[finboy]

Seven people killed after man opens fire with machine gun in Dutch mall | Mail Online

Best line of them all:

Gun permits are difficult to obtain, but illegal automatic weapons and ammunition are frequently seized during drug busts.

Well, this guy must have been doing some illegal drug busts then, huh.

[smacintush]

That must be an error. Everyone knows that strict gun laws scare otherwise violent criminals into honesty.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That must be an error. Everyone knows that strict gun laws scare otherwise violent criminals into honesty.

Too bad those folks weren't armed, someone could have done something about that.

[Kerrigan]

Only in America!! ****ing Republicans

[subego]

"None of us are carrying automatic weapons because here, in this country, it don't add inches to your dick. You get a life sentence for it."

[Kerrigan]

Yeah, try telling that to Snoop Dogg.

[brassplayersrock²]

NRA-ILA :: California: Anti-Gun Bills Scheduled to be Heard in the State Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committees on April 12

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That must be an error. Everyone knows that strict gun laws scare otherwise violent criminals into honesty.

Do you think that easy access to guns might make impulse crimes a little more common? Just throwing this out there, I don't know how common impulse crimes are, if they even exist in some substantial quantity.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you think that easy access to guns might make impulse crimes a little more common? Just throwing this out there, I don't know how common impulse crimes are, if they even exist in some substantial quantity.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's immaterial.

Don't you think that perhaps allowing people to speak freely might cause impulse hate speech? Or "allow" people to spread dangerous ideas?

Maybe if we restrict religious rights, we could more easlily root out the "terrorists" or destructive cults?

Carrying a weapon is a right derived from the right to defend oneself in a manner determined by their own judgement, which is derived from the right to ones own life. It is not legitimate to suggest violating ones rights becaue someone else may act innappropriately or criminally.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's immaterial.

Don't you think that perhaps allowing people to speak freely might cause impulse hate speech? Or "allow" people to spread dangerous ideas?

Maybe if we restrict religious rights, we could more easlily root out the "terrorists" or destructive cults?

Carrying a weapon is a right derived from the right to defend oneself in a manner determined by their own judgement, which is derived from the right to ones own life. It is not legitimate to suggest violating ones rights becaue someone else may act innappropriately or criminally.

Your ideology and moral take is immaterial, my comment was in response to your take on the effectiveness of policy. Violent criminals who shoot stuff probably don't do so out of protest because they haven't been granted the right to carry a weapon.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yeah, try telling that to Snoop Dogg.

Why?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your ideology and moral take is immaterial, my comment was in response to your take on the effectiveness of policy.

Oh, I forgot. Bessie likes to argue in his little box and doesn't like to expand into other substantive areas.

I revise my answer to: Yes, I can imagine that those laws may possibly have some effect on impulse crimes among those law respecting citizens who would obey them.

Next question?

Violent criminals who shoot stuff probably don't do so out of protest because they haven't been granted the right to carry a weapon.

Not sure what you are getting at here...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Oh, I forgot. Bessie likes to argue in his little box and doesn't like to expand into other substantive areas.

No, Bessie doesn't like the goal posts of the argument shifting without acknowledging my point.

I revise my answer to: Yes, I can imagine that those laws may possibly have some effect on impulse crimes among those law respecting citizens who would obey them.

It's not a question of whether the law would be respected, it's a question of deterring impulse crimes. A similar argument can be made against selling hard alcohol at gas stations. I'm merely presenting the argument here, I'm not making a statement about gun control because there are other factors to consider. Have you considered this one?

Not sure what you are getting at here...

I was just pointing out the irrelevance of your ideological beliefs in this context.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not a question of whether the law would be respected, it's a question of deterring impulse crimes.

If the law isn't respected, how can it deter anything?

A similar argument can be made against selling hard alcohol at gas stations. I'm merely presenting the argument here, I'm not making a statement about gun control because there are other factors to consider. Have you considered this one?

Yes I have.

[ghporter]

For a law to be respected, it needs to be enforced. To be enforced, it needs to be enforceable. The overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns in the U.S. Are committed with "illegal" guns - either stolen, in the possession of someone prohibited from having them, or weapons that are prohibited in general (and often all three combined).

