Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control

Connecticut: Every day is the day to talk about Gun Control (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't think suicides should be part of this discussion. Not for your Bloomberg graph (according to the article they comprise 62% of the gun deaths, while I doubt they are including suicide by car), not for the Israeli solders, and not for analogies.
You're right to bring up the dishonesty in the graph. I certainly wish the graph had been more honest.

I looked up the gun death number excluding suicides in 2011 and its around 11k. Unfortunately, I can't find a similar number for 1979 so its hard to extrapolate if gun deaths are going up (not likely), down, or holding steady. What is encouraging is the raw number is roughly the same after 30 years, even though our population has grown by 100 million.

---

I do think the Israeli soldier article is valid however. Guns are used for killing, that's the point. If the simple act of not letting Israeli soldiers take a gun home prevents deaths, please someone tell me how this is bad.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Just curious, do you support the legality of assisted suicide?
I'm theoretically ok with helping someone with a terminal disease exit the world in a less painful manner.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 08:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Without a definition of what gun control means in this context, I don't think one can answer either way.
Thank you.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That wasn't in the article you posted, so if that's what you took away from all this then that explains why you were asking for more info; you must have been waiting for one that supported your preconception.
Nope, my preconception was that they were coming from overseas.
You don't seem to be asking the question you claim to be asking. You claimed to ask "from where," and you claim to have found "from here," but your conclusion belies your claims because it is "how many." You never asked "how many" and naturally never found that answer, it was merely unstated in your premise, which more accurately would have been "from where are they getting too many" based on your conclusion. Yet the "too many" premise was never addressed. Just sayin.


The Final Dakar"]
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The article said explicitly that the majority of guns in crimes come from a banned buyer convincing a non-banned buyer to buy for them. That has nothing to do with ubiquity, and everything to do with an unenforceable weak point in existing law (aka a loophole). It says they do it brazenly, but if it was enforced there is nothing stopping them from hiding it (like teens do with alcohol all the time). It also said that the majority come from just 8% of dealers. That is the opposite of ubiquity, it's not the volume of dealers that's the bulk of the problem it's a few bad apples spoiling the efforts of the majority.
First the article didn't list say they were the majority, it said they were the most common. I have no idea what that means numerically. Second, ubiquity was referring to the number of guns, not dealers. We sell a lot of guns. Now, pardon my math, but if there are less guns and less dealers, that's less chance of a gun falling into the wrong hand, right?[/quote]
The only way I can think of for most common to mean something other than majority is if they count transactions or purchasers instead of merchandise. That would be an even more desirable metric than the number of illegal guns, because one person holding many guns is only going to be using one gun at a time (the reaction is limited by number of users not by number of guns).

I think economics is going to be more applicable than math. We can assume that the current state (whatever it is) is a balance of supply and demand, and an artificial tightening of supply would still not reduce demand. I would expect that criminals would be able to out-bid legit buyers for the reduced supply, and criminals might also simply shift to the other supply source listed in the article: "If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market." The current use of the black market doesn't inform us at all about how big it would be if its competition was removed.



Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
There is always room for improvement, but it has to be an real improvement. I oppose treating the patient with leaches just because it's the only thing we know how to do and we just can't stand doing nothing.
Is the status quo of traffic death acceptable to you? Accidents should be easier to curb than intentional killings, not harder, because there is no one actively working against you. Being that there are still more traffic deaths than gun killings, and they are easier to prevent, they should be a higher priority. We would save more lives with less effort. If 100 people die every year (from mass murder-suicides), that is tragic, but honestly it is just noise compared with the number of deaths due to other causes, even those that are significantly easier to prevent.
This strikes me as misdirection and moving the goal posts. We can't worry about multiple things at once? Is there a raw number or ratio that needs to be achieved before we're allowed to worry about gun deaths?
This thread and the response in general is not "worry" it's more like "freaking out." It's heated. A 26-death car accident would never even get its own thread. And more to the point of your question, it's not that we're not allowed to worry about one or the other, it's that we shouldn't be allowed to worry about a small number of deaths from one cause more than a larger number from another cause. That is hypocrisy.


(Car safety is always being improved, and you can look no further than that chart I posted showing a 63% drop in 30 years. So I guess people have been focusing on it and the status quo is not being accepted)
Right, exactly. Over decades we tweak and analyze, and make fine targeted adjustments, and support new technology. The answer isn't to count up the total number of cars sold, like you're doing with the total number of guns. No one says "If only we had fewer cars then there would be that many fewer deaths." Even though that's mostly a true statement, we all realize that it's a dumb way to approach the problem. Our rights of movement are weighed fairly against the deaths they cause (otherwise speed limits would be half what they are, and strictly enforced), but try to weigh our gun rights against some deaths and you're considered a monster (hence why you've been pushing gun rights advocates to do so, so they can be revealed as monsters).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I do think the Israeli soldier article is valid however. Guns are used for killing, that's the point. If the simple act of not letting Israeli soldiers take a gun home prevents deaths, please someone tell me how this is bad.
Because they chose to die. How is it different from assisted suicide?

Edit: also they are soldiers. Are they supposed to have the right judgement to kill others but not enough judgement to know when to kill themselves? How does that work?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Does anyone here honestly think that gun control would have prevented this tragedy?
Without a definition of what gun control means in this context, I don't think one can answer either way.
I think we are close to having technology to prevent people from firing a gun who are not the biometrically registered owner (like the sword in Blade), and that if this was required on all manufactured guns then it could eventually prevent tragedies like this, as well as stolen guns being used for crimes (once the legacy pieces are destroyed or upgraded), all while not infringing on the rights of gun owners. Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the mass killings have been using borrowed guns, because the killers were already too crazy or young to be sold a gun, right?

I'm used to having my ideas be dismissed as infeasible, but really what is the biggest flaw in this idea?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think we are close to having technology to prevent people from firing a gun who are not the biometrically registered owner (like the sword in Blade), and that if this was required on all manufactured guns then it could eventually prevent tragedies like this, as well as stolen guns being used for crimes (once the legacy pieces are destroyed or upgraded), all while not infringing on the rights of gun owners. Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the mass killings have been using borrowed guns, because the killers were already too crazy or young to be sold a gun, right?
I'm used to having my ideas be dismissed as infeasible, but really what is the biggest flaw in this idea?
It's not infeasible. And it's a reasonable proposal.

