Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[Grahambo]

How many of those are gang related/robberies/crime as opposed to just "average joe" walking around gunning down people in a mall or school like you guys make it seem??


Again, it's the PEOPLE and mentality of this country. Not the guns.

Not to nitpick but aren't the two bold one in the same?

 

[phork]

I still cannot accept the fact that guns are the problem here. Murders, criminals, killers are the problem here. The tools they choose to carry out their evil differ, but their goals remain the same.

Hypathetical: I pray to God this doesn't happen again, but what if another whack job goes Timothy McVeigh on a building, mall, school, stadium, etc?

Not one bullet fired. Just a truck with fertilizer and fuel. There is nothing politicians can legislate that would stop it.

Same thing with VA Tech: I pray it doesn't happen again, but it'd be verrrrry easy for a nut to walk into a crowded lecture hall of 500 and throw pipe bombs. Not one bullet needed.

Loading a truck full of ammonium nitrate takes a lot of time, and after that incident under huge scrutiny for all the parts involved purchased in any volume. The unfortunate part is that this was born out of the Militia attitude so engrained into NRA types about the right to bear arms and take down any tyrannical government. The honest truth is that we've moved beyond muskets and access to to government officials that "overthrowing" a government here is next to impossible. So arm yourself all you like, when the the Tyrants come and see your list of legally purchased weapons, don't answer the door when the drone comes knocking.

Look the thing here is that you cannot stop someone from doing this totally. For instance had some sort of gun control, like in some other countries, that require guns to be in a safe or even just having a reason to own a gun, 20 kids would still be a live today. The idea is to make it a lot harder to get your hands on these guns. Have a gun in a house with a mentally ill person, especially if its not the purchaser, should also be outlawed.

In the US as you guys are now approaching (89 guns per 100 people) 1 gun for every man, woman and child the single most prevalent fact is that there are too many guns. I am not nor have I ever stated I want all guns to be taken away. The NRA and the staunch 2nd amendment supporters have no grey area. Either we can arm ourselves to the teeth or you are trying to take our guns away. It is simply not true. I have tons of friends that hunt and shoot in competitions and shoot for fun at ranges.

A middle ground needs to happen. 31 school shootings since Columbine. Hopefully the government acts on this one. And if you don't think it could happen to you or your family, my guess is that Newtown, CT is the furthest thing from inner city as you can get.

How many of those are gang related/robberies/crime as opposed to just "average joe" walking around gunning down people in a mall or school like you guys make it seem??


Again, it's the PEOPLE and mentality of this country. Not the guns.

So then lets round up those people and execute them. Because, really, how in the world would those people get the guns in first place if there wasn't 300million of them (legally) in circulation to begin with. Did you know that over 50% of gun massacres in the US were done with legally purchased firearms?

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Winthrop coach after losing to Ohio State the other night.

<div><object width="576" height="324"><param name="movie" value="http://d.yimg.com/m/up/ypp/rivals/player.swf?vid=31363153&autoPlay=1&shareUrl=http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/college-basketball/Winthrop-coach-comments-on-school-shooting-1111235"></param><param name="flashVars" value="vid=31363153&shareUrl=http%3A//rivals.yahoo.com/video/college-basketball/Winthrop-coach-comments-on-school-shooting-1111235&"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed width="576" height="324" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://d.yimg.com/m/up/ypp/rivals/player.swf?vid=31363153&autoPlay=1&shareUrl=http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/college-basketball/Winthrop-coach-comments-on-school-shooting-1111235" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="vid=31363153&shareUrl=http%3A//rivals.yahoo.com/video/college-basketball/Winthrop-coach-comments-on-school-shooting-1111235&"></embed></object></div>

 

[Ironman8]

^Only problem with that speech is that he refers to the town as Newport, instead of Newtown. Otherwise it is spot on, exactly how I feel. Kudos to him - Winthrop seems lucky to have him.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Phork that's a long post and I really don't feel like breaking it up into quote boxes. While there may be scrutiny a farmer would never be scrutinized for buying fertilizer.
Millions of homes in this country are heated by heating oil which is off road diesel.
A truck and trailer would be the same as a uhual truck.
How about tannerite that's a binary compound perfectly legal.
Just like a flame thrower has no legislation federally a couple of states have laws banning them.

And I'm sorry but history has shown that to control the masses you ban guns. Whether you believe that the average citizen could rise up and mount an effective revolution or not. The fact of the matter remains that the 2nd amendment was written because they were afraid of a tyrannical government.
And your right I do not feel guns should be banned. It starts with 1 type is banned then it will become well you don't need this kind either. Pretty soon the only right that we have that gives the rest teeth is gone.

