Despite this being the Coffee Corner I hope this subject is closed before it goes any further. I don't think a discussion on the forum is appropriate, especially as all of the facts aren't known. :(
...
Unfortunately the absence of legally acquired firearms appears to present no hindrance.
...
From the Washington Post
Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/)
Not to make this discussion any longer than need be, but there is also the case of the Joker in Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack) who used a knife. The question probably is not one of gun control, but one of how to keep the psychos away from the save-zones.
These tragedies are not limited to the USA, and by the way I am not in favour of lax gun-control laws.
Tony Jay
Some information:
1. Connecticut has the most restrictive gun control in the nation.
2. The weapons were legally purchased by the school teacher mom.
3. They appear to have not been stored in such a way that an under aged (you must be 21 to own a handgun) child/friend/casual thief, or other could gain access to them.\
5. They've learned the kid who did this has mental issues. There is no way he qualifies to own or have access to firearms with existing laws, though because of privacy advocates fighting which information can be entered in the national database used for gun checks I doubt there is one thing about this guy available to law enforcement.
6. Be careful of quoted statistics. More guns equal more gun deaths in the same way more humans equals more humans dying by natural means, or accidents, or in any other way people die. Statistics are not easy for the average person to understand.
With the information available as of now, none of the popular gun control methods would have prevented this shooting.
What would have worked in this case is proper storage of firearms thereby limiting access.
If this was a law and it had failed, the only possible way to improve this specific situation was to have trained teachers with their own firearms as a first line defence. Fortunately the schools new policies are said to have prevented the shooter getting to even more victims.
Sadly all these recent shooting in the temples, malls, schools.. have very similar circumstances.
right, but numbers wise USA is so much ahead of other countries by any measure... I mean - Canada is just across the "border" and unlike Mexico it is more similar society in terms of economics/education/mentality/etc... what is so different though... oh, gun laws nationwide.Are you going per capita, or just overall? I tend to agree we have more here, but we are a nation of over 300 million.
Are you going per capita, or just overall? I tend to agree we have more here, but we are a nation of over 300 million.
And you conclude?
You really need me to spell it out that the U.S. has 40 times more gun deaths than the equivalent number of the developed world taken together? Or that it is a high time for tighter gun-control laws? Specifically and above all to reinstate a ban on assault weapons?
Unfortunately the human being is the real weapon that needs to be controlled.
This is where the true challenge lies.
Some of the issues pertain to the individual but a whole heap are societal.
Precious little effort has been put into addressing any of these issues.
Politicians like legislation but most of measures are of the knee-jerk variety and more importantly legislation only stops the law-abiding but has no effect on those for whom the penalties are of no consequence.
Simple respect and community-consciousness can never be legislated but it can be inculcated in society.
Schools can be helpful in this respect as long as it is realized that they can only ever be effective in reinforcing attitudes and life philosophy. Trying to introduce concepts like these through schools where the concepts are absent in society will be doomed to failure.
This is not a didactic attempt to solve the problems of the world but I think the thoughts raised deserve some thought.
I have a career treating and resuscitating victims of violence either individually or collectively. I have had to deal not only with the victims but also often the perpetrator as well. I have done this on three continents over twenty years so possibly have a little insight.
Tony Jay
I really think you Americans should follow the example of Australia. When we had a similar massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania in 1996, in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded by a 28-year-old guy with intellectual disabilities, wielding an AR-10 semi-automatic rifle, we amended our gun-ownership laws, despite great resistance from the gun lobbly and other groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Community_and_Government_Reaction
re guns mean more deaths, the people who hate guns will think that government can fix it by legislation (in the regrettable absence of a virus that selectively eliminated all those southern rednecks). And so on. IKen, I find this offensive. You advocate the killing via "a virus" of millions of people simply because they're not like you? Because they're Southern Rednecks? Even if joking this is offensive during an era where our armed forces live in fear of biological weapons being used on them, most recently Syria has made such threats. And it also shows you know very little about the southern folks of our country. An area of the country where we've pulled a disproportionate number of those who have served and died serving performing military service. Sir, someone is not less patriotic or deserving of death just because they don't think as we do.
Ken, I find this offensive. You advocate the killing via "a virus" of millions of people simply because they're not like you? Because they're Southern Rednecks? Even if joking this is offensive during an era where our armed forces live in fear of biological weapons being used on them, most recently Syria has made such threats. And it also shows you know very little about the southern folks of our country. An area of the country where we've pulled a disproportionate number of those who have served and died serving performing military service. Sir, someone is not less patriotic or deserving of death just because they don't think as we do.
You really need me to spell it out that the U.S. has 40 times more gun deaths than the equivalent number of the developed world taken together? Or that it is a high time for tighter gun-control laws? Specifically and above all to reinstate a ban on assault weapons?
Sadly, Ray, that legislation will not prevent a similar tragedy.
Wow. Please tell me what you think an "assault weapon" is, Slobodan.
Yes, Jim, we really need to get into it. People who talk about "assault weapons" haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. If he's going to pontificate on the subject it's worth knowing what Slobodan thinks an assault weapon is.
... People who talk about "assault weapons" haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. If he's going to pontificate on the subject it's worth knowing what Slobodan thinks an assault weapon is.
The number that really counts is how many would have killed only if a gun was available...
^^There was a knife attack in China at a school a couple of days ago where a reported 22 kids were injured.
The recurrence of kind of horror isn’t going to be solved by banning weapons, I’m sorry to say.
... the Westboro Baptist Church might have something to say too - something none too delicate & wholly inappropriate, no doubt.
Ken, I find this offensive.Steve, I sincerely regret offending you, particularly in a context like this, but Rob is right, that part of my post was caricaturing the simplistic reactions of some on the "left wing" of the gun control argument rather than advocating mass murder. Irony is tricky on line - often gets missed - I guess because facial expression and tone of voice are taken out of the equation. I do think, however, that you might have picked up a clue from the fact that I was running an "one the one hand - on the other hand" argument in which both sides were presented as mistaken extremes.
If that's the case my response was inappropriate and I apologize. It's a bit hard to read, but when you put it that way I can see that too.
Steve, either you or I have absolutely misunderstood what Ken was writing. I read his line as in no way advocating that action, but highlightig it as a reaction/thought quite common to many people in many countries about many groups, either ethnic or social.
Rob C
If you have dead-locks on your doors and security mesh on your windows, you pay less insurance. Likewise, the fewer the guns in circulation, and the greater the difficulties in acquiring a gun for any private purpose, as a result of stringent legislation, the less likely that massacres, such as the recent Connecticut massacre, will occur.
Thank goodness I live in a society where I don't live in fear of guns.
Jim
Russ, if I wouldn't know you, I would be tempted to respond with something like this:
"Dear RSL, your contribution to this discussion, otherwise quite serious and reasonable, has been nothing short of flippant so far. Please grow up!"
But since I know you, I would never even dream of saying such a thing, let alone post it.
You understand people -- mostly we're impulsive and we take the easy option.I don't believe the vast majority of suicides are impulsive. Studies show most victims of suicide have long considered it and most have family who can now place several to many ideation's once they recognized what they were.. but I do think you would be right a fair number of time..
It is possible to commit suicide in all kinds of ways, but without a quick and easy way the impulse may pass.
It is possible to kill people with our bare hands but it isn't easy -- and I've yet to see a news report of a drive-by knife-attack.
Guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill.
Isn't that an extremely telling example?
Those children, while injured, are still alive, right? A knife attack can kill, of course, but it is much more difficult to inflict mass and deadly casualties with it. It is also much easier to fight off or subdue the assailant with even bare hands.
One thing that tends to get overlooked as a factor in mass murders is the media coverage. We all know who is getting the most of it in cases like this. Their names and mugshots are everywhere, what they wrote, what they said, their life stories, etc. There is no doubt who is the "hero" of the day. And being famous, including infamous, is at the top of the social values in our society.
Now imagine if the media would somehow, miraculously, agree to the one and the same treatment of events like this: no mentioning of the perp's name, no photos, no stories about. Instead, the media would be plastered with stories about those who lost their lives, their most beautiful photographs, etc. So that any idiot out there planning to become famous by copying or outdoing the last one would know that the only fame he would create is for his victims and a total anonymity for himself.
Steve, I sincerely regret offending you, particularly in a context like this, but Rob is right, that part of my post was caricaturing the simplistic reactions of some on the "left wing" of the gun control argument rather than advocating mass murder. Irony is tricky on line - often gets missed - I guess because facial expression and tone of voice are taken out of the equation. I do think, however, that you might have picked up a clue from the fact that I was running an "one the one hand - on the other hand" argument in which both sides were presented as mistaken extremes.I'm so glad I misread this. I apologize and will be more careful in the future.
And I certainly have nothing against the American South myself. What you say in praise of it is exactly right.
... have long considered it ...
If you study the UK... The society remains extremely violent...
... the minute we take one potential weapon off the market, they'll just move on to a new one.
Isn't that an extremely telling example?
Those children, while injured, are still alive, right? A knife attack can kill, of course, but it is much more difficult to inflict mass and deadly casualties with it. It is also much easier to fight off or subdue the assailant with even bare hands.
... Those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks used box cutters.
Here we go again: no discussion, no attempted understanding of the opposing view(s), just the scoring of points.
Stamper's first post on this matter was right.
... ordinary handguns account for almost all gun homicides, the last experiment with an assault weapons ban had minimal (at best) effect on gun violence (not surprising since assault weapons are rarely used in homicides)...
... they divert resources from pursuing realistic, effective measures to combat gun violence...
Bart, like it or not, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation is all that really matters.
But assault weapons are often used in mass shootings, which is what we are discussion here, so how about the effect the ban had in that respect?
None of us has enough access to the relevant data …
Such as?
What I find particularly annoying is that attitude coming from gun nuts that "it is what it is, and NOTHING can be done about it." Every attempt is quickly labeled as "idealistic, misinformed, and simplistic" and immediately shot down (pun intended).
Doesn't the Supreme Court 'just' rule on the 'evidence' they get presented?
