HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Criminals will still be a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:26 PM

Criminals will still be able to get assault rifles.

I am so tired of hearing that one, over and over. None of the recent mass shooters that I can recall...from Va.Tech, the Aurora, CO shooter, the mall shooter from last week...and now Adam Lanza had prior criminal records that I can tell. They were all from fairly middle class families... and they all seemed unlikely to know how to buy assault rifles off the black market.

Yes, I am sure SOME criminals will still be able to obtain assault rifles...that's what criminals do...but, can't we at least make an effort to keep the damned things away from non-criminals who snap for whatever reason?

This country has gone nuts.

84 replies, 4354 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Criminals will still be able to get assault rifles. (Original post)
JanMichael Dec 2012 OP
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #1
rbrnmw Dec 2012 #18
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #32
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #38
Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #2
ellisonz Dec 2012 #3
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #63
ellisonz Dec 2012 #69
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #75
ellisonz Dec 2012 #77
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #78
ellisonz Dec 2012 #79
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #80
ellisonz Dec 2012 #81
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #82
ellisonz Dec 2012 #83
SheilaT Dec 2012 #4
Recursion Dec 2012 #5
Nevernose Dec 2012 #6
Recursion Dec 2012 #8
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #27
Recursion Dec 2012 #31
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #41
Recursion Dec 2012 #44
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #57
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #48
JanMichael Dec 2012 #51
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #58
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #54
KittyWampus Dec 2012 #59
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #74
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #72
Logical Dec 2012 #7
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #9
Recursion Dec 2012 #11
JanMichael Dec 2012 #12
Recursion Dec 2012 #13
JanMichael Dec 2012 #16
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #42
Arctic Dave Dec 2012 #68
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #10
JanMichael Dec 2012 #14
libdem4life Dec 2012 #15
JanMichael Dec 2012 #22
libdem4life Dec 2012 #30
JanMichael Dec 2012 #33
libdem4life Dec 2012 #53
JanMichael Dec 2012 #55
libdem4life Dec 2012 #61
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #29
libdem4life Dec 2012 #39
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #43
JanMichael Dec 2012 #52
libdem4life Dec 2012 #60
spanone Dec 2012 #17
Recursion Dec 2012 #21
spanone Dec 2012 #23
Recursion Dec 2012 #25
JanMichael Dec 2012 #28
JanMichael Dec 2012 #24
treestar Dec 2012 #19
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #62
treestar Dec 2012 #84
ElbarDee Dec 2012 #20
Recursion Dec 2012 #26
Hoyt Dec 2012 #35
FSogol Dec 2012 #34
Glassunion Dec 2012 #36
JanMichael Dec 2012 #40
Glassunion Dec 2012 #45
JanMichael Dec 2012 #37
FSogol Dec 2012 #47
JanMichael Dec 2012 #49
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #46
JanMichael Dec 2012 #50
rock Dec 2012 #56
pasto76 Dec 2012 #64
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #65
Logical Dec 2012 #67
scarletwoman Dec 2012 #66
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #70
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #71
xmas74 Dec 2012 #73
Hoyt Dec 2012 #76

Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:27 PM

1. Gun cultists think that criminality is genetic...

And can be discerned by the amount of melanin in the epidermis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:06 PM

18. no truer words have ever been spoken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:29 PM

32. I suspect the irony in your statement...

...will forever escape you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:40 PM

38. I suppose so

Because I know you'll never ruin the surprise by explaining it to my slower-than-average self.

Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:30 PM

2. The whole "criminal" line is BS.

Everyone is a potential "criminal."

You, me, anyone can potentially snap.

There's nothing that stops supposedly "responsible" gun owners from becoming criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:31 PM

3. Todays emerging black market:

Brady Campaign Sues Armslist In Killer's Online Gun Purchase
Posted: 12/12/2012 11:20 am EST | Updated: 12/12/2012 11:20 am EST

A jilted ex-boyfriend pumped a dozen bullets into the body of a museum curator last year. The shooter got a life sentence. The seller who illegally dealt him a .40-caliber handgun was sentenced to one year.

But that's not enough, said the family of the murdered woman and gun control advocates. They want to punish Armslist.com, a sort of Craigslist marketplace of firearm classified ads, claiming it enabled the seller and buyer to conduct the fated deal.

Ex-boyfriend Dmitry Smirnov killed Jitka Vesel in a Chicago suburb on April 13, 2011, after traveling to Washington state to buy a gun from Benedict Ladera, whom he'd found via Armslist.com. The deal was illegal because Washington outlaws gun sales to out-of-state residents. Smirnov, a 20-year-old Russian immigrant living in Canada, paid $200 extra so Ladera would look the other way.

