You're citing a doctrine that doesn't really exist.
"Fighting words and offensive speech" is the specific legal title of what you are calling "Fighting words". I am not "citing a doctrine that doesn't really exist." you just don't know your own law. My point was things are excluded US law from free speech.
Just because our law is diffrent dose not mean it dose not exist.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's also based on the false notion that the members of militaries and police always side with their government. It's the basic mindless robot argument that's about as useful as a spoiler on a mini van.
I do not think that as many members of the militaries and police would side with the citizenry that people believe.
You're over complicating it. Of course if things went bad in the country it wouldn't be this black and white. However that doesn't change the fact that a group of citizens in a Waco situation v a federal force unleashed would be outgunned.
Wolfstan wrote: One of the arguments put forward when discussing gun control is the notion that having these weapons will protect your civil liberties if the federal government gets heavy handed. Please tell me that is some sort of joke? Do American gun owners truly believe that the collection of weapons that they have, whether legal or "tweaked", will really stop federal forces from doing what they want, if things we belly up?
The police, police SWAT and armed forces all have access to a larger supply of armament and ammunition, then your average joe or some doomsday cult.
That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.
And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.
Protecting yourself, your family and your property is a different matter, but even that needs to be put into perspective. If the gun is considered a tool, then there is no need to have multiple tools that do the same job. Why have 4 handguns, a shotgun, hunting rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammunition?
All saws saw. Why would anyone ever need more than one saw? Saws do the same job, so you only ever need one saw.
Most people only have a handsaw.
In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.
What would be so wrong with restricting gun ownership to one pistol per person or a shotgun? Someone breaks in, you have a weapon to challenge them.
Either a pistol or a shotgun, you mean? Well, a shotgun's pretty hard to carry concealed, but it's also better for home defense. Why should I be obliged to pick only one? See above again re: saws sawing.
I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.
What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?
A compromise needs to happen in regards to firearms, because it sure will not happen with treating the mentally ill without some serious violation of individuals' constitutional rights.
As I've said before, I understand the fascination with weapons and got a buzz when handling them in the TA, and yes, if allowed I would of collected them. Thankfully the laws over here stopped me from having them and you soon realise that there is no need for them as a member of the general public.
I've had need for mine, as has my girlfriend. I'm glad you haven't been in a situation where a gun would've come in handy, but let's not pretend that your individual experience is universal.
And let's not pretend your experience is either.
Wait people have hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition?
1. Who's the millionaire?
2. So what? That just means they're either: Competing and have a corporate sponsor (such a thing does exist actually), or have to much money that they need to give to me.
3. Why do you want to oppress them again?
A lot of these "doomsday preppers" are in the tens of thousands in rounds of ammunition.
If you are competing or having a corporate sponsor, why do you need to have it at your house?
Kanluwen wrote: Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.
And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.
And as at least a couple different people who've got the personal experience with the types of organizations involved to know have told you, not every cop or member of the military in America would side with this hypothetical tyrannical government if it came to power. For that matter, do you think the army of the Confederacy was made up of imported mercenaries or something?
Most people only have a handsaw.
In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.
Why on earth would they need more than one saw? All saws saw.
I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.
What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?
You're making the assumption that it's there to "defend their home." I, for example, usually have between 2,000 and 3,000 rounds in the house at any given time, the overwhelming majority of it being plain, cheap ball for practice. I run through about five hundred rounds a week, so it's not a static supply - some goes out, more comes in. I'd say I probably have about 500 rounds of hollowpoints at any given time, because that, too, goes out and in; I usually fire off my carry load once a week at the start of practice.
I am fond of the notion you seem to have that having hundreds of thousands of rounds is at all common, though. Even at internet prices of 9mm, you're talking between $30,000 and $40,000 to establish that sort of stockpile - at the low end.
And let's not pretend your experience is either.
I've never claimed it is. All I've said is that the notion that nobody ever needs to defend themselves because a guy in Britain hasn't had to is flawed logic at best.