I get the impression that the gun culture in America is so strong that asking Americans to give up their right to own arms would be as successful as asking Moslems to become Christians.
Nevertheless, I think there should be a referendum on the issue (or whatever equivalent political process is used in America to amend the Constitution). If the majority of Americans, despite these recurring massacres, still think it's appropriate to have the right to hold arms in this modern age, then so be it. Live with the consequences.
... I’d rather that resources be devoted to proposals than can be enacted and effective against overall gun violence.
I don't believe the vast majority of suicides are impulsive. Studies show most victims of suicide have long considered it and most have family who can now place several to many ideation's once they recognized what they were.. but I do think you would be right a fair number of time..
If you study the UK (something I've had a passing interest in for years, watching how gun control really works in the first year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc, post.. )they've had issues with bats (cricket bats), bows and arrows, kitchen knives, big hammers (all these have either been written into legislation or talked about on the floor), and the list goes on. The society remains extremely violent so they're finding new ways. Roving gangs attacking now defenceless old people and even the young have become a problem. If the society is violent in nature evil will find a way. It always does.
An odd ball emerging weapon of choice they're trying hard not to talk about, popular with young gangs especially.. are battery operated power tools. Nail guns with battery packs are easily modified to have what is effectively a gun that shoots nails. Battery powered saws and drills have been used to threaten and in some cases maim. We need to fix society.. the minute we take one potential weapon off the market, they'll just move on to a new one. Meanwhile, the one weapon (handguns) which allow the weak, elderly, and infirm protect themselves is the first go.. with the violence still a problem, they're really left in a bad spot.
When will we start addressing violent video games and targeting violence in society as a solution? We should start soon or it won't be long before all we find to eat with is plastic utensils.
I do not think anybody believes there is a single, simple, and magic-like solution to a complex problem. In that respect, gun control isn't either. But it is a good start and a step in the right direction.
To have long considered and yet not to have acted -- the impulse to act passed.
Compared to the US?
1. No, it is very easy to kill with only bare hands. There are an almost limitless supply of special forces manuals from many countries which can teach someone the techniques in minutes. And of course throughout the history of man we've killed with our bare hands, purpose built clubs and other blunt objects, knives, swords, explosives, drownings, fire, gas, chemicals, and the list goes on for actual pages. You can add guns at the end. Looking at the list you can see virtually all were at one time or another built and used as weapons before guns even existed.
In any case, as I said -- it is possible to kill people with our bare hands but it isn't easy; while guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill.
Guns are not potential weapons. Guns are actual weapons, by design, a quick and easy way to kill.
Pointing out cases of mass shootings "even in areas with stricter gun controls" is like pointing out cases of lung cancer in people who never smoke. It happens, but it doesn't change the fact that smoking significantly raises your chances of getting cancer. Just like the abundance of guns and easy access to them raises the chances of being used.
As for the argument that criminals or gangs will always obtain guns illegally, well... with abundance of legal guns it is certainly easier to obtain them illegally as well. Tighten the access to guns legally, and it will reduce their availability and raise their cost illegally too.
I do not think anybody believes there is a single, simple, and magic-like solution to a complex problem. In that respect, gun control isn't either. But it is a good start and a step in the right direction.
Why?
I get the impression that the gun culture in America is so strong that asking Americans to give up their right to own arms would be as successful as asking Moslems to become Christians.An amendment process could be introduced at any time on just about any subject. Gay marriage, abortion, guns, any of hot topic areas. The founding fathers in their wisdom when completing the constitution require a 2/3's majority to amend this document. There simply are not the votes.. which is why amendments are so rare.
Nevertheless, I think there should be a referendum on the issue (or whatever equivalent political process is used in America to amend the Constitution). If the majority of Americans, despite these recurring massacres, still think it's appropriate to have the right to hold arms in this modern age, then so be it. Live with the consequences.
But assault weapons are often used in mass shootings, which is what we are discussion here, so how about the effect the ban had in that respect? None of us has enough access to the relevant data, but it stands to reason that if assault weapons are used in mass shootings, controlling them might help, no?
Such as?
What I find particularly annoying is that attitude coming from gun nuts that "it is what it is, and NOTHING can be done about it." Every attempt is quickly labeled as "idealistic, misinformed, and simplistic" and immediately shot down (pun intended).
As every new shooting becomes more and more tragic, unbelievable and grotesque, it appears that the public is getting more and more desensitized, and our half-life of outrage shorter and shorter.
Steve, in answer to your earlier question I live in the south of England.
In actual fact here in the leafy New Forest we have had two incidents in the past couple of weeks (probably the same perpetrator) where a middle aged man wielding a gun and disguised with swimming goggles, has held up people and made them go to a nearby cash machine to take out money. This is an extremely rare occurrence and every possibility the 'gun' is a fake anyway.
Your paragraphs above I have to say make no sense in relation to this discussion. Of course cricket bats, knives etc get used to commit acts of violence and sometimes death. But the many times greater lethality of guns puts them into a different category. The motor car is the most lethal weapon in the UK but no one is suggesting we ban them. The killer in the recent school shooting had access to all four of his mothers guns. Four guns. I don't know anyone who owns even one gun. Like the locality of the shootings, we too live in a quiet, law abiding area. The difference being that if a 20 year old kid with a grudge here wanted to get a gun he would probably have to go off to a city and get involved with the crime underground to be able to source one. Not just get the keys to his mum's closet.
Jim
I do not think anybody believes there is a single, simple, and magic-like solution to a complex problem. In that respect, gun control isn't either. But it is a good start and a step in the right direction.
... It would probably help the debate if we could stop using "gun nuts", Idiots, crazies, and other terms of endearment when discussing a serious subject...
And as evidenced by your responses (and many others in this thread) it appears many who don't see the advantages of having a guns haven't yet become fully educated on the topic.
A "suicide" suggests the act was consummated.
No, it is very easy to kill with only bare hands.
Taking away any single weapon won't change anything to the violent person bent on killing.
...it appears many who don't see the advantages of having a guns haven't yet become fully educated on the topic.
The law said ALL guns must be stored in an approved SAFE and they specified a combination device and not a simple key. ...And it would have prevented this last shooting, and the shootings before.. because it would have "effectively" done, with the cooperation of the gun lobby.. what is impossible to do without.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re for or against gun control. Any proposal for gun control that doesn’t specifically take the Second Amendment into account isn’t realistic.
a feel good measure.
Here's a feel good measure ...
... take a month off from arguing that people need 30 round magazines for their AR-15s.
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a longtime gun rights advocate, said Monday that he would be open to a discussion on restricting assault rifles and high-capacity magazines following Friday's mass shooting that killed 20 first-graders and six adults at a Connecticut school.
"We've never been in these waters before – we've had horrific crimes throughout our country, but never have we seen so many of our babies put in harm's way and their life taken from them and the grief," Manchin told CNBC. "That's changed me, and it's changed most Americans I would think."
I think there's A LOT we can do to make real differences.. but I don't support any of the feel good measures which have been proven to not work in the past.
Quite. Seems the Constitution makes mention of a right to bear arms, but says nothing about a right to ammunition.
Personally, I'd make gun ownership limited to flint-lock pistols & muzzle-loading long-arms only. I doubt the Founding Fathers had anything different in mind.
An amendment process could be introduced at any time on just about any subject. Gay marriage, abortion, guns, any of hot topic areas. The founding fathers in their wisdom when completing the constitution require a 2/3's majority to amend this document. There simply are not the votes.. which is why amendments are so rare.
Look at how easily gun control was enacted in Australia..akin to the proverbial knee jerk reaction without adequate representation and due process. Even now, years later, I'd bet if Australia or even the UK voted concerning gun control the numbers would be split pretty much down the middle.. This tells me the rights of right around half these citizens were severely infringed on. Sad.
Most of the talk everywhere (including on this forum) about gun control is idealistic, misinformed, and simplistic.
I regret my choice of words. It sounds much more aggressive than I intended. I should have written something like “well intentioned but unrealistic”. I apologize for not being more careful in my wording.
Perhaps. Just as it would help if we could stop patronizing those with different opinions:If you feel patronized then tell me when and where and I'll correct it, or whoever it was. And despite of others behaviour you would be well served to refrain from name calling in a thread with potentially volatile subject matter. Throwing gas on the file is not helpful, you don't need to anything but caring to know this.
Perhaps. Just as it would help if we could stop patronizing those with different opinions:
And as evidenced by your responses (and many others in this thread) it appears many who don't see the advantages of having a guns haven't yet become fully educated on the topic.
Steve, as a former police officer yourself, are you aware that the majority of police is in favor of a stricter gun control? Or is my information incorrect?I'm in favour of stricter gun control. This is nothing new and we need to use this fact in context. I don't support bans. I support stricter control in ways that really pisses of the NRA and I've been told is "not in keeping with an endowment member or someone who benefits from our instructor programs..", but in ways I think will work based on my experience.
STORAGE LAWS: In Florida ... The law said ALL guns must be stored in an approved SAFE and they specified a combination device and not a simple key.
Seems the Constitution makes mention of a right to bear arms, but says nothing about a right to ammunition.
In the context of this discussion, Oregon assisted suicide has no relevance.
Obviously it is impossible to kill with only bare hands whatever is out of arms reach.
Guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill - at distance, through walls, many individuals,...
Obviously that violent person would not have that weapon with which to shoot someone dead.
Did the law mandate inspections to ensure that guns were in fact stored "in an approved SAFE"?
Without mandatory inspections you go too far when you say what such a law would have prevented; and even with mandatory inspections, guns would be stored in an approved safe except when they were not stored in an approved safe.
If you feel patronized then tell me when and where...
you would be well served to refrain from name calling...
Totally agree. Amend the constitution and stop the insanity.
We don't need all these guns in private hands.
I'm in favour of stricter gun control....
How about a simple ban on private ownership of all gas-operated and recoil-reloading weapons? Everyone gets to have what we think of traditional firearms, that are perfectly adequate for their traditional purposes.
... So instead of backing a losing proposition.. how about a winning one? Let's address the violence...