"Armslist breached duty by designing its website to encourage its users to circumvent existing gun laws," said the wrongful death lawsuit Vesel's brother Alex Vesely and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence planned to file Wednesday in Chicago. "Users of Armslist.com could easily evade gun laws with a simple 'click of the mouse.' Armslist ... like Smirnov and the gun seller, must now be held accountable."

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/brady-campaign-armslist-gun-purchase_n_2279465.html






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:16 PM

63. How the hell is that different from the gun classified section of the NY Times?

The site provides all the steps to legally transfer that gun out of state, from the seller in WA, to a FFL in the buyer's state to do the transfer. So they skipped that, closed the listing on Gunbroker, and did the deal directly, knowingly illegally. That's on the seller, who should have gotten a longer sentence for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:25 PM

69. Bollocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:10 PM

75. So how is the NY Times classifieds section different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:38 PM

77. Newspaper readership is at an all-time low.

Internet usage is at an all-time high. People pay to publish an advertisement, as far as I know there is no cost to post on armslist. I wish the NYTimes wouldn't run ads for guns too, so not really sure what you're getting at here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:58 PM

78. The paper has been doing this for decades.

Why is it a problem now?

I do appreciate that you are being consistent at least, in disliking either medium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ellisonz (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:01 AM

80. Not germane to the question.

Those guns were not obtained by the shooter in this manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:02 AM

81. Do you realize how easy it is to buy a gun in this country?

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:04 AM

82. Yes. Easy as picking up the paper and dialing a phone number.

Shit, at least when you do it online for Gunbroker, the BATFE can get a warrant and track IP's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:07 AM

83. Oy Vey

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:35 PM

4. The sellers should serve seriously long prison time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:43 PM

5. People find drugs without any problems

Guns aren't any more difficult to transport or hide.

Hell, my roommate will sometimes get pot off of Craigslist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:45 PM

6. True

But drugs don't murder people and guns aren't addictive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:47 PM

8. I specifically mentioned pot because it's not addictive

And how deadly something is has zero bearing on my argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:20 PM

27. no really it is completely relevant.

If pot, for example, actually killed people in large numbers, in particular people who did not choose to use pot but instead had pot used on them without their permission, I would be all for continued and even stricter pot prohibition.

Just so we are clear here:

If guns, for example, actually killed people in large numbers, in particular people who did not choose to use guns but instead had guns used on them without their permission, I would be all for some obvious and sensible prohibitions on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:25 PM

31. It's not about your feelings

It's about what is and isn't possible to practically prohibit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

41. Oh it is both possible and practical, you just don't want to lose your precious toys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:48 PM

44. I don't own any guns. Stop making stuff up

What factors make guns easier to practically prohibit than pot has proven to be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:17 PM

57. I'm not advocating absolute prohibition of all guns.

guns will be available, the legal ones will be far less capable of mass slaughter. The existence of a legal market for guns combined with draconian penalties for the sale and possession of illegal weapons will make a black market not very likely. 99.9% of gun owners will settle for smaller magazines rather than risk a long prison term.

If pot were available legally, but only in small quantities and at controlled strengths, there would be no black market for pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:55 PM

48. What about cigarettes? They absolutely kill people and make bystanders sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:00 PM

51. This thread is about guns

cigarettes have nothing to do with it.

the pot discussion seems to have worn itself out, thank god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:18 PM

58. It's about Prohibition. Does it work? Are there alternatives or combinations of strategies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:10 PM

54. That is a reasonable question.

We've done a lot to make smoking illegal in public spaces. As the primary victims of smoking, ignoring the second hand smoke problem, are the people doing the smoking, I am against prohibition. The second hand smoke problem is troubling. I don't have an answer. An argument might be plausibly made that the harm here is great enough to justify stronger regulation.

