[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I must admit, I've built up enough rage reading some of your posts that I would've fired a gun if it was closely available

Oddly, reading your posts only makes me want to put gravy on my fries.

Add dressing as well, and you're all set!

[subego]

I have to wear clothes?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Chips, dressing and gravy. Yes, like the dressing you'd put in your turkey.

It's a bit of a local dish......our version of the poutine, if you will.

[subego]

I don't care. The pants are coming off!

[The Final Dakar]

Wait, Canadians call fries chips, too?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yep in some areas. Along with who though...?

[The Final Dakar]

Teh Brits

[mattyb]

Are they French Fries or is that still banned?

[The Final Dakar]

We call them potato dildos now.

[mattyb]

You have too much free time at work.

[mattyb]

You have too much free time at work.

[mattyb]

Oh dear.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK, So show the facts and data to prove your idiotic assumptions.

Really? While I am at it, would you also like to produce the facts and figures that prove that 1+1=2?

[subego]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Oh dear.

See? I wasn't making this up.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Originally Posted by Phileas 

You keep telling yourself that. It's just a shame that reality paints a very different picture.

OK, So show the facts and data to prove your idiotic assumptions.

Reality doesn't get involved in internet arguments. It's far too busy dishing out consequences.

THE ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.
"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all of those features that you all said."

"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

Unlike other animals, humans use their vast intellect (lol) to rationalise the snap decisions their lizard brains make. Lions don't have this problem. You don't see lions sitting under trees arguing that they're carnivorous because it's the only way to maintain their status as the top of the food chain and they are maintaining a stable ecosystem, thereby doing the savannah a huge favour. No. Lions just think gazelles are incredibly tasty.

To be fair, lions have never had to justify their behaviour because no-one has ever called them on it.

"All this bloodshed! Explain yourself!"

Lion: "Err..."

Humans on the other hand can justify anything. It's a large part of the function of the human brain. They can justify why they're politically left or right (and why the other half of the population is batshit insane), they can justify why they do drugs (I could quit), drink too much (I could quit), enjoy muppet porn (I could quit), get road rage, watch Sex and the City, eradicate Jews, be pro or anti-guns... or why it's a jolly good idea to get a gun and shoot up a freakin primary school. All justified by a human brain.

And all of their justifications are right, damnit.

Surprisingly, each of the 8 billion humans currently on the planet Earth* confidently believe that whatever goes on inside their own gelatinous brain is "reality". It isn't until they open their mouths and let their thoughts fall out that their "realities" collide. A whole alternate universe, sitting right next to you on the bus.

Meanwhile, the real Reality (slogan: Accept no substitutes) continues to not give one single shit what we "think". "Thinking" is getting in the car and programming the GPS. Reality is the destination. It looks a lot like a brick wall.

"You have arrived at Reality".

[gets out of car. looks around. this isn't where I wanted to be]

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, "Men are flat." After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.

So guns eh? My suggestion is that you can have any gun you like, but it can only shoot paint balls. There are several advantages:

Fauna would be more colourful. The rainbow-hued deer of Kentucky could be a huge boon for tourism.
Mass shootings would become Surprise Clown Parties.
...

I could go on, but I think we all agree I probably shouldn't.