You keep acting like you know for a fact that the shooters mother did not have a safe. Are you absolutely positive she didn't have 1.
Or is it more likely that she had 1 and the son knew the combination or where the key was.

And I have a middle ground. Mass shootings happen at what are termed gun free zones. There is a reason for that. Weak targets.
When have you heard of a mass shooting at a court house or anywhere else where the odds of someone being armed rise.

You want more laws but I'm willing to guess you aren't familiar with laws like a lot of people in this thread calling for more laws.

1 demands guns should be disassembled when Heller v DC already declared that unconstitutional.
Another calls for assault weapons to be locked up by law. When that is already the law including your idea of allowing the ATF in to verify.

Educate yourselves don't rely on the Brady campaign for your info.
For every number you throw out from the Brady campaign I can throw out 1 from the NRA.
For every other country you try to use to support your position I can throw out articles where crime hasn't dropped just different tools used.
Tell me how many of those countries had it written into their bill of rights. And yes it's an individual right. To assume that the founding fathers made every other one an individual right and just screwed up on 1 is ridiculous.

Look at MS and what happened when the Vice Principal got his 45 from the car.

Educate yourself make your own decision and then afterwards if you decide not to own guns then don't but don't force your choice on me.

 

[irishpat183]

I've supported the right to bear arms for longer than I can remember, but no one can now convince me we don't have to make some changes. I'm not talking about making it illegal to own a gun, but restricting the type of weapons one can own and instituting stronger laws and penalties for ignoring them.
1. I've yet to see a good argument for owning an automatic or semi automatic assault type rifle. 2. Yes other weapons like knives and axes can be used, but you can kill that many people that quickly with a knife or axe.
3. True the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, but it's that minority group of gun owners that need to be addressed.
4. It's far too easy to buy any type of gun today. Hundreds of thousands are sold or change hands illegally every year. Why is that?
5. As Wooly has said, if you are going to keep a gun in the house, it should be unloaded, trigger locked and secured in a safe until you want to use it. Burglars can be be detered by installing quality locks, posting a security sign and spot lights on motion sensors.
6. The problem with the NRA is their position of fear. They have always felt that if they give an inch, they will eventually give up a mile. I think most reasonable people who don't care to own a gun don't have a problem with gun ownership. I think they have a problem with the proliferation of different types of weapons and the easy access.
7. The second admendment was written during a time when it was necessary for almost every citizen to own a gun. Times have changed.

Why do I need to give a reason why I want to own one?

Yes, they have...it's getting worse.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Every week I volunteer at my kids elementary school. This week I can no longer walk into the school. I must ring a bell, wait for it to be answered, and submit to a strip search in front of the whole faculty, each holding a snarling attack dog. Did I tell you about the barbed wire?

The first thing that was removed was my kids right to a childhood. So if I appear to be less than cordial to a bunch of buffoons that exclusively want to use statistics to make their political cases, instead of use their heads, pardon me in advance.

The big money men will just move the funds out of guns into something else, hang gliders, the newest designer drug, who knows?

That's fine I personally volunteer helping my local police make my kids school safer by giving them outside the box ideas while running disaster drills. So the bolded doesn't happen

 

[Bogtrotter07]

That's fine I personally volunteer helping my local police make my kids school safer by giving them outside the box ideas while running disaster drills. So the bolded doesn't happen

This isn't "disaster drills," just "a disaster for kids". I am tired of the bullshiit about what is what. Like the coach above said, "I ain't smart enough," nobody on the thread is either.

Here is what Jim Boeheim said in his press conference for his "900th win:"

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ur3XpysljdA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tired of the status quo bs remarks. Time to get things done. I didn't sacrafice as a young man, and my father did not sacrafice as a young man, and uncles and granfathers did not sacrafice to be told our children need to be murdered in the environment they should feel safest! Kids don't talk in my kids school anymore! This is unacceptable. AND IT NEEDS TO CHANGE NOW!!

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Pretty careful and fair article by a Harvard Law Professor

The 2nd Amendment is not a weapon | StarTribune.com

One excerpt...

For decades, federal courts overwhelmingly rejected the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It wasn't until the 21st century that lower federal courts, filled with appointees of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, started to adopt the individual-rights position. And, of course, the Supreme Court itself adopted that view in 2008, by a 5-to-4 vote.

