I just want to thank the NRA one more time, from the bottom of my heart;

[greiner3]

For allowing events such as these to occur in our country every day of the year.

Police: Dad kills 3 kids, 2 women, and himself
4th child hospitalized with life-threatening wounds after Missouri shooting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16239023/

I tell you it puts a warm feeling down my spine to know that one organization has the best interests of the country and EVERY citizen in it. My hats off to you! :cry:

[baldguy]

1. Guns don't kill people.

People with guns kill people.

[roamer65]

27. Guns don't kill people, Dick Cheney does.

Just like my bumpersticker says.

[billbuckhead]

38. Here's dirty Dick neoCON in flagrante plus a bonus

[piedmont]

53. So some right-wingers have guns. Hitler chewed gum...

does that make gum-chewing evil?

[billbuckhead]

65. Sorry, but extremism about possessing guns is a signature neoCON trait

It's well known the NRA and GOA positions on gun regulations are embraced by a majority of Republicans but rejected by large majorities of urbanites, suburbanites, independents, women, minorities and the rest of the civiles world. In other words, the Democratic base wants stronger gun regs. Furthermore our best conquest votes are surburban Republican women voters who also abhor America's out of control gun culture.

[piedmont]

67. And a majority of Americans believe in Creationism...

that doesn't make it a valid belief.


"It's well known the NRA and GOA positions on gun regulations are embraced by a majority of Republicans but..."

Guilt by association, bill.

[billbuckhead]

75. Birds of a feather flock together, over and over and over again

Ironically, so many of the most pro fundie states are also the states with the most promiscuous gun regs.

[piedmont]

86. Yep, me and Tom Delay and Hitler all chew gum and eat steak.

"Ironically, so many of the most pro fundie states are also the states with the most promiscuous gun regs."

And how's the crime in those states?


edit: took out nt from title

[krispos42]

85. Since when has what the masses believed made it right?

Most of the Asia is under Communism. So then are the South Koreans and Japanese crazy for not being Communist? Should their statement "Hey, communism sucks" be looked upon as the rantings of the insane?

Most of Europe is under some form of socialist democratic government. Does that make the Brits batshit crazy?

And these are countries with strict gun control laws. How free do you think they are?

Two hundred years ago most people lived in a monarchy. Should those whacky nutjobs at the Constitutional Convention been tossed in the nuthouse for going against the grain?

Five hundred years go everybody KNEW the world was flat and the Sun orbited the Earth.

The thinking "Oh, if we get rid of the guns we'll get rid of the crime" is as simplistic as those thoughs. "I can't see the Earth curve, so it must be flat." "I can't feel any motion, so the Earth must be still and the Sun and planets and Moon orbit the Earth."

Please.

We have a massive drug problem and massive (and getting worse) economic disparity. Two percent of our population is in jail, on parole, or on probation. If you want to see a cause for most of the gun violence, look there.

[iverglas]

152. I know the answer! Ask me!

Since when has what the masses believed made it right?

When the rkba-heads in the gun dungeon are trying to persuade everybody else that the Democratic Party will win elections if only it embraces a philosophy of a pistol in every pocket. Because then the masses will vote for it.

That's when!

Did I get it right??

[krispos42]

161. Professor Krispos calls on Iverglas... :-)

Well, no, we're saying that we will lose elections if we embrace a policy of national, strict gun control laws.

National laws such as:

• banning large-capacity detachable magazines
  
• mandatory total-capacity limits, detachable magazines or not
  
• banning cosmetic features such as pistol grips
  
• mandatory gun registration
  
• mandatory ballistic fingerprinting
  
• banning semi-automatic rifles and/or shotguns
  
• mandating an ammunition registry
  
• mandating that ammunition carries a unique serial number on each box of ammuntion, and that each round in that box has the number on the inside of both the brass casing AND the base of the bullet (essentially outlawing hand reloading of cartridges)
  
• mandating that the firing pin has the gun's serial number etched in the end, so it imprints that number on each round fired
  
• the creation of a 'health impact fee' of several cents per round
  
• mandating 'smart-gun' technology (gun only fires for owner)
  
• mandating strict storage requirements for home and automobile

I'm sure that benEzra or some of the other pro-RKBA regulars can add a few more ideas that have been tossed about.

Jim Webb beat incumbent senator and former GOP presidental darling 'Macaca' Allen by, what, less than 9,000 votes out of nearly 2.4 million cast? In Virginia? If Webb didn't have a good NRA rating, do you think he would have won? I don't. I can easily envision at least 4,500 Webb votes going towards Allen if Webb had the gun-control policies of, say, Barack Obama.

Then the Senate remains in GOP hands, with all that implies. No oversight, no compromise, Congressional gridlock.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

We are divided up into states, and that, to me, is a good platform for increased or decreased gun control in a federal framework. This way, the pro-RKBA people can roll their eyes and chuckle at the peacenick gun-grabbers in California, and the anti-RKBA can roll their eyes and chuckle at the homicidal gun nuts in Texas.

[michreject]

175. No

Did I get it right??