* "Earth" thought the planet. "I don't like that name. Seems a little... underwhelming. Better than Dirt I suppose, but you'd think being a planet would get you a little more respect". The planet sighed. "They don't call my star "Yellow" or "Hot" do they? No. It's all "Behold the mighty Sun". Wankers."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Is no one else aware that these are exceptionally difficult times for everyone? That increased stresses in society tend to lead to more antisocial behavior? And that the sudden increase in violent behavior this year has coincided with the most chaotic social and economic situations we've experienced in many years? It's not about guns, it's about the fact that people who need help with mental issues do not get that help (we don't like to pay for that sort of thing with tax dollars), and failing to help such people leads them to break down.
A lot of comparisons have been made with other countries where "this sort of thing just doesn't happen.' No, it doesn't. But the U.S. is the most non-homogenous society in the world, whereas other countries are much more socially uniform. Comparing us to Switzerland? Come on! The Swiss are a very tight, very uniform community; of course they don't have the kinds of stresses our very fractured, very disparate society has. And the Swiss have some very significant other things going for them, such as compulsory military training, which further ingrains a social identity and a sense of social responsibility. Put together the social chaos we have, and the very much non-uniform society we have, and you have a very difficult setting for anyone to deal with. What does a person who has difficulty dealing with "normal" social issues do when overwhelmed by all this chaos? Pretty typically, he breaks down, one way or another.
Finally, all these calls for new and very strict controls on who can possess and purchase what kinds of firearms and firearm-related items are a good starting point. But it wasn't the gun that took all those lives in Connecticut, it was the guy holding it. As has been stated earlier, no firearm has ever jumped up and done anything on its own, any more than an electric drill or can opener has. In the Virginia Tech tragedy, it was the Commonwealth of Virginia that failed by not ensuring that a person with severe mental issues and who was a significant threat to the community was not flagged as having been diagnosed as such, which allowed him to purchase firearms over the counter. If the Connecticut guy got these guns from his home, then why weren't those firearms secured to keep them out of his hands? Connecticut already has some significantly restrictive gun control laws; laws that did not keep this from happening. Laws do not seem to prevent lawless behavior anywhere. But maybe we do need laws that make the law abiding community aware of risks in society and that put the onus of controlling access to firearms on those law abiding owners.
I am strongly opposed to giving the shooter less responsibility for this crime with the thought that "if there weren't so many guns out there this would have been harder to pull off." From what I've read, this guy was very meticulous in his planning and went to a lot of trouble to arrange his actions and to get his hands on weapons (including handguns which federal law already prohibits persons under 21 from possessing without direct supervision), so stronger laws may have delayed the rampage by a bit, but they certainly wouldn't have stopped it.

Why are gun-related crime rates in Toronto (a very culturally diverse city) much lower than similarly sized US cities then?

I get your point, but why can't the problem be *both* gun control and lacking mental health?

[subego]

Local cultural diversity is not the same as countrywide diversity.

[Face Ache]

Cultural diversity? Is it Somalian warlords who are going nuts in Smalltown, America?

Something smells fishy. Could it be this large mound of red herrings?

Many people with guns would like the issue to NOT be guns, but the issue is guns.

7809/[/IMG]

"Sssssomebody stop me!"

[subego]

Did I say "cultural diversity"?

I meant institutionalized, racially motivated poverty.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did I say "cultural diversity"?
I meant institutionalized, racially motivated poverty.

Don't forget to add government sponsored to that.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are gun-related crime rates in Toronto (a very culturally diverse city) much lower than similarly sized US cities then?

I get your point, but why can't the problem be *both* gun control and lacking mental health?

The rates of gun related violence in Toronto are rising, from what I've seen in the news. It isn't just a U.S. problem. And let's see what else is different about Toronto... it is culturally diverse and has increasing levels of conflict between cultural groups. Increases that have been seen since the international financial crises of the last several years. Further, let's look at what happened in the UK when, after emotionally reacting to a horrific school shooting in Scotland, nearly all private firearms ownership was banned: criminals have taken to using other weapons, including swords and kitchen cutlery. In fact there are now (at least in work) controls on what kind of kitchen knives one can own because a criminal might use them... But the rates of violent crime in the UK seem to also be climbing, despite all of these controls.

There is nothing inherently "bad" about any inanimate object. It is entirely what a human does with it that makes it seem good or bad. Using a pneumatic nail gun to build a Habitat for Humanity home is "good," but using that same nail gun to attack your coworker is "bad", right? And before anyone says "but what about how much damage you can do with a gun?!!?!?!?!" let's talk about that ton+ mass of metal that rolls down the street under the "control" of idiots texting, applying makeup and eating a double burger with special sauce. At the same time. People have used automobiles to commit assaults, whether intentionally or accidentally (drunk, stupid or both) rather frequently, yet nobody even mentions "car control" to prevent such things as driving through a school bus stop and crushing numerous kids (read the news of this past year for an example).