Steve,
In Australia, when we see the need to change the constitution, we hold a referendum which requires every person on the electoral roll to vote 'yes' or 'no' to the proposed amendment.
The problem with America is that you have a 'gun culture', and cultural influences tend to be deeply embedded at an early age. I recall as a very young kid being rather impressed by the typical American Western movies of the times when two adults, with guns strapped around their waist, would stand facing each other at a distance. The first to draw would kill the other, provided his shot was accurate. How exciting! I also recall re-enacting such scenes with my playmates, at the age of 5 or 6.
What I find difficult to understand, Steve, is your general line of reasoning that guns are okay and we shouldn't ban them, but rather we should address the social issues that cause people to go bonkers.
Surely we should be doing both.
Then what exactly are we arguing about!? Isn't that what I openly stated I am for earlier in this thread? I never said I am for a total ban. First, it is very unrealistic, given the culture and the Constitution. And second, I, as a pragmatic person, can see the need for guns for self protection under certain circumstances.I thought we were discussing. But do note, I'm in favour of greatly tightening the mental health rules for access to include physical health (certain types of drugs), I support mandatory training in a huge way, laws mandating storage requirements, and as part of our current crisis training qualified teachers to carry CCW in the same way we now have air marshals. Other stuff too. I'm also a big supporter of physical storage and laws that hold those who allow others their weapons both civil (take everything they've got) and criminal (serve jail time)..
Also, I am not the faint of heart when it comes to guns and weapons. I shot from rifles and AK-47s during my military service (target practice) and was good at it. I would even entertain the idea of going to a shooting range and shooting from a gun. But I have no intention of actually owning a gun.
Here is a quote from the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” In that case the District required that all guns be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. A gun safe or other similar storage requirement wasn’t before the court, but it appears that such a requirement would also violate the Second Amendment to the same extent as trigger locks.
Well, I quoted you directly and even put in bold what I consider patronizing: you treat those disagree with you and "who don't see the advantages of having a gun" as simply ignorant (ok, "not fully educated").
Sorry, but when exactly I resorted to calling anyone on this thread names? Yes, I used the term "gun nuts" in its generic meaning, not directed at anyone here in particular.
Good luck with that. And how many decades or even centuries it might take to change a nation's culture of violence?
Maybe I can help you understand where I'm coming from here.
First, it should be obvious to everyone that addressing the core issues of violence is something we should do regardless of anything else. Violence is bad. Violence gets men, women, and children hurt.. it ruins families. It's just bad. And as a society (and from what I've read observed from UK tourists, the UK is even worse in this regard) we stand only to benefit from addressing these issues.
A violent individual determined to cause harm will find a means to kill. Evil will find a way. Whether its a gun, a hammer, or a battery operated nail gun as mentioned earlier.. and as mentioned earlier the average person can kill and individual or a group using just what they find in an ordinary hardware store. If they need help google will help you kill. For some reason we're discussing gun control when bomb and choline gas instructions abound with a few simple keyboard strokes.
Guns have many legit uses other than for killing. Many of us grew up using guns as tools and still do. They're used to hunt, to protect livestock from dangerous wildlife (does the UK still have grizzlies, brown bears, cougars, mountain lions, alligators, and other dangerous wildlife? People that live in certain areas actually need firearms to be safe from the such), rodent eradication, and so much more. There are also scores of competitions I've been competing in since I was a child. To think that someone would take these things away from me because we've been negligent with our society is confounding.
But perhaps the biggest reason is self-defense.. and it's also the reason I'm really big on training. You need to reach a certain level of competency when using/carrying firearms to not be a danger to others. With even more training you benefit others. As our society (and yours) grows more violent the need for the average person to defend themselves becomes greater.
Also, with CCW (carry concealed weapon) permits MOST states show a marked decrease in violent crime. Criminals tend to be bullies and do not want to invade a home or attack someone unless they're sure they're not armed (schools, malls, bars, temples, churches are other easy targets for the violent) States that don't, given time I think will.
So in our violent times I think guns are the lesser of the two evils assuming proper training.
Can I ask you something? Don't you feel a responsibility to protect yourself? How about your family and home? Wouldn't you just feel plain negligent (and terrible) if a member of your family was hurt/killed/raped when you had it within your power to have protected them?
And no, that really isn't what the police are for. Ask them. They are incapable of protecting you. Do you know the response time for police in your area? You should. In my area it's 8-11 minutes but "could be significantly longer depending on circumstances." Not terribly encouraging. I need to be able to ward of ahome invasion, a home intruder, etc,, for 8-11 minutes. And if we leave our home.. then too.
Great discussion so far! Thanks :)
All the training in the world will not alter the fact that a disillusioned man who does not own a gun, can just walk into his mother's room and pick up no less than FOUR legally held guns and ammunition, and go on a killing spree.
One thing that tends to get overlooked as a factor in mass murders is the media coverage. We all know who is getting the most of it in cases like this. Their names and mugshots are everywhere, what they wrote, what they said, their life stories, etc. There is no doubt who is the "hero" of the day. And being famous, including infamous, is at the top of the social values in our society.
Now imagine if the media would somehow, miraculously, agree to the one and the same treatment of events like this: no mentioning of the perp's name, no photos, no stories about. Instead, the media would be plastered with stories about those who lost their lives, their most beautiful photographs, etc. So that any idiot out there planning to become famous by copying or outdoing the last one would know that the only fame he would create is for his victims and a total anonymity for himself.
- Get rid of guns, and the number of gun-related incidents in general will decrease.
- Get rid of guns, and the number of psycho-attacks in general will NOT decrease.
Period. Don't confuse the two.
You can subsequently argue whether the number of victims per psycho-attack will reduce if guns aren't readily available, but that is a statistically moot point. At least I hope we agree on that.
Some of my thoughts on the matter (I'm a Canadian and a recently retired 30 year cop, so am looking at this thing from the outside in, although have a bit more association to the matters than the average citizen):
The vast majority of Canadian cops do not advocate putting guns into the hands of citizens. The vast majority of American cops I have spoken to, do not advocate guns for citizens (as long as they get to keep theirs).
Gun control in the US is one of the most contentious issues and will likely never be resolved.
Stats can be used to support anything. And often ignore many other things that contribute to certain results.
Both opponents and proponents often resort to fear-mongering to sell their point (similar to some of Steve Weldon's points - "brawn and lower IQ's rule our streets, schools, homes" and having a family member hurt, killed or raped while, because you didn't have gun, you were incapable of doing anything - really, really?).
I just can't comprehend a society which relies so heavily on the proliferation of guns to ensure a peaceful existence.
As part of a solution, having (even well trained) teachers carrying a concealed weapon while on duty, with the expectation that they will stand up to someone intent in causing death to others is so foreign to me and scares the heck out of me.
Although many citizens would/do take gun security seriously, a great many would/do not (in this case, it appeared it was not). To expect the answer to be more/better training and gun security is naive and unrealistic. If it takes time and commitment and a whole bunch of money, it is either not going to get done or get done but not very well.
I think the US is too far down the path it has chosen and see no real change in sight, certainly not in my life or the lives of my children or grandchildren. However, incidents such as this cause a whole bunch of people to do a whole bunch of talking and soul searching, then after awhile everyone goes on as before (except those directly affected). Until the next time.
My 2 cents.
Marv
Rob, I don't think your points would in any way validate arming a nation to protect themselves against White Van Man, muggers on motorbikes or at picture stops. The fact is that in all these case at worst the assailant is likely to be armed with a knife and only going to threaten you for money. Give them your money and they will be off. Nobody needs to get killed. Now if like in the US the chances are Joe public could be armed, then of course the robbers are likely to have guns too. If you pull a gun on them you will probably get shot because they might well have more practise in using the gun and will certainly value life lower than you would. You can run from a knife, you can run from a stick, but try outrunning a bullet.
In the UK it is mainly gangs involved in drugs who use guns, and they usually use them on each other. They don't need them for other crime because they know they're highly unlikely to meet anyone else with a gun and so just the threat of physical violence is enough to get what they want.Jim
... At least I hope we agree on that.
I've been reluctant to get into this one, but since Slobodan's made it clear he hasn't a clue ...
I thinks it's totally reasonable to argue that the number of victims per psycho-attack will reduce if that very efficient killing tool, the gun, is not readily available.
I simply can't understand why you would think otherwise.
... I keep thinking about that professor at Virginia Tech who held the door against the shooter while his students got out of the room. Had he been armed, the shooting would have stopped right there.
Guns have many legit uses other than for killing. ... They're used to hunt, to protect livestock from dangerous wildlife ...
... the problems associated with being thin – still am – and not particularly given to sport or to horseplay by nature. Groups of small children inevitably sense out those less capable of hitting them flat, and for absolutely no reason other than that they can will, therefore, go ahead and knock them flat. It’s how the male human, in a group, feels safe to operate, and anyone who denies this is lying or hiding his own character and experiences from himself...
Most people are intelligent enough to get suicide right the first time. When they don't it's a cry for help, for attention. Not all the time, but most of the time.
Assuming the person is incapable of movement you would be correct. Most are capable of movement.
I don't disagree guns are dangerous and can kill. I do disagree all are designed that way or that it's their primary purpose (for all of them). I know better because I've been involved with the subject matter my entire life.
If you wanted to kill someone, or a group of someone's, could you not come up with an alternative within just a few hours by visiting your local hardware store?
(1) Even though Slobodan's Chicago has had the strictest anti-gun laws in the US, it's become the murder capital of the world. It's followed closely by New York, with nearly equivalent gun laws. Detroit is trying hard to compete.
(2) Though the number of random shootings like the one in Newtown has been increasing over recent years, the overall number of gun deaths has been decreasing.
Don't ask me to make sense out of those data. There isn't any. But it does demonstrate that restrictive gun laws don't necessarily correlate with less shootings.
I see, so that's all right then.
Rob C
Chicago is not an island with it's own custom's control. It's a part of mainland America where there are about 200 million guns already in circulation, from estimates I've seen. I imagine that criminals and delinquents would have little difficulty in sneaking guns into the area from outside of Chicago.
But Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed out: “We have now had eight — that’s correct, eight — members of the department shot in the last four months and this is the second time in the last 24 hours police have been fired upon by armed assailants.”
He added: “All the shootings have a disgraceful fact in common: all were committed with illegal guns that came from out of state. (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/out-of-state-guns/) And that is the case with nearly every shooting in our city.”
I would not say I am thin, but I am certainly of an average, i.e., non-impressive or threatening physique. And yet, in my whole life, I have never, ever (nock the wood), been bullied, mugged, attacked or engaged in any kind of physical or even verbal altercation. And I lived in some rather dangerous environments (Moscow, post-communism, eight years), Barcelona (four years), and (gasp) the "murder capital of the world" - Chicago - according to Russ (the last eight years).
Uhmmm, guns apparently are overrated. It takes another 40 or so schoolshootings before they level out victim count due to the mcveigh drama alone.
National Vital Statistics Report (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf) pdf
Deaths: Final Data for 2009
Firearm—In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%). Firearm injuries (all intents) decreased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide did not change from 2008, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.0% in 2009 from 2008.
No Rob, not all right - but at least it doesn't turn into a shoot-out. I have a brother who engaged in some petty criminal burglary when he was around 15 years old. In the US setup he might have been shot if caught by an angry property owner. Here, he was caught, and after a few months detention has carried on a crime free life. I don't want to see anyone's brother or son shot because some self-righteous person thinks they have the power of god in the form of a gun.Jim
Self-righteous? Where does that come from? Isn't the right to self-defence a natural one?...
... That you have avoided personal physical conflict/harm all your life says not so much about you, but your good fortune...
Here is a timely article about the effect on crime rates due to fewer gun restrictions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html
The gist of the article is that allowing more guns, much as Steve Weldon has proposed, didn't result in more crime, may have contributed somewhat to less crime, but most likely didn't have much effect at all. This is just my quick summary. Read the article for the full story if you're interested.
Chicago is not an island with it's own custom's control. It's a part of mainland America where there are about 200 million guns already in circulation, from estimates I've seen. I imagine that criminals and delinquents would have little difficulty in sneaking guns into the area from outside of Chicago.
Some of my thoughts on the matter (I'm a Canadian and a recently retired 30 year cop, so am looking at this thing from the outside in, although have a bit more association to the matters than the average citizen):
The vast majority of Canadian cops do not advocate putting guns into the hands of citizens. The vast majority of American cops I have spoken to, do not advocate guns for citizens (as long as they get to keep theirs).
Gun control in the US is one of the most contentious issues and will likely never be resolved.
Stats can be used to support anything. And often ignore many other things that contribute to certain results.
Both opponents and proponents often resort to fear-mongering to sell their point (similar to some of Steve Weldon's points - "brawn and lower IQ's rule our streets, schools, homes" and having a family member hurt, killed or raped while, because you didn't have gun, you were incapable of doing anything - really, really?).
I just can't comprehend a society which relies so heavily on the proliferation of guns to ensure a peaceful existence.
As part of a solution, having (even well trained) teachers carrying a concealed weapon while on duty, with the expectation that they will stand up to someone intent in causing death to others is so foreign to me and scares the heck out of me.
Although many citizens would/do take gun security seriously, a great many would/do not (in this case, it appeared it was not). To expect the answer to be more/better training and gun security is naive and unrealistic. If it takes time and commitment and a whole bunch of money, it is either not going to get done or get done but not very well.
Steve, with respect, I think you are missing the point here. Those of us from outside the US can mostly see the pragmatic side of your argument - that in reality very little will change because of the 300 million guns in circulation, and because of your constitution. But can you honestly not realise that the solution is so simple in concept, if not in execution, that to get rid of guns in your society will reduce the numbers of violent deaths in general and mass killings in particular by a huge percentage. All the training in the world will not alter the fact that a disillusioned man who does not own a gun, can just walk into his mother's room and pick up no less than FOUR legally held guns and ammunition, and go on a killing spree.
Unfortunately even well trained and well balanced ex policemen can flip mentally and suddenly decide to become killers. Just don't give them access to guns. And the logical progression of the self defence concept is that every citizen would need to be armed, trained, and carry a weapon at all times - just in case.....
I am sure most US citizens are good people, so no reason why what works in other countries cannot work there too.
Jim
Ya, dealing with statistics and peoples interpretation of them is a giant bag of worms. ...
Every "journalist" who writes a piece has statistics available to support whatever bent he/she wants to take..and they write it up as such, convince some, and their job is done. They've filled up today's column space. And of course someone who wants to believe that same way.. they google those peoples and there you go again..
... The guns used in almost all those shootings were illegal guns...
Rob, I don't think your points would in any way validate arming a nation to protect themselves against White Van Man, muggers on motorbikes or at picture stops. The fact is that in all these case at worst the assailant is likely to be armed with a knife and only going to threaten you for money. Give them your money and they will be off. Nobody needs to get killed. Now if like in the US the chances are Joe public could be armed, then of course the robbers are likely to have guns too. If you pull a gun on them you will probably get shot because they might well have more practise in using the gun and will certainly value life lower than you would. You can run from a knife, you can run from a stick, but try outrunning a bullet.
In the UK it is mainly gangs involved in drugs who use guns, and they usually use them on each other. They don't need them for other crime because they know they're highly unlikely to meet anyone else with a gun and so just the threat of physical violence is enough to get what they want.
Jim
I've been reluctant to get into this one, but since Slobodan's made it clear he hasn't a clue what an "assault weapon" is, even though he's sure that banning them will bring about at least a partial cure for this thing everyone seems to agree "we need to do something about," here are a few points that might be considered:
(1) Even though Slobodan's Chicago has had the strictest anti-gun laws in the US, it's become the murder capital of the world. It's followed closely by New York, with nearly equivalent gun laws. Detroit is trying hard to compete.
(2) Though the number of random shootings like the one in Newtown has been increasing over recent years, the overall number of gun deaths has been decreasing.
Don't ask me to make sense out of those data. There isn't any. But it does demonstrate that restrictive gun laws don't necessarily correlate with less shootings.
Had he been armed, the shooting would have stopped right there.
The overwhelming majority of gun crimes listed in that loose list of statistics you just posted ARE GANG RELATED. Remove the the gang related numbers from the statistics and magically, by the numbers, we go from the top of that list to somewhere in the middle.
The source of those illegal guns were... legal guns. Reduce access to legal guns and you'll reduce the number of illegal ones (in due time).and tax those that are not reduced into a very expensive luxury.
... Do spoons make people fat?...
But can you honestly not realise that the solution is so simple in concept, if not in execution, that to get rid of guns in your society will reduce the numbers of violent deaths in general and mass killings in particular by a huge percentage.
Rob, I don't think your points would in any way validate arming a nation to protect themselves against White Van Man, muggers on motorbikes or at picture stops. The fact is that in all these case at worst the assailant is likely to be armed with a knife and only going to threaten you for money. Give them your money and they will be off. Nobody needs to get killed. Now if like in the US the chances are Joe public could be armed, then of course the robbers are likely to have guns too. If you pull a gun on them you will probably get shot because they might well have more practise in using the gun and will certainly value life lower than you would. You can run from a knife, you can run from a stick, but try outrunning a bullet.
In the UK it is mainly gangs involved in drugs who use guns, and they usually use them on each other. They don't need them for other crime because they know they're highly unlikely to meet anyone else with a gun and so just the threat of physical violence is enough to get what they want.
Jim
What constitutes an assault weapon depends on content. In most political discussions an assault weapon is one which was defined for the purposes of the assault weapon ban which was recognized (even by those who voted for it, it was purely symbolic in nature) as an abject failure. And now that the country is talking about about another assault weapon ban.. at the risk of Slob feeling patronized.. I'll go over it once more.
The AR 15 isn't an assault weapon. Even though it has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, it's still a semi-automatic weapon, identical in firepower to about half of the less aggressive-looking hunting rifles out there. And if you've practiced enough with a pump or lever-action rifle you can come close to the rate of fire of a semi-automatic. If you ever fire a full-automatic weapon like the M-16 or the AK-47 you'll know the difference.
The "legit uses" in this example actually are examples of guns being used, as designed, for killing -- killing game animals and killing dangerous wildlife.
Hmmm... I must be lying then. Or deluding myself. Or maybe I am not a man enough.
I would not say I am thin, but I am certainly of an average, i.e., non-impressive or threatening physique. And yet, in my whole life, I have never, ever (knock the wood), been bullied, mugged, attacked or engaged in any kind of physical or even verbal altercation. And I lived in some rather dangerous environments (Moscow, post-communism, eight years), Barcelona (four years), and (gasp) the "murder capital of the world" - Chicago - according to Russ (the last eight years).
My wife was a victim of a petty crime twice in Barcelona, though. Once pick-pocketing, done so skillfully (i.e., non-violently) that she did not even notice. And the second time her purse was snatched off her shoulder (again, no other harm to her). I do not see how a gun would have helped. In the second case, it would have been inside the purse, and thus gone as well.
So, what's my "secret," how on Earth I've been able to protect myself and my family from "murder and rape" without a gun, to paraphrase Steve Weldon's question in another post? At least so far (knock the wood again).
- I simply try to avoid situations or environments where I would need a gun
- I choose to live in safe neighborhoods (I do realize that not everybody can afford that)
- I try to stay away from seedy parts of town, bars, events
- I try not to provoke a situation or confrontation
- I will try to remove myself from a situation before it escalates (not to run away mind you, just anticipate well in advance so that I can avoid it)
- If inevitable, I'd try to defuse it
Now, if I had a gun, I would probably be in the position that economists and risk analysts call "moral hazard," i.e., engaging in riskier behavior knowing that I am "protected." Which then becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy: by owning the gun you actually attract the situations where owning and using it is justifiable. Or you can call it a vicious circle.
Also, by owning the gun I might be tempted to use it. I generally consider myself a calm and composed individual. Yet, everyone has his breaking point. Sometimes the trigger (pardon the pun) might be a sense of injustice, wounded pride, moral outrage, or simply hurt feelings (like when Oscar insulted my daughter ;)). If (or when) it happens to me, if I ever reach my breaking point, I certainly don't wish to have a gun in my hands.