You don't to get to vote for it at all.

[iverglas]

194. well, that was a coherent thought

Not.

[michreject]

196. Maybe, maybe not

But true none the less.

[Small Axe]

184. Sorry my friend, but there are liberals with guns too.

Democrats alienate moderat voters by allowing radicals within the party to continue to push further gun legislation.

[iverglas]

195. oh look, another coherent thought

Not.

[Quakerfriend]

2. How come no one talks about GUN CONTROL anymore!

In Springfield Twp., PA last week, a 16 boy went to school with his father's AK47 and blew holes in the walls before he took his own life.

The father said, "The guns were locked...I don't know what happened." And, ALL of the news was about how grief councelors were being brought in the next day.

There is NO REASON why an ordinary citizen should have an AK47!! NO GOOD REASON!

I knew this young man's family. They were a WONDERFUL family. Went to our church and ran a very popular family restaurant in town.:cry:

[xchrom]

4. a sad example of why i don't want to live next door to people with guns.

you never know what funny twists life will bring your way.

[jody]

11. I understand your concern but I assume you know SCOTUS has said government is not obligated

to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

That means self-defense is a personal problem and handguns are the most effective/efficient tool a law-abiding citizen can purchase to exercise her/his inalienable right to defend self and property.

Along with firearm ownership goes responsibility for learning how to use a firearm properly and keeping it stored securely. Such basic requirements accompany other things we all use frequently like insect poisons, swimming pools, automobiles, and prescription medications.

If you choose to go unarmed and are helpless when confronted by a violent criminal, I hope a neighbor with a firearm and qualified to use it comes to your aid.

[xchrom]

15. i've been confronted by people with fire arms numerous times.

no good guys have ever appeared on the horizon and come to my rescue.

and personally i think the good guys with guns are also a danger to my safety -- as the example above illuminated.

[jody]

20. If you believe good guys with guns are a danger to your safety, then you must never

leave your home because dangers from almost innumerable sources confront most people with every step they take outside their home as they go about their daily activities. :shrug:

[xchrom]

135. oh honey -- takes a lot more than that to scare me.

if bad guys kill me i know why -- it's when you good guys come home from the office deranged -- or your kid is out of control -- that i have a hard time explaining.

but life goes on.

[krispos42]

90. And yet you refuse to defend yourself...

Well, that is your choice. This is America, after all.

But you might consider moving, changing work locations or vocation, or taking other measure to increase your personal safety.

Some people advocate that more citizens carrying concealed (legally) will lower overall crime rates. The statistics that I have seen usually do not show that legal concealed carry affects the rates one way or the other. What I do believe it does is lower YOUR personal crime rate.

Your results may vary, of course.

[xchrom]

136. lol -- you've watched way too many john wayne movies.

[krispos42]

162. John Wayne's problem is that he's always John Wayne

Doesn't matter the movie, the era, the war, or the country, he sounds the same in Wild West Arizona as during the invasion of Normandy. Oh, boy...

"Circle the wagons, boys, the Nazis are over yonder ridgeline there! Runs-With-Scissors Breaux sez so!"

Actually I rarely watch westerns. Not really my thing. "Dances With Wolves", "Deadwood", and I've seen parts of Clint Eastwood's "Man With No Name" trilogy.

More like "Dirty Harry" and "Die Hard" for some good action... :-)

[billbuckhead]

33. The gun lobby crowd are the brownshirted vanguard of the neoCONS

Most of these killers are our friends, neighbors and family members who have a bad day and easy access to a gun. The gun lobby uses the tried and true neoCON technique of using fear of the "other" by creating the fear of "violent criminals" to scare people into spending money to buy more and better weapons. It's no accident gun pimp John Lott now works at the neoCON American Enterprise Institute. This is the same "think tank" that was an early backer of Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraq war. The same crowd that said Iraqis would meet us with sweets and flowers, is the same crowd that propagandizes that more guns equals less crime.

"Many observers sneer at the Iraqi National Congress. After all, the group's head, Ahmed Chalabi, was convicted of bank fraud in Jordan and only escaped his 20-year sentence by fleeing the country. The INC is backed by the neoconservative hawks at the Pentagon and at far-right think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and the group's cordial attitude toward Israel and Chalabi's close ties with American supporters of Ariel Sharon lead some to think of it as a stooge for Israel's right-wing Likud party. The CIA grew disillusioned with the INC in 1996, after the group launched a failed coup against the Iraqi regime, and recently circulated a classified report about the group's lack of support inside Iraq. A UPI story quoted a former U.S. intelligence official who'd read the report as saying, "They basically say that every time you mention Chalabi's name to an Iraqi, they want to puke.""
---------snip---------------
<http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/04/14/reconstruction/index.html>

"For three years, John Lott pretended to be a young woman.

Her name was Mary Rosh.

Mary Rosh often spoke sweetly of her days as a student of John's, she gave a glowing Amazon.com review of his book "More Guns, Less Crime," she criticized anyone who questioned John's research or his conclusions, and she attacked other researchers in her ardent defense of Lott's idea that more guns on the streets leads to less crime.