Seaward wrote: That's an interesting argument that's, to my mind, considerably weakened by watching ill-equipped, irregular forces give not just one but several of the most efficient, powerful militaries in the world a run for their money in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One would suggest this isn't especially helpful as an example as the military forces involved in these situations have been actively trying to minimise the deaths and damages to civilians. If the USA army, for example, decided to wipe out the population of hypertheticalstan then it'd happen.
I can't see the UN troops, once they emerge from the salt mines of Utah at the behest of their Illuminati secret muslim leader, being as bothered about "collateral damage" as they take you away to the camps/wherever.
reds8n wrote: I can't see the UN troops, once they emerge from the salt mines of Utah at the behest of their Illuminati secret muslim leader, being as bothered about "collateral damage" as they take you away to the camps/wherever.
I don't think even the people who are actually worried about the UN are worried about UN troops due to their combat prowess.
Under the same argument it takes a majoraty vote in both the house of commons and the house of lords to repeal an act of parlement rather than the one house in the US. The reason there are so few is more to do with the political power of the constitution in the US.
Kanluwen wrote: Entirely different situation.
These "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are using scavenged military equipment and have no qualms with sacrificing their own lives.
And there's suspicion in a lot of intelligence agencies that these "ill-equipped, irregular forces" are also receiving training and armaments from foreign sources with a vested interest in continuing the conflicts.
And as at least a couple different people who've got the personal experience with the types of organizations involved to know have told you, not every cop or member of the military in America would side with this hypothetical tyrannical government if it came to power. For that matter, do you think the army of the Confederacy was made up of imported mercenaries or something?
Do you think that every citizen of the Confederacy fought for them?
Or for that matter, the same situation happened with the Union?
I want to know how a tyrannical government comes to power here in the United States without any kind of check preventing it.
Most people only have a handsaw.
In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.
Why on earth would they need more than one saw? All saws saw.
Ever tried cutting apart a hundred year old pine with just a handsaw?
I agree that a shotgun will have a different time where it becomes handy than a pistol.
What I do not agree with is people having hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition continually on hand at home. Who would ever, realistically, need that to "defend their home"?
You're making the assumption that it's there to "defend their home." I, for example, usually have between 2,000 and 3,000 rounds in the house at any given time, the overwhelming majority of it being plain, cheap ball for practice. I run through about five hundred rounds a week, so it's not a static supply - some goes out, more comes in. I'd say I probably have about 500 rounds of hollowpoints at any given time, because that, too, goes out and in; I usually fire off my carry load once a week at the start of practice.
I am fond of the notion you seem to have that having hundreds of thousands of rounds is at all common, though. Even at internet prices of 9mm, you're talking between $30,000 and $40,000 to establish that sort of stockpile - at the low end.
Yet there are people who have such stockpiles. Many of them are members of "militias" which have the stated mission of armed resistance against the United States government over the stupidest things.
And let's not pretend your experience is either.
I've never claimed it is. All I've said is that the notion that nobody ever needs to defend themselves because a guy in Britain hasn't had to is flawed logic at best.
Which does not change the fact that some sensible limitations should be put into place regarding gun ownership.
=P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.
In the area where I live, where trees commonly come down during the winter and hurricane season, many people have a chainsaw and handsaw to clean up if necessary.
Why on earth would they need more than one saw? All saws saw.
Idk if you saw the damage from Sandy, but some saws saw better than other saws. A chainsaw is far more efficient at cutting trees and large piece of wood into smaller, more "bite-sized" fireplace friendly nuggets than a handsaw...
On topic though: I am liking some of the discussion here, and as to the smallarmssurvey that steve was talking about, they did one for 2012, but the focus of the survey was something entirely different.
Kanluwen wrote: A lot of these "doomsday preppers" are in the tens of thousands in rounds of ammunition.
If you are competing or having a corporate sponsor, why do you need to have it at your house?
You went from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Thats a BIG change.
1. Tens of thousands - very rare but occurs. Again, competitive shooters will have such. If I'm burning through three thousand rounds a month to win - well we don't really win much now do we? -and buying in a market afraid the federal government is going to seize everything I need more than a month's supply.
2. Again so what? The only people who should be concerned about that are people who literally want to take your rights away and oppress you. No mass or serial killer has pulled up in a van with tens of thousands of rounds. No one can carry that load, even if it were just .22 LRs.