I am not saying that the court was wrong. The legal question is genuinely difficult, and people disagree in good faith how to solve it. What is important to see is that in the very recent past, the U.S. has lived through a Second Amendment revolution, spurred by an intensely focused and well-funded social movement with both legal and political arms.

More important still, the Supreme Court has proceeded cautiously, refusing to shut the door to all gun regulation. On the contrary, the court said, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Loading a truck full of ammonium nitrate takes a lot of time, and after that incident under huge scrutiny for all the parts involved purchased in any volume. The unfortunate part is that this was born out of the Militia attitude so engrained into NRA types about the right to bear arms and take down any tyrannical government. The honest truth is that we've moved beyond muskets and access to to government officials that "overthrowing" a government here is next to impossible. So arm yourself all you like, when the the Tyrants come and see your list of legally purchased weapons, don't answer the door when the drone comes knocking.

Look the thing here is that you cannot stop someone from doing this totally. For instance had some sort of gun control, like in some other countries, that require guns to be in a safe or even just having a reason to own a gun, 20 kids would still be a live today. The idea is to make it a lot harder to get your hands on these guns. Have a gun in a house with a mentally ill person, especially if its not the purchaser, should also be outlawed.

In the US as you guys are now approaching (89 guns per 100 people) 1 gun for every man, woman and child the single most prevalent fact is that there are too many guns. I am not nor have I ever stated I want all guns to be taken away. The NRA and the staunch 2nd amendment supporters have no grey area. Either we can arm ourselves to the teeth or you are trying to take our guns away. It is simply not true. I have tons of friends that hunt and shoot in competitions and shoot for fun at ranges.

A middle ground needs to happen. 31 school shootings since Columbine. Hopefully the government acts on this one. And if you don't think it could happen to you or your family, my guess is that Newtown, CT is the furthest thing from inner city as you can get.



So then lets round up those people and execute them. Because, really, how in the world would those people get the guns in first place if there wasn't 300million of them (legally) in circulation to begin with. Did you know that over 50% of gun massacres in the US were done with legally purchased firearms?

1) Your claim that the "militia and NRA attitude" motivated Tim McVeigh is irrelevant here. I'm not here to break down mass murderers' motives. I'm talking about their goal, what they wanted to achieve, and the tools they used to achieve it.

2) Progressives love modeling the new US after other countries. In other countries this, in other countries that. In this country, the founders wrote the Constitution to prevent tyrrany and promote individual rights. You have no business asking me why I "need" a gun, and I have no obligation to tell you "my reason." As long as what I carry is within the law, you can mind your business and I'll mind mine.

3) While I respect your search for a middle ground, I'd much rather see states do this on their own since the feds can't do anything unless they re-write the Constitution. What may work for Omaha, NE might be a nightmare for Los Angeles, CA.

4) I can't believe you think Newtown wouldn't have happened if Lanza had no access to guns. He didn't want to play with guns. He wanted to kill people. If there weren't guns, he would've found another tool. If I sit at a barstool, I wanna have a drink. If that bar doesn't have my favorite beer, I go to the next one. Follow that logic?

5) It's sad that whenever there is a tragedy the first reaction is, "the government has to do something!" And in some cases that leads to the government taking rights away from innocent, law-abiding citizens who did nothing wrong and have no intention of causing harm.

 

[phork]

Phork that's a long post and I really don't feel like breaking it up into quote boxes. While there may be scrutiny a farmer would never be scrutinized for buying fertilizer.
Millions of homes in this country are heated by heating oil which is off road diesel.
A truck and trailer would be the same as a uhual truck.
How about tannerite that's a binary compound perfectly legal.
Just like a flame thrower has no legislation federally a couple of states have laws banning them.

Nor did you feel it necessary to read or comprehend it apparently. I said that these things can happen. But its a a lot different than a mentally challenged individual having access to assault rifles and hand guns in his own home.

And I'm sorry but history has shown that to control the masses you ban guns. Whether you believe that the average citizen could rise up and mount an effective revolution or not. The fact of the matter remains that the 2nd amendment was written because they were afraid of a tyrannical government.
And your right I do not feel guns should be banned. It starts with 1 type is banned then it will become well you don't need this kind either. Pretty soon the only right that we have that gives the rest teeth is gone.

The masses are already controlled. Controlled by the media, controlled by all those neat nice shiny distractions like phones and game consoles and ipods. Farmville and other time wasting games. I realize what the 2nd amendment was for and if you can honestly tell me that you would see a future where you could put together an actual force of people to mount and insurrection against the government of the United States of America. Not a rag tag bunch of splintered militia groups either. If this day and age you can tell me that it is possible, then I have a few bridges I would like to sell you.