As our leaders begin the uncertain political debate over gun control, there is a simple and straightforward policy solution right now that would uphold gun owners' 2nd amendment rights and still keep our kids safer.

It's called "smart gun technology."

The system is similar to "smart technology" already in use for things like cars, iPhones and security doors. A computer microchip measures the bio-metric details of the person attempting to activate the product. If the details match the rightful owner, the device is "enabled." If the details don't match, the device will not work or open.

Smart gun technology has been around for years. CBS News profiled a New Jersey institute that was perfecting it in 2009. Science Daily had a story about the emerging technology back in 2005,

The most reliable smart gun technology involves a grip recognition system. There are 16 digital sensor chips embedded in the handle. The computerized sensors capture the unique pattern and pressure of your grip, plus the specific size of your hand. If someone else tries to use the gun, the information will not match the stored pattern of the gun owner's -- and the weapon will not fire.


As I discussed on my radio show "Take Action News," this technology, as well as similar versions involving fingerprint recognition, could be embedded in guns today. But for years, the National Rifle Association has blocked these efforts, in part because they would make guns costlier to produce and purchase.

The NRA has also insisted that smart gun technology would infringe upon the second amendment. Constitutional experts say that argument is absurd. The Constitution allows for all kinds of product regulations. And it was the lack of political will, not a court ruling, that caused the ban on assault weapons to lapse during the Bush administration and not be renewed.

Smart Gun Technology Could Have Blocked Adam Lanza | Huffingtonpost.com

Assuming that Ms. Lanza did not keep her weapons secured (and that may turn out not to be the case), then this type of technology would have rendered her weapons useless to anyone by herself. As a practical matter I would argue that such technology would have limited utility if it couldn't accommodate more than one person though. For instance, I might want my weapon to be accessible to myself and my wife but no one else. That being said, this is a ways off from being a mainstream reality. Something that can be done IMMEDIATELY that won't prevent such massacres from happening but may reduce the level of carnage if and when they do is to BAN the sale and possession of large capacity magazines. Namely, anything over 10 rounds. Institute a buy-back program to compensate people who have already purchased such items but still wish to comply with the new law. Seems pretty reasonable. Especially when there are so many loopholes when it comes to legally defining an "assault rifle".

OAW
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You do realize that he's not interested in differentiated discussion, right? He needs to lump everybody together so he can dismiss them as nutjobs.
But just in case:
I'm sticking with my guns: mandating gun safes and allowing guns outside of them only in disabled/unloaded state, for cleaning or transport. Permission to carry outside of sports/hunting settings only in very select cases.
I'm not sure you're qualified to speak as to what I'm interested in.

You've yet to answer how you plan to enforce these proposed additions without violating the 4th amendment. Here's your chance.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It's not infeasible. And it's a reasonable proposal.
Smart Gun Technology Could Have Blocked Adam Lanza | Huffingtonpost.com
Assuming that Ms. Lanza did not keep her weapons secured (and that may turn out not to be the case), then this type of technology would have rendered her weapons useless to anyone by herself. As a practical matter I would argue that such technology would have limited utility if it couldn't accommodate more than one person though. For instance, I might want my weapon to be accessible to myself and my wife but no one else. That being said, this is a ways off from being a mainstream reality. Something that can be done IMMEDIATELY that won't prevent such massacres from happening but may reduce the level of carnage if and when they do is to BAN the sale and possession of large capacity magazines. Namely, anything over 10 rounds. Institute a buy-back program to compensate people who have already purchased such items but still wish to comply with the new law. Seems pretty reasonable. Especially when there are so many loopholes when it comes to legally defining an "assault rifle".
OAW
I'm not opposed to this. If this technology became practical I think it'd be the best solution to the issues we face today on both sides.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think we are close to having technology to prevent people from firing a gun who are not the biometrically registered owner (like the sword in Blade), and that if this was required on all manufactured guns then it could eventually prevent tragedies like this, as well as stolen guns being used for crimes (once the legacy pieces are destroyed or upgraded), all while not infringing on the rights of gun owners. Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the mass killings have been using borrowed guns, because the killers were already too crazy or young to be sold a gun, right?
I'm used to having my ideas be dismissed as infeasible, but really what is the biggest flaw in this idea?
It's not infeasible. And it's a reasonable proposal.

As our leaders begin the uncertain political debate over gun control, there is a simple and straightforward policy solution right now that would uphold gun owners' 2nd amendment rights and still keep our kids safer.

It's called "smart gun technology."

The system is similar to "smart technology" already in use for things like cars, iPhones and security doors. A computer microchip measures the bio-metric details of the person attempting to activate the product. If the details match the rightful owner, the device is "enabled." If the details don't match, the device will not work or open.

Smart gun technology has been around for years. CBS News profiled a New Jersey institute that was perfecting it in 2009. Science Daily had a story about the emerging technology back in 2005,

The most reliable smart gun technology involves a grip recognition system. There are 16 digital sensor chips embedded in the handle. The computerized sensors capture the unique pattern and pressure of your grip, plus the specific size of your hand. If someone else tries to use the gun, the information will not match the stored pattern of the gun owner's -- and the weapon will not fire.


As I discussed on my radio show "Take Action News," this technology, as well as similar versions involving fingerprint recognition, could be embedded in guns today. But for years, the National Rifle Association has blocked these efforts, in part because they would make guns costlier to produce and purchase.

The NRA has also insisted that smart gun technology would infringe upon the second amendment. Constitutional experts say that argument is absurd. The Constitution allows for all kinds of product regulations. And it was the lack of political will, not a court ruling, that caused the ban on assault weapons to lapse during the Bush administration and not be renewed.

Smart Gun Technology Could Have Blocked Adam Lanza | Huffingtonpost.com
Thanks

BAN the sale and possession of large capacity magazines. Namely, anything over 10 rounds.
This I don't get. What's to stop him from just bringing more magazines and swapping them in like Lara Croft?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't know, but it seems like we've had 1000 or so car threads, and I don't remember any of the participants ever being accused of being disingenuous for failing to bring up the deadly side-effects of our freedom of movement. And if someone asked me "don't you feel bad about all the deaths caused by driving" I would feel perfectly justified and ingenuous under established social mores saying "I prefer not to think about it" and leave it at that (and continue discussing only the good sides of driving). I don't think the same could be said for guns or gun rights, and that strikes me as a double-standard.
I might be missing your point, but it's not a surprise to me social mores lack consistency.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not opposed to this. If this technology became practical I think it'd be the best solution to the issues we face today on both sides.
I'll be the voice of unreason here.

