weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 13, 2012 18:42:00 GMT -5
Oh, sure. More guns is clearly the answer. In modern times, nearly every nation has had a psychopath or two commit a mass murder, regardless of how strict their gun laws are – the crazed white supremacist in Norway one year ago Sunday, the schoolyard butcher in Dunblane, Scotland, the École Polytechnique killer in Montreal, the mass murderer in Erfurt, Germany … the list seems endless. And now the Aurora shooter last Friday. There have always been insane people, and there always will be. But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have two Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns – and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000. That means the United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Read more www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/its-the-guns-_b_1700218.html
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 13, 2012 18:44:26 GMT -5
Yeah, cause if there's one thing that's better than one crazy ass opening up in a crowded mall, it's 20 well meaning morons all firing at him from different directions. The crazy on his own will kill two, the monday morning vigilantes will kill 8 accidentally in the cross fire.
Police officers carry every day, get regular range time, go through training in handling their weapons under stress, have to qualify periodically, and they still miss more often than they hit when firing their weapons at suspects from less than 20 feet away. Your average panicky citizen all hyped up on adrenaline in the heat of the moment probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 20 feet reliably, much less the suspect they were aiming at instead of the family doing Christmas shopping behind the guy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 18:48:58 GMT -5
Have any of you read Columbine? I found it so disturbing that the killers were not as portrayed in the mass media. They had friends, went to prom, had loving parents, and still killed, in spite of the warnings that neighbors gave to police.
I'm confused in a world where good and bad are not clear. In the case of the Oregon shooter he lost a mother very young to illness and his guardians seemed to exploit him. What do we do for these troubled individuals?
|
|
doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Dec 13, 2012 18:49:51 GMT -5
Honestly, I think more normal, sane people should be given carrying permits so more citizens would be armed, to take down any potential nut bags. Oh yeah, that would make me feel much better . I can just see it now - I stop at the convenient store and run in for a pack of gum. Some fool decides to come in and rob the place. We would all be fine if we just get down on the floor and let him take the money but some "wannabe cop" with a gun decides he's going to be a hero and we all end up killed in the crossfire. No thank you... Avid shooters spend the same if not more hours at the range then most cops. Those are the folks that should have carrying permits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 18:50:00 GMT -5
Random thoughts. Gun regulation/ control laws does not equal 'getting rid of all guns'. There have been a lot of Facebook misquoting of founding fathers on guns lately.
|
|
Malarky
Junior Associate
Truth and snark are equal opportunity here.
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 21:00:51 GMT -5
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by Malarky on Dec 13, 2012 18:51:21 GMT -5
Guns are not the issue. People are the issue. My ex was an avid collector and had an AK-47. It was just a neat gun, but rarely made it out of the safe. Usually only when someone wanted to see one in person. He never hunted but did go target shooting some times. I had a handgun for home protection that I kept in a bedroom safe. Gun laws are tough enough. One has to take gun safety courses to even purchase guns, go through a background check and are limited in the quantity you can purchase every 30 days. Frankly we are going to have these nut jobs on shooting sprees until we deal with the nut jobs. Toughen criminal laws. Make stiffer punishments. But taking "assault" weapons off the market is not going to help. One can kill someone with a muzzleloader and that is not even technically considered a gun. Or at least not one that you need to have a background check to purchase. We recently had a high school student on a rampage. He used an antique mantle piece that was not even supposed to be fired. Nutbags will find guns to commit their rampages. That kid had signs all over his Facebook, months prior, that he was bat shit crazy. That should have been when he was dealt with not after the shooting. We have guns in our house. I was raised in a house with guns. Guns are not the issue. People are the issue. Children need to be taught proper gun safety and handling. Most of all they need to be taught compassion towards others so they grow up to be adults that have compassion. Normal sane, caring individuals do not go on mall shooting rampages. I have the weaponry and the skill to kill countless people. The difference is ME. I choose not to.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 18:51:26 GMT -5
Lots of legal drug issues at Columbine as well.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 13, 2012 18:52:34 GMT -5
Message deleted by The Former Humpty Dumpty Mich1.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 13, 2012 18:57:29 GMT -5
Shooting at paper targets in a controlled environment is not even remotely the same thing as shooting at live humans in a chaotic environment. Soldiers do it for a living and even with the training they undergo we have friendly fire casualties and whatnot. A crowded shopping mall is not the kind of place I want John Q. Public firing weapons.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 13, 2012 18:57:38 GMT -5
Police officers carry every day, get regular range time, go through training in handling their weapons under stress, have to qualify periodically, and they still miss more often than they hit when firing their weapons at suspects from less than 20 feet away. Your average panicky citizen all hyped up on adrenaline in the heat of the moment probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 20 feet reliably, much less the suspect they were aiming at instead of the family doing Christmas shopping behind the guy.