You can make the argument they don't need it, but thats horsegak. We don't need anything but food, clothing, and shelter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: =P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.
Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.
Kanluwen wrote: A lot of these "doomsday preppers" are in the tens of thousands in rounds of ammunition.
If you are competing or having a corporate sponsor, why do you need to have it at your house?
You went from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Thats a BIG change.
It is, but it is more realistic and not taking into account the militia oriented goombas. Those are the people who realistically will have that much ammunition. I blame lack of caffeine for the original "hundreds of thousands" remark.
1. Tens of thousands - very rare but occurs. Again, competitive shooters will have such. If I'm burning through three thousand rounds a month to win - well we don't really win much now do we? -and buying in a market afraid the federal government is going to seize everything I need more than a month's supply.
Competitive shooters I can understand. They are not simply going to be using those rounds for competitions, but also for practice.
2. Again so what? The only people who should be concerned about that are people who literally want to take your rights away and oppress you. No mass or serial killer has pulled up in a van with tens of thousands of rounds. No one can carry that load, even if it were just .22 LRs.
If they want to oppress you, it does not matter how much bloody ammunition you have. Unless you get individuals who are willing to put everything on the line to fight the government, I do not foresee any civil movement preventing government tyranny.
You can make the argument they don't need it, but thats horsegak. We don't need anything but food, clothing, and shelter.
Wyrmalla wrote: =P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.
Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.
^^ Because naturally everything's black and white. If you put in place stricter laws you're a dictator, if you put in more liberal ones your a damn dirty communist right?
I don't recall any of my family ever saying, "If you see a UN soldier with a gun, duck!"...
I cannot say with any certainty that I wouldn't curl up and cry like a baby if the government were to suddenly oppress me...
I'd need Chris Hemsworth and Josh Peck to motivate me into saving my town.
Frazz, just for my general knowledge. You're a competitive shooter, and have at least an average Texan's knowledge of firearms, do you own something that would have fallen under the "Federal Assault Rifle Ban"?
The UN adoption of "the Dictator standard for Internet Control" was pushed through by a number of nations with a vested interest in such a thing, like Russia and China.
Kanluwen wrote: Do you think that every citizen of the Confederacy fought for them?
Or for that matter, the same situation happened with the Union?
I think you wildly missed my point, but that's alright. It's an irrelevant discussion, as far more people keep guns for personal defense than to refresh the tree of liberty. The assertion that the modern military/police forces would crush any such armed resistance is at absolute best an unknown.
Ever tried cutting apart a hundred year old pine with just a handsaw?
So you would agree that different saws are better at different tasks within the realm of sawing than others.
Much like different firearms are better at different tasks within the realm of shooting bullets than others.
Yet there are people who have such stockpiles. Many of them are members of "militias" which have the stated mission of armed resistance against the United States government over the stupidest things.
Yes, there probably are people who have over a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition in their home. I don't know that for sure - I've never heard of any - but I'll grant the premise for the sake of argument.
Jay Leno owns something ridiculous like over a hundred cars. I would probably not use him as an example of the common car owner in America if that's what we were discussing.
Which does not change the fact that some sensible limitations should be put into place regarding gun ownership.
See, this is what I actually want to hear. What do you have in mind?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: Frazz, just for my general knowledge. You're a competitive shooter, and have at least an average Texan's knowledge of firearms, do you own something that would have fallen under the "Federal Assault Rifle Ban"?
I do.
If it goes into effect again, I make a thirty-second cosmetic change and - what do you know! - it's legal once more. It's an absurd, absurd law.
What's interesting in that article is that there's a minor flaw in it: While firearm suicides in Israel on weekends did decrease, suicides by strangulation, the number two method, increased. This gets glossed over by claiming that 'weekday suicides did not increase'. There's also the minor issue with Switzerland that, while technically true, Swiss gun ownership has gone down, and there has been a move to put arms in armories, as the citizens do not own the guns, Switzerland does. Lack of private ownership does not translate into a lack of weapons on hand in this case.
Oh, and red8n, there's nothing in that article that actually disproves his mention of teachers. Teachers in the settlements are known for carrying, as is just about everyone in the settlements. For obvious reasons. It's one of the easiest ways to get a gun in Israel is to work or do business in the settlements. As they mention in that link.