She was also a petite defenseless creature. We know this because John, we mean, she said:

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?…Even if I am not wearing heels, I don’t think that there are many men that I could outrun.

"As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

Then a researcher at the conservative think tank CATO Institute discovered the truth about Mary Rosh and undressed John Lott for all the world to see.

Currently, Lott is a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute."
---------------------snip-------------------------
<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/>

Everytime one encounters a gun lobby type on the internet, remember that it could be another John Lott/Mary Rosh.

[piedmont]

49. Yay!! more of bill's Cut&Paste!!

I love arts and crafts.

[billbuckhead]

60. When you can't beat the argument, slander the source

How Rovian. Slander the messenger, nevermind that the American gun rights movement has supported some of the most evil and corrupt leadership in history.

Never an honest answer to why the USA leads advanced nations in murder, gun crime, femicide , childrens deaths from guns and overall incarceration.

[piedmont]

63. I pointed out that you used "cut&paste." AGAIN. It's fact--not slander. nt

[billbuckhead]

68. Still no answers to the facts about American leadership in gun crime

#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

Isn't it ironic that many of the nations worse than the US in murder are close to, just out of or in an actual civil war?

[piedmont]

72. From your link....

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence"

[billbuckhead]

74. Ironic since the gun lobby has fought extremely hard to coverup gun crime

Few study solutions for guns

Lack of money, political pressure and threats block hard look at violence with firearms

By Sarah A. Webster / The Detroit News

DETROIT
The 90,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians had emotional debates last year on what stance to take on firearms, largely because there is a dearth of fair research to provide guidance.
“The evidence has been pretty thin,” said Dr. Richard Roberts, the organization’s president-elect.

Similar debates erupted within the 62,000-member College of Surgeons. “The committee on trauma has been pointing (the lack of research) out for years and years,” said Dr. Gerald O. Strauch, director of that group’s trauma department.

Gun research focuses on a variety of points, such as what product modifications might reduce injuries. It also could provide a circumstantial breakdown of shootings, explaining how many were domestic in nature or gang-related, and what might be done to prevent these incidents.

But there has been little money for gun investigations since 1996, when the National Rifle Association convinced Congress to kill the $2.6 million firearm research budget of the Centers for Disease Control.

Scientists also report an environment stifled by fear of gun advocates.
--------------snip---------------------------
<http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2000/violence/tuestudy/tuestudy.htm>

[krispos42]

81. Since you're throwing around numbers, let's add some more to the mix

30,000 people a year in this nation have a live terminated through gunshot wounds. 10,000 or so are homicides, about 370 are justified self-defense, 800 or so are accidents, and the balance (18,900 or so) are suicides.

This in a country where there are some 245 million firearms, a number that constitutes 65% of the civilian-owned firearms in the world and 38% of all firearms in existance.

US citizens: 81,700 private firearms per 100,000 people
Rest of world: 2,031 private firearms per 100,000 people
Ratio of US ownership rates to rest-of-world ownership rates: 40+:1

"Of a total estimated 638 million firearms on this planet, about 375 million firearms are in private hands. Of the 250 million guns in America, 98 percent of these--245 million--are privately owned. Looking at it a different way, about 65 percent of the world's stockpile of privately held firearms are in the hands of U.S. civilians."

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/global_1028

And speaking of gun murders, interesting how we rank 8th globally, and Mexico is 5th, despite incredibly stringient gun-control laws like sale or posession of anything over .17 caliber is a felony.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

[billbuckhead]

91. Proud to beat Mexico? How about a worse murder rate than India?

It's so pathetic when the gun lobby crowd tries to make America look better by comparing it to troubled Mexico instead of advancing nations like European ones, Australia, Japan or Canada.

[krispos42]

98. If guns are the problem...

Then shouldn't we be the worst in the world?

If gun laws stop crimes, then shouldn't Mexico be an oasis of peace and love, with the gentle translucent waters of the Gulf of Mexico lapping the shores of happy Mexicans while up north the Mexican Army and Federal Police frantically fight off waves of terror-striken Americans fleeing an apocolyptic gun-fueled nightmare?

And Europe, Canada, Japan, or Australia do not share land-smuggling routes with industrial cocain, heroin, marijuana, and crystal meth. And generally in those country the populations tend to be more homogenous, with a good social safety net, better labor laws, a healthier economy, and a fairer distribution between the rich and the poor.

Mexico, Columbia, and Russia lack these things, as do we. And we have more violence and crime.

Looks to me like if you're going to have these problems, you'll do better with liberal gun laws instead of restrictive ones.

[billbuckhead]

106. If guns made men free, afghanistan, columbia or iraq would be freest nations

and Ireland, Netherlands and Japan would be gulags.

The gun lobby crowd blames everything they can make up except the obvious difference.

[krispos42]

110. Ah, but only criminals in those countries have guns

And the countries are in chaos.

In Iraq, the armed citizens are fighting foreign occupiers, i.e., us. We have dominence over the Iraqi central government, so we declare those fighters "criminals", "insurgents", "terrorists". I'm pretty sure that before we invaded, Iraq was a fairly peaceful place. A shithole, maybe, but peaceful.