Not quite, Dark. Once police go through training, they are not required to have further training in many states. Not only that, if they want to get further training (including range time), they have to do it on their own dime and time.
In the most recent shooting in NYC, the cops fired 16 shots. 3 shots hit the person that they were aiming at. 9 shots hit bystanders. That is pretty lousy shooting.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 13, 2012 19:00:17 GMT -5
Message deleted by The Former Humpty Dumpty Mich1.
|
|
doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Dec 13, 2012 19:02:01 GMT -5
Shooting at paper targets in a controlled environment is not even remotely the same thing as shooting at live humans in a chaotic environment. Soldiers do it for a living and even with the training they undergo we have friendly fire casualties and whatnot. A crowded shopping mall is not the kind of place I want John Q. Public firing weapons. Fine then pick the guys out hunting for deer 7 days a week. ETA- my point is that guns are not the issue.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 13, 2012 19:11:56 GMT -5
Pop up targets, clay targets, reaction targets, and whatnot aren't shooting back. You aren't scared while you're doing it. You're 100% sure that the target is a target and it's fine if you shoot it. If you see somebody pull a gun in a crowded mall he might be a crazy, but he could be a fellow well meaning citizen that saw some other crazy pull a gun and you're about to start a shootout with somebody that wasn't even there to hurt anyone. Your adrenaline is up, you feel threatened, you feel scared, you're taking a life not putting a dent/hole/breaking a target. You might have your family with you so you're worried about their safety on top of your own.
It's not the kind of thing you can train for all that reliably. In the heat of the moment you don't actually know whether or not you'll be able to perform. Neither do any of the other innocent folks around you. Even if you can keep your cool and handle yourself, you might just get shot in the back by some other well meaning person who sees you fire your weapon in public and assumes you're the nut on a spree, or you were his accomplice, or whatever.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 13, 2012 22:44:54 GMT -5
Guns are not the issue. People are the issue. My ex was an avid collector and had an AK-47. It was just a neat gun, but rarely made it out of the safe. Usually only when someone wanted to see one in person. He never hunted but did go target shooting some times. I had a handgun for home protection that I kept in a bedroom safe. Gun laws are tough enough. One has to take gun safety courses to even purchase guns, go through a background check and are limited in the quantity you can purchase every 30 days. Frankly we are going to have these nut jobs on shooting sprees until we deal with the nut jobs. Toughen criminal laws. Make stiffer punishments. But taking "assault" weapons off the market is not going to help. One can kill someone with a muzzleloader and that is not even technically considered a gun. Or at least not one that you need to have a background check to purchase. We recently had a high school student on a rampage. He used an antique mantle piece that was not even supposed to be fired. Nutbags will find guns to commit their rampages. That kid had signs all over his Facebook, months prior, that he was bat shit crazy. That should have been when he was dealt with not after the shooting. We have guns in our house. I was raised in a house with guns. Guns are not the issue. People are the issue. Children need to be taught proper gun safety and handling. Most of all they need to be taught compassion towards others so they grow up to be adults that have compassion. Normal sane, caring individuals do not go on mall shooting rampages. I have the weaponry and the skill to kill countless people. The difference is ME. I choose not to. First--thanks to Hoops--I keep wanting to point out that semi-auto is NOT an assault rifle (there is a difference, and yes, full-auto is legal in Oregon, I've shot many privately owned full-auto guns). So, how many people do drunk drivers kill? I think that alcohol should be banned for everybody because if you let people drink alcohol, someone will get drunk and get into a car and kill someone else. I don't care if you drink responsibly, it's alcohol and alcohol is DANGEROUS!!! Who cares if it's something you enjoy, who cares if it helps you relax and unwind, who cares if it's something to do with friends. Who cares, because some a-hole somewhere else is going to drink it and get in a car and kill someone. Really--that's the same conclusion I see. If one person uses it irresponsibly, then no one should be allowed to use it. Simple as that. Oh, and while we're at it, let's ban smoking too, because people die of second hand smoke. It's DANGEROUS!!! *sigh*
|
|
Iggy aka IG
Senior Associate
Joined: Oct 25, 2012 12:23:23 GMT -5
Posts: 12,463
Location: Good ol' USA
|
Post by Iggy aka IG on Dec 13, 2012 23:03:47 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 23:06:00 GMT -5
Who wants to ban all guns for everyone?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 13, 2012 23:41:01 GMT -5
I guess that answers the question as to how long Doxie was banned for.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Dec 14, 2012 7:20:01 GMT -5
anne, criminals will commit crimes no matter what. It does no good to restrict law abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves. FYI, he did not have an assault rifle - they are illegal to own. He may have had an assault STYLE rifle.