You keep acting like you know for a fact that the shooters mother did not have a safe. Are you absolutely positive she didn't have 1.
Or is it more likely that she had 1 and the son knew the combination or where the key was.

That will come out in the investigation. But if the guns were in a safe with trigger locks, why would he have access to those guns specifically if it was mentioned that he was growing more agitated as he grew up and she was having issues dealing with him? Taking away the publics access to assault rifles is not going to lead down the path of total gun control. There is no reason to possess an assault rifle, specifically one that can hold a 100 round clip. The only reason these guns are made is for death. You want to CCW a glock or something else, go for it. I have no issue with you using a proper hunting rifle to take that deer down with.

And I have a middle ground. Mass shootings happen at what are termed gun free zones. There is a reason for that. Weak targets.
When have you heard of a mass shooting at a court house or anywhere else where the odds of someone being armed rise.

Heres one: Beaumont courthouse shooting witness: It was overkill | khou.com Houston

Here is another: Tyler courthouse shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about: Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You want more laws but I'm willing to guess you aren't familiar with laws like a lot of people in this thread calling for more laws.

1 demands guns should be disassembled when Heller v DC already declared that unconstitutional.
Another calls for assault weapons to be locked up by law. When that is already the law including your idea of allowing the ATF in to verify.

When twenty 6 & 7 year olds get shot the week before Christmas, yah I want more gun control. The proliferation of guns is maddening and makes the black market that more saturuated.

Educate yourselves don't rely on the Brady campaign for your info.
For every number you throw out from the Brady campaign I can throw out 1 from the NRA.
For every other country you try to use to support your position I can throw out articles where crime hasn't dropped just different tools used.
Tell me how many of those countries had it written into their bill of rights. And yes it's an individual right. To assume that the founding fathers made every other one an individual right and just screwed up on 1 is ridiculous.

Get out of the 1700s and remove thine head from thine arse. You have yet to throw out 1 valid statistic. I am not worried about crime. Thats what the police are for. I am worried about those same police having to tell some parent that not only is their kid not going to be able to open their Christmas presents, but that a whole generation of kids in that town are now gone. Other countries don't have it in their bill of rights because its not necessary. At the time that this was drafted the need was there, there is no longer that need. PS: All my stats come from random headlines. I am not American nor do I subscribe to being a Liberal or a Conservative. I subscribe to the party of Common Sense.

Look at MS and what happened when the Vice Principal got his 45 from the car.

Educate yourself make your own decision and then afterwards if you decide not to own guns then don't but don't force your choice on me.

Educate yourself. I have never said that all guns should be banned. You assume thats the meaning of gun control. You automatically assume that because someone says ban assault rifles that it means all rifles and hand guns. If you could go to Newtown, CT and tell those parents of those kids that Assault Rifles do not need to be banned, then you are a better man than I.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Nor did you feel it necessary to read or comprehend it apparently. I said that these things can happen. But its a a lot different than a mentally challenged individual having access to assault rifles and hand guns in his own home.



The masses are already controlled. Controlled by the media, controlled by all those neat nice shiny distractions like phones and game consoles and ipods. Farmville and other time wasting games. I realize what the 2nd amendment was for and if you can honestly tell me that you would see a future where you could put together an actual force of people to mount and insurrection against the government of the United States of America. Not a rag tag bunch of splintered militia groups either. If this day and age you can tell me that it is possible, then I have a few bridges I would like to sell you.



That will come out in the investigation. But if the guns were in a safe with trigger locks, why would he have access to those guns specifically if it was mentioned that he was growing more agitated as he grew up and she was having issues dealing with him? Taking away the publics access to assault rifles is not going to lead down the path of total gun control. There is no reason to possess an assault rifle, specifically one that can hold a 100 round clip. The only reason these guns are made is for death. You want to CCW a glock or something else, go for it. I have no issue with you using a proper hunting rifle to take that deer down with.



Heres one: Beaumont courthouse shooting witness: It was overkill | khou.com Houston

Here is another: Tyler courthouse shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about: Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



When twenty 6 & 7 year olds get shot the week before Christmas, yah I want more gun control. The proliferation of guns is maddening and makes the black market that more saturuated.



Get out of the 1700s and remove thine head from thine arse. You have yet to throw out 1 valid statistic. I am not worried about crime. Thats what the police are for. I am worried about those same police having to tell some parent that not only is their kid not going to be able to open their Christmas presents, but that a whole generation of kids in that town are now gone. Other countries don't have it in their bill of rights because its not necessary. At the time that this was drafted the need was there, there is no longer that need. PS: All my stats come from random headlines. I am not American nor do I subscribe to being a Liberal or a Conservative. I subscribe to the party of Common Sense.



Educate yourself. I have never said that all guns should be banned. You assume thats the meaning of gun control. You automatically assume that because someone says ban assault rifles that it means all rifles and hand guns. If you could go to Newtown, CT and tell those parents of those kids that Assault Rifles do not need to be banned, then you are a better man than I.

Educate yourself. Millions immigrated to this country to flee tyrrany and dictators. We have the 2nd Amendment and individual rights for many reaons, but more importantly it was to prevent in America what so many came here to flee.

What do criminals and dictators have in common? Unarmed citizens.

Show me a country that has more justice and equal protection under the law than the U.S. where the only people with guns have uniforms and work for the government.

 

[phork]

4) I can't believe you think Newtown wouldn't have happened if Lanza had no access to guns. He didn't want to play with guns. He wanted to kill people. If there weren't guns, he would've found another tool. If I sit at a barstool, I wanna have a drink. If that bar doesn't have my favorite beer, I go to the next one. Follow that logic?

5) It's sad that whenever there is a tragedy the first reaction is, "the government has to do something!" And in some cases that leads to the government taking rights away from innocent, law-abiding citizens who did nothing wrong and have no intention of causing harm.

Do you think Newtown would have happened had his mother not had those guns in the house? Guns that he was allowed to "play with". I would have preferred he used a knife, some of those kids might still be alive today.

You know what a sad day is? I bet you don't. A sad day is when you rush to the school of your kids only to find out that they have been shot by someone with a semiautomatic assault rifle and that their bodies are going to remain on scene until the investigation allows the coroner to remove them. After which anywhere from 3 to 11 bullets will be pulled from their corpse so that you can bury them the week before Christmas. That, my friend, is a sad day.

 

[phork]

Educate yourself. Millions immigrated to this country to flee tyrrany and dictators. We have the 2nd Amendment and individual rights for many reaons, but more importantly it was to prevent in America what so many came here to flee.

What do criminals and dictators have in common? Unarmed citizens.

Show me a country that has more justice and equal protection under the law than the U.S. where the only people with guns have uniforms and work for the government.

Show me a country that buries more people due to senseless gun violence than the US. You can't because it doesn't exist. Keep trying though.

This is the last time I am saying this so let me be clear. I AM NOT FOR TAKING ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY, PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN.

 

[chicago51]

Show me a country that buries more people due to senseless gun violence than the US. You can't because it doesn't exist. Keep trying though.

This is the last time I am saying this so let me be clear. I AM NOT FOR TAKING ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY, PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN.

I don't see how anyone can argue that gun violence is not a problem in the United States.

If you want to argue that restrictions on certain types of guns, and certain checks won't make a difference okay, I don't agree but okay. We can have that arguement.

Of all western industrialized nations the United States is worst in terms of gun violence. Don't try to paint a picture that this not a big deal, and that we should ignore this issue.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Do you think Newtown would have happened had his mother not had those guns in the house? Guns that he was allowed to "play with". I would have preferred he used a knife, some of those kids might still be alive today.

You know what a sad day is? I bet you don't. A sad day is when you rush to the school of your kids only to find out that they have been shot by someone with a semiautomatic assault rifle and that their bodies are going to remain on scene until the investigation allows the coroner to remove them. After which anywhere from 3 to 11 bullets will be pulled from their corpse so that you can bury them the week before Christmas. That, my friend, is a sad day.

1) Yes, it would have. The wepaons would have changed and the numbers would have changed, but the same thing would have happened. If you really think Lanza would have shrugged his shoulders and said, "Eh, I quit" if he couldn't access guns, there's nothing I can do for you.

2) I can't imagine what those families are experiencing and my heart goes out to them. I can't imagine you've experienced that so don't lecture me.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Show me a country that buries more people due to senseless gun violence than the US. You can't because it doesn't exist. Keep trying though.

This is the last time I am saying this so let me be clear. I AM NOT FOR TAKING ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY, PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN.

1) So you answered my question with a question. Cool. Senseless gun violence...events like Newtown are disgusting but unfortunately could not have been prevented. I've noted earlier...the number of deaths in the US due to guns are a dash of salt compared to people who die from heart disease. Not demaning the loss of innocent children, but putting the numbers alone in perspective. To answer my question you couldn't: no country in the world has more freedom and protection than the U.S.