Similar situation in Afghanistan.

And in Columbia, massive drug cartels (using drug profits from US citizens) are fighting to keep the Columbian Army out of their drug-growing areas. And criminals use the chaos in that country to make kidnapping foreign nationals something of an industry.

There are other factors as well. Lack of central government, ethnic and religious hatred, drug wars, resource wars, etc. All three countries you mention in the subject line are in varying grades of armed civil war. Not because they have guns, by the way.

[invader zim]

139. I like those odds....

Only a .04% chance of a gun crime sounds pretty good to me.

Zim

[Small Axe]

190. Dictatorships have very low crime rates, why don't you move to one of those?

[Small Axe]

185. Republicans capitalize on the fear that Democrats will ban all guns, given the chance.

It ensures them a nice, big voting bloc that we will never be
able to touch until people drop the gun controm issue. 

[ComerPerro]

99. show an armed criminal that you have a gun, and he will most certainly shoot you

[krispos42]

107. You don't show, you shoot.

That standoff shit is for the movies.

And keep shooting until he goes down or runs the hell away in panic.

[Small Axe]

187. And if you comply with his every demand, he may kill you anyway.

[jody]

6. I don't believe the gun was an AK47. It was a semi-automatic look-alike while an AK47 is

fully automatic and can legally be owned under 26 USC 53.

Several Democratic Senators have sponsored laws that would ban all semi automatic firearms which would have banned such ubiquitous sporting firearms as the venerable Remington 1100.

Senator Kerry cosponsored such a bill and that was supposedly a significant factor in his loss of the last presidential election.

[piedmont]

10. A lot of lying going on by gun-ban advocates

from a story by the Philadelphia Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/16233908.htm

"A Romanian-made variant of the Russian-designed AK-47 was found at his side. Such weapons more typically are used in warfare, said John Shanks, director of law enforcement relations for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington".....

"For 10 years, there was a law prohibiting the sale, manufacture and importation of AK-47s, Shanks said. But Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004. While it was in effect, there was no law against owning AK-47s, such as the one Halligan used."


The AWB didn't prohibit AK-47s. They are already prohibited.

[krispos42]

94. Wow, that article was so full of shit I had to Lysol my keyboard...

Let's go through it, shall we?

The AK-47 semiautomatic rifle Halligan pulled out of a duffel bag contained 12 unspent rounds, Castor said, and two more were found in the boy's pocket.

That should be AK-47-style semiautomatic rifle. The writer gets points for not calling it an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon", though.

An empty 20-round box of ammunition was found at Halligan's home, where the youth's father kept seven firearms, including three military rifles.

Again, including three military-style rifles.

These were civilianized AK rifles. The importer destroyed the gun's ability to fire fully-automatic, and removed or welded whatever other parts were needed to bring the gun in line with BATFE regs. This rifle was functionally no different than a Ruger Mini-30 that fires the same ammunition.

Such weapons more typically are used in warfare, said John Shanks, director of law enforcement relations for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.

Wrong. Nearly all general-issue military rifles today have either a full-auto feature or a burst-fire option. All general-issue military rifles today have a semi-automatic mode, and that is the feature that this rifle imported. The US went to full-auto infantry weapons in the '60s with the arrival of the M16. Until then, they used the semi-auto M14, before that the semi-auto M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, and before that the bolt-action M1903. It took a few years after World War Two for the generals to let go of the high-powered single-shot rifle and embrace the medium-powered automatic assault rifle.

"They're designed to kill people in combat," he <Shanks> said.

Well, that's true. The AK47-style and AR15-style weapons were optimized for battle, which involves shooting at other people. The same features that make them good for combat also make them good for deer and varmit hunting, target and competative shooting, and self/home defense. And I will again note that the civilian arms don't have full-auto capability.

"These are military rounds that could penetrate anything," Castor said.

Bullshit. They were lead-core copper-jacketed bullets. Just like nearly every other hunting bullet on the planet, except for some pure copper heavy-game bullets. This is the deer bullet that Winchester loads in it's 7.62x39mm rounds (common AK-47 ammo):


This is the bullet that Winchester loads in the .300 Winchester Magnum for deer:


This is the bullet that Winchester loads in the .300 Winchester Magnum cartridge for elk, moose, and buffalo:


The elk bullet in the .300 Win Mag is 50% heavier, 25% faster, and has 130% more muzzle energy than the 7.62x39mm, and will blow clean through a hell of a lot more than a mild AK round. Oh, and they make semi-auto rifles in .300 Win Mag. Benelli, for one.

For 10 years, there was a law prohibiting the sale, manufacture and importation of AK-47s, Shanks said. But Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

More bullshit. AK-47s are fully-automatic rifles, and as such are under the juristiction of the 1934 Firearms Control Act. And that law is still in effect. As usual, civilian-legal semi-autos are being called full-auto military weapons. What the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban did do was make certain combinations of mostly cosmetic features illegal. For example, a detachable magazine AND a pistol grip were illegal, but your gun could have a pistol grip if it had a fixed magazine, or a detachable magazine with a conventional grip. Essentially, you could have one of the following features: pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet mounting lug, or folding/collapsing stock.