Dark, the whole point of training is to condition yourself to react, so you properly handle the situation in an emergency. If you practice enough in different scenarios, you will get it right when the time comes. Until they allow us to shoot each other, we are stuck with paper targets and other substitutes.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 14, 2012 8:33:36 GMT -5
anne, criminals will commit crimes no matter what. It does no good to restrict law abiding citizens from having the means to protect themselves. FYI, he did not have an assault rifle - they are illegal to own. He may have had an assault STYLE rifle. Dark, the whole point of training is to condition yourself to react, so you properly handle the situation in an emergency. If you practice enough in different scenarios, you will get it right when the time comes. Until they allow us to shoot each other, we are stuck with paper targets and other substitutes. Ok, again... the rifle was SEMI-auto, so no, not assult rifle. However, full-auto assault rifles (AK47s, 308s, even a fully auto glock handgun--which is awesome by the way) are legal, in Oregon, with the right paperwork and documentation.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Dec 14, 2012 8:56:39 GMT -5
apple, federal law, not state law regulates fully auto weapons. To own one, you must get special tax stamps, etc. so most individuals will not have access.
|
|
Taxman10
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 15:12:43 GMT -5
Posts: 3,455
|
Post by Taxman10 on Dec 14, 2012 9:26:01 GMT -5
::There are two reasons to have one - you want to kill a whole lot of people very quickly, or you're a collector. :: or 3, you just like to go to the firing range and shoot them. Which is probably far more common than a mass murderer or someone you'd really deem to be a "collector". ::they're just to friggin' dangerous. :: Statistically speaking they kill FAR fewer people than handguns, should handguns be outlawed? statistically speaking "they" don't kill anyone...idiots who use them do. Idiots who drive cars kill way more people than idiots who use guns...but no-one has banned cars yet.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 9:34:44 GMT -5
apple, federal law, not state law regulates fully auto weapons. To own one, you must get special tax stamps, etc. so most individuals will not have access. Except didn't this guy just steal a gun... So his access would only be limited tight his neighbor could access at that point
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Dec 14, 2012 9:36:14 GMT -5
::Idiots who drive cars kill way more people than idiots who use guns...but no-one has banned cars yet. ::
This argument always ends up coming up. The difference is that cars serve a specific purpose, and a side effect of that purpose is that they sometimes end up killing people. The only purpose of a gun is to kill. It's not as if you need to fire a gun to travel from place to place and occasionally someone uses it irresponsibly and someone dies. The primary purpose is death.
I think whatever your point of view, and whatever you want to compare to guns (cars, alcohol, cigarettes, etc), everyone needs to realize there's a significant difference between something which as a side effect sometimes ends in death, and something which when used for it's intended purpose ends in death.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 9:49:39 GMT -5
And driving/cars are regulated. Although I think in some cases we could use more regulation there as well. The whole point is how it is regulated. No one wants to ban all guns.
|
|
daisylu
Junior Associate
Enter your message here...
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 6:04:42 GMT -5
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by daisylu on Dec 14, 2012 10:13:16 GMT -5
Disclaimer - We own a vast amount of firearms. DH, myself, and the kids have had extensive and ongoing training. There are other reasons than wanting to harm someone to own a firearm.
While I do not lean either way on the issue of banning assault, auto, or semi-auto rifles I do understand why those who are fight it. It begins a slippery slope. First it will be those type of weapons, then it will be another, and another, and another until there will no type of firearms that can be legally owned.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Dec 14, 2012 10:37:13 GMT -5
::First it will be those type of weapons, then it will be another, and another, and another until there will no type of firearms that can be legally owned.::
Really? We already ban plenty of types of weapons. Should we allow any and all weapons to be legal so that we don't have to be on this "slippery slope"? Should we allow people to own their own biologic or nuclear weapons? Flame throwers? Land mines?
The problem with slippery slope arguments is that a lot of times the only way to avoid them is an all or nothing approach.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Dec 14, 2012 10:38:06 GMT -5
apple, federal law, not state law regulates fully auto weapons. To own one, you must get special tax stamps, etc. so most individuals will not have access. States can restrict, that's why you can own one in Oregon, but not in Washington. Biggest thing prohibiting people, assuming they have a clean record, is the price. Full-auto isn't cheap.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Dec 14, 2012 10:46:35 GMT -5
Agree on the price. A federal tax stamp is still needed, regardless of the state.
|
|
kimber45
Senior Member
Life's too short to own an ugly gun
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 9:40:27 GMT -5
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by kimber45 on Dec 14, 2012 10:46:38 GMT -5
While I do not lean either way on the issue of banning assault, auto, or semi-auto rifles I do understand why those who are fight it. It begins a slippery slope. First it will be those type of weapons, then it will be another, and another, and another until there will no type of firearms that can be legally owned.
I totally agree, daisy. Banning one is a foot in the door to ban all.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 10:51:29 GMT -5
Yes, and I really don't understand why I can't drive my tank on the roads. I mean if you think about it, banning a tank is just the first step in banning all vehicles, so I should be able to drive my tank wherever I want.
|
|