Contrary to what some believe, bad guys don't just walk into "Joe's Gun Emporium" and buy guns. Instead they buy guns from other bad guys - stolen guns, illegally shortened guns, even machine guns - and head out to commit mayhem. The bad guys aren't stupid enough to leave a paper trail of legal gun purchases.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That must be an error. Everyone knows that strict gun laws scare otherwise violent criminals into honesty.

Have the less-strict gun laws in America resulted in lower incidents of violent crime? It is often argued that less strict gun ownership should reduce violent crime, but the sad fact is that if this shooting had occurred in the US, it would barely be news.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Have the less-strict gun laws in America resulted in lower incidents of violent crime? It is often argued that less strict gun ownership should reduce violent crime, but the sad fact is that if this shooting had occurred in the US, it would barely be news.

Have the more-strict gun laws in certain cities or states in America resulted in lower incidents of violent crime?

I would have thought that it was hard to compare different countries, in particular ones with a population difference of nearly 20 times. Guess that in places like Gaza, or Libya, or Algeria, things like this would barely be news either. But then again, wtf has that got to do with anything?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Have the more-strict gun laws in certain cities or states in America resulted in lower incidents of violent crime?

I would have thought that it was hard to compare different countries, in particular ones with a population difference of nearly 20 times. Guess that in places like Gaza, or Libya, or Algeria, things like this would barely be news either. But then again, wtf has that got to do with anything?

I don't think gun control, light or strict, is going to do anything to stop violent crime. Those who want to commit violent crimes are going to do it regardless of gun laws or the chance that their victim(s) might be armed (the vast majority of armed "victims" aren't going to pose much of a threat since they'd likely be too freaked out or unable to actually pull the trigger against an armed bad guy).

For me, the issue of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who are more likely to harm themselves or those around them through their carelessness.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

For me, the issue of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who are more likely to harm themselves or those around them through their carelessness.

I'd like to start with cars.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That must be an error. Everyone knows that strict gun laws scare otherwise violent criminals into honesty.

Laws are for law abiding people, I really really hope you don't believe laws apply to Criminals?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Too bad those folks weren't armed, someone could have done something about that.

Or more people could have been killed during the gun battle.

[Athens]

Im going to toss this one out here, whats the point of having Traffic laws then. I mean if I want to drink and drive I should be able to. If I want to go 150kp/h in a 50 zone I should be able to. I mean whats the point of traffic laws? Its the same deal with guns. Laws on how to storage it, use it are for the benefit of every one that is going to be around you and your guns. Some of the rules might be a pain in the ass but its for the general safety of those around you. Storage rules to protect kids in your home. Transportation rules to protect against the use of a gun during a road rage incident or from being stolen out of your vehicle. As with anything out right bans are the absolute worst thing because it creates a very lucrative black market.

[subego]

The key difference here is that gun ownership is a right while driving is a privilege.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

The key difference here is that gun ownership is a right while driving is a privilege.

would that be with rules or with out rules.

[subego]

You have confused me, sir.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

The key difference here is that gun ownership is a right while driving is a privilege.

mattyb is the one who brought up driving. Perhaps he thinks gun ownership should be regulated in the same way driving is.

[Athens]

well is your right to guns with or with out rules. IE law is passed that you have to wait 48 hours before you can purchase a gun. Well thats a rule isnt it. Rule is you cant bring a gun into a school. Thats a rule. Gun ownership might be a right but is that with or with out rules?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

well is your right to guns with or with out rules. IE law is passed that you have to wait 48 hours before you can purchase a gun. Well thats a rule isnt it. Rule is you cant bring a gun into a school. Thats a rule. Gun ownership might be a right but is that with or with out rules?

Okay I got you.

Yes, there are rules, but any given rule for drivers doesn't (usually) need to be assessed for its chilling effect on your rights.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

mattyb is the one who brought up driving. Perhaps he thinks gun ownership should be regulated in the same way driving is.

We'd have to amend the constitution for that.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

For me, the issue of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who are more likely to harm themselves or those around them through their carelessness.

Are you in favor of laws, such as licensing and screening, for speech or religion as well? Seems to me the totally free exercise of those two rights could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Maybe we can test and license those who wish to speak freely about candidates? That way the ignorant, the stupid and the corrupt can't influance others. We could do the same for those who wish to practice religion so that we can be sure that they don't have any dangerous ideas.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

We'd have to amend the constitution for that.