The importers of civilianized AK-pattern rifles did things like grind off the bayonet mounting lug, weld the folding/collapsable stocks in place, and replace the pistol grip with either a conventional grip or a thumbhole grip. Now the guns were legal, and the Brady people like Shanks threw a fit about it. Never mind it was a dumb law based on rifles that looked "scary".

While it was in effect, there was no law against owning AK-47s, such as the one Halligan used.

True, because it was a civilian-legal AK-style rifle. The guy probably bought it during the ban, so it was legal then and now. Again, it's not a real AK-47.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has offered technical assistance to Montgomery County officials investigating the incident, said special agent Tony Robbins. He said such weapons are not commonly seen on the streets.

"We don't run across these type guns in our criminal investigations," he said.

Also true. Homicides by rifles (all types, not just military-style) only account for about 3% of homicides in any given year. They are, as a general rule, too long and bulky for most crime. And that 3% number includes hunting accidents where the shooter gets a negligent manslaughter charge.

"We cannot be certain that whatever we do will stop this from happening again," Castor said. "Clearly, the emergency procedures we have in the county functioned exactly the way they were supposed to. But that didn't help."

Eh, kinda bullshit-like. The school was locked down, police raced in and storme the building as they arrived on-scene. The shooter was prevented from any kind of hostage situation, and no innocents were killed. The suicide of the teen-aged shooter was a tragedy, but the way it turned out was the second-best possibility.

[piedmont]

129. thanks--I didn't have the will to wade through it and pick out ALL the BS. nt

[sir pball]

150. Just for S's &G's

The elk bullet in the .300 Win Mag is 50% heavier, 25% faster, and has 130% more muzzle energy than the 7.62x39mm, and will blow clean through a hell of a lot more than a mild AK round. Oh, and they make semi-auto rifles in .300 Win Mag. Benelli, for one.

In the five minutes I have before I have to leave, I checked some ballistics tables - a 7.62x39 with a 125-grain bullet packs 1552 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. The Hornady Heavy Magnum .300 Winchester Magnum load sneds a 180-gr bullet sailing along with 1749ft-lbs...at 500 yards. At 450m, about the same range, the 7.62 is at 384 ft-lbs, less than a 9mm handgun round. Penetrate anything my ass..

[noahmijo]

13. Because Gun Control only works on the law abiding.

[silverojo]

21. BINGO!

Criminals will always have guns because, by definition, CRIMINALS BREAK THE LAW.

[kiahzero]

28. No kidding

However, if possession of a firearm is a crime, then a criminal with a firearm can be arrested and punished before they have the opportunity to kill someone.

As with all aspects of criminal law, it's a question of balancing social control and deterrence against personal autonomy and liberty.

[jody]

30. Possession of a firearm is a crime for anyone convicted of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a

term exceeding one year" and other conditions also prevent some from keeping and bearing arms. See 18 USC 922

You say, "However, if possession of a firearm is a crime, then a criminal with a firearm can be arrested and punished before they have the opportunity to kill someone."

Given that such laws already exist as I have shown with 18 USC 922, then it's seems obvious that just passing a law is ineffective in preventing crime.

[kiahzero]

31. That's not what I'm talking about.

If possession of a firearm is itself a crime, as it is in the District of Columbia, then anyone with a firearm is already violating the law and can thus be arrested and punished before they commit a more serious crime.

I can see where your confusion comes from, since I referred to the person carrying the firearm as a "criminal" - my point in doing so was indicating that if possession is a crime, then at that point they are, by definition, a "criminal," regardless of past offenses (or lack thereof).

[piedmont]

34. Why don't we just make breathing a crime then?

Lock up everyone who might pose a danger to society, put them in isolation, then no more crime. Problem fixed.

[kiahzero]

37. Strawman.

Especially since I explicitly stated:
As with all aspects of criminal law, it's a question of balancing social control and deterrence against personal autonomy and liberty.

[piedmont]

41. You want to make something a crime just so we can more easily identify criminals

Owning a gun doesn't in any universe mean that the owner has an intent to use it for foul play. To make possession a crime just so you can arrest the people who continue to possess is the height of absurdity. You could just as easily outlaw the possession of marijuana. Oops, we already did that-- and all those folks we lock up for marijuana possession really are bad people, aren't they?

Now, if you really mean that you think guns pose a threat to society and should be banned, then come out from the mask and say so.

[kiahzero]

42. Guns are a significantly higher threat than marijuana, yes.

I don't really have a firm position on gun control, because I can see the merit of the arguments of both sides. However, that doesn't mean that I can't point out bullshit arguments when I see them. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is one such argument.

[piedmont]

46. Well, if guns were to be outlawed here, I would still keep mine....

and since I'm no outlaw, I suppose you're right.

[jody]

36. I'm not confused. I pointed out that any convicted felon that has not had their rights restored

"with a firearm is already violating the law and can thus be arrested and punished before they commit a more serious crime."