After hearing about this shooting, my Momd called and asked me; "What's wrong with fairly bright, young, white guys that they keep shooting people up?"
Thankfully, I didn't have any real insight into the situation.
However, to specualte madly; I would say being told your whole life that you would be successful and happy in life if you just did X, Y, and Z. Only to realize once you achieved X, Y, and Z; that everything you had been told before was a lie. That COULD make some people a bit angry and crazy.
Kanluwen wrote: Do you think that every citizen of the Confederacy fought for them?
Or for that matter, the same situation happened with the Union?
I think you wildly missed my point, but that's alright. It's an irrelevant discussion, as far more people keep guns for personal defense than to refresh the tree of liberty. The assertion that the modern military/police forces would crush any such armed resistance is at absolute best an unknown.
It really is not.
When you frame it in the context of "What would necessitate an armed resistance?", you also have to frame it in the context of "What would cause the modern military and police forces to forgo their sworn oaths to the government and its citizens?".
Ever tried cutting apart a hundred year old pine with just a handsaw?
So you would agree that different saws are better at different tasks within the realm of sawing than others.
Much like different firearms are better at different tasks within the realm of shooting bullets than others.
Yet there are people who have such stockpiles. Many of them are members of "militias" which have the stated mission of armed resistance against the United States government over the stupidest things.
Yes, there probably are people who have over a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition in their home. I don't know that for sure - I've never heard of any - but I'll grant the premise for the sake of argument.
Jay Leno owns something ridiculous like over a hundred cars. I would probably not use him as an example of the common car owner in America if that's what we were discussing.
There is one important difference there.
Jay Leno is not a member of an organization with a stated goal of opposing the government, and cars are not weapons.
They can be used as weapons certainly, but that is not their intent.
Which does not change the fact that some sensible limitations should be put into place regarding gun ownership.
See, this is what I actually want to hear. What do you have in mind?
Well, for a start it should not simply be the person applying for a gun who is given training and certified for handling the firearm. It should be anyone who is realistically going to have access to the firearm. There should, in my opinion, be a far more in depth background check that is given to individuals wanting firearms than there is.
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
I do not feel that either of those two ideas are excessively restrictive for someone who wishes to legally own a firearm.
I would say that the media saturation with this damn topic is always annoying. Every time there's a mass shooting in the US it totally envelopes the BBC World News service during the daylight hours. I guess that everything else that's going on in the world isn't nearly as important as something that went on in a town in the US...
Easy E wrote: After hearing about this shooting, my Momd called and asked me; "What's wrong with fairly bright, young, white guys that they keep shooting people up?"
Thankfully, I didn't have any real insight into the situation.
However, to specualte madly; I would say being told your whole life that you would be successful and happy in life if you just did X, Y, and Z. Only to realize once you achieved X, Y, and Z; that everything you had been told before was a lie. That COULD make some people a bit angry and crazy.
I know, why am I not talking about Gun Control!?!
I personally think it's about agency. If these guys just wanted to die while shooting off guns, they'd engage cops. They want to die by their own hand, and they want to do it after gaining infamy. If the cops or someone else with a gun shows up, they cut the spree and ice themselves. It's some fethed-up desire for control.
Easy E wrote: After hearing about this shooting, my Momd called and asked me; "What's wrong with fairly bright, young, white guys that they keep shooting people up?"
Thankfully, I didn't have any real insight into the situation.
However, to specualte madly; I would say being told your whole life that you would be successful and happy in life if you just did X, Y, and Z. Only to realize once you achieved X, Y, and Z; that everything you had been told before was a lie. That COULD make some people a bit angry and crazy.
I know, why am I not talking about Gun Control!?!
I was told I could be anything I wanted to be, I just had to strive and work hard for it. I'm decently happy with my life, I'd like to be on my own, but my working hard aspect didn't pan out in college... I got good grades, but not scholarship good grades...
Easy, is what you're talking about, like the "everyone's a winner" mentality?
Kanluwen wrote: It really is not.