Again, not my argument. You should explain to mattyb why his comparison of gun ownership with driving is a poor one.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

The key difference here is that gun ownership is a right while driving is a privilege.

Legally, driving may be treated as a privilege, but I would argue that it is morally a right as well as being treated as a right in practice. It's certainly treated more like a right than gun rights are, at least in most places.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay I got you.

Yes, there are rules, but any given rule for drivers doesn't (usually) need to be assessed for its chilling effect on your rights.

Ok so you have a right to guns but does it say any gun, some guns? Does it say where you can and cant, or is it super broad?

[Athens]

simple solution, no license for the gun, just put the license on the Ammo.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ok so you have a right to guns but does it say any gun, some guns? Does it say where you can and cant, or is it super broad?

As written, it's super broad. I have my own opinion, but it's really up to courts to interpret.

Originally Posted by Athens 

simple solution, no license for the gun, just put the license on the Ammo.

It's not like licensing systems don't exist. In Illinois, you have to register with the State Police if you want to own a firearm. You even de facto have to register with them just to rent a gun at a range.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Legally, driving may be treated as a privilege, but I would argue that it is morally a right as well as being treated as a right in practice. It's certainly treated more like a right than gun rights are, at least in most places.

Not a bad point. It's almost akin to being allowed to ride a horse, something I imagine the FF considered so inalienable as to not even need mentioning.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Laws are for law abiding people, I really really hope you don't believe laws apply to Criminals?

That's the point. If they are law abiding people, why do you need to restrict their freedom with more laws? Murder, attempted murder, assault etc. are already illegal, and general carry stiff penalties I might add.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ok so you have a right to guns but does it say any gun, some guns? Does it say where you can and cant, or is it super broad?

I think that there can be a few limits (such as having a nuclear warhead in your basement ), but the nature of rights is that they are a right for you to choose for yourself what to say, whom to worship, what to believe and how best to protect yourself and with what. NOT the government or anyone else. To suggest that the government should choose for you is a denial of the principle of a right.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Or more people could have been killed during the gun battle.

Doubtful.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Too bad those folks weren't armed, someone could have done something about that.

When was the last time that (armed victims retaliating) happened in the US?

[subego]

Yesterday.

Man dead, Gilbert police release gunman in case they call self-defense :: The Republic

[PB2K]

edited

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When was the last time that (armed victims retaliating) happened in the US?

Originally Posted by subego 

Yesterday.

Man dead, Gilbert police release gunman in case they call self-defense :: The Republic

Last month
Armed Beauty Queen Fatally Shoots Intruder in Florida Home Invasion - FoxNews.com

[brassplayersrock²]

PB2K "With a knife he wouldn't have been so effective."

I laugh at this. Only because if the guy had even minor training, your statement would be so false.

Big crowd+ crazy guy with ability to conceal knife + stealth = many injuries, and possible deaths if struck in the right place.

People wouldn't even know he were coming if he did random stabbings in the crowd, and got out semi-quickly.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

For me, the issue of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who are more likely to harm themselves or those around them through their carelessness.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'd like to start with cars.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

mattyb is the one who brought up driving. Perhaps he thinks gun ownership should be regulated in the same way driving is.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Again, not my argument. You should explain to mattyb why his comparison of gun ownership with driving is a poor one.

Those that oppose John or Jane Doe having a gun, usually bring up the argument about saving lives. Well if you want to save lives, start with cars and fast food places. My opinion is that those that oppose John or Jane Doe having guns just don't want John or Jane Doe to have guns, nothing to do with saving lives. 250 million cars and 200 million guns. Yet cars kill more than double the number of people each year in the US.

I don't have a solution for the large number of murders by firearms in the US, but I haven't seen any proof (from ANY country) that banning firearms reduces firearm related deaths.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Those that oppose John or Jane Doe having a gun, usually bring up the argument about saving lives. Well if you want to save lives, start with cars and fast food places. My opinion is that those that oppose John or Jane Doe having guns just don't want John or Jane Doe to have guns, nothing to do with saving lives. 250 million cars and 200 million guns. Yet cars kill more than double the number of people each year in the US.