That's the law today for criminals who commit the overwhelming percent of violent crime with firearms.

Obviously current laws are not preventing crime as you assume.

It's not a law that prevents crime, it's aggressive enforcement of law, prosecution, and harsh sentences that might, just might prevent crime.

You mention DC so please explain why DC with its ban on firearms as you want has such a high murder rate?

[kiahzero]

39. Stop making assumptions.

DC was an example of such a policy, not something I necessarily endorse.

I still think you're failing to understand my point. My argument was that if it is a crime for anyone to have a gun, mere possession of a gun is enough to arrest someone. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

[jody]

43. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is not a fallacy, it's a simple fact

since formerly law-abiding citizens who choose to keep their guns because they believe that right is inalienable would therefore be breaking that law, i.e. outlaws. :shrug:

[kiahzero]

44. It is a fallacious argument.

It neglects the fact that by making guns outlawed, the government would have a new tool in arresting and prosecuting said outlaws.

[jody]

48. Do you mean "fallacy" as in:

1.A false notion.
2.A statement or an argument based on a false or an invalid inference.
3.Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4.The quality of being deceptive.

I assume you remember that it's already a crime for most people with a criminal record to possess firearms.

Since you did not qualify your statement about banning guns, I can only assume you mean to ban law-abiding citizens from possessing guns for self-defense. Please explain how that will prevent crime.

[kiahzero]

54. #2 and / or #3

It should be intuitively obvious how limiting access to weapons would make the usage of those weapons less frequent.

[jody]

57. D.C. bans guns but has a very high violent crime rate. What is intuitive to you is

ineffective in practice.

You did not say whether you would ban law-abiding citizens from possessing guns so I must assume you support that task.

Have you considered the number of times each year that law-abiding citizens use their legal firearms to prevent crimes or reduce the extent of a crime? Those would be eliminated if as you suggest all firearms are banned.

[billbuckhead]

80. Have you considered how much guns are used by bad guys...........

without generating any police reports? That's the other side of the same coin about all these times guns are used to intimidate bad guys. It also figures guns are used to help criminals without generating police reports.

[krispos42]

115. And how many criminals are deterred by other criminals?

A wanted felon is walking down the street, packing an illegal pistol. A mugger jumps at him, the felon draws the gun, and the mugger flees. No police report filed.

Considering the sheer number of current and former criminals in America, this has to happen a lot.

Alternatively, an otherwise honest citizen lives in a major city that makes lawful concealed-carry very difficult. He lives and works in a high-crime area, so he opted to illegally carry a pistol. One day he's threatened, so he draws his gun. The attackers back down, the otherwise-honest person holsters his pistol and continues on his way. Another crime thwarted, yet no police report filed.

Generally, innocent victims report their attack. Guilty victims usually don't.

"So, there I was about to mug this guy with a steak knife when he drew a gun and shot me! I want to file a report!"

[krispos42]

113. Intuition is not good for large problems.

BushCo "intuitivly" knew that Saddam had WMDs, for example. BushCo "intuitivly" knew that basing federal education funds on frequent testing results would make schools work better. BushCo "intuitively" knew that more insurance companies would lower prices due to competition...

The goal here is to get guns out of the hands of criminals. Banning guns first and foremosts removes guns from the people who are already law-abiding, because they fear going to jail. The criminals that have guns will keep them, and prey upon the newly-disarmed citizenry.

Now, there is somewhat more logic in the "dry up the source of guns" theory. By eliminating all gun ownership and gun sellers, in theory, as criminals are arrested, homes are raided, cars are stopped, etc., more and more criminal-posessed guns will be found and removed from circulation. The criminals will not have gun shops or armed citizens to plunder for new guns, so the gun-crime rate should go down over time.

Except that doesn't happen. Gun crimes go down, but overall crime rates don't move or go up. Now robberies are by knife or club or blowtorch, weapons are smuggled in, and, of course, you can make your own with seamless tubing and some patience.

[krispos42]

109. It makes outlaws with the stroke of a pen.

If Shrubby signed a bill making possession of white socks a felony, then he'd immediatley make nearly everybody in the country a felon-at-large.

And if he had everybody arrested that possessed white socks, he would definately get a few criminals and fugitives in there.

Doesn't mean it would be an effective crime-fighting measure, though.

[billbuckhead]

51. Therefore when we see someone with a gun they'll be identifiable as bad

Right now we don't know till they fire at us.

[krispos42]

124. We'd probably have better luck using hoodies as criteria

Or perhaps really expensive car rims. Or thundering gansta rap. Or baseball hats worn off-center.

You see, those are really hard to conceal. Handguns and sawed-off long guns... not so much.