I certainly think that we could regulate product placement in entertainment much more than we are currently doing. Everyone on TV seems to be smoking again - how the heck did that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:19 PM

59. IMO, the goal/ideal is to get people to change their minds about guns, smoking, drunk driving.

In other words, besides passing legislation we need to find a way to change our collective mindset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #59)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:45 PM

74. Well yes, primarily this is a culture war, but....

sometimes that war gets real and very bloody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:13 PM

72. I don't know...

 

guns can be a lot of fun, which some may argue makes them rather addictive. Once you buy one, there so often seems to be a second, or third, or fourth, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:46 PM

7. And drugs are illegal to manufacture, sell and posess! Guns are not! It is....

Going to be hard to fix!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:47 PM

9. I've never heard of anyone hiding an assault rifle up their ...

ass. But I've heard of drug smugglers doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:49 PM

11. No, but people have done that with pistols

And something like 90% of firearms deaths are from pistols. Even among mass shooters a majority of them seem to choose pistols (easier to conceal, after all). And you just need a coat or sweatshirt with a large-ish pocket to hide one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:00 PM

12. the last few

haven't. They've used those damned AR-15's or whatever those things are. Bushmasters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:02 PM

13. Most in the past few years have used handguns

The deadliest was VA Tech, and he used only handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:05 PM

16. I know that; we lived within a hundred miles of that place

the last FEW have.

As far as Cho was concerned...he didn't get his guns illegally either, IIRC. Perhaps stricter legislation with huge penalties on the sellers would have slowed him down considerably too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:46 PM

42. Well that can be addressed in two specific ways.

1. limit legal magazines to 5 shots max.
2. require strict licensing of all handguns, with very restricted carry permits, and downright draconian storage and safety requirements.

I'll settle for (1), but the Canadian model on (2) is fine with me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:47 PM

68. Does this mean you can smuggle an AR-15 in your anus.

 

If you can, go into adult movies, you could make a bundle. If not, your analogy isn't working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:48 PM

10. Yes, but psychotic individuals prone to shoot dozens of babies will find it more difficult n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:03 PM

14. Exactly. I don't think Adam Lanza put a whole lot of thought

or planning into what he did; he certainly didn't order the guns himself. The guy in Aurora DID put thought into it, and ordered one of those Bushmasters....legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:04 PM

15. This is just a WAG, but if the Lanza kid had known there were two uniformed Security Officers

at that school, he would surely not have chosen that theater to play out his psychosis. Nor would the Principal or teachers have been obligated to be firearms specialists.

Tax and regulate and monitor all guns...make it expensive...pay for the administrative bureaucratic cost and for security for public places. Those who want to play games or get skilled in shooting at targets at a shooting range...fine. But just like a golf course, the upkeep and insurance is damned expensive and you have to pay to play.

The hell with the sensitive and psychological paranoia and infantile fears of a certain group. We have layers of law enforcement that are not perfect, but pretty much 1st World capable. We did that with TSA for the safety of travelers in and out of our country...we can do that for our kids.

Idiots choosing a mall or other large public places, that's tougher. But, like an airline terminal, a roomful of 6-year-olds only occurs at certain places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:10 PM

22. Or he might have tried to shoot the guards. I agree with you on the tax and monitor all guns though.

Every single one of them, including the old .22 Marlin your Dad gave you in 1963.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:25 PM

30. All of these "shooters" are cowards. He would not likely go up against a known armed adult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:31 PM

33. I don't know about that...you are talking about people who are no longer

"in their right minds." I know zero about psychology...but, it seems to me that if you are so worked up that you can start with your Mom, and then move on to those sweet little children...an armed guard might just be a "bump in the road."

I don't know that for sure...but, I don't think anyone does at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:07 PM

53. You may be right, who knows, but Mom involves domestic violence and lots of inner demons

that go bump in the night, but confronting and/or murdering a male authority...not being sexist here because it can go both ways...is not nearly as likely. I still have a feeling that she may have been killed ostensibly to get the key or access to the guns....he had serious power issues, in any case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:12 PM

55. She was killed with the gun...it was already out- I see your point

I wondered if she was on the way to the range (didn't work, stay at home) and opened the gun cabinet, and that's when he got them.

I don't know if he would have shot a man or not...hard to say. We'll never know. I just know that I wouldn't trust just a guard...I want to see strict legislation on who can even have these things. If I had what I wanted, he would have had to go to the range with his mom where she would be issued the gun she wanted to shoot...because it would have been in safe storage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:37 PM

61. Yeah, so many possibilities and I totally agree, although I've given up on my dream...which would be

to ban the whole lot of them. But understanding that there are people with many different circumstances and opinions, this does give us place, albeit a sad time, to start the hard work.