2) You seem to be getting upset. Yelling in caps and everything. Sheesh. The reason I challenge what you say is because you contradict yourself. On one end, you say you don't want to take my guns away. On the other, you say I need to give you a good reason to have a good gun or make sure my gun is in a safe. You, nor anyone else right now, has the legal authority to do so. Nor am I one people need to worry about. I don't go running around the streets waving my gun. I keep it where I want it if I need it (hopefully I do not).

3) Middle ground can be discussed and ideas can be out there, but again you and those who agree with you can do nothing without re-writing the Constitution. Good luck.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

1) Yes, it would have. The wepaons would have changed and the numbers would have changed, but the same thing would have happened. If you really think Lanza would have shrugged his shoulders and said, "Eh, I quit" if he couldn't access guns, there's nothing I can do for you.

2) I can't imagine what those families are experiencing and my heart goes out to them. I can't imagine you've experienced that so don't lecture me.

In order:

Wepaons is weapons. Notwithstanding, you cannot say that without guns the same thing would have happened. There is no reason to believe controlling guns wouldn't help. From what I have seen, gun packing pussies (those that would intentionally harm the unarmed) don't have the wherewithal to dominate when the firearm is removed from the equation.

Once I had a guy try to murder me in the middle of the night with a knife. But that didn't work and he went bye-bye in hand cuffs, and waist and ankle manacles. Attempts would diminish, and success rates would plummet. Yes poisons and axes would be more popular.

Show me anything positive toward a solution you have offered; just one thing.

And as far as your signature, it of course is a misquote, the original had a different kind of "ism" in it. But who cares about details!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and reported by Bloomberg News.

The CDC estimates that auto-related deaths--long on the decline as more motorists wear seat-belts and face harsher penalties for drunk driving--will fall to 32,000 in 2015. Deaths from firearms, which include suicides and accidents, are estimated to rise to 33,000 over the same period.

Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides. This figure is still lower than 1993's peak in gun deaths (37,666), but has risen significantly since firearm deaths reached a low in 2000 (28,393). The data goes back to 1979.

Meanwhile, USA Today, which looked at FBI figures, reports that 774 people were killed between 2006 and 2010 by a mass killer, defined as a person who kills four or more people in one incident. The figures show that mass killers strike on average once every two weeks. A third of the 156 mass killings did not involve firearms, but rather fire, knife or other weapon. Almost all of the mass killers in those years were men, and their average age was 32. The dozens of deaths caused by mass killers represented about 1 percent of all homicides between 2006 and 2010.

Here is some raw data . .

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

In order:

Wepaons is weapons. Notwithstanding, you cannot say that without guns the same thing would have happened. There is no reason to believe controlling guns wouldn't help. From what I have seen, gun packing pussies (those that would intentionally harm the unarmed) don't have the wherewithal to dominate when the firearm is removed from the equation.

Well, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and guns are still used to commit crimes every day. I am supportive of the legislation already in place and if that even gets tweaked a bit, so be it. However, what never gets addressed is increasing the penalties for criminals when guns are used. Or make the import of illegal firearms a more significant offense.

I was an LAPD reserve officer for many years and spent a good portion of that time as a patrol officer. Fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, and silencers are illegal in California. However, those weapons were used and taken off the streets every day. Did having legislation help there? There is legislation against drugs both prescription and illicit. Can people still get high?

I completely agree legislation should be discussed, but what also needs to be discussed is the penalties for gun related crimes and other true deterrents to illegally using a gun. I am also in favor of making it mandatory to have the proper safety measures on your guns like trigger locks and gun safes (such legislation already exists in CA). Making guns illegal is not going to eliminate gun violence. It will merely succeed in making it more difficult, if not impossible, for responsible, law abiding people to own them.

Do you know a place that has the toughest gun laws - prison. Google "homemade prison guns". Criminals will still find a way to get guns.

 

[NDBoiler]

Winthrop coach after losing to Ohio State the other night.

QUOTE]

Saw it on ESPn during lunch. What a great, impassioned speech. Very inspirational. Made me want to make a difference in someone's life in a positive way.

 

[Grahambo]

Adam Sternbergh ‏@sternbergh
One reason cops hate idea of armed civilians at a mass shooting: When they arrive on scene, they have no idea who killers are, or how many.