[Small Axe]

200. Haha, right. What do you expect? Criminals to carry their weapons openly?

Disarm the population and let criminals carry openly, brilliant solution to the problem of crime and violence in this country.. :eyes:

[Irreverend IX]

140. How will police catch the outlaw gun owners?

There are many people convicted felons now who illegally own guns, and it's very rare for them to be arrested for gun possession alone. The cops have no way of knowing they possess the weapons until the criminals do something that draws police attention-i.e. commit another crime using the weapon. If guns are banned, the police won't be able to recover them until they're used in crimes or an owner is foolish enough to get caught. The police would have no way of catching the "outlaws" for possession alone unless you're proposing random house searches by law enforcement, and that would kinda be a nightmarish violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[billbuckhead]

50. Metro DC actually has a lower murder rate than Metro Richmond

Metro Chicago has lower murder rate than Merto Gary Indiana. Massachussetts has a very low murder compared to other industrialized states. The there's Japan with almost no guns and almost no murder

When you compare comparable populations, instead of picking on a few tough zipcodes or focusing on small rural populations, the gun control side is almost always better.
<http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx>
<http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun>

[benEzra]

164. That didn't work in D.C., either...

If possession of a firearm is itself a crime, as it is in the District of Columbia, then anyone with a firearm is already violating the law and can thus be arrested and punished before they commit a more serious crime.

Your hypothesis is invalidated by D.C.'s homicide rate. Criminals there are (illegally) armed, with impunity, even though handguns are de facto absolutely prohibited, and ordinary citizens (read: peons) aren't allowed to possess a functional firearm at any time even inside their own home.

[billbuckhead]

35. The dirty secret is that "criminals" aren't doing so much of the killing

as are friends, neighbors, relatives, coworkers and ex-boyfriends who just happen to have easy access to guns.

"Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society. Although gun proponents like to compare this country with hot spots like Colombia, Mexico, and Estonia (making America appear a truly peaceable kingdom), a more relevant comparison is against other high-income, industrialized nations. The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. (These figures count only civilian guns; Switzerland, for example, has plenty of military weapons per capita.)

"It's not as if a 19-year-old in the United States is more evil than a 19-year-old in Australia—there's no evidence for that," Hemenway explains. "But a 19-year-old in America can very easily get a pistol. That's very hard to do in Australia. So when there's a bar fight in Australia, somebody gets punched out or hit with a beer bottle. Here, they get shot."

In general, guns don't induce people to commit crimes. "What guns do is make crimes lethal," says Hemenway. They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there's a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent.""
-----------snip-------------------------------------
<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html>

"Victim to Offender Relationship

The relationship of victim to offender differs significantly between male and female victims of homicide. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than by a stranger. More than 11 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,521 victims) than were killed by male strangers (133 victims) in single victim/single offender incidents in 1999.k Of victims who knew their offenders, 60 percent (917 out of 1,521) were wives, common-law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends of the offenders. Unfortunately, ex-boyfriends cannot be included in the intimate acquaintance analysis because there is no separate designation for ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends in the SHR relationship category.


Female Homicide Victims and Weapons

Firearms—especially handguns—were the most common weapons used by males to murder females in 1999. For homicides in which the weapon could be identified, 53 percent of female victims (865 out of 1,647) were shot and killed with guns—more than 63 percent by male intimates. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance (546 victims) was more than four times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined (133 victims) in single victim/single offender incidents in 1999. In homicides where males used firearms to kill females, handguns were clearly the weapon of choice over rifles and shotguns. In 1999, 76 percent of female firearm homicide victims (656 out of 865) were killed with handguns.


Female Homicide Victims and Circumstance

The overwhelming majority of homicides among females by male offenders in single victim/single offender incidents in 1999 were not related to any other felony crime. Most often, females were killed by males in the course of an argument—usually with a firearm. In 1999 there were 1,464 incidents in which the circumstance of the homicide between the female victim and male offender in single victim/single offender incidents could be identified. Of these, 87 percent (1,270 out of 1,464) were not related to the commission of any other felony.

Of the non-felony homicides, 62 percent (789 out of 1,270) involved arguments between the female victim and male offender and 52 percent (408 out of 789) of those homicides involved guns. According to the Supplementary Homicide Report data, in 1999 there were 317 women shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances in single victim/single offender incidents during the course of an argument—nearly one such murder every day of the year."
-----------snip------------------------
<http://www.vpc.org/studies/dv4one.htm>

[Small Axe]

191. If one chooses to harm or kill another person, does that not make them a criminal?

And isn't murder, assault, kidnapping, etc. already against the law?

[iverglas]

197. If one chooses to pretend that what was said wasn't what was said

does that mean it wasn't said?

What was said:

Because Gun Control only works on the law abiding.

Prohibitions on the posession of firearms -- i.e. "gun control" -- only work when the people who are prohibited abide by the prohibition. (It's a big duh, and it isn't particularly meaningful, but that's what was said.)

But, of course, some of the people who commit crimes facilitated by firearms, and cause death and injury with firearms, were not prohibited from possessing firearms at the time they acquired a firearm.

Because they were not "criminals" WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THE FIREARMS -- i.e. the prohibition on "criminals" possessing firearms HAD NO RELEVANCE FOR THEM. They WERE "law abiding" when they acquired the firearms.

They became "criminals" ONLY when they committed a crime using the firearm that they did NOT acquire as "criminals", they acquired as one of "the law abiding".

