Sonofa...haven't we had enough wackos who take their version of crazy out on kids? Haven't read the article-if he/she was a student, did they show any signs parents or teachers could have recognized? If they were someone outside the school and just went in looking for victims, I'm glad the injury count sounds very low and the death count is insignificant (if only the shooter died). That sounds cold, but having been a teacher, the idea of somebody attempting to kill children is one of the most foul crimes out there and I have a zero tolerance feel for it.
cnn is reporting it was a student then went to confront a teacher
Automatically Appended Next Post: saw this quote on the twitters
"Inb4 Obama makes statement condemning senseless killing at Arapahoe high school, then authorizes more drone strikes which will kill children"
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wait, only injured? Thank god. This could have been another bad Sandy hook
it seems based on the news reports I've read, this wasnt some kid that snapped and wanted to kill a bunch of students, seems the kid was really only trying to get after a teacher.
The irony is the shooter, Karl Halverson Pierson, self identified as a Progressive Democrat (his FB page often mocked The Right) and was a supporter of Gun Control.
dkellyj wrote: The irony is the shooter, Karl Halverson Pierson, self identified as a Progressive Democrat (his FB page often mocked The Right) and was a supporter of Gun Control.
Thank goodness he realised the foolishness of his ways and was able to exercise his 2nd amendment rights.
Kilkrazy wrote: My comment is a witty counterpoint to the ad hominem argument that the shooter is a gun control democrat.
Claiming that pointing out the shooter was a gun control Democrat is an ad hominem would be like claiming that pointing out that you're a moderator is an ad hominem. Stating something that is true but ironic is not necessarily a personal attack.
Yours is merely offensive spam.
It's wonderful how diverse offense is, isn't it? You found my opinion of your posting habits offensive. I found your suggestion that murder is the exercise of Second Amendment rights offensive. And here we are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Speaking of people who throw stones in glass houses...
I'm dying to know how something that milquetoast took three edits.
d-usa wrote: It's almost like you can be pro-gun control and also like to own guns...
Hell, after seeing how easy it was to get a CCW in my state I think I'm more gun control than I was before.
Don't get me wrong, I think with proper licensing and certification you should be able to buy just about anything legally, including full auto, bazookas, whatever. I'd absolutely be for requiring some base level of proficiency at a minimum.
You immediately start getting into sticky areas of whether requiring such is a compelling government interest, though.
The teenage gunman who entered Arapahoe High School Friday afternoon and shot two fellow students with a shotgun was outspoken about politics, a gifted debater and may have been bullied for his beliefs, according to students who knew him.
…
“He had very strong beliefs about gun laws and stuff,” said junior Abbey Skoda, who was in a class with the alleged shooter her freshman year.
Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with [the shooter] Pierson, described him as a very opinionated Socialist*…
…”He was exuberant I guess,” Conrad said. “A lot of people picked on him, but it didn’t seem to bother him.”
In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith who through his invisible hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”
“…I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn’t the market correcting itself?” he wrote. “If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn’t it be able to overpower regulations?”
Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?” (emphasis added)
Teenage Angst in Overdrive? Or, just generally pissed off?
Last I hard was that apparently he was after the librarian who kicked him off the speech and debate team...
Frazzled wrote: Evidently there's something in the air in Colorado.
If only the air had had a gun...
But just like the evil NRA advocates, the school did, which stopped the shooting.
After that, Pierson set off one of the Molotov cocktails, setting at least three bookshelves on fire, investigators told KDVR.com. When an armed school resource officer entered the room, Pierson believed he was cornered and turned his gun on himself, Robinson said. The entire attack lasted approximately 80 seconds and was captured by security cameras.
There should be more school resource officers out there. It seems like that is one of those positions that often gets the axe between school budget cuts and PD budget cuts...
d-usa wrote: There should be more school resource officers out there. It seems like that is one of those positions that often gets the axe between school budget cuts and PD budget cuts...
I have not heard much about their "police in school" support. The "teachers-with-guns" thing gets the airplay on the news, so if I missed that I'm sorry.
I do think we need more school resource cops, especially since they can cover a whole lot more issues than "just a shooter".
d-usa wrote: I have not heard much about their "police in school" support. The "teachers-with-guns" thing gets the airplay on the news, so if I missed that I'm sorry.
I do think we need more school resource cops, especially since they can cover a whole lot more issues than "just a shooter".
It's not surprising, since that is sensationalist, and hence the media will prey on it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Stationing an armed Policeman or two with every school would probably be a good idea, given the massive prevalence of firearms and regular shootings.
Not just the whole firearms thing.
It could help with drugs, bullying, general comunity building, teach kids that "cops aren't bad", give children a safe person that they can turn to for help with issues at home.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Stationing an armed Policeman or two with every school would probably be a good idea, given the massive prevalence of firearms and regular shootings.
Not just the whole firearms thing.
It could help with drugs, bullying, general comunity building, teach kids that "cops aren't bad", give children a safe person that they can turn to for help with issues at home.
Anyone could provide that. My schools resource officer? Waste of flesh. The only thing she did was stalk the parking lot looking for things to give the kids tickets over. Did absolutely nothing to endear herself to the student body, to make herself into a person like you're describing.
There were teachers we could go to over much of that though. And has been shown time and time again across the nation, you are safer with an armed citizen immediately on scene then a police officer. Especially if you are in New York City.
But the stuff you note, that he calls himself a socialist, attacks Adam Smith and thinks that Smith somehow is in contradiction with Keynes... that's pretty standard fare for highschool kids who take an interest in economics, who basically are looking for an identity and a crusade and force that on to economics.
Anyhow, disturbed kid tries a massacre, and we're just really lucky he's the only casualty. I'm not sure there's really a lot more to be said than that.
But the stuff you note, that he calls himself a socialist, attacks Adam Smith and thinks that Smith somehow is in contradiction with Keynes... that's pretty standard fare for highschool kids who take an interest in economics, who basically are looking for an identity and a crusade and force that on to economics.
Anyhow, disturbed kid tries a massacre, and we're just really lucky he's the only casualty. I'm not sure there's really a lot more to be said than that.
The girl he shot full on is still in critical condition last I heard. He was NOT the only casualty.
What I am wondering about all this though... his parents. I have not heard single word about them, other then they were divorced.
So, an armed person on the scene stopped a mass killing. Is there a way to find these troubled kids before they pop? That seems to be the best way to stop these school shootings.
d-usa wrote: I have not heard much about their "police in school" support. The "teachers-with-guns" thing gets the airplay on the news, so if I missed that I'm sorry.
I do think we need more school resource cops, especially since they can cover a whole lot more issues than "just a shooter".
It's not surprising, since that is sensationalist, and hence the media will prey on it.
MWHistorian wrote: So, an armed person on the scene stopped a mass killing. Is there a way to find these troubled kids before they pop? That seems to be the best way to stop these school shootings.
Figure that out and how to implement it successfully and you may win the Nobel prize and be appointed secretary of education and homeland security on the spot.
d-usa wrote: It's almost like you can be pro-gun control and also like to own guns...
Likewise, anti-gun control (by that, I mean anti-knee jerk measures, obviously no one is completely anti-gun control) and not even own a single firearm.
MWHistorian wrote: So, an armed person on the scene stopped a mass killing. Is there a way to find these troubled kids before they pop? That seems to be the best way to stop these school shootings.
Figure that out and how to implement it successfully and you may win the Nobel prize and be appointed secretary of education and homeland security on the spot.
Senior Chris Davis, 18, was among many students Saturday trying to make sense of Pierson's shooting rampage.
"He was a weird kid," Davis said. "He's a self-proclaimed communist, just wears Soviet shirts all the time."
and
A man who declined to be identified in an CNN interview lives a few doors away and said he has known Pierson since he was a boy. In the last few days, the neighbor noticed Pierson driving at excessive speeds throughout their normally quiet, modest middle-class suburb.
The neighbor said Pierson's mother, Barbara, transferred her son to Arapahoe High School from nearby Highland Ranch High School because her son had been subjected to constant ridicule and physical altercations.
"He was socially awkward and just didn't seem to fit into the larger teenage groups, and I think that weighed on him," the neighbor told CNN.
Part of it is normal, teenager stuff, but throw in the Communist ideas and things get creepy fast.
The stuff about the molotov seems... sketchy... Like this happened days ago, and we're only now just hearing about it? Especially if he actually lit and threw one I would think we'd be hearing about it almost as soon as it happened, since ya know... fire bad...
Alfndrate wrote: The stuff about the molotov seems... sketchy... Like this happened days ago, and we're only now just hearing about it? Especially if he actually lit and threw one I would think we'd be hearing about it almost as soon as it happened, since ya know... fire bad...
Which of the items used are;
a) Already banned
b) Being lined up for more stringent regulation
I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.
Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.
Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.
NRA fully supports these. In as many schools as possible. Problem is the funding isn't there for many districts.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.
Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.
NRA fully supports these. In as many schools as possible. Problem is the funding isn't there for many districts.
Perhaps then, instead of the school district paying for armed guardians, have the county/state pay for them as a requirement of school security. I know when I was in school, during the Rivalry game in football, fans walked a veritable tunnel of LEOs to get into the field/stadium because things could get... intense, but to my knowledge, it was an action taken by the city/county NOT the school district, so while tax payers still foot (footed?) the bill for it, it did not come from the school coffers.
So, kid tries to start Trouble, Gets stopped by an Officer of the Law, not a teacher or a principle, and offs himself.
Why dont we put more police in schools? And Make them a presence? I remember my school having one, all she did was sleep in her car. She was nice but she never got out.
What if we put 4-5 plain clothes officers disquised as yard duties around the school to stop this stuff?
No. There is no "better" plan. These school shooters are a symptom, but no one really knows the "cause" yet. We really need to find the cause and attack it there.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: I don't know if teachers in the states are as pressured by their employer (the state) as they are here... but the last thing I would do is give myself or a lot of my colleagues a gun. I fear "going postal" would get replaced by "going educator" or some such.
Resource Officers? Fine by me. If you find the right profile for the job, they can be a great asset. Cops are often seen as the enemy by kids these days, reaching out to the community with a sideline of added security can be great.
NRA fully supports these. In as many schools as possible. Problem is the funding isn't there for many districts.
Perhaps then, instead of the school district paying for armed guardians, have the county/state pay for them as a requirement of school security. I know when I was in school, during the Rivalry game in football, fans walked a veritable tunnel of LEOs to get into the field/stadium because things could get... intense, but to my knowledge, it was an action taken by the city/county NOT the school district, so while tax payers still foot (footed?) the bill for it, it did not come from the school coffers.
The county/city/state do pay for them.
School Resource Officers are law enforcement officers who are assigned specifically to work in the schools, with their pay coming from the county/city police budget depending on where exactly the school in question might be(some schools have Sheriff's Deputies while others have Police Officers).
I'm for allowing teachers to carry in the school, and would find it perfectly reasonable if those teachers were held to a higher standard than your avg CCW.
There are plenty of tactical classes and ranges out there.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So a shooter is confronted with an armed response and turns the firearm on himself. That is a bit of a trend, isn't it.
Yes, seems to happen about half the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: I'm for allowing teachers to carry in the school, and would find it perfectly reasonable if those teachers were held to a higher standard than your avg CCW.
There are plenty of tactical classes and ranges out there.
He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?
cincydooley wrote: The targeted teacher was the librarian. Maybe he wanted to symbolically destroy everything he worked for at the school with the Molotovs.
the librarian was also the kids debate coach, who apparently disciplined the kid for some reason ive not yet heard
I don't see a stressed out teacher who is being annoyed by his students, carrying a gun as a good thing.
I remember my school time and getting the teacher steaming was the class's favorite pass time.
Crablezworth wrote: He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?
I was given my first belt fed, automatic weapon at 17. I was also given access to high explosives, jet fuel, CS tear gas and all sorts of other fun toys.
Cars kill 32,000+ people a year, we license people to drive them at 16.
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
master of ordinance wrote: Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
Cars are a necessity for everyday modern life. Guns on the other hand... not so much...
Jehan-reznor wrote: I don't see a stressed out teacher who is being annoyed by his students, carrying a gun as a good thing.
I remember my school time and getting the teacher steaming was the class's favorite pass time.
You could say the same about a stressed out cop annoyed at the juvenile delinquents he/she is powerless to really do something about, or any other stressed out person.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I don't see a stressed out teacher who is being annoyed by his students, carrying a gun as a good thing.
I remember my school time and getting the teacher steaming was the class's favorite pass time.
You could say the same about a stressed out cop annoyed at the juvenile delinquents he/she is powerless to really do something about, or any other stressed out person.
You do realize there is not a damn thing that stops teachers from doing that now already, don't you? That sign that says no gun zone is not a magical forcefield. If a teacher wanted to shoot a kid because he was such a dickbag, he could, anytime he wanted.
master of ordinance wrote: Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
I really hate this argument.
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
master of ordinance wrote: Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
I really hate this argument.
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?
master of ordinance wrote: Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
I really hate this argument.
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?
One is also something that you are far more likely to come into contact with in the course of everyday life. The other is not.
master of ordinance wrote: Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
I really hate this argument.
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?
One is also something that you are far more likely to come into contact with in the course of everyday life. The other is not.
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
Given that the argument "Guns are bad!" is generally based off of the amount of mayhem resulting from an unrighteous use or accident, comparison with an "Acceptable" item that produces a great deal MORE mayhem is valid. I'm sorry, manufacturers intent becomes absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at that point.
Now, you can argue that the intent is the important part, but it's not really going to lead anywhere good. If manufacturer intent is the crucial factor, I should be able to build and sell a 5.56mm autoloading rifle that outperforms the AR15 in sporting competition just fine, since I am never intending for it to kill anything more alive than paper. The fact that this mythical rifle can probably fight on par with an AR pattern doesn't matter, by the above logic. Similarly, if I build a car for the purpose of outperforming a street racer, this would automatically put my vehicle in the "Bad stuff" category...even if i Never break any traffic law on the books for the life of the vehicle. It's ridiculous.
master of ordinance wrote: Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
I really hate this argument.
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
But one kills FAR more than the other. See the difference?
One is also something that you are far more likely to come into contact with in the course of everyday life. The other is not.
My point exactly.
This also depends greatly on your individual life/job, etc. Some of us come into contact with firearms near everyday, while others may get close enough to see one on TV.
Also, not all guns are designed to kill things... Give me a fething break... There are target/comp pistols, flare guns, track and field guns (the starters), paintball guns, etc. that are designed with specific other tasks in mind. Still, often times a bullet is a bullet is a bullet, and a target/competition pistol will kill a person just as easily as an AR-15, or an AK-47, or really just as easily as that kid down the street's Ford Focus.
Well then, we should stop funding any anti-terrorism efforts because way more people were killed by Food Poisoning in 2001 than were killed in 9/11.
Therefore, by everyone's agreed logic of tackling the things that kill the most people we should drop 99%of the funding for the Department of Homeland security and shift its funding to the FDA.
Easy E wrote: Well then, we should stop funding any anti-terrorism efforts because way more people were killed by Food Poisoning in 2001 than were killed in 9/11.
Therefore, by everyone's agreed logic of tackling the things that kill the most people we should drop 99%of the funding for the Department of Homeland security and shift its funding to the FDA.
Amiright?
lol, I agree that we should defund the DHS (except for the Coast Guard, they do important work)... but the money shouldn't go to FDA, unless specifically allocated to ad campaigns promoting healthier eating, as determined by medical professionals, not political people from the 1960s
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
. I'm sorry, manufacturers intent becomes absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at that point.
We aren't talking designer intent. We are talking the purpose of the tool. Intent and purpose are not the same.
For example, a Hammer* can be used to kill and maim things. However, it's purpose is to build things. A car is designed to tranpsort stuff from point a to point B, but it can also kill and maim people. A chair's purpose is to be sat upon, but you can use it to help tame lions.
What is a gun's purpose? To kill and maim stuff. It can also be used for fun, but that is not its purpose. Note, I'm not saying that the purpose to kill and maim is inherently bad. There are many times where it is perfectly valid to need to kill and maim something. Purpose is not an emotional judgement, it is a simple statement of...urm....purpose.
*Unless it is a Warhammer and then the purpose is to kill and miam things.
You're (as usual) building a straw man. The point isn't 'tackle the big things', it is 'since you are willing to accept the big things without enhanced Gov't interference in our lives, accept the small ones that already have constitutional protection without calling for MOAR gov't interference and further attempting to dilute the constitutional protections/individual rights'.
The argument bluntly put is if you want to use the gov't to further infringe on my rights in an attempt to stop a minuscule amount of deaths, why do you not instead expend your efforts to expand gov't control where it can do more good. It is not a call for that gov't control, it is an attempt to point out how silly your arguments are.
We aren't talking designer intent. We are talking the purpose of the tool. Intent and purpose are not the same.
For example, a Hammer* can be used to kill and maim things. However, it's purpose is to build things. A car is designed to tranpsort stuff from point a to point B, but it can also kill and maim people. A chair's purpose is to be sat upon, but you can use it to help tame lions.
What is a gun's purpose? To kill and maim stuff. It can also be used for fun, but that is not its purpose. Note, I'm not saying that the purpose to kill and maim is inherently bad. There are many times where it is perfectly valid to need to kill and maim something. Purpose is not an emotional judgement, it is a simple statement of...urm....purpose.
*Unless it is a Warhammer and then the purpose is to kill and miam things.
Sledgehammers are not designed to build, nor are jackhammers. Obviously warhammers... But then the same can be said of Axes. As an axe often times is designed to chop wood, unless it's a battleaxe. Or a Viking styled axe. A racing car is not designed to transport stuff from point A to B. We have things that take racing cars from A to B, and the racing car goes from A to A to A to A (ad nauseam) Horses have been bred to take things from A to B as well, however we also have War horses (destriers, etc), same thing with Humvees, Snatches (for you Brits), Bulldogs, Abrams, Bradleys, etc.
I already pointed out, there are Target/competition firearms that are designed specifically with competitions and paper targets in mind. So ultimately, a firearm is really simply designed to push a small (ish) projectile at a high rate of speed in a desired direction. Nothing more, nothing less. Intent and purpose comes from the person owning/holding such a firearm.
Arming teachers is not a great idea in the long run because of the simple repercussions of quite literally putting lethal items meant to kill people in class.
Not only would you have to certify EVERY single teacher in ALL class rooms to use a weapon, but to give special classes to kids explaining why Ms. Doe is now packing heat.
Good luck explaining to a 7 year old that your teacher is trained to protect you because at any time a random shooter might come in a try to kill you all.
I actually support the plan to put trained POLICE officers in schools, and that we should raise taxes to fund it.
I do not support however giving firearms to every teacher so we can turn the house of learning into a spawn containment bunker complete with heat packing elderly subs.
Crablezworth wrote: He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?
You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.
Not only would you have to certify EVERY single teacher in ALL class rooms to use a weapon, but to give special classes to kids explaining why Ms. Doe is now packing heat.
No, you wouldn't. Districts that have started to implement don't announce which teachers are carrying either. The purpose is to have a few unknown-to-potential-assailants people carrying to dissuade from attacking. The only problem with uniformed resource officers is they become a target.
Good luck explaining to a 7 year old that your teacher is trained to protect you because at any time a random shooter might come in a try to kill you all.
Based on this quote I'll assume you've not worked with kids a lot. You just don't tell them anything. If they ask, you reply with a simple but true answer like, "they're there to protect you from any bad guys."
I actually support the plan to put trained POLICE officers in schools, and that we should raise taxes to fund it.
Lovely idea aside from the whole funding it issue. You can't simply raise taxes to do so.
I do not support however giving firearms to every teacher so we can turn the house of learning into a spawn containment bunker complete with heat packing elderly subs.
There are some good arguments not to put restrictions on weapons, but the "cars kill more people" argument is really stupid and you should stop making it because it makes you look either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
Cars are a vital part of the infastructure of a modern economy. Cars are used continuously throughout the day by people all across society. Far more people have cars than have firearms. People who would normally be disbarred from owning a firearm need to have access to cars or they are relegated to an unemployable underclass. My understanding is that due to the spread out nature of the US, public transport and pedestrian transport are impractical- the US NEEDS cars to function and due to this practically every adult outside of city centres owns one and will drive them multiple times a week.
The comparisons to guns are ridiculous because:
-Outside of certain professions guns are not a requirement for work (cars are needed for commuting)
-Far fewer people have guns.
-Those people who have guns are required to use them far less frequently than people who have cars are required to use cars.
For all of these reasons, the statistics on gun and car death are simply incomparable. Any attempt to compare them without qualification makes you look dishonest or dumb. So please quit it.
From my own perspective, rather than limiting firearms, I would be interested in getting to the social and psychological root of what causes spree killing, and then trying to minimise or eradicate the things which cause them. The gun is the tool with which mass killings are carried out, however the will to carry out a mass killing is a far more important component. It's just a lot more uncomfortable and difficult to examine these reasons, which is why gun control is a popular alternative.
I know that you cannot do thing like bring lethal weapons into the class room setting with out explaining to every single student what it is and what it is there for.
Not doing so opens the door for hundreds of liability suits. You can't just not tell the kids, as it will also probably cause a massive upset if they find out anyway. Better to be honest.
and no, its not a ignorant and moronic statement, in many peoples rush to protect our children many do not understand the ramifications of turning what supposed to be a house of education into a place were we arm people just because were not willing to pay for actual guards.
No matter what if this was implemented the law would be struck down instantly anyway, some idiot teacher would get pissed of at his kids and kill a couple, and then good bye teachers with guns.
Alexzandvar wrote: Arming teachers is not a great idea in the long run because of the simple repercussions of quite literally putting lethal items meant to kill people in class.
Not only would you have to certify EVERY single teacher in ALL class rooms to use a weapon, but to give special classes to kids explaining why Ms. Doe is now packing heat.
Good luck explaining to a 7 year old that your teacher is trained to protect you because at any time a random shooter might come in a try to kill you all.
I actually support the plan to put trained POLICE officers in schools, and that we should raise taxes to fund it.
I do not support however giving firearms to every teacher so we can turn the house of learning into a spawn containment bunker complete with heat packing elderly subs.
It's implementation is that the teachers who are armed are not "publicized", and the weapon is conceal carried. Specialized training is also given.
Also, many police cant hit the side of a barn. They only shoot for quals, once maybe two times a year. I'd rather have a person who has been both trained to deal with children as well as employ a firearm in a special circumstance that a school setting would present than have a police officer (many times retired), who might be there only for show.
ROs are a good start, but it shouldnt end there, especially in large schools.
It's implementation is that the teachers who are armed are not "publicized", and the weapon is conceal carried. Specialized training is also given.
That "specialized training" is what?
How is the weapon "conceal carried"?
Does the style of carry differ from elementary school to middle to high school?
Also, many police cant hit the side of a barn. They only shoot for quals, once maybe two times a year. I'd rather have a person who has been both trained to deal with children as well as employ a firearm in a special circumstance that a school setting would present than have a police officer (many times retired), who might be there only for show.
Way to generalize.
The quality of shooting from police differs from department to department, just like it does with everyone in the private sector. And quite frankly the idea that they "only shoot for qualification" is not unreasonable given that police officers do work pretty hectic schedules--and their work does not necessarily end when they go home.
But to pretend that teachers, a profession that work just as many hours outside of their actual work, would have the same time to devote to going to a range as someone who shoots competitively or as recreation is just ridiculous.
ROs are a good start, but it shouldnt end there, especially in large schools.
Actually, yeah. It should. The simple problem though is that many resource officers(who, incidentally do receive specialized training in dealing with children and the situations that might arise from dealing with children) have to cover multiple schools during the course of the day or are the only officers at a single large school because the city/county won't actually put the money in to release more officers from patrol duty to work as resource officers.
To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.
That "specialized training" is what?
How is the weapon "conceal carried"?
Does the style of carry differ from elementary school to middle to high school?
Monthly tactical training courses. Regularly logged range time. Not real hard to implement either of these.
Additionally, I can't tell if your concealed carry question is sarcastic or just ingnorant of how concealed carry works. If you're concealed carrying, the firearm is Carried in a way that another person can't tell you're carrying. Typically for men this is an IWB holster (inside the waistband). Google it and you'll find tons if options for doing so.
.
But to pretend that teachers, a profession that work just as many hours outside of their actual work, would have the same time to devote to going to a range as someone who shoots competitively or as recreation is just ridiculous.
The premise beind having teachers carry is that there are plenty of them that already recreationally shoot or have their CCW. I know at my wife's school, there are roughly 30 teachers and about 1/3 of them already recreationally shoot. Another 5 (that I know of) already have their CCW.
Actually, yeah. It should. The simple problem though is that many resource officers(who, incidentally do receive specialized training in dealing with children and the situations that might arise from dealing with children) have to cover multiple schools during the course of the day or are the only officers at a single large school because the city/county won't actually put the money in to release more officers from patrol duty to work as resource officers.
So please, enlighten us as to how thus is going to be funded then.
To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.
And this is more effective to you than having people at every building?
Further, very few districts have all of their buildings within walking distance of one another.
That "specialized training" is what?
How is the weapon "conceal carried"?
Does the style of carry differ from elementary school to middle to high school?
Monthly tactical training courses. Regularly logged range time. Not real hard to implement either of these.
Who teachers the courses?
Additionally, I can't tell if your concealed carry question is sarcastic or just ingnorant of how concealed carry works. If you're concealed carrying, the firearm is Carried in a way that another person can't tell you're carrying. Typically for men this is an IWB holster (inside the waistband). Google it and you'll find tons if options for doing so.
The word is "ignorant". Spell it right if you're going to try calling someone it.
I'm quite aware of what concealed carrying is but I am also aware that it can be quite easy to spot someone concealed carrying.
.
But to pretend that teachers, a profession that work just as many hours outside of their actual work, would have the same time to devote to going to a range as someone who shoots competitively or as recreation is just ridiculous.
The premise beind having teachers carry is that there are plenty of them that already recreationally shoot or have their CCW. I know at my wife's school, there are roughly 30 teachers and about 1/3 of them already recreationally shoot. Another 5 (that I know of) already have their CCW.
What kind of school does your wife teach at? 30 teachers sounds exceptionally small for anything outside of a private daycare.
Actually, yeah. It should. The simple problem though is that many resource officers(who, incidentally do receive specialized training in dealing with children and the situations that might arise from dealing with children) have to cover multiple schools during the course of the day or are the only officers at a single large school because the city/county won't actually put the money in to release more officers from patrol duty to work as resource officers.
So please, enlighten us as to how thus is going to be funded then.
I don't know. Ideally people would buck up and realize that school resource officers are actually a really good thing in that it gives students someone to reach out to for a large variety of issues.
To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.
And this is more effective to you than having people at every building?
Where did I say it was effective? The point that should have been blatantly obvious in light of my statement that can be summed up to "More resource officers would be a good thing" is that it was not effective. Ideally each school should have had their own resource officer.
Further, very few districts have all of their buildings within walking distance of one another.
In my experience (as a student and as a teacher education student), school districts with a large number of students had their schools spread out over the district. You'd have an elementary school here, a middle school there, and a high school centrally located elsewhere. Sometimes (but not always) an elementary school might be linked to a middle school, and a MS linked to a HS (but this is rarer than it sounds!). On the flip side, school districts that have to cover a large area of land tend to have all of their schools in a centralized campus, especially places that bus students in from around the district (we're talking rural schools, like where Drive your Tractor to School is a huge day)
The word is "ignorant". Spell it right if you're going to try calling someone it.
Ahh the last gasp of the ineffectual argument. Please, forgive my errant 'n'. But you know, If that's all you've got.
I'm quite aware of what concealed carrying is but I am also aware that it can be quite easy to spot someone concealed carrying.
I'll just have to disagree here. As long as you aren't wearing skin tight clothing, a good IWB is pretty much invisible.
What kind of school does your wife teach at? 30 teachers sounds exceptionally small for anything outside of a private daycare.
She works at one of the 5 elementary schools in a district with a total enrollment of nearly 8,000.
I don't know. Ideally people would buck up and realize that school resource officers are actually a really good thing in that it gives students someone to reach out to for a large variety of issues.
Yeah, you'd think those same people would vote to pass levies to ensure that special education classes and gifted programs and general funding isn't cut. They don't. To think they'd vote for ROs is foolhardy.
To use an anecdotal example, the high school I went to had two officers who covered three schools. The high school, middle school, and elementary school were all walking distance from each other and shared sports fields/parking lots. This kind of set up is not unheard of and if something similar to this shooting were to happen then that's two officers to effectively cover three schools.
Where did I say it was effective? The point that should have been blatantly obvious in light of my statement that can be summed up to "More resource officers would be a good thing" is that it was not effective. Ideally each school should have had their own resource officer.
I bolded it for you. Ideal situations rarely happen in schools. Ideally a teacher would have no more than 22ish students. Doesn't prevent my wife from having 32 in a class.
I'm not sure how true that might be.
Seems to be a growing trend.
I'll continue to use my wife's district as an example. There are 9 schools in the district, 5 elementary, 3 junior high, one high school. None it the buildings are within a Mile of each other. Some are as far apart as 10 miles.
I know that you cannot do thing like bring lethal weapons into the class room setting with out explaining to every single student what it is and what it is there for.
Not doing so opens the door for hundreds of liability suits. You can't just not tell the kids, as it will also probably cause a massive upset if they find out anyway. Better to be honest.
and no, its not a ignorant and moronic statement, in many peoples rush to protect our children many do not understand the ramifications of turning what supposed to be a house of education into a place were we arm people just because were not willing to pay for actual guards.
No matter what if this was implemented the law would be struck down instantly anyway, some idiot teacher would get pissed of at his kids and kill a couple, and then good bye teachers with guns.
WOW, sensationalize much?
I dont think anyone is advocating arming ALL teachers. Of course, a selection process is involved in order to weed out potential issues.
Spacemanvic wrote: Also, many police cant hit the side of a barn. They only shoot for quals, once maybe two times a year..
So you think that a teacher who is told to have a gun will do any more than the minimum to qualify to carry said gun... why?
You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of firearm ownership, and how this implementation works.
A teacher would not be "told" to carry a firearm, it is a personal decision, one that requires the teacher to assume certain responsibilities. A teacher willing to carry is almost always someone with an interest in firearms, as well as the disciplines that are involved. It's being a part of the gun culture. Many police (especially in metro areas) do not come from a gun background, and so for them, carrying a firearm and using one is more of a chore than anything else, so they do the bare minimum. It's akin to painting minis: some view it as a detestable chore, while others find it relaxing.
In a day to day basis, many of us are surrounded by firearms without even knowing it. Armed guards/police are the most visible, but there is also the concealed carrier, who could be a soccer mom, grandfather, corner grocer etc.
I know that you cannot do thing like bring lethal weapons into the class room setting with out explaining to every single student what it is and what it is there for.
Not doing so opens the door for hundreds of liability suits. You can't just not tell the kids, as it will also probably cause a massive upset if they find out anyway. Better to be honest.
and no, its not a ignorant and moronic statement, in many peoples rush to protect our children many do not understand the ramifications of turning what supposed to be a house of education into a place were we arm people just because were not willing to pay for actual guards.
No matter what if this was implemented the law would be struck down instantly anyway, some idiot teacher would get pissed of at his kids and kill a couple, and then good bye teachers with guns.
If the children never see the firearm in class, then the teacher is doing their job as trained (as has been pointed out, the few school districts implementing this are doing so as a CONCEALED measure... meaning no one knows WHO is packing, much less how many)
It's fairly ignorant, because in your view, all teachers are carrying around a Barret .50 cal Rifle, or a Mossberg shotgun, something that they have strapped to their backs all the time, when the few places considering these sorts of measures are, again, going for a concealed approach. I know that the background checks for teachers can be somewhat rigorous, but they are obviously going to be doubly hard on the ones who are volunteering/being selected for the additional duty of protecting their kids.
And, as we all seem to understand, the Government has taken the recent stance that while children are on school property/in school, they BELONG to the state, which means that it is the DUTY of the teachers to protect them. And yeah, I would much rather have my kids' teacher carrying a firearm, because if someone does try another one of these events, I would much rather have someone more than a uniformed rent-a-cop or almost-deputy who is going to either be nowhere near useful, or will be the first target.
CptJake wrote: You're (as usual) building a straw man. The point isn't 'tackle the big things', it is 'since you are willing to accept the big things without enhanced Gov't interference in our lives, accept the small ones that already have constitutional protection without calling for MOAR gov't interference and further attempting to dilute the constitutional protections/individual rights'.
The argument bluntly put is if you want to use the gov't to further infringe on my rights in an attempt to stop a minuscule amount of deaths, why do you not instead expend your efforts to expand gov't control where it can do more good. It is not a call for that gov't control, it is an attempt to point out how silly your arguments are.
No. I want people to stop equating car accidents with firearm deaths.
We aren't talking designer intent. We are talking the purpose of the tool. Intent and purpose are not the same.
For example, a Hammer* can be used to kill and maim things. However, it's purpose is to build things. A car is designed to tranpsort stuff from point a to point B, but it can also kill and maim people. A chair's purpose is to be sat upon, but you can use it to help tame lions.
What is a gun's purpose? To kill and maim stuff. It can also be used for fun, but that is not its purpose. Note, I'm not saying that the purpose to kill and maim is inherently bad. There are many times where it is perfectly valid to need to kill and maim something. Purpose is not an emotional judgement, it is a simple statement of...urm....purpose.
*Unless it is a Warhammer and then the purpose is to kill and miam things.
Sledgehammers are not designed to build, nor are jackhammers. Obviously warhammers... But then the same can be said of Axes. As an axe often times is designed to chop wood, unless it's a battleaxe. Or a Viking styled axe. A racing car is not designed to transport stuff from point A to B. We have things that take racing cars from A to B, and the racing car goes from A to A to A to A (ad nauseam) Horses have been bred to take things from A to B as well, however we also have War horses (destriers, etc), same thing with Humvees, Snatches (for you Brits), Bulldogs, Abrams, Bradleys, etc.
I already pointed out, there are Target/competition firearms that are designed specifically with competitions and paper targets in mind. So ultimately, a firearm is really simply designed to push a small (ish) projectile at a high rate of speed in a desired direction. Nothing more, nothing less. Intent and purpose comes from the person owning/holding such a firearm.
Okay, not to get all Platonic, but I'm talking about the idealized form of an object to give it purpose. Sure, we can make specific versions of things that do very specific roles. When you think of a car, what is it's purpose. When you think of a hammer, what is its purpose. When you think of a chair what is its purpose. Of course, we can get all specific but at that point are we talking about the ideal and its purpose or are we talking about something different? In a nut shell, you are trying to argue the semantics of the thing.
I guess it doesn't matter that much, its just somethign that nugs me. I really don't want people to take anyone elses guns away. If you need a gun for whatever reason, I really don't care. Have it, it is a constitutionally protected right and was upheld by the SC. However, that doesn't mean I want people forcing guns into every aspect of American life either.
To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.
master of ordinance wrote: Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.
Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?
I really hate this argument.
A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?
So an item designed only for deadly purpose, still manages to kill fewer people then cars, despite outnumbering them significantly.
The intent of my guns are to protect my freedom. For me, that's far more important than a car.
I helped teach a firearms training class to 20 school teachers. We did it for free. All the students were women. This was in a district where a teacher was allowed to conceal carry in the classroom legally.
I also say armed personnel of some kind is a good idea, but good luck getting it funded. The school districts where I'm from (before I moved to Japan) were having their budgets cut on a yearly basis.
Crablezworth wrote: He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?
You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.
Alpha 1 wrote: To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.
Basically meaning that unless you're "down" with the local criminal element it's not possible here in Canada to just walk into a store and walk out with a firearm unles you've got your pal (license). Bottom line, there's a huge expanse of time between deciding you want a gun license, taking the course, passing the exams and receiving said license, and that's really the point I'm making, this kid walks into a store and walks out with a shotgun, I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.
And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.
I always laugh when people compare cars to guns, thing is cars have licenses. Guns don't.
I happily agree with everything said by the Canadian above me, licensing works , least in my country. If you don't want to have a control on guns, keep having out of control usage.
I am about to apply for a gun license myself, it takes a while to get one and the guy running the test can fail you on the spot if you fail your safety test (the local gun shop owner has no problem failing people - he fails people he considers too weird too ) then once I get the license I have to put my guns into his storage until I have enough money to buy a gun safe which either has to be very heavy or bolted to the floor.
As a potential gun owner I am happy about all of these controls and will happily comply. In my view complying is about being responsible and making sure your hobbys' danger is minimised towards others.
YMMV but I am happy with the state of gun crime in my country.
Crablezworth wrote: He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?
You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.
Alpha 1 wrote: To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.
Basically meaning that unless you're "down" with the local criminal element it's not possible here in Canada to just walk into a store and walk out with a firearm unles you've got your pal (license). Bottom line, there's a huge expanse of time between deciding you want a gun license, taking the course, passing the exams and receiving said license, and that's really the point I'm making, this kid walks into a store and walks out with a shotgun, I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.
And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.
You should have stuck with Canadian law, you have no idea how firearm purchases occur on the US. Contrary to popular (and completely wrong) OPINION, you cannot walk into an LGS and just walk out with a firearm without going through a criminal background check.
As a customer, you have to fill out a Federal form 4473, and a background check called NICS is run to make sure you are not a prohibited person. As an FFL, I have to retain your paperwork for 20 (TWENTY) years. This paperwork is routinely checked via audits by the ATF. If you are a prohibited person or lie on the 4473, it is an automatic felony for having filled out the form.
I am sick and tired of hearing the ignorant parroting of the gun grabbers talking point "we need background checks". Guess what, they are in place already.
Bullockist wrote: I always laugh when people compare cars to guns, thing is cars have licenses. Guns don't.
I happily agree with everything said by the Canadian above me, licensing works , least in my country. If you don't want to have a control on guns, keep having out of control usage.
I am about to apply for a gun license myself, it takes a while to get one and the guy running the test can fail you on the spot if you fail your safety test (the local gun shop owner has no problem failing people - he fails people he considers too weird too ) then once I get the license I have to put my guns into his storage until I have enough money to buy a gun safe which either has to be very heavy or bolted to the floor.
As a potential gun owner I am happy about all of these controls and will happily comply. In my view complying is about being responsible and making sure your hobbys' danger is minimised towards others.
YMMV but I am happy with the state of gun crime in my country.
Yes, licensing and registration worked as it lead to confiscation in Australia. We lamented your loss of rights (in all sincerity).
Bullockist wrote: I thought you could walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun though ( that could be a misconception on my part though)
Its one of the many lies that US media has been pushing in regards to gun control.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Musashi363 wrote: How does it compare? Deaths caused by drunk drivers (non-accidental) are a daily occurrence, mass shootings are a statistical anomaly.
Logic has no place in the progressive pursuit of gun control! How dare you!
Thing is, that only applies when you want to drive on public roads.
....And you don't need a license to BUY a car, merely to operate one in public. Come to think of it, you need to do that too with a firearm if you want to carry concealed in most places or hunt with it. Funny thing, huh?
I thought you could walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun though
From private citizen to private citizen, yes. In most states (But you don't need to go to a gun show to do this. In my experience people charge way more than they should at shows anyway.) If you go to a gunshow and buy something from a dealer you still go through the whole background check process. What people call the "Gun show loophole" is in reality "The ability to sell privately loophole" ...but if they came out and said "We don't want you to be able to sell your guns without going through a dealer, under any circumstances"...well...suddenly even the Elmer Fudds would get pissed, and they know it.
Yes, licensing and registration worked as it lead to confiscation in Australia. We lamented your loss of rights (in all sincerity).
Hey don't worry, now that they can't buy semi autos and standard cap mags...the bad guys just build machine guns instead!
Crablezworth wrote: I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.
And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.
Umm... I know that it gets cold in Canada, and that may have frostbitten your brain... but we DO have mandatory background checks to purchase just about ANY firearm in the US. It just so happens that our system works quite a bit faster than your system in Canada. Basically, you go in, say I want firearm X. The clerk will then say, "OK, first I need you to fill out this form, and I need ID card, etc." (I say etc. because you are technically only able to buy a firearm in your state of residence. Certain states have caveats to this, like Kentucky recognizes that if you live in any state that borders with it, you can buy a firearm in the state of Kentucky. Also, if you are military, the orders bringing you into the state in which you currently reside are good, provided you have your military ID/state drivers license) They then take that form, and your ID over to a computer system, and punch in the required info, send it off over the internet and a few minutes (usually) later, they come back and say "youre good to go, I can ring you up over at the register" or they'll say "sorry, something came up, and I cannot sell you this firearm at this time"
The car thing does compare, because on the whole, they cause more deaths. We also have the recent case of idiotic Richy McRich pants getting drunk underage, hopping into his vehicle and killing 4 people through his idiocy. Frankly, I would not consider that "accidental" but I don't write or enforce laws.
Thing is, that only applies when you want to drive on public roads.
....And you don't need a license to BUY a car, merely to operate one in public. Come to think of it, you need to do that too with a firearm if you want to carry concealed in most places or hunt with it. Funny thing, huh?
Hey don't worry, now that they can't buy semi autos and standard cap mags...the bad guys just build machine guns instead!
Here you need a license to own a gun, big difference, and an effective one. Laws come down hard on illegal firearms here. When police go for a drug bust first thing they do after stopping the flushing is look for firearms, kinda shows you what the emphasis is on, they know it is an easy conviction for illegal firearms. For example a silencer carries a 10 year term.
Most crims here use semi autos with small clips for shooting /drive bys . I think it's better that way. The more guns they try and smuggle in in engine blocks that get caught the happier I am.
I am not anti-gun, I am just pro control. Some shooters thought the world was going to end when semi-autos were banned , but they just adapted. Personally if I'm out shooting varmints (as is the plan) if i need a semi auto I'm doing something wrong - though when I wing my first fox, i'll probably wish I had one
Crablezworth wrote: He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?
You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.
Alpha 1 wrote: To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.
Basically meaning that unless you're "down" with the local criminal element it's not possible here in Canada to just walk into a store and walk out with a firearm unles you've got your pal (license). Bottom line, there's a huge expanse of time between deciding you want a gun license, taking the course, passing the exams and receiving said license, and that's really the point I'm making, this kid walks into a store and walks out with a shotgun, I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.
And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.
You should have stuck with Canadian law, you have no idea how firearm purchases occur on the US. Contrary to popular (and completely wrong) OPINION, you cannot walk into an LGS and just walk out with a firearm without going through a criminal background check.
As a customer, you have to fill out a Federal form 4473, and a background check called NICS is run to make sure you are not a prohibited person. As an FFL, I have to retain your paperwork for 20 (TWENTY) years. This paperwork is routinely checked via audits by the ATF. If you are a prohibited person or lie on the 4473, it is an automatic felony for having filled out the form.
I am sick and tired of hearing the ignorant parroting of the gun grabbers talking point "we need background checks". Guess what, they are in place already.
Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.
Crablezworth wrote: ,
Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.
No. 28 days is. And you should be furious as a citizen that it takes that long. Are they interviewing high school teachers and taking stool samples?
The NICS check is perfectly fine and does what it's supposed to do.
cincydooley wrote: Haven't a variety of crime rates like home invasions gone up since the Aussie gun ban?
They have gone up , not by much per capita in 15 years ( I am looking at nsw figures) . There are no figures for home invasion , there are figures for stealing from a person, break and enter , but i think you would be pulling a LOOOOOONG bow if you tried to link that increase to gun control. People here do not buy guns for protection, they buy them for shooting, whether that be target and associated sports, hunting or pest control.
robbery with a firearm between 2008 and 2012 is stable.
Stealing from a person is down by 6% in the same period.
break and enter dwelling is down by 2.2% in the same period.
I would like to look at 1996 to 2012 but they have changed the scale of the reports.
Cincy, if you read a report in the Telegraph about home invasions being up , chances are they aren't , the same paper was running a story about gun crime being up earlier this year when it was exactly the same statistically as last year.
Crablezworth wrote: ,
Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.
No. 28 days is. And you should be furious as a citizen that it takes that long. Are they interviewing high school teachers and taking stool samples?
The NICS check is perfectly fine and does what it's supposed to do.
Agreed. It is beyond rediculous. There is nothing that they find in the 28 days (7 months? Really?) that they can't find in the 10 minute check we run. All it is, is a delaying tactic to try to keep them out of your hand.
Crablezworth wrote: Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.
That's redonk dude... I don't know what they use to conduct the background checks with, but I get put into the system it took me 15 minutes and like 40 dollars. From there I've had several background checks take that much time at most for jobs and the like. I think in Canada it might take that long to dissuade people from going out, buying a gun, and shooting up a school/gov't building/hockey rink/etc... Which I can see as a good thing, but at the same time without purposeful stalling on someone's part, there is no way that something like a background check should take that long.
I don't get this idea about how arming all teachers is going to solve anything opposed to training and arming maybe 1 or two guys.
And as a response to people saying "We don't arm ALL teachers": How many do we arm then? Because I don't think arming maybe 1 out of 10 teachers will put a damper on school shootings unless they happen to luck out and be the 1 class room that's hit.
Better to have trained officers ready to respond rather than praying to god Mr. Johnson remembers his training and immediately steps in, as opposed to:
A. Just staying with his own kids
B. Panicking and dying
C. Panicking and not doing anything
D. Harming someone by accident
E. Overpowered by the shooter giving him access to more ammunition
So yeah things get complicated as I said when you start doing the whole arming teachers scenario. Hell, if your training all teachers how to shoot properly and maintain firearms might as well put them all in the reserves and have them just train once a month.
Alexzandvar wrote: I don't get this idea about how arming all teachers is going to solve anything opposed to training and arming maybe 1 or two guys.
And as a response to people saying "We don't arm ALL teachers": How many do we arm then? Because I don't think arming maybe 1 out of 10 teachers will put a damper on school shootings unless they happen to luck out and be the 1 class room that's hit.
Better to have trained officers ready to respond rather than praying to god Mr. Johnson remembers his training and immediately steps in, as opposed to:
A. Just staying with his own kids
B. Panicking and dying
C. Panicking and not doing anything
D. Harming someone by accident
E. Overpowered by the shooter giving him access to more ammunition
So yeah things get complicated as I said when you start doing the whole arming teachers scenario. Hell, if your training all teachers how to shoot properly and maintain firearms might as well put them all in the reserves and have them just train once a month.
Your argument falls apart quickly. It would seem you agree a guy with a gun is needed to stop a shooter. Yet you think folks are calling to arm ALL teachers because 'unless they happen to luck out and be the 1 class room that's hit' an armed teacher is worthless. Yet unless the armed cop happens to be in the classroom that is hit, the cop must move to the shooter the same way an armed teacher would have to move to a shooter. And even assuming an armed teacher does not move to the shooter, if the shooter moves to their classroom the armed teacher can defend his/her students up until the armed cop arrives. That addresses your point A. As for B-E, an armed cop could have the exact same things happen. Just as in case F which you conveniently skipped: The armed good guy/gal stops the shooter, could happen with an armed teacher or an armed cop.
Your straw man about putting all teachers in the reserves is just silly. Again, all anyone is calling for is that teachers with a concealed carry permit be allowed to carry on campus if they choose to do so. You'll find that those permit holders tend to be responsible gun owners and know how to 'shoot properly and maintain firearms'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Out of curiosity, after we arm teachers who do we arm next?
Nurses to protect against armed shooters in the Hospitals?
Office workers to stop office shootings?
Flight Attendants to protect against terrorists?
Librarians to protect against shooters in the library?
Firemen to protect against shooters trying to ambush them at fires?
In all seriousnees, is there a point where we stop arming people to protect themselves against an active shooter scenario?
Spoiler:
P.S. I think I know the answer already. It is No. There is no point to stop arming people.
How about we don't 'arm' anyone? How about we let individuals choose to arm themselves if they so desire?
For the record, I know firemen who carry. I also know office workers who carry, and a couple people who work in hospitals that carry.
The proof an armed society is a polite one is a fallacy
An armed society is a paranoid and fearful society, the idea you need to give everyone guns in order to make people treat each other decent is abhorrent.
At a point you have to stop and think what happened when we decided rather than reach out to troubled people to prevent things like this to instead just arm society to the teeth.
I think the problem is that in an active shooter scenario people seem to be expecting a teacher to go out and hunt down the active shooter. As someone that's been in drills for an 'intruder in the school' (i.e. lockdown drill), we don't want teachers actively moving through the school in such a situation, we want the teachers protecting their students.
If we were to arm the teachers, would we not want them to take up a defensive position in their classroom? Like in the high school I did my student teaching at, a "Code Ranger" had the teachers shut and lock the classroom door, turn off the lights, and pull everyone out of line of sight of the window in the door.
The best case scenario is that we no longer have to deal with active shooter situations in the school (I don't think stricter gun laws will do much to dissuade those that really wish to commit such acts), but I would rather put the teachers into a defensive mindset and keep their students safe than to feel like they have to go out and search the school for this person.
Easy E wrote: Great. Than we don't need to worry about arming teachers per the NRA's advice. I'm glad we agree Jake.
I think you should go back and read what the NRA's actually said about the subject. You appear to either be wildly misinterpreting, or woefully misinformed.
A resource officer would not be stationed in a specific class room during an attack, as they would normally be in the security office or at the schools main office.
A teacher would be far more reluctant to leave his kids to go get at a shoot.
And yes I understand lots of people conceal and carry, but how many of them keep up on there practice? How many have been in a high stress combat situation? How many have had to deal with possibly throwing there lifes on the line?
Exactly, better we have trained officers specifically trained to prevent these things rather than banking if we give enough people enough guns in a certain 100 mile radius someone will stop it. The whole idea of just making everyone a concealed carrier is a lazy excuse for not just making sure the police and school RO is doing there job.
Alexzandvar wrote: The proof an armed society is a polite one is a fallacy
An armed society is a paranoid and fearful society, the idea you need to give everyone guns in order to make people treat each other decent is abhorrent.
At a point you have to stop and think what happened when we decided rather than reach out to troubled people to prevent things like this to instead just arm society to the teeth.
Can you prevent all of these cases? Simple answer, no, you cannot.
Has anyone here argued that we should give everyone gun as opposed to allowing folks to choose for themselves? Taking people's choice to have a weapon and their right to defend themselves is abhorrent to many of us. You don't see us trying to force gun ownership on anyone.
When did ANYONE decide to arm society to the teeth rather than reach out to help troubled people? That is just another silly straw man argument.
Alexzandvar wrote: A resource officer would not be stationed in a specific class room during an attack, as they would normally be in the security office or at the schools main office.
A teacher would be far more reluctant to leave his kids to go get at a shoot.
And yes I understand lots of people conceal and carry, but how many of them keep up on there practice? How many have been in a high stress combat situation? How many have had to deal with possibly throwing there lifes on the line?
Exactly, better we have trained officers specifically trained to prevent these things rather than banking if we give enough people enough guns in a certain 100 mile radius someone will stop it. The whole idea of just making everyone a concealed carrier is a lazy excuse for not just making sure the police and school RO is doing there job.
Dude, you're wildly overestimating the capabilities and training level of your average cop.
I feel quite confident saying that most individuals who go to the trouble of picking up a concealed carry license train more than your local beat-walker. It's like people who go, "Only police and military should have private guns, since they've been trained!" Trust me when I say I know plenty of aviation machinist mates who know less than 12 year-olds of my acquaintance about safe and accurate use of a firearm.
Alexzandvar wrote: A resource officer would not be stationed in a specific class room during an attack, as they would normally be in the security office or at the schools main office.
A teacher would be far more reluctant to leave his kids to go get at a shoot.
And yes I understand lots of people conceal and carry, but how many of them keep up on there practice? How many have been in a high stress combat situation? How many have had to deal with possibly throwing there lifes on the line?
Exactly, better we have trained officers specifically trained to prevent these things rather than banking if we give enough people enough guns in a certain 100 mile radius someone will stop it. The whole idea of just making everyone a concealed carrier is a lazy excuse for not just making sure the police and school RO is doing there job.
Lemme guess, you live ensconced in a city with absolutely no exposure to a firearms except what you see on TV or in the movies and an irrational fear of said arms. The questions you ask and the statements you've posted seem to prove my suspicions.
Alexzandvar wrote: A resource officer would not be stationed in a specific class room during an attack, as they would normally be in the security office or at the schools main office.
A teacher would be far more reluctant to leave his kids to go get at a shoot.
And yes I understand lots of people conceal and carry, but how many of them keep up on there practice? How many have been in a high stress combat situation? How many have had to deal with possibly throwing there lifes on the line?
Exactly, better we have trained officers specifically trained to prevent these things rather than banking if we give enough people enough guns in a certain 100 mile radius someone will stop it. The whole idea of just making everyone a concealed carrier is a lazy excuse for not just making sure the police and school RO is doing there job.
Again, who the feth has called to make everyone a concealed carrier?
How many cops and ROs keep up on their practice? How many have been in a high stress combat situations? How many have had to deal with possibly throwing their life on the line? Anyone who chooses to carry has at some point thought of being in the position of 'throwing their life on the line' which is a reason they carry in the first place.
Spacemanvic wrote: Lemme guess, you live ensconced in a city with absolutely no exposure to a firearms except what you see on TV or in the movies and an irrational fear of said arms. The questions you ask and the statements you've posted seem to prove my suspicions.
So, what you are saying is someone living in an area where there are less guns is less likey to be involved in a situation where their local school/shopping centre/etc is attacked by someone with a gun, and so therefore knows less about guns and how to respond to them?
I don't have an Irrational fear of guns, my family personally owns several and I have worked with all of them before and made sure I treat them with respect. The area I live in has lots of exposure to guns and the what not.
As I said in my previous post, increasing the amount of concealed carriers, or just making all teachers concealed carries so they don't have to leave behind there kids is just an excuse for the fact we don't train our cops enough or train our RO's enough.
There is a problem yes, but we continue to confine ourselves to the absolute of THERES A SHOOTER IN THE BUILDING OH GOD as apposed to maybe trying to prevent this with some other means.
Your not going to dissuade a psychopath with guns, you will however dissuade him by giving him the proper metal healthcare
Ahh, good ol' Murica and "I NEED MAH GUNZ TO PROTECT MUH FREEDUMZ".
All jokes aside (Also the Gun-Control Shtick aside, i dont give two feths if americans shoot americans with their beloved Guns, so I have nothing of value to add to that), wouldnt it be smarter to adress WHY these shooting happen? Do these kids have somewhere they can go to if they're troubled? Is bullying a large problem? Do teachers and coaches actually address issues like mobbing etc.? You can kill people with a whole lot of different things, I think it would be smarter to deal with this stuff BEFORE someone gets the idea for a massacre.
Stuebi wrote: Ahh, good ol' Murica and "I NEED MAH GUNZ TO PROTECT MUH FREEDUMZ".
All jokes aside (Also the Gun-Control Shtick aside, i dont give two feths if americans shoot americans with their beloved Guns, so I have nothing of value to add to that), wouldnt it be smarter to adress WHY these shooting happen? Do these kids have somewhere they can go to if they're troubled? Is bullying a large problem? Do teachers and coaches actually address issues like mobbing etc.? You can kill people with a whole lot of different things, I think it would be smarter to deal with this stuff BEFORE someone gets the idea for a massacre.
Exactly, the best way to prevent these things is non-violent means. Mental healthcare and counseling goes a long way.
Stuebi wrote: Ahh, good ol' Murica and "I NEED MAH GUNZ TO PROTECT MUH FREEDUMZ".
All jokes aside (Also the Gun-Control Shtick aside, i dont give two feths if americans shoot americans with their beloved Guns, so I have nothing of value to add to that), wouldnt it be smarter to adress WHY these shooting happen? Do these kids have somewhere they can go to if they're troubled? Is bullying a large problem? Do teachers and coaches actually address issues like mobbing etc.? You can kill people with a whole lot of different things, I think it would be smarter to deal with this stuff BEFORE someone gets the idea for a massacre.
Exactly, the best way to prevent these things is non-violent means. Mental healthcare and counseling goes a long way.
Something like that was what i meant, yes.
I used to be a really troubled Teenager, and while I got lucky with meeting some cool people, it also helped that once in a while someone just took 5 minutes to ask how im doing etc. And even if thats not a given, we have an abundance of Hotlines and institues you can go. Im pretty sure most of these kids would just need some help, in whatever form you can provide.
In my area you don't really have those things since schools do not have the rights to intervene as much as they used to in specific cases.
But overall the our mental healthcare system is absolutely laughable, there is almost zero proactive pushes to get people to seek help, sadly more often than not its not until something bad happens someone gets help.
The government just does not have the authority to step in in cases of mental illness like some of these shooters often have, or even in cases of bullying.
I mean whos more at fault? The shooter or the kids and teachers who drove him to commit the act?
Regarding Canadian Firearms licence, once I have that licence I can buy a fire arm any where in Canada and all the merchant has to do is check to make sure the licence is still valid very fast and easy. The reason it takes a long time to get a licence is because of the 2006 Dawson College Shooting in Montreal. Where a man shot 19 people killing one using weapons that were purchased legally and he had a fire arms licence and all of his weapons were registered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting. When these facts came to light the anti gun control crowd and pro gun control crowd used it to further their cause but the pro gun control crowd won and the investigation process is now longer to make sure no one else falls through the cracks so to speak.
And yes people had their guns confiscated by the RCMP in Alberta during the flood. The Police entered homes that they knew contained fire arms and confiscated them worried that the homes would be targeted by criminals. from what I know all the fire arms have been returned to their owners and due to large number of complaints both the RCMP and the federal government is conducting an inquiry into the incident.
Spacemanvic wrote: Lemme guess, you live ensconced in a city with absolutely no exposure to a firearms except what you see on TV or in the movies and an irrational fear of said arms. The questions you ask and the statements you've posted seem to prove my suspicions.
So, what you are saying is someone living in an area where there are less guns is less likey to be involved in a situation where their local school/shopping centre/etc is attacked by someone with a gun, and so therefore knows less about guns and how to respond to them?
No
Places where an assailant has no fear of meeting someone with a gun (gun free zones) will still be the attractive targets to them that they currently are.
The current school attack ended in 80 seconds when the gunman was confronted by an armed sheriffs deputy. Also, about 3 years ago, another potential shooting at a school was averted when the gunman was confronted by an armed principal.
There are many unreported instances (you have to dig into police reports) of firearms being used to stop crimes. They go unreported by the media because they run contrary to the medias mantra "guns are bad, OMG evil!!".
If you could look at the posts above you you would see that you can do far more than use guns to stop mass killings.
And if you have to dig through police reports to find instances of this then you are reaching for proof.
How often do these events occur? What are the ratio of guns per person in this area? Could the event have been already prevented through non-violent means? Would there have been other ways of prevention?
These are all valid questions, we should not have to fall back on the idea of guns in schools if its more than easy enough to prevent through non-violent means
EDIT: You also don't need to be so toxic as well about guns, were not saying guns are evil, but merely that theres an obvious issue as hand with school shootings that needs to be adressed
And yet in the whole of Europe there have been less school shootings ever than there have been in the USA in pretty much any 5-10 year period in the last hundred years...
Stuebi wrote: Ahh, good ol' Murica and "I NEED MAH GUNZ TO PROTECT MUH FREEDUMZ".
All jokes aside (Also the Gun-Control Shtick aside, i dont give two feths if americans shoot americans with their beloved Guns, so I have nothing of value to add to that), wouldnt it be smarter to adress WHY these shooting happen? Do these kids have somewhere they can go to if they're troubled? Is bullying a large problem? Do teachers and coaches actually address issues like mobbing etc.? You can kill people with a whole lot of different things, I think it would be smarter to deal with this stuff BEFORE someone gets the idea for a massacre.
It would be better and more cost efficient to deal with them mental health issues that connect all these mass shootings.
BUT, in the '70's it was argued that the patients had rights and removed the ability to remand the mentally disabled into medical care. So rather than risk a lawsuit, the patient is drugged up and let loose on the street. Again to avoid lawsuits, many medical practices under report instances where someone has been given treatment, thereby letting that person slip through the cracks and pass some background checks.
Alexzandvar wrote: The proof an armed society is a polite one is a fallacy
Says you...
An armed society is a paranoid and fearful society, the idea you need to give everyone guns in order to make people treat each other decent is abhorrent.
wut? We're practically an armed society now... no one is "paranoid and fearful".
At a point you have to stop and think what happened when we decided rather than reach out to troubled people to prevent things like this to instead just arm society to the teeth.
That's part of the solution... not the ONLY solution.
Let's play "what ifs".
Dude attempts to assault a chick... the best equalizer to that is "Smith & Weston".
Stuebi wrote: Ahh, good ol' Murica and "I NEED MAH GUNZ TO PROTECT MUH FREEDUMZ".
All jokes aside (Also the Gun-Control Shtick aside, i dont give two feths if americans shoot americans with their beloved Guns, so I have nothing of value to add to that), wouldnt it be smarter to adress WHY these shooting happen? Do these kids have somewhere they can go to if they're troubled? Is bullying a large problem? Do teachers and coaches actually address issues like mobbing etc.? You can kill people with a whole lot of different things, I think it would be smarter to deal with this stuff BEFORE someone gets the idea for a massacre.
It would be better and more cost efficient to deal with them mental health issues that connect all these mass shootings.
BUT, in the '70's it was argued that the patients had rights and removed the ability to remand the mentally disabled into medical care. So rather than risk a lawsuit, the patient is drugged up and let loose on the street. Again to avoid lawsuits, many medical practices under report instances where someone has been given treatment, thereby letting that person slip through the cracks and pass some background checks.
So we invariably run into the my rights scenario again. So we can either take away insane peoples rights to own guns or take away there rights to not get treatment for being mentally ill.
This is a catch 22 scenario, and has no easy solution.
Spoiler:
Unless the President used an executive order to force more activism buy the NSA to make sure we find mentally ill people and give them proper care, but that would be infringing on my rights to privacy so oh well
Alexzandvar wrote: The proof an armed society is a polite one is a fallacy
Says you...
An armed society is a paranoid and fearful society, the idea you need to give everyone guns in order to make people treat each other decent is abhorrent.
wut? We're practically an armed society now... no one is "paranoid and fearful".
At a point you have to stop and think what happened when we decided rather than reach out to troubled people to prevent things like this to instead just arm society to the teeth.
That's part of the solution... not the ONLY solution.
Let's play "what ifs".
Dude attempts to assault a chick... the best equalizer to that is "Smith & Weston".
America is by far one of the most paranoid countries outside of the far east. We have historically always treated foreigners like crap, continue to use American Exceptionalism to continue to teach our kids fascist ideas of us being superior over others. We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.
So yes we are a paraniod society, and the simple fact there is so much outrage about simple background checks is more than proof enough.
The prevention has to occur BEFORE the event begins. Use of a firearm is because of a failure of the system. Denying innocents the ability to address this failure (ie access to firearms) is unconscionable - that is what Gun Free Zones represent.
The prevention has to occur BEFORE the event begins. Use of a firearm is because of a failure of the system. Denying innocents the ability to address this failure (ie access to firearms) is unconscionable - that is what Gun Free Zones represent.
To bad in the current state of our society there is no prevention so we have to fall back on treating the symptom not the disease. Not to mention the side effects of widespread gun ownership in a modern society are only now starting to be realized, with increases over mishandling accident and accidentally shootings increasing over the years we face the unfortunate fact that we simply paying the price for not investing in preventing violent crime.
People don't just wake up one day and shoot 30 people, these things while irrational do come out of sick logic in sick peoples heads. Peoples heads we could have fixed before they long came to the conclusion that killing was the solution.
Spacemanvic wrote: The prevention has to occur BEFORE the event begins. Use of a firearm is because of a failure of the system. Denying innocents the ability to address this failure (ie access to firearms) is unconscionable - that is what Gun Free Zones represent.
So how does one prevent things? Stricter gun control and checks before gun/ammo purchases to make sure the person buying them is not barred for some reason (being a criminal, having mental health issues, etc?)? Have stricter laws on gun storage and transport (such as a requirement for use of gun safes in houses and cars) so it is more difficult for theives to get hold of your gun(s)? Tie in gun "blacklist" events more closely so that a routine check upon attempted purchase will flag up at the store, preventing sale? Closure of gun shop loopholes? A requirement for private sales to go through a check similar to gun stores? For gun registration as there is with cars, where you have to inform once you have had a gun stolen, sold, or destroyed? More effort to detecting, preventing and curing mental health issues? Allowing guns to be carried everywhere?
The majority of the "gun control" measures are a hell of a lot more practical than many of the "solve it with more guns" measures...
Spacemanvic wrote: The prevention has to occur BEFORE the event begins. Use of a firearm is because of a failure of the system. Denying innocents the ability to address this failure (ie access to firearms) is unconscionable - that is what Gun Free Zones represent.
So how does one prevent things? Stricter gun control and checks before gun/ammo purchases to make sure the person buying them is not barred for some reason (being a criminal, having mental health issues, etc?)? Have stricter laws on gun storage and transport (such as a requirement for use of gun safes in houses and cars) so it is more difficult for theives to get hold of your gun(s)? Tie in gun "blacklist" events more closely so that a routine check upon attempted purchase will flag up at the store, preventing sale? Closure of gun shop loopholes? A requirement for private sales to go through a check similar to gun stores? For gun registration as there is with cars, where you have to inform once you have had a gun stolen, sold, or destroyed? More effort to detecting, preventing and curing mental health issues? Allowing guns to be carried everywhere?
The majority of the "gun control" measures are a hell of a lot more practical than many of the "solve it with more guns" measures...
Dont be ridiculous. Criminals dont buy their guns legally. Restrictions dont mean a damn thing to them. Except maybe raise the price for a hot piece.
But then again, the UK has chosen to allow themselves to be disarmed. Easy enough to do on a tiny island I suppose. Here in the US, the pesky Constitution enumerates the right of self protection against criminals.
And how many of the people who shoot up schools get their guns illegally? A lot of guns seem to be legally owned by either the shooter, or a family member. A requirement to keep guns in a gun safe pretty much eliminates the ability of a family member getting hold of your gun, and a screening process for mental illness may well sniff out some of those who would otherwise legally be able to buy guns.
But yeah, I guess illegally buying guns is always an option. I guess that is why in the UK we have only ever had a single school shooting, carried out by someone who legally owned their weapons... Surprised we have not had more shootings since illegal guns are apparently as easy to buy as legal weapons!
Lowered threshold for action makes action more likely.
Spacemanvic wrote: The prevention has to occur BEFORE the event begins. Use of a firearm is because of a failure of the system. Denying innocents the ability to address this failure (ie access to firearms) is unconscionable - that is what Gun Free Zones represent.
So how does one prevent things? Stricter gun control and checks before gun/ammo purchases to make sure the person buying them is not barred for some reason (being a criminal, having mental health issues, etc?)? Have stricter laws on gun storage and transport (such as a requirement for use of gun safes in houses and cars) so it is more difficult for theives to get hold of your gun(s)? Tie in gun "blacklist" events more closely so that a routine check upon attempted purchase will flag up at the store, preventing sale? Closure of gun shop loopholes? A requirement for private sales to go through a check similar to gun stores? For gun registration as there is with cars, where you have to inform once you have had a gun stolen, sold, or destroyed? More effort to detecting, preventing and curing mental health issues? Allowing guns to be carried everywhere?
The majority of the "gun control" measures are a hell of a lot more practical than many of the "solve it with more guns" measures...
Dont be ridiculous. Criminals dont buy their guns legally. Restrictions dont mean a damn thing to them. Except maybe raise the price for a hot piece.
But then again, the UK has chosen to allow themselves to be disarmed. Easy enough to do on a tiny island I suppose. Here in the US, the pesky Constitution enumerates the right of self protection against criminals.
Except that almost all mass shooters and school shooters in the recent decade all obtained there firearms legally with almost no background checks because there is no unified system in the united states for collecting information on people to check things when it comes to records.
Oh wait there are, but we don't have laws forcing gun stores to actually use those data bases, although I will give you we have no unified mental health check system.
And why do you bring up the point that police technically don't have to help you? Are you implying that because of the 1 in a million chance of the officer on hand chickening out we need to arm people?
How desperate is that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it is very hard to obtain guns illegally in countries with good background check systems, because it allows police and other agencys to check if you actually, yknow got that gun legally.
Spacemanvic wrote: But then again, the UK has chosen to allow themselves to be disarmed. Easy enough to do on a tiny island I suppose. Here in the US, the pesky Constitution enumerates the right of self protection against criminals.
Haha! You realise that America is pretty much the only civilised country which allows private gun ownership to any significant extent? Europe as a whole is a gun free area with a population significantly more than that of the USA. I wonder why there have only been 20 school shootings over here in the last 100 years, compared to the pretty regular school shootings in the USA? I guess you are so well protected by an ammendment to your constitution that you have not considered joining the rest of the world on gun control...
But hey, they are not my children being shot, nor is it likely that my family will be gunned down in the street, or at the shops... I don't fear that kind of thing and I don't need a gun to feel that kind of safety.
America is by far one of the most paranoid countries outside of the far east. We have historically always treated foreigners like crap,
Have any proof of that? Maybe we can ask some expatriot Dakkanauts who's currently living in the states.
continue to use American Exceptionalism to continue to teach our kids fascist ideas of us being superior over others.
What. The. feth. o.O
We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.
Why is this a bad thing again?
So yes we are a paraniod society, and the simple fact there is so much outrage about simple background checks is more than proof enough.
What is this "simple background checks" are you talking about? We already have that. Are you talking about more stringent forms of gun controls? If so... it isn't "paranoia"...
Spacemanvic wrote: But then again, the UK has chosen to allow themselves to be disarmed. Easy enough to do on a tiny island I suppose. Here in the US, the pesky Constitution enumerates the right of self protection against criminals.
Haha! You realise that America is pretty much the only civilised country which allows private gun ownership to any significant extent? Europe as a whole is a gun free area with a population significantly more than that of the USA. I wonder why there have only been 20 school shootings over here in the last 100 years, compared to the pretty regular school shootings in the USA? I guess you are so well protected by an ammendment to your constitution that you have not considered joining the rest of the world on gun control...
But hey, they are not my children being shot, nor is it likely that my family will be gunned down in the street, or at the shops... I don't fear that kind of thing and I don't need a gun to feel that kind of safety.
SilverMK2 wrote: But hey, they are not my children being shot, nor is it likely that my family will be gunned down in the street, or at the shops... I don't fear that kind of thing and I don't need a gun to feel that kind of safety.
Even so Silver, I walk down the street, I go to stores, etc... and I don't fear that I'm going to be gunned down by someone looking for a few twenties, or accidentally, etc... Albeit my handgun is used for home defense, and stays in its case in my room. We have a home security system that will wake me up when it goes off, my gun is there because my parents are nearing 70, and I know that in most cases I could not overpower someone that really wished to cause my family harm/was willing to fight back in case I caught them breaking and entering.
But your average American doesn't go around in constant fear that they're going to get shot at.
Spacemanvic wrote: The prevention has to occur BEFORE the event begins. Use of a firearm is because of a failure of the system. Denying innocents the ability to address this failure (ie access to firearms) is unconscionable - that is what Gun Free Zones represent.
So how does one prevent things? Stricter gun control and checks before gun/ammo purchases to make sure the person buying them is not barred for some reason (being a criminal, having mental health issues, etc?)? Have stricter laws on gun storage and transport (such as a requirement for use of gun safes in houses and cars) so it is more difficult for theives to get hold of your gun(s)? Tie in gun "blacklist" events more closely so that a routine check upon attempted purchase will flag up at the store, preventing sale? Closure of gun shop loopholes? A requirement for private sales to go through a check similar to gun stores? For gun registration as there is with cars, where you have to inform once you have had a gun stolen, sold, or destroyed? More effort to detecting, preventing and curing mental health issues? Allowing guns to be carried everywhere?
The majority of the "gun control" measures are a hell of a lot more practical than many of the "solve it with more guns" measures...
Dont be ridiculous. Criminals dont buy their guns legally. Restrictions dont mean a damn thing to them. Except maybe raise the price for a hot piece.
But then again, the UK has chosen to allow themselves to be disarmed. Easy enough to do on a tiny island I suppose. Here in the US, the pesky Constitution enumerates the right of self protection against criminals.
Except that almost all mass shooters and school shooters in the recent decade all obtained there firearms legally with almost no background checks because there is no unified system in the united states for collecting information on people to check things when it comes to records.
Oh wait there are, but we don't have laws forcing gun stores to actually use those data bases, although I will give you we have no unified mental health check system.
And why do you bring up the point that police technically don't have to help you? Are you implying that because of the 1 in a million chance of the officer on hand chickening out we need to arm people?
How desperate is that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it is very hard to obtain guns illegally in countries with good background check systems, because it allows police and other agencys to check if you actually, yknow got that gun legally.
We don't have a unified system for that here.
WOW, so misinformed.
There's a thing called the BATF that would love to have a word with you.
SilverMK2 wrote: But hey, they are not my children being shot, nor is it likely that my family will be gunned down in the street, or at the shops... I don't fear that kind of thing and I don't need a gun to feel that kind of safety.
Even so Silver, I walk down the street, I go to stores, etc... and I don't fear that I'm going to be gunned down by someone looking for a few twenties, or accidentally, etc... Albeit my handgun is used for home defense, and stays in its case in my room. We have a home security system that will wake me up when it goes off, my gun is there because my parents are nearing 70, and I know that in most cases I could not overpower someone that really wished to cause my family harm/was willing to fight back in case I caught them breaking and entering.
It may just be the fear and paranoia some posters here... erm... clearly aren't suffering from... that I am referencing
I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
But your average American doesn't go around in constant fear that they're going to get shot at.
Clearly not, or they would all be packing heat so they were magically protected from all harm
But hey, they are not my children being shot, nor is it likely that my family will be gunned down in the street, or at the shops... I don't fear that kind of thing and I don't need a gun to feel that kind of safety.
So the UK has risen above the need of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers?
It's not fear, it's preparedness.
[
I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
SilverMK2 wrote: So how does one prevent things? Stricter gun control and checks before gun/ammo purchases to make sure the person buying them is not barred for some reason (being a criminal, having mental health issues, etc?)?
Those exist. You ought to check out how many of the guns used in such incidents were purchased legally.
Have stricter laws on gun storage and transport (such as a requirement for use of gun safes in houses and cars) so it is more difficult for theives to get hold of your gun(s)?
These guns aren't coming from the black market. Plenty of guns used in the actual crimes that drive up the firearm homicide rate are, but nobody's talking about those.
Tie in gun "blacklist" events more closely so that a routine check upon attempted purchase will flag up at the store, preventing sale?
That's the NICS system. It works. It works in that it stops someone not allowed to own a gun from buying one. It still takes the state to prosecute an attempt to do so, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, such prosecution doesn't occur.
Closure of gun shop loopholes?
No such thing.
A requirement for private sales to go through a check similar to gun stores?
If you can show me this'd make a dent, sure. I actually don't have a problem with it either way, but I understand the opposition - the anti-gun movement works like the anti-abortion movement. They try and advance in increments, and if you give them an inch, they'll try to take a mile.
The majority of the "gun control" measures are a hell of a lot more practical than many of the "solve it with more guns" measures...
They really aren't. Exactly nothing you suggested would've stopped a mass shooting in recent memory.
America is by far one of the most paranoid countries outside of the far east. We have historically always treated foreigners like crap,
Have any proof of that? Maybe we can ask some expatriot Dakkanauts who's currently living in the states.
continue to use American Exceptionalism to continue to teach our kids fascist ideas of us being superior over others.
What. The. feth. o.O
We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.
Why is this a bad thing again?
So yes we are a paraniod society, and the simple fact there is so much outrage about simple background checks is more than proof enough.
What is this "simple background checks" are you talking about? We already have that. Are you talking about more stringent forms of gun controls? If so... it isn't "paranoia"...
Do you know how the Irish were treated when they first got here? How Latino immigrants are treated now? How the Japanese Americans were during WW2? Not very well
American Exceptionalism is a product of the early 1900's during a rise in nationalism amongst western society, it ties into manifest destiny and the idea that America and our freedom makes us naturally superior to all others. While europes national fascist tendencys were quashed by WW1 and 2 ours never went away, and even got worse post WW2.
American Exceptionalism got even worse during the Cold War as it was used as a weapon to promote fear of communism and the Eastern Blocks.
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
You do realise that there are background checks on firearm sales, right?
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
You do realise that there are background checks on firearm sales, right?
You do realise that gun deaths and gun crime in the USA puts it right up there with countries actively at war?
SilverMK2 wrote: But hey, they are not my children being shot, nor is it likely that my family will be gunned down in the street, or at the shops... I don't fear that kind of thing and I don't need a gun to feel that kind of safety.
Even so Silver, I walk down the street, I go to stores, etc... and I don't fear that I'm going to be gunned down by someone looking for a few twenties, or accidentally, etc... Albeit my handgun is used for home defense, and stays in its case in my room. We have a home security system that will wake me up when it goes off, my gun is there because my parents are nearing 70, and I know that in most cases I could not overpower someone that really wished to cause my family harm/was willing to fight back in case I caught them breaking and entering.
It may just be the fear and paranoia some posters here... erm... clearly aren't suffering from... that I am referencing
I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
What lack of control? Are you talking about private owners giving/selling their weapons to another private individual?
But your average American doesn't go around in constant fear that they're going to get shot at.
Clearly not, or they would all be packing heat so they were magically protected from all harm
*sigh*
Don't you think you're making an uninformed decision here? Come visit us... it'll be fun... we won't bite... much.
But hey, they are not my children being shot, nor is it likely that my family will be gunned down in the street, or at the shops... I don't fear that kind of thing and I don't need a gun to feel that kind of safety.
So the UK has risen above the need of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers?
I and about 739,165,030 other people do. You should try it - it's great!
Complacency doesnt do well in this country. Your forefathers found that out.
Your arguements would seem more valid if you didn't just write off the majority of western society as being "complacent" since you know, hes right that they have far less gun crime per citizen than we do.
We rank alonside somolia in violent crime per person
I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
America is by far one of the most paranoid countries outside of the far east. We have historically always treated foreigners like crap,
Have any proof of that? Maybe we can ask some expatriot Dakkanauts who's currently living in the states.
continue to use American Exceptionalism to continue to teach our kids fascist ideas of us being superior over others.
What. The. feth. o.O
We make all our kids in school pledge themselves to the country everyday.
Why is this a bad thing again?
So yes we are a paraniod society, and the simple fact there is so much outrage about simple background checks is more than proof enough.
What is this "simple background checks" are you talking about? We already have that. Are you talking about more stringent forms of gun controls? If so... it isn't "paranoia"...
Do you know how the Irish were treated when they first got here?
Yep... happened ages ago.
How Latino immigrants are treated now?
Care to elaborate?
How the Japanese Americans were during WW2? Not very well
Yes... happened ages ago.
So, are you saying that we're STILL that bad?
American Exceptionalism is a product of the early 1900's during a rise in nationalism amongst western society, it ties into manifest destiny and the idea that America and our freedom makes us naturally superior to all others. While europes national fascist tendencys were quashed by WW1 and 2 ours never went away, and even got worse post WW2.
American Exceptionalism got even worse during the Cold War as it was used as a weapon to promote fear of communism and the Eastern Blocks.
Well... we are still the best. So stop feeling guilty about being the best.
whembly wrote: What lack of control? Are you talking about private owners giving/selling their weapons to another private individual?
Both private and gun store sales. Compare the level of checks that gun owners in the UK go through (or Canada apparently - and I seem to recall Germany from a previous thread) to those in the USA...
*sigh*
Don't you think you're making an uninformed decision here? Come visit us... it'll be fun... we won't bite... much.
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
You do realise that there are background checks on firearm sales, right?
You do realise that gun deaths and gun crime in the USA puts it right up there with countries actively at war?
And that has what precisely to do with your incorrect statement about an alleged lack of control over gun sales, besides trying to shift the goalposts because you are wrong?
whembly wrote: What lack of control? Are you talking about private owners giving/selling their weapons to another private individual?
Both private and gun store sales. Compare the level of checks that gun owners in the UK go through (or Canada apparently - and I seem to recall Germany from a previous thread) to those in the USA...
Hey... we do things differently. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
*sigh*
Don't you think you're making an uninformed decision here? Come visit us... it'll be fun... we won't bite... much.
d-usa wrote: I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
Some interesting things happen when you start digging into those numbers and isolating demographics. But nobody wants to do that, because it involves acknowledging some unpleasant truths that might cost votes. Much easier to scream incoherently about "gun store loopholes" and "assault weapons."
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
You do realise that there are background checks on firearm sales, right?
You do realise that gun deaths and gun crime in the USA puts it right up there with countries actively at war?
And that has what precisely to do with your incorrect statement about an alleged lack of control over gun sales, besides trying to shift the goalposts because you are wrong?
More accurately I should have said "relative" lack of control when it comes to gun control. And surely you can understand that increased access to guns means increased gun crime? And if you are a first would country where as many people are getting shot as in some 3rd world war torn nation, you might need to look at why that is and ways of resolving it, including tightening and enforcing existing gun laws and a big drive to reduce illegal arms.
SilverMK2 wrote: More accurately I should have said "relative" lack of control when it comes to gun control. And surely you can understand that increased access to guns means increased gun crime? And if you are a first would country where as many people are getting shot as in some 3rd world war torn nation, you might need to look at why that is and ways of resolving it, including tightening and enforcing existing gun laws and a big drive to reduce illegal arms.
You need to start using per capita numbers rather than absolute totals. We're a pretty goddamn big country. 30,000 people getting shot in Somalia's a much, much higher per capita rate than 30,000 getting shot here.
And as I said earlier, in the post that pointed out several of your misconceptions, nothing you've proposed thus far would make a dent.
d-usa wrote: I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
Isn't that true of any country though?
True, but to me it means that the whole "the US is welcoming of immigrants" statement isn't entirely true. Many don't like immigrants, they just like future Americans. Try to maintain your heritage and people start giving you grief.
SilverMK2 wrote:It may just be the fear and paranoia some posters here... erm... clearly aren't suffering from... that I am referencing
I don't really have an issue with gun ownership - I do have an issue with almost complete lack of control over the sale and use of them though.
To be fair though, it has been pointed out that there is a control over the sale of firearms, as Spacemanvic, as abrasive as he can be in these situations, explained very clearly what someone has to do to legally purchase a firearm in this country.
But your average American doesn't go around in constant fear that they're going to get shot at.
Clearly not, or they would all be packing heat so they were magically protected from all harm
The argument that people in this thread are making though is that they would rather be prepared. Like the Boy Scouts say, Be Prepared. If I lived in an area where I felt unsafe, or where police/fire/ambulance/mystical lizard rulers of the Illuminati were farther away than I might feel comfortable with then I might carry.
d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.
SilverMK2 wrote: More accurately I should have said "relative" lack of control when it comes to gun control. And surely you can understand that increased access to guns means increased gun crime? And if you are a first would country where as many people are getting shot as in some 3rd world war torn nation, you might need to look at why that is and ways of resolving it, including tightening and enforcing existing gun laws and a big drive to reduce illegal arms.
So you were in fact wrong, I'm glad that we cleared that up.
Still using false comparisons, and no sources to boot?
Increased access to legal guns, or illegal guns? Are most crimes committed by people who have had a background check (which includes their criminal record, if any) and buy a gun legally, or are they committed by people possessing the firearm illegally? There is an important difference there.
In what way do you think that the law needs tightened? Bearing in mind that until corrected you claimed that there was an "'almost complete lack of control " over firearm sales.
Spacemanvic wrote: Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?
I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.
Spacemanvic wrote: Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?
I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.
Spacemanvic wrote: Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?
I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.
Yep...
But, let's be honest, we're all guilty of that on the interwebs.
Spacemanvic wrote: Ya'll get the feelin' we're dealin' with people with only half the script?
I get the impression that I am dealing with someone who may not have all the facts at his disposal, but he certainly has an opinion with a side order of flag waving.
Opinions are great, but if you dont have facts to brace your stand, it's just flapping in the breeze.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So you were in fact wrong, I'm glad that we cleared that up.
... I thought the context of my remarks was quite clear, but if you want to be a big internet tough guy, I'm not going to stop you
Still using false comparisons, and no sources to boot?
False comparisons like a continent with 3 times the population having only 20 school shootings in the past 100 years compared with the, what? one or two a year that the US enjoys?
Increased access to legal guns, or illegal guns?
Increased access to anything increases use of said item. And increased access to something legal generally means they are also easier to obtain illegally as well (in terms of access and cost). The vest number of illegally owned guns in the USA used in many crimes should perhaps be an indication that this is the case.
Are most crimes committed by people who have had a background check (which includes their criminal record, if any) and buy a gun legally, or are they committed by people possessing the firearm illegally? There is an important difference there.
Depending on exactly which crimes we are addressing, or crimes in general, certainly. I personally have not gone to extreme lengths to identify whether shooters in school shootings have owned their weapons legally or illegally, or whether they were thought to be "at risk" of potentially doing something silly and whether, had gun control been tighter and more integrated with mental health care/etc their access to guns would have been removed. A reasonable number of the synopsis comments on the list of US school shootings mention the shooter owning the weapon many don't say, and some say "weapons taken from relatives/sic".
In what way do you think that the law needs tightened? Bearing in mind that until corrected you claimed that there was an "'almost complete lack of control " over firearm sales.
Again, context when addressing what I said - apparently what I thought was clear was not. Compare the gun control laws in the USA to other countries where guns are more strictly controlled such as the UK, Germany, (apparently) Canada, etc... they are generally far more in depth and better suited to weeding out those who should not really have access to guns. I've read the synopsis on what is required to purchase guns in the USA on this and other threads, I've spoken to people who have owned guns both in the US and elsewhere (one of my friends does a lot of clay shooting here in the UK) and there is a significant relaxation in both the law and in attitudes towards guns in the USA compared to elsewhere.
The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...
Musashi363 wrote: The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...
Musashi363 wrote: The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...
Yeah, and strict gun laws in areas surrounded by lax gun laws with no checks on people crossing into them may as well not exist...
Musashi363 wrote: The more strict the gun control, the safer the city! We have some great examples of cities in the US with very strict gun control, LA, Detroit, Chicago, New York.....oh wait...
Yeah, and strict gun laws in areas surrounded by lax gun laws with no checks on people crossing into them may as well not exist...
Like the US government selling firearms to the Mexican cartels via Fast n Furious after the firearms stores initially refused to go along?
Spacemanvic wrote: Like the US government selling firearms to the Mexican cartels via Fast n Furious after the firearms stores initially refused to go along?
That was a move of genius, certainly.
It's called the Ignore button
Now I need to get an ignore proof vest or something... or maybe a tank
d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.
It's definitely coming more from people than communities.
I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.
For certain holidays I fly a German flag at my house, which seems to get people upset. Never mind that I always fly the US flag on those days as well.
I also decided to put a German flag on my helmet when I was volunteering with the fire department. I made sure that I also got a US flag that had the exact same dimensions and consulted the flag code to make sure I mounted them the same way as you would mount flags on a wall. But people still gave me grief about it.
It does seem like the people that usually complained the loudest are the same people that would have the 25 foot flag pole with the stars and stripes if they lived anywhere else, so go figure.
So no sources for your claims over figures, name calling because you were wrong, claiming others are missing your context when your words are clear, and no actual clue as to what the law here entails for buying a firearm - let alone any actual suggestion on how to reform said law.
d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.
It's definitely coming more from people than communities.
I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.
For certain holidays I fly a German flag at my house, which seems to get people upset. Never mind that I always fly the US flag on those days as well.
I also decided to put a German flag on my helmet when I was volunteering with the fire department. I made sure that I also got a US flag that had the exact same dimensions and consulted the flag code to make sure I mounted them the same way as you would mount flags on a wall. But people still gave me grief about it.
It does seem like the people that usually complained the loudest are the same people that would have the 25 foot flag pole with the stars and stripes if they lived anywhere else, so go figure.
Well... on behalf of all those idjits... I'm sorry you have to go through with that.
Maybe it's my natural curiosity... but, I think it's great you do that and if I meant anyone doing that, I wouldn't blink an eye.
So no sources for your claims over figures, name calling because you were wrong, claiming others are missing your context when your words are clear, and no actual clue as to what the law here entails for buying a firearm - let alone any actual suggestion on how to reform said law.
If you want figures and sources, please let me know which ones in particular you want and I will attempt to get some for you (please be clear so we both know what we are expecting me to find ).
You assert that I am wrong, I personally think you are tilting at the wrong windmill through either a misinterpretation of what I have said (which is entirely possible as I personally thought the context of my comments throughout this thread has been reasonably clear but apparently not...), or because you are just want to argue and ignore anything I have said that is a valid criticism or suggestion (if it is either against your point of view, or "not right").
I know what the law in the USA entails for purchase of a firearm, at least to the extent of someone who a) is not American, b) has never attempted to buy a gun there and c) is taking a break from doing something else to post here can be motivated to go an look up the exact details. As to reformation of gun laws in the USA - I have made a few suggestions in this thread and even more in previous threads - since no one particularly seems to be interested in them or prefers to ignore the general thrust of the points and get bogged down in semantics over how these hypothetical laws would not work, make everything worse, or cause the founding fathers to explode, I have not gone into any particular depth or detail. My point remains that gun laws in the rest of the western world works well to make sure that those who actually need guns have access to them, and that, in some countries, those who want them have a chance of access to them get them.
Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.
Here's the study's FULL REPORT:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1 There is some good and bad news for gun-control advocates. The good news, for them, is that there are parts of the report that tells us that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high income countries.” But, one interesting fact about this statistic, however, is that if one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington DC., the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country... that's funny because DC, along with these three states, have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
Other findings:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
So... but the salient points contained within this CDC study on gun violence unquestionably contradicts the anti-gun narrative. It's really telling that President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent on this...
d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.
It's definitely coming more from people than communities.
I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.
For certain holidays I fly a German flag at my house, which seems to get people upset. Never mind that I always fly the US flag on those days as well.
I also decided to put a German flag on my helmet when I was volunteering with the fire department. I made sure that I also got a US flag that had the exact same dimensions and consulted the flag code to make sure I mounted them the same way as you would mount flags on a wall. But people still gave me grief about it.
It does seem like the people that usually complained the loudest are the same people that would have the 25 foot flag pole with the stars and stripes if they lived anywhere else, so go figure.
Come to Cincinnati. Your German heritage will be smiled upon and you'll be promptly given a 40 ounce beer and a bratwurst.
whembly wrote: Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.
I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).
whembly wrote: Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.
I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).
It's all good. I'm sure someone else will pick up the "woefully underinformed" banner for you.
whembly wrote: Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.
I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).
SilverMK2 wrote: You assert that I am wrong, I personally think you are tilting at the wrong windmill through either a misinterpretation of what I have said (which is entirely possible as I personally thought the context of my comments throughout this thread has been reasonably clear but apparently not...), or because you are just want to argue and ignore anything I have said that is a valid criticism or suggestion (if it is either against your point of view, or "not right").
I quoted your exact words - "almost complete lack of control ". It is hard to misinterpret that, unless there was some vital element that was missing. In which case that lies with you for not providing it. Sadly my crystal ball is under going maintenance, and so I can only base my responses on what you post rather than what you thought you posted.
SilverMK2 wrote: I know what the law in the USA entails for purchase of a firearm, at least to the extent of someone who a) is not American, b) has never attempted to buy a gun there and c) is taking a break from doing something else to post here can be motivated to go an look up the exact details. As to reformation of gun laws in the USA - I have made a few suggestions in this thread and even more in previous threads - since no one particularly seems to be interested in them or prefers to ignore the general thrust of the points and get bogged down in semantics over how these hypothetical laws would not work, make everything worse, or cause the founding fathers to explode, I have not gone into any particular depth or detail. My point remains that gun laws in the rest of the western world works well to make sure that those who actually need guns have access to them, and that, in some countries, those who want them have a chance of access to them get them.
If you knew what the law was then why did you attempt to claim that there was an "almost complete lack of control "? Your nationality is not an excuse, I'm not American either but we both have access to the same information about firearm law. The difference is that you choose to disregard it because as far as you are concerned the US is doing it wrong. And if you're too busy then maybe you should wait until you have more time for a response.
Given your conduct in this thread its looking more like you didn't like legitimate criticisms of your ideas from people who understand how the law works here, rather than anything else.
d-usa wrote:I have found the US pretty welcoming, as long as you embrace everything American. I have found plenty of attitude when it comes to maintaining pride and traditions in your heritage.
This might just be me, but on a micro level, I've never experienced issues with people maintaining the pride and traditions of heritage, Cleveland has vibrant populations of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants from various parts of the world, and each one has carved out places in the city, and it's not unlikely to see one, two, or three different cultural festivals going on during similar times of the year. On a macro level, I will say that other parts of my country seem to hate Central America, Caribbean, and African immigrants, which might sour people's opinions of our country.
It's definitely coming more from people than communities.
I still get lots of "speak English" when I'm talking to family while we are out and about as an example. Why the feth to they care what language I use to speak with my brother, but people just seem paranoid when they hear people speak another language while they are around.
I find foreign languages enthralling, love the sound of a native speaker, love the way words roll off the tongue, and I try to ask (if I'm actually conversing with them, not interrupting) what certain things mean. But then again, I had a German penpal when I was younger, and we used each other to practice English and German. Humorously enough, last Friday during my lunch I was sitting next to a girl who was face timing with friends/family, and speaking German. I only understood snippets, but it was cool to hear something other than, "HUR DUR MURICA!"
Here's the study's FULL REPORT: 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
No mention of those who did not use any form of self defence, ie capitulated to their attacker's requests?
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Where guns are common, gun use is common - as I have said a number of times. Both in the commission and prevention (or during defence against) crime.
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
Of course, mass shootings are generally a very limited event when compared to general use of guns in crime. No mention is given to those wounded or affected by gun use, only those killed. Not a criticism as such, but I wondered if you knew if the report looked at that? Declining crime rates are consistent for most western countries, though obviously the USA has much higher incidence of gun crimes than most others - though no mention is made of gun crime as part of the wider crime figures. The figure quoted at the end also does not say whether it includes suicides in the "unintential fatalities", or only uses figures for murders.
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
I would suggest that "gun control" including assault rifle bans and gun free zones isn't really effective gun control and there has not been a significant change in background checks to measure how effective such a change would be.
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
I would suggest that such schemes again don't really have any effective use in gun control. Seize and destroy figures would be interesting though.
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
No indication is given as to whether the guns they obtained from others are actually legally owned by said others.
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
Gun suicides are horrifically common and reflect the availability of guns and the ease with which they can be used to kill.
So... but the salient points contained within this CDC study on gun violence unquestionably contradicts the anti-gun narrative.
I think even a very brief look at the quoted sections shows quite a few holes in your reasoning as this being a contradiction of the effectiveness of gun conrol and the prevelence of guns in crimes/deaths/etc.
It's really telling that President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent on this...
I can't really comment on this as I don't really follow the pro/anti gun stuff other than via dakka. But I think the main point to be gained from this is that people can read the same thing and come to very different conclusions - sometimes it is not worth the effort of attempting to contradict this. I accept that I have not read the full report, only those sections you have pulled out and some of my concerns may be addressed in the full text.
whembly wrote: Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.
I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).
It's all good. I'm sure someone else will pick up the "woefully underinformed" banner for you.
And here you are!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I quoted your exact words - "almost complete lack of control ". It is hard to misinterpret that, unless there was some vital element that was missing. In which case that lies with you for not providing it. Sadly my crystal ball is under going maintenance, and so I can only base my responses on what you post rather than what you thought you posted.
Again, I meant, and I thought the context of my other posts made it quite clear, that there is relatively almost complete lack of control when comparing the USA and other western nations. As I believe I have now made clear on more than enough occasions.
If you knew what the law was then why did you attempt to claim that there was an "almost complete lack of control "? Your nationality is not an excuse, I'm not American either but we both have access to the same information about firearm law. The difference is that you choose to disregard it because as far as you are concerned the US is doing it wrong. And if you're too busy then maybe you should wait until you have more time for a response. Given your conduct in this thread its looking more like you didn't like legitimate criticisms of your ideas from people who understand how the law works here, rather than anything else.
Given your conduct in this thread you are more concerned about hanging up discussion on trivial, already resolved points in an attempt to disrail and prevent discussion and to (perhaps further ) smear someone you disagree with.
SilverMK2 wrote: Again, I meant, and I thought the context of my other posts made it quite clear, that there is relatively almost complete lack of control when comparing the USA and other western nations. As I believe I have now made clear on more than enough occasions.
No such context was provided, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. What you have done is attempt to clarify after the fact, and then try to shift the blame onto those reading your actual words instead of owning your mistake.
SilverMK2 wrote: Given your conuct in this thread you are more concerned about hanging up discussion on trivial, already resolved points in an attempt to disrail and prevent discussion and to (perhaps further ) smear someone you disagree with.
Ah, a pithy reconstituting of my own post.
Focusing on trivial points? You mean actual facts, or context that you omitted and wonder why I respond to what you said instead of what you thought you said
Derail? My responses to you have been on topic and relevant, with a few humorous quips
Prevent discussion? By asking for clarification, figures, and addressing the topic.
Smear? Not from me in this thread
Strange definitions you're working off there, its almost as if you're trying to turn the words on their head to wring out the meaning that you desire. I must be missing some of that vital context you keep failing to provide
But yet again you seem unwilling/unable to provide any actual suggestions to remedy this alleged gun problem. Instead you seem to be distracting and deflecting so you can make your exit hoping no one will call you out on your stunning lack of knowledge - all noise and no substance. This last post confirms my previous suspicions about your attitudes to those who disagreed with your and your legislative suggestions.
The continual fixation on a single point which has been gone over now, what? three or four times?
As to the rest of your post, well, I think it is a good indication as to how people can read what they want in another's post - something that works both ways of course. Although I'm still waiting for you to clarify what figures you want sources for so I can attempt to provide them for you, so I guess you are more interested in point scoring than actual discussion.
As to suggestions as to how things are currenly not working and a few ideas as to how to correct this - perhaps in your haste to go over the same point over and over again (as mentioned above), you have missed my comments on this? Or perhaps they were hidden in the context. Who knows?
whembly wrote: Look, @SilverMK2, After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Prez Obama issued an executive order for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research gun violence. This is significant because it lifted a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control”.
I will take a look in detail later as I am just about to go to the cinema and I am headed down to London tomorrow morning so it will be a few days until I can comment on this thread again (I am sure to many tears from some posters ).
You kept accusing me of missing some vital "context", or tilting at windmills, and that I was at fault. It was a matter that you kept putting in issue and accordingly I rebutted it. I note that the rest of my counter points to your accusations have gone unremarked. But if you insist on continually dragging this context matter up then perhaps you should question whether it is you that is derailing the topic.
You mean you cannot provide the facts and figures for the claim that "first would country where as many people are getting shot as in some 3rd world war torn nation", and you need me to spell it out after quoting this and objecting to it? Are you really being that obtuse?
Nice to see that you aren't objecting to the fact you are making a false comparison though.
Yet again you keep attempting to deflect and distract away from the topic. You've done this since I pointed out that the US does have gun control. You clearly aren't interested in a meaningful response, you'd much rather plead ignorance and claim to be pressed for time (yet still post in spite of your haste) and anyone who disagrees with you is determined to "ignore the general thrust of the points and get bogged down in semantics over how these hypothetical laws would not work, make everything worse, or cause the founding fathers to explode,"
If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.
Crablezworth wrote: If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say,
Or, as we seem to know that he ultimately had a single target, that 28 days would have been used to further simmer his rage, develop his plan further than "walk in, shoot something", etc. etc. Sure, it may have happened later in the year, but that 28 days of not having that gun could have potentially made things a whole lot worse for everyone else.
Crablezworth wrote: If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.
I had a explanation for why this won't work, at best. Unfortunately, I left work without clicking submit and don't feel like retyping it.
tl;dr, people sometimes just "go crazy". They will be crazy if they have to wait any period of time to enact their craziness. If anything, that'll only give them time to plan and something to look forward to.
Your plan seems sound, but will fail because you're thinking like a reasonable person, who gets angry, not like a crazy person, who is genuinely crazy enough to hurt people.
My question is this: Why does it appear that there are more crazy people here than elsewhere?
Crablezworth wrote: So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Because phrases like that scream constructive discussion. Right?
Crablezworth wrote: If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.
So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.
I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?
Crablezworth wrote: If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.
So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.
I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?
Crablezworth wrote: If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.
So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.
I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?
You seem to be under the assumption that having to get a licence to be able obtain something makes it so you can't obtain that thing. You have to get a drivers licence, a hunting licence, a fishing licence, and a licence to sell alcohol. What is actually wrong with having to licence guns. You have to register to vote, a constitutionally protected right, so why shouldn't you have to register a gun?
Crablezworth wrote: If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.
So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.
I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?
You seem to be under the assumption that having to get a licence to be able obtain something makes it so you can't obtain that thing.
Well, if the license doesn't make it so that you can't obtain a gun, and you're someone who is going to use said gun to inflict pain upon innocent people, then it's a pretty piss poor at serving the purpose that Crablezworth came up with the idea for in the first place, right?
You have to get a drivers licence, a hunting licence, a fishing licence, and a licence to sell alcohol. What is actually wrong with having to licence guns. You have to register to vote, a constitutionally protected right, so why shouldn't you have to register a gun?
Driver's licenses are to ensure that you're who you say you are, and are operating vehicles under any applicable restrictions. They're also there because driving isn't a right, and this can be revoked if necessary.
Hunting licenses are to ensure that some level of conservation is occurring, and people aren't completely depleting natural wildlife, same as fishing.
You need a license to sell alcohol because it's a dangerous substance, and it's taxed differently than food. You also need a license to sell food. There's a level of inspection that goes on as well.
You have to register to vote because (and this shouldn't even need to be said, but) otherwise, you could just vote as many times as you felt like. You can't (or shouldn't) be DENIED the right to vote.
So what's the justification for having to register to vote? Also try to answer the entire question. What is your justification against registering guns (preferentially without just saying the 2nd amendment)?
This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...
So what's the justification for having to register to vote? Also try to answer the entire question. What is your justification against registering guns (preferentially without just saying the 2nd amendment)?
You have to register to vote because (and this shouldn't even need to be said, but) otherwise, you could just vote as many times as you felt like. You can't (or shouldn't) be DENIED the right to vote.
Justification against registering guns is that you can't come up with a justification FOR registering guns that isn't flawed or ineffective, and typically you don't change something without rationale.
This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...
The word is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. We're not discussing animals here. I'm also confused by this statement, because I thought we were talking about a specific topic, not broadly accusing other people of subscribing to a list of partisan talking points, as if that has any relevance to the topic at hand.
So what's the justification for having to register to vote?
This guy also thought it was necessary:
So... it may not be such a bad idea after all.
Also try to answer the entire question. What is your justification against registering guns (preferentially without just saying the 2nd amendment)?
It's not needed. Simple as that.
This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?
Crablezworth wrote: If this kid had to go through a course, pass an exam (it's also not free ) and wait 28 days to say 6 months for his firearms license how do we think that may have affected his ability to shoot up a school? It's hard to say, it's possible this socially awkward kid had a criminal connection and would have been able to purchase a gun illegally, I however doubt that as nerdy/socially awkward kids generally don't hang out with the local criminal element (I guess there is some wiggle room when it comes to juggalos). The other possibility is he may still have been able to steal a firearm somehow even if stiff regulations were in place, although it's impossible to know if that was even a remotely conceivable option for him, much like the illegal purchase of a firearm from a criminal.
So ya, gun nuts, I'm under no illusions that making things illegal or having a bunch of regulation will be a silver fething bullet, however there is no question in my mind it can mitigate the ability for mentally fragile individuals without criminal connection's ability to acquire firearms.
Licensing is no silver bullet, it's entirely possible for someone to lose their mind long after having acquired the license, but to me it's more sane concept than arming everyone and in the case of this kid, he could have still shown up with a machete and moltov cocktails for all any of us know, still would have likely been better than him showing up with the shotgun.
So... I guess your fine with TSA pat downs, the NSA listening in on your phone calls, Obama telling you what you can and cannot eat, and every other intrusive aspect of government then? You're cool with the government hand so far up your ass they'll wipe your nose for you when you sneeze.
I mean, it's all there to help keep you safe, isn't it?
TSA pat downs are stupid, the nsa listening in on phone calls is unconstitutional, I have no idea about the obama thing but you just showed your hand. As for the rest of your comments, perhaps the only way to argue against sensible licensing is to create strawmen, so, good luck with that.
This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?
I think he's genuinely assuming that if you're against gun control, then you're a stereotypical Republican, down to every last stereotype.
Registering to vote helps ensure you are only voting where you are supposed to due to residency. It would be pretty gakky of me to go to another state or even county and vote in their elections. It also helps to verify legitimacy of the vote, protecting your right to vote by ensuring your vote is not canceled out by the vote of an ineligible person.
To understand why I am against gun registry you would need to first honestly answer what you believe the purpose of the registry to be.
Assuming the above is legit, it is a glaring example of why allowing the gov't to know what legally owned personal property I have is a bad thing. It empowers them to pull dumb gak like that. Even if the picture is not legit, it exemplifies what can and has happened where the gov't had lists of who owns what weapons. Add in the current trend of 'news' organizations to get the names and identifying info of concealed carry permit holders and publish their addresses and names and you have another reason why I do not think sharing any info about any weapons I may legally own is a bad idea. The gov't has proven less than able to protect my information and in fact has allowed it to be used for political reasons and agendas I very much do not approve of.
And another basic argument, what again is the purpose of this registry? What will it cost? Why should the tax payers fund its creation and upkeep? I cannot think of a benign reason for its existence that justifies the cost.
djones520 wrote: That picture is legit Jake. Das Gestapo is already on the move in New York.
I just know I cannot personally verify it as legit, thought it does appear so. I did do a quick Snopes search and could not find anything on it.
I tried to verify it the other day and I could not. I'm not saying it's fake but it's pretty iffy - at the time if you googled the text it only shows up on the derpwing sites which is usually a pretty good sign it's made up nonsense. There are a lot of fishy elements to it; for example, what's in the letter doesn't represent what the law actually says. Specifically the second sentence says "Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition are unlawful to posess in New York City, as per code 10-306(b). That's not actually what that code section says, the actual code section shows a magazine ban for anything in excess of 5 rounds.
If you google that address, it's the NYC clerks office, which is legit. You eventually get to the NYPD License Division (it's not called "NYPD RIFLE & SHOTGUN" officially but that doesn't mean anything) which leads you to this PDF:
This PDF reflects the actual law; which bans mags that have a capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and indicates any such mags need to be pinned (like California) to be lawful.
I think this letter is either pure BS conjured by someone out of whole cloth (90% chance), or some clerk overreaching unlawfully (9%), or how the NYPD is actually enforcing this law (1%).
But I too could find nothing definitive either way.
This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?
I think he's genuinely assuming that if you're against gun control, then you're a stereotypical Republican, down to every last stereotype.
Not at all, this is my experiences, and what I am seeing (I wasn't accusing him, I don't know his opinion on that subject, it's just that from the people I know the ones who hate the idea of having to register guns and the people who think we should have voter ID laws have a very large overlap).
This is kind of entertaining because the same people who are supporting voter ID laws are against having to register guns. Don't you just love hippocracy...
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
But, in your case, gun registration/license lead to confiscation... right?
I think he's genuinely assuming that if you're against gun control, then you're a stereotypical Republican, down to every last stereotype.
Not at all, this is my experiences, and what I am seeing (I wasn't accusing him, I don't know his opinion on that subject, it's just that from the people I know the ones who hate the idea of having to register guns and the people who think we should have voter ID laws have a very large overlap).
Sorry about being late on this, wasn't at my PC.
But it isn't really an apt comparison.
In any case, there's plenty of folks are okay with increase gun-control and Opposes voterID laws.
whembly wrote: In any case, there's plenty of folks are okay with increase gun-control and Opposes voterID laws.
I think I was in this camp until recently. I found Manchu's arguments on how those are intrinsically opposite ideas in base; compelling enough that I don't think I am anymore - that was the analogy that I needed to see where pro-gun people's arguments are coming from. I do think that as a country we are alarmingly comfortable with levels of gun violence not seen elsewhere in first world nations and I feel we shouldld address that but I'm not really sure how.
whembly wrote: In any case, there's plenty of folks are okay with increase gun-control and Opposes voterID laws.
I think I was in this camp until recently. I found Manchu's arguments on how those are intrinsically opposite ideas in base; compelling enough that I don't think I am anymore - that was the analogy that I needed to see where pro-gun people's arguments are coming from. I do think that as a country we are alarmingly comfortable with levels of gun violence not seen elsewhere in first world nations and I feel we shouldld address that but I'm not really sure how.
He does make a great argument... However I still think its flawed in the sense that you still must go through a background check to purchase guns. Most voterIDs laws requires you to bring a fething state approved ID to the polls.
Manchu's arguments works much better for the big changes that are happening in places like NC (no Sunday voting, no college I'd, etc...)
That's why I don't really think its a good apples-to-apples comparison in the first place.
I had a explanation for why this won't work, at best. Unfortunately, I left work without clicking submit and don't feel like retyping it.
tl;dr, people sometimes just "go crazy". They will be crazy if they have to wait any period of time to enact their craziness. If anything, that'll only give them time to plan and something to look forward to.
Your plan seems sound, but will fail because you're thinking like a reasonable person, who gets angry, not like a crazy person, who is genuinely crazy enough to hurt people.
My question is this: Why does it appear that there are more crazy people here than elsewhere?
bit oT since we seem to have moved on to voter IDs but I feel this statement is all kinds of horse gak.
Since roughly 20% of the population will undergo some kind of psychosis at some point in their life i think separating people into crazy and normal is quite untrue.One in five people you meet is a "crazy". I'd think quite a lot of "passion" killings could legitimately regarded as due to a temporary psychosis, I mean what rational person wants to kill another ? Recognising this could not be good for our current court system, but never the less I think recognising this fact could go to great lengths to debunk fear of the "crazies".
That picture of the gun confiscation form is legit, its actually several weeks old news - at least in the firearms media. You wont find it on snopes because snopes is a site run by progressives, so of course stuff like this gets buried. California is looking at implementing this program too btw. This is also not the first time this has happened in my old hometown. Registration in the city resulted in confiscation during the early 70's of "Saturday Night Specials". The letter is enforcement of a City Council law passed in the '90s btw.
Registration has never lead to removal of illegal guns: criminals dont register.
This is funny Ouze and d-usa over on the thread about the NSA constitutionality assured me that no one was going to come for our guns and that registration was what all the cool kids were doing.
jamesk1973 wrote: This is funny Ouze and d-usa over on the thread about the NSA constitutionality assured me that no one was going to come for our guns and that registration was what all the cool kids were doing.
And firearm ownership is still not illegal, despite what the note says and the government is not taking these weapons away from anybody.
I could go on and actually explain why you are wrong, but anybody that has read your posts would understand that it would be a waste of bandwidth.
And firearm ownership is still not illegal, despite what the note says and the government is not taking these weapons away from anybody.
At what part in the letter did you lose your ability to comprehend what you read?
Was is the part that said, "turn in your firearms" or that part that said, "our records show that you possess a firearm"?
I'll save you the trouble. The letter is displayed on page 7 of this thread.
You must have missed the part that said you can remove the firearm from the City of New York and provide a utility bill and address of where the firearm is being stored.
Also, Ouze there is apparently a Rifle and Shotgun section, which might give more validity to this form, but who knows. The problem is that the validity of the story doesn't seem to pop up on anything more than some fringe new sites dedicated to guns etc... Not even Fox or MSNBC has this story... http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/rifle_licensing_information.shtml
Edit: Wtf letter are you talking about on page 7
Edit: I'm also trying to figure out why people in New York need a rifle or a shotgun. I can see storing it there if you're a hunter.
And firearm ownership is still not illegal, despite what the note says and the government is not taking these weapons away from anybody.
At what part in the letter did you lose your ability to comprehend what you read?
Probably the part where it didn't say "we are going to take your guns!" anywhere.
Was is the part that said, "turn in your firearms" or that part that said, "our records show that you registered a firearm"?
It was multiple parts that actually didn't say "we are going to take your guns away".
It actually has three separate options that don't say "we are going to take your guns away":
1) Put your weapon in storage with the NYPD, get an invoice number, and then either move your weapon (that you still own because the government didn't take it away from you) out of city limits and still own it or sell it (awesome, capitalism!). When I went to college in redneck pro-gun western Oklahoma the campus police all stored our weapons for us. And they even gave them back to us whenever we wanted to go hunting or shooting at the range! Main thing to notice is that nobody took your weapon from you.
2) Go ahead and move the weapon out of city limits. You still own it, you can still shoot it, once again nobody has taken your weapon from you
3) Have it modified to hold 5 rounds or less.
Yet nowhere on that form does it say "you can't have guns, we are talking all your guns, you will not remember the nazi's and the Jews while we take your guns".
I could draw you a picture of how it doesn't say that, but my finger painting skills are not that great this morning.
Also, Ouze there is apparently a Rifle and Shotgun section, which might give more validity to this form, but who knows. The problem is that the validity of the story doesn't seem to pop up on anything more than some fringe new sites dedicated to guns etc... Not even Fox or MSNBC has this story...
It was multiple parts that actually didn't say "we are going to take your guns away".
It actually has three separate options that don't say "we are going to take your guns away":
1) Put your weapon in storage with the NYPD, get an invoice number, and then either move your weapon (that you still own because the government didn't take it away from you) out of city limits and still own it or sell it (awesome, capitalism!). When I went to college in redneck pro-gun western Oklahoma the campus police all stored our weapons for us. And they even gave them back to us whenever we wanted to go hunting or shooting at the range! Main thing to notice is that nobody took your weapon from you.
2) Go ahead and move the weapon out of city limits. You still own it, you can still shoot it, once again nobody has taken your weapon from you
3) Have it modified to hold 5 rounds or less.
1. Actually the term used is, "surrender" not "turn in for storage to be checked back out at your convenience." I do find it kind of them to allow you to sell or remove from the city your own private property.
2. Yes. This is a legit strategy for those who are not tied down in the city for work or family reasons. Of course, it pretty much gaks on the whole, "...keep and bear..." and "...shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.
3. Again, strays into the whole private property is mine not the government's argument.
Let's think about this.
No, they are not overtly saying, "we are here for you guns".
Rather they are using the force of law to execute the most passive-aggressive violation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments yet.
But it's okay because it's what the popular vote wanted.
Maybe it's not reading comprehension that is failing you as much a critical thinking.
Hey, I can understand that people who have ignored the law for three years might have problems with reading comprehension. But I'm not really upset at a letter that doesn't take away your guns and forces people to follow a law that they have ignored since 2010.
And now it's a 4th amendment violation as well? Life must be horrible in that head of hours.
Have you tried art-therapy? Painting pictures can resolve a lot of those paranoid feelings. Maybe you can draw a picture of the NYPD in SS uniforms disarming Jews.
It's clear that nothing you type will change my perception of the course this country is on.
It's also clear that nothing I type is going to change your perception of the course this country is on.
For my part let me say, I really, really hope you are right. I hope I die and old free man. I hope you are right and I die an old free man who really was just paranoid.
The problem is that your "perception of the course this country is on" is based upon such flawed data that yesterday you Godwinned a thread and were not even remotely correct about how things happened.
jamesk1973 wrote:This is funny Ouze and d-usa over on the thread about the NSA constitutionality assured me that no one was going to come for our guns and that registration was what all the cool kids were doing.
I never said any damn thing about the latter element of your statement. Stop making things up because you think it makes a better argument. I'm not in favor of registration and have never espoused it. I just don't agree with the idea registration always leads to confiscation.
Spacemanvic wrote: That picture of the gun confiscation form is legit, its actually several weeks old news - at least in the firearms media. .
Yeah, I did mention earlier I've only seen it referenced in the derposphere.
I repeat what I said earlier: I have no confidence that this letter is real, and if it is real, that this is actually how it's being enforced by the NYPD and not the product of an overreaching clerk misinterpreting the clear language of the statute. Again, if you read the law on the NYPD licensing section it's pretty unambiguous that it applies, as the law says, to ammunition feeding devices - a magazine capacity restriction. I mean, even The Blaze uses lots of weasel words when describing it. "Allegedly", "reportedly", "it wasn't clear", and so on. All of these sites seem to link back to the same original source article. They sent out hundreds of these, supposedly - not one other person got one? The address on the letter doesn't match the actual address used by the license division, I just noticed.
Kanluwen wrote: The problem is that your "perception of the course this country is on" is based upon such flawed data that yesterday you Godwinned a thread and were not even remotely correct about how things happened.
We can also agree that I will continue to point out how wrong you are when you stray away from opinion and present stuff as facts, especially when your facts are completely wrong.
Homework for today: draw me a diagram of facts and opinions detailing the differences between the two.
d-usa wrote: We can agree to have different opinions.
We can also agree that I will continue to point out how wrong you are when you stray away from opinion and present stuff as facts, especially when your facts are completely wrong.
Homework for today: draw me a diagram of facts and opinions detailing the differences between the two.
We would have to cross reference a lot of threads to get a comprehensive review of wrong facts. It would also help if you drew that diagram to help me make sure you understand the difference between fact and opinion. I was promised a picture a few threads ago and I'm still waiting, even though I drew a picture for you...
On this page one you got Ouze's statements wrong and you kept on presenting a letter as a fact that gun grabbing is taking place.
I consider it gun grabbing when your options are; turn it in, get it out of the area, or have it modified from factory specifications.
It is not forceful gun grabbing by any means but I PERCEIVE it as gun grabbing. It is my OPINION.
In your OPINION it is completely reasonable and not gun grabbing for the government to give you three options (concerning your private property) of; turn it in, get it out of the area, or have it modified from factory specifications.
As for the Ouze statement, I did have a moment of hyperbole. However, in general he is such a disagreeable fether who knows exactly what he espouses?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, what is the accent that you have?
I watched your Power Dissolver video and I detected a trace accent.
They have a 4th option, and it is the one not mentioned and is the one they didn't exercise.
Instead of sending letters to 500 people who have spend the last three years breaking the law and giving them the opportunity to finally get them either in compliance or out of the city they could have actually executed warrants on these 500 people and confiscated their illegal weapons and destroyed them. And even that wouldn't have been "gun grabbing" since these people are willfully ignoring the law.
The fact that they are giving them the chance to get rid of their crime after three years of breaking the law is what makes your opinion that this is gun grabbing laughable.