ANY action against kids is reprehensible, abhorrent, and unacceptable. But before we emotionally react to one event, or even a number of them, let's look at where we might get the most useful effect, where we might save the most lives. Individual responsibility for things like child care is a good start. Here in San Antonio, we have what might be called an epidemic of "murder by boyfriend," where working moms leave their children in the "care" of their (not the father) unemployed live in boyfriends, and all too often the boyfriend demonstrates a lack of patience and maturity to the point where he violently reacts to what are normal child and baby behaviors, attacking the child and frequently causing the child's death. Yeah, "he cried too much" so the jerk beats the baby to death... Is that a mental health issue, a child care issue, or something else?

Gun control makes sense where a) it will be effective, and b) where it will be the least restrictive on the overwhelming majority of citizens who are completely law abiding. So far, no law has been suggested that will fit a) above, in large part because people with criminal intent seldom pay attention to laws. There ARE laws in place in Connecticut to limit magazine sizes - which failed here - and federal laws that prohibit persons under 21 from having unsupervised access to handguns - which again failed here. Further, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 failed miserably at preventing crime. There were even more deadly assaults during the '94-'04 ban than the one in Connecticut (see this Washington Post graphic for some numbers), and it can be argued that there had been little evidence of a propensity to use "assault weapons" in violent crime prior to 1994 to begin with. How could banning "separate pistol grip" and "removable muzzle device" features have prevented such crimes? (The 1994 AWB was a quilt made of feel good and worthlessness, all about show and nothing about fact.) And again, laws about access to guns impact people who obey laws, not people who ignore laws.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The rates of gun related violence in Toronto are rising, from what I've seen in the news.

Glenn, I would think someone of your knowledge and background would know different than to make this sort of statement.

It isn't just a U.S. problem.

Keep in mind that the majority (perhaps the vast majority) of illegal weapons (or weapons illegally used) in Canada come from the US. It certainly "just isn't a U.S. problem"....

And let's see what else is different about Toronto... it is culturally diverse and has increasing levels of conflict between cultural groups. Increases that have been seen since the international financial crises of the last several years.

I honestly don't know what the financial crisis has to do with it.

On the other hand, the vast majority of gun-related violence in Toronto is from gang-related violence in the traditionally poorer neighbourhoods/areas. Sound familiar?

[Waragainstsleep]

The answer to "Guns don't kill people" and "Guns are only tools" is so painfully simple but I'll spell it out again.

You can wheel out all the analogies you want with cars and nail guns, but you can't drive to work in a gun and you can't build a house with gun. A hunting rifle is a tool with which to hunt. Handguns and machine guns are tools for killing people. Responsible hunters wouldn't shoot deer with a M16 on full auto, or with a handgun (unless you just winged it with a rifle and you are putting it down humanely - Vets are among the few people in the UK still allowed to keep a hand gun for putting down large animals).

Can we stop with this tired and feeble excuse now please?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The rates of gun related violence in Toronto are rising, from what I've seen in the news.

The opposite is true. 2011 saw the lowest murder rate since 1986, a total of 45. Most of these were gang related. Crime rates, including gun crimes, have been dropping across Canada for the last 20 years. Dropping.



Every single member of the NRA carries part of the responsibility for recent events. Not for condoning, not for committing, but for enabling.

[The Final Dakar]

Man, Huddler is so bad its affecting gh's posts. This is unacceptable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The rates of gun related violence in Toronto are rising, from what I've seen in the news. It isn't just a U.S. problem. And let's see what else is different about Toronto... it is culturally diverse and has increasing levels of conflict between cultural groups. Increases that have been seen since the international financial crises of the last several years. Further, let's look at what happened in the UK when, after emotionally reacting to a horrific school shooting in Scotland, nearly all private firearms ownership was banned: criminals have taken to using other weapons, including swords and kitchen cutlery. In fact there are now (at least in work) controls on what kind of kitchen knives one can own because a criminal might use them... But the rates of violent crime in the UK seem to also be climbing, despite all of these controls.
There is nothing inherently "bad" about any inanimate object. It is entirely what a human does with it that makes it seem good or bad. Using a pneumatic nail gun to build a Habitat for Humanity home is "good," but using that same nail gun to attack your coworker is "bad", right? And before anyone says "but what about how much damage you can do with a gun?!!?!?!?!" let's talk about that ton+ mass of metal that rolls down the street under the "control" of idiots texting, applying makeup and eating a double burger with special sauce. At the same time. People have used automobiles to commit assaults, whether intentionally or accidentally (drunk, stupid or both) rather frequently, yet nobody even mentions "car control" to prevent such things as driving through a school bus stop and crushing numerous kids (read the news of this past year for an example).
ANY action against kids is reprehensible, abhorrent, and unacceptable. But before we emotionally react to one event, or even a number of them, let's look at where we might get the most useful effect, where we might save the most lives. Individual responsibility for things like child care is a good start. Here in San Antonio, we have what might be called an epidemic of "murder by boyfriend," where working moms leave their children in the "care" of their (not the father) unemployed live in boyfriends, and all too often the boyfriend demonstrates a lack of patience and maturity to the point where he violently reacts to what are normal child and baby behaviors, attacking the child and frequently causing the child's death. Yeah, "he cried too much" so the jerk beats the baby to death... Is that a mental health issue, a child care issue, or something else?
Gun control makes sense where a) it will be effective, and b) where it will be the least restrictive on the overwhelming majority of citizens who are completely law abiding. So far, no law has been suggested that will fit a) above, in large part because people with criminal intent seldom pay attention to laws. There ARE laws in place in Connecticut to limit magazine sizes - which failed here - and federal laws that prohibit persons under 21 from having unsupervised access to handguns - which again failed here. Further, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 failed miserably at preventing crime. There were even more deadly assaults during the '94-'04 ban than the one in Connecticut (see this Washington Post graphic for some numbers), and it can be argued that there had been little evidence of a propensity to use "assault weapons" in violent crime prior to 1994 to begin with. How could banning "separate pistol grip" and "removable muzzle device" features have prevented such crimes? (The 1994 AWB was a quilt made of feel good and worthlessness, all about show and nothing about fact.) And again, laws about access to guns impact people who obey laws, not people who ignore laws.

The bit about Toronto here is quite wrong.

Look at the table Moncton posted. Compare that to a similar sized city, say Chicago. Yes, Chicago is similarly sized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_cities_by_population

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/29/435th-homicide-equals-total-for-all-of-last-year/

435 homicides this year in Chicago, presumably most of them gun related. I was able to find a site that said there were over 5000 gun fatalities since 2001, meaning this year was about the median if you divide 5000 by 11.

The numbers might be skewed in not separating gun fatalities vs. homicides, and the Chicago numbers might be the Greater Chicago Area rather than just the city itself, which is larger than the Greater Toronto Area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_metropolitan_areas_by_popul ation

So, the Greater Chicago area is 56% bigger. Let's take 56% off the 435, that makes it 192. Let's say that 50 of these were not gun related, which is probably generous - 142. This means that best possible case scenario you are looking at around 12 deaths a month - Toronto 3. This is in a year where the Eaton Centre shooting occurred.

So, no.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

The opposite is true. 2011 saw the lowest murder rate since 1986, a total of 45. Most of these were gang related. Crime rates, including gun crimes, have been dropping across Canada for the last 20 years. Dropping.
Every single member of the NRA carries part of the responsibility for recent events. Not for condoning, not for committing, but for enabling.

Let's not forget those 32 gun deaths probably include the Eaton Centre shooting, which is a rare thing to have happened.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Let's not forget those 32 gun deaths probably include the Eaton Centre shooting, which is a rare thing to have happened.

And the Newtown shooting wasn't?

[mattyb]

Probaby have already seen this : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Uh, a lot of this doesn't make sense. Do you have a source?
I mean, can you make captain in 2 years? Otherwise, requiring both 2 years and captain rank is utterly redundant. It's like someone said "you can't do that unless you're a doctor and have at least two years of schooling," when doctors obviously require more than two years of school to become a doctor at all.
And what service other than the military has colonel ranks?
The very first Google link for "Israeli gun laws" gives http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/israel which says "The minimum age for gun ownership in Israel is 27 years and 21 years if served in the military," which clearly means you don't need military service to own a gun. (I don't know if that site is credible.)

I heard about it on the radio, I got the details wrong. You had to have been a Captain for at least 2 years (not just be in the military for 2 years) or a Lieutenant Colonel. Civilians can own one if they're of an equivalent rank in a security organization. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the below news group, though.

Originally Posted by JTA.org

Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24/3101546/despite-militarized-society-israels-strict-gun-laws-keep-civilian-violence-down

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Man, Huddler is so bad its affecting gh's posts. This is unacceptable.

Banhammer the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

criminals have taken to using other weapons, including swords and kitchen cutlery.

The beauty of the spork as a fighting weapon is that you can stab someone in the eye and scoop it out at the same time.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There is nothing inherently "bad" about any inanimate object.

I'll let Iran know their nuclear program is back on.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The bit about Toronto here is quite wrong.

Look at the table Moncton posted. Compare that to a similar sized city, say Chicago. Yes, Chicago is similarly sized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...-of-last-year/

435 homicides this year in Chicago, presumably most of them gun related. I was able to find a site that said there were over 5000 gun fatalities since 2001, meaning this year was about the median if you divide 5000 by 11.

The numbers might be skewed in not separating gun fatalities vs. homicides, and the Chicago numbers might be the Greater Chicago Area rather than just the city itself, which is larger than the Greater Toronto Area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

So, the Greater Chicago area is 56% bigger. Let's take 56% off the 435, that makes it 192. Let's say that 50 of these were not gun related, which is probably generous - 142. This means that best possible case scenario you are looking at around 12 deaths a month - Toronto 3. This is in a year where the Eaton Centre shooting occurred.

So, no.

I didn't say Toronto was comparable, just that it was becoming more violent - and seeing more violence committed by people using guns.

Let's get some semantics out of the way. "Gun violence" never happens because guns do nothing by themselves. PEOPLE commit violence, and sometimes use guns. Other times they use cars, golf clubs, knives, etc. "Gun-related violence" is a better term, and using it helps shift the emphasis from the items used to the use by people. This is important. By (over)using the term "gun violence," we demonize inanimate objects and instill fear in people who know nothing about firearms. Instead, we should focus on people who do bad things, whether it's with the use of a gun, or whatever.

And I will point out that Illinois has a particularly restrictive set of gun control laws. Not really working out, are they? That's an important point. Like Washington D.C. until recently, Chicago had some of the most restrictive gun control laws around, and yet, again like D.C. until recently, people who intentionally ignore such laws have wrought havoc on the legally unarmed (and unprotected by police) public. So this "gun control" thing seems to be completely useless, as it only impacts law-abiding citizens, not people out to do criminal acts. Somehow the NRA actually got that right.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I didn't say Toronto was comparable, just that it was becoming more violent - and seeing more violence committed by people using

And I posted the numbers that proved you wrong. In case you missed it, gun related crime in Toronto was at an all time low in 2011, with a steady downwards trend over the last 20 years.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I didn't say Toronto was comparable, just that it was becoming more violent - and seeing more violence committed by people using guns.
Let's get some semantics out of the way. "Gun violence" never happens because guns do nothing by themselves. PEOPLE commit violence, and sometimes use guns. Other times they use cars, golf clubs, knives, etc. "Gun-related violence" is a better term, and using it helps shift the emphasis from the items used to the use by people. This is important. By (over)using the term "gun violence," we demonize inanimate objects and instill fear in people who know nothing about firearms. Instead, we should focus on people who do bad things, whether it's with the use of a gun, or whatever.
And I will point out that Illinois has a particularly restrictive set of gun control laws. Not really working out, are they? That's an important point. Like Washington D.C. until recently, Chicago had some of the most restrictive gun control laws around, and yet, again like D.C. until recently, people who intentionally ignore such laws have wrought havoc on the legally unarmed (and unprotected by police) public. So this "gun control" thing seems to be completely useless, as it only impacts law-abiding citizens, not people out to do criminal acts. Somehow the NRA actually got that right.

As has already been pointed out, banning guns in cities surrounded by states where guns are easily available is not likely to work very well. You might as well ban water on an island.

Demonising inanimate objects is irrelevant. Unless you can agree on a social or psychological cause and find the money to address it, removing some guns from the hands of everyone is the most efficient way of removing them from the people who shouldn't have access. Gun nuts are all too keen to refer to those who sacrificed their lives for rights and freedoms, why can't they make the comparatively tiny sacrifice of going without their Uzis?

[Phileas]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/20/toronto-arizona-school-shooting-plot.html?cmp=rss

The next potential massacre. Mentally disturbed child, semi automatic weapons in the home, plans to shoot up a school.

Sounds familiar, anybody? How many more do you need?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I didn't say Toronto was comparable, just that it was becoming more violent - and seeing more violence committed by people using guns.

And I'm saying that's not true, as the facts support.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

And the Newtown shooting wasn't?

It's unfortunately not as a rare of an occurrence in the US, relatively speaking.

[Athens]

You know the stupid thing is no one is really talking about the real problem America has. And its not the guns. Its the health care. More specific the mental health care. Most countries around the world have universal health care. Included with that is mental health. More important is a proper screening system to catch most (nothing is perfect people are missed) and treatment with access to medicines. The United States has serious issues from screening, treatment and access. And a lot of it has to do with who is paying for it. IF a wealthy family with very good medical coverage has a problem child and a very good insurance company that child is going to be looked after. At least until he is to old to be covered by the parents insurance. For many families they are under insured as it is and mental health is just not a covered option or a fully covered option. Not only is that a problem but hiding it to prevent higher rates is something that occurs to. At the end of the day the real problem is health care not the guns. Canada has a very high gun ownership rate. We also have some good gun control laws and some retarded ones. But you don't see many murders like this. And the few that do occur are by knife because the gun control we do have limits access to guns. In this case gun control would have made no difference. He had access to parents guns and if this was a Canadian family with Legally owned Canadian guns the same result would have happened.

The US could use some more consistent control measures. Maybe model it after Canada for parts of it. Like a mandatory safety course, storage rules, back ground check and checking into past relationships for any possible reasons not to issue a license. The US can ignore our hand gun rules which are really stupid. But I would limit it to that scope because going as far as some countries in Europe is not needed. We don't need to ban or limit guns. We just need to keep them out of the hands of people with Mental problems.

No matter what criminals will get guns. They dont follow the laws at a all. Gun control wont help with that period. But they can help prevent mental sick people from obtaining them.

So between some minor changes to gun control laws, and better health care screening, and treatment, those are the only things that will have any real effect on this.

[Shaddim]

I did mention healthcare, especially mental healthcare. But the anti-gun crowd shouted it down.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You know the stupid thing is no one is really talking about the real problem America has. And its not the guns. Its the health care. More specific the mental health care. Most countries around the world have universal health care. Included with that is mental health. More important is a proper screening system to catch most (nothing is perfect people are missed) and treatment with access to medicines. The United States has serious issues from screening, treatment and access. And a lot of it has to do with who is paying for it. IF a wealthy family with very good medical coverage has a problem child and a very good insurance company that child is going to be looked after. At least until he is to old to be covered by the parents insurance. For many families they are under insured as it is and mental health is just not a covered option or a fully covered option. Not only is that a problem but hiding it to prevent higher rates is something that occurs to. At the end of the day the real problem is health care not the guns. Canada has a very high gun ownership rate. We also have some good gun control laws and some retarded ones. But you don't see many murders like this. And the few that do occur are by knife because the gun control we do have limits access to guns. In this case gun control would have made no difference. He had access to parents guns and if this was a Canadian family with Legally owned Canadian guns the same result would have happened.
The US could use some more consistent control measures. Maybe model it after Canada for parts of it. Like a mandatory safety course, storage rules, back ground check and checking into past relationships for any possible reasons not to issue a license. The US can ignore our hand gun rules which are really stupid. But I would limit it to that scope because going as far as some countries in Europe is not needed. We don't need to ban or limit guns. We just need to keep them out of the hands of people with Mental problems.
No matter what criminals will get guns. They dont follow the laws at a all. Gun control wont help with that period. But they can help prevent mental sick people from obtaining them.
So between some minor changes to gun control laws, and better health care screening, and treatment, those are the only things that will have any real effect on this.

There would of course be parents who would not take advantage of mental health care services should they be available, but like re-instating the assault weapons ban, looking at gun control laws in general, violence desensitization, etc. it seems like a multi-pronged strategy is the way to go, and one that would include making mental health services widely available. Apparently some Republicans here are entertaining putting armed security in schools even though that would cost the nation over 6 billion dollars, so why not put at least some of that money in mental health if there are those comfortable with spending this sort of money on this problem?

So much in the US would be improved immensely with figuring out health care, not the least of which is the country's debt. Good post!

[besson3c]

Athens, I do disagree with your saying that the guns are not the problem though. Do you realize that the assault weapons ban expired in 2004? Do you think it is a good idea to be able to pick up a machine gun at a gun show or wherever you'd get these?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Athens, I do disagree with your saying that the guns are not the problem though. Do you realize that the assault weapons ban expired in 2004? Do you think it is a good idea to be able to pick up a machine gun at a gun show or wherever you'd get these?

Nobody can "pick up a machine gun at a gun show." It just does not happen. While one may be able to buy a self-loading rifle that accepts large magazines, it is not a machine gun. Nor, for that matter, is there any functional difference between an "evil looking" AR-15 and a wooden-stocked, traditional looking Remington model 700. The AWB of 1994 was entirely about "feel good" and aesthetics, not about crime in any way; it banned things that "looked scary" like rifles with separate pistol grips and removable magazines (but only one of those at a time was just fine), and for some reason standard flash hiders were banned because "they might be used as grenade launchers!" (I did not make that up...). Further, it did not "stop the violence" in any way; remember that Columbine was in 1999, five years into the law, and in fact the two shooters had broken many laws in assembling their arsenal.

I think it's a good idea to stop both demonizing and mystifying guns. These things, inert chunks of metal by themselves, have no power that people do not give them. People who have never held a firearm often think that they are somehow special when they finally do. People whose only experience with firearms is in films and games have a very warped sense of what guns are like and what a person can do with one. And semantics are important; there is no such thing as a "semi automatic assault rifle." By definition an assault rifle is selective fire (single shot or automatic), but between the media misusing terminology and politicians with no concept of what they are talking about essentially buying votes with "feel good" legislation, far too many people are as misinformed as you appear to be in your statement about machine guns at gun shows. Far fewer people are afraid of H1N1 influenza (which is more likely to impact their lives) than are afraid of guns in general (which are very unlikely to personally impact their lives), because media have made a conscious effort to inform the public about H1N1, but an almost contrary effort to use incorrect terms, confusing and erroneous data and skewed reporting about firearms.

[BadKosh]

All this is moot until you can make sure that nobody will break laws. The left can't seem to make that mental connection. Its all about scary guns and other emotion driven off-point distractions the left offers.
the sunday pundit shows were full of lies, mis-information and scare tactics aimed at the ignorant.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

All this is moot until you can make sure that nobody will break laws. The left can't seem to make that mental connection. Its all about scary guns and other emotion driven off-point distractions the left offers.
the sunday pundit shows were full of lies, mis-information and scare tactics aimed at the ignorant.

It makes me laugh when you come out and talk about being overly emotional, Mr. 0bama.

Criminal intent and mentally ill having easy access to firearms need to be handled differently.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Nobody can "pick up a machine gun at a gun show." It just does not happen. While one may be able to buy a self-loading rifle that accepts large magazines, it is not a machine gun. Nor, for that matter, is there any functional difference between an "evil looking" AR-15 and a wooden-stocked, traditional looking Remington model 700. The AWB of 1994 was entirely about "feel good" and aesthetics, not about crime in any way; it banned things that "looked scary" like rifles with separate pistol grips and removable magazines (but only one of those at a time was just fine), and for some reason standard flash hiders were banned because "they might be used as grenade launchers!" (I did not make that up...). Further, it did not "stop the violence" in any way; remember that Columbine was in 1999, five years into the law, and in fact the two shooters had broken many laws in assembling their arsenal.
I think it's a good idea to stop both demonizing and mystifying guns. These things, inert chunks of metal by themselves, have no power that people do not give them. People who have never held a firearm often think that they are somehow special when they finally do. People whose only experience with firearms is in films and games have a very warped sense of what guns are like and what a person can do with one. And semantics are important; there is no such thing as a "semi automatic assault rifle." By definition an assault rifle is selective fire (single shot or automatic), but between the media misusing terminology and politicians with no concept of what they are talking about essentially buying votes with "feel good" legislation, far too many people are as misinformed as you appear to be in your statement about machine guns at gun shows. Far fewer people are afraid of H1N1 influenza (which is more likely to impact their lives) than are afraid of guns in general (which are very unlikely to personally impact their lives), because media have made a conscious effort to inform the public about H1N1, but an almost contrary effort to use incorrect terms, confusing and erroneous data and skewed reporting about firearms.

So do you think the assault rifle ban should remain lifted?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I did mention healthcare, especially mental healthcare. But the anti-gun crowd shouted it down.

But you didn't mention who was going to pay for it. I'm sure most of the pro-gun predominantly conservative crowd would love the idea of expanding Obamacare to cost 20-30% more than it does already, not to mention the compulsory psych screening of everyone in the country.

Its all very well identifying the problem as mental health but until there is an affordable solution to that problem, maybe gun restrictions are a more viable option? Until you solve the financial aspect of the issue, the pro-gun crowd have yet another get-out clause to absolve them of taking any responsibility or doing anything to change the current situation.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But you didn't mention who was going to pay for it. I'm sure most of the pro-gun predominantly conservative crowd would love the idea of expanding Obamacare to cost 20-30% more than it does already, not to mention the compulsory psych screening of everyone in the country.
Its all very well identifying the problem as mental health but until there is an affordable solution to that problem, maybe gun restrictions are a more viable option? Until you solve the financial aspect of the issue, the pro-gun crowd have yet another get-out clause to absolve them of taking any responsibility or doing anything to change the current situation.

What I will be interested in seeing is whether your Tea Party types will advocate doing what the NRA guy proposed doing in spending 6+ billion dollars on armed security in every school in America.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

All this is moot until you can make sure that nobody will break laws. The left can't seem to make that mental connection.

As usual, its not the left failing to make the mental connections.

Relaxed gun laws mean easy access to legal guns which means they can be easily stolen from any unoccupied home which has them. Selling them in Walmart also means they can be easily stolen from trailers or perhaps even more likely when someone can't make rent they just sell it the first taker and report it stolen. Of course a criminal could just buy a gun legally and then file off the serials himself.

Three ways that easy access to legal guns = easy supply of illegal guns.

If there was no point trying to legally restrict anything why don't the pro-gun crowd try to get laws that control drugs or other items overturned?

[sek929]

Drug control laws have already been show to be worthless.

When I was 17 it was far easier to get a bag of weed (class A substance) than get a six pack of beer.