When you frame it in the context of "What would necessitate an armed resistance?", you also have to frame it in the context of "What would cause the modern military and police forces to forgo their sworn oaths to the government and its citizens?".
You're forgetting sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution.
Then what're you arguing with me for? I was using the saw example to have a go at the guy who thought someone would only ever need one gun, ever, because they all do the same thing.
There is one important difference there.
Jay Leno is not a member of an organization with a stated goal of opposing the government, and cars are not weapons.
They can be used as weapons certainly, but that is not their intent.
There are a lot of important differences, but the point is that, just as Jay Leno is a tiny, tiny exception in a given populace, so too are individuals who store hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, so using either of them as the basis for a law is a bit strange.
Well, for a start it should not simply be the person applying for a gun who is given training and certified for handling the firearm. It should be anyone who is realistically going to have access to the firearm.
What about people who will eventually have access to it that are unknown to the buyer at the time of purchase? If you decide to move in with your girlfriend after buying a gun, does she have to go in and get a background check? How exactly do you run a background check on, for example, ten year-old children?
There should, in my opinion, be a far more in depth background check that is given to individuals wanting firearms than there is.
Encompassing what?
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
There I'll have to say no, just as I would if you were to suggest random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that I wasn't accessing content on my computer that violated obscenity laws.
Alfndrate wrote: I cannot say with any certainty that I wouldn't curl up and cry like a baby if the government were to suddenly oppress me...
I'd need Chris Hemsworth and Josh Peck to motivate me into saving my town.
Frazz, just for my general knowledge. You're a competitive shooter, and have at least an average Texan's knowledge of firearms, do you own something that would have fallen under the "Federal Assault Rifle Ban"?
You mean the old law, thats still in place in California?
Yep. if you own a 9mm you pretty much violate that law. But my .45 ACP and 44 mag are perfectly fine. I have an older rifle that may be excluded due to age/antiquity, but existing firearms would likely still be legal. Actual seizure of firearms is much more difficult...
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
There I'll have to say no, just as I would if you were to suggest random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that I wasn't accessing content on my computer that violated obscenity laws.
I'm going to have to disagree with the point on "random inspections". I'm legally allowed to own a rifle without any form of permit... I have 0 "training" or "certification" outside of the fact that I was range officer at a Boy Scout camp, and my storage procedures are based on that knowledge. Store the guns as securely as possible, ensuring you only have access to them. My rifle is stored in my room where the only person that can get to it on average is me, since my parents don't go up into my room (They're over 60, stairs aren't their friend).
Would I have my gun stored in such a way if I had a child or younger sibling? Feth no! I'd either sell the gun, or buy a locked combination case that only I knew the pin to. If I needed to, I could tell a parent or child (if old enough) how to access my gun safe in emergency situations. Then after the emergency is done, I reset the combination to where only I know it... once a again.
It is, but it is more realistic and not taking into account the militia oriented goombas. Those are the people who realistically will have that much ammunition. I blame lack of caffeine for the original "hundreds of thousands" remark.
***Understand, a lack of coffee is a terrible thing.
Competitive shooters I can understand. They are not simply going to be using those rounds for competitions, but also for practice.
***Exactly, before that and the Obama Bullet Bubble I, I never had that much about. Some bricks of .22s and maybe 200 or so at most. Not now.
If they want to oppress you, it does not matter how much bloody ammunition you have. Unless you get individuals who are willing to put everything on the line to fight the government, I do not foresee any civil movement preventing government tyranny.
****That’s kind of the point.
Wyrmalla wrote: =P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.
Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.
^^ Because naturally everything's black and white. If you put in place stricter laws you're a dictator, if you put in more liberal ones your a damn dirty communist right?
I don't recall any of my family ever saying, "If you see a UN soldier with a gun, duck!"...
So you support what just happened at the UN, something YOUR NATION refused to take part in?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: I would say that the media saturation with this damn topic is always annoying. Every time there's a mass shooting in the US it totally envelopes the BBC World News service during the daylight hours. I guess that everything else that's going on in the world isn't nearly as important as something that went on in a town in the US...
i agree. I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.