 

[Grahambo]

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. | Mother Jones

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Well, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and guns are still used to commit crimes every day. I am supportive of the legislation already in place and if that even gets tweaked a bit, so be it. However, what never gets addressed is increasing the penalties for criminals when guns are used. Or make the import of illegal firearms a more significant offense.

I was an LAPD reserve officer for many years and spent a good portion of that time as a patrol officer. Fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, and silencers are illegal in California. However, those weapons were used and taken off the streets every day. Did having legislation help there? There is legislation against drugs both prescription and illicit. Can people still get high?

I completely agree legislation should be discussed, but what also needs to be discussed is the penalties for gun related crimes and other true deterrents to illegally using a gun. I am also in favor of making it mandatory to have the proper safety measures on your guns like trigger locks and gun safes (such legislation already exists in CA). Making guns illegal is not going to eliminate gun violence. It will merely succeed in making it more difficult, if not impossible, for responsible, law abiding people to own them.

Do you know a place that has the toughest gun laws - prison. Google "homemade prison guns". Criminals will still find a way to get guns.

Good points all!

We need to make the break in this conversation between criminality issues, and mental health issues. The both need to be addressed.

Gunmakers are the ones that can kill the black market in guns.

Prisons are a unique envronment. But outside of prison, those that show a propensity to deal with or manufacture, illegally, firearms, need to be dealt with seriously and forcefully, within the framework of the justice system.

And to talk to Grahambo's point, I used to cary an orange bandana and my ND cap at all times because I was going to be able to uniquely ID me in the event that I wanted the police to have a really, really good description . . .

 

[phgreek]

Here is some raw data . .

Kinda "meh" on comparing guns and cars. I think there is a point in there trying to be made about control...

as for suicide...we must assume anyone that would kill themselves with a gun has access to pills, a car to drive off a cliff or whose exhaust they could use...etc. I think suicide is a bad indicator of ANYTHING as relates to how the implement may or may not reduce numbers...I know people that killed themselves with a belt...if they decide, unless they are in supervised isolation, they are going.

as for the numbers in the last part...

Tells me my time and money is better spent helping schools implement technology, security, and communications to isolate and identify intruders so trained folks can neutralize them.

I'm for reduction in capacity of ammo...thus far thats about it.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

In order:

Wepaons is weapons. Notwithstanding, you cannot say that without guns the same thing would have happened. There is no reason to believe controlling guns wouldn't help. From what I have seen, gun packing pussies (those that would intentionally harm the unarmed) don't have the wherewithal to dominate when the firearm is removed from the equation.

Once I had a guy try to murder me in the middle of the night with a knife. But that didn't work and he went bye-bye in hand cuffs, and waist and ankle manacles. Attempts would diminish, and success rates would plummet. Yes poisons and axes would be more popular.

Show me anything positive toward a solution you have offered; just one thing.

And as far as your signature, it of course is a misquote, the original had a different kind of "ism" in it. But who cares about details!

Lanza wanted to murder in a large public setting. If he didn't have guns, he would've gone another route. See: Timothy McVeigh or any suicide bomber every week in a Middle East pizza parlor. Go google the Anarchist's Cookbook and any psycho would laugh at a gun ban or restriction.

Comparing mass murder and a guy in an alley in the middle of the night is not an adequate analogy at all. The guy who went after you was some idiot (without knowing all your details) trying to get the money from your wallet. Lanza didn't want money or goods or property. He wanted death to many.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I don't claim to sit on a throne and have all the answers to all of society's issues. Full background checks, mental health records, fingerprinting, hell even personal references...I'm ok with all that on the table. Talking about assault rifles and specific laws? Let's talk, and please get the states involved. They konw better what their state needs than any idiot in DC does. The more the feds get control the worse things get (i.e. education).

Taking away an individual's Constitutional right to protect themselves? No. Being forced to provide a "good" reason for having it or telling a citizen "where" to lock it? Get lost.

 

[irishpat183]

Do you think Newtown would have happened had his mother not had those guns in the house? Guns that he was allowed to "play with". I would have preferred he used a knife, some of those kids might still be alive today.

You know what a sad day is? I bet you don't. A sad day is when you rush to the school of your kids only to find out that they have been shot by someone with a semiautomatic assault rifle and that their bodies are going to remain on scene until the investigation allows the coroner to remove them. After which anywhere from 3 to 11 bullets will be pulled from their corpse so that you can bury them the week before Christmas. That, my friend, is a sad day.

Again, using a tragedy to legislate....Like the ACA and all the stories of "people dying in the streets".