But lets now assume i do have a gun and I ended up in a situation where it might be needed. If I brandish it as a deterrence, and the assailant runs away screaming in horror, that would be a Hollywood happy ending, wouldn't it? In reality, I am more likely to face another individual with a gun. And here is the catch: that individual will be more accustomed to the situation, more experienced, quicker, more determined and with far less moral scruples to use it than I would. Although I am not afraid to use it in self-defense, I would probably deliberate for a SPLIT-SECOND longer, whether the situation warrants killing, than the other guy.
... at the risk of Slob feeling patronized...
Gangs
"Our finding that the magnitude of association between household firearm ownership and suicide is particularly high for children is consistent with previous empirical work, and with the hypothesis that suicide acts by youth are more likely to be impulsive and therefore more likely to be affected by the means at hand (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563517/)."
Be charitable, allow that both parties would be capable of movement, and someone would run away and call the cops on their cell phone -- or try to run away and be shot in the back.
In the context of this discussion, when there's so much else that you could choose to disagree about, this seems to be quarrelling for its own sake.
You choose to focus on a fraction of a fraction of a percent of firearms, when you understand the overwhelming majority of guns are designed to kill and that is the primary purpose.
It seems that you very much do not wish to accept that what actually happened is that guns were used as designed -- to kill.
The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%).
To protect your life, not your stereo.This is tragic..
In similar scenarios, there were several cases here recently, where parents killed their teenage children, mistaking their late-night sneaking in for burglary.
The source of those illegal guns were... legal guns. Reduce access to legal guns and you'll reduce the number of illegal ones (in due time).What's your estimate? Say.. we outlaw ALL guns today.. When can we get down to a reasonably safe number since we can't get them all.. say we get 90% That leaves 300,000+ firearms in the hands of criminals. Feel safer? Somehow I don't.
Well.. if we assume the armed NRA card carrying member stopped them before they could kill a second person.? I could show you thousands.
then you probably can give us an example of armed NRA card carrying civilian who ever stopped a mass shooting ?
... How many years? I've thought about this a lot. And if it's even possible. At least a hundred years?
The purpose of spoons is neutral, to feed people. The purpose of guns is single-minded, to kill.No.. the purpose of guns it to protect life.. or take life. Offence/Defence So I suppose neutral too. If you doubt me ask for the doctrine of any police force.. it's mindset. When the cop shoots the person who is shooting innocents is he thinking "I'm killing that SOB" or is he thinking "I'm saving those poor folks "
I do not feel patronized when you provide useful facts. I do when you consider those who disagree with you (thus a matter of opinion, not facts) ignorant. I do not appreciate when you mock my name, though (slob = a lazy and slovenly person)
Your proposed solution may indeed work, but the problem is that your solution is impossible to implement in the U.S. now or anytime in the foreseeable future.
and if we remove gang crimes from others we will be back on top...
More than 500 children die each year in the US because they accidentally fired a gun they found in their homes.
Guess they could have all accidentally done something else to themselves ... like accidentally spooning themselves.
Steve,
I can't say any more about the conversations with US cops, other than, when firearms entered the subject, the vast majority of those US officers were not in favour of guns in the hands of anyone - criminals, lawful citizens etc. I can only describe what I have heard and am not expecting I will convince you that I am relating this correctly. We'll have to let that aspect stand as it is.
When you suggest that, if US citizens were not allowed to carry guns, that brawn and lower IQs would rule the streets, homes, schools etc is, in my opinion, fear mongering. The majority of your posts have been well set out and reasonable, however, this (and the other quote) are way out there and serve no purpose other than to scare people.
Yes, 30 years on the job and I just can't see this. I presumed we were talking about civilian guns, not military, as your response perhaps suggests.
Well trained teachers do not scare me. The idea that a solution that uses armed teachers scares me. As you know, marshals and cops are chosen through serious scrutiny of their abilities and thought processes, and are trained to make the best out of those attributes. A teacher is hired because they can teach.So.. you're scared because someone accepted and is trained for a job they didn't initially sign up for? I still don't understand. What part of this "scares" you? That society has to go there? If that's the case I agree.
As a Chinese saying goes: "even a thousand miles journey starts with the first step" ;)
I've lived overseas nearly 25 years of my adult life.. and during all that time I've never found a country I felt was better or more desirable to live in then the USA.
No.. the purpose of guns it to protect life.. or take life. Offence/Defence So I suppose neutral too. If you doubt me ask for the doctrine of any police force.. it's mindset. When the cop shoots the person who is shooting innocents is he thinking "I'm killing that SOB" or is he thinking "I'm saving those poor folks "
Guns provide choices we wouldn't otherwise have. For the overwhelming majority of us.. our choices are honourable.
1. You're speaking of your own country in the first 5-6 sentences?
2. No. If you go by the stats they will rape, kill, car jack, and much more. Consider signing up for a ride-along with your local PD..
3. Your entire post centers around "robbers." I've never worried about robbers. Never. I worry about killers, rapists, gang members, etc.. We have very few "robbers" going around trying to get a few bucks. There are far more profitable low risk ways to make money. Like selling drugs for the gangs. Does your country have a problem rounding up robbers?
4. What makes you think a criminal will have more skill with a gun than a private citizen? Private citizens can take their legal guns and go to legal gun ranges and/or gun clubs and practice all the time. And many do. Criminals RARELY practice with a gun that will bring attention to them.
5. Oh my.. your country again?
The United States ...... has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)
The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan’s is 63.
The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.
- he might have had a bad burrito the night before and is spending the day in and out of school's restrooms
- he might have been preparing for his class in his cabinet or school's library
- he might have stepped out for a smoke
- he might have been making out with a colleague or student in a discrete corner of the school
The purpose of spoons is neutral, to feed people. The purpose of guns is single-minded, to kill.
Okay, Ray, you forced me to say what I didn’t want to say. Our war on drugs has had some devastating consequences. It’s largely responsible for our gun violence (and a lot of other non-drug crime), our high rate if incarceration, corruption, devastation of other countries (such as Mexico), and general disrespect for the law. After a generation of the drug war, however, drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever. And, we’ve spent trillions of dollars for this outcome, with no end in sight.
Ending the war on drugs is such a contentious issue that I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire of the gun control debate, but I don’t believe that we can ever solve our gun violence problem as long as our war on drugs continues.
... My point being that mass killing are very rare and infrequent, most are planned well, and who says we can eliminate them just by removing one tool out of many which they can use?
Rob, ever thought of an alarm system for your house? Or even motion-sensor lights outside/inside? Much simpler than fiddling with a gun in the dark (and risking shooting yourself in the process).
Rob, ever thought of an alarm system for your house? Or even motion-sensor lights outside/inside? Much simpler than fiddling with a gun in the dark (and risking shooting yourself in the process).
There's a disconnect somewhere.. didn't understand that at all.
How about a rundown on your extensive experience with firearms, Slobodan?
Stricter penalties do not reduce crime. The US system is the living proof of that, look at the growing number of the prison populations. For instance the death penalty doesn't prevent individuals to do what they do, because many of them have mental issues and suffer from a reduced sense of empathy. Others just have inadequate legal support, and are killed unjustly anyway in the name of the people.
Long term imprisonment (getting them off the street) creates a false sense of security, because when they come back they're better criminals than before, and with even less of a prospect of making something of their lives. Besides it's a very costly proposition having to house and feed an increasing number of people, especially when it doesn't really solve anything. It's a symptomatic reaction, as usual, not a solution.
...
There are of course also many parties that benefit from that situation, (gun) lobbyists, defense industry, politicians (not touching sensitive issues is easier than addressing them, and better for re-election). Governing by the FUD principle is easier to get things done, even if they are no solution (remember Iraq, WMDs and all lies at a huge (personal and collective) cost to so many Americans and others, good for Halliburton and the defence industry though). Symptomatic reactions ...
Taking you seriously on the first point: what service would the alarm render me? I'd still have to face whoever came in. Alarms go off here all over the place; it's the dampness and nobody pays them any heed. Most folks I know who had them disconnected them in the end...
There's another constituency who benefits that seems to fly below the radar (so far) and that's the private prison industry...
... The underlying problem is a cultural one, and that's a hard one to change!...
Slobodan, I was also going to comment on that terrible judge. 28 years seem much too lenient of a sentence.
There are other equally distressing reports of abuse of the private, for profit, prison system, where the prisons get paid a flat rate, so they try some despicable methods to cut costs, including denying even basic medical care resulting in needless deaths. Unfortunately, U.S. federal, state and local governments increasingly are turning over traditional government services to private, for profit, companies. This trend has resulted in corruption, bloated costs, and poor services in too many cases.
How can people keep falling for the same snake oil, the bs isn't even subtle.
Then why deny yourself at this advanced stage of life ..... go back home.Thank you for your concern. I did return home about 18-20 months ago and an readjusting.
Steve,Marv -
I fear we will go on with this forever, with no real resolution. I don't think it matters who I have arrested or whether I carried a gun.
I think the bottom line is we've had a different upbringing and have lived in different countries with some great differences in perspectives, even though our countries are side by side. I happen to be uncomfortable with a proliferation of firearms and have been lucky to live in a society where they are not as central to things as in your country. And you have been quite eloquent and clear on your thoughts and position.
Let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree.
Marv
You are trying to spin this. "To protect life" is a just a euphemism for killing. The first and foremost purpose is to kill. If that results in saving something more valuable, or is otherwise justifiable, that is secondary. You first have to kill, in order to protect.
As for what cops think, they are trained to shoot to kill, right? Two pops in the chest, just to be sure (because one may not be enough). And, for the sake of mine and the rest of the public safety, I hope they don't get too poetic and teary-eyed about it (as in "I'm saving those poor folks "), but coldly efficient (as in "I'm killing that SOB").
The "legit uses" in this example actually are examples of guns being used, as designed, for killing -- killing game animals and killing dangerous wildlife.
You are quite right sir. And all this time I thought you were concerned with killing people.
Guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill -- both deer and people (http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/sports/outdoors/deer-hunter-apparently-killed-by-friends-shot).
Like... Spoons? ;)
EDIT: But seriously, does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass murder?
Russ and Steve, as for armed teachers... How many armed guards managed to stop a bank robbery?Not all banks have armed guards these days.. can't remember the last time I've seen one. The risk for banks to be robbed is extremely remote. But when they did use them the bad guys knew where they were stationed, where they stood, etc. IN other words they could and did plan their robbery with them in the equation. This would be quite different with teachers carrying concealed. Though, just like banks, the bad guys will end up going somewhere where they don't have to deal with guards at all. Mass Murderers already pick a gun free zone by design, if we enable the teachers they'll just pick the next gun free zone.. too bad we're so stupid as to provide them and then tell them where they are.
Russ, I already provided it: extensive it isn't, but I said earlier that I was shooting with an AK-47 and military rifles, and quite successfully so, both in target practice and disassembling/assembling it.I could care less about what type of weapon.. children shoot AK-47's all the time. I'm interested in what training and exposure to mindset other than the television you've been exposed to?
I just do not see the need to keep an AK-47 under my pillow as a civilian, thus my gun skills are probably getting rusty.
Are you saying that a burglar would calmly continue while alarms are blaring and all lights inside and outside go on!? Seriously?1. Yes, they often do depending on their goal. Not everyone is out to steal the family toaster. Some re there for the kill. Or kidnapping. Or retaliation (something cops often have to live with for a very long time)..
Good alarm systems (at least here) are connected directly to a monitoring center which would then alert the police. It would take some balls on the burglar side to wait to see if the police shows up.
Additionally, given that you consider guns to be primarily a deterrent, how about acquiring a plastic one? I am sure that at today's stage of technology, they might even come with a cocking sound built-in.
STORAGE LAWS: In Florida they enacted a law in the 80's that held owners of guns criminally and civilly responsible if their guns were used in the commission of a crime or were misused in any way. The law said ALL guns must be stored in an approved SAFE and they specified a combination device and not a simple key...To an outsider, storage laws like that look like "gun control" in the plain meaning of the words - controlling how you use your gun. I guess in the context of the US debate, "gun control" means something narrower. Steve, would you favour strict policing of such laws, or the withdrawal of ownership rights as a penalty for breaking them?
I really feel this one law.. would do more good than all the gun control put together.
Look at how easily gun control was enacted in Australia..akin to the proverbial knee jerk reaction without adequate representation and due process. Even now, years later, I'd bet if Australia or even the UK voted concerning gun control the numbers would be split pretty much down the middle.. This tells me the rights of right around half these citizens were severely infringed on. Sad.This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, Steve. Gun control in Australia is embodied in legislation enacted over many years by democratically elected Governments following constitutional and parliamentary processes. The changes to that legislation made after the Port Arthur massacre had overwhelming public support. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "if Australia voted...concerning gun control" but you would be throwing away your money if you bet that anywhere near half of the population would support substantial reversal of those changes, although some fine tuning might be on the cards and I would personally support it. If we could agree on some way of settling the bet, I would be happy to offer you attractive odds. And I suspect that, on reflection, you might not want to maintain the argument that the rights of people who don't happen to agree with the decisions of democratically elected Governments are ipso facto infringed by those decisions. We don't have a right to make our own laws, and unrestricted gun ownership isn't a human right. In Australia we don't have a second amendment and I would bet that only a very few of us regret it.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, Steve. Gun control in Australia is embodied in legislation enacted over many years by democratically elected Governments following constitutional and parliamentary processes. The changes to that legislation made after the Port Arthur massacre had overwhelming public support. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "if Australia voted...concerning gun control" but you would be throwing away your money if you bet that anywhere near half of the population would support substantial reversal of those changes, although some fine tuning might be on the cards and I would personally support it. If we could agree on some way of settling the bet, I would be happy to offer you attractive odds. And I suspect that, on reflection, you might not want to maintain the argument that the rights of people who don't happen to agree with the decisions of democratically elected Governments are ipso facto infringed by those decisions. We don't have a right to make our own laws, and unrestricted gun ownership isn't a human right. In Australia we don't have a second amendment and I would bet that only a very few of us regret it.
... War is normally not consiered mass murder...
To an outsider, storage laws like that look like "gun control" in the plain meaning of the words - controlling how you use your gun. I guess in the context of the US debate, "gun control" means something narrower. Steve, would you favour strict policing of such laws, or the withdrawal of ownership rights as a penalty for breaking them?I fully support the law as written. As written it is a felony to not store your guns properly. A felony instantly disqualifies you from gun ownership. Ever. Or living in a house where guns are kept. Ever.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, Steve. Gun control in Australia is embodied in legislation enacted over many years by democratically elected Governments following constitutional and parliamentary processes. The changes to that legislation made after the Port Arthur massacre had overwhelming public support. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "if Australia voted...concerning gun control" but you would be throwing away your money if you bet that anywhere near half of the population would support substantial reversal of those changes, although some fine tuning might be on the cards and I would personally support it. If we could agree on some way of settling the bet, I would be happy to offer you attractive odds. And I suspect that, on reflection, you might not want to maintain the argument that the rights of people who don't happen to agree with the decisions of democratically elected Governments are ipso facto infringed by those decisions. We don't have a right to make our own laws, and unrestricted gun ownership isn't a human right. In Australia we don't have a second amendment and I would bet that only a very few of us regret it.
Steve, in this debate you said many interesting things, and quite a few "interesting" things, but with this one you've outdone yourself.
What's the euphemism this time: "stopping" the enemy? Pacifying, neutralizing, bringing the peace? Killing them softly?
Steve, in this debate you said many interesting things, and quite a few "interesting" things, but with this one you've outdone yourself.
What's the euphemism this time: "stopping" the enemy? Pacifying, neutralizing, bringing the peace? Killing them softly?
Oh, wait, this must be it: I made a mistake, shouldn't have used "murder" instead of "killing." So, my sentence should now read:
"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass killing?"
Wait, another edit:
"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass RECREATION?"
You have got to be arguing for the simple reason that you enjoy it.
Rob C
military weapons
Rob, we are not talking about philosophical or moral distinctions between mass murders and (presumably justifiable) war killings. We are talking about weapons. Military weapons, which sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties, i.e., killings.
I really do not get why is it so difficult to accept that military weapons are designed to kill??? Spin it however you want, use whatever euphemism you want, the sole purpose of military weapons is to kill. Justifiably or not, legally or not, by the right side or the wrong side, it is design to KILL for god's sake!!! The more the better, the faster the better.
And, no I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I believe that military weapon ownership by civilians is dangerous and I argue against it.
... Jokes are what he has left...
... Bushmaster isn't an "assault weapon" or a "military weapon."...
... turned up in the hands perpetrators of mass murder. A Bushmaster .223 was used by Jacob Tyler Roberts to kill two people and then himself at an Oregon shopping mall last week. It was also one of the weapons allegedly brandished by James Holmes, charged with killing 12 people and wounding 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., earlier this summer. And it’s similar to the weapon used in the Beltway Sniper shootings, in which John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo used it to kill 10 and wound three others.
... the weapon was adapted for military use as the M16; it went in to service in Vietnam in 1963. The modern AR-15 is a demilitarized version of the M16...
Because it falls under the federal definition of the term “assault weapon,” the AR-15 has long been a target of anti-gun legislation. “It was one of the weapons [specifically] banned by the Assault Weapons Ban legislation in 1994,”
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtown-shooting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/#ixzz2FdNi01vR
... Civilians aren't allowed to own full automatic weapons in the US...
Rob, we are not talking about philosophical or moral distinctions between mass murders and (presumably justifiable) war killings. We are talking about weapons. Military weapons, which sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties, i.e., killings.So far you haven't been talking about military weapons. What you said is military weapons are designed for MASS MURDER. They are not. Not one gun manufacturer sells a gun designed to murder. This is a politically hyped up term and it's not funny when discussing a serious subject.
I really do not get why is it so difficult to accept that military weapons are designed to kill??? Spin it however you want, use whatever euphemism you want, the sole purpose of military weapons is to kill. Justifiably or not, legally or not, by the right side or the wrong side, it is design to KILL for god's sake!!! The more the better, the faster the better.
And, no I do not argue for the sake of arguing. I believe that military weapon ownership by civilians is dangerous and I argue against it.
Slobodan, What "military" weapons are we talking about? I thought you were referring to the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle which was used in the Connecticut shootings. You told me you'd fired the M-16 and AK-47 on full automatic. That being the case it's damned sure you know that the Bushmaster isn't an "assault weapon" or a "military weapon." Civilians aren't allowed to own full automatic weapons in the US. It's different in most Middle Eastern countries.
No, Steve, I see jokes as my weapon of choice (pardon the pun) that is perfectly suited to expose utter ridiculousness of some of your statements and concepts.No. You are doing nothing but exposing your ignorance of the subject and taking away from what would be a serious subject.
Ok, lets see what the Bushmaster .223 is:
From a Times Magazine article:
I mean, just take a look at that cutie. Isn't it obvious it is made for purely recreational purposes?
Hmmm... why not? If the mighty 2nd Amendment says "the right to bear arms," without limiting or defining it, why then not automatic weapons as well? If it was possible to ban automatic weapons, why not then ban sami-automatic as well? Looks like the 2nd Amendment isn't such an obstacle as gun proponents would like us to believe.
1. A screwdriver has been used to murder. This does not make the screwdriver an "assault screwdriver." I've taken the time to TWICE list what constitutes an "assault weapon" under the last assault weapons ban.. this is what the BATF uses and the government uses. Refer to it if in doubt...
“It was one of the weapons [specifically] banned by the Assault Weapons Ban legislation in 1994,”
... Civilians aren't allowed to own full automatic weapons in the US...
Yes we are...
Ok, lets see what the Bushmaster .223 is:
From a Times Magazine article:
I mean, just take a look at that cutie. Isn't it obvious it is made for purely recreational purposes?
...There are toy guns that look just like the Bushmaster. Are they "assault weapons" too?
... And, as usual, Time magazine has its facts wrong....
... Compared with the M-16 it's a toy...made for purely recreational purposes...
... laughably classify guns by the way they look...
...you're mislabeling an AR-15 which WAS NOT made to kill..
What the gun industry did, was take an AR-15 assault weapon, cut off the bayonet lug, replace the collapsible stock with a fixed stock, and welded the flash hider to the barrel threads.. thereby eliminating useful barrel threads.
That's it. Same black gun, same semi-auto action, same mean looking accessories can be mounted on it, fires the same .223 cartridge.. Same same..
... A M16 IS NOT an AR-15. There are huge differences, namely one shoots automatic and the other is semi-auto...
You're assuming revolvers, pump, lever fed type firearms are inherently slower than semi-automatic weapons? It's a good thought but watch some IPSC and IDPA competitions sometimes.. or even the old fashioned cowboy shooing comps where they exclusively use dated and period correct weapons. It's stunning to see how fast they can be deployed. Anyone remember the Rifleman? Stunning rate of fire from his 1870 lever action. Pumps are just as fast. Even single shot mechanisms have devices sold which speeds them up quite a bit.
Ok.. huge difference... one is semi-auto the other is auto. The difference being, you'd have to pull the trigger every time on semi-auto, and just keep it pressed on auto. The difference being the speed of fire. I see. So, how fast you can pull the trigger repeatedly on a semi-auto? Certainly not as fast as on auto, I agree. But is the difference significant (from the standpoint of a mass murderer)? Could that speed be increased with practice?
Again, let's turn to an expert* for answer. Though he talks about a difference between regular guns (even slower) and sami-auto, it is still relevant (again, highlights mine):
* Steve Weldon
There are toy guns that look just like the Bushmaster.
The fact that you and many other members on this thread have had a lot of life experience, have seen life and death, and can see quite plainly that the good old US way with guns is seriously flawed, is of much less importance than the RIGHT to have a gun handy just in case one wants to use it.
where i never even considered i needed a gun...
They can surely be mistaken for one. Just ask Steve's colleague who killed a boy with a toy weapon.
. . . their "right" to own military-style semi-automatic "modern sporting rifles". . .
. . .their "right" to own military-style semi-automatic "modern sporting rifles"
You and Slobodan would be more believable
http://www.economist.com/news/world-week/21568739-kals-cartoon
... But let's imagine we've banned firearms in the US and managed to find and destroy all the previously legal guns in the country. What a terrific subsidy for gun producers in places like North Korea or the Middle East, who'd smuggle guns into the country to illegal dealers at extremely high prices. We've done the same thing with the subsidy we've given drug producers and dealers by having a "war on drugs."...
But let's imagine we've banned firearms in the US and managed to find and destroy all the previously legal guns in the country. What a terrific subsidy for gun producers in places like North Korea or the Middle East, who'd smuggle guns into the country to illegal dealers at extremely high prices. We've done the same thing with the subsidy we've given drug producers and dealers by having a "war on drugs."
The point is that if people like Lanza really want guns they're going to find a way to get them, and in a completely disarmed country those guns are going to be unusually effective. I've been really busy lately so I haven't had time to plow all the way through this absurd thread, but I know that somebody from Britain pointed out how few gun crimes they have in England. He didn't mention the fact that gun crimes have climbed by 89% in the past decade and their cops have reached the point where they need to carry full-automatic weapons ("assault weapons" Slobodan) rather than billy- clubs.
If it has then the figure of 139 gun related deaths in 2009, of which 109 were suicides, so 30 homicides by guns of all types.
No doubt we'd all be a lot safer if we banned toys.
No doubt the children and parents of children that have been shot and/or killed while holding overly-realistic toys might favor some regulation.
NYC has had toy gun regulations since 1955.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/838toyguns.pdf
your implication our veterans are mass murderers
Slobodan, I think you might as well give up here. Let's face it, the two pro-choice posters here are not going to change their minds. Steve will just keep you going around in circles because he thinks there's a difference between a recreational gun and a killing machine, and he and Russ think that unless you have extensive experience with a variety of automatic weapons then you have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that you and many other members on this thread have had a lot of life experience, have seen life and death, and can see quite plainly that the good old US way with guns is seriously flawed, is of much less importance than the RIGHT to have a gun handy just in case one wants to use it. The simple idea that the more guns that are taken out of circulation, the less chance disaffected young men will have their chance to get hold of them passes them by.
Steve quotes at length the sequence of events leading to the killer in the latest incident getting hold of his mother's guns, and then blames her for not locking them safely away. So she is fallible. Under my scheme she would not have been able to own four guns in the first place and neither would the guy next door, or anyone else in the street. Perhaps the boy would then have strangled his mother or stabbed her to death with a knife. Tragic, but at least he would not have gunned down a whole class of children in addition.
The idea that a load of old men (and women) are sitting around with such weapons leaves me chilled to the bone. We have a lot of old people around us, and a lot of them are our friends and I have huge respect for the older generation. However many of those in their 80's and above should not be in charge of a car let alone a gun or rifle. Just to watch them trying to get out of a car park would make you realise that they would not be able to hit anyone with a bullet unless they had a machine gun (ah, I see the flaw in my argument).
The semantics about what constitutes an assault rifle and whether the Bushmaster (makes it sound quite tame compared to the Terminator or similar) or whatever is less dangerous/effective than an M16 is just ridiculous. It might make a difference against a trained and motivated enemy soldier, but against a class of children would make no difference whatsoever. It makes me think of the idiots who bang on about how a Canon 1Ds is a 'professional' camera and a 350D is strictly for 'amateurs', as if it makes the slightest difference to the pictures. True, one is a professional build and a better long term camera, but the end result from both is basically the same.
Isn't it nice to talk about photography again.
Regards
Jim
And as a postscript before anyone questions my credentials, I do have extensive experience with a range of weapons. My time in the Royal Navy allowed me one full clip from a Stirling sub-machine gun, one clip from a 9mm pistol, and several magazines from a 7.62mm SLR. Now that last one made me realise that I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.
And lastly, I do have a .22 Relum Tornado air-rifle. A couple of Magpies were harassing our pet rabbit the other day and I fired a shot over their heads to scare them off - couldn't bring myself to kill them even though I am a great shot!
It's good that this has been a civilised discussion despite the fact that we have such polarised views - let's face it, there are no easy answers.
Yup. Toys can get you in serious trouble ... When everyone has real ones ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1855490/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/28/nyregion/officer-shoots-boy-holding-a-toy-gun.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/11/local/me-palmdale11
.. I will cease to educate you...
Until you retract and apologize for your implication our veterans are mass murderers..
... I made a mistake, shouldn't have used "murder" instead of "killing." So, my sentence should now read:
"Does anyone finds it surprising that idiots bent on mass murder come to the party with weapons intended for... well, mass killing?"
That nice man from the NRA has solved the issue - armed guards at every school.
It isn't simply the right to have a gun. Most of us in the US are ok with people having a gun.
What is astonishing is the ferocity with which these folks assert their "right" to own military-style semi-automatic "modern sporting rifles" with 30 round magazines full of bullets intended to shred humans ... And must be able to walk into a store and walk out armed to the teeth with no background check.
What is even more astonishing is the insensitive need to ferociously defend such "rights" even as these children are being buried.
For god's sake ... Just give it a rest for one month.
… A [teacher] who thought the world was coming to an end bought a handful of guns..
Get over yourself.What I said is he insinuated it. And he did. That's enough.
He didn't say that at all and your indignation is petty and trite.
The Republican mantra has been smaller government, less spending, no new taxes. Now this nice Republican wants to add tens of thousands of new government workers at a staggering cost. I assume he'd not want to raise tax revenue to pay for it, but instead to put the cost on our credit card, again.
The Republican mantra has been smaller government, less spending, no new taxes. Now this nice Republican wants to add tens of thousands of new government workers at a staggering cost. I assume he'd not want to raise tax revenue to pay for it, but instead to put the cost on our credit card, again.
My reading comprehension is obviously better than your memory. These are your words:
To check your own reading comprehension, please see again what I wrote:
I must admit the rushing to hire a load of armed guards for schools seems terminally insane for various reasons, not least of which is that poorly trained and inadequately vetted guards might pose a larger risk to children than the occasional deranged nutter. How many students will be 'accidentally' shot through mistaken identity, trigger happy guards, high school pranks etc before it is realised just what a bad idea it is? The guard will be the first to be sought out and shot by gun toting weirdos anyway, so what are you going to arm him with, another assault rifle so the two can have fun sniping at each other across the playground?
Answering guns with more guns just doesn't seem to be the answer but it's not my country so I'll pipe down again.
... failed assault weapons ban.. which doesn't ba[n] assault weapons but instead bans bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, etc...
You're right. It's hugely expensive. I doubt it will happen.
Damn, I guess armed guards isn’t such an easy solution after all.
So, they are assault weapons after all?I'm assuming you haven't had a chance to read my past.. so I'll answer this. Mostly because it's a very good question.
I read some numbers earlier I'll quote here.. 131. That's the number of people who died at schools since Columbine..
Stick to what you know, Steve. Guns are a long way from being "entirely outlawed" in Australia. Check the details here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia) . We have rules about who can own what kind of gun, with precise definitions - nothing wobbly like "assault weapon" - but if I wanted to hunt or target shoot I could get hold of a suitable gun without much difficulty provided I joined a gun club and installed secure storage.Ken.. notice I put "or even the Australia model.." Prefaced by "entirely banned?"
There are 10,000 to 12,000 gun homicides per year in the U.S. Everyone seems to be fixated on your 10 per year average, while ignoring the other 10,000 to 12,000 yearly gun homicides. Why? Don't the other 100,000 plus lives also warrant some attention?
Ken.. notice I put "or even the Australia model.." Prefaced by "entirely banned?"What you wrote is what I quoted. You referred to guns being "entirely outlawed" under the "UK or even the Australia model". Not sure where you get the word "banned".
Can you get an AR-15 style rifle? How about a Ruger Mini-14? (Ar style rifle in sheeps clothing) Armalite AR-10? Or a M14? And can you shoot it on your own property without owning a gun club? And can you get handguns?