This is adding several dozen new points of failure to something which needs to work when you use it.

My engineer side cringes at the thought. You couldn't pay me enough to open myself up to that sort of liability.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll be the voice of unreason here.
This is adding several dozen new points of failure to something which needs to work when you use it.
My engineer side cringes at the thought. You couldn't pay me enough to open myself up to that sort of liability.
or of course (from the anti gun side)something that fails to stop the weapon when it should. I can see how a smart gun would be an asset in a legal environment but how long are we giving it before people are cracking the systems, 10 minutes? 15? A whole hour?

About a decade ago the UK Metropolitan police were super chuffed to be issued with brand new radios that were supposed to be unbreakably encrypted. A huge boon in the fight against crime. By all accounts the radios were hacked and the encryption broken by lunchtime on the first day they were issued.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Thanks
This I don't get. What's to stop him from just bringing more magazines and swapping them in like Lara Croft?
Nothing. But think of it this way. This guy had took out 2 entire classrooms of first graders with about TWO 30 round clips. He had more on him. But the cops were closing in so he took himself out. Imagine if he had had to RELOAD FIVE TIMES in order to have unleashed the same amount of rounds? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I'm just saying the more magazines he has to carry the more unwieldy things are for him. The time he is spending reloading is the time he is NOT spending shooting a kid in the face. The more times he has to reload the more opportunity there is for an adult or first responder to intervene.

That's why I said it wouldn't prevent things like this from happening. But there's a good chance it could lessen the carnage if it does. Just saying ....

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But for years, the National Rifle Association has blocked these efforts, in part because they would make guns costlier to produce and purchase.
Obviously it should be subsidized by government; it would be way cheaper than enforcement of the crimes averted, the cost of stolen property (guns) averted, and of course the value of human lives. I know no one has got on board with this objection yet, but why wait


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I might be missing your point, but it's not a surprise to me social mores lack consistency.
I thought that's what you were asking me with "why would they"


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll be the voice of unreason here.

This is adding several dozen new points of failure to something which needs to work when you use it.
D'oh, that's a good point


Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Thanks
This I don't get. What's to stop him from just bringing more magazines and swapping them in like Lara Croft?
Nothing. But think of it this way. This guy had took out 2 entire classrooms of first graders with about TWO 30 round clips. He had more on him. But the cops were closing in so he took himself out. Imagine if he had had to RELOAD FIVE TIMES in order to have unleashed the same amount of rounds? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I'm just saying the more magazines he has to carry the more unwieldy things are for him. The time he is spending reloading is the time he is NOT spending shooting a kid in the face. The more times he has to reload the more opportunity there is for an adult or first responder to intervene.

That's why I said it wouldn't prevent things like this from happening. But there's a good chance it could lessen the carnage if it does. Just saying ....
Maybe my Lara Croft reference wasn't clear enough... tell me how long do you imagine it takes to swap magazines?

I mean, I kind of like this idea only because it will keep the chicken littles occupied for another inning, but it's complete homeopathy. Think of it this way: suppose you're actually using a gun for the intended purpose, defending your home against an intruder (or tyrant). We don't really want to make using the gun so hard that it's ineffectual for that purpose, you don't want it to take so long to reload that the rapist is up your butt by the time you're ready to keep defending yourself again, so how much is it going to slow down the spree killer either? You can't depend on his suicide switch activating arbitrarily "at the end of each magazine," that's as bad as locking up all the Sarah Connors just because the last killer was named Sarah Connor.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Wow you must have really wanted those guns bad!
A man had passed away and his widow needed to get into the safe, important documents inside. Plus I'd always wanted to see if I could do it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You do realize that he's not interested in differentiated discussion, right? He needs to lump everybody together so he can dismiss them as nutjobs.
Which is what the other side in this discussion is doing, as well.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 02:15 PM
 
I got involved in this whole debate on a Facebook group page thread and for a great many posts it proceeded exactly as these discussions tend to. Myself and another stated our position and proceeded to back it up with the thinking behind it, then evidence in the form of statistics and comparisons. We offered our thoughts on the problems and their causes and then offered solutions and compromises and the several people who took the opposite pro-gun stance, took a pro-gun-no-matter-what stance and just took shifts repeating themselves, each other, their favourite conservative/NRA/redneck bloggers and then themselves again. This cycle repeated and repeated and as I say when one got bored or confused, another stepped up and took over.


Anyway, their arguments came down to two:

They either felt that guns were needed to defend themselves and their families in their own homes (or presumably elsewhere too) or they felt it was more important to be armed in case a revolution was deemed necessary.
Most of the several people we argued against took one of those reasons and stuck to it pretty fiercely. Now the revolution thing is kind of tricky. I'll admit there is an outside chance that one day it could come in handy to deal with government oppression or some kind of invasion. I genuinely think a Falling Skies scenario of alien invasion is more likely than either of those, but this is not a probability that can be measured with any kind of accuracy. We are really only left with speculation so there is no rational debate to be had on this matter.

I focused instead on the self defence issue. My assertion is that if there were fewer guns around in general and much harsher sentences for carrying them, then home invaders in particular would eventually become less likely to carry them themselves. As a burglar, most of your victims in the USA have an absolute right to shoot you dead if they catch you in their house, regardless of your intention. Since you know that these law-abiding victims are allowed to own guns and allowed to kill you with them without punishment, it actually makes sense to take one of your own in order to defend yourself or disarm your victims so you can incapacitate them before you get on with your hard nights robbing them.

I fully admit that there is no way to create a law, flick a switch and magic away all the guns in circulation right now, but since my debators were fixating on the impracticality of any transition to a state of vastly fewer guns in the hands of the public and the criminals, I posed a theoretical and at the same time made an accusation:

I asked them about that hypothetical gun-vanishing switch. If Captain Picard rocked up and used the Enterprise to beam all the legal assault weapons and handguns into the heart of the sun, and say 90-95% of the illegal assault weapons and handguns at the same time, would they be in favour of that happening? I got nothing. I repeated myself twice as their comments continued to come in without addressing my question. I made my accusation: That they all seemed somehow gleeful that they lived in a world where they needed to keep a gun under their pillow in case someone tried to steal their TV. A world where they were talking about arming teachers and covering schools in gates and metal detectors, at considerable public expense. (I exaggerated to suggest high walls to deter snipers with barbed wire on top, or just moving schools within the perimeters of the nearest military base when again, no-one answered me.)

I practically begged for just one of them to show the slightest lament that they had to bring up children in a world where they needed to keep guns and shoot people who just wanted to take the DVD player and get out, just in case they were a rapist or a murderer. Failing that to just come back and admit that they were as proud and gleeful of this state of affairs as they seemed to me to be. I got completely and utterly ignored.

So again, to show that I'm trying to be reasonable, I acknowledge that with so many guns in the hands of otherwise petty criminals, you do need your own guns to protect yourselves at the moment, but I ask the members here who subscribe to the self defence justification for less gun regulation, are you proud of that need? Doesn't it make any of you just a little bit sad?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
In this particular case: yes, very likely.
How? The killer stole one of the guns (the bushmaster) which is against the law, carried it to a school zone which is against the law, broke into the school which is against the law, and killed children and adults which is against the law. It seems our problem is not that we don't have enough laws it's that they're not enforceable if the criminal is determined. This is the crux of my argument, only the lawful comply with the laws, the criminals will circumvent the laws and do as they please. Gun free zones are filled with some of the most gun violence, partly because criminals know there are no guns there to contend with except for police officers, and partly because gun-free zones are places that contain a concentration of targets (e.g. shopping malls, schools, movie theaters, churches, etc.). Gene Healy, an attorney and senior editor at the CATO Institute, says the murder rate in Washington DC rose 55 percent higher than before the DC gun ban laws went into effect. I could go on but we should look at what other countries, states, cities, etc. have done and the effect they've had in reducing gun violence then copy what's effective. I own no guns but I really don't like decisions made to appease people (e.g. band-aid fixes) when the root of the problem needs to be addressed.

Countries in Europe with the higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of murder by gun:
7804/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

I think the following sarcastic "sign" is really how things are:
7805/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 02:42 PM
 
If we could get rid of ALL firearms, including; nukes, SAMs, grenades, etc. etc., I'd be all for it, as much as I enjoy competition shooting. I'm equally good with a slingshot and bow (compound or recurve). My local arch-nemesis, the man is f'ing brilliant with a `shot.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/Dec/23/shooting-a-blue-streak/

He doesn't need a gun, he's equally deadly with that. He can fire 18 shots /min, hitting a golf ball sized target at 40 paces, with enough power to go clean through a torso or head. I can kill at that distance, I've taken rabbits, squirrel, quail, but not with as much speed (and a hair's less accuracy). That's largely practice, however, if I invested a few months and did little else, I think I could be as good as him. He gave me a yew slingshot and it's my weapon of choice for small game.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
How? The killer stole one of the guns (the bushmaster) which is against the law, carried it to a school zone which is against the law, broke into the school which is against the law, and killed children and adults which is against the law. It seems our problem is not that we don't have enough laws it's that they're not enforceable if the criminal is determined. This is the crux of my argument, only the lawful comply with the laws, the criminals will circumvent the laws and do as they please. Gun free zones are filled with some of the most gun violence, partly because criminals know there are no guns there to contend with except for police officers, and partly because gun-free zones are places that contain a concentration of targets (e.g. shopping malls, schools, movie theaters, churches, etc.). Gene Healy, an attorney and senior editor at the CATO Institute, says the murder rate in Washington DC rose 55 percent higher than before the DC gun ban laws went into effect. I could go on but we should look at what other countries, states, cities, etc. have done and the effect they've had in reducing gun violence then copy what's effective. I own no guns but I really don't like decisions made to appease people (e.g. band-aid fixes) when the root of the problem needs to be addressed.
Countries in Europe with the higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of murder by gun:
7804/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
I think the following sarcastic "sign" is really how things are:
7805/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

I suspect the absolute number of guns rather that the percentage of the population is the key factor. In Europe, people probably tend to have only a few each, kept under lock and key. You have lots of people with lots of guns each. If you own lots, stands to reason its harder to keep track of them too. Less likely to miss one if it goes astray.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So again, to show that I'm trying to be reasonable, I acknowledge that with so many guns in the hands of otherwise petty criminals, you do need your own guns to protect yourselves at the moment, but I ask the members here who subscribe to the self defence justification for less gun regulation, are you proud of that need? Doesn't it make any of you just a little bit sad?
I'm proud to live in a country where freedom is valued for its own sake.

If you could snap your fingers and make Captain Picard force everyone to take a pill that would disable the parts of their brain that made them want to kill, would you enthusiastically do it? Or would you equivocate some excuse about wanting to stay human, warts and all?



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If Captain Picard rocked up and used the Enterprise to beam all the legal assault weapons and handguns into the heart of the sun, and say 90-95% of the illegal assault weapons and handguns at the same time, would they be in favour of that happening?
Leaving 100% of remaining guns with the criminals? Why would we want that?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm proud to live in a country where freedom is valued for its own sake.
If you could snap your fingers and make Captain Picard force everyone to take a pill that would disable the parts of their brain that made them want to kill, would you enthusiastically do it? Or would you equivocate some excuse about wanting to stay human, warts and all?
It wouldn't work, .1% of the population would turn into Reavers.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
In this particular case: yes, very likely.
How? The killer stole one of the guns (the bushmaster) which is against the law, carried it to a school zone which is against the law, broke into the school which is against the law, and killed children and adults which is against the law.
For the third time:

The guns weren't locked up, which was NOT against the law.
.

Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Countries in Europe with the higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of murder by gun:
7804/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Source of that data please?

A statistic in which 30% of German households have guns is complete fantasy. Or is that a statistic talking about how many of those KILLED had guns? In that case, the graphic does not mean what you appear to be claiming it does.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Texans are stopping multiple possible mass shootings? We're talking at movies, malls, or schools here?
How would I or anyone else know if they stopped a mass shooting if it never happened?

The Oregon shooting comes to mind.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20...uns-save-lives
In TX a lot more people would have guns in the mall and the shooter wouldn't get 60 rounds off...

Yes, it would have made the news. Crisis averted is the next best thing.
Well I guarantee it wouldn't have... One thing I find when traveling around is I hear local stories of massacres, shootings, murders etc. that happened long ago and never made national media coverage; thats where I came up with all that; but I guess that doesn't resonate with everyone here.

To put into perspective: In Houston someone got passed security at the airport with a loaded gun, the guy got caught before anyone got hurt. And it did NOT make the news... ( How many people do you think he would have had to shoot for it to make the news?). Now with me only telling you this, can you tell me whether a crisis was averted? Was a massacre averted? Was the death of just 4 people averted, was the death of 1 person averted; or did the guy not intend to kill anyone at all? What Im trying to say is we would never know in situations where the gunman was killed before any significant number of rounds got fired off.

I'm totally behind those pointing out that individuals with mental health issues have been behind a lot of these shootings. What I'm not hearing is any suggestions on how to address that point of failure either.
.
I gave you some idea how to address it. And here's another; when these psychos flat out say they're going to go on a killing spree how bout we take them seriously? That's much easier than banning guns at a national level. And for the ones that feel angry because bullies beat them up and made fun of them at school; how about just not beating on people? How about treating people with respect. If I whack a bees nest and end up dying of an allergic reaction I may not deserve it, but I had it coming, it's not the fault of the bees, and the situation was 100% avoidable on my part. The act of people killing peers, bullies, rivals etc they don't like at school is nothing new, hopefully we can all agree on that.

Maybe we should reach out more to people. 700,000 years of evolution programmed us to exist in tight knit communities with lots of personal relationships. Can anyone give me an example of one of these mass killings where the shooter had a lot of friends or maybe.... I should say ANY friends. Perhaps society now is alienating people to the point of driving them extra crazy. People weren't meant to exist in the nuclear family of 4 and no sense of community.
Whoops...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
I compared traffic deaths to massacres, not gun related deaths. After all, many gun related deaths are justifiable. Yet ALL car deaths are accidents, and there are simple low cost things we can do to stop road rage, confusion, and last minute lane changes resulting in accidents, while improving efficiency on the road for everyone.

It would be nice if the other side would admit that they're using suicides to falsely boost their statistics for gun violence. It's already been pointed out if you take away mr. suicides gun all you did was convert a gun death into a razor death.

An interesting read about gun stats in other countries.
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/...ship-what.html
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 08:27 PM
 
Oh. The chart is from the Guardian.

And it's apparently being passed around. I see that after a few days for the effect of twenty dead children, the NRA has their talking points back together.

There is a slight ("huge") difference between number of guns and number of gun owners.

If the number of homicides is so wonderfully low despite thirty percent of Germans owning guns (which is so ridiculous I really have no idea why anybody would dare bring it up), that is TESTAMENT TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GUN CONTROL LAWS.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 09:56 PM
 
A Canadian, who lives here in the South (works at my coffee shop), gave me a 5 minute speech about how dangerous it is here, with all the guns, and how she doesn't feel safe. I asked her, "Has anyone in this area ever been anything other than fair and decent with you?" "Not really." "Have you ever seen anyone draw a gun, firsthand?" "No." "Have you ever handled a gun?" "Hell no."

"Would you like to?"
*She pauses* "When?"
"Right now, no bullets, with supervision. It's perfectly safe."
"Well, uh, o-o'kay."

I drew my sidearm (Sig .357), removed the clip, unchambered the round, checked the breech, released the slide, made sure the safety was on, and carefully handed it to her. Her eyes were enormous. I taught her how to treat it with respect; never point the weapon unless you intend to shoot, how to grip, how to sight it, etc.. After a few minutes she handed it back.

"It's really heavy, but it's not what I thought."
"A gun is just a tool, like an ax. You can use an ax to chop wood for a fire, or you can bury it in someone's head."

Gave her something to think about, and a lesson in guns that's been a long time coming. It may save her life someday.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
A Canadian, who lives here in the South (works at my coffee shop), gave me a 5 minute speech about how dangerous it is here, with all the guns, and how she doesn't feel safe. I asked her, "Has anyone in this area ever been anything other than fair and decent with you?" "Not really." "Have you ever seen anyone draw a gun, firsthand?" "No." "Have you ever handled a gun?" "Hell no."
"Would you like to?"
*She pauses* "When?"
"Right now, no bullets, with supervision. It's perfectly safe."
"Well, uh, o-o'kay."
I drew my sidearm (Sig .357), removed the clip, unchambered the round, checked the breech, released the slide, made sure the safety was on, and carefully handed it to her. Her eyes were enormous. I taught her how to treat it with respect; never point the weapon unless you intend to shoot, how to grip, how to sight it, etc.. After a few minutes she handed it back.
"It's really heavy, but it's not what I thought."
"A gun is just a tool, like an ax. You can use an ax to chop wood for a fire, or you can bury it in someone's head."
Gave her something to think about, and a lesson in guns that's been a long time coming. It may save her life someday.
So she feels safe now that you gave her a gun lesson? I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Our feeling of safety is a state of mind. Sometimes there are real threats, sometimes there are imagined threats. It's those that imagine threats conjured up by weird paranoia that worry me the most. Would you want to be anywhere near Abe shortly after the election?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post

I'm proud to live in a country where freedom is valued for its own sake.
This whole concept that we have freedom and that more freedom betters society is a fantasy.

We do not have freedom, we have relative freedom, but in some states we cannot buy alcohol on a Sunday, so at times we need to keep a sober perspective on that level of freedom. Let's not get started on seatbelt laws, pot smoking, etc.

As far as it bettering society, for every person that feels warm and fuzzy about some level of freedom there is almost always some dumb schmuck ruining it for others by doing something stupid, and this is never going to change. The reason for seatbelt laws and everything else in my expandable list relates to said dumb shmucks, so as a society we acknowledge this, but we hang onto this delusional fantasy that those dumb shmucks are only going to be dumb in certain ways.

A great amount of gun related crimes no doubt involve people getting drunk, and people doing stupid things. I'm sorry, but this idea that dumb liquored up people should have assault rifles does not fly with me. Let's face it, we live in a society built around those dumb shmucks, which make statements about how you or person x are responsible gun owners or responsible anything virtually moot.

Never underestimate the dumb shmucks.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 10:22 PM
 
And if you don't like my use of the words "dumb schmuck" substitute "mentally ill", "emotionally unhinged", or whatever you want - I'm basically depicting your generic sort of person you would feel uncomfortable with this particular freedom.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 10:32 PM
 
No, she's not as scared as she was, because her fear is unfounded. The gun control push right now is reflex, largely fed by those who believe that a gun can magically animate and start killing people. That it's somehow, in and of itself, an evil thing. It isn't, they aren't. Once you get them to confront that Boogieman, they can begin to look at things rationally.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2012, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, she's not as scared as she was, because her fear is unfounded. The gun control push right now is reflex, largely fed by those who believe that a gun can magically animate and start killing people. That it's somehow, in and of itself, an evil thing. It isn't, they aren't. Once you get them to confront that Boogieman, they can begin to look at things rationally.
I agree with that completely, the reaction is very reflexive, and the tools themselves do not kill. Still, often times these sorts of gun incidents are also reflexive and based on fear (often influenced by alcohol, from what I understand too). We should keep guns away from anybody that would use them in a reflexive and fear driven state of mind. If there was a perfectly effective system for background screening I would say let the right people have bazookas for all I care, but there isn't, so therefore it would do society a greater good to draw down on the quantity of guns out there that are as easily obtainable as they are.

People are emotionally unhinged/mentally ill/mentally incapacitated/drunk/dumb/whatever
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, she's not as scared as she was, because her fear is unfounded. The gun control push right now is reflex, largely fed by those who believe that a gun can magically animate and start killing people. That it's somehow, in and of itself, an evil thing. It isn't, they aren't. Once you get them to confront that Boogieman, they can begin to look at things rationally.
That's a pointless, if charming, anecdote, because it doesn't affect or address the matter of mass shootings in the United States.

Unless you truly are advocating that everybody needs to be armed in order to prevent gun deaths. Which I'm aware is actually being argued, but which is so obviously insane that I'm not going to address it here (you being a reasonable man in general).

People generally feel a lot safer with cars after getting driving lessons.
It's still a good idea to have laws governing their use.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 01:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That's a pointless, if charming, anecdote, because it doesn't affect or address the matter of mass shootings in the United States.
Unless you truly are advocating that everybody needs to be armed in order to prevent gun deaths. Which I'm aware is actually being argued, but which is so obviously insane that I'm not going to address it here (you being a reasonable man in general).
People generally feel a lot safer with cars after getting driving lessons.
It's still a good idea to have laws governing their use.
No, I'm advocating that everyone in the USA needs firearms education. I went through a gun safety course at 8, but I was already hunting with my dad at 7. People typically fear what's unfamiliar. I'm as comfortable with a gun as most people are a TV remote.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm proud to live in a country where freedom is valued for its own sake.
If you could snap your fingers and make Captain Picard force everyone to take a pill that would disable the parts of their brain that made them want to kill, would you enthusiastically do it? Or would you equivocate some excuse about wanting to stay human, warts and all?
You've avoided the question entirely.
In the interest of not avoiding yours, if the magic pill has no other side effects it sounds like a good idea. I'd probably prefer a slightly less invasive one that simply made you stop and question your desires to kill more thoroughly before acting on them.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Leaving 100% of remaining guns with the criminals? Why would we want that?
Thats how it is in countries with low gun murder rates.
Did I need to spell out that the police get to keep their guns?

As the pro-gun lobby is keen to point out, some criminals will find a way to kill if they really want to. You can't prevent every murder, but is that a reason not to try and present some when there are fairly obvious steps you could at least try in order to do so?
Don't bring up Chicago as a testbed, I've never been there, but I suspect its very simple to get weapons from a neighbouring city or state into the middle of town if you want to, a local gun ban in a place surrounded by easy access to guns a car ride away is not a useful test.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 02:05 AM
 
nvr mind
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 04:08 AM
 
This is interesting:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 04:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So she feels safe now that you gave her a gun lesson? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Actually, you do
It's right here:
Our feeling of safety is a state of mind. Sometimes there are real threats, sometimes there are imagined threats. It's those that imagine threats conjured up by weird paranoia that worry me the most.
Her paranoia and worry was an imagined threat, just like yours. Shaddim helped to dispel the fog in her brain, even if only temporarily, so she could see how out of proportion she had blown the real threat. I reckon you would benefit from someone doing the same for you.

Have you ever touched a gun first-hand, besson, or seen one used in a crime?



Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
[QUOTE name="Uncle Skeleton" url="/t/496084/connecticut-every-day-is-the-day-to-talk-about-gun-control/250#post_4207851"]
I'm proud to live in a country where freedom is valued for its own sake.

 

This whole concept that we have freedom and that more freedom betters society is a fantasy.[/quote]
I disagree. Why did you move here then? I believe that what freedoms we do have remaining are what contributes to the more engaging and vibrant society that we enjoy and that draws people like you to immigrate.

We do not have freedom, we have relative freedom, but in some states we cannot buy alcohol on a Sunday, so at times we need to keep a sober perspective on that level of freedom. Let's not get started on seatbelt laws, pot smoking, etc.
It's true, our grasp on freedom is incomplete. All the more reason to fight further erosion of it. (edit: I also support reversing any of those restrictions on our freedom that you listed)

As far as it bettering society, for every person that feels warm and fuzzy about some level of freedom there is almost always some dumb schmuck ruining it for others by doing something stupid, and this is never going to change. The reason for seatbelt laws and everything else in my expandable list relates to said dumb shmucks, so as a society we acknowledge this, but we hang onto this delusional fantasy that those dumb shmucks are only going to be dumb in certain ways.

A great amount of gun related crimes no doubt involve people getting drunk, and people doing stupid things. I'm sorry, but this idea that dumb liquored up people should have assault rifles does not fly with me. Let's face it, we live in a society built around those dumb shmucks, which make statements about how you or person x are responsible gun owners or responsible anything virtually moot.
Your obsession with the extreme minority at the expense of the vast vast majority is nothing more than weird paranoia over imagined threats. In reality, the number of people injured or killed by spree shooters among the population is vanishingly small. It's barely above measurement noise. It is still tragic, but it doesn't represent a legitimate threat to any particular person. It is blown way out of proportion by paranoid people like yourself.

Never underestimate the dumb shmucks.
That's why I keep responding to you, even though this is now the 4th time I've repeated the point about your blatant hypocrisy, yet you never bothered to address it. I'll keep responding to this dumb shmuck as long as he keeps repeating his error.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 04:31 AM
 
my fault, my finger stuttered
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

There are many paranoid and fearful Americans out there, I don't really know what keeps this fueled and how it can be stopped.
See, there's the Kool Aid right there! People who want to keep their gun right are "paranoid and fearful." That type of stereotyping helps.

What keeps it fueled? 1) experience, 2) reality, 3) a sense of responsibility for one's own safety.

What can stop it? Nothing. It will always be there. More gun control laws and useless rhetoric just prove the point of all of those folks who fear the government.

When the gun grabbers are willing to put sign in their front yards saying "No guns here" then I'll be willing to talk about laws that keep them from owning guns.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 04:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm proud to live in a country where freedom is valued for its own sake.
If you could snap your fingers and make Captain Picard force everyone to take a pill that would disable the parts of their brain that made them want to kill, would you enthusiastically do it? Or would you equivocate some excuse about wanting to stay human, warts and all?
You've avoided the question entirely.
In the interest of not avoiding yours, if the magic pill has no other side effects it sounds like a good idea. I'd probably prefer a slightly less invasive one that simply made you stop and question your desires to kill more thoroughly before acting on them.
See I wouldn't. I shudder at the thought of giving up our free will to all become mindless sedated automatons. And even though you don't, you still would rather neuter the intervention in order to hold on to your free will, just as no doubt your facebook friend-bots would rather neuter your hypothetical by retaining control somehow.

As I said before, control is what it's all about, on both sides of the over-reaction spectrum. You gun-phobes are made to feel out of control when someone does a spree killing, and meanwhile the gun-philes feel out of control at the thought of not being able to do anything if something as unlikely as a spree killing happened to them. And neither can abide that feeling of lack of control, regardless of how unlikely it is to ever directly affect them.

Why didn't you just ask them if it was possible to take the criminals' guns away, full stop? Good guys keep theirs, we stop about 12,000 gun deaths per year, but the spree killers remain (what is that, like 100 deaths per year?). Don't bother answering, I already know why you didn't ask that. It's because you don't care about the number of deaths prevented, you only care about..... wait for it.... control. I'm not like that, I only want to reduce (innocent) deaths, and if I can do that without robbing someone of what little control they have over their lives, then so much the better. (I'm not saying your facebook friends are the same as me, it's just that my perspective is all you get for asking me the question )


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Leaving 100% of remaining guns with the criminals? Why would we want that?
Thats how it is in countries with low gun murder rates.
Did I need to spell out that the police get to keep their guns?
It's just a fantasy, you admitted as much, so I don't see any way I could have inferred that. And I thought I heard here that police in Britain don't even carry guns?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 05:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post

Actually, you do
It's right here:
Her paranoia and worry was an imagined threat, just like yours. Shaddim helped to dispel the fog in her brain, even if only temporarily, so she could see how out of proportion she had blown the real threat. I reckon you would benefit from someone doing the same for you.
Have you ever touched a gun first-hand, besson, or seen one used in a crime?
I disagree. Why did you move here then? I believe that what freedoms we do have remaining are what contributes to the more engaging and vibrant society that we enjoy and that draws people like you to immigrate.
It's true, our grasp on freedom is incomplete. All the more reason to fight further erosion of it. (edit: I also support reversing any of those restrictions on our freedom that you listed)
Your obsession with the extreme minority at the expense of the vast vast majority is nothing more than weird paranoia over imagined threats. In reality, the number of people injured or killed by spree shooters among the population is vanishingly small. It's barely above measurement noise. It is still tragic, but it doesn't represent a legitimate threat to any particular person. It is blown way out of proportion by paranoid people like yourself.
That's why I keep responding to you, even though this is now the 4th time I've repeated the point about your blatant hypocrisy, yet you never bothered to address it. I'll keep responding to this dumb shmuck as long as he keeps repeating his error.
I have touched a gun first-hand, although I don't see how that is relevant.

My reasons for moving here had absolutely zero to do with guns or "freedom".

As far as calling me a dumb schmuck, Shaddim, are you going to report Skeleton?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 05:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post

See, there's the Kool Aid right there! People who want to keep their gun right are "paranoid and fearful." That type of stereotyping helps.
What keeps it fueled? 1) experience, 2) reality, 3) a sense of responsibility for one's own safety.
What can stop it? Nothing. It will always be there. More gun control laws and useless rhetoric just prove the point of all of those folks who fear the government.
When the gun grabbers are willing to put sign in their front yards saying "No guns here" then I'll be willing to talk about laws that keep them from owning guns.
I didn't say that everyone that wants to keep their gun rights are paranoid and fearful. A subset are.

Just like a subset of those people have legitimate safety concerns, or legitimate experience to draw from. It's simply human nature to assess threats differently, and for some of those assessments to be inaccurate.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 05:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I have touched a gun first-hand, although I don't see how that is relevant.
Your culture of fear and paranoia over the gun threat is fueled mostly by hype. It is relevant how much of this fear is based on reality, and how much on hype. What was so scary about your personal gun experience? Maybe I have something to learn from it.


My reasons for moving here had absolutely zero to do with guns or "freedom".
That you know of


As far as calling me a dumb schmuck, Shaddim, are you going to report Skeleton? 
Your words, dude. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 05:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
As I said before, control is what it's all about, on both sides of the over-reaction spectrum. You gun-phobes are made to feel out of control when someone does a spree killing, and meanwhile the gun-philes feel out of control at the thought of not being able to do anything if something as unlikely as a spree killing happened to them. And neither can abide that feeling of lack of control, regardless of how unlikely it is to ever directly affect them.
I don't feel out of control. I'm in control of myself which is all I can really hope to be but I certainly don't trust everyone else to maintain control of themselves as the evidence shows they clearly cannot.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Why didn't you just ask them if it was possible to take the criminals' guns away, full stop? Good guys keep theirs, we stop about 12,000 gun deaths per year, but the spree killers remain (what is that, like 100 deaths per year?). Don't bother answering, I already know why you didn't ask that. It's because you don't care about the number of deaths prevented, you only care about..... wait for it.... control. I'm not like that, I only want to reduce (innocent) deaths, and if I can do that without robbing someone of what little control they have over their lives, then so much the better. (I'm not saying your facebook friends are the same as me, it's just that my perspective is all you get for asking me the question )
It's just a fantasy, you admitted as much, so I don't see any way I could have inferred that. And I thought I heard here that police in Britain don't even carry guns?
Worth stating that these people were not my friends. I didn't ask that question because I don't believe for one second that leaving guns in the hands of legal owners would stop these spree killings and the evidence fully supports me on this. The vast majority of recent sprees have been performed with legally purchased and owned guns. Your version of the hypotheticals might well cut down on armed robberies and invasion killings for a week or two, but ultimately those criminals who are going to commit crimes come hell or high water will sooner or later steal those legal guns from people or buy them off-book and the crazies will still grab them from their parent's cupboards and go and shoot up schools. Therefore your version saves very lives innocent or otherwise, my way saves a lot of lives, innocent or not and we both know Jesus would approve of that.
Your assertion that I just care about control is laughable. I don't live in the US and in the UK I don't live in fear of gun crime. The only reason I would care is because of the senseless waste of life that continues to happen while you lot have ridiculous debates that the civilised world have been showing you the correct answers to for years now.

British police don't carry sidearms as a rule. We have armed response units and many officers do carry guns in their vehicles. Airport police also tend to carry H&K MP4s or similar. My bad for not spelling it out, I know a lot of people tend to think in absolute terms in the gun debate, all or nothing but like I say I don't think the police should be deprived of guns where needed and rifles and shotguns are tools for hunting and animal population control.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 06:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

This whole concept that we have freedom and that more freedom betters society is a fantasy.

....

Never underestimate the dumb shmucks.
Oh the irony.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 06:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Why didn't you just ask them if it was possible to take the criminals' guns away, full stop? Good guys keep theirs, we stop about 12,000 gun deaths per year, but the spree killers remain (what is that, like 100 deaths per year?). Don't bother answering, I already know why you didn't ask that. It's because you don't care about the number of deaths prevented, you only care about..... wait for it.... control. I'm not like that, I only want to reduce (innocent) deaths, and if I can do that without robbing someone of what little control they have over their lives, then so much the better. (I'm not saying your facebook friends are the same as me, it's just that my perspective is all you get for asking me the question )
It's just a fantasy, you admitted as much, so I don't see any way I could have inferred that. And I thought I heard here that police in Britain don't even carry guns?
I didn't ask that question because I don't believe for one second that leaving guns in the hands of legal owners would stop these spree killings and the evidence fully supports me on this.
That's exactly what I said. You are focused on 100 deaths a year while 10,000 more slip by unnoticed. [/pats self on back]

but ultimately those criminals who are going to commit crimes come hell or high water will sooner or later steal those legal guns
Unsurprisingly, your pure fantasy has reality leaking back in again, but only in just the right ways to fit your preconceptions. That might be why you didn't get any bites earlier, this sort of "adaptive hypothetical" is predictable.

Your assertion that I just care about control is laughable. I don't live in the US and in the UK I don't live in fear of gun crime.
Exactly. Your side of the control imbalance is winning over there, and that's why you feel more in control. It probably doesn't interest you, but the gun-o-philes would laugh too if you suggested they care about control, because well, they have it, same as you. Their addiction is satiated. No one admits they're hooked when they're getting their fix.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 06:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't feel out of control. I'm in control of myself which is all I can really hope to be but I certainly don't trust everyone else to maintain control of themselves as the evidence shows they clearly cannot.
Worth stating that these people were not my friends. I didn't ask that question because I don't believe for one second that leaving guns in the hands of legal owners would stop these spree killings and the evidence fully supports me on this. The vast majority of recent sprees have been performed with legally purchased and owned guns. Your version of the hypotheticals might well cut down on armed robberies and invasion killings for a week or two, but ultimately those criminals who are going to commit crimes come hell or high water will sooner or later steal those legal guns from people or buy them off-book and the crazies will still grab them from their parent's cupboards and go and shoot up schools. Therefore your version saves very lives innocent or otherwise, my way saves a lot of lives, innocent or not and we both know Jesus would approve of that.
Your assertion that I just care about control is laughable. I don't live in the US and in the UK I don't live in fear of gun crime. The only reason I would care is because of the senseless waste of life that continues to happen while you lot have ridiculous debates that the civilised world have been showing you the correct answers to for years now.
British police don't carry sidearms as a rule. We have armed response units and many officers do carry guns in their vehicles. Airport police also tend to carry H&K MP4s or similar. My bad for not spelling it out, I know a lot of people tend to think in absolute terms in the gun debate, all or nothing but like I say I don't think the police should be deprived of guns where needed and rifles and shotguns are tools for hunting and animal population control.
Thats funny, I don't live in fear of mass spree killers either, considering that I have a better chance of winning the Powerball for half a billion dollars than be a victim of a spree shooter. I also have a higher chance of dying from a drunk driver, careless driver, lightning strike, or a deadly fart.

The paranoia that these events creates is astounding. It is an extremely tragic event. But the place to look is securing our schools, being vigilant for signs of someone on the edge, not making a sweeping cultural change that will adversely affect millions of people.

How was he able to gain access to the school? What would have stopped him from using bombs? What would have stopped him from obtaining the guns illegally?

Pot is illegal in my state and federally. It is easier to buy pot where I live than it is to buy a gun. Waaayyyyyyy easier. How would a round of bans stop the flow of illegal weapons to the US? Especially with our porous border down south?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 07:31 AM
 
I apologize but I don't have the energy (or the mental will) to continue the discussions today. Just a few passing comments.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll be the voice of unreason here.
This is adding several dozen new points of failure to something which needs to work when you use it.
My engineer side cringes at the thought. You couldn't pay me enough to open myself up to that sort of liability.
My first thought would be people would object because a father would want his son to be able to defend the family should he be incapacitated.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Obviously it should be subsidized by government; it would be way cheaper than enforcement of the crimes averted, the cost of stolen property (guns) averted, and of course the value of human lives. I know no one has got on board with this objection yet, but why wait
Read my mind.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And I thought I heard here that police in Britain don't even carry guns?
That was the impression I was under as well. Imagine my surprise when I watched Luther (a british show) and guns didn't feel much less prevalent (among police or criminals) than your typical American show.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
My first thought would be people would object because a father would want his son to be able to defend the family should he be incapacitated.
Yeah I was thinking about that problem too. Part of my idea that hasn't been mentioned in the "smart gun" articles is that we could go so far as to only allow the state (or agents thereof) to set access. OAW could have his wife authorized (assuming she passes the background check), but kids and other mentally underdeveloped individuals would not be allowed to be on the weapon's authorized user list (preventing most school shootings), and this would be administered by official standards, not by a gun enthusiast parent's best judgement. This still leaves open the situation you describe. One solution would be kid guns for kid users. Jr could have a .22 rifle in case he needs to defend the homestead, and graduate to scarier weapons as the law permits, perhaps tied to training classes. Such a law would be unenforceable without the technological access controls first, which is why I wouldn't consider suggesting it on its own.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2012, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post



Source of that data please?
Harvard Journal of Law and public policy, New York Times...

Am I missing something...
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2