From the "why I'm never moving to Pennsylvania" file...

Police say a costumed 9-year-old girl was accidentally shot outside a western Pennsylvania home during a Halloween party by a relative who thought she was a skunk.

New Sewickley Township police say the girl was over a hillside and wearing a black costume and a black hat with a white tassel. Chief Ronald Leindecker says a male relative mistook her for a skunk and fired a shotgun, hitting her in the shoulder Saturday night.

I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I suspect alcohol may have been involved.

And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

This is why we need to ban night time, to many people make to many mistakes.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

This is not a gun problem. Its a stupid problem.

...

I think your response says it all for you.

Wait, what? How can anyone mistake a human child for a skunk... Is there some kind of Skunk-People problem I'm unaware of?

Well they both stink and are hard to get rid of when you get them.

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait, what? How can anyone mistake a human child for a skunk... Is there some kind of Skunk-People problem I'm unaware of?

Apparently she was on the other side of a hill, wearing a black hat with a white tassle. Presumably only her head or the upper part of her body was visible. Captain Mossberg saw movement, saw a small black-and-white object, and, if my speculation is correct, his co-pilot Jim Beam determined that the target was a skunk.

Poor kid, hope she makes it.

Never having seen a skunk in real life, do they really stink and are they a nuisance?

 Seaward wrote:
his co-pilot Jim Beam determined that the target was a skunk.

To his credit, Jim Beam hadn't been wrong before.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Poor kid, hope she makes it.

Never having seen a skunk in real life, do they really stink and are they a nuisance?

Yes and Yes.

Although just being near one isn't the full effect. In very weak concentrations its just another odor. When you've been directly sprayed its instant gag reflex and it won't go away.

Oddly enough, some people's sense of smell doesn't detect it. Its a rare occurance but it does happen.

In that case, blast away!

Say what you want about Jim Beam and Jack Daniels, they're always there for you.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Your idea for a test?

Honestly, if a sitting vice president can shoot a human being he knows well due to mistaking it for a quadruped, I see no reason why your average citizen shouldn't be entitled to the same.

I thought a dude with long hair was a chick once in a dark bar. Sometimes we all aim at things we shouldn't.

LordofHats wrote:Wait, what? How can anyone mistake a human child for a skunk... Is there some kind of Skunk-People problem I'm unaware of?

If she was actually wearing a skunk costume I might consider blaming the victim.

Skunk-People! I knew it! They said I was crazy. That the mole-people were the real threat but I knew!

*prepares shotgun*

Down with the skunkish overlords!

 Seaward wrote:
Honestly, if a sitting vice president can shoot a human being he knows well due to mistaking it for a quadruped, I see no reason why your average citizen shouldn't be entitled to the same.

Technically it wasn't a quadruped, they were on a quail hunt. I've read the account of the incident, and honestly its not surprising. People get shot (well generally peppered)at quail and dove hunts all the time. Is Cheney dead yet?

So what happened then exactly? There was a party going on in one place, and some relatives of the girl were quail hunting nearby and thought they saw a skunk?

The image I had from the blurb up there was just of some guys on a porch watching the party and thought "oh look a skunk." The first scenario is much less insane XD

 AustonT wrote:
Technically it wasn't a quadruped, they were on a quail hunt. I've read the account of the incident, and honestly its not surprising. People get shot (well generally peppered)at quail and dove hunts all the time. Is Cheney dead yet?

Yup. My maternal grandfather shot one of my uncles - in the throat, no less - while hunting pheasant.

I think quail hunting should be outlawed... juuuust sayin'

Why?

They're darn tasty

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

No no, you have it all backwards. This is 'Murica, and because this happened, we need to regulate small woodland creatures better... Or, we need to put more legislation on what costumes are available at stores, or are "acceptable" for halloween costumes

 Yojiro wrote:
I think quail hunting should be outlawed... juuuust sayin'

Do not return



I'm kidding.....mostly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
just of some guys on a porch watching the party and thought "oh look a skunk."

Most likely this.
You can't fix stupid bro.

My question is what possessed the person to shoot the what they believed was a skunk at a range that they couldn't clearly identify it as a person in a costume? if you can't make out the general shape and size of it you're definitely out of spray range. thus why would you shoot a poor critter that isn't hurting you and you're not going to eat it. makes no sense to me.

 yeri wrote:
My question is what possessed the person to shoot the what they believed was a skunk at a range that they couldn't clearly identify it as a person in a costume? if you can't make out the general shape and size of it you're definitely out of spray range. thus why would you shoot a poor critter that isn't hurting you and you're not going to eat it. makes no sense to me.

obviously, they love the smell of voided skunk, and thought they'd liven the party up with new aromas.

 yeri wrote:
My question is what possessed the person to shoot the what they believed was a skunk at a range that they couldn't clearly identify it as a person in a costume? if you can't make out the general shape and size of it you're definitely out of spray range. thus why would you shoot a poor critter that isn't hurting you and you're not going to eat it. makes no sense to me.

Well in the country, especially if you have chickens or other small livestock, you will almost always shoot a predator like a skunk, possum, or raccoon on sight. It keeps them away from your property as a deterrent.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 yeri wrote:
My question is what possessed the person to shoot the what they believed was a skunk at a range that they couldn't clearly identify it as a person in a costume? if you can't make out the general shape and size of it you're definitely out of spray range. thus why would you shoot a poor critter that isn't hurting you and you're not going to eat it. makes no sense to me.

Well in the country, especially if you have chickens or other small livestock, you will almost always shoot a predator like a skunk, possum, or raccoon on sight. It keeps them away from your property as a deterrent.

Except when you have company you don't shoot in the dark, it's common sense.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 yeri wrote:
My question is what possessed the person to shoot the what they believed was a skunk at a range that they couldn't clearly identify it as a person in a costume? if you can't make out the general shape and size of it you're definitely out of spray range. thus why would you shoot a poor critter that isn't hurting you and you're not going to eat it. makes no sense to me.

Well in the country, especially if you have chickens or other small livestock, you will almost always shoot a predator like a skunk, possum, or raccoon on sight. It keeps them away from your property as a deterrent.

Ah, that clears it up for a city boy like me. Thank you.

 AustonT wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 yeri wrote:
My question is what possessed the person to shoot the what they believed was a skunk at a range that they couldn't clearly identify it as a person in a costume? if you can't make out the general shape and size of it you're definitely out of spray range. thus why would you shoot a poor critter that isn't hurting you and you're not going to eat it. makes no sense to me.

Well in the country, especially if you have chickens or other small livestock, you will almost always shoot a predator like a skunk, possum, or raccoon on sight. It keeps them away from your property as a deterrent.

Except when you have company you don't shoot in the dark, it's common sense.

True, hence why I said this was stupidity causing the problem.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

Or maybe a simple IQ test?

If I remember correctly Cheney was climbing over a fence but didn't pass his weapon off to a buddy.

are skunks really as big as a 9 year old child out there?



oh my that is some serious failure on the adults part

 Jihadin wrote:
If I remember correctly Cheney was climbing over a fence but didn't pass his weapon off to a buddy.

No, he flushed a bird and tracked it behind himself or beside to whereever the other dude was. It's like a manual for what not to do when shooting birds.

Darkness and curvature of the hill had something to do with it...and alcohol I heavily suspect.

This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

The constitution does not allow any kind of qualification (other than felon or insane status) to deny a citizen a weapon.

Therefore all tests based on intelligence, safety training, and so on, are irrelevant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

Probably the most sensible thing that will be written on Dakka today.

Wow, I need to tell my friend that's dressing up as godzilla for halloween to watch out.

This is yet another example of what happens when you have dumb people and guns.