I mentioned on another post, how the Polly Klaas kidnapping was a powerful turning point for abducted children and especially the locals. Her Dad built a powerful network directly out of his grief. We never heard much about the Mom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:25 PM

29. lets turn all public spaces into military control zones

better that than discomfort the precious gunners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

39. Maybe I'm missing something here...banks and federal offices and civic officers even sports events

all have trained security officers with weapons now and we don't think of them as military control zones. Just protection of the public in a gun-crazed society. Surely we can do the same for our kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:47 PM

43. You are probably too young to recall that we didn't always live in a security state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:01 PM

52. I'm not

and I know exactly what you are referring to. Thanks for your input; I like your ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:29 PM

60. Shucks, it's tough being a little kid on a big person forum. That being said, 20 or so years ago

during the Polly Klaas case, our white, middle-class, formerly safe, suburban community ... as a whole ... kept their kids inside, no street soccer games, after school baseball games ended, the TV and video games inside became the "safe places" to play. Her body was ultimately found in a ditch within a couple of miles from our neighborhood.

The neighborhood never did get back to those "safer" days. Yes, we felt better every time we saw a police car go by whereas before, one hardly noticed. And even though it did not directly affect the schools as she was kidnapped from her home and murdered later, they sponsored parent meetings, experts talking to us, tips on how to keep kids safer, etc.

Mark Klaas, her dad, and the non-profit he formed out of his grief, set the stage for networks on child abduction and safety.

Now retail malls have "security" and I don't stay away afraid I'm in a Nazi Germany. Go snark to the folks in Connecticut. They have 26 times the reason ... as do schools, kids and teachers everywhere ... to welcome a bit of "security" other than the tasking the Principal and the teachers to start packing heat.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:06 PM

17. and drunks will still drive. it's bullshit. with that logic we'd do nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:08 PM

21. Notice we didn't ban alcohol. Or cars

We made drunk driving illegal and actually enforced the law.

Get ATF off its ass and sting private sellers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:11 PM

23. ban assault weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:16 PM

25. Like Connectiut did?

AWBs are dumb laws. They're a way to convince people who are ignorant of guns that you're doing something without actually doing anything. (eg, the bushmaster isn't an assault weapon.)

Don't take us down that rabbit hole again; if we're going to commit political suicide again I'd rather do it by banning handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:24 PM

28. I want to see federal reform; I could care less about state level

This is going to be a pretty deep rabbit hole; you might want to have a piece of this cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:14 PM

24. For a simple speeding ticket last year....

the attorney fees were 400 bucks. I do not know what a DUI costs. In NC, when you are caught with drugs in a car, the car is confiscated and sold at auction.

People take that pretty seriously.

Not sure what "logic" the poster you were responding to what missing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:07 PM

19. Agree

Criminals don't seem to be as deadly as middle class people gone wrong. At least they don't do this kind of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:48 PM

62. Criminals spread their victims out.

Rampage killer bunch their victims together and get headlines. Criminals are one or two, here and there and there and there, etc. The total for criminals is in the thousands annually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:54 AM

84. Still, it's not as random

And they may not be trying to kill.

The Ted Bundys fall more into the same category as Adam Lanza. And he did not have a criminal record for a long time before he was first caught.

Ordinary criminals are easier to catch - they have a record early on. Many of them don't kill, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:07 PM

20. Gun violence

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/chicago-shootings-weekend_n_2316158.html

The shootings in Conn. are just the tip of the deadly american gun culture.

Chicago's weekend violence, which included a police shooting and a mob scene, left two dead and 16 more injured.

Shortly before noon on Saturday morning, a policeman shot a man near Ashland and Garfield following a high-speed car chase and physical struggle, according to DNAinfo Chicago.

Jamaal Moore, 23, was among five suspects that attempted to flee the wrecked SUV and got into a struggle with an officer, who alerted his colleague that he thought Moore might be armed. Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the second officer fired, striking Moore who was holding a flashlight and not a gun. Moore died shortly after.

A crowd formed shortly after the incident, according to the Sun-Times, hurling bottles and bricks at the officers. At least five men between the ages of 19 and 31 were charged with mob action following the scene.

The second death of the weekend came Sunday in the city's Tri-Taylor neighborhood around 2:45 a.m. The Tribune says Gavin Williams, 28, of Zion, was fatally shot in the chest while he stood on the front porch of a home near Western and Flournoy.

Other shooting-related injuries from the weekend came between Friday night and Sunday morning, according to the Sun-Times and included two boys, 14 and 16, in the South Shore neighborhood. No arrests have been made for any of the shootings, though police are investigating the incident involving Moore.

Despite the violent weekend, CBS Chicago reports McCarthy claimed Monday that crime overall is down more than 8 percent from last year, with reductions in burglary, vehicle theft and sexual assaults. The numbers mark the biggest reduction in overall crime in the city in two decades, Chicago's top cop told the station.