I don't have a solution for the large number of murders by firearms in the US, but I haven't seen any proof (from ANY country) that banning firearms reduces firearm related deaths.

The first step is to rephrase your last sentence. Replace "by firearms" to "WITH firearms," and that helps put things in an accurate perspective. Firearms don't do anything by themselves, any more than saws or spoons do. PEOPLE do things with the these objects, good or bad depending on what those people do with them.

In 2009 the traffic death rate in the US was the lowest it's been since 1950, with about 33,800 people killed on the highway. Highway death data is pretty easy to get in an unambiguous form; firearm related death data is almost always skewed by some political spin or other.

If we had raw data from which we ourselves could draw conclusions, the "secondary data" (information about where the other data comes from and such) points to something very interesting: a whole lot of "gun deaths" are within a small group of people who are involved in drug importation and distribution. As in "bad guys killing other bad guys." Random shootings are rare-very rare.

And frankly "machine gun murders" are almost unheard of in the US (though it's hard to get "reporters" to actually use accurate terminology to characterize a firearm in their reports, with "assault rifle" being used to describe just about everything). There is a very small "pool" of LEGAL machine guns in the US, which are sold among collectors at an extremely high premium (from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars), and there is absolutely no evidence that any of these legal machine guns has EVER been used in the commission of a crime by the legal owner of that gun. Ever. Illegal machine guns? Probably a lot of them, and probably a lot less expensive to the bad guys, too.

[subego]

It should be noted converting a semi-auto to full-auto isn't very difficult, yet people don't do it very often because it's really illegal.

Also, unlike what happens in Hollywood, automatic weapons are meant for something very specific: keeping people's heads down while you change position. If you want to kill someone, you aim single shots.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Contrary to what some believe, bad guys don't just walk into "Joe's Gun Emporium" and buy guns. Instead they buy guns from other bad guys - stolen guns, illegally shortened guns, even machine guns - and head out to commit mayhem. The bad guys aren't stupid enough to leave a paper trail of legal gun purchases.

This is a great point, almost never touched on in these obligatory gun debates.

'Getting rid of the gun' is a common theme in assault/murder cases- pretty much a stereotype. Criminals know they can be tracked by ballistics so of course most of them (that don't want to get caught) don't get their guns from legit/traceable sources, and likewise get rid of the ones they use in violent crimes. Using the same gun over and over again spraying bullets with the same identifiable tool marks could be like waving a tracking beacon around.

The criminal use of firearms is pretty much an illicit practice from start to finish and passing gun laws will never have much effect on it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

As written, it's super broad. I have my own opinion, but it's really up to courts to interpret.




It's not like licensing systems don't exist. In Illinois, you have to register with the State Police if you want to own a firearm. You even de facto have to register with them just to rent a gun at a range.

My point was that any attempt to control the gun in anyway be it usage, licenses and so forth gets people pissy about one thing or another. One seems ok and logical to one is a rights violation to another. So do away with the rules on the guns and put the rules on the ammo. After all a gun is a useless piece of metal with out the Ammo and the Ammo itself isn't protected as a right.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

My point was that any attempt to control the gun in anyway be it usage, licenses and so forth gets people pissy about one thing or another. One seems ok and logical to one is a rights violation to another. So do away with the rules on the guns and put the rules on the ammo. After all a gun is a useless piece of metal with out the Ammo and the Ammo itself isn't protected as a right.

Yep, that was a strategy promulgated by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator from Nu Yawk. And it's carried now by his protege, Lucky Chucky. There was even a (moronic) move to make bullets have an expiration date (so the Left would know when to start rounding up those they don't like i guess). It's never gone anywhere.

But according to the playbook, you're right on track.

Next, call your enemies "extremists" and you could probably get a job for Media Matters or some other Soros front organization. Good luck!

Can we make people buy a computer or cell-phone "license" when they want to get on the Internet? Would that be OK for the First Amendment? I mean after all, the Founding Fathers didn't mean that we should have "free speech" on all these things they didn't know about. They meant, at most, the right to publish what we want to in newsprint or as a pamphlet or book. How about we interpret the First Amendment the same way the gun-grabber types want to interpret the Second?