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait, what? How can anyone mistake a human child for a skunk... Is there some kind of Skunk-People problem I'm unaware of?

Apparently she was on the other side of a hill, wearing a black hat with a white tassle. Presumably only her head or the upper part of her body was visible. Captain Mossberg saw movement, saw a small black-and-white object, and, if my speculation is correct, his co-pilot Jim Beam determined that the target was a skunk.

Commander Meth might have had an influence on the decision too.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is why we need to ban night time, to many people make to many mistakes.

Win! +1 bro five star post! LOL FTW

I don't know how someone makes that mistake, or why their first impulse when they see a skunk is to shoot it. Skunks can be quite affectionate. They smell when they spray you, but otherwise, they aren't threatening.

 juraigamer wrote:
Wow, I need to tell my friend that's dressing up as godzilla for halloween to watch out.

This is yet another example of what happens when you have dumb people and guns.

Well, as long as your national guard unit is not activated right now, he should be good... I'd also suggest he stay away from large bodies of water

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

I actually just processed for my concealed carry permit today (stupid Colorado not being nearly as awesome as Arizona where the permit consists of being a U.S. citizen who owns a gun) and they used this test. As I was sitting there in the Sheriff's office a small child dressed as a coyote darted across the room, I almost went for the nearest blunt object on instinct as I was unarmed at the time but I thankfully managed to restrain my self. This test is in it's trial phase here in Colorado but I firmly believe that we as Americans should adopt it nation wide.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Poor kid, hope she makes it.

Never having seen a skunk in real life, do they really stink and are they a nuisance?

It's definitely not a creature I'd consinder shooting around my house since the area would stink to high heaven for days after it got splattered by a bullet. That being said, when I us ed to live in the back woods of Maine, it would not be unusual to see one of our cats and a skunk playing with each other.

Man, this sucks. Poor kid, here's hoping they're ok.

And yeah gun control, that's what's needed here. /sarcasm

What bs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

The constitution does not allow any kind of qualification (other than felon or insane status) to deny a citizen a weapon.

Therefore all tests based on intelligence, safety training, and so on, are irrelevant.

I'm far more worried about a stupid or drunk driver than I am about someone with a gun, since the drivers have a better chance of getting me or my family.

Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

I actually just processed for my concealed carry permit today (stupid Colorado not being nearly as awesome as Arizona where the permit consists of being a U.S. citizen who owns a gun) and they used this test. As I was sitting there in the Sheriff's office a small child dressed as a coyote darted across the room, I almost went for the nearest blunt object on instinct as I was unarmed at the time but I thankfully managed to restrain my self. This test is in it's trial phase here in Colorado but I firmly believe that we as Americans should adopt it nation wide.

For extra rigour they should also test you against a small animal dressed as a child.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

I actually just processed for my concealed carry permit today (stupid Colorado not being nearly as awesome as Arizona where the permit consists of being a U.S. citizen who owns a gun) and they used this test. As I was sitting there in the Sheriff's office a small child dressed as a coyote darted across the room, I almost went for the nearest blunt object on instinct as I was unarmed at the time but I thankfully managed to restrain my self. This test is in it's trial phase here in Colorado but I firmly believe that we as Americans should adopt it nation wide.

For extra rigour they should also test you against a small animal dressed as a child.

I'll have to shoot an email to the Sheriff's department with that suggestion, good idea Kilkrazy.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

The constitution does not allow any kind of qualification (other than felon or insane status) to deny a citizen a weapon.

Therefore all tests based on intelligence, safety training, and so on, are irrelevant.

I'm far more worried about a stupid or drunk driver than I am about someone with a gun, since the drivers have a better chance of getting me or my family.

Of the two (firearms accidents fatal/non-fatal and fatal car accidents) you're much more likely to get killed by a car with the CDC listing 613 unintentional shooting deaths in 2007. Mean while there was over 46,000 motor vehicle related fatalities in the same year. (for something more recent NHTSA says around 30,000 traffic fatalities for 2010) so yeah I'd be more worried about getting in my car then my neighbor's revolver if I was you.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

It still kills more people per year than firearms. What makes it NOT a weapon?

 Medium of Death wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

Dangerous machinery that can easily end human life?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

You'd have to argue that more motoring incidents are caused out of malice than being pure accidents, even then a car isn't a weapon anymore than a tree falling in the woods and crushing somebody is a weapon.

A gun is designed for one purpose.

 Medium of Death wrote:
You'd have to argue that more motoring incidents are caused out of malice than being pure accidents, even then a car isn't a weapon anymore than a tree falling in the woods and crushing somebody is a weapon.

A gun is designed for one purpose.

So a flamethrower isn't a weapon since you can use it to clear plants, de ice your driveway, put on cool pyrotechnic displays for your nephews garage band, and light your cigarettes like a badass.

Good.

I thought we had a thread on this - there really is no arbitrary line between weapons and tools.

What other purpose does a gun serve?

 Medium of Death wrote:
A gun is designed for one purpose.

But used for multiple.

A lot of our current technology was designed and invented for military application, but a use was found for it in civilian products.

Also, nothing with a gun is "accidental". It's negligent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Target shooting and home defense are my reasons.

And no, I don't subscribe to the belief that I should flee and surrender MY home to a criminal breaking in.

Multiple purposes such as? All resulting in potentially different outcomes?

While I am not anti-gun saying its not a weapon when used in a home defense scenario is kind of dumb.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
While I am not anti-gun saying its not a weapon when used in a home defense scenario is kind of dumb.

It most definitely is still a weapon. However, killing someone breaking in to your home and going on a shooting spree are both very different scenarios, even though they both result in death.

Guns have 2 uses.

1) as a weapon

2) recreation(hunting or target practice)

Mattman154 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

It still kills more people per year than firearms. What makes it NOT a weapon?

Gee.

It's almost like there's more cars in the general populace than guns, with more people utilizing cars and being around them far more often.

This kind of flawed logic is downright pitiful when it's used in these kinds of arguments. Context matters, and saying "Well cars kill more people a year than firearms!" without making a note of "more people are around cars than guns for the majority of the timeframe of their day, for quite a bit of time during a year".

Its not a weapon when you hunt with one? Pretty sure when I line a deer up with my .308 I'm trying to kill said animal.

I just dont get why anyone would say a gun isn't a weapon. Its not like weapons are inherently bad if they're used responsibly. But its still a weapon. Your not opening a beer or hammering nails with a gun.

Gun control wouldn't stop accidents like this from happening. Though an argument could be made that a basic gun safety course requirement prior to buying a gun could stop things like this. First thing the teach you is never pull the trigger unless you are certain what your aiming at is something you want to shoot. Overall very sad.

 Medium of Death wrote:
You'd have to argue that more motoring incidents are caused out of malice than being pure accidents, even then a car isn't a weapon anymore than a tree falling in the woods and crushing somebody is a weapon.

A gun is designed for one purpose.

It doesn't matter as it pertains to this discussion.

We are talking about ACCIDENTS. This was a negligent shooting incident, also referred to as some fethhead making a horrible mistake. Similarly most road accidents, are all caused by some fethhead making a horrible mistake.

So yes, the accidental firearm death statistic compared to the motor vehicle accident statistic is comparable. Also comparable is the number of people who drown per year in back yard swimming pools and may I say that number is astonishing.

Well I guess it's just lucky that the guy wasn't in his car when he saw the "Skunk"...

On a side note 254,212,610 cars in the U.S. the estimate on firearms owned by private individuals is any where from 270 million to over 300 million.

Cars are perfectly viable as an improvised weapon. Maybe a little extreme, but effective.

The massive difference being one is designed to kill, the other isn't.

Let me be the first to say...whoever did this the last time...not to post a 100 reasons why its good to own a firearm. Nor to bash those who own a firearm or multiple of fire arms.

Yeah, that post made that thread a pain in the ass to read.

 Medium of Death wrote:
The massive difference being one is designed to kill, the other isn't.

Does the design matter all that much when the outcome is that cars still kill way more people than guns? You can say guns are weapons, you can say guns are tools, you can say guns are both at the same time. And whatever cars are, in the US they still kill a lot more people than guns do.


And as other people have pointed out, guns have more purposes than just killing things.

Guns have no purpose beyond killing things.

At all.

The fact that they can be used in different ways to kill things does not mean they have other purposes.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Well, technically, some airports use shotguns with modified pyrotechnic rounds to scare aware birds (to prevent bird strikes).

Also, I'd have no problem with being able to own a firearm being contingent upon passing a safety course and showing some basic level of proficiency with it*. If the first amendment isn't absolute, I see absolutely no reason that the second one should be nearly so, either.

*Yes, I know some states already require this.

 Ouze wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Well, technically, some airports use shotguns with modified pyrotechnic rounds to scare aware birds (to prevent bird strikes).

The same thing could be done with fireworks or air horns. It's not necessary.

Fun note though:
Foresty services use a modified pyrotechnic round for starting fires to stop fires. They fight fire by firing fire at fire!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Well, technically, some airports use shotguns with modified pyrotechnic rounds to scare aware birds (to prevent bird strikes).

The same thing could be done with fireworks or air horns. It's not necessary.

Fun note though:
Foresty services use a modified pyrotechnic round for starting fires to stop fires. They fight fire by firing fire at fire!

Sure, but now the goalposts are moving, right? He asks what other uses there are, I pointed them out.

Personally I think dogs are probably the best choice since I suspect that the guns probably go off on some sort of repeating schedule and I bet the birds get used to them pretty quick.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Well, technically, some airports use shotguns with modified pyrotechnic rounds to scare aware birds (to prevent bird strikes).

The same thing could be done with fireworks or air horns. It's not necessary.

Fun note though:
Foresty services use a modified pyrotechnic round for starting fires to stop fires. They fight fire by firing fire at fire!

Sure, but now the goalposts are moving, right? He asks what other uses there are, I pointed them out.

True, it is a bit of moving goalposts on my part--but at the same time, I'm sure the major gun designers didn't think "How can we scare away birds to prevent airplanes from sucking them into their engines".

Personally I think dogs are probably the best choice since I suspect that the guns probably go off on some sort of repeating schedule and I bet the birds get used to them pretty quick.

Falcons and hawks, Ouze. RDU Airport actually has a program in place to nest hawks on the grounds to deal with the bird problem.

Fair enough, sure.

I hadn't considered raptors. That sounds better in several ways, chief of which is I bet being a professional falconeer gets you knee-deep in girls. "Oh this? Just my partner, who is a Falcon. No big deal. "

Only if you have a monocle.

Otherwise, people think you're crazy.

It’s true that roughly triple the number of people are killed on the roads than with guns.

If you want to make a useful comparison, though, you would want to look at the following factors.

The amount of use.
Per head of population.
The same statistics from other countries.

This would enable you to see if the US are particularly good shots, or bad drivers, etc.

For example, according to Wikipedia based on WHO data, the road death rate per 1 billion vehicle-km is 5.7 in the UK and 8.5 in the USA, showing that the US are fairly bad drivers in comparison, but better than Spanish where it is 11.7.

Of course it is rather difficult to measure gun use "miles" but perhaps a study could be done based on amount of time using.

I think we all know that all of this is pointless, though. Americans want guns and are not deterred because of accidents and murders.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guns have no purpose beyond killing things.

At all.

The fact that they can be used in different ways to kill things does not mean they have other purposes.

Sport rifles like those used in the Olympics aren't designed for killing things. They're designed pretty much solely with recreation in mind.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think we all know that all of this is pointless, though. Americans want guns and are not deterred because of accidents and murders.

Damn right. We have gumption. We're a determined people.

You can buy and own guns from the age of 18, but are still only allowed to buy and consume alcohol from the age of 21, right? And there's a good chance this shooter was intoxicated, right?

I'm sometimes wondering if it would help if these coming-of-age procedures were reversed somehow. Hear me out - Here in Germany, you can drink beer when you're 16. You can get a driver's license when you're 18. This means that, even before you drive a single mile on any road, you have two years of experience around alcohol and know how it affects you and your judgment and how you act and make decisions.

I think the 5-year age difference also makes a big difference in drinking culture between US and Germany, just as an example. When I was an exchange student at the age of...22? in Milwaukee, me and the other Germans had been legally drinking beers (also in public, I might add) for 6 years in Germany, so we toned our partying needs down a bit because we KNEW we don't need to be the biggest drinker in the party to have fun, just be relaxed about it. On the other hand, I don't know how many just-turned-21 US college guys were all like "C'MON CHUG ONE MOAR BRO" - as they were just beginning to test out the world of legally drinking alcohol. (Of course, they drank illegally before like everyone else, but in any case we did that too in Germany around 14, so it kinda evens out.) This "newness" around alcohol might cause more dumbasses than otherwise to do something stupid with their (legally owned already) guns and cars, like shoot at people or forget to look at the road and hit people.

Basically, my proposal is - let people experience alcohol legally and the baaad effects it can have on you BEFORE allowing them to own guns OR cars. Seems to work out pretty well here. (Car related deaths per year and per 100,000: 4.5 in Germany, 12.3 in USA, source: WHO 2002 via wikipedia - though, of course, other factors also play into this.)

Witzkatz....then states would lose most of their federal grant money. Its not a viable option unless the Fed. gov't overturns it, and that doesn't look to be happening anytime in the near future.
Plus, we don't want to be socialists
Nevertheless this was a horrible accident, does it call for gun control? No, this man is likely an idiot...should he have his weapon taken away?-yes

Why is it that because some moron acts like a moron and I need to be penalized for it? I need to be forced to take a sobriety test before I purchase a weapon? I need to have some law governing what I can and cannot purchase, just so YOU can feel better?

I wonder if this guy had ran up to the kid with a shovel and beat him unconscious all the liberal weenies wouldn't be crying out for the stricter control of shovel sales.

And as for the car argument, calling it pointless and stupid doesn't change the facts. People get into THOUSAND POUND pieces of COMPLEX MACHINERY and still act stupid, getting themselves or others killed. Yet, all we're required to do to operate one is renew our license, with no required tests, or checkups. The only thing DMV's do is check to make sure your car doesn't produce toxic levels of emissions. Where are the stringent requirements to own a car? Oh wait, it would inconvenient for the whiners if they had to practice the same gak they preach.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Why is it that because some moron acts like a moron and I need to be penalized for it? I need to be forced to take a sobriety test before I purchase a weapon? I need to have some law governing what I can and cannot purchase, just so YOU can feel better?

I wonder if this guy had ran up to the kid with a shovel and beat him unconscious all the liberal weenies wouldn't be crying out for the stricter control of shovel sales.

And as for the car argument, calling it pointless and stupid doesn't change the facts. People get into THOUSAND POUND pieces of COMPLEX MACHINERY and still act stupid, getting themselves or others killed. Yet, all we're required to do to operate one is renew our license, with no required tests, or checkups. The only thing DMV's do is check to make sure your car doesn't produce toxic levels of emissions. Where are the stringent requirements to own a car? Oh wait, it would inconvenient for the whiners if they had to practice the same gak they preach.

Well you know, you have to go to this thing called driver's ed and like take a driving test and stuff man. And owning one is dependent on your ability to pay insurance, so owners tend to be somewhat more responsible than other members of society(somewhat). So stop doing all caps, no one's gonna take your gun away....cept fer dere gubbermint!

Awesome, I got told off for using caps, cool.

First off, you don't need insurance. You can still buy, operate, and crash a car without insurance. Second, drivers ed is a class designed to show you how to drive or 'use' a car. Any responsible gun owner will do the same with their firearm, so I don't get your point.

And I never said anyone was taking away my guns, I asked questions as to why the law-abiding and responsible gun owners need to be lumped in with the, significantly less, group of idiots that own guns.

 Huffy wrote:


Well you know, you have to go to this thing called driver's ed and like take a driving test and stuff man. And owning one is dependent on your ability to pay insurance, so owners tend to be somewhat more responsible than other members of society(somewhat). So stop doing all caps, no one's gonna take your gun away....cept fer dere gubbermint!

the only thing Driver's Ed does, theoretically, is lower the initial insurance payments for a new driver. I know I never took any DE classes, still got a license, and aside from a couple speeding tickets, never had any problems with driving.


As for the airport guns, when I was stationed in Germany, our airfield had those sorts of guns stationed around (gave me a slight PTSD moment the first time I ever heard them going off) the strip to keep the birds away. The thing is, and I'm sure that this isn't universal, but ours was set for random timers. Each gun was a different "sound" and so the sound frequency, as well as the time frequency was constantly changing, thus keeping the birds away.

Another use, and I'm sure that EVERYONE has seen it, is the gun used to start track events (but this is really starting to get nitpicky, I think we've adequately discussed that there are indeed many uses for firearms, aside from making living things unliving).

Could have saved much debating about gun laws by just saying "People should ban children, they're so small they can be mistaken like this leading to tragedy". I am disappointed, but suspect there's been some victim blaming in here anyway.

There are 10,000 plus people killed in the U.S. By drunk drivers, according to the CDC. How many people here bitching about guns get in their car and drive after having a couple of drinks?

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Oh so now it's not just drivers killing people, it's drunk drivers?

Drunk driving is already illegal. There's no such law about "drunk firearm ownership". But I'm sure if you look into it, you'll find a large amount of firearm accidents involve alcohol.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh so now it's not just drivers killing people, it's drunk drivers?

Drunk driving is already illegal. There's no such law about "drunk firearm ownership". But I'm sure if you look into it, you'll find a large amount of firearm accidents involve alcohol.

Just answer the question.

I don't drive after consuming alcohol, if that's what you're asking.

But as I said in the "context matters" bit earlier--I don't drive period.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I don't drive after consuming alcohol, if that's what you're asking.

But as I said in the "context matters" bit earlier--I don't drive period.

True, context does matter. I have found through experience that people who crow the loudest about the dangers of guns don't think twice about driving while they are impaired.

Then they're hypocrites.

I like guns. I like firing them.

What I don't like is the ease with which guns can be obtained by a great many people who have no business with anything more dangerous than safety scissors.

The same thing can easily be said for a number of potentialy hazardous things, cars being top of the list.

The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

I'm just going to say this because I like to say it every time gun control comes up as a topic: guns don't kill people, bullets flying really fast kill people

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

Instead, you have cars going through fences and houses killing or injuring people because someone was drunk or stoned at the wheel.

Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


the only thing Driver's Ed does, theoretically, is lower the initial insurance payments for a new driver. I know I never took any DE classes, still got a license, and aside from a couple speeding tickets, never had any problems with driving.

Must be state by state, where I'm at it's required by law, at it can be fairly difficult to pass the test, most people I know have had to take driver's ed 2 or 3 times

Awesome, I got told off for using caps, cool.

Yes, its absolutely unnecessary, and learn to take a joke

First off, you don't need insurance. You can still buy, operate, and crash a car without insurance.

Actually in quite a few places you cannot buy a motor vehicle without proof of insurance, and you can be arrested/fined heavily for not having insurance

Second, drivers ed is a class designed to show you how to drive or 'use' a car. Any responsible gun owner will do the same with their firearm, so I don't get your point.

The point is there are many irresponsible gun owners/stupid people who own guns. It would seem reasonable to require gun safety, it would provide deterrent to people who don't want to take the class and it would better educate people who want to own guns

I asked questions as to why the law-abiding and responsible gun owners need to be lumped in with the, significantly less, group of idiots that own guns

Because they in part represent you, that small group creates a bad outlook on your whole group. Similar to how crazies on the Dem/Rep Parties make the whole party look bad.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

So people in cars won't do stupid things?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It’s true that roughly triple the number of people are killed on the roads than with guns.

If you want to make a useful comparison, though, you would want to look at the following factors.

The amount of use.
Per head of population.
The same statistics from other countries.

This would enable you to see if the US are particularly good shots, or bad drivers, etc.

For example, according to Wikipedia based on WHO data, the road death rate per 1 billion vehicle-km is 5.7 in the UK and 8.5 in the USA, showing that the US are fairly bad drivers in comparison, but better than Spanish where it is 11.7.

Of course it is rather difficult to measure gun use "miles" but perhaps a study could be done based on amount of time using.

I think we all know that all of this is pointless, though. Americans want guns and are not deterred because of accidents and murders.

Well we can't get time used easily BUT we do have statistics on ammunition purchased. Per BATFE over twelve billion rounds of ammunition were purchased between Nov 2008 and Nov 2009. I suspect that number has only gone up, as American gun ownership has been increasingly steadily these last few years. The 12 Billion number doesn't including ammunition reloaded at home by individuals (because how can you get numbers on that?) and possible might not include imported military surplus ammunition. Depends on what exactly the BATFE's counting. One of my instructors mentioned a similar number (12 billion rounds) as "new production" ammunition. I think that roughly works out to 51.25 per billion rounds of ammunition purchased.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

So people in cars won't do stupid things?

People in cars doing stupid things aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves. In almost every instance of car accidents where fatalities are involved, the driver does not come out of it unscathed physically and psychologically. There's also no groups campaigning with the slogan "Cars don't kill people, people do".

People with guns doing stupid things almost always have hurt other people rather than themselves. But since it's apparently a "Constitutional Right" for any moron to own a gun, because the government might "need a fixin' that only us gunfolk can bring!" there's special interest groups looking out for morons owning guns.

There's a very good reason I have no interest in joining the NRA, despite my interest in firearms and shooting. And it's not just because it might as well stand for "National Republican Association".

Relapse wrote:
Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I think I know one person who smokes marijuana, and in a twist of hilarity...he's pro-gun. He's a Republican no less.

But really, I don't associate with people who drink or smoke heavily...so that's another "context matters" situation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The difference being that you're not going to see a car flying over a hill because Bubba decided he saw a skunk that was in reality a child in a costume.

So people in cars won't do stupid things?

People in cars doing stupid things aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves. In almost every instance of car accidents where fatalities are involved, the driver does not come out of it unscathed physically and psychologically. There's also no groups campaigning with the slogan "Cars don't kill people, people do".

People with guns doing stupid things almost always have hurt other people rather than themselves. But since it's apparently a "Constitutional Right" for any moron to own a gun, because the government might "need a fixin' that only us gunfolk can bring!" there's special interest groups looking out for morons owning guns.

So stupid people in cars aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves, and stupid people with guns almost always hurt other people. That seems a bit skewed. Perhaps showing some statistics would change my mind?

Also, are you saying someone that negligently shoots a child they mistook for something else suffers no psychological harm?

 Kanluwen wrote:

People in cars doing stupid things aren't always guaranteed to hurt people other than themselves. In almost every instance of car accidents where fatalities are involved, the driver does not come out of it unscathed physically and psychologically. There's also no groups campaigning with the slogan "Cars don't kill people, people do".

You may have seen some guys hanging around bike shops wearing Cars R Coffins t-shirts? Maybe not, but there are actually groups who are lobbying for pro-pedestrian legislation and things, in order to protect people who are not inside of a 4 wheeled metal monster, such as cyclists, motorcyclists, and walker/joggers.

It's just that they are lobbying more for Pro-people stuff, rather than "carz R the evilz, so we must ban them at all costs!!! type lobbying, as we occasionally see with the pro- and anti- gun crowds.

I'd still like to see a proposal for a realistic test to determine if someone is ever going to do something they shouldn't with a gun. The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

 Seaward wrote:
The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

"Like this photo if you don't like cancer!'

My good deed for the day!

So I suppose the answer is to have more laws to govern every aspect of our lives so that when we actually do stupid gak, it's illegal too. Because the existence of laws keeps people from doing stupid gak all the time.

There's no way to tell, unless you can see the future, what a person might do with a gun they purchase. You say it's too easy to get a gun, ok, so you make it harder. The person will still get the gun, act like an ass, and hurt someone.

You can't fix stupid, regardless of how many laws you make.

 Frankenberry wrote:
So I suppose the answer is to have more laws to govern every aspect of our lives so that when we actually do stupid gak, it's illegal too. Because the existence of laws keeps people from doing stupid gak all the time.

There's no way to tell, unless you can see the future, what a person might do with a gun they purchase. You say it's too easy to get a gun, ok, so you make it harder. The person will still get the gun, act like an ass, and hurt someone.

You can't fix stupid, regardless of how many laws you make.

And the thing in the States is, that we seem to legislate to the lowest people. Someone jumps off an overpass onto freeway traffic, committing suicide. So let's build a super tall fence that people cannot climb over, throw things over, etc.

In my home state of Oregon, there's a law that states that if a person is crossing the street at a crosswalk, drivers must wait until person is on the sidewalk again (it's gone from you don't have to wait, but can't hit them, to you have to wait until they are at least 2 lanes away, to where it is now). None of those laws have actually prevented anything, as drivers are fethheads, and think they are more important, therefore will not wait for walkers.


Point is, legislation is all well and good, but it's only as good as it's enforceable. If you cannot realistically enforce a "you're stupid so you can't have a gun" law, then you can't really make the law in the first place.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Hunting for food.

Driving off predatory animals.

Defending yourself from attackers.

The issue in the story is, the shooter failed to apply the second saftey rule they teach you when you are learning to shoot. ALWAYS BE SURE OF WHAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT, AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT.

(#1, of course, is 'treat every gun as loaded until you've verified for yourself that it is not.')


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
On a side note 254,212,610 cars in the U.S. the estimate on firearms owned by private individuals is any where from 270 million to over 300 million.

So the number of cars and guns is similar. Good to know.

How about the number of gun owners as compared to the number of car owners. That might prove to be a bit more relavent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
People with guns doing stupid things almost always have hurt other people rather than themselves.

I'd like to see your statistics on this, if you have any. Somehow I suspect lots of people do stupid things with guns that never get reported until someone gets hurt, which is why there are no reliable statistics on the matter.

I don't know why United States of America is so obsessed with guns I don't have one and neither do my parents but I don't feel in any danger whatsoever.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't know why United States of America is so obsessed with guns I don't have one and neither do my parents but I don't feel in any danger whatsoever.

We have a lot more armed criminals down here than you guys do up there. Whether or not we would have more armed criminals if we hadn't had permissive gun policies for a couple hundred years is irrelevant; we didn't, and we do. The cat's been spilled, the milk's out of the barn, the cows are no longer in the bag. Ending the private sale of firearms to American citizens would probably bear fruit in the form of far fewer guns in criminal hands in, oh, a hundred years or so, and in the meantime would deprive numerous citizens of the right to successfully defend themselves from violent criminal acts. It would also take a constitutional amendment that simply wouldn't pass.

Guns are cool. Why does every thread about guns have to degrade into people discussing the same lame statistics and foreigners complaining about our freedoms?

Gun violence might have to do with our somewhat lax regulations (compared to other nations), but more importantly, the abundance of firearms. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country, and they aren't going to just disappear overnight. Americans aren't keen on giving them up, and on the contrary, want to buy more. So what is there to do about it? In my opinion, nothing. We're past the point where we can control the issue.

New legislature would do nothing. A law-abiding citizen can go down to cabellas and pick up a handgun, few questions asked, and kill someone. That isn't the fault of a manufacturer, or a gun store. It's the fault of the owner. New laws are nice and cute, but at the end of the day, criminals are still getting their hands on guns and disregarding the law anyway.

Their a product of their environment

Seaward and Samus_arran115 have the right of it.

Too many Americans like guns to be able to change the situation as it would take an amendment to the constitution which would not succeed.

Relapse wrote:


Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I really hope your not trying to insinuate that anti-gun people that smoke pot are funding terrorism. That myth was debunked quite a long time ago. High-schoolers smoke Mexican brick schwag. Anybody that smokes over the age of 18 either grows their own or knows someone that does. Its always much better.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I really hope your not trying to insinuate that anti-gun people that smoke pot are funding terrorism. That myth was debunked quite a long time ago. High-schoolers smoke Mexican brick schwag. Anybody that smokes over the age of 18 either grows their own or knows someone that does. Its always much better.

Considering the cartel pot industry in estimated to be in the BILLIONS I'd say you're flat wrong that it's only high school kids getting their dope from south of the border.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I really hope your not trying to insinuate that anti-gun people that smoke pot are funding terrorism. That myth was debunked quite a long time ago. High-schoolers smoke Mexican brick schwag. Anybody that smokes over the age of 18 either grows their own or knows someone that does. Its always much better.

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm saying anyone who is anti gun that does drugs or drives impaired is a blatent hypocryte. I work with a lot of Mexicans and others from Central and South America that have talked to me about the things that have happened with their families and friends in those places because of the cartels. The cartels are funded by money from drugs that people in this country buy, and I think you've got your head in the sand if you think it's a myth. If thinking someone doing drugs has no chance of funding the killing that's going on down there gets you through the night, go right ahead and pretend that. The people I work with have nothing but contempt for drug users, though, for what they've indirectly done to their countries.


Just a quick search of youtube turns this up:

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=3&rdm=mcetap3d6#/watch?feature=related&v=yzazkS1IhCY

Or this:

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=3&rdm=mcetap3d6#/watch?feature=relmfu&v=WOWwJnmP1mU

I could go on, but it seems you are in some state of mind that doesn't want to believe drugs are getting into this country from Mexico, and yes, that does include pot.

 Seaward wrote:
I'd still like to see a proposal for a realistic test to determine if someone is ever going to do something they shouldn't with a gun. The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

We have "realistic" tests in Germany, and the UK, and probably the rest of Europe too....I don't know how exactly they work, but they work very well. We have significantly less gun violence here than you have in the US. (firearm related death rate per 100.000 population is over 10 in the US, but only 1 in Germany)
Thousands of people get shot every year in the US, and I bet a few hundred of them died in stupid accidents. I'm not saying you should get rid of the guns (which would be impossible anyway) but at least try to keep them away from idiots like the guy in the op!

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't know why United States of America is so obsessed with guns I don't have one and neither do my parents but I don't feel in any danger whatsoever.

We have a lot more armed criminals down here than you guys do up there. Whether or not we would have more armed criminals if we hadn't had permissive gun policies for a couple hundred years is irrelevant; we didn't, and we do. The cat's been spilled, the milk's out of the barn, the cows are no longer in the bag. Ending the private sale of firearms to American citizens would probably bear fruit in the form of far fewer guns in criminal hands in, oh, a hundred years or so, and in the meantime would deprive numerous citizens of the right to successfully defend themselves from violent criminal acts. It would also take a constitutional amendment that simply wouldn't pass.

I'm not completely anti-gun I have no problems with it being used for hunting, I just think America is too enthusiastic about there guns.

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'd still like to see a proposal for a realistic test to determine if someone is ever going to do something they shouldn't with a gun. The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

We have "realistic" tests in Germany, and the UK, and probably the rest of Europe too....I don't know how exactly they work, but they work very well. We have significantly less gun violence here than you have in the US. (firearm related death rate per 100.000 population is over 10 in the US, but only 1 in Germany)
Thousands of people get shot every year in the US, and I bet a few hundred of them died in stupid accidents. I'm not saying you should get rid of the guns (which would be impossible anyway) but at least try to keep them away from idiots like the guy in the op!

I also suspect you have far, far fewer firearms in private ownership in Germany.

 Seaward wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'd still like to see a proposal for a realistic test to determine if someone is ever going to do something they shouldn't with a gun. The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

We have "realistic" tests in Germany, and the UK, and probably the rest of Europe too....I don't know how exactly they work, but they work very well. We have significantly less gun violence here than you have in the US. (firearm related death rate per 100.000 population is over 10 in the US, but only 1 in Germany)
Thousands of people get shot every year in the US, and I bet a few hundred of them died in stupid accidents. I'm not saying you should get rid of the guns (which would be impossible anyway) but at least try to keep them away from idiots like the guy in the op!

I also suspect you have far, far fewer firearms in private ownership in Germany.

Not to mention its probably infuriatingly difficult to get a firearm and license through legal channels.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Relapse wrote:


Let me put this question to you,

How many anti gun people do you know that use drugs inspite of the knowledge that there's a better than good chance the money they give for the drugs goes towards the cartels who kill 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico alone?

I really hope your not trying to insinuate that anti-gun people that smoke pot are funding terrorism. That myth was debunked quite a long time ago. High-schoolers smoke Mexican brick schwag. Anybody that smokes over the age of 18 either grows their own or knows someone that does. Its always much better.

Considering the cartel pot industry in estimated to be in the BILLIONS I'd say you're flat wrong that it's only high school kids getting their dope from south of the border.

I've heard that figure too. But i just dont believe it. Very good possibility Im wrong though. But if i was trying smuggle drugs, I would never pick pot. gakky Mexican brick weed goes for approx. 900 to 1500 a key in America. Compare that with 30,000 to 60,000 a key for coke. Additionally, coke doesnt smell as strong as pot nor is it likely to mold and destroy your entire crop like pot along with the fact that coke is way more compressible and can be dissolved in water. Cartel weed is often grown in America, and becomes indistinguishable from regular Cali grown. They just destroy the environment when they do it, pumping so many chemicals its gross. Not to mention anyone living in the Northern, Western, or Southeastern states aren't getting their weed from Mexico. They produce absolute garbage there. Its really a shame as there are some amazing sativa strains native to Mexico.

Maybe I'm biased. But I do know that cartels are business men. They're gonna look to make to most money the easiest way possible. And it ain't in dealing gak weed.

Either way unrelated to the topic so.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And pulling up stats from border patrol seizures in my mind on repudiates my beliefs. That they're moving more coke than weed. Surely they're moving a lot of weed too, but so is Canada. And its FAR better from there. But so is Cali, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. Not to mention vast amounts of homegrown.

Some of the Southeastern states like TN and KY have become legendary for their smoke. Better product at a better price just makes it hard for me to believe that knowledgeable smokers are buying gak.

And I'm well aware of the cartel growing on State and Federal land in Cali. But again its gonna be gak produced full of chems and overall bad smoke. And when people buy Cali weed they expect a high level of quality.

Edit: Remembered what repudiate actually means lol

Weed is however the most popular drug. Even if Coke sells for 40 times as much, its not worth it unless you have customers and can actually manufacure the Coke.

Pot is far easier to make then Cocaine, plus it has a larger market.

And this shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Coke prices are so high because there is such a huge demand for it.

And yes pot is easier to make. At home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention Mexican cartels have never been involved in manufacturing coke. But they have had a huge part of meth manufacturing. And meth sells for even more than coke.

So yeah I may be wrong. But if you were trying to make money what would you transport?

And yes I'm biased. But I think our government that has fought for almost 40 years in the Drug War claiming the horrors of marijuana have a lot to lose if they suddenly change their stance. Why is marijuana Schedule 1 again while cocaine Schedule 2?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it has no medicinal value? Why was Marinol produced again then?

 Seaward wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'd still like to see a proposal for a realistic test to determine if someone is ever going to do something they shouldn't with a gun. The "this could've been stopped with legislation!" crowd are just making themselves feel better.

We have "realistic" tests in Germany, and the UK, and probably the rest of Europe too....I don't know how exactly they work, but they work very well. We have significantly less gun violence here than you have in the US. (firearm related death rate per 100.000 population is over 10 in the US, but only 1 in Germany)
Thousands of people get shot every year in the US, and I bet a few hundred of them died in stupid accidents. I'm not saying you should get rid of the guns (which would be impossible anyway) but at least try to keep them away from idiots like the guy in the op!

I also suspect you have far, far fewer firearms in private ownership in Germany.

That is the whole point.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
And this shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Coke prices are so high because there is such a huge demand for it.

And yes pot is easier to make. At home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention Mexican cartels have never been involved in manufacturing coke. But they have had a huge part of meth manufacturing. And meth sells for even more than coke.

So yeah I may be wrong. But if you were trying to make money what would you transport?

And yes I'm biased. But I think our government that has fought for almost 40 years in the Drug War claiming the horrors of marijuana have a lot to lose if they suddenly change their stance. Why is marijuana Schedule 1 again while cocaine Schedule 2?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it has no medicinal value? Why was Marinol produced again then?

I'd say you're the one demonstrating ignorance on the subject. This report illustrates what was taken from just one tunnel:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/us-mexico-border-tunnel_n_1670589.html

More about tunnels :

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/20/139425/pot-smuggling-tunnels-in-tijuana.html

Another tunnel:

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/11/us_mexican_officials_seize_mor.html

This isn't to mention people bringing the stuff in by boat or just carrying it over the border.



How much cartels pull in from drugs:

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=342471&CategoryId=14091

Pretending to have some kind of insight as to what kind of businessmen that cartels are doesn't do much but prove you don't know a whole lot.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That is the whole point.

No, his point was that their gun ownership tests work. I've been able to find zero information on them, but I can't read German, so it's possible I'm not even looking in the right places.

My point was that having fewer gun deaths per capita isn't indicative that such 'tests' work, simply that fewer Germans buy guns.

Like I said Im biased. I'm well aware of the reports. I just dont believe that they're making their money of the cheapest drug possible. Call me a tin-foil hat aficionado I just don't understand or believe it. I personally think the smellier drug gets caught more. But its really a topic for another thread. So please just dont try and use your own anecdotal evidence that antigun people you know are also pro terrorism.

And either way those guns are coming from America.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And actually your last link only helps my position. And no kilos pf yay are going for 90,000 lol. Street value when your moving grams at a time is not a real value of their worth moving them over the border.

Drugs and the Drug Cartels are a far bigger problem then gun ownership. Someone that says guns are bad and should be outlawed but who also thinks that fighting Drugs is a waste of time is a hypocrite. Given that drugs and drug cartels cause far more deaths then guns do.

Guns are just tools. It takes a person pulling the trigger for something bad to happen. And if there isn't a gun around, that person will seek some other object to use to commit a crime. If anything, the gun is a good thing for the legal system. Guns can be tracked and traced back to people. Its much harder to do that with knives or other methods of commiting violence.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Drugs and the Drug Cartels are a far bigger problem then gun ownership. Someone that says guns are bad and should be outlawed but who also thinks that fighting Drugs is a waste of time is a hypocrite. Given that drugs and drug cartels cause far more deaths then guns do.

Guns are just tools. It takes a person pulling the trigger for something bad to happen. And if there isn't a gun around, that person will seek some other object to use to commit a crime. If anything, the gun is a good thing for the legal system. Guns can be tracked and traced back to people. Its much harder to do that with knives or other methods of commiting violence.

And the cartels are killing people with? Love? Hugs? Oh right guns. American guns. Or Fast and Furious said different. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Drugs and the Drug Cartels are a far bigger problem then gun ownership. Someone that says guns are bad and should be outlawed but who also thinks that fighting Drugs is a waste of time is a hypocrite. Given that drugs and drug cartels cause far more deaths then guns do.

Isn't one of the big arguments for decriminalization the concept that the cartels exist and are violent because the product is illegal? Just like we saw with alcohol during prohibition.

If the drugs in question were legal, regulated and taxed like alcohol, would they still be the focus of massive criminal trade, and violent conflict to control that trade?

Drugs are a problem because they are not controlled, which ironically is the same for guns.

Manny don't you know? The ability to walk into any store in America and walk out with a gun doesn't kill people. Marijuana does. LOL didn't DARE teach you anything?

Responsible gun owners vs Irresponsible gun owners. US with the 2nd amendment vs countries without a 2nd amendment. Everyone a product of their environment. Everyone arguement the same.

 Jihadin wrote:
Responsible gun owners vs Irresponsible gun owners. US with the 2nd amendment vs countries without a 2nd amendment. Everyone a product of their environment. Everyone arguement the same.

Very much agreed. A European growing up there cant understand what its like to grow up in America. Clearly we're willing to deal with all the negatives that come with an armed populace, along with the positives. Neither country is better is all I'll add. We all have mistakes.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Drugs and the Drug Cartels are a far bigger problem then gun ownership. Someone that says guns are bad and should be outlawed but who also thinks that fighting Drugs is a waste of time is a hypocrite. Given that drugs and drug cartels cause far more deaths then guns do.

Isn't one of the big arguments for decriminalization the concept that the cartels exist and are violent because the product is illegal? Just like we saw with alcohol during prohibition.

If the drugs in question were legal, regulated and taxed like alcohol, would they still be the focus of massive criminal trade, and violent conflict to control that trade?

The Cartels would still operate. They could still sell their goods tax free, and I garuntee that would be a major discount compared to legal options. It would actually make law enforcement's job harder because now there would be legal and illegal drugs.

And the only drug that I could ever see getting legalized would be Weed. The others would remain unchanged.

Amazingly no drugs were controlled until the 1930s.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Amazingly no drugs were controlled until the 1930s.

And as Im sure you know they were made illegal for racist reasons.

That Mexicans and Blacks would take said drugs and rape White women etc. Plus Hearst's anti marijuana yellow journalism. And the American cotton growers. But Im pretty sure Im not trying to convince you and its very off topic so I'll stop.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Drugs and the Drug Cartels are a far bigger problem then gun ownership. Someone that says guns are bad and should be outlawed but who also thinks that fighting Drugs is a waste of time is a hypocrite. Given that drugs and drug cartels cause far more deaths then guns do.

Guns are just tools. It takes a person pulling the trigger for something bad to happen. And if there isn't a gun around, that person will seek some other object to use to commit a crime. If anything, the gun is a good thing for the legal system. Guns can be tracked and traced back to people. Its much harder to do that with knives or other methods of commiting violence.

And the cartels are killing people with? Love? Hugs? Oh right guns. American guns. Or Fast and Furious said different. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually I can and will correct you, they aren't buying American guns for the most part.



Here's a photo from a seizure/arrest/raid by the Mexican Marines (good dudes from what I hear),

Just looking at this image I can see an MG34 machine gun, a couple 40mm grenade launchers, that tube for the RPG-7 is right there in front, a pile of hand grenades, and wide variety of rifles, many of which I'd happily bet money are full automatic. Now we do know that guns DO go south, but they aren't buying full auto weapons here, because those are A. Class III weapons with an extremely limited supply and insanely stringent acquisition process, because of that limited supply they also happen to cost a fortune. That MG-34 in the photo? If it was registered "Civilian Legal" here in the U.S. you could sell it for approx nineteen to twenty thousand USD. So the next question is "Well they could be buying semi-automatic AKs and ARs and modifying them to be full auto." Well they could but A. in the modern semi auto/civilian variants of both those weapons there's actual mechanical differences, it's not like you have to add a magic part or something and you're golden. There's some exceptions to this but it's a lot of work to get a semi-auto to turn into a controlled full automatic. ("Run away" guns can happen naturally due to wear and tear on the sear or modification, but it's an uncontrollable mag dump and isn't very useful) B. they can get those weapons in bulk cheap from South America, and they do.

So why buy U.S. legal rifles? Me personally my guess is to equip their "troops" who do border crossings regularly, those guys tend to be U.S. citizens and if they have legal rifles, well there you go right? Not much to do about it. Why do these rifles end up in violence south of the border then? Well the guy carrying them goes south, so where the owner goes, so goes the gun. This bit's conjecture on my part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Responsible gun owners vs Irresponsible gun owners. US with the 2nd amendment vs countries without a 2nd amendment. Everyone a product of their environment. Everyone arguement the same.

Very much agreed. A European growing up there cant understand what its like to grow up in America. Clearly we're willing to deal with all the negatives that come with an armed populace, along with the positives. Neither country is better is all I'll add. We all have mistakes.

Cultural differences are fun aren't they?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That is the whole point.

No, his point was that their gun ownership tests work. I've been able to find zero information on them, but I can't read German, so it's possible I'm not even looking in the right places.

My point was that having fewer gun deaths per capita isn't indicative that such 'tests' work, simply that fewer Germans buy guns.

During my time stationed in Germany, IIRC if you wanted to shoot a firearm outside of work (because we do qualifications and whatnot with them in the military), you had to be a member of a shooting club. The way it was explained to me, was that if you wanted to own a firearm, you had to apply, sit through the applicable waiting periods, purchase said firearm, and either move it to the club, or have it delivered at the club. After that, it was stored at the club and was only removed from storage during the active shooting and maintaining activities.

I could be wrong, but no where in there is the average German citizen storing firearms within their personal homes, so it is a hugely different situation to the US in my eyes.

So one picture validates your standing?

The majority of murders aren't being made with full autos. Theres a lot being made with knives. But its stupid to think that the situation in Mexico wouldnt be there without American money and American guns.

But it looks like we can both agree its a very convoluted situation.

Hope to Gawd those M203's on the M4's were mexican gov't own and not from us lol. I will say though for the Mexican Drug Cartels they did dime out a insurgent/terrorist group trying to cross the border into the US. Its bad for business on their part and they do not want the US Military to crack down on them.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So one picture validates your standing?

The majority of murders aren't being made with full autos. Theres a lot being made with knives. But its stupid to think that the situation in Mexico wouldnt be there without American money and American guns.

But it looks like we can both agree its a very convoluted situation.

It's called an example, and is fairly representative of the majority of their arms trade. We can go through every photo of every arms seizure made against the cartels one by one if you want. It's the American money that's the real problem, because you can get anything you damn want for the right amount of dollars. The black market small arms trade in South America is strong thanks to decades of various rebellions, wars and terrorist movements.

Regardless, yes the situation in Mexico is at least partially our fault, our incessant need for coke, pot and other fun drugs has resulted in the billionaire cartel bosses controlling massive crime organizations that are quite literally at war with the Mexican government and I think it's fair to say they might even be holding their own. The mind numbing amount of corruption in Mexico amongst LEOs and other government officials certainly isn't helping.

No real easy solution either. Not for the U.S. or for the Mexican government.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Manny don't you know? The ability to walk into any store in America and walk out with a gun doesn't kill people. Marijuana does. LOL didn't DARE teach you anything?

Pot gives the cartels the funds to buy the guns to kill people, look at the news, talk to some people from there and the read the situation.

Was the guy on drugs who shot the little girl?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

At least Captain Meth wasn't in a car and wasting entire families. We should have a law about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guns have no purpose beyond killing things.

So says the government employee with a vested interest in an unarmed populace.

Troy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

At least Captain Meth wasn't in a car and wasting entire families. We should have a law about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guns have no purpose beyond killing things.

So says the government employee with a vested interest in an unarmed populace.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm....you do realize that civilians armed with pistols and hunting rifles really don't present much of a challenge to a professional army right??

 juraigamer wrote:
Wow, I need to tell my friend that's dressing up as godzilla for halloween to watch out.

This is yet another example of what happens when you have dumb people and guns.

No no no. You have to break out the model tanks for Godzilla, not guns. KNowing is half the battle!

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Amazingly no drugs were controlled until the 1930s.

And as Im sure you know they were made illegal for racist reasons.

That Mexicans and Blacks would take said drugs and rape White women etc. Plus Hearst's anti marijuana yellow journalism. And the American cotton growers. But Im pretty sure Im not trying to convince you and its very off topic so I'll stop.

Pretty sure that racism was the tool that made drugs illegal, not the reason. Money and power were the reason. That what I choose to believe you're welcome to brew your own.

Huffy wrote:

Troy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

At least Captain Meth wasn't in a car and wasting entire families. We should have a law about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guns have no purpose beyond killing things.

So says the government employee with a vested interest in an unarmed populace.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm....you do realize that civilians armed with pistols and hunting rifles really don't present much of a challenge to a professional army right??

While I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about an army.
#police

 Huffy wrote:

Troy wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

At least Captain Meth wasn't in a car and wasting entire families. We should have a law about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guns have no purpose beyond killing things.

So says the government employee with a vested interest in an unarmed populace.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm....you do realize that civilians armed with pistols and hunting rifles really don't present much of a challenge to a professional army right??

This is true. It helps to have a cowed public though, so they can do their jobs.
Police also love the First Amendment. Sorry, but I don't want my fundamental right defined by The Man.

I have a question, Obviously this lady can be charged with something? What would it be?
Unlawful Discharge of a weapon? Unlawful use of a weapon?
Or attempted manslaughter?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I have a question, Obviously this lady can be charged with something? What would it be?
Unlawful Discharge of a weapon? Unlawful use of a weapon?
Or attempted manslaughter?

Unlawful use of a weapon? I wanted to believe you made that up. Even if he was in Illinois that wouldn't be on the table, it seems to be more of a possession law.. I'm not sure if they have a similar law in PA but in MT he could look at Criminal Endangerment; but he probably will not be charged at all.

The best part seems to be that he wasn't a drunk hillbilly siting on the porch. Nature vs Nurture wins again.

ROCHESTER, Pa. (AP) — A woman hosting a Halloween party shined a light for her son to help him shoot what they thought was a skunk but was really his 8-year-old cousin in a black-and-white costume, police said.

The girl, who was hit in the shoulder, arm, back and neck, was hospitalized Monday in critical condition following Saturday night's shooting in Rochester, a rural area about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh where firearms and hunting are common.

The woman hosting the party, Janet Grant, told police officers someone told her at around 8:30 p.m. there was a skunk nearby and she asked her son to shoot it, New Sewickley Township police Chief Ronald Leindecker said Monday, according to the Beaver County Times.

The son, 24-year-old Thomas Grant, grabbed a shotgun while his mother pointed the beam of a flashlight at a nearby hillside, Leindecker said. Grant spotted what he thought was a skunk under a tree and fired, the chief said, but then he heard a scream from his cousin.

The fun part. As noted why on earth would you shoot a skunk near your house. I agree that Captain Meth and Colonel Jim Beam were involved.

 Frazzled wrote:
The fun part. As noted why on earth would you shoot a skunk near your house. I agree that Captain Meth and Colonel Jim Beam were involved.

I think good old fashioned Uncle Stupidity was alone on this one.

 Frazzled wrote:
The fun part. As noted why on earth would you shoot a skunk near your house. I agree that Captain Meth and Colonel Jim Beam were involved.

I know, if its on your property, you are responsible for removing it depending on where you live.

Double line garbage bag and a shovel for the skunk.......a 9 yrs old kid though a new ballgame....

Shes not dead...

Whoops....um call 911 and hide the meth and Beam

Aw man, this was in my town.

Embarrassing.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Aw man, this was in my town.

Embarrassing.

Is meth an issue there?
Do you know these people?
Are they tarded?
Can you get me a case of ying ling...yes I'm aware it's not spelled that way.

 Huffy wrote:
I sincerely hope this is sarcasm....you do realize that civilians armed with pistols and hunting rifles really don't present much of a challenge to a professional army right??

It's not so much that. It's more that in order to have any meaningful threat to a government, your revolution needs a sophisticated cell structure that can deliver mutual support, while also maintining individual cell isolation, so that if one cell is compromised then other cells aren't also threatened. Manage to achieve that, and getting guns is a piece of cake.

That's always the thing that blows my mind about the gun nut fantasy - they think the hard thing is getting your hands on a gun, and once you've got that you're an effective guerilla fighter. What's hard is maintaining cell security, while compromising the security efforts of government.

 sebster wrote:

 Huffy wrote:
I sincerely hope this is sarcasm....you do realize that civilians armed with pistols and hunting rifles really don't present much of a challenge to a professional army right??

It's not so much that. It's more that in order to have any meaningful threat to a government, your revolution needs a sophisticated cell structure that can deliver mutual support, while also maintining individual cell isolation, so that if one cell is compromised then other cells aren't also threatened. Manage to achieve that, and getting guns is a piece of cake.

That's always the thing that blows my mind about the gun nut fantasy - they think the hard thing is getting your hands on a gun, and once you've got that you're an effective guerilla fighter. What's hard is maintaining cell security, while compromising the security efforts of government.

Vietn Minh and then the Viet Cong did it just fine thanks. Now go back to Australia and tell how the drop bear outbreaks are doing.

 Frazzled wrote:

Vietn Minh and then the Viet Cong did it just fine thanks.

One would suggest this is related to them adopting quite successfully the tactics outlined by Mr. Sebster.

The one thing the Viet Mihn did not do was to buy their guns in shops because the government was prevented by the constitution from stopping them because they had bought enough guns in shops to stop the government from closing the shops.

Russia had that Walmart of fire power store to sell to the VC and NVA. in Bulk discount

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The one thing the Viet Mihn did not do was to buy their guns in shops because the government was prevented by the constitution from stopping them because they had bought enough guns in shops to stop the government from closing the shops.

But what if they had bought their guns in shops despite the government preventing their buying firearms in shops, and that those shops in turn went with their shopping lists to bigger shopped where they shopped for the best prices at those shops?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Russia had that Walmart of fire power store to sell to the VC and NVA. in Bulk discount

I hear you can get good deals at that shop. Just tell 'em Uncle Joe sent you.

I just looked at the title and wait what?
somehow I don't think these people were completely clear headed