Published: Oct. 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM
CHICAGO, Oct. 30 (UPI) -- Chicago recorded 438 homicides so far this year, three more than in all of 2011, making it one of the most violent cities in the United States, officials say.

Why isn't the wholesale slaughter of people by guns in the US not on the front page of every web-site/newspaper/magazine across the country?

Because the RW gun nut crowd suppresses the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElbarDee (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

26. Why isn't the 50% decrease in gun violence more widely examined?

50% drop in 20 years is astounding. It almost never gets mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:34 PM

35. Think how much it might have decreased without all the dang guns.


It gets mentioned all the times when some yahoo in gungeon tries to credit it to gun culture arming up . . . . . . while totally ignoring that in past couple of decades we have tougher sentences for violent criminals, better surveillance, aging population, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:31 PM

34. LOL, You've been watching too many Steven Segal and Bruce Willis movies.

Criminals use cheap, easy-to-conceal, and easy-to-discard handguns. They don't use assault rifles. No one robs the local liquor store with an assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:38 PM

36. You're right, they aren't used often to rob the local store.

Apparently they are being used to kill people in mass shootings instead.

The common thread between the two is that all to often, they are far too easy to obtain.

Go figure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

40. apparently, one didn't even need to try to find a market

for the damned things; you could stop by Dick's Sporting goods and pick up some new socks, yoga pants for your wife, and a really cool semi-automatic weapon based upon a fully automatic military gun. I have no idea how much they cost, but looking at the redneck photos that have been posted, I am assuming they weren't that expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:48 PM

45. Depending you can get one for about 600 to 700

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:40 PM

37. What are you replying to? It's as if you didn't read the OP

One of the RW arguments is that a ban on semi-automatics won't keep them out of the hands of criminals. ? So, how have I been watching too many Bruce Willis movies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:53 PM

47. You didn't type this line: "Yes, I am sure SOME criminals will still be able to obtain...

assault rifles...that's what criminals do"?

Criminals don't use or buy assault rifles, nutters buy them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:57 PM

49. LOL...OK. I get it.

I am pretty sure SOME criminals will use them for bank robberies, perhaps? Not your average liquor store knockover, no.

Thanks for the laugh though: "nutters buy them."

I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:51 PM

46. Gun nuts are scaredy cats and losers. They just throw up their hands and whine endlessly

about what won't work. They offer no solutions of their own - just obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:59 PM

50. I swear to god

if I didn't have an "emotional" connection to the damned .22 rifles in the house (grandfather's...), I would turn them in. It's not like they don't just sit in a trunk, unused. We haven't had a bullet in the house since...1995? Or something. Someone would have to drop them on their toe to get hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:15 PM

56. Laws are not made to keep the criminals in line

They're made to keep the law-abiders in line. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:17 PM

64. you're average dumbshit gun nut wanna be tough guy with a "Man Card" wont deal in the criminal world

and once something is illegal, there is an automatic social stigma that goes with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:19 PM

65. Can they get machine guns?

In some rare cases, they do. But the number of deaths from fully-automatic weapons is practically nil.

So gun control laws work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:30 PM

67. True. But there are 300 million guns. Not many machine guns. Unless you can remove all the.....

semi-auto guns and large clips it is still going to be hard to 100% stop mass shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:29 PM

66. Ban the manufacture of these items for non-military use, period.

The DoD can contract with select manufacturers for their weaponry, under strict controls. Make it illegal for anyone else to make such weaponry. Make it illegal to sell such weapons to civilians, whether in private or through gun dealers. No exceptions.

It will take awhile for the black market pipeline for the weapons already in private civilian hands to dry up - but as these now illegal weapons get siezed by authorities on sight, the inventory will gradually diminish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:53 PM

70. You are confusing the two terms.

The military does not use "assault weapons".

The military uses assault rifles, which are classified as machine guns for civilian ownership. They are heavily restricted at the federal level, illegal in many states, and hellishly expensive due to the fixed number available for ownership.

Assault rifles and "assault weapons" are two different things. The term "assault weapon" was purposely chosen to confuse you, and it seems to have worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:10 PM

71. As educated or semi-educated middle class young adults

 

I imagine that most of them could figure out how to buy a gun off of the "black market", ie., off of the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:45 PM

73. and how do criminals usually get them?

Through robbery. They steal them from businesses and private owners who legally own the weapons.

Criminals will find ways but keeping them out of the public will actually decrease the supply for the criminals. It's circular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:19 PM

76. Gun nuts bash all improvements unless 100% effective. They don't recognize a 10% improvement

is significant. Not to mention the long term benefits of restricting production of the damn things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread