Again it happens.............another tragety [Archive]

silverghost

12-14-2012, 11:13 PM

Very sad indeed ~~~
I do not believe that guns , or gun ownership for that matter, are to blame here. for these sorts of tragic events.

In todays world I believe that all the violence, & killing, shown on TV, Movies, and in the kids most popular Video games where just for fun people are routinely gunned-down for entertainment fun. This type of entertainent violence has engrained this sort of mass shooting idea in many mentally ill young person's minds. They then want to emulate what they see as an accepted normal way to seek revenge for some perceived slights in their lives; and also a way for them to go out of this world in a blaze of violence and gunfire like their TV & movie heroes they now wish to emulate .
These sort of mentally ill folks can not tell entertainment fiction violence from everyday normal reality.
They have become acustomed to seeing this sort of violence as the everyday norm in today's society.
It has sadly become acceptable behavior to emulate ~~~at least in their sick minds.

I grew-up, as many did here on the forum , in the 50s-60s-70s when this sort of violence & killing was not really a major form of entertainment in most movies & TV shows that kids were exposed to on a daily basis.
Video games of any sort did also not exist in those days.

These sort of real life mass killngs just did not happen very often, if at all, in those kinder, gentler days of the 50s.60s. & 70s.

As our mass media entertainment gets more & more violent as time goes on ~~~ the mass shootings & killings sadly & tragiclly happen much more often today.
I really believe there must be some sort of relationship, & connection, going on here ?

Our society needs to have more tighter parental controls put on this sort of TV, Movie, & Video game, entertainment violence.
It should not be promoted as any sort of acceptable normal everyday behavior.

You have to ask yourself what has changed in today's modern society to have caused all this mass violence, & these mass shootings & killings, by today's younger folks; as compared to times in our distant past when You, and I grew up ?
Today's shooter was only 20 years old.

My prayers go out to all the other children that were exposed to this tragic event at their school.
I cannot imagine how they can ever go back to that school building again after what tragically happened there today ?

And also my thoughts & prayers go out to the family members of those who were tragically killed today.

hardcrab

12-15-2012, 07:33 AM

Shooter - It appears you've taken your opinion to the other site (name calling aside), there is plenty to respond to in this forum if you really want to.

Greg Guimond

12-15-2012, 09:45 AM

What a terrible thing. I don't know much about gun control issues but it seems to make sense to me that automatic assault weapons should have a pretty heavy restriction. It just seems like the firepower that these crazy people get there hands on is almost military grade instead of a target pistol or a hunting rifle.

gcarter

12-15-2012, 10:29 AM

In the past, I mean 30-50 years ago, automatic and (it seems like) weapoons that could be made to be automatic, could be owned by individeuals, but were HIGHLY restricted and required a license application to the FBI. I remember being surprised in finding this out. I wouldn't have a problem w/this. maybe even a psych analysis.....
I mean, it wouldsn't be anything new. Of course there're plenty of laws now, and what good do they do except make some people feel good.
Like anywhere in the world, if a person is determined to do some damage, there's nothing stopping them.
If you read the article I posted above, it says, that in China, incidents are a real and genuine problem, but that the weapons of choice are knives and explosives.
So, we have terror type events;
All over the Middle East
England
France
Germany
Sweeden
Russia
China
Many places in Africa
And sometimes in the US...........

I don't think you can legislate this away.

Wet Vette

12-15-2012, 10:33 AM

I coudn't agree with Silverghost any more. He wrote what I was thinking but probably stated it much better than I could have.

about two years ago we had guests from Russia staying with us at the N.J. shore. these people shopped like i couldn't belive. they bought a video game for their cute little boy who as about 5 or 6 years old. i was amazed at a lot of the games until he played one that was a horrible shooting game. it had him walking along shooting bad guys that poped out from behind cover. the grapics grossed even me out. the blood and gut were disgusting. that has to deseneitize these kids.

i been a hunter and shooter my entire life but i couldn't stay in the room with that on.

Carl C

12-15-2012, 10:54 AM

Any rational person knows a video game from reality just as they know a horror movie from reality. I enjoy blowing people's heads off in GTA and the Call Of Duty games. It's not going to make me want to do it for real.

Greg Guimond

12-15-2012, 11:08 AM

I agree that you can't legislate the problem away, put perhaps putting super strict limitations on automatic weapons would at least limit the damage that could be potentially be inflicted. It just seems that 9 out of 10 people have no need to have them. What a terrible morning this must be for those folks who lost loved ones :frown:

Carl C

12-15-2012, 11:56 AM

A pump 12 gauge shotgun with 00 Buck will do more damage than a .223 semi-auto.

mattyboy

12-15-2012, 11:59 AM

evil is evil

the kinder a gentler days ?? there has always been a few evil sociopaths that will resort to violence and insane acts of depravity. jack the ripper , bonnie and clyde, ted bundy , sam berkowitz , what has changed?? the fact that people with serious mental issues are treated with therapy,and medication and left on the street is the real issue. i see many institutions now closed that handled these type of people they were locked up and kept that way to keep people safe. the participation trophy generation and the entitlement generation have gotten their way with my really troubled physco kid needs to be mainstreamed with the general public when they need to be locked up . legislation? what a sam berkowitz law that the public is warned that a person with mental illness has moved into their neighbor hood, or gun control that states hey you have a physco in your household you have to turn in your guns?

the way we look at and treat certain mental illness needs to change

dsparis

12-15-2012, 01:42 PM

Automatic weapons have been illegal since the 30's.

Conquistador_del_mar

12-15-2012, 01:49 PM

It sure seems like there are quite a few mentally disturbed people acting out their frustrations. Unfortunately, there will probably never be a foolproof way to get these type people the help they need or in some cases incarceration as a solution. If a mentally disturbed individual or group wants to do harm to others they have many alternatives including guns. 911 showed an unusual "weapon" choice, but there have been automobiles and quite a few other things used by mentally disturbed individuals that are not conventionally known to be weapons to inflict their harm on others. The real problem lies in preventing the disturbed person or group from getting to the point of their actions. How? I believe that virtually every mentally disturbed person is in contact with "normal society" so it is up to the normal people to directly help the mentally disturbed acquaintances or let authorities know that there are signs of mental disturbance in the person and hopefully something is done about it. In most of the cases I have heard, family or friends knew about the person's instabilities but apparently there was not enough evidence to prevent them from their eventual actions. I think there are ways to slow these type actions, but I really don't think they will ever be stopped. I am convinced that our lack of jail facilities and early release is not helping matters, but I also believe these incidents will not be solved by only governmental involvement. My personal experience with disturbed individuals is not good. In one case a member of my wife's family who threatened another member with a knife was sent to jail for the night. When my wife and her daughter tried to have him mentally evaluated the next morning through the legal system, they failed and the guy was released due to the judge not being available to make the decision. In another case, the next door neighbor of my wife (before we were married) had been arrested numerous times for threatening his wife. One of the times, the local SWAT team was called in to make the arrest since he had held a gun to his wife's head. He was back at home before the end of the week.
I digress. I can not imagine the horrible times the affected families are going through. Hopefully, they can eventually move forward. Bill

BUIZILLA

12-15-2012, 01:52 PM

any 20yo can get a bulletproof vest?

was that his mother's also?

and with that thought, what is a kindergarten teacher and mother doing with a .223 hunting or target weapon of her own, in a house with an admitted unstable son?

Marlin275

12-15-2012, 05:45 PM

I blame the media for a lot of this mess we are in . . .
why do we know Mark David Chapman's name (he has his own Wikipedia page) or any other idiot that wants to get famous in a hurry?
why do we have the media anniversary of Columbine or any other tragedy?

The media sensationalizes every one of these azzholes.
Make a law that every killer is gunman X and no names or biography stories.
Might cut down on some of these repeat copycat, how did he do it, sensational incidents?

Dreamer Dave

12-15-2012, 05:51 PM

I agree with some of you, the question to ask is what has changed in the last few decades. Perhaps both of these may have some part in some of the recent tragedies:
in no particular order:
24 hour news
News is, by definition, reporting unusual events. A constant barrage of deviant and unusual behavior makes, to a few deranged individuals, that behavior seem less abhorrent and more "normal". It plants the idea that "it happens all the time". No, it happens once and it's then discussed, rehashed, rerun and dug up so that the feeling is that its an everyday thing.

Plus the instant celebrity status the criminal gets has a great appeal to those that want to go out with the biggest bang possible. Remember why Chapman killed John Lennon? If a poor, sick person is thinking of suicide, this new, legendary status granted by news agencies to mass murderers makes them believe that it will give value to a life that they perceive as worthless. A person acting out on a long contemplated suicide, wether by a policeman's bullet or their own, has made the assessment that he has nothing to loose.

The information age:
The internet feeds us trivia and treecle that wasn't even imagined back in the newsprint and radio days. Think back, if there had been a mass murder in another country (forget about China, think Mexico or even Canada), would it have made the half hour nightly national news? Only on a very slow day. And if it made the international page in the newspaper(remember, just one page for the rest of the world!), it would have been just a quarter column, about the area of the normal obituary or wedding announcement.

Oh, and on an unrelated to the above, Ronald Regan, as governor of California, took a lot of heat when he ordered 1/3 of all the inmates in the state mental hospitals be released to become "out patients". His "budget expert" pointed out that it was cheaper to put these people on welfare and get federal assistance than to house them. After that, only the criminally insane were allowed in state hospitals. Use the internet to check it out.

I was going to take my boat out but it started to rain. But tomorrow will always be better

mattyboy

12-15-2012, 05:54 PM

Marlin

sadly that rings very true,

BUIZILLA

12-15-2012, 06:41 PM

Marlin has support >>

Morgan Freeman's statement about these random shootings....

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem.

duckhunter

12-15-2012, 07:20 PM

I would argue that the issue that really needs a little focus is the degradation of morals and desensitization to violence via media - movies, tv, video games, pop culture, etc. Along with that is the fact that true evil exists in this world. Those of us that have seen it might have a hard time putting it in words, but the sight, smell, and feel of it is unmistakable. Guns are nothing more than a tool and the guns are not the issue in this or any other "mass murder" event. Unfortunately the media will focus on that for a variety of reasons, primarily because it is easy and resonates with viewers who have a difficult time forming their own opinions.

It is a slippery slope to try and legislate our way out of events like this, and ultimately fruitless. Twenty kids were injured/killed yesterday in China by an asshole with a kitchen knife. Bottom line, where there is a will (no matter how F'd up), there is a way. But "assault" rifles being banned today will just as easily be your grandpa's deer rifle down the road (as an "evil sniper rifle"). If you want to talk numbers, more kids were killed last year by soccer moms driving and talking on the f'ing cell phone than by guns. The statistics for kids under 18 killed by driving while texting are even worse.

Bottom line, we need to do a better job of identifying and neutralizing dangers to society before they get a chance to execute their final sociopathic, coward plans. Guess what - not everyone is a special snowflake. If little Johnny is exhibiting behavior that indicates he is a danger to himself or others, get his ass off the street.

Another thought - we hire security guards to watch our money in the bank. Why not armed cops or guards to watch our kids in school? There is no more precious resource in the world than our children, so why the reluctance? If it is because of some kind of pollyanna worldview or burying heads in the sand than we need to redeclinate our moral compass as a society.

My wife used to think I was nuts for carrying a gun off duty - even to church. She hasn't accused me of being paranoid for a couple of years now.

God bless those little children and their families.

joseph m. hahnl

12-16-2012, 07:28 AM

Marlin275

12-16-2012, 08:54 AM

I see that the point of the problem was missed as usual. You can blame gun manufacturing, senators, crazies, what ever you want. But it all go's to one fundamentalfactor.
That is !

Keep your guns and amo locked up so your children can not get hold of them.:embarasse

Chances are pretty good, you won't get shot by some one else with your own weapon, if they are under lock and key.

Friend of Columbine killers bought the guns, so no lock would save anyone.

Virginia Tech killer walked into a Roanoke gun shop, put down a credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition, no lock would save anyone.

Batman theater killer purchased all the weapons legally and all the ammunition he possessed legally, again no lock would save anyone.

Locks are not the point of this problem.

Just Say N20

12-16-2012, 10:34 AM

Keep your guns and amo locked up so your children can not get hold of them.

Chances are pretty good, you won't get shot by some one else with your own weapon, if they are under lock and key.

Not only won't you get shot with your own weapon, but you won't be able to shoot anybody else with it either. Kinda defeats the whole purpose. Using this logic I should keep my kitchen knives locked up all the time too, to be sure I don't get stabbed by someone using my own knife. And to insure my children don't play with them.

Marlin275

12-16-2012, 11:24 AM

Roger Ebert on the media's coverage of school shootings

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

joseph m. hahnl

12-16-2012, 11:32 AM

Not only won't you get shot with your own weapon, but you won't be able to shoot anybody else with it either. Kinda defeats the whole purpose. Using this logic I should keep my kitchen knives locked up all the time too, to be sure I don't get stabbed by someone using my own knife. And to insure my children don't play with them.

No offense Bill but that's pretty out there. comparing a hand tool to a fire arm is absured.perhaps you should retract that statemant.

I will stand bye Mine!

Again missed the point of this tragedy and I certainly don't want to get in a pissing match over it.
But in general if you go to work and your weapon's are left unlocked while you are away you deseve to be shot in the face. Unfortunatly there will probably be innocent bye standers who will also be included in your stupidity.

The sun don't shine on all the people the same way look at the middle east .How many children killed daily. I beleive in legal gun ownership and defending your own, but you should be in control of your weapon at all times, in your possesion or not.

As was stated that guns are realativly easy for some one to obtain so don't let it be yours.

mattyboy

12-16-2012, 11:43 AM

an old timer once told me this and I never forgot it

LOCKS ONLY KEEP HONEST PEOPLE HONEST

the lock on the front door of the school was bypassed an honest person would have gone no farther.

what will we see out of this more unfunded mandates for the school systems with the burden going to the taxpayer to provide a safe environment for the school kids.

bullet proof glass , crash barriers basically making a school a prison for the kids when we should be rounding up all of these unbalanced wackos and keeping them in prison where they can harm no one but themselves .

Greg Guimond

12-16-2012, 11:55 AM

Actually Matty I think what we will all see from this event is .............nothing. In less than 5 days this story will recede as the 24 hour news cycle moves onto other items and both Democrats and Republicans in Washington avoid making any kind of substantive legislative change. They simply won't come together to make a major change or multiple changes to see that something like this does not happen again. And it will happen again :frown:

Conquistador_del_mar

12-16-2012, 01:13 PM

I can't help but respond about locking up one's guns as being a solution. If a disturbed person wants to do harm to others using firearms, they will find a way to obtain them - legal or otherwise. As already pointed out, locks only keep honest people honest. However, I would promote making sure that anyone with children keeping their guns out of "reach" of their children or not having firearms if there is a good possibility that someone in the household is unstable.

I believe most of the recent mass murders were done by unstable people who were suicidal. It is a shame they can't just do themselves like most of the local incidents where I live. Just my opinion, Bill

Ghost

12-16-2012, 01:20 PM

I would ask folks to consider that Congress simply has no ability to "see to it that this does not happen again." Even a good faith attempt would be a longshot at best, with widespread unintended consequences that would end in death or harm to many others. The simple reality is that sometimes bad people do bad things, and all freedom comes with risk.

Yesterday, the local paper listed the mass shootings from the last 6 years. Out of curiousity, I went through them and did some math. FWIW, nearly half of the events and deaths occurred in the 6 most restrictive states/jurisdictions in the country, encompassing about one fifth of the population.

As some have noted, I think we're far more likely to prevent a few of (and minimize other) these tragedies by our efforts as good people. I also totally agree with what folks said about starting to pay attention to the lives of some of the victims, instead of feeding the notoriety of the killers. (Very sadly, I didn't have to.)

Carl C

12-16-2012, 04:38 PM

I love that Roger Ebert story! I think he nailed it.

duckhunter

12-16-2012, 06:03 PM

I think Ghost and some others have nailed it. Looking to Congress to solve any kind of problem is wishful thinking. They haven't even managed to pass a budget - one of their few Constitutional mandates - in years. So even assuming we had a competent legislative body, what would you propose that they do to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future?

- Ban guns from school and government property? Already done.
- Ban mentally defective / insane people / felons from possessing a firearm? Already done.
- Background check for anyone purchasing a firearm legally? Already done.
- Restrict minors from firearms purchase and possession outside of adult supervision? Already done.
- Ban evil "assault" rifles and high-cap magazines? Already done in the cities and states with the highest amount of gun violence.
- Restrict citizens right to legally carry a concealed firearm? Already done in the cities and states with the highest amount of gun violence.
- Outlaw murder? Still illegal last time I checked.
- Confiscate every firearm in the US? Unconstitutional, and it hasn't work in any other society in which this particular experiment has been attempted. Criminals will still find a gun. Hence the pithy t-shirts and bumper stickers sported by bubbas at gun shows everywhere "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It's a statement of fact though.

So even if the left wing brady campaign's dreams came true and we woke up tomorrow in a hopey, changey utopia where all the guns were replaced by daisies and water bongs and everyone's hybrid roller skate ran on unicorn farts, evil would still find a way. Guess what, if you want to kill a bunch of people there are way more efficient means to do it than with a gun.

On locks. Hells yes, secure your guns so they don't fall into the wrong hands. More importantly, educate your children so that if they see a gun outside of your home they know what to do. I'm not that old, but twenty years ago I grew up in a farmhouse with a gun behind every door. The doors didn't have locks, either. Even scarier, over half of the guys in high school had guns in their trucks during deer season. We would beat the hell out of each other after school, and nobody ever thought to pull a gun or a knife even though they were readily available. Anyone who grew up in a rural area until maybe 10 years ago could probably relate the same thing. It's not a gun issue, it's a mindset issue writ large.

The statistics are pretty clear, the streets of the states and municipalities with the most permissive concealed carry permit laws don't run red with blood. In fact, it is the exact opposite - they are the safest places in the country. In most of these mass shootings just ONE switched-on guy with a pistol could have saved dozens of lives. Cowards who stoop to shooting little kids and theater goers are generally not mentally prepared to react to well-aimed return fire...

Bottom line, for me anyway, is that the focus on the guns by the talking heads is a red herring. Let's focus more on getting dirtbags identified and into the system and enforcing the laws already on the books.

Phil S

12-16-2012, 06:52 PM

Well said DH.<br><br>Phil S.

Phil S

12-16-2012, 07:11 PM

Kindergartners, ages 5 & 6. Their biggest task for this week was to probably make a construction-paper Christmas tree ornament with some colored paper, yarn & Elmer's glue...and try to form the letters to write a letter to Santa. Their parents, God help them, had probably bought them presents and were so looking forward to....

Those are my thoughts...sorry.

duckhunter

12-16-2012, 07:16 PM

Phil S ...

Kindergartners, ages 5 & 6. Their biggest task for this week was to probably make a construction-paper Christmas tree ornament with some colored paper, yarn & Elmer's glue...and try to form the letters to write a letter to Santa. Their parents, God help them, had probably bought them presents and were so looking forward to....

Those are my thoughts...sorry. END QUOTE

Absolutely. The mental image of those families going home to a quiet house full of Christmas decorations is unbelievably heart wrenching. I can't even wrap my head around this event. I have been hugging my daughter a lot the last couple of days.

smokediver

12-17-2012, 06:21 AM

It's true guns dont kill people people kill people. I would say though that there is no sport in an assault rifle. It's a killing tool plain and simple. I am a gun owner a former Marine and in my mind if a person wants to fire an assault rifle a grenade launcher or whatever sack up and serve your country. While that assault rifle didnt kill those kids it certainly made it easier for that person. There just isn't a place in the civilian world for an assault rifle or for that matter any weapon with a high round capacity. You want sport ? Go out and tackle a deer !! That's sport !

duckhunter

12-17-2012, 08:22 AM

The "assault weapons" ban argument is a slippery slope. Makes liberals feel good but doesn't accomplish anything.

Handguns and high capacity rifles are outlawed in Cook County, IL and have been for years. Chicago has one of the highest gun violence rates in the world. Guess what the gang bangers use to kill each other? Handguns and AK-47s. Similar gun laws in NYC, NJ, California, etc have failed miserably.

Hell, I don't like heroin and meth. Let's make those illegal and keep them out of the hands of Americans. Oh wait...

Disarming law abiding citizens is not the answer. Crimminals by their very nature do not follow the law.

Ghost

12-17-2012, 10:48 AM

2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It's about threats, both foreign and domestic, especially home-grown threats from gov't. Federalist 46 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm) is not an easy read but it's only about 6 pages. Worth half an hour of anyone's time to really understand it.

One thing I think is absolutely clear is that something must be very wrong with someone's makeup to deliberately kill children. It's an unbelievable sort of evil. Regardless of whether one thinks of it as sickness or pure malice or some combination (it really doesn't matter which in some ways). I pray for the victims and their families and friends that they may ever find real peace and happiness again. That's probably a good place for me to leave off as this event is so horrific and disturbing. In closing (and pushing myself to return to site policy) I would only ask those who disagree with me to know that the diametrically-opposed views I've shared stem from the exact same desire they have to minimize future injustice and violence.

scippy

12-17-2012, 11:34 AM

I think if you can first answer the question to why America has 15 times the gun violence than any other country
then maybe we can start to understand why things like this happen.

Greg Guimond

12-17-2012, 11:49 AM

I guess I am a simpleton but can I ask why do we need automatic assault weapons at all ?

duckhunter

12-17-2012, 01:14 PM

Lot's of people don't understand the need for <fill in the blank>.

Bet there are a ton of folks that don't like fast, loud boats and would love to see them regulated out of existence. After all, boats used for "sporting purposes" shouldn't NEED to go any faster than 32mph for slalom skiing, right? How many threads on here and on other boating sites have there been whining about jet skiis? And that's from folks in a closely related hobby, so I'd hate to see what the hardcore Sierra Club kayak crew has to say about all of us on here.

Statistically FAR more people (especially minors) are killed annually as a result of cell phone use & texting while driving than by guns; either as drivers, passengers, or innocent bystanders. Let's make it illegal to text and drive! Oh wait, it already is, and it didn't make a bit of difference. We need a law with some TEETH!

So let's have Congress stop this menace to society once and for all. Every new vehicle produced must have a cell phone jammer that is activated anytime the vehicle is in "Drive." Additionall, folks with "pre ban" automobiles need to have it retrofitted at their expense or have their driving priveleges revoked and/or the "pre ban" car confiscated and smelted. Sure, it will step on peoples rights a little bit, but IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!

Seems like overkill, right? How would that fly with the American public? Not so well I'm thinking. Same thing, different cause.

The root issue of the tradgedy in CT has absolutely nothing to do with guns. That was simply the tool that evil chose to use on that day. Could just as easily have been a school bus or poison or a bomb. How about we expend a little more effort as a society and in our communities and families identifying these psychos BEFORE they act out in such a horrific manner? Maybe it's time for some serious introspection on how our morals and values have devolved over the last 50 years. I would argue that the time for that passed us by a while ago and we need to play catch-up now. That is a lot harder to do than feel-good legislation (for the children!) but will be exponentially more effective. Make no mistake, all of these events are symptoms of a larger epidemic, and one that we need to address beginning with our own inner circle of friends, neighbors, and families.

Final thought on this for a while, just because... Seems like a lot of folks are focused on legislating what people "need" and what "feels" good vs. looking at this holistically.

smokediver

12-17-2012, 01:54 PM

I still think there is no room for a semi auto assault rifle or a high capacity handgun. I dont think an assault rifle carried by a law abiding citizen has detoured a thug carrying the same weapon. The whole second amendment arguement only goes so far. The reality is they should be banned people should get their money back and anyone committing a crime with one should get a fast track ticket to a televised firing squad. No it won't do away with these horrific killings but they will be become further apart in frequency.

jl1962

12-17-2012, 01:58 PM

biggiefl

12-17-2012, 02:24 PM

I need to be made Mayor of NYC and get Bloomberg out of office. Why? Well it is simple. He has declared that any beverage except diet over 16oz makes people obese. He also says that Guns kill people and must be banned, etc. Well did he ever think that spoons make people fat? People would be a lot thinner if they had to eat ice cream with chop stix. This guy is not as smart as people make him out to be. If people want to ban guns, they need to ban spoons also.

mario

12-17-2012, 02:41 PM

Duck hunter and phil s you guy have my vote you are very smart men
this was very said

Just Say N20

12-17-2012, 04:37 PM

Too many guns.
Too much ammo.
Too many unstable people with easy access to guns and ammo.

Our society can't prevent every incident, but we have to try harder.

I support the President.
I support Mike Bloomberg.
I'm confident that through more effective screening, training, awareness, enforcement and common sense, progress can be made.
We can do better.

I have no problem with the Second Amendment, I'm not afraid of the NRA and I VOTE.

Jay,

I consider you a friend, but yikes. . . .

There are evil people. They are going to do evil things. That CAN NOT be changed.

Given this, if you and your wife and I were walking back to the docks, to enjoy an after dinner DONZI ride, and we were accosted by one/some of these evil people, I guess you would prefer I let them rob/rape/murder you both, because you believe so profoundly against guns that even though I had one for just such an occasion, that you most certainly would not want me to use it to protect you and your wife. Rest assured, that even though based on your stated position, it SHOULD anger you that I would dare have a gun and use it, I would do everything in my power to protect you.

Problem is, we would probably be doing this in Upstate New York, were I would NOT be allowed to bring my handgun. The evil person, doesn’t give a rip about the law, if he/they did, they certainly wouldn’t be considering breaking the laws about robbery, assault, murder, or whatever. So they, most likely would have a gun, because it gives them the biggest advantage. As has been pointed out, only honest people follow the laws.

I’m not some crazy nut-job. I always wear a seat belt. I always wear a helmet when on the motorcycle, and I carry whenever I can legally do so. I hope I go through my entire life without ever needing the seat belt, helmet or gun. But chances are, that if I ever do need the seat belt, the helmet, or the gun, I probably REALLY, REALLY need it, and it will probably save my life. That should be MY choice.

States mandate that I WEAR a seat belt to protect me from harm. Same thing for the motorcycle helmet in many states. But, 2nd amendment notwithstanding, these same people, who are so “concerned” about my safety as evidenced by things such as the seat belt law, no 32 oz drinks, etc., have decided that I should be put at a distinct disadvantage regarding my ability to protect myself against evil people? Does that make any sense?

And regarding the so-called “assault” weapons; there is no such weapon. It is a fabrication developed by the gun-grabbers to sound bad, and therefore get the uniformed support on board.

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with sporting, or hunting. The Founding Fathers put that there so the citizenry would be able to protect itself against a corrupt or tyrannical government, to the point of overthrowing it. And people who want to put this into some historical perspective saying the Founding Father’s didn’t mean exactly that, haven’t studied it enough, or want to believe some lie. The civilians back at the beginning of the USA, had access to exactly the same armaments as the military. I’m just saying. . . .

And history has revealed that the USA has NOT been attacked in the past, because of the knowledge that there are a LOT of armed citizens here. Bullies don’t pick on the biggest, strongest person. They pick the wimps, who they think they can easily overpower. And the bully, even though he is the biggest, strongest person, doesn’t by definition have to go around overpowering everyone else.

The USA has remained as successful and free as it has because of the 1st and 2nd amendments.

harbormaster

12-17-2012, 04:51 PM

American citizens can ONLY own an automatic weapon (class III Firearm) as long as:

(a)it was registered as an automatic weapon before 1986.
(because of this automatic weapons usually cost a minimum of $15000.00 to buy.)

AND

You also need to get the chief law enforcement officer of your county or town to sign the paper work and you submit the paperwork along with fingerprints, Photos, ATF form, and $200.00. If you pass The ATF scruitiny you will get approval and special for with a stamp on it 6 months later allowing ONLY you to possess the firearm. (if your house catches fire and anyone but you tries to save it by carrying it outside, they have committed a felony punishable by 10years in prison and a 10,000 fine.
This is also the case for short barrel rifles(SBR), short barrel shotguns(SBS), and silencers.

Most law enforcement officials will not sign it, so the ATF has made it possible to assign a class III weapon to a trust.
You can create a revocable trust and which has you and whoever you trust as trustees who are able to possess and or transport the weapon. In this case you have an Appendix A which lists the serial number of the class III weapon.
You send in the trust along with the completed atf form and $200 and 6 month later you get paper work which makes all of the trustees legal.

So we need more laws? How about a law that requires a safe for assault style weapons. I would go along with that.
I own assault style weapons because they need less maintenance and there is alot of stuff you can do to accessorize them. I have 4000 rounds of ammo at home not because I am a crackpot, but because I love to shoot at the ranges and I never know when the crackpots in our country and government cause ammunition prices to rise out of site.
Attached are my Firearm toys. An AK47 Pistol, A customized AR15/M4, and a Clone HK MP5.
741127411374114

jl1962

12-17-2012, 04:55 PM

And Bill I consider you a friend too. But I stand by what I said. And I believe there is a lot of middle ground in the debate that most people could agree to that might prevent, discourage or mitigate the extent of the kind of damage and carnage inflicted in Newtown.

I also believe that having a national conversation about this is painfull but necessary, and long overdue. Of course there are evil and sick people in the world, and there always will be, but to throw up our arms as a country and say "What a shame" without trying to steer this epidemic in a different direction would be the real tragedy.

I know that you are not a knee jerk gun nut and I hope you realize that I am not a knee jerk liberal. We are both sickened by the same horrible event. As I said this conversation is long overdue and I'm pretty sure we agree on more than we disagree on. The challenge for our country is to find some clarity.

And I look forward to that after dinner boat ride, muggers or no muggers. The 32 ounce sodas are on me!

Peace.

BUIZILLA

12-17-2012, 06:25 PM

Jay, I like the way you think, definitive and direct :wavey:

Greg Guimond

12-17-2012, 07:58 PM

Just Say N20 said ......"And regarding the so-called “assault” weapons; there is no such weapon. It is a fabrication developed by the gun-grabbers to sound bad, and therefore get the uniformed support on board."

Bill, isn't an assault weapon classified by how many rounds it can fire? I know nothing about guns. It makes sense to me for folks to carry pistols and shotguns for hunting and target shooting and the like, and even protection but what seems to be an entirely different animal is a weapon that can fire umpteen rounds without ever needing to reload. I hear things like 30 bullets in a cartridge, 100 bullets in a cartridge. Is this the so-called assault weapon?

Ed Donnelly

12-17-2012, 09:01 PM

Harbormaster; Don't ever bring your toys into Canada..

They are all illegal.....................Ed

Marlin275

12-17-2012, 09:11 PM

“I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle.
I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting.
I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
Sen. of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, endorsed by the NRA

"I believe every American has Second Amendment rights, the ability to hunt is part of our culture.
I've had a NRA (National Rifle Association) rating of an "A"
but, you know, enough is enough," Senator Warner said on CBS News

duckhunter

12-17-2012, 09:27 PM

Roughly 25% of the 2.9 million American servicemembers lost in battle were killed with single-shot muskets, so no implement has the market cornered on destructive capability. Today the greatest killer is the improvised explosive device (IED).

High capacity firearms like AR15s are used for everything from target shooting to hunting to home protection to competition. I compete in cowboy action shooting (using late 1800s lever action assault rifles and high capacity repeating revolvers) and have dabbled in IDPA (pistol competition) and 3-gun (high capacity pistol/rifle/shotgun) competition. The only things that get routinely hurt in these kinds of competitions are steel plates and feelings... Unfortunately sometimes mine...

I think we are still witnessing a gut reaction to DO SOMETHING in the wake of this tragedy, which is completely understandable. Unfortunately there is no one surefire solution, or it would have been enacted years ago. An assault weapons ban was implemented in this country from 1994-2004 and it had absolutely zero impact on the violent crime rate. I can't help but believe, based not on emotion but on empirical facts, that gun control is not the solution here. It is the singer that is the issue, not the song.

Let's start doing the HARD work of identifying those people on the outskirts of society that are displaying the clear warning signs that they are capable of these monstrous acts. It infuriates me in the aftermath of all of these events that people close to the perpetrator come forward and say something to the effect of "Well, I'm not surprised. Everyone has been waiting for Bobby to do something like this for years." Find an event where that hasn't been the case and I'll buy you a beer.

Let's stop looking the other way as a society and DO SOMETHING about these folks - they need help and we need to be the ones to facilitate that, because in most cases they don't even realize that there is an issue with their behavior or thought patterns. If junior is locked in the basement playing violent first-person shooter games 20 hours a day with no human interaction there might be an issue. When he graduates to killing small animals and vocalizing threats to family members there is definitely an issue. Because again, in most cases there is some sort of cry for help long before they act out, if only we are willing to recognize the signs and act on it. Counseling, medication, and in the worst case institutionalization are ugly things, but not nearly as ugly as the aftermath we have seen played out before us time and time again.

Let's start turning off the electronics and spending some time engaging with our kids. Really engaging. I need work on this as much as anyone, and when I do I'm always pleasantly surprised at the perceptiveness and sincerity of my daughter. She has blossomed into a competent and confident 9 year old human. We spent "black Friday" not at the mall, but at the shooting range making little holes in paper targets and having an absolute HOOT. It wasn't a "gun thing," it was a spend quality Father-Daughter time thing.

At the end of the day I respect everyone's highly personal views on all of this. I'm just trying to explain the view from my foxhole and continue to wrap my head around this whole thing.

harbormaster

12-18-2012, 08:23 AM

Hey Gabler
No one needs 30 round clips so we need to outlaw them? No one needs cheeseburgers or fried foods or really large sodas. So we need to outlaw them too? Oh wait New York City has outlawed large sodas.

My friend your sadly mistaken about the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. Its not about hunting. Its about this country posessing arms to prevent a corrupt government to run roughshod over its citizens.
The guy who killed those poor children stole his mother's guns. He also according to the media reports is autistic or has aspbergers syndrome. Not exactly indicative of the majority of most US gun owners.

harbormaster

12-18-2012, 08:34 AM

Oh yeah. We don't need boats that go faster than 45mph and make noise. They burn too much fuel, harm the environment, and kill thousands of people in canoes every year. Lets outlaw them.

Thousands of people drown every year. Most all were wearing swim suits. Lets ban swim suits too while we are at it.

Carl C

12-18-2012, 08:38 AM

I don't believe in killing animals for "sport". I love shooting though. I like to shoot at plastic bottles full of water from long distances. They explode when you hit them. We have a sand pit in north Michigan where it is safe to do this. I still say that in close engagement like this that a shotgun is more devastating, even if you do have to reload. It's hard to miss your target. A .223 is more of a longer range weapon which must be aimed with precision. Scot, I love Texan's views of gun ownership!

Just Say N20

12-18-2012, 08:58 AM

Carl, I love the picture of your boat in your signature. It looks like it is just screaming along, barely touching the water.

And I thought mine was running free. You have taken it to the next level. I hope to get some like that of my boat next summer.

Well done. :)

BUIZILLA

12-18-2012, 09:00 AM

my son in law was a LEO Sgt-Detective with the local School Board for 8 years... he has pretty much thought he saw it all, and prepares himself accordingly, he was REQUIRED to wear a bullet proof vest to patrol over 225 schools in this county (just think about that tidbit for a minute)

what he wasn't prepared for a couple years back, was being called to a local middle school to find a 12 yo with an AR 15 brought for *show & tell* in the hallways, it was LOADED, and he had a spare clip in his back pack.... 100% true story

since that episode, he has PERSONALLY accosted another 5-6 kids with guns in schools, BIG guns, 357's, 41's, 45's, 12 ga, 30-30, NONE were over the age of 17, one was as young as 11.. there were at one time 120+ Officers on the force and it happened at least monthly in the schools, if not more, you just don't hear about 99% of them, about 50 officers have since resigned to protect their lives and family futures.........

after the last time when a kid in a school shot up an occupied MDFD Fire Rescue vehicle *for the hell of it*, he resigned the next day, the kid got home probation, BFD

he is now a County officer and see's gun violations on the street every day, he even arrested one armed guy standing in line to vote last month that was getting agitated at the 6 hour wait time..

the 2nd Amendment never provided for this conduct, and it's true meaning is misconstrued on a minute to minute basis by those who think they can change the interpretation to suit themselves. That was NEVER the intention,,,

if your that worried to live in the USA that you must possess these weapons, then maybe you should go live on an island by yourself or in a jungle, personal protection is one thing, paranoia is a complete different theatre of thinking, dangerous thinking

I find it very compelling when I heard both the NRA President and the Gov of WV both say on world news this morning > ENOUGH is ENOUGH... can't argue that fact

Carl C

12-18-2012, 10:05 AM

Just Say N2O, thanks. If the chopper had stuck with me for awhile longer and been on the sunlit side of the boat we could have gotten some serious air pics, but I like that one too. I'll take all the heli pics I can get! :)

Buizilla, I was ambushed and robbed at gunpoint and clubbed twice on the head with a blackjack at my own back door because I am a business owner. If someone kicks down my door with no warning I want to be ready to defend myself. That's not paranoia. That's today's reality. :(

BUIZILLA

12-18-2012, 10:08 AM

Carl, protection and paranoia are two different things, I never said don't carry protection, I never said not to be armed, my post was simply if you THINK you NEED mutiple weapons with a capacity of 20-30 just for protection, then you live in the wrong place or your paranoid

key word PROTECTION

please don't misconstrue my words, thanks

Just Say N20

12-18-2012, 10:13 AM

after the last time when a kid in a school shot up an occupied MDFD Fire Rescue vehicle *for the hell of it*, he resigned the next day, the kid got home probation, BFD

Buizilla, I believe this is not a gun problem. It is an enforcement of existing laws problem.

It is all about agendas. If the same amount of effort went into enforcing existing firearm laws, as is put into drug enforcement laws. . . .
Let a kid shoot up an occupied MDFD Fire Rescue vehicle and get home probation? Let the cops find some kid with some dope and he gets sent to jail for years? Nope, no agenda there. What lesson is this teaching? Want to go to jail? Get caught with MJ. Want a slap on the wrists? Shoot up a bunch of stuff.

It seems obvious to me that they are intentionally lax about enforcing gun laws regarding criminals, because THEY want to “prove” that firearm laws are not adequate, and will never be adequate, which helps them justify ultimately complete confiscation. Can you say “FAST AND FURIOUS?” Any group that will even conceive of such a horrific, evil program and can justify it to themselves as being necessary to obtain their objective is sick, and cannot be trusted. Of course, they aren’t quite proud enough of it to accept responsibility for it. Machiavellian to be sure.

Why is it that the bumper sticker says, “My son was killed by a drunk driver” rather than “My son was killed by a car?” If the same gun-grabber logic was applied, the car is obviously the problem, not the driver. But in a tragedy like this, the gun is the problem. Which group IMMEDIATELY politicized this? “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” – Rahm Emanuel

Carl C

12-18-2012, 10:13 AM

Buiz, you didn't say "protection" so I didn't misconstrue it. I'm not going to discuss my own precautions on the internet but, you know, a lot of people just enjoy collecting and shooting guns for sport. Hunters have cases full of long guns of all types. You cannot blame the guns. This guy could have been in there lobbing molotov cocktails or homemade incendiaries.

dsparis

12-18-2012, 10:24 AM

From a Cop's point of view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

Marlin275

12-18-2012, 10:34 AM

Hey VanAlstine,

Seems these mass murders only stop shooting when they run out of bullets, think we can save some lives there?

The Giffords shooter's weapon was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots". Shooter stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury. The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger.

harbormaster

12-18-2012, 10:53 AM

Hi Charles

Did everyone hear how the mall shooter in Oregon was stopped by a person carrying a concealed hand gun?
according to the news media, The guy possessed a CHL and drew down on the coward shooter who then stopped shooting and ended his own life.

I believe the key point here is that a disarmed populace will be even more vulnerable because evil people will not go away, they will use knives, explosives, poisons, vehicles or whatever they can to achieve their horrendous goal. If people think getting rid of high capacity clips or guns that are parkoed black with a pistol grip will end the madness then they are living in a F*cking dream world. Gun control nuts need to wake up see the real world and stop hooking your arms with other people and singing coombayah...

just my 2 cents. Not a personal attack ;-)

jl1962

12-18-2012, 10:59 AM

There's a good Op/Ed in the NYT today on the origins of M.A.D.D (Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

It has taken 30 years but, M.A.D.D. and others have changed the way we as a society view irresponsible behavior (drunk driving) that was once tolerated and even celebrated.

Newtown is a catalytic event that will crystallize and galvanize a public that is fed up with gun related violence. Like w/ M.A.D.D., it will take time and it will be incremental. If it were easy, it would've happened a long time ago. It will involve enforcement of existing laws, better screening of unstable individuals, liscencing of firearms, background checks, waiting periods, gun buy backs and amnesty, data bases, etc... The Right will howl about the 2nd Amendment , the Left will howl about privacy, but it will happen.

There will always be a trade off between individual rights and public safety, but the pendulum will begin to swing back towards public safety. There are NO rights granted by the Constitution so absolute that they trump public safety or welfare.

The hardest part will be Americans taking a good hard look at what is a uniquely American problem. In 2008, 11 people were killed by firearms in Japan compared wih over 12,000 in the US. We will never be Japan, but we can do better.

maddad

12-18-2012, 11:07 AM

Why is it that the bumper sticker says, “My son was killed by a drunk driver” rather than “My son was killed by a car?” If the same gun-grabber logic was applied, the car is obviously the problem, not the driver. But in a tragedy like this, the gun is the problem.

I have a hard time believing that the logic here is lost on some people. Maybe because they're fans and users of cars, and can see it's the end user, not the tool being used in those cases.

biggiefl

12-18-2012, 11:10 AM

"Seems these mass murders only stop shooting when they run out of bullets, think we can save some lives there?"

I agree but disagree. Adam's mother knew her son was not right and made it known to the public. This woman also took him to the shooting range multiple times. Nobody can prove that he actually fired the guns however at the range. This disturbed man(not kid) then had full access to a small aresenal of weapons but on top of that he had about 700 rounds of ammo at the school. He did not run out of ammo. Two things come to my mind about this. What F*@&ing stupid person would have that kind of stuff in their house, try and teach their F*@&ed up son to learn to shoot it, and not keep it in a safe? Makes you wonder if she was "teaching" him to do this or he did this on his own? People are messed up, it would not surprise me a bit that we find out later that this was "Mommy's" idea all along and he decided to kill her also as he knew it was wrong but was brainwashed, etc. He did kill himself waaayyy before he ran out of ammo so you know he knew it was wrong. You NEVER know with these whackos out there. Just think of that Father/son couple or Uncle/Nephew couple that had a sniper car and were killing people in the VA area out of a trunk of the car while they were pumping their gas. Heck what about all these crazies in Montana or someplace that are all bunkered down waiting for the world to end? His Mom might have truly believed the Mayan prophecy or some crap and wanted to "save" the children from the coming end of the world by taking them out with a single shot.....we may never know but something is fishy and it aint the food.

I read yesterday that the father was going to testify against the London bank scandal or something. Ironically the father of the aurora, CO movie shooting was supposed to testify as well. Anyone hear anything about this? I think it was just a stupid thing going viral that somebody made up....then again it would'nt surprise me.

Marlin275

12-18-2012, 11:18 AM

Hi Scot,

Two NRA guys started the dialog on reducing mass murder in our country.
It is good we are starting to talk . . .

Offset

12-18-2012, 01:39 PM

In Canada we have our own firearms issues. Our problems are perhaps not the same so I do not feel any right to say anything to my American friends on this. However, I really am impressed that this discussion has been very level headed on both sides and I applaud you folks for that. Perhaps some good will come out of it all.

I still cannot get my mind around what happened in that school. My wife cried last night when they showed the children's pictures. Such a loss to the world.

Carl C

12-18-2012, 02:05 PM

I'd bet that quite a few Christmas trees have already been taken down in that town.:frown: :'(

Just Say N20

12-18-2012, 02:16 PM

Maddad, I like that: “Just Say 406” although I think it is actually a 409. :)

BUIZILLA

12-18-2012, 03:10 PM

If people think getting rid of high capacity clips or guns that are parkoed black with a pistol grip will end the madness then they are living in a F*cking dream world. Gun control nuts need to wake up see the real world and stop hooking your arms with other people and singing coombayah... Scot, I would be interested in your perception in how to slow down, or alleviate, this over armed madness. I don't see any logical reason to run around with 20-30 slug semi-automatic clips... if you haven't dropped the armed intruder by 3 slugs, the other 27 ain't gonna do you any good...

I mean, seriously, do you REALLY need to harbor 4,000 rounds to protect your house and personal property?

my parents mantra was > if you kill it, you eat it

to me, a lot of this over armed madness is just a huge ego stroke that develops machismo courage, some of it falsely, for the sake of bragging rights

duckhunter

12-18-2012, 07:53 PM

I and many others have pointed out the inherent dangers in allowing our government to legislate what people "need." Once we go down that road, where does it end?

- Who NEEDS a big, fast, loud boat?
- Who NEEDS a house more than 2k sf?
- Who NEEDS a stock crotch rocket that can run 10sec quarters and almost 200 top end?
- Who NEEDS a fast car?
- Who NEEDS a luxury car?
- Who NEEDS more than one car per driver?
- Who NEEDS elective cosmetic surgery?
- Who NEEDS to make more than $250k a year?

As has also been pointed out, evil will find a way. We simply can't legislate our way out of this cultural / societal mess by banning certain types of firearms.

Greg Guimond

12-18-2012, 10:02 PM

Guys, lets be real here. It is fine to carry a pistol or a hunting rifle for sport or protection. Do you really think that you need to carry a weapon that will fire 30 rounds? What is the goal? Hunting, skeet shooting, protection? Do you really need 10-30 rounds to hunt or protect your loved one? I am fine with carrying a gun, but do we really need to have assault weapons?

To compare any of this to a car, a boat, a soft drink etc is peculiar

Greg Guimond

12-18-2012, 10:05 PM

duckhunter...........I am shocked that you would highlight the stuff you posted. We are talking about dead people here and you are talking about cosmetic surgery? Are you serious?

Just Say N20

12-18-2012, 10:43 PM

Greg,

The discussion has been about how to prevent more such tragedies, not specifically about those who fell victim to a lunatic. That event triggered this discussion.

DH is most certainly NOT trying to equate the tragic death of kindergarten children with cosmetic surgery. I believe his point is directed towards additional governmental regulation, using things that we take for granted today.

Believe me, the “noisy go-fast” boat crowd is a very small minority. When other people start making regulations based on what they personally feel is best for us, we are screwed. Is it any of the government’s business how much money anyone makes, or what type of car they drive, or if they want cosmetic surgery, or a “large” home, etc.? No, it isn’t. But with they way things are turning, more and more people, made up of predominantly people who are living off wages they did nothing to earn, are voicing opinions that it is EXACTLY the government’s business to regulate these types of things.

I heard from a variety of sources today, that this particular shooter had several hundred rounds of ammunition. Know why he stopped killing, and turned the gun on himself? Because he heard the police show up, and realized there was finally someone else present with a gun. If any of the teachers, or the principal at this school had been armed, how many lives would have been saved? He KNEW he could go into this school and be in complete control, because he was the only person armed.

I am not talking about how/why he was there, and how/why he had a rifle and all that ammo. For this discussion, that is a given. He is an example of the EVIL person doing EVIL things. What I am saying is that given the fact that there are such people out there, one of the things that we can do to minimize the damage they can do is be prepared for it. Remember seat belt, helmet and gun? Be prepared and hope you never need any of them. But chances are you might. It is looking like the chances are becoming greater that they will be needed.

I also heard that the shooter at the BATMAN movie purposely selected that theatre because they didn’t allow patrons to carry concealed while inside. Should be very enlightening to consider this. He actions are proof of the effect that concealed carry laws perform. Bad guys will always go where they know there is the least chance of them being confronted with armed citizens. This is such a basic fact that I am at a loss to imagine why some would argue otherwise.

biggiefl

12-18-2012, 11:16 PM

Bill....."I also heard that the shooter at the BATMAN movie purposely selected that theatre because they didn’t allow patrons to carry concealed while inside. Should be very enlightening to consider this. He actions are proof of the effect that concealed carry laws perform. Bad guys will always go where they know there is the least chance of them being confronted with armed citizens. This is such a basic fact that I am at a loss to imagine why some would argue otherwise."

Can you show me a movie theatre(not some redneck bar that shows movies) that allows people to pack heat please?

FL is very liberal and there aint no way you are bringing a gun in a theatre legally, just like a bank, bar, school, etc....no way.

Just Say N20

12-19-2012, 07:17 AM

States all differ in where you can/can’t carry concealed. In verifying this information, it was very interesting reading blogs by anti-gun people. They are always filled with emotionally written “predictions” as to what will most certainly happen, or not happen as a result of people carrying concealed weapons. Unfortunately, it is pure speculation. The “If everyone is allowed to have a gun, the streets will run red with blood!” type of nonsense.

There are so many facts regarding what ACTUALLY happens, that there is no need to any longer speculate on what you THINK will happen. Statistics continually and repeatedly show that more legally carried concealed weapons reduces crime. And yet the howling continues contrary to all the documentation, because the facts don’t support their agenda. So ignore the facts, and continue to splash emotionally based lies everywhere that to the uninformed sound plausible. Remember, one of the first things dictators do is disarm the population.

In Michigan, some major places you can’t carry in:

• Churches
• Hospitals
• Government buildings
• Schools
• Public venues whose capacity is greater than 2,500 people
• Business’ whose primary source of revenue is alcohol (restaurants/bars)

In Colorado, concealed carry is permitted in Theaters.

Below is a brief summary, of the longer posting below.

Places off-limits when carrying:
1. Any place prohibited by federal law (e.g. federal offices or courthouse)
2. Any property of public school grades kindergarten through 12, unless the firearm remains inside a container in a locked vehicle
3. Any public building that prohibits ALL weapons which posts guards and permanent metal detectors at all entrances and requires all entrants to surrender handguns to security personnel before entry

More from the Colorado Legislature:

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.
(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.
(2) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Page 18-senate bill 03-024
(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:
(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked.
(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty.
(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.
(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:
(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;
(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and (c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.
(5) nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

Greg Guimond

12-19-2012, 07:18 AM

Carl C

12-19-2012, 07:54 AM

It doesn't take long to change a clip, and he had three guns I believe. Quit blaming the guns.

Marlin275

12-19-2012, 08:27 AM

The National Rifle Association has put out a statement
saying it is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions"
to prevent more violence like that which occurred in Newtown, Conn., last week.

dsparis

12-19-2012, 08:27 AM

It seems to me that some of you think that banning semi-autos and hi-cap mags will magically make all the ones
(millions) out there go poof, gone. I'm sorry but the genie' out of the bottle. You would have to go door to door and confiscate above weapons. Good luck with that. Guns don't kill, people do.

VetteLT193

12-19-2012, 08:27 AM

[ QUOTE=$originalposter]...Can you show me a movie theatre(not some redneck bar that shows movies) that allows people to pack heat please?...[/QUOTE]

I'll show you one... actually, I'll show you many. Every movie theater in the State of Florida.

It's perfectly legal (assuming you have a CCW) to carry into a Movie Theater in FL.

It's not legal to carry in a school, and ironically, it wouldn't be legal to carry into a redneck bar that shows movies because you can't carry in bars.

Ever wonder why the bar area seating in FL is 'open' seating where you can go in and get your own table? Restaurants can't seat people there because if someone is carrying concealed they aren't allowed in that section of the restaurant.

duckhunter

12-19-2012, 09:09 AM

Greg Guimond
duckhunter...........I am shocked that you would highlight the stuff you posted. We are talking about dead people here and you are talking about cosmetic surgery? Are you serious?

Greg G - Obviously there are some problems with the quotation tool and that can sometimes make it hard to interpret the intent of a specific post. However, if you read my post in context, ie responding to prior comments about what folks "need," it might have made more sense to you. JustSayN2O did a much more eloquent job of laying out that argument.

I would ask that you read my numerous other posts on this very thread and use them to help shape your opinion of my motivations and perhaps character. I understand that it can be difficult to decipher tone and intent from sometimes hastily written notes on the internet, but to take something completely out of context like the statement above doesn’t do the discussion any good at all.

Here are the cliff notes of my previous posts:

- This act was a national tragedy and the perpetrator is reprehensible.

- The desire and political pressure to "do something" is warranted but focusing solely on the tools used is simplistic and naive.

- Gun control, specifically previous AWBs, have not lowered the violent crime rate or kept “assault weapons” out of the hands of criminals. States with more permissive gun laws have lower violent crime rates across the board. Compare Dallas or Nashville to Chicago or DC.

- Legislating our way out of events like this will not work. Criminals by definition do not care about the law. This is a societal issue, not a political issue. Go hug your kids and get to know them.

- Mental health awareness and identifying potentially violent offenders within our families and communities and getting them effective help will do more to stop these kinds of events than banning anything. There are always tools available for someone that wishes to perpetrate evil.

- Allowing our government to chip away at our individual liberties is a slippery slope. “Assault rifles” today could just as easily be boats or motorcycles or botox tomorrow.

Thanks.

Carl C

12-19-2012, 09:13 AM

An armed society is a polite society. Too bad no one was allowed to be armed in that school. That may be changing soon.

Just Say N20

12-19-2012, 09:15 AM

But Bill, do you think if he had a weapon that required reloading after three rounds instead of thirty that it would have given the cops more time to get there and that fewer kids would have been killed?

Greg,

I don’t know, because I don’t know enough about HOW the events in this tragedy played out. I understand he had several weapons and several magazines. It is possible that magazines with a smaller capacity might have given law enforcement more time. But as has been already pointed out, replacing an empty magazine with a full one takes very little time; less than 5 seconds for sure. So to speculate that rather than 1 “reload,” he had magazines with smaller capacity, and he had to perform 10 reloads. That would have added less than a minute to the whole process. I can’t predict what that minimal amount of time difference would have made.

The only possible benefit I could see, IF there were armed people present, is that he MIGHT have been more vulnerable during the brief reload time. However, I also understand he had multiple weapons, so maybe not.

I don’t know why people “need” magazines with a large capacity. But then I don’t know why people “need” any of the things DH mentioned. But that is not my concern, or my business.

People tend to make assessments based on the own personal situation. If I make $40K a year, I’m very likely to think someone who makes $100K/year is rich. But the person who makes $100K/year thinks the guy who makes $250K/year is rich. If I live in an 800 ft2 apartment, I might think anyone who owns a home is rich. But if I own a 1,500 ft2 home, I think the person with the 4,000 ft2 home is rich. And on and on it goes.

I don’t personally “need” a 30, or 50 round capacity magazine. So what? That doesn’t mean nobody should have one.

The Bushmaster .223 is the weapon this lunatic used in CT. How, exactly did he get INTO a school in the first place? It has been reported that the school had a security door that required someone to “release” to allow entry. How did he get let in carrying such a gun? As you can see from the picture, it isn’t exactly a concealable gun.

roadtrip se

12-19-2012, 09:44 AM

I am very proud of our Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder, today, for his veto of an over-reaching concealed carry law. Concealed carry has no business in churches and schools, not to mention not allowing individual organizations to assess their risk, and say yeh or neh, is an over reach. I'm all for gun rights, but at any cost, just to defend the bill of rights, not really.

We can have reasonable gun rights and still protect ourselves. Scream all you want, it's coming.

jl1962

12-19-2012, 09:44 AM

Encouraging more people to carry weapons is not a sane progression. At best it just treats the symptons (which as have been noted by people on both sides of this issue, are societal as well as legislative), and it would likely lead to more events like last Friday. The solution to too many guns, too much ammo in the hands of too many unstable people isn't more of the same. We don't need to turn crowded urban centers or quite suburban ones into the Wild, Wild, West. Just ask any cop.

Rick Perry thinks we should arm teachers. Which, unless you are waiting to know what Donald Trump thinks, is really all you need to know about that idea. Teachers are the last American Heroes which should've been clear way before the Newtown shooting, but should we really expect them to be equal parts Mary Poppins and Jack Reacher? Maybe we should arm students too? Don't they make really little guns? Could be a real growth industry. Cerberus has a nice firearm company they are trying to unload (pun intended). You could make a killing...........

This is an important dialogue which the country is having right now. And to be taken seriously, the gun lobby needs to get behind many of the sensible ideas that the majority of their own members support or they will be steamrolled by history. Maybe we'll know more on Friday when the NRA weighs in.

Duck Hunter posted an intentionally frivolous list of areas the government is inserting itself and perhaps overeaching. I get his drift and it is a slippery slope. But what a society really "needs" from its government is spelled out most eloquently in the Preamble - to insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare of our society. Public safety will always trump any extreme ideology.

Peace

Ed Donnelly

12-19-2012, 09:51 AM

All the high schools my kids attended (Shannon is still in high school) have Metropolitan Toronto Police with bulletproof vests patrolling the hallways as long as the school is open. 99% of the kids welcome them.. It won't stop everything but it is a deterent to people..Ed

My heart goes out to all the parents.

duckhunter

12-19-2012, 10:03 AM

Some additional thoughts on specific actions we can take to prevent atrocities like this in the future.

1. Harden targets. Mass murderers prefer soft targets based on historical evidence. New Town, Batman, Columbine, 9/11 aircraft, etc were all "gun free" zones and by definition soft targets. We have hardened our airports and airplanes, armed our pilots, and increased use of Federal Air Marshals since 9/11 and it has worked.

Why are we not doing the same thing to protect our kids in school? Arming every teacher is obviously not the answer, and having a SWAT team at every school is not practical. How about we get some staff volunteers at every school to undergo strict background checks and intensive training and allow them to be the first line of armed defense in our schools? This would augment the sworn LEOs that some communities already have in their schools. This could be funded at the Federal, State, or local level, or a combination. We certainly fund enough pork, handouts, foreign aid, and bridges to nowhere to come up with the funds to do this.

2. Mental Health policy. Needs to be relooked and updated. While I am a vociferous advocate of civil liberties, in this instance I think the pendulum has swung too far to the permissive side. It is too hard to institutionalize people that have demonstrated the capability and intent to harm themselves and more importantly others, for fear of violating their civil rights. Many states have defunded their mental health facilities and turned the residents out onto the streets, which is a recipe for disaster. I am not a mental health professional, but this bears looking in to.

3. Gun policy. I would not disagree with more thorough backround checks for gun purchases that includes flags for mental health issues from medical professionals. This would need to be well-defined and carefully implemented.

- I have no sympathy for folks that allow their firearms to fall into the hands of crimminals (particularly family members) and children. There is simply no excuse.

- More permissive concealed carry laws across the board at the state level, combined with an optional national CCW reciprocity. Increase training requirements to a realistic national standard for those that wish to get a nationwide carry permit.

So there's my thoughts on some things we can do to address this tragedy. Worth exactly what you paid for them...

Just Say N20

12-19-2012, 10:07 AM

Encouraging more people to carry weapons is not a sane progression. At best it just treats the symptons (which as have been noted by people on both sides of this issue, are societal as well as legislative), and it would likely lead to more events like last Friday. The solution to too many guns, too much ammo in the hands of too many unstable people isn't more of the same. We don't need to turn crowded urban centers or quite suburban ones into the Wild, Wild, West. Just ask any cop.

I’m sorry Jay, but I’ve got to call you out on statements like this. There are simply too many misstatements of facts.

• Actually it is. Legally armed people, whether they are cops or civilians STOP violence by being able to neutralize it. Unarmed people against armed lunatics are nothing more than victims.

• There is NO historical evidence that supports this statement. There is a lot of historical evidence that shows that as the number of concealed carry in the population increases, crime, specifically personal assaults, decrease. Facts prove the opposite of your “suggestion” as to what would likely happen.

• Who is suggesting putting more guns/ammo in the hands of unstable people? Obviously that is a problem. Arming “stable” people is a documented deterrent to crazies who have ANY TYPE of weapon.

• Again, simply not true. I have many cop friends, and NONE of them are against legal concealed carry. And to hear them talk, only a small, fringe portion of them are against it.

"Maybe we should arm students too? Don't they make really little guns? Could be a real growth industry.” Really? This doesn’t even warrant a response. Taking something from a proven, meaningful solution, to some hyper-extreme is pathetic.

"But what a society really "needs" from its government is spelled out most eloquently in the Preamble - to insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare of our society. Public safety will always trump any extreme ideology.” Exactly. And whether people like it or not, there is more than enough historical proof that society is safer the more legally armed citizens there are. There are people against guns. I get that. But I cannot understand people’s willingness to believe/repeat lies (like the Wild Wild West Blood Bath concept) to promote their cause. But, when the facts, and history are against you, I guess that’s all that’s left.

And this is why Political discussions are dangerous.

duckhunter

12-19-2012, 10:31 AM

roadtrip se
I am very proud of our Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder, today, for his veto of an over-reaching concealed carry law. Concealed carry has no business in churches and schools, not to mention not allowing individual organizations to assess their risk, and say yeh or neh, is an over reach. I'm all for gun rights, but at any cost, just to defend the bill of rights, not really.

We can have reasonable gun rights and still protect ourselves. Scream all you want, it's coming.
Todd,

I agree that private individual organizations should be allowed to assess their level of risk and make their own decision on whether or not to allow firearms inside their business. People can eat/shop/whatever there depending on their level of risk adversity or their personal feelings on that business' stance. In other words let them vote with their wallets...

It shouldn't be up to the state (big S or little s) to make that choice for churches, that should be left to the congregation. I know how mine feels about it...

At the end of the day I guess I'm more on the side of individual liberties vs. having someone dictate what is "best" for me in most instances.

You guys in MI have had some fascinating political throwdowns over the last couple of months, kind of like WI was a year or two ago.

jl1962

12-19-2012, 10:49 AM

Bill -

This whole discussion is about what constitutes rational and what constitutes "hyper-extreme" and I apologize if you missed my sarcasm about arming children.

Guns are the proverbial elephant in the room here. These individuals (I'll be polite) aren't walking into schools or movie theatres or government buildings with slingshots or letter openers.

A lot of us are fond of what we call American Exceptionalism. It will take time but can you really tell me that we can't do better? We have to or we will be revisiting this thread every couple of months. I'd much rather write about boats.

And I agree w/ you 1000% about politics.

Peace

Nice use of colors btw

Just Say N20

12-19-2012, 11:46 AM

Jay,

Got it. The color thing had to be done 5 times before it worked. Not sure why.

I don’t see guns as being the elephant in the room. Gun are being scape-goated as the problem. People with mental issue, and no sense of morality (evil) are the problem. Sane people with guns don’t murder anyone.

Crazy/disturbed people will use whatever they can to do whatever evil they intend, whether it be home made bombs, knives, box cutters, aircraft, baseball bats, etc.

Samual Jackson, with whom I disagree with on just about everything, "has long been an advocate of gun ownership. He said in April 2012, in the aftermath of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, “I don’t mind people having guns. I grew up with guns in Tennessee … I’m not going to be the one without the gun when the people who have guns show up.” When asked if he is a gun owner, Jackson responded, “Hell yeah.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/12/18/Samuel-L-Jackson-gun-control

Our society has actively been removing virtually every aspect of the moral foundation that made this country great in the first place. We have reached a point where if a person suggests that some things are actually right, and some are actually wrong, you will find people willing to argue about it. Murder 25,000,000 unborn since the implementation of Roe vs. Wade, and then be surprised when someone goes on a killing spree.

You said you support Obama. Something to consider. His stated position is that if a child survives an abortion, it is OK to abandon the child and allow it do die on it’s own. That is murder. Period. No guns involved.

Documentation:

In 2001, Illinois State Senator Patrick O'Malley discovered that a procedure was being performed at hospitals in Illinois where labor was induced on a mother for the purposes of an abortion. Children who survived this procedure were taken to another room and left unattended until passing. In response to this practice, he introduced three pieces of legislation dealing with born children:

SB1093 said that if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care”

SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights

SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a " 'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual’ “

The only member to oppose the legislation in committee and the only member to speak against them was State Senator Barack Obama. The debate that State Senator Obama and State Senator O'Malley had on the Senate floor on March 30, 2001 is shown below:

Obama: Sen. O\'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the - the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living.

O\'Mallley: [T]his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a - a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

Obama: No. 1, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we\'re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term. ... I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

dsparis

12-19-2012, 11:49 AM

Excellent article
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

duckhunter

12-19-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote - dsparis
Excellent article
http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...emy-is-denial/ (http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/)

Dave Grossman is a great American - I first ran into him back in the late 90's. Smart, smart guy and a good speaker and trainer. Great article.

Here is an excerpt of an article from CNN that is well-written and makes some good points:

"John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#). The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones.

These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back. Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones.""

Full article here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_bn73

It really is worth the read.

BUIZILLA

12-19-2012, 03:07 PM

it's gonna be a sad day in America, if every elementary school principal has to be armed, to conduct a daily learning theatre, for our easily impressionable kids

they are going to think *hey, the teachers are armed, so why can't we be* all at the ripe age of 6...

what kind of an example is that? hypocrisy at it's best

then again, we have had a lot of sad days in America lately, this could just be another one that passes in the wind

Just Say N20

12-19-2012, 03:46 PM

it's gonna be a sad day in America, if every elementary school principal has to be armed, to conduct a daily learning theatre, for our easily impressionable kids

It would not have to be announced. It is all in how it is presented. I don’t know that children would think twice about it if principals and others in the school system were armed. They see that police are armed, and most kids probably understand why. It is not viewed as a “if they are armed, why aren’t I armed too” situation. Police have the tools they need to do their job. Kids don’t look at fireman and think “they all have fireproof suits, and cool helmets with breathing apparatus, why don’t I have that stuff too?” It is very sad that we have gotten to this point, but if that is what is needed, it should be done.

And is this any better/worse than having security guards and metal detectors? That sounds more like a prison than a school.

The article linked by DH is a very interesting read comparing what has been done in schools to make them “fire proof” and then comparing that to what has not been done to make the safe from this type of event.

It is very interesting to consider as a kid (I’m 56) neighborhood kids played together outside almost all the time, at least when we weren’t doing chores or homework. There were neighborhood games of STEAL THE FLAG, basketball, kickball, etc. We built underground forts in the woods, and one of the favorite things was to play either Cowboys & Indians, or play War.

We had cool rifles our parent’s purchased that looked real, had wooden stocks, and a working bolt action with a wooden spring loaded bullet that looked like it was being loaded when you worked the action. We played with these for years. But it was a game; just playing. I never once had any trouble understanding the difference between playing “war” with a toy gun, and real war. Nor did my playing these games influence me to become some sort of rampaging psychotic killer.

Carl C

12-19-2012, 04:56 PM

Jim, it's already a sad day when schools have metal detectors at the entrances and random pat-downs and locker checks.

fogducker III

12-19-2012, 05:37 PM

I will say it again, in my opinion it is the PARENT(S) that need to get a grip on their children and stop blaming "society" and gun laws and other BS for all the problems in the world......these mass murders are happening a lot lately, in numerous countries......China,Europe, US, Canada included......

I really am not sure why it is so difficult to understand, we need to make parents responsible for their children from day one and as parents WE need to take the bull by the horns and deal with our children's problems...........yes you might say, "Well this guy shot his mother..." Perhaps if she was on the ball and had some structured help BEFORE this happened it might have been different...........it comes to light now the kid had issues, these were obviously not addressed............the world in general is getting "soft" on kids, trying to be their "friends" instead of parents and leading by example and setting limits..........

We can blame schools, the kids friends, society, government, computer games, diet, gun laws etc etc etc....but WE decided to have children so WE need to get our $hit together and raise them as responsible, contributing members of society...if there are problems, physical, mental etc....they need to be addressed and that is where schools, government etc can help, give those parents some tools to deal with the issues............thank Christ I am getting old, kids have grown, reasonably successfully, and I can drop out of this rat race we call life...it is becoming very sad........I kind of hope the Mayans were right.....:doh:

Greg Guimond

12-19-2012, 05:39 PM

duckhunter, first accept my apology as I did take your comment out of context.

Back to the subject, it seems like a lot of the posts are speaking generically about "guns or no guns". I think there is an important variation. I have no problem with any person owning, and carrying a pistol or a rifle. In my opinion, where I feel that government SHOULD get involved is semi automatic assault weapons. I do not see ANY reason why a citizen should be able to own the types of weapons that can carry a cartridge that holds multiple bullets. I think you can and should restrict those types of weapons. If an individual wants to carry a pistol and is properly trained I am even fine with those pistols being present in a wide variety of venues, maybe even including schools for example.

I know that banning assault weapons will not magically remove the guns that are out there, but you have to start somewhere and I am willing to have the government take that liberty away from me. In return, our citizens still get to protect themselves or hunt with a pistol or a rifle and maybe even play a role as has been suggested in thwarting a psychotic killer.

Keep your guns, but you only get three bullets before you have to re-load. I am fine with that slippery slope. Lets see what the NRA comes up with on Friday.

BUIZILLA

12-19-2012, 07:36 PM

I don"t think the NRA is gonna trump Obama's plan...

but if there is a union involved all bets are off

Ghost

12-20-2012, 01:14 PM

Few things are as insulting to one's intelligence and as offensive to one's humanity as a protest permit.

If you don't see the overwhelming significance of that in this debate, please keep thinking until you do.

Greg Guimond

12-23-2012, 03:07 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/50283353#50283353

Just Say N20

12-23-2012, 06:22 PM

Boy is that David Gregory ever a Douche-Bag with an agenda. Good old “unbiased” mainstream media.

“Is that a MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION Mr. Lapierre?"

“But not conceding that guns are the problem, is THAT A MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION?”

“The ONE thing. You don’t think that GUNS are the problem?”

“A feeling is not fact.” "That’s not a fact that owning a gun makes you safer, that’s just a feeling.” Sorry David, but it does. Statistically proven everywhere it’s tried. What an a-hole.

He might has well just say, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind.” What a $h!*&$ead.

Right David, we barely enforce ANY of the existing gun control laws as they relate to criminals. Wouldn’t want to enforce existing laws, because it might show the giant gaping hole in your logic. No, the existing laws don’t work, so the obvious conclusion to be reached?!!? We need MORE gun control laws!

And I want a gold star for watching the entire interview with that self-righteous, smug, condescending little prick, as he tried to put words in Wayne’s mouth, and twist things around using logic that my dog could see through as being ridiculous.

hardcrab

12-23-2012, 09:30 PM

N20;
I agree exactly with your entire description.
I watch Meet The Press and generally like David Gregory as moderator until todays interview with Wayne LaPierre.
He treated the interview as his own agenda and didn't allow a balance in the debate. He kept (or tried to) put LaPierre on the defensive the whole time.
This was another example of media attempting to control public perception

Greg Guimond

12-24-2012, 09:38 AM

Interesting as I had no problem with Gregory and his approach but that is a sidebar to the main issue. The main issue is how we might do better as a nation. I think the NRA hurt themselves with there Friday press conference and Sunday morning talk show appearances. They came off looking archaic. That was actually too bad as LaPierre had other valid points that warrant discussion. They don't want to have a meaningful rational discussion. I find it amazing that they will not yield on multi round magazines............

GREGORY:This is a matter of logic, Mr. LaPierre, because anybody watching this is going to say hey wait a minute. I just heard Mr. LaPierre say that the standard is we should try anything that might reduce the violence. And you’re telling me that it’s not a matter of common sense that if you don’t have an ability to shoot off 30 rounds without reloading, that just possibly you could reduce the loss of life? Would Adam Lanza have been able to shoot as many kids if he didn’t have as much ammunition?’

LAPIERRE: I don’t buy your argument for a minute.

Dreamer Dave

12-24-2012, 10:26 AM

Just a thought in responce to the much quoted sound bite,"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Remember, shot at both Columbine and Virginia Tech was the uniformed, armed guard. Does he propose a new arms race?
With the most recent case, what if the bad guy has a two automatic hand guns, an AR-15, a bullet poof vest and a backpack full of clips? Does the NRA propose that elementary school guards be similarly armed?

hardcrab

12-24-2012, 10:55 AM

Dave: an assailant will be less likely to be able cause this type of mayhem or even try to if he/she knows they will likely be confronted. These murderers are cowards looking for easy prey.

Greg: While I do agree it is logical and reasonable to limit the access to high volume clips, the focus of the problem rests squarely on a mental health issue.
As I stated above, cowards look for easy prey - disarming the "good guy" is going to make it much easier for someone bent on murder to have at it.

harbormaster

12-24-2012, 11:01 AM

Scot, I would be interested in your perception in how to slow down, or alleviate, this over armed madness. I don't see any logical reason to run around with 20-30 slug semi-automatic clips...

I mean, seriously, do you REALLY need to harbor 4,000 rounds to protect your house and personal property?

Jim. First of all I do not run around with 30 round clips. I enjoy the larger capacity mags because i do not have to stop all the time to reload when at the gun range.:a
Secondly please take the time to read my posts. I stately in plainly that I had purchased this much ammo because I shoot alot at my local ranges and am trying keep my hobby as affordable as possible. I paid 31 cents a round for it. I I had waited till now, I would not be able to get it OR I would pay more than double than what I did. I saidnothing about having that much to protect my home.
Also I like my AR15 because with the removal of 2 pins I can put one of 2 other uppers/barrels on it. I have one that shoots 22 LR and one that uses 308 shells for hunting wild hogs. Its my observation that most folks that are screaming for a ban on these firearms know nothing about them. Go back and read how many times people referred to them as"automatic weapons" when they are not.

Just Say N20

12-24-2012, 11:02 AM

GREGORY:This is a matter of logic, Mr. LaPierre, because anybody watching this is going to say hey wait a minute. I just heard Mr. LaPierre say that the standard is we should try anything that might reduce the violence. And you’re telling me that it’s not a matter of common sense that if you don’t have an ability to shoot off 30 rounds without reloading, that just possibly you could reduce the loss of life? Would Adam Lanza have been able to shoot as many kids if he didn’t have as much ammunition?’

LAPIERRE: I don’t buy your argument for a minute.

Been there. Willing to try anything that will work. The Gun Ban with reduced capacity magazines was in place for four years. It had absolutely no effect on crime. NONE. Given the empirical proof that it did absolutely nothing to reduce crime, it does make me wonder why it would be suggested again.

That reminds me of the old definition of insanity; Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result.

The Gun Ban didn’t work before, but that just means we should try it again. Really?????

And why didn’t DAVID want to even discuss the fact that current gun laws aren’t being enforced, so crooks know they will get a pass? Seems to me that when a hard stance was taken, like it was in Virginia, and gun crime fell by around 65%, that might be something worth looking into. But he was so focused on blaming guns, and reimplementing stuff that doesn’t work, that he couldn’t even acknowledge a completely valid solution that HAS demonstrated it will work.

jl1962

12-24-2012, 03:47 PM

BUIZILLA

12-24-2012, 05:42 PM

And he is the embodiment of right wing paranoia that his organization stokes and enables. I was agreeing with everything you were thinking, UNTIL, you posted this

quite uncalled for, IMO.

Ghost

12-24-2012, 05:44 PM

The NRA "press conference" last Friday was pathetic. Worse it was insulting. Rather than offer anything meaningful that a majority of their very own members support, La Pierre poured more gasoline on the fire and more salt in the wounds of the victims. And he is the embodiment of right wing paranoia that his organization stokes and enables.

Arming everyone is NOT the solution. There are 300 million guns in this country and 30,000 gun related fatalities every year. There was a shooting at a church in Pennsylvania last week, should we arm ministers? What about the two dead firefighters near Rochester - should we arm firefighters? It has to stop somewhere. I believe there is a lot of common ground between the two extremes, but to stonewall the problem adds nothing. Just as auto fatalities have almost been halved in 20 years by better drivers, better cars and more responsible behavior, the same path can exist for gun related violence.

At a time where people want real solutions and a real dialogue, the NRA strategy is to deny, deflect, deceive and delay. Shameful.

Not what I want to discuss much more on Christmas Eve, but this merits real scrutiny. First, let's be clear. The debate underway is about bans on certain types of weapons and magazines. And the REASON for having the debate is people are saying 'we can't have more Sandy Hooks."

Therefore, the only bans which make any sense are those which would MAKE SANDY HOOKS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS LIKELY. Anything else is dishonesty in the debate. Can we agree on that?

With that, let us consider the evidence just offered for banning. "There are 300 million guns in this country and 30,000 gun related fatalities every year."

The implication is that there is an epidemic of such shootings we must address. But to be fair, is that true? Meaning, what is the real breakdown of "gun related fatalities" such that we can evaluate whether a particular law, like the proposed bans, would have any effect. AND to weigh the likelihood of such reduction against stripping people of some level of self-defense from tyranny by government, foreign invasion, riots, muggings, home invasion, etc.

So, let us examine those 30,000 gun related "fatalaties." The VAST majority are SUICIDES. Yes, suicides. Meaning, a ban on a 30-bullet magazine has NO EFFECT AT ALL. Only the first bullet matters. And the victim is not an innocent, but rather, the perpetrator of the crime. The number of HOMICIDES (one person kills someone else) per year runs around 11 or 12 thousand. So, the 30,000 number is not just misleading in arguments about greater good, it is VERY misleading.

Of those 11 or 12 thousand homicides, about half or more are in WARS of CHOICE between gangs. These are not innocents, but armed gangs choosing to fight with other armed gangs. Not only is it debatable whether gun bans or magazine bans will stop this, but these are NOT the murders of innocents about which we are debating here. In fact, the 30-bullet magazine is more supported by the risk of gangs to the law-abiding than is confiscation or ban of same. (If a gang comes at you in a parking lot, and they know you only have six shots, you may not dare TRY to defend yourself. Also note that the TRAINED NYPD manages to land only 17% of their shots. Those are supposed to be the PROs. So, anyone care to do the math on the untrained, panicked grandma getting attacked by a group of raping murderers?) But anyway, maybe half or more of the 11-12 thousand homicides have nothing to do with Sandy Hook or this argument for bans.

Of the remaining 5500 ish homicides, at least 1100 are classified separately from gand murders as drug murders. Again, no reason to take from the law-abiding, and NO EFFECT on reducing further Sandy Hook type mass murders. And so on. In fact, between 400 and 800 of the 4400 ish homicides are casees of POLICE SHOOTING SUSPECTS. So scratch those off the list of stats to justify any "greater good" argument that somone might CONSIDER to take away the rights of the law abiding.

Keep going like this, searching for the cases where a ban of 30-round mags or whatever types of guns might affect an outcome of a shooting of innocents, and you eventually get to the very very few Sandy Hooks, the mass shootings. The FBI classifies these as shootings of 4 or more. Despite all the press, we average somewhere between 40 and 60 deaths per year, best I can discover. These are the very few cases where magazine size MIGHT affect the outcome of shootings of innocents. We just had a year with 80, and even the right-wing (hah) LA times said it was a bad year but overall, the numbers don't seem to be changing a great deal over the long term.

So, let's circle back. The argument is based on the Sandy Hook example, and trying to stop things like THAT. Well, it's not 30,000 deaths per year like that, it's on the order of 50. In a country where 400 people per year are hit by lightning, for perspective on the real odds.

What's epidemic is the PRESS these cases get, and the ignorance of the real math, such that people run around yelling about Sandy Hook and citing numbers like 30,000 per year. The number is more like 50.

So if you want to ignore the Second Amendment to propose an argument for the "greater good," at least be honest about it. First, that means saying 50 or 60 and not 30,000. Second, it means honestly weighing the tradeoffs. Like, when they say we have 10,000 gun murders per year and the UK has 100, FIRST adjust that for population. But more important, the UK has 4.4 times the violent crime rate we have. Is that a tradeoff you want to make?

But I ask folks to read the post above, look at the stats, and ask what sort of arguments are really "pouring gas on the fire" versus being honest?

And please, let's keep it rational and not accuse me of being insensitive to the dead for saying it's "only 40 or 50 or 60 innocents per year." I'm trying to HONESTLY quantify the numbers of innocents who MIGHT benefit from the proposed bans. Such that we can weigh that against unintended consequences of those same bans.

And in doing so, first, please understand that this point is simply a retort to the hopelessly misleading argument that the number is 30,000. Second, also know that a member of my family was one of the relative few victims you've all heard about. She was awarded her Valedictory honors in Colorado, in 1999. Posthumously.

Please accept my apologies for any tone that sounded nasty, that was a lot and I was rushing. I meant nothing but trying to improve the information for discussion.

Merry Christmas to Each,

Mike

John C in PA

12-24-2012, 06:13 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Great write up Ghost. Good to keep your cool.

John C in PA (long time gun guy and C3 owner)

jl1962

12-24-2012, 06:29 PM

Jim - You're right. That was a cheap shot and I retract it.

Mike- Sorry to spoil the Christmas spirit but there are 20 1rst graders not having Christmas this year. Or ever.

Derek Jeter called one of the moms.
NY Giant Victor Cruz drove out to visit w/ the families. One of the boys was buried in a NY Giants jersey.
Paul Simon played at one of the funerals - the Sound of Silence.
Wayne LaPierre brought denial. And maybe a lump of coal.

I'm aware that suicides are over half that 30K annual number. I'm also aware that people who own guns are many times more likely to be injured by guns than people who don't. So I'm not just addressing preventing the next Sandy Hook, but an American epidemic of gun violence.

I have NO problem w/ the Second Amendment - I actually just got back from DC and read it in the National Archives, powerful stuff. I have no problem w/ responsible gun owners. I do have a problem w/ people who idolize and fetishize guns WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING that they make our society much more dangerous. And I have a problem w/ people who peddle and enable such propoganda. For Wayne LaPierre to stand in front of a grieving nation and proclaim that his hands are clean is highly offensive. And he's a bully.

A nation wide conversation is taking place and hopefully some good will come from it. But honesty from both sides will be required.

Peace

Ghost

12-24-2012, 10:28 PM

Mike- Sorry to spoil the Christmas spirit but there are 20 1rst graders not having Christmas this year. Or ever.

I probably should not even dignify this incredibly-offensive statement with a response. But I offer you the opportunity to retract it. (I recommend you re-read my post, and consider the implication of your statement, given the loss my family suffered in one of these shootings.)

I'm aware that suicides are over half that 30K annual number. I'm also aware that people who own guns are many times more likely to be injured by guns than people who don't. So I'm not just addressing preventing the next Sandy Hook, but an American epidemic of gun violence. First problem is, your prescribed remedy (banning certain "assault" weapons, banning certain size magazines) has nothing to do with all but a very few of the deaths you cite as evidence in argument for your prescribed remedy. AKA: it wouldn't fix anything.

Second problem is, your propositional logic (and the statistical argument on which it is based) is hopeless. Look at this again:

I'm also aware that people who own guns are many times more likely to be injured by guns than people who don't.

It is also true that people who get immunizations are nearly INFINITELY more likely to die of complications and infections from immunizations than those who do not get immunized. But that is no reason to ban immunizations. It's pure nonsense to argue. And it is the EXACT same nonsense you are arguing here now.

joseph m. hahnl

12-24-2012, 10:32 PM

It seems any time something like this happens, people try to create a rational solution to an irrational situation or act. People come up with ideas of what the person was thinking why they did what they did, "rationalizing it" because a normal mind can't comprehend it, with out some type of justification.Well some things can't be rationalized. No matter what you do these things are going to happen.Tying the hands of the good only frees the hands of the bad.
Any time you here a number thrown like the 30.000 to 3 million is only to try to minipulate you to there thinking. So i can take that same exact number and say that
" only 1%" of the 3 million guns are used in some type of violent crime. and as Ghost pointed out how many variables are actually in that equation. But when it's some one you know just one is to many

In this picture 89% of th people are armed or 11% are unarmed.
How many people in the crowd are armed?
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/305316_186177578187348_1291860915_n.jpg

Greg Guimond

12-24-2012, 10:47 PM

Just Say N20, I want to respectfully ask you why you think anyone other than law enforcement in the USA needs a magazine with more then 5 bullets in it? I'm not taking a position yet on all the other issues, I am focused on multi bullet magazines. I can't for the life of me understand why ANY citizen needs them. I'm willing to hear your opinion.

Ghost

12-24-2012, 10:56 PM

Greg, while N20 is pondering that, will you answer a question? You have me very curious on this one. Why do you think anyone IN law enforcement should have greater than a 5-shot magazine? (Friendly food for thought, based on my digging, the trained "professionals" in the NYPD average about one hit per every six shots on a human target, 17%).

Regards,

Mike

Greg Guimond

12-24-2012, 11:02 PM

Because law enforcement (the good guys) should have more bullets than everyone else. I feel there is no reason for a citizen to have more then 5 shots before they have to reload.

Ghost

12-24-2012, 11:04 PM

That's it? I don't follow. Where, specifically, does the number '5' come from? By your logic, why not 3 for the citizen and more than 3 for the cops? Or 30 for the citizen, and more than 30 for the cops? What sort of thinking gets you to use 5 as the split?

Greg Guimond

12-24-2012, 11:18 PM

I'm not looking to make a mountain out of a mole hill and start to develop an algorithm around this. This is why the nation can't find its way out of a paper bag and reach reasonable compromise on many things. I'm not a gun guy but in my opinion, a citizen should be allowed to bear arms. Most of said citizens are hacks, not trained assasins so I give them the benefit of 5 bullets (a trained killer would need 2 or 3) should an intruder enter there home. I have thought about it and that is the line I draw for safety in the world we live in. In other words, I am willing to have a compromise on the ability to bear arms, but in return I want a limitation in multi round magazines. Period, end of discussion.

Ghost

12-24-2012, 11:24 PM

Thanks Greg, that answers my question. (It raises further questions about what if two or three or more people break in, or even just one, given that even the pros seem to miss 87 percent of the time. It also raises the question about how well you think a 5 shot magazine enables the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment (protection for invaders abroad and from armies of tyrannical government at home), but all of those questions can reasonably be left rhetorical at this point, now that I see your position.) Thanks for answering, that greatly helps me understand how you are looking at this.

Regards, Merry Christmas,

Mike

Greg Guimond

12-24-2012, 11:37 PM

You like many folks, are searching for the "perfect" while I am only trying to achieve the "good". Every situation can be analyzed, overthought, and subjected to a never ending "what if' set of scenarios. While that is one approach, I think it is the wrong one. You want to bear arms? No problem, but it comes with a limit. And I am perfectly willing to live with that limit in light of the world we live in.

Ghost

12-24-2012, 11:54 PM

Actually, I think it worth noting that though it may not be obvious, I am not in the least deluding myself with visions of the perfect. Bad things happen to good people, and there is some evil in the world that we will likely never overcome. Law won't fix it. Preparedness won't fix it. Sometimes, it will do things that we cannot stop. And thus in my view, the best we can do is FAR from perfect, but requires us to avoid letting that evil bring the good among us to create even greater risk and harm.

But again, though we differ, I thank you for your sincere answers, which are useful in understanding how you see things.

Regards,

Mike

Just Say N20

12-25-2012, 07:44 AM

Mike,

I think you last statement sums up where we are very nicely.

One last thing I just couldn’t let hang out there.

Jay mentioned the Rochester event as part of one of his statements. My brother lives in Rochester, and he asked me last night if I had seen the news. I hadn’t, so he made me aware of the story. I looked into it, and several things popped out at me, on several different levels.

All along I (we) have worked from the premise that there are evil people out there, who are going to do evil things. That has to be a given, as it has proven to be true over and over and over. This guy is but another example. He was convicted of murdering his grandmother WITH A HAMMER! It doesn’t get much more up close and personal than that. And last time I checked, hammers weren’t illegal. But then, they shouldn’t be. They are but a tool. A gun is also a tool; one designed to stop an assault, whether it comes from a criminal, foreign agent, terrorist, or your own out of control government. Murder already IS illegal. Once someone decides to break that law, the how is irrelevant.

The Rochester guy spends 17 years in prison, and is let out. Some time passes. He lights HIS OWN HOUSE on fire, calls 911, and waits to “sniper” off the firefighters who respond to HIS 911 call.

Obviously there is something significantly wrong with this guy. Family murder with a hammer - illegal. Arson to his own home - illegal. Possession of a firearm by a felon - illegal. Intent to commit murder of the 2 wounded firefighters - illegal. Murder of firefighters - illegal. And again, this loony-tune was stopped with a gun.

If laws worked, none of this would have happened. But as has been pointed out, criminals ignore the laws. Additional laws are therefore meaningless as far as the criminal community is concerned.

Given all the circumstances, it seems very disingenuous to toss this out there as an example of another GUN problem.

jl1962

12-25-2012, 08:00 AM

All-

I PM'd Bill and Mike early this AM offering my apology for any offense. None was intended.

I still think it is important to have a balanced discussion, but perhaps not on a public boating forum. Although Wayne's World sounds like a pretty dark place and not consistent with my vision of America's future, I do not intend to comment on this thread any more.

Be Well

dsparis

12-26-2012, 10:43 AM

Man its easy to pick out the obama voters.

Ghost

12-26-2012, 11:45 AM

Jay, I accept your apology and thank you for saying so. And btw, I don't have any problem with people discussing this here so long as Harbormaster doesn't, and he's joined in with some of the most substantive comments. There has been a lot of vigorous discussion in this thread and I think that's a healthy thing. I do think it's important to be clear on one point: I'm a long way from the hypersensitive "everything is offensive" crowd. (My ire on this occasion was only because of the implication that I was blind to the irreversible pain and loss of the victims and the families. When in fact, not only am I not blind to it, but as it happens, my family is one of those families. Not that that needs to be the case at all--I think all decent, loving human beings can understand the pain and loss.)

So anyway, please don't anyone stop discussing on my account. I'll ask only what I did some days back: for those who disagree with me to know that the diametrically-opposed views I've shared on policy stem from the exact same desire they have to minimize future injustice and violence.

Regards, and Merry Christmas,

Mike

harbormaster

12-27-2012, 08:34 AM

What an amazing discussion. I am proud of you guys keeping this discussion civil even though there are really vast differences of opinion. Thanks.

Marlin275

12-28-2012, 05:51 PM

Handguns and high capacity rifles are outlawed in Cook County, IL and have been for years. Chicago has one of the highest gun violence rates in the world. Guess what the gang bangers use to kill each other? Handguns and AK-47s. Similar gun laws in NYC, NJ, California, etc have failed miserably.

- Gun control, specifically previous AWBs, have not lowered the violent crime rate or kept “assault weapons” out of the hands of criminals. States with more permissive gun laws have lower violent crime rates across the board.

Our gun control laws ARE working very well . . . Thank You
New York City has recorded 414 murders in 2012 so far, which means it's the lowest number of murders
since the NYPD started keeping track in 1963.

If people think getting rid of high capacity clips or guns that are parkoed black with a pistol grip will end the madness then they are living in a F*cking dream world. Gun control nuts need to wake up see the real world and stop hooking your arms with other people and singing coombayah...

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/28/nyc_hits_record_low_murder_rate_in.php

we barely enforce ANY of the existing gun control laws as they relate to criminals. Wouldn’t want to enforce existing laws, because it might show the giant gaping hole in your logic. No, the existing laws don’t work . . .

The fact that the safest big city in America is safer than ever is a testament to the hard work and determination of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day . . .

Shootings also fell to 1,352 in 2012 (the previous lowest-ever was in 2009, with 1,420)

Right after Hurricane Sandy here in NYC, a jerk pulled a gun out after he cut into the waiting for gas line
all it took was one 911 call and he is looking at 15 years in prison.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1281499--man-arrested-after-gun-pulled-on-motorist-in-gas-line-in-new-york-city

dsparis

12-28-2012, 05:58 PM

Gun control has been successful in N.Y. as long as you weren't one of those 1352. Face it, it doesn't work.

Marlin275

12-28-2012, 06:40 PM

Face it, it doesn't work.

Lets define your "it doesn't work".

Gun control has lowered the murder rate to the lowest level in NYC recorded history and
shootings are also the lowest level in NYC recorded history
so gun control IS working HERE.

Those numbers will not be reduced to zero as other states don't enforce the current laws and
Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good!

Insisting on perfection often results in no improvement at all.

Just Say N20

12-28-2012, 06:42 PM

The fact that the safest big city in America is safer than ever is a testament to the hard work and determination of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day . . .

Shootings also fell to 1,352 in 2012 (the previous lowest-ever was in 2009, with 1,420)

That is good news for sure. But it does beg the question of what it would have been if criminals had to worry about their victims being able to defend themselves. Chicago also has very strict guns control laws and it is a disaster.

It also makes me wonder HOW it is working. And why it is not working in Chicago. Criminals by default don't obey the law. So are there fewer gun deaths because the bad guys have decided to obey the laws? Doubtful. And there are statistically no deaths attributed to legal gun owners, so whether guns are allowed or not, the "legal" crowd contributes "0" to the stats. And why doesn't it work in Chicago. And then there is a ton o evidence that shows where increased concealed carry dramatically reduces assaults.

I'm glad the numbers are improving in NYC. But it is a minor improvement. Where concealed carry becomes the norm, the numbers improve dramatically. So do you want slight improvement, or awesome improvement?

Marlin275

12-28-2012, 07:01 PM

Illinois does not ban assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines that increase their killing potential, as do New York and California.
Chicago recorded its 499th murder of 2012 on Thursday night while New York reported 414 murders as of Friday even though it has more than three times the population, according to police.

Chicago Police Commissioner Garry McCarthy said Chicago faces a larger illicit gun problem than either New York or Los Angeles, the second-largest U.S. city. "In the first six months of the year, we seized three guns for every gun seized in Los Angeles and nine guns for every gun confiscated by the New York Police Department," McCarthy said.

"When people ask me, 'What's different about Chicago?' that's one of the things I tell them. We have a proliferation of illegal firearms," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/us-usa-crime-murder-idUSBRE8BR0LV20121228

Marlin275

12-28-2012, 07:38 PM

Where concealed carry becomes the norm, the numbers improve dramatically.

There are two reasons why the effects of concealed-carry laws on crime are likely to be negligible. First, only a tiny percentage of the population seeks to obtain a concealed weapon permit. And those who do tend to be from groups who are at relatively low risk for either crime perpetration or victimization. They are generally older, higher-income, rural whites.

There are two underlying schools of thought about concealed-carry laws. The first is that if there are more people carrying concealed weapons, criminals are less likely to commit crimes, because they fear someone may defend themselves with a gun. NRA Wayne LaPierre sums up (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031399-503544.html) the philosophy this way: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The second is that more concealed guns mean more disputes resolved with guns, and that it leads to more violent crime.

Among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”

“The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Just Say N20

12-29-2012, 02:24 AM

Common sense and history have shown that where firearm laws and concealed carry are the norm violent crimes go down. This would seem to demonstrate that Wayne's stance is not just one school of thought, it is what actually occurs. I have never heard of, or known of a situation where a bully, or bad guy actively picked on the most confident, strongest person in a group. They always go for the easiest target.

On the other hand, statistics also show that these same "gun friendly" states where crime goes down, DO NOT have the increased deaths suggested by the other side of the arguement. It simply doesn't happen. And while I appreciate your listing sources, factcheck.org is a liberally owned and funded operation that has been shown time and again to be exceptionally unreliable when political agenda issues are discussed. I MIGHT trust them as a source if I were checking to see if a picture of the "largest dog in the world" was faked, but never for anything political. Almost every time I see them used as a source to support a particular political point, it simply confirms that the information is fraudulent. Snopes is also a liberal owned "fact check" site that I have also researched extensively and found to be worthless as a credible source for politically oriented material.

Marlin275

12-29-2012, 07:49 AM

And while I appreciate your listing sources, factcheck.org is a liberally owned and funded operation that has been shown time and again to be exceptionally unreliable when political agenda issues are discussed.

Factcheck.org is as non partisan as you can get now a days. It is the gold standard in the truth-seeking industry, which occasionally irks both sides, but generally does a solid job. They published an epic piece setting the record straight on numerous, high-profile pieces of "Democratic disinformation" spouted from the podium of the Democratic National Convention too. Brooks Jackson, a former Cable News Network and Wall Street Journal reporter, debunks misleading claims, false attacks and subtle associations that litter the campaign trail. It strives to reinforce the late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's conviction: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." The site is thoroughly apolitical: Anyone who plays with the facts gets skewered.

NYC is your gold standard for the real world results of gun control.

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 08:40 AM

Illinois does not ban assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines that increase their killing potential, as do New York and California.
Chicago Police Commissioner Garry McCarthy said
"we seized nine guns for every gun confiscated by the New York Police"

This seems to be damn straightforward and right from the horses mouth. There is no reason for civilians to have high capacity magazines, and the stricter gun control laws of NYC are working.

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 08:45 AM

Man its easy to pick out the obama voters.

I voted for Romney :yes:

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 08:56 AM

Been there. Willing to try anything that will work. The Gun Ban with reduced capacity magazines was in place for four years. It had absolutely no effect on crime. NONE. Given the empirical proof that it did absolutely nothing to reduce crime, it does make me wonder why it would be suggested again.

Bill, I understand your data points above but have a question of you. Do you think it makes sense for a civilian to have multi round magazines? I just want to understand your personal perspective.

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 09:04 AM

Actually Matty I think what we will all see from this event is .............nothing. In less than 5 days this story will recede as the 24 hour news cycle moves onto other items :frown:

Sadly pretty much exactly what has happened..............

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 09:13 AM

Both political parties are to blame for allowing gun numbers to grow to 300 million, (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation) a 50 percent increase from 200 million in merely 15 years.

Phil S

12-29-2012, 09:22 AM

..ambulances are required to make that "beeping" sound when they back-up ?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/29/connecticut-attorney-asks-to-sue-state-after-shooting/?intcmp=obinsite

Phil S.

dsparis

12-29-2012, 09:34 AM

sorry don't know how to use quote function but Marlin says "Shootings also fell to 1,352 in 2012 (the previous lowest-ever was in 2009, with 1,420) in New york . But fails to say
Census Shows New York Exodus

Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#a rticleTabs=article)
Comments (57) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#a rticleTabs_comments)

more in New York (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/new-york-main.html) »

smaller (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#)
Larger (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#)

facebook

twitter
google plus
linked in

Email (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#)
Print (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#)
Save (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#m jQuickSave) ↓ More (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484671692870858.html#m jDropdown)

By JACOB GERSHMAN (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=JACOB+GERSHMAN&bylinesearch=true)New Yorkers are flocking to other states at the fastest rate in the nation. And most of them are leaving from New York City, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census data.
Over the past decade, about 1.6 million New Yorkers, or 8% of the state's population, decamped to another part of the country, a bigger percentage drop than any other state, said the analysis released Tuesday by the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a fiscal research arm of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Marlin275

12-29-2012, 10:10 AM

Over the past decade, about 1.6 million New Yorkers, or 8% of the state's population, decamped to another part of the country, a bigger percentage drop than any other state, said the analysis released Tuesday by the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a fiscal research arm of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Your post has nothing to do with NYC gun control or NYC.

Upstate New York is an economic mess and people are leaving to find better opportunities.
That is not the New York City trend.

New York City’s population reached a record high for a 10-year census of 8,175,133, according to the 2010 count.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/nyregion/25census.html

According to Census Bureau population estimates, New York City's population increased from 8,175,133 in April of 2010 to 8,244,910 in July of 2011. This is an increase of 69,777 residents or about 0.85 percent over the 2010 mark. The largest change in the city's population occurred in Brooklyn, increasing by almost 28,000 persons or 1.1 percent, followed by Queens, which registered an increase of 17,126 persons or 0.8 percent. Manhattan also showed a substantial increase of 16,075, which translated into a change of 1 percent. The Bronx (0.5 percent) and Staten Island (0.4) percent showed the smallest gains over the 15 month period. New York City's increase since April of 2010 represented 80 percent of the total increase in New York State, which raised the percentage that the city constitutes of the State's population slightly, from 42.2 to 42.4 percent.

Carl C

12-29-2012, 10:24 AM

DETROIT (WJBK) -An attempted home invasion ends with a deadly shooting. The man who pulled the trigger is 73 years old. He was armed and ready after being targeted last week.

Detroit police tell us a man who was likely in his mid 30's is dead because he broke into a home on the city's west side. The homeowner says two men tried to break into his home on Sunday.

On Thursday, he heard a noise coming from downstairs. He knew something was not right, so he grabbed his gun to see what was going on and he encountered a stranger he believed was one of the men who tried to rob him before.

Police tell us the bad guy had kicked in the front door and walked in but the man of the house was right there and opened fire. One shot to the chest.

The suspect ran out of the house and collapsed in the driveway of the home next door, where he died.

Police do not know who the suspect is. He did not have an ID, so right now, he is a John Doe.

Right now, the homeowner is being questioned by homicide detectives.

Why don't we hear more about these stories? There are a bunch of them if you google it. Why should I be limited to 3 bullets or 5 bullets if a group of armed intruders kick in my door? If a burglar is pointing a gun at me why shouldn't I be able to unload a clip into him? Quit trying to disarm the law abiding population. Time to shoot back. I'm sure that all of the crooks will abide by the 3 bullet rule.......

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 10:45 AM

That is the point, I am NOT trying to disarm the law abiding population. You get your 5 bullets. I'm suggesting a compromise that seeks a balance. I'm having a hard time allowing multi-round clips for an entire nation for the few times "an armed group of intruders" enter my home. We don't live in Iraq.

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 10:56 AM

Interesting global comparison chart below..........

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 11:24 AM

And getting back to what unfortunately started this thread, I firmly agree that if a maniac is intent on doing harm, no one is going to stop him. That said, I also firmly believe that if that Lanza wacko had to reload more often, less people would have died. Most of these loons are not trained killers, there heart rate would be screaming, adrenalin would be surging, mind racing. With all that going on, I'm very confident they would not be able to execute a 2 second reload time and time again off a 5 bullet clip. :mad:

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 12:39 PM

And this just in .........

The prospect of a possible weapons ban has sent gun enthusiasts into a panic and sparked a frenzy of buying at stores and gun dealers nationwide. Assault rifles are sold out across the country. Rounds of .223 bullets, like those used in the AR-15 type Bushmaster rifle used in Newtown, are scarce. Stores are struggling to restock their shelves. Gun and ammunition makers are telling retailers they will have to wait months to get more. Store owners who have been in the business for years say they have never seen demand like this before.

Phil S

12-29-2012, 01:48 PM

..causation and correlation are interesting statistical concepts often interpreted with fabulous errors, most notably by the media.

Ghost

12-29-2012, 02:38 PM

ONE RECOMMENDATION, EXAMINED
Again, the TRAINED PROFESSIONALS of the NYPD average 17% hits on human targets. That's about one hit out of every six shots. Let's do the math together on a 5 round clip:

P{one or more hits} = 1 - P{5 misses} = 1- .4984 or right about 50%

One chance in two of getting at least one hit. That means one chance in two of COMPLETELY MISSING. And again, that's by the TRAINED PROs, btw. And one hit rarely is enough to stop a determined assailant. And I assure you the math gets FAR worse with a divided attention task with more than one assailant. So, what reason is there to strip the law-abiding of their natural rights, leaving them so much more helpless? What improved outcomes can be reasonably expected?

ALL "GREATER GOOD" ARGUMENTS ARE NONSENSE, UNLESS...
If you want to make an argument about "greater good" over individual freedoms, you have to SHOW that case for greater good with real math. If you actually scrutinize the 30,000 "gun deaths per year, most are suicides. Only 10-12 thousand are homicides per year. And of those, there are only about 40 to 60 deaths in mass shootings of innocents per year where magazine size is a factor.

400 people per year are struck by lightning. Sandy Hook was horrible, but in an honest discussion of the math of greater good it was a STATISTICAL non-event.

Further, if you look at the mass shootings (4 or more, per the FBI), what STOPS them from being worse than they were? In EVERY case, good guys with guns either killed the shooter or closed in to where the shooter killed himself.

So, let's look at the tradeoff. Make it so EVERY law abiding person in the country has at best one chance in two of even hitting an assailant at least once, if forced to defend himself. Versus taking 40-60 deaths per year by insane people down to what, 30-50 deaths? 20-40 deaths? MAYBE?

How many new innocent deaths arise when you do this? I bet it's at least 10 times the number saved, maybe hundreds. Because anyone currently deterred by the prospect of a well-armed citizen is now going to know he doesn't face nearly the risk if he attacks. The numbers being cited to ban large magazines totally ignore TYPE II statistical errror. BETA. The False Negative. The unintended consequence.

The UK has 4.45 times the violent crime rate we do. That's a lot to consider in a "greater good" argument.

BTW, YOU'RE COMPLETELY IGNORING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
ALL OF WHICH doesn't even address the ACTUAL, ULTIMATE purpose of the Second Amendment: ensuring the people are allowed to be armed well-enough to resist PROFESSIONAL MILITARIES. Which NOBODY here who is pushing further limits on magazine size and weapon type has even addressed. Statements like "I have no problem with the Second Amendment but 5 bullets is enough" are SELF-CONTRADICTORY. Did anyone go read Federalist 46 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm)? It's only a couple of pages.

That graph of all the other countries versus us is actually useful, but not for the reason it was posted. What's special (or WAS special) about this country was its nearly singular resistance to tyranny over time, compared to other nations.

AMATEUR ANALYSIS VS. PRECISE ANALYSIS
Honestly folks, stand back and look at the "logic" being employed here about why to ban certain magazines or weapons. Nobody's looking at the details or the context. OMG, 300 million guns!! OMG, 30,000 "gun deaths!" Don't just sit there, do SOMETHING. This is SERIOUSLY-AMATEUR thinking.

Imagine a wildfire where someone said, "let's do a controlled burn here and a controlled burn there, ahead of the wind, to stop the path of the spreading fire." The amateur thinker replies "WHAT?! We have a fire problem and you want MORE fire? That's crazy!"

Or a plague where you inject people with attenuated virus, to build antibodies. The amateur thinker doesn't look at the detail, he just yells "WHAT?! MORE virus? We have a virus problem and you want to put MORE of the virus out there?! That's crazy."

Only, it ISN'T crazy. Controlled burns and attenuated viruses are the tools of the good guys, just like guns in the hands of the law abiding.

By the sort amateur thinking we've seen here, the first, fastest, and easiest place to start fixing the problem is by taking ALL the guns away from the police. If more guns mean more mass shootings, let's grab the low-hanging fruit. We don't even need Congress, we can do it today. Just have chain-of-command issue an order. No laws are needed for that, just buy-in from management.

Somebody earlier said the cops are the good guys. Well, most cops are good guys, but your Venn diagram leaves a lot to be desired. The good guys are the honest, decent, law-abiding citizens, only a TINY fraction of whom are cops.

People have also mentioned that "only law enforcement" should be allowed to have large clips. WHY IS THAT? What reason does a policeman have for a large clip that the average law-abiding citizen does not have? The law-abiding citizen is PART of law enforcement, after all. Police CANNOT protect the masses. It's mathematically impossible.

Further what's so special about the cops anyway? They can only hit a human-target 17% of the time, DESPITE all of that training.

Which brings us to another aspect of real, critical analysis. It is quite likely that the skills you want on your side in a dark alley are HEAVILY correlated to certain people/personalities/genetic-makeups, perhaps as much as those skills are correlated to training. It's a bit like intelligence, which has been shown repeatedly to be part nature, part nurture. Consider that when you foolishly think that a badge inherently does any good. Only a subset of those with badges have the right stuff for that sort of situation. So, not only are there precious few police to begin with, in the situations about which you are concerned, there are effectively far fewer than you think.

The cops are not "the good guys." The good cops are a TINY FRACTION of the set of good guys. You cannot honestly argue for taking away the tools to stop a mass-shooter from the vast majority of the good guys without considering the EFFECT of taking those tools.

Take away the controlled burn from the masses, leaving only a few guys in the country licensed to do it. Take away the attenuated virus from the masses, leaving only a few with it. And watch the unintended consequences take over...

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 03:20 PM

Ghost

12-29-2012, 03:43 PM

I respect your position and want to ponder your post. While I do that two quick questions..... Why are gun related fatalities so much higher in the US then other "similiar" countries? And also, why is NYC so much more successful then Chicago in the same regard?

Interesting to ponder. I *think* the first question is largely pretty easy--we have lots of guns. People do kill themselves and others in other countries, they just use what they have. Guns, pills, razors, knives, clubs, a piece of pipe, hands, whatever.

I *suspect* (but have not studied to verify) that there is some correlation between the availabilty of certain tools and the event, especially for suicides. Meaning, if a person doesn't have something he believes will do the job quickly and relatively painlessly, he is more likely not to kill himself.

I suspect (but haven't studied) that the same is true, but to a far lesser extent, with homicides. (Where people who kill themselves are weighing the pain of life with the anticipated pain/relief of death. People who kill others are probably not weighing this at all and their motivations and decisions rely less on it, and more on whether the tool will accomplish the desired end.)

The second question is more interesting and, I suspect, less clear. I'll start another post...

Just Say N20

12-29-2012, 04:37 PM

Interesting to ponder. Not trying to change the subject, but as Mike points out, the easiest reaction is to blame guns.

The problem goes much deeper than that. That’s all I’m saying.

Ghost

12-29-2012, 04:58 PM

And also, why is NYC so much more successful then Chicago in the same regard?
This is more interesting and, I suspect the answers are less clear.

To make sense of it, what does "successful" mean, and thus is NYC really "much more successful" than Chicago?

I'd ask that you bear with me on this one to see what I mean, maybe using some silly examples to get to the concepts that are important in the real world.

SAME RESULT, DIFFERENT TOOL:
If the goal is simply minimizing "gun deaths" then if we invented and issued everyone laser death-ray pens, and banned and confiscated guns under penalty of death, we might just about wipe out "gun deaths" in a few years. We'd have plenty of murders and crime with death-ray pens, but the gun deaths would almost be wiped out.

Silly example, yes, but it illustrates a point, such as is seen with murders and suicides in the UK, for example. There are still murders and suicides in the UK. They just use different tools for most of them.

That's the first important concept, but there's FAR more to it...

WHAT IS A "GUN-DEATH" ANYWAY?
Let's look at a few types of situations:

person shoots himself in the head
drug gang kills members of rival drug gang
robber kills victim who resists
rapist kills rape victim afterward
bank robber shoots a policeman
policeman kills a bank robber
3-year old kills his brother with a gun in the house
homeowner kills someone during a break in at his house
scheming spouse kills spouse for insurance money
angry spouse kills cheating spouse in confrontation/fit of rage
insane person kills 25 kids at a school
police kill innocent man executing botched no-knock warrant
etc.

Some of the above are clearly killings of innocents. Others are clearly not. And still others are much fuzzier. If we could wave a magic wand and get rid of all the killings of innocents, sensible people could "happily" live with almost any number of certain others. The point being, ABSOLUTE NUMBERS don't matter at all--it takes some scrutiny of what's really going on to judge what's "better." And that's just looking at deaths, not even taking into account things like crime deterrence, where there is no "gun death."

Further, I would argue that a lot of those situations I listed are unstoppable. The spouses have near-total access to each other, as does the rapist who just raped someone. Even 100% successful gun bans won't stop any of those crimes by determined killers.

Likewise, rival drug gangs will have their wars and kill each other. And to some extent, those people are engaged in wars of choice rather, far more than an innocent who is confronted by a robber is engaged in a conflict of choice.

So, what is "more successful" anyway? I don't think we can say NYC is more successful than Chicago without a LOT more information.

SOLUTIONS, NON-SOLUTIONS, and IMPROVEMENTS
So, based on the above, there are plenty of deaths you can't get rid of by taking guns away, or trying to. And plenty that you wouldn't want to get rid of at all, like a woman killing a would-be rapist. In many cases, gun control laws are not solutions and not even improvements to the stats. They are hopeless, NON-SOLUTIONS.

And even IF you could ban all the guns, you might cut down on DEATHS in drug wars. You might create an improvement in the DEATH numbers. OR they may resort to bombings, and kill lots of innocents in the process. But if you want to SOLVE the problem, the tools are not the place. End drug prohibition just as we ended alcohol prohibition. When was the last time you saw gangs of liquor store owners gunning each other down?

CIRCLING BACK TO THE QUESTION:
So, I don't claim to know if NYC or Chicago is more successful. A VERY sneaky dynamic, for instance, is the illusion of "peace" which is actually just stability. For instance, if no rival gangs get the upper hand, they may fight open, ongoing wars in the street to try to seize power. Whereas, a very crooked ganglord with the cops and the gangs all brought in may see "peace." It's not freedom, since many are living under the threat from that ganglord, but it could make the "gun death" stats look great.

For all I know, murder rates in the most locked-down of police states are very low. Put another way, does NYC look better on "gun deaths per capita" because organized crime there is MORE organized and thus more stable? And if so, at what cost? Is the whole place getting shaken down? I'm not saying that's the case at all. (Not saying it isn't, either.) What I'm saying is that a bunch of the stats we've seen presented are meaningless in the argument we're having, without a GREAT DEAL more information about what's really going on.

WHAT IS "BETTER", ANYWAY?
In WW2, the Allies were trying to keep Britain supplied with convoys of ships from North America. The Germans were trying to stop that flow of supplies, with submarines.

Most people don't know that subs back then did their damage on the surface. They were nearly useless underwater, just going down to hide and escape.

A leapfrogging war of technology ensued with radar. The Allies would invent a sub-detecting radar. The subs would have no radar detectors for that new radar, and they'd stay on the surface. Lots of convoy traffic would be sunk, along with lots of submarines. Then the Germans would catch up with radar detectors. And the subs would hear the radar, and hide. And the Allies were frustrated, unable to sink the subs until they invented a newer radar that the Germans couldn't detect.

This leapfrongging of radar technology apparently went on until some clever guy in the British Admiralty thought about it. He realized that it didn't matter whether the Allies sank German subs. What mattered was that the convoys got through with the supplies.

And when the Allies got a new radar, the subs came up. And lots of subs were sunk, and lots of convoy traffic was sunk. So they quit making newer, undetectable radar and just blasted their existing radar that the Germans could detect. And the subs went under, and were mostly useless, and the convoys mostly got through.

In the same spirit, I think we must be smart and think about the DETAILS of what's really happening within the stats, rather than thinking "more gun deaths bad, fewer gun deaths good."

(And once you look, the REAL best step toward the greater good, when you think that way, is ending drug prohibition.)

Ed Donnelly

12-29-2012, 05:37 PM

The population of Chicago on January 1st 2011 is approximately 2,850,932. (Extrapolated from a 2000 US census population of 2,896,016 and a population of 2,851,268 on February 5th 2011.) 513 murders 85% shot

The population of New York City on January 1st 2010 is approximately 8,190,428. (Extrapolated from a 2000 US census population of 8,008,278 and a population of 8,175,133 in 2010.) 515 murders 61% shot

You asked: What is the population of Toronto 2011?

The population of Greater Toronto Area on December 29th 2012 is approximately 5,006,400. (Extrapolated from a population of 6,170,072 in 2006 and a population of 5,555,912 on February 9th 2010.)

The total number of murders in the G.T.A. which is guns, knives and other
----------Toronto----Durham----Halton--Peel----------York-------Total
2010: 61--------- 7-----------2--------14 ----------- 7 ----------84
2011: 46----------2-----------4--------16------------ 8----------76 Scary Stats....Ed

Greg Guimond

12-29-2012, 05:59 PM

Wow Ed that is an eye opener. Thanks for posting. Ghost I have given your well constructed presentation of the facts some thought. There is no denying you are a subject matter expert, which I am not. However, I am going with my gut here. I just can't convince myself that an extremist society like America needs more guns and more ammo. I think that in an extremist society this leads to extremist outcomes. I wish I could wrap my head around the logic, but my gut tells me it is time to say "no more".

Ghost

12-29-2012, 06:12 PM

Greg, what is the eye-opener about Toronto, in terms of the gun law discussion? (Or is it just an eye-opener in terms of how different Toronto and its people are from the populace in some American cities?)

A quick search suggests Canada has about 2 murders per 100,000 annually. New Hampshire has 1.3 murders per 100,000. Is that an eye-opener? What does it tell us? What doesn't it tell us?

If your gut tells you "no more," does it tell you we should take all the guns away from the police? If not, why not?

Marlin275

12-29-2012, 07:10 PM

. . . why is NYC so much more successful then Chicago in the same regard?

I see this answer real clear here:

Illinois does not ban assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines that increase their killing potential, as do New York and California.

Chicago Police Commissioner Garry McCarthy said, "When people ask me,
What's different about Chicago?' that's one of the things I tell them.
We have a proliferation of illegal firearms."

dsparis

12-29-2012, 08:34 PM

Theres been 2 mass shootings in Il. Northern Il. Univ. 2/14/08. Guns used were 3 semi-auto pistols, 1 shotgun. Navistar 2/5/01. Guns used were 1 revolver, 1 shotgun, 1 bolt action hunting rifle, 1 1954r sks rifle.The sks is a stripper clip fed gun that can be modified to accept a "hi capacity mag". The funny part is that it was used during the ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN which was from 9/13/94 to 9/13 04.

Ghost

12-29-2012, 09:58 PM

I see this answer real clear here:

Illinois does not ban assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines that increase their killing potential, as do New York and California.

Chicago Police Commissioner Garry McCarthy said, "When people ask me,
What's different about Chicago?' that's one of the things I tell them.
We have a proliferation of illegal firearms."

1. I'm confused. If IL doesn't ban them, they're legal. Unless you're saying that people buy them legally and they they get proliferated beyond that illegally. What are you saying?

2. More important, what if any evidence is there that certain weapons or magazine sizes is contributing to the greater number of deaths? And per my note, what is happening in those deaths? Gang on gang warfare? Drug murders? What evidence is there of this? Again I'm confused, so far it just sounds completely made up.

3. What is "more successful?" I wrote up a whole piece about having to be much more specific to define success...what is more successful here in those more specific terms? If one just counts bodies with no more info, it means nothing in terms of policy, for the reasons I cited at length.

Marlin275

12-29-2012, 10:26 PM

1. I'm confused. If IL doesn't ban them, they're legal. Unless you're saying that people buy them legally and they they get proliferated beyond that illegally. What are you saying?

What are THEY saying, from the story posted in #146
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BR0LV2012122 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/us-usa-crime-murder-idUSBRE8BR0LV20121228)

2. More important, what if any evidence is there that certain weapons or magazine sizes is contributing to the greater number of deaths? And per my note, what is happening in those deaths? Gang on gang warfare? Drug murders? What evidence is there of this? Again I'm confused, so far it just sounds completely made up.

Proliferation of Illegal Firearms.

3. What is "more successful?" I wrote up a whole piece about having to be much more specific to define success...what is more successful here in those more specific terms? If one just counts bodies with no more info, it means nothing in terms of policy, for the reasons I cited at length.

Getting the illicit gun problem off the street . . .

Mike, easy on the "leapfrogging war of technology ensued with radar" and
"leapfrongging of radar technology", answers . . .

Ghost

12-29-2012, 10:40 PM

How does

"proliferation of illegal firearms"

answer the question:

"what if any evidence is there that certain weapons or magazine sizes is contributing to the greater number of deaths?"

(In fact, how CAN it answer that question?)

And what is this supposed to mean?

Mike, easy on the "leapfrogging war of technology ensued with radar" and "leapfrongging of radar technology", answers . . .

Do you not understand how that story related to the discussion, or what?

Suppose we banned drinking glasses. Suddenly there'd be a HUGE proliferation of illegal drinking glasses. The things are EVERYWHERE. Practically everyone has cupboards full of them. But their EXISTENCE as an illegal item isn't a problem. I was asking for real evidence of a problem. Is it that convicted violent criminals are getting hold of guns and murdering innocent people? What troubling phenomenon are you claiming is happening, and what is the evidence to support the claim?

(Put another way, if you find the existence of illegal items to be the problem, legalizing everything solves all of those problems 100%. Done, with the stroke of a pen. Thus, one has to look past the existence of items and their classification as legal or not or the conversation is utterly childish, right?)

Phil S

12-29-2012, 11:12 PM

....must have been one of those "high-capacity" knives...

We need a law to ban these dang things....and surely we can find an attorney willing to sue Ginsu. That will solve this problem with finality.

http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iowa/Police-Wife-stabbed-husband-multiple-times/-/9357080/17865148/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/107ugug/-/index.html

Phil S.

Marlin275

12-29-2012, 11:35 PM

How does "proliferation of illegal firearms"

answer the question:

"what if any evidence is there that certain weapons or magazine sizes is contributing to the greater number of deaths?"

The difference in the laws and records of the two states
"Increased killing potential" as they stated.

NYC has taken seriously illegal gun carrying, recognizing that illegal guns on the street greatly increase the risk that an argument turns into a murder.

"We're preventing crimes before someone is killed,"
New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Friday.

Controlling illicit firearms has lowered the murder rate to the lowest level in NYC recorded history and shootings are also the lowest level in NYC recorded history.

The fact that the safest big city in America is safer than ever is a testament
to controlling illicit firearms working HERE.

Entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts . . .

Do you not understand how that story relates to the discussion, what?

Suppose we banned drinking glasses . . .

What constitutes rational and what constitutes "hyper-extreme" . . .

Ghost

12-30-2012, 12:42 AM

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Though, to be fair, please recognize you have in no way shown how "increased potential" has actually translated into increased killings. You have only stated that there is increased potential (which I accept for the sake of argument) and that there are more killings (that I also accept, for the sake of argument). You have shown no relationship between the two, instead only offering that you (and one city official) believe it to be so.

Nothing to demonstrate any CAUSALITY. Just FAITH in the person speaking or your gut instinct.

Thus, with the sort of "evidence" you've cited so far, the answer to why NYC has fewer homicides than Chicago could be climate, time zone, elevation above sea level, anything.

But please don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming I am making up my own facts, I'm using YOUR numbers. I'm taking your numbers to be gospel, just for the sake of argument. You are entitled to your own instincts, but not to your own science of statistics.

All you have said is Chicago and NYC are different in gun laws and enforcement, and assumed that is the reason for the difference in the numbers of gun deaths. You have shown zero relationship between one and the other. This is no different than the failing business plan of the underpants gnomes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts)
EDIT: to illustrate the lack of rigor in your logic, we need only look at the lax gun laws in, say, the state of New Hampshire and examine the "gun deaths" there. IF your assumptions of causality were correct, New Hampshire would look like Cambodia under Pol Pot. But it doesn't. It's virtually the lowest in the country for gun homicides per capita.

Phil S

12-30-2012, 12:52 AM

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_stop-and-frisk_program

Thinking some people enjoy this....

Phil S.

dsparis

12-30-2012, 08:26 AM

"NYC has taken seriously illegal gun carrying, recognizing that illegal guns on the street greatly increase the risk that an argument turns into a murder."
Sounds to me like Chicago isn't enforcing existing laws.

dsparis

12-30-2012, 08:36 AM

Some easy to understand data

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/

Marlin275

12-30-2012, 09:43 AM

Okay, thanks for clarifying.
Thus, with the sort of "evidence" you've cited so far, the answer to why NYC has fewer homicides than Chicago could be climate, time zone, elevation above sea level, anything.

No, not anything, as we have a path to results.
Laws, enforcement, targeting the high crime areas, small crimes leading the path to bigger crimes, these areas all play into the results.

The outcome leads to the evidence something is working.

What is your answer as you look at these facts as presented,
or just more questions?

But please don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming I am making up my own facts, I'm using YOUR numbers. I'm taking your numbers to be gospel, just for the sake of argument. You are entitled to your own instincts, but not to your own science of statistics.

These are not MY numbers, that is making up a fact.

All you have said is Chicago and NYC are different in gun laws and enforcement, and assumed that is the reason for the difference in the numbers of gun deaths. You have shown zero relationship between one and the other. This is no different than the failing business plan of the underpants gnomes.

Different methods lead to different results that is the relationship.
There is a connection, an association and involvement between the two.

EDIT: to illustrate the lack of rigor in your logic, we need only look at the lax gun laws in, say, the state of New Hampshire and examine the "gun deaths" there. IF your assumptions of causality were correct, New Hampshire would look like Cambodia under Pol Pot. But it doesn't. It's virtually the lowest in the country for gun homicides per capita.

Rigorous enforcement of illicit guns in the hands of criminals, is logical.

Ghost

12-30-2012, 06:50 PM

LOL Marlin, that was truly hilarious. Made my day.

1. You're saying something different now than you were before.
2. Don't worry though, it still has no statistical evidence to tie the supposed causes to the "gun death" total statistics. Just more assumptions about causality between yet more things.
3.. It's becoming clear that statistics and the science of statistical experiments are not your bag. Which is fine, stats are a complex and usually misleading subject. But the notion that you've tied these things together with any evidence is absurd. It is hypothesis, inherently lacking any proof.
4. The New Hampshire example defies your logic about what is CAUSAL pretty directly, btw.
5. When I said I was using "your numbers", that means I was not challenging the numbers of deaths and qualitatitive basis of "increased potential" you cited. It doesn't mean I was fabricating a claim that you somehow invented, created, or had ownership of the numbers. C'mon man. If you're going to be pedantic, be right at least. :)

Marlin275

12-30-2012, 08:57 PM

1. You're saying something different now than you were before.

I have been consistent throughout the presentation of the reduction of gun violence in NYC.
You twist my words to mean something on your agenda by obfuscating facts at hand with endless questions.

2. Don't worry though, it still has no statistical evidence to tie the supposed causes to the "gun death" total statistics. Just more assumptions about causality between yet more things.

The Reuters article and the police commissioner of Chicago tied the supposed causes to the "gun death" statistics, deal with that.
You have not provided any reasonable proof to think otherwise.

3.. It's becoming clear that statistics and the science of statistical experiments are not your bag.

Nor yours, as you fail to make valid points using bloviating, aside ruminations, peppered with numbers.

Sandy Hook was horrible, but in an honest discussion of the math of greater good it was a STATISTICAL non-event.

Your statistics are meaningless here as Sandy Hook was the tipping point for this country.
Good NRA members are questioning their own policy and I suspect this issue is not going away this time.
It might be a statistic that changes more than this country's thinking about guns . . .

. . . stats are a complex and usually misleading subject.

You are right as they serve to distract when not used properly.

Lowest murder and shootings in NYC recorded history is the only stat you need.
It is clear and you can't confuse any other meaning.

4. The New Hampshire example defies your logic about what is CAUSAL pretty directly, btw.

We were talking about New York and Chicago and for you to bring up an extraneous side point that another state and Cambodia have a different issue
is side stepping the discussion at hand.

5. When I said I was using "your numbers", that means I was not challenging the numbers of deaths and qualitatitive basis of "increased potential" you cited. It doesn't mean I was fabricating a claim that you somehow invented, created, or had ownership of the numbers. C'mon man. If you're going to be pedantic, be right at least. :)

I stated more than once that those answers were given by the trained professionals that presented them.
You tried to attribute them as summations that I had surmised and thats just wrong.

. . . I am not in the least deluding myself with visions of the perfect. Bad things happen to good people, and there is some evil in the world that we will likely never overcome. Law won't fix it. Preparedness won't fix it. Sometimes, it will do things that we cannot stop. And thus in my view, the best we can do is FAR from perfect, but requires us to avoid letting that evil bring the good among us to create even greater risk and harm.

What is this ultimately, a defense of the status quo?
Can you not find any solution that might help the situation at hand?

Greg Guimond

12-30-2012, 10:27 PM

More and more long time members of the NRA are re-thinking there prior status quo position............

Reported By DAVID LITTLE
12/30/2012 12:05:34 AM PST

Instead of sending the NRA a donation, writing a letter, or calling his legislators and telling them not to mess with the Second Amendment, NRA member Dave Raymond instead wrote back directly to Wayne LaPierre.

"Sorry on this one, Wayne, but I don't agree with your stand on gun rights here," Raymond's email began. "& I'm a retired law enforcement officer and I've never abided by civilians having any need for assault weapons or high-capacity magazines or clips." Raymond went on to explain that he has been an NRA-approved firearms instructor and a range safety officer at the Paradise Rod and Gun Club. "I think we're at a tipping point," he said. "I think this has so enraged the population. It's jarred them out of their apathy so much that something positive will come out of it."

If people with a unique perspective like NRA member Dave Raymond speak up, they might.
The NRA remains dug in on the topic of unrestricted Second Amendment gun-ownership rights. The organization’s basic message hasn’t budged: Don’t even think about restricting assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. It’s off the table. This has never been a constructive stance, and the NRA’s leaders must recognize that reasonable Americans want reasonable limits on the ownership of mass-killing devices.

Just Say N20

12-30-2012, 11:57 PM

Don't try and tell me the media doesn't have an agenda here. Funny how this isn't a national headline story. It couldn't be because this maniac WAS stopped by someone with a gun? Naw. . . . .

Date: Sunday, December 30, 2012, 4:13 PM

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.

Ghost

12-31-2012, 02:00 AM

Time to look again at where this sub-thread started between Marlin and me.

Greg asked a reasonable and sensible question, in the context of what had been presented.

why is NYC so much more successful [meaning, having fewer gun-related fatalities than] Chicago...?

I replied with a very long and detailed answer, to be clear and explain why it turns out that the question is actually too simple to be useful. In short, among other reasons, it said that the question is meaningless without statistical clarification of what "successful" means, and demonstration of what the breakdown of "gun-related fatalities" is. Here's why. If you look at all the different things that go into the count of "gun-related fatalities," some are very bad, some are not so bad. And I wrote this list to illustrate that:

WHAT IS A "GUN-DEATH" ANYWAY?
Let's look at a few types of situations:

person shoots himself in the head
drug gang kills members of rival drug gang
robber kills victim who resists
rapist kills rape victim afterward
bank robber shoots a policeman
policeman kills a bank robber
3-year old kills his brother with a gun in the house
homeowner kills someone during a break in at his house
scheming spouse kills spouse for insurance money
angry spouse kills cheating spouse in confrontation/fit of rage
insane person kills 25 kids at a school
police kill innocent man executing botched no-knock warrant
etc.

For example, imagine
if NYC had 20 "gun-related fatalities" per 100,000 (all murders of innocent citizens during rapes and robberies, or mass shootings of kids in schools)

and that
Chicago had 60 "gun-related fatalities" per 100,000 (all suicides, or gang-on-gang drug-war killings that harmed no innocent civilians, or cops shooting perps during crimes, or citizens shooting assailants in self-defense)

Then Chicago is a much better/safer place to be in terms of being shot to death, even though the blind "gun-related fatalities" stat suggests the exact opposite. The stat shows Chicago as being 3 times as bad when in reality it is FAR better. On its own, the count of "gun-related fatalities" is simply a bad stat. You have to look at the breakdown of what is inside that stat to make ANY sense of "success," and thus on what effect gun laws and enforcement techniques may have on that "success." (Further, just one example about the effect of laws, or lack of effect. Laws against 30-round clips can't prevent suicides. There could be a million bullets in a clip, and the first one is always going to be the one.)

In short, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss this without looking more closely at the breakdown of the "gun-related fatalities."

Then Marlin comes in. And not only does he magically answer that impossible question of success without the closer look inside the lousy stat (he sees it "real clear" LOL) , but he also claims to KNOW exactly what that impossibly-undefined success results from. This is absolutely and inherently hilarious, on its face.

So, <sigh> I start back down the road of the meaninglessness of the body-count stat without further detail...and from there, hijinks ensue.

And please note, I don't claim that I know the magic answers and reasons, I am only saying it's nuts to do so without some scientific statistical evidence, which nobody has provided. The burden of proof of Marlin's hypothesis is on Marlin. I am not even saying his hypothesis is wrong, I am only saying it isn't proven without proof. (With one later exception, where I mention New Hampshire's data defies his stated logic, suggesting there HAVE TO BE other significant factors besides what are in his hypothesis.)

. . . why is NYC so much more successful then Chicago in the same regard?

I see this answer real clear here:

Illinois does not ban assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines that increase their killing potential, as do New York and California.

Chicago Police Commissioner Garry McCarthy said, "When people ask me,
What's different about Chicago?' that's one of the things I tell them.
We have a proliferation of illegal firearms."

1. I'm confused. If IL doesn't ban them, they're legal. Unless you're saying that people buy them legally and they they get proliferated beyond that illegally. What are you saying?

What are THEY saying, from the story posted in #146
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BR0LV2012122 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/us-usa-crime-murder-idUSBRE8BR0LV20121228)

2. More important, what if any evidence is there that certain weapons or magazine sizes is contributing to the greater number of deaths? And per my note, what is happening in those deaths? Gang on gang warfare? Drug murders? What evidence is there of this? Again I'm confused, so far it just sounds completely made up.

Proliferation of Illegal Firearms.

3. What is "more successful?" I wrote up a whole piece about having to be much more specific to define success...what is more successful here in those more specific terms? If one just counts bodies with no more info, it means nothing in terms of policy, for the reasons I cited at length..

Getting the [illegal] gun problem off the street . . .

And it only gets sillier from there. Marlin, I swear, let's swallow our pride and take this show on the road--we could make a fortune. I'll happily take 40% to your 60% as I truly consider you to be the talent. (After all, who else could make "Who's on first?" funny if the players had regular names like 'Frank' and 'Joe?' It's genius.)

74241

BUIZILLA

12-31-2012, 06:25 AM

I find it ironic, if not theatrically arrogant, that the NRA thinks it should be allowed into, and influence, Govt talks on any law changes, Amendments, or future LEO strategies. Let's just let the fox guard the henhouse, and tell the hen owners what to do...

yup, that'll work out just fine..

Carl C

12-31-2012, 06:50 AM

joseph m. hahnl

12-31-2012, 07:45 AM

I find it odd that Chicago has 66% less people than NYC and has more violent crime.Perhaps with more people in the mix to choose from comes better law enforcement officers.But I think everything else a side the violence is spawn from the youth culture.Also a different degree of criminal mind set.With unemployement roughly 3% higher more crime results as people victomize others to survive.Then there is culture or territorial crime,it is well known that Chicago has an infestation of gangs. Which seems their pass time is murder,not driving Donzis.

Marlin275

12-31-2012, 09:20 AM

In short, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss this without looking more closely at the breakdown of the "gun-related fatalities."

Mike you are doing your best to avoid the real question here:

You don't need charts and comparisons of reams of numbers and references to German sub training missions, controlled burn, banning drinking glasses, Cambodia under Pol Pot, hot dog sales at Yankee stadium etc .

"What does it tell us? What doesn't it tell us?"

For example, imagine
if . . .

Don't make it IMPOSSIBLE again . . .

Can you not find any solution that might help the situation at hand?

Greg Guimond

12-31-2012, 09:32 AM

I do have to say Ghost, it seems like your lengthy posts are designed to obfuscate the basic question :confused:
That said, your use of the new quote feature in multi layered fashion is pretty impressive!

Greg Guimond

12-31-2012, 09:39 AM

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone.

Did she shoot him 10 times, 15 times, 30 times? Do we need multi round magazines as civilians Bill ?

Marlin275

12-31-2012, 10:00 AM

And please note, I don't claim that I know the magic answers and reasons, I am only saying it's nuts to do so without some scientific statistical evidence, which nobody has provided. The burden of proof of Marlin's hypothesis is on Marlin. I am not even saying his hypothesis is wrong, I am only saying it isn't proven without proof.

There is a reason you can't find the scientific answer and it comes down to the NRA stopping the research:

Susan B. Sorenson, a professor of Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, “We really don’t have answers to a lot of the questions that we should have answers to,”.

In part, she said, that’s because the gold standard for scientists — a randomly assigned study in which you gave one group of people guns, and another none — is simply not possible.

There is work the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could and should be doing, she said, but has not since the late 1990s. CDC has been wary of studying gun issues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) after NRA lobbyists convinced Congress to cut into its funding after a series of studies in the mid-1990s were viewed by the NRA as advocating for gun control.

What kind of study is CDC not doing? “The kind of information we need at the policy-making tables,” Sorenson said.

The bottom line on Gohmert’s statement is that the issue is much too unsettled for such a definitive claim.

There is, of course, a larger implication to Gohmert’s statement: that more guns equals less crime. That is a different issue than simply concealed weapons laws.

More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

harbormaster

12-31-2012, 11:23 AM

I snagged this from the Investors Business Daily.

Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. Here's one reason — in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from home invaders.
The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like, from guns to big homes to monster trucks.
The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is, then no one should be allowed to have it — except, of course, it's fine for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.
When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?
Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.
Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.
In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869 homicides.
The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.
In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.
Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.
The weapon used effectively as protection by the Texas teen was neither a club nor a fist but reportedly an AR-15, a rifle on which the .223-caliber Bushmaster used in the tragic Sandy Hook shootings was modeled.
Though tagged "assault" weapons, both are merely semi-automatics, just as are many hunting rifles, and all but a handful are used legally and peacefully.
But elitists on the left don't hunt — they let someone else do their killing — so how could they know?
None of this is intended to minimize the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary or any other mass shooting.
It's simply an attempt to point out that a screaming obsession over one particular weapon used less frequently to kill than knives is driven by ignorance, arrogance and a nonexistent sense of proportion.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122812-638766-more-killed-by-knives-hammers-fists-than-with-rifles.htm#ixzz2GeQdFceY

harbormaster

12-31-2012, 11:33 AM

There was actually an editorial in Russia's Pravda News Publication that is an interesting read for everyone regarding USA's 2nd amendment rights.
For those of you who do not feel threatened at all by government, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Take the time to read this with an open mind and consider the history of the country of the guy who wrote this.

Americans never give up your guns28.12.2012

By Stanislav Mishin

These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.
To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.
While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.
For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Stanislav Mishin

Ghost

12-31-2012, 12:21 PM

I love it. Rather than consider or address the logic of what I've written, attack the use of metaphor, the number of words, the divined intent of what I mean rather than what I actually write, etc. ANYTHING but face up to the logic.

YES, controlled burns, vaccines, german submarines. YES. Deal with it. Your logic-free argument is the stuff of children and amateur thinkers everywhere. "Grunt, more guns bad, less guns good. More guns bad, less guns good." If this logic is correct, it makes sense to take all the guns from the police, the military, EVERYONE. Controlled burns and vaccines demonstrate clearly how broken this thinking is. They show where more of the "problem" actually makes things better, when in the right hands and applied correctly.

The sub warfare example illustrates the classic question of any optimazation (which any honest "greater good" argument is): namely, WHAT IS IT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? Fewer deaths by bullet? Fewer deaths of the innocent? Smaller numbers of guns in existence? Smaller numbers of illegal guns in existence? Smaller magazine sizes? Smaller numbers of large magazines in existence?

Answering "all of the above" is circular reasoning. It is ASSUMING your own conclusion, with no science to demonstrate that (and at least the New Hampshire example to counter it). The argument we are having SHOULD BE about how to OPTIMIZE the safety of INNOCENT people ("I want the convoy supplies to reach England"). And then figuring out what achieves that. ("NOT sinking subs but instead just scaring them, keeping them underwater, blind, slow, and unable to attack.")

Instead, your approach is to avoid actually choosing anything to optimize, and thus avoiding any logic that addresses what does or does not accomplish that. This INHERENTLY avoids looking at the problem scientfically. You can't look at how thing A varies with B, C, and D when you just say 'get rid of all of them.' You want to get all the supplies to England AND sink all the German subs. Except, it turns out that doing one CONFLICTS WITH the other. You can't have both. If you think more guns INHERENTLY makes us less safe, then we should CLEARLY take all the guns from the police, immediately. If you think more fire makes us less safe, then you rule out doing controlled burns. If you think more of a virus makes us less safe, you can't make and produce vaccines.

I suppose if one doesn't understand any of what's being said it may look like obfuscation. Some things happen to be more complex than 3 sentences. I could just write "that doesn't make any sense" as a response to everything some folks say. Of course, that wouldn't contain the logic explaining why. But, on reflection, it would be far shorter and easier, and some people don't ever understand the logic anyway. Hmmm, maybe just a picture, no words at all.

Honestly, it really can't get much more childish than: my saying that for the sake of argument I will accept the numbers of gun-related-fatalites and the qualitative "potential" risk of certain weapons that somone else cites, only to have someone say that's me making something up. Get this right: I agree not to argue with the stats someone cited, and in so doing I am somehow "making something up." Do you agree with ANYTHING? Do you agree that there is an invention called guns and that that invention shoots bullets? If I accept that the Chicago police commissioner and Reuters sais what you claim they said, am I making something up? If you misunderstood my ACCEPTANCE of the stats you cited, why not just say 'oops' and move on? It is, however, a telling illustration of being defensive to the level of fanaticism.

74242