It was horrible. But new gun laws won't change a thing.

Show me a country that buries more people due to senseless gun violence than the US. You can't because it doesn't exist. Keep trying though.

This is the last time I am saying this so let me be clear. I AM NOT FOR TAKING ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY, PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN.

And As I said before...instead of a gun problem, we have a people problem. I understand where you're coming from, but it's our violent society, declining morals, and ****-poor parenting that has led to where we are, not guns.

 

[irishpat183]

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. | Mother Jones

Nice opinion piece.

And it lists 6 -8 senerios. Leaving out 100's more.

And, remember, if we take away firearms, vets don't get to keep theirs.

 

[phork]

1) Yes, it would have. The wepaons would have changed and the numbers would have changed, but the same thing would have happened. If you really think Lanza would have shrugged his shoulders and said, "Eh, I quit" if he couldn't access guns, there's nothing I can do for you.

2) I can't imagine what those families are experiencing and my heart goes out to them. I can't imagine you've experienced that so don't lecture me.

I am merely rebutting your "sad day" statement. That is not a sad day. What happened the other day is a very sad day. This kid did not have the means to acquire anything more than a knife at that point, how can you assume that he could have found another gun in that small town? He tried to buy one but was turned away.

1) So you answered my question with a question. Cool. Senseless gun violence...events like Newtown are disgusting but unfortunately could not have been prevented. I've noted earlier...the number of deaths in the US due to guns are a dash of salt compared to people who die from heart disease. Not demaning the loss of innocent children, but putting the numbers alone in perspective. To answer my question you couldn't: no country in the world has more freedom and protection than the U.S.

I live in Canada. I am pretty free. I am not sure what your definition of free or protected is. Mine doesn't involve having to stock my house with AR15s and several hand guns.

2) You seem to be getting upset. Yelling in caps and everything. Sheesh. The reason I challenge what you say is because you contradict yourself. On one end, you say you don't want to take my guns away. On the other, you say I need to give you a good reason to have a good gun or make sure my gun is in a safe. You, nor anyone else right now, has the legal authority to do so. Nor am I one people need to worry about. I don't go running around the streets waving my gun. I keep it where I want it if I need it (hopefully I do not).

I am not upset, but people are assuming that I want all guns removed, I don't nor am I any authority on it. But clearly you aren't offering any help in where this should go but saying you'll keep your gun where you want it. So when your house gets broken in to and your gun is stolen and used in an offence like this and is added to the pile of illegal weapons on the street I hope you'll think back to this post and say "Gee I sure wish I was a more responsible gun owner!".

3) Middle ground can be discussed and ideas can be out there, but again you and those who agree with you can do nothing without re-writing the Constitution. Good luck.

Don't fool yourself, it'll happen. And no I don't have to rewrite the constitution. I can make ammo prohibitively expensive. Have all the guns you want, but that ammo is going to cost you an arm and a leg and also require you to submit a background check.

Lanza wanted to murder in a large public setting. If he didn't have guns, he would've gone another route. See: Timothy McVeigh or any suicide bomber every week in a Middle East pizza parlor. Go google the Anarchist's Cookbook and any psycho would laugh at a gun ban or restriction.

The kid blew up for whatever reason. If those guns weren't in that house that day, those 20 kids would still be alive today. Not to say that somewhere down the road he wouldn't have found something else, but 20 kids would be celebrating Christmas with their parents next week.

Comparing mass murder and a guy in an alley in the middle of the night is not an adequate analogy at all. The guy who went after you was some idiot (without knowing all your details) trying to get the money from your wallet. Lanza didn't want money or goods or property. He wanted death to many.

And the simple volume of guns available in the US makes that extremely easy, doesn't it? "Would you like a hollow point with that AR15 sir?"

Taking away an individual's Constitutional right to protect themselves? No. Being forced to provide a "good" reason for having it or telling a citizen "where" to lock it? Get lost.

Again, no one is taking away any rights. You do not need a semiauto rifle with 100 round clip to protect yourself. And I am all for telling a citizen where and how your guns should be kept. Responsible owners do this already.

 

[phork]

Again, using a tragedy to legislate....Like the ACA and all the stories of "people dying in the streets".

It was horrible. But new gun laws won't change a thing.



And As I said before...instead of a gun problem, we have a people problem. I understand where you're coming from, but it's our violent society, declining morals, and ****-poor parenting that has led to where we are, not guns.

I am not going to disagree with you. But outside of removing people, we can remove some guns and get to the same solution.