Tell us more about the secure storage..
A good question. Over half that figure as we've referenced in this thread elsewhere was from suicides.. and no one really wants to get involved with the choice of suicide where gun control is concerned.. the obvious answer is they push for my medical induced suicides which is another bag of worms.. so they hide in the gun stats. Almost all the other half is gang related which is directly tied to the war on drugs.. something else politicians don't want to talk about.
Start breaking down the numbers and you'll get really pissed off..
I am not sure about the purpose of your questions.Ken -
Ken.. notice I put "or even the Australia model.." Prefaced by "entirely banned?"
I've spent a lot of time studying the gun laws, gun control, circumstances, history, of many countries.. it sometimes helps to step out of a specific environment and look at others.
Can you get an AR-15 style rifle? How about a Ruger Mini-14? (Ar style rifle in sheeps clothing) Armalite AR-10? Or a M14? And can you shoot it on your own property without owning a gun club? And can you get handguns?
Tell us more about the secure storage..
Hi Steve,
So what you seem to be suggesting is that, when it involves gangs and desperate people, guns are a good thing ...?
Just asking, because I'm puzzled by your defence of rampant (leading to inappropriately used) proliveration of guns, which would rather be, recreation?
BTW, a few clicks in Google reveals that a little over half of the gang related assaults and homicides in the USA are inter-racial, so I'm not sure which race and business activity statistics bracket you belong to that would explain your need to use a firearm for self-defence..., unless you only 'need' it for recreation. Annoying indeed.
Cheers,
Bart
A good question. Over half that figure as we've referenced in this thread elsewhere was from suicides.. and no one really wants to get involved with the choice of suicide where gun control is concerned.. the obvious answer is they push for my medical induced suicides which is another bag of worms.. so they hide in the gun stats. Almost all the other half is gang related which is directly tied to the war on drugs.. something else politicians don't want to talk about.
Start breaking down the numbers and you'll get really pissed off..
If you want to talk about "gun control" in Australia Steve, then your questions are barking entirely up the wrong tree.Hi Tony -
The 10,000 to 12,000 number is homicides. Suicides are not included in that number.You're right. I should have picked up on that.
Guns are used for suicides more often than for homicides. I've refrained from discussing gun suicides in the context of gun control because I doubt that even the most strict gun control imaginable, that would be constitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court, would be effective in reducing suicides significantly. Even a single bullet gun, especially a caliber larger than a 22, is sufficient for a suicide. It appears that the possession of ordinary revolvers, shotguns and rifles (not including semi-automatics) is protected by the Second Amendment. (Semi-automatics may well be protected, too, but I'm taking the best case scenario for gun control.)
It's quite clear that I differentiated between the UK and Australia when I said "calling for guns to be entirely outlawed as per the UK or even the Australia model." For the sake of this discussion I see absolutely zero difference between "outlawed" and "banned." It's the same thing. So to help you with the reading: outlawed as per the UK OR EVEN the Australia model. Which means outlawed or severely restricted. Why you quibble to the point of distraction about a sentence whose meaning is clear to most anybody is something I don't wish to speculate.We will have to disagree about the plain meaning of your sentence as written. I now know that you meant it to mean "outlawed as per the UK or severely restricted as per the Australian".
But I do find your OTOH remark not well written because I don't understand what the heck you mean. You start off with a 100% wrong assumption "your intent is to demonstrate your knowledge" (my intent was to answer a question directly asked and whose answer benefits everyone participating in the discussion. It's a key point, oft misunderstood) but the rest of your sentence is scrambled no? Clear it up for us.
orage."[/b]
So you won't mind telling me how one develops a "need" for hunting or target shooting, something according to your link you MUST be able to provide? And what does a "gun club" cost in Australia? Is a need satisfied by "I'd like to take a hunting trip up north" or must you show you need the meat to subsist? Who decides your.. well.. we can't call it a 'right", so lets call change that to "who gives you permission or allows you to own a firearm by acceptance, or not, of your "need?"
orage."[/b]
My point here is you might not be able to do as you say if you have someone making the decision that doesn't believe hin hunting, doesn't like you, doesn't like the color of your car.. Because you no longer have a right. You're only conditionally allowed on the whim of some official.
orage."[/b]Oh come on. This is getting silly. Surely you don't really think it is safe to assume that there are no guidelines because the guidelines don't happen to be listed in a Wikipedia article.
But yes, "the Australian model" as I eluded is not that guns are totally outlawed. They are only subject. Subject to the opinion of someone not you.. without clear guidelines they must act under. Or at least the guidelines were not listed in your otherwise complete reference.
orage."[/b]Here we are getting closer to an area of agreement. Bureaucratic distinctions between different kinds of gun are always going to be open to criticism and politicians are always going to go for what sounds good.
A gun is a gun. I suppose politicians don't want to touch that one.
orage."[/b].
Well, if you don't want to answer questions showing your knowledge of firearms.. how about a more open question. John Howard as stated in his autobiography "hates" guns.. a very strong emotion. Ever wonder where he developed this hate? And he states he "seized the opportunity with the Port Author massacre" to push through your restrictive gun control So one man with hate of the subject of a law.. admittedly took advantage of the people in writing new laws. Interesting. Our laws get their power from our constitution and our constitution is written to prevent one man from having such control over laws (something our President often needs reminding of).. As a people American's reject such power. My question: Do you think Australia's "conditioning" as "subjects" of the Queen is responsible for their.. well.. being okay with being controlled like that? Personally I haven't seen this trait in the Australians I've come to call friends.. but they don't belong to that vast majority who are okay with the current gun laws. In all seriousness, if you read through this thread I've become quite impressed with Australians. I'd hate to think they haven't outgrown the antiquated concept of a monarchy.
orage."[/b]We have differing views on how best to select our purely ceremonial Head of State. I would personally prefer some kind of Republic, as would almost all of our gun control advocates, while almost all Australians who would agree with you about gun control would prefer to stick with the Queen.
I've become quite impressed with Australians. I'd hate to think they haven't outgrown the antiquated concept of a monarchy.
Steve you are making my argument very well.
I put those observations down to show that there appears to be a massive gulf in thinking about gun ownership in Australia versus the USA.
Your thinking personifies that gulf.
As for some of the other issues that your last post dragged into the debate well you asked for this.
I happen to be an Intensive Care doctor (you didn't know that did you) who knows far better that you about iatrogenic (doctor-caused) harm because I deal with it in my ICU on a daily basis. I do regular battle with collegues about this issue (to the point where some of them wish they could put a bullet in me) and so am sometimes regarded as a polecat.
Also, although traffic-related injuries and deaths, in global terms are minimal in Australia - even one is too many.
Additionally, my medical career started in South Africa where traffic-related injury and death is appallingly, obscenely, and criminally, high.
That is not all.
I witnessed, in battlefield-like conditions, the appalling carnage made possible by unrestricted access to weapons of any sort never mind those currently accepted as military grade weaponry.
I have several late and lamented friends from South Africa who were trained Special Forces soldiers ("reccies") and policemen who carried guns all the time (especially when in civvies - and quite legally) who are all dead, killed by criminals, and had no chance despite their immense training and capabilities. Sadly them bearing arms contributed to their deaths since they all went for their weapons when caution would have been the better option or they were killed because they were found to be carrying weapons by the criminals despite their caution.
Unlike you, I will not speculate about your experiences, expertise, interests, and concerns, I will, however, put forward observations and opinions based on direct, and unfortunately very unpleasant, experience.
Tony Jay
We will have to disagree about the plain meaning of your sentence as written. I now know that you meant it to mean "outlawed as per the UK or severely restricted as per the Australian".Thank you for this. You wouldn't believe the people who continue to tell you what you were saying even after they explained to you, you were saying something different.
Well - as in the case of my understanding of what you wrote, the problem could be your understanding, or what I wrote. We are unlikely to agree as to which it was. I am a bit puzzled, however as to what question you thought you were answering by asking me questions about various makes of gun. And I can only assume you are using some kind of royal plural when you refer to "us", as I have no evidence that anyone else is in need of clarification.
The police decide, in the first instance, in accordance with their interpretation of the law, as they decide lots of other things, in your country and mine. If their decision is arbitrary you can appeal. Read Tony's post for an account of how and why all that doesn't matter to us in the way it apparently does to you. In the real world, the situation is as I described it - anyone who wants to hunt or target shoot and doesn't have a criminal record can do so with minimal impediment, except in relation to what kind of gun they can buy. The cost of joining a gun club is insignificant compared to the cost of the guns and the ammunition.
As I explained above, our officials don't get to make decisions based on whims, whether the decisions are about guns or about any of the other thousands of things officials make decisions about, in your country and mine. They have to make them accordance with the law and if you don't like their decision you can appeal it.
Oh come on. This is getting silly. Surely you don't really think it is safe to assume that there are no guidelines because the guidelines don't happen to be listed in a Wikipedia article.
Here we are getting closer to an area of agreement. Bureaucratic distinctions between different kinds of gun are always going to be open to criticism and politicians are always going to go for what sounds good.
.
John Howard was able to legislate for changes to the gun law regime because almost everyone strongly agreed with him - almost all the people and almost all the elected politicians of all parties. The changes were made by people's elected representatives voting in Parliament, not by personal fiat of John Howard. If almost everyone, Democrat and Republican, strongly agreed with your President on something, it would probably happen, at least in the first instance, no? Those who disagreed could of course challenge the constitutionality of changes to the law, as they could in Australia. If the people and their elected representatives had disagreed with John Howard he wouldn't have been able to do anything. You are making a distinction with little substance in it. In fact I suspect - I am open to correction on this - that your President can do rather more by executive order than our Prime Minister can by issuing any kind of personal instruction.
We have differing views on how best to select our purely ceremonial Head of State. I would personally prefer some kind of Republic, as would almost all of our gun control advocates, while almost all Australians who would agree with you about gun control would prefer to stick with the Queen.
You're yanking my chain right? This is the opposite of what I've talked about often with my Aussie friends.