My primary carry's stored either above and a little to the right of my nuts, or else in a Crossbreed holster velcro'd to the side of my nightstand. Neither runs counter to the training I've received, yet both would likely make the average gun controller extremely uncomfortable.
Kanluwen wrote: It really is not.
When you frame it in the context of "What would necessitate an armed resistance?", you also have to frame it in the context of "What would cause the modern military and police forces to forgo their sworn oaths to the government and its citizens?".
You're forgetting sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution.
No, I am not. Because the likelihood of a government dismissing the Constitution is so small it is not worth considering.
Then what're you arguing with me for? I was using the saw example to have a go at the guy who thought someone would only ever need one gun, ever, because they all do the same thing.
I was not arguing with you about it. I used the saw/chainsaw example to show that not everything is necessary in every locale.
There is one important difference there.
Jay Leno is not a member of an organization with a stated goal of opposing the government, and cars are not weapons.
They can be used as weapons certainly, but that is not their intent.
There are a lot of important differences, but the point is that, just as Jay Leno is a tiny, tiny exception in a given populace, so too are individuals who store hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, so using either of them as the basis for a law is a bit strange.
The individuals who store hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition are not actually entirely bad examples, if rare ones.
Well, for a start it should not simply be the person applying for a gun who is given training and certified for handling the firearm. It should be anyone who is realistically going to have access to the firearm.
What about people who will eventually have access to it that are unknown to the buyer at the time of purchase? If you decide to move in with your girlfriend after buying a gun, does she have to go in and get a background check?
Why should she not?
How exactly do you run a background check on, for example, ten year-old children?
You do not, but you do ensure that they are not allowed to handle the gun without supervision, etc.
There should, in my opinion, be a far more in depth background check that is given to individuals wanting firearms than there is.
Encompassing what?
Well for a starter, finding out why people want to own a firearm. Finding out what is going on in an individual's life at the time of purchase of the firearm, etc.
The number of spree shooters using illegally acquired weapons is much smaller than those who are legally obtaining them.
That needs to stop.
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
There I'll have to say no, just as I would if you were to suggest random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that I wasn't accessing content on my computer that violated obscenity laws.
Why?
There is no enforcement of "obscenity laws" except in cases of lesser included offenses. Obscene material does not really hurt anybody but improperly stored firearms can lead to injuries or even deaths if children get access to them.
Firearms can be stolen as well and in some cases the theft is not reported.
Frazzled wrote: I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.
:/
A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.
Wyrmalla wrote: =P If the UN developed the "shoot first, call them all terrorists later" approach that the US army does then it'd get a lot more done. That this would also cause it to lose all credibility doesn't mean you should belittle them for trying to have some morals when it comes to war dear.
Well the UN did just adopt the Dictator standard for internet control. Give them a little time, and you might get your wish.
^^ Because naturally everything's black and white. If you put in place stricter laws you're a dictator, if you put in more liberal ones your a damn dirty communist right?
I don't recall any of my family ever saying, "If you see a UN soldier with a gun, duck!"...
So you support what just happened at the UN, something YOUR NATION refused to take part in?
Because everyone in a country supports the views of they're government.
* Titbit, the UK government's run by the Tory part right now. Fun fact, the population of England is much larger than Scotland. Guess how many people here voted them in? >ref independance XD
But no, I'm not an advocator of cencorship. My point was the way that you choose to discuss it in a berrating manner.
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.
Frazzled wrote: I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.
:/
A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.
I dont think so, By this time, We all know it happened. Right not cover som other news?
Frazzled wrote: I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.
:/
A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.
I've been watching the news since nine o'clock this morning. There's only been one news story on for the majority of that. The annoying thing is that at this hour the channel's not meant to be focussed on world news. I mean they keep all the African/Asian, etc, news till one in the morning, and yet the US news pops up 24/7 (they even have a small exert dedicate to CNN, which is hilarious). Really, the world isn't America and everyone else, but the media knows that people in the west don't give a toss about Eastern news for the most part.
Hmn, I wonder if the German news is running this story on all stations right now...
Heh, its now cut to a parliament's "discussion" (insert two men passing dumb remarks as their peers make throaty laughing sounds like children). Probably due to it being live and an opportunity to complain about the EU I guess.
Frazzled wrote: I've been listening to the BBC since this morning to avoid NPR and the other news. They're off the charts milking this thing for Day Three.
:/
A bit much to complain that this shooting is receiving news coverage.
Three days straight? On every channel 24 hours straight? Really?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I dont think so, By this time, We all know it happened. Right not cover som other news?
The 24-hour news cycle: bringing you the best in saying the same thing about the same subject for days.
^^ The BBC's great for that until it hits after the watershed. After that well ...it becomes a little lax as they bring in the world correspondents. The (South) Korean correspondent is always a good watch as you can clearly see that she really isn't into her job (in one report about the DPRK she ended it by saying, "feth this I'm off to get some coffee"). But I guess they don't expect someone to sit there and watch revolving news articles all day when there's other legitimate channels available.
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: "News" isn't just stuff you haven't heard about yet.
Bingo.
This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.
Kanluwen wrote: Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.
Who's responsibility? You seem to be using that word to reference two different sets of actors.
Kanluwen wrote: Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.
Who's responsibility? You seem to be using that word to reference two different sets of actors.
The owner of the firearms in question.
And the responsibility of the agency which allowed the owner of said firearms to acquire them.
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.
****Wait are you advocating illegal warrantless searches now? How polizei of you.
Bingo.
This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.
****Its yellow journalism sob stories now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: And the responsibility of the agency which allowed the owner of said firearms to acquire them.
And here's the police state mentaility right there. We're "allowed" by the government to have some of our rights.
Here's some Frazzled recommended changes.
-No gunshow loophole, if it still exists. We had to go through an NCIS at a gun show years ago, but I don't know if that was standard or now. I'm all for background checks for that and private sales.
-Waiting period. A two week waiting period. I think its dumber than a box of rocks, but can go with it as not being overly restrictive.
-A deeper check on mental state, and coordinating the data banks if that is not done, as it has been mentioned that the NCIS is hit or miss (didn't know that - should have figured it being government).
On the flip side I want to see serious concrete changes to the mental health system. In everry case I've seen, its quickly come out that the guys has had runins or concerns at school or other authorities and that he was a known crazy.
-
Please use the quotation feature correctly or not at all. Thanks! ~Manchu
Kanluwen wrote: And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Because they react unfavorably to wildly unconstitutional ideas?
This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.
I doubt it, personally, though with the media pushing a narrative this hard, you may end up being right.
Frazzled wrote: And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Responsible gun ownership, if so important to the pro-gun lobby, should not simply be "training an individual how to hold a gun and use it". That is not where the responsibility ends.
****Wait are you advocating illegal warrantless searches now? How polizei of you.
Nowhere am I advocating that.
But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?
Bingo.
This is a developing story, even if we know that the event itself is over. The impact of the Sandy Hook shooting is going to be something which is worth following.
****Its yellow journalism sob stories now.
Kanluwen wrote: But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?
I don't think he asked for prior notification, I think he asked for a warrant.
I think we could probably catch a lot more criminals of all sorts if the police were allowed to randomly "inspect" an individual's house and their car whenever they chose.
Kanluwen wrote: But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?
I don't think he asked for prior notification, I think he asked for a warrant.
Which may as well be prior notification, considering the steps to obtain a warrant.
I think we could probably catch a lot more criminals of all sorts if the police were allowed to randomly "inspect" an individual's house and their car whenever they chose.
We already do such things in the form of exigent circumstances.
But really, it does come across as pretty lax that your government doesn't even bother to check up on the condition of the weapons carried by its citizens. Admitedly though enforcing it'd be a tad difficult considering that everyone and they're mother has the damn things, and that your rather touchy about the supposed infringment of your rights.
Meh, I guess countries have different idealologies which aren't compatible with one another. I mean how many people on this thread outside of the US are actually adovacating their current handling of gun laws? =P
Kanluwen wrote: But what the hell would be the point of any kind of "check-in" done with prior notification?
I don't think he asked for prior notification, I think he asked for a warrant.
Which may as well be prior notification, considering the steps to obtain a warrant.
I think we could probably catch a lot more criminals of all sorts if the police were allowed to randomly "inspect" an individual's house and their car whenever they chose.
We already do such things in the form of exigent circumstances.
Wait you mean that police and lawyers don't just go into a judge's office that "owes them a favor" to get a warrant?!
Kanluwen wrote: And the responsibility of the agency which allowed the owner of said firearms to acquire them.
That assumes a particular view of government not shared by many of our countrymen, namely that we need permission from the government to do anything. I think many Americans look at it in the reverse: the government requires the permission of the people to do anything.
Wyrmalla wrote: "You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"
"If you want to do than they'll you'll have to get through me and my friends armed with said weapons"
Well doesn't that make you come across as non confrontational...
"You have a weapon designed to kill people in your possession. May I check it to make sure that its stored in the correct manner"
"No you may not, unless you have been issued a valid warrant from a court in this jurisdiction."
How about that response?
I would imagine that if the government wanted impose such a law then they'd have the foresight to make it legal...
Or would the American people start blithering on about they're rights and how such a law would be infringing upon their holy bible that is the Constitution? =P
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.
Wyrmalla wrote: I would imagine that if the government wanted impose such a law then they'd have the foresight to make it legal
First, you seem to be assuming that our government and our people are opposing forces. This is false. But it's a common mistake even over here, usually made by rightwing nutjobs. Second, I think legislators would be hard pressed to simply ignore the fourth amendment. Although, since your argument presumes they are already ignoring the fifth ...
=P And like I said, your Constitution makes it awfully hard to change your mindset. You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.
It'd be nice if someone actually got around to updating it for the 21st centuary, instead of youknow, using laws written out how many hundreds of years ago to define your current society. Not to say that every other country doesn't use decrees from x amout of years ago for this either. An issue would be say that you're abusing the right to defend yourself against foreign invasion from the British to allow everyone to go about toting military hardware...
Individuals known to have firearms should, in my opinion, be subject to random "inspections" by law enforcement officials to ensure that firearms are stored properly in accordance with the training and certification that the individuals received.
You better have a warrant and you better bring a lot of friends.
And people wonder why people consider the pro-gun lobby to be so confrontational...
Yeah I tend to be confrontational with fascist windbags. Wierd.
And I tend to be confrontational with illogical arguments.
Kanluwen wrote: We already do such things in the form of exigent circumstances.
So you're simply proposing that ownership of a firearm be considered a de facto exigent circumstance?
You remember earlier when you were asking how the Constitution could possibly become disregarded in America?
That is not "disregarding the Constitution".
That is adding an interpretation to a situation which was likely not considered by the founding fathers in a document which was written in an age where there was a very real fear that the government would turn out to be the same as the one they had left behind.
Wyrmalla wrote: You follow it as though it were a mantra and seem to derive your morals from it.
While I agree that some Americans seem idolatrously invested in the Constitution, I disagree that a general prohibition on warrantless searches is no longer timely.
Kanluwen wrote: And I tend to be confrontational with illogical arguments.
Weird.
Would you consider, "The Fourth Amendment doesn't just disappear because you think it would be a good idea," to be an illogical argument?
Would you consider "What constitutes an unreasonable search?" to be an illogical response?
In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?
What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".
Kanluwen wrote: That is not "disregarding the Constitution".
That is adding an interpretation to a situation which was likely not considered by the founding fathers in a document which was written in an age where there was a very real fear that the government would turn out to be the same as the one they had left behind.
I believe most legal scholars - and sitting judges - would agree that allowing random "inspections" of a home to check for criminal activity without a warrant or probable cause, or the threat of imminent danger or evidence destruction, or the chance of a suspect escaping would be considered to be disregarding the Constitution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: In all seriousness, how much government involvement is already present in owning a firearm for concealed carry?
Depends on where you live. Not a lot, in my case. I have to renew the permit every five years, but that just involves sending in the form again.
What possible harm could come from allowing random searches? I really want to know, because every argument seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I can carry guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can!".
And every argument in favor of free speech seems to be predicated upon the idea that "I have freedom of speech because the 1st Amendment says I do!"
It's almost like that's what the Bill of Rights was designed for, laying down a certain set of rights that required no further proof of legitimacy.
lawyers