Do you really want to say in public that you don't get it?

I know I'd be embarrassed.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

26. One reason no one talks about GUN CONTROL ...

... it costs Democrats seats.

It's certainly a shame that the kid took his own life. You, and his family, have my condolences. It's horrible to lose a child. It is a shame that no-one saw it coming and took action to prevent it, if this action could have been predicted.

But I don't think the root cause was the fact that his father owned a semi-auto version of an AK47.

[Small Axe]

192. Gun control is a loosing policy. The radicals in the party that push GC alienate moderates.

[Solo_in_MD]

29. FWIW, it wasnt a real AK47

[billbuckhead]

97. Less bad when one kills oneself and terrorizes the school with a fake AK47

I bet Dad having one these powerful weapons of war around the house had no effect on this kid, not.

[krispos42]

126. According to the Brady people, at least.

Note they wasted no time at all in screaming that it was a military-issue weapon, capable a shooting through the Hoover Dam at a million rounds a second. Fully controllable, as well, thanks to that evil pistol grip.

:sarcasm:

[benEzra]

167. You mean, like if he had used a 12-gauge shotgun, LIKE COLUMBINE...

Less bad when one kills oneself and terrorizes the school with a fake AK47

You apparently think it would have been less bad had he killed himself and terrorized the school with a .729 caliber shotgun instead of a .30 caliber carbine.

FWIW, as has been pointed out in the past, the primary weapons of the Columbine killers were sawed-off 12-gauge (.729 caliber) shotguns, one a pump and one a side-by-side. They also carried a 9mm (.355) pistol with a forward-mounted magazine, and a low-capacity 9mm carbine, but IIRC the majority of the victims resulted from the most lethal weapons--the big-bore shotguns.

And yes, the dad owned a shotgun.

I bet Dad having one these powerful weapons of war around the house had no effect on this kid, not.

"Powerful weapons of war." Hmm.

9mm kinetic energy: 0.5 kJ
7.62x39mm kinetic energy: 2.0 kJ
Deer rifle kinetic energy: 4.0 kJ

No, not particularly powerful...


"weapons of war"

Care to show me a single military in the world that issues a non-automatic AK variant in 7.62x39mm? You can't, because there isn't one. Non-automatic AK variants are solely civilian carbines, whether you're talking about the Romanian carbines like mine, the Hungarians, or the Russian Saigas and Veprs.

And considering that 7.62x39mm is one of the most popular civilian centerfire rifle calibers in the United States (in terms of rounds expended annually by civilian target/recreational shooters, it's either #1, or #2 behind .223 Remington), methinks your characterization of the non-automatic CIVILIAN (NFA Title 1) carbines that fire it as "weapons of war" is getting a tad threadbare.

[originalpckelly]

62. I'm sorry, if you want to amend the US Constitution, do it...

otherwise this will happen.

Cars kill far more people than guns ever do. So do medical errors.

Get back to me when that's no longer true.

(And no, I am not a gun nut, nor do I own a weapon.)

[krispos42]

87. Do you have a news link?

A proper response requires proper information about this tragedy.

I would note that if his intention was to kill himself, he hardly needs an AK-style weapon to do it.

I will refrain from making further comments until more information is apparent. Trying to prevent "foot-in-mouth disease"...

[krispos42]

120. Never mind, somebody else upstream posted it. n/t

[derby378]

186. I, too, am a Quaker - and it's all about freedom

I share your frustrations with gun violence. But banning semi-automatic firearms won't do any good.

If you want true peace, I think it has to be qualified with a variety of factors such as social justice, economic justice, personal freedom, and so on. Which is why I find myself in the peculiar position of being a Quaker who is fine with private ownership of an AK-47. It is your right to do so under the Constitution, even though you will probably never exercise that right.

The best way to deal with AKs is to make them obsolete, not illegal.

[jody]

3. I also dislike the NRA but I don't understand how you can blame an organization for the

crime.

I believe the NRA has consistently supported aggressive enforcement of 18 USC 922, prosecution of offenses under that law, and maximum sentences for convictions.

The criminal hasn't been caught but the odds are near 100% that he/she has a criminal record and is therefore prohibited from even touching a gun.

If my assertion is correct, then a law banning handguns or all guns will have little or no effect.

Just look at England which bans most guns and its current increase in gun crime because guns are easily available to criminals.

Shotguns for £50: study reveals weapons culture

Even though those interviewed were in prison, many still viewed gun crime as a "viable career option" enabling them to overcome their deprived backgrounds to secure wealth and status. One man from Greater Manchester claimed he had earned £52,000 in a week from gun crime. The study shows that though Nottingham is dubbed Britain's gun crime capital, guns are far more available in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and London.

[Marr]

7. Agreed- seems a bit like blaming conservationists for bear maulings.

[jody]

8. I saw a mountain lion recently in Cleveland National Forest. Hooray for conservationists!!!

:hi:

[Marr]

9. Hey that's cool! :D

[ComerPerro]

100. why are gun nuts so bad at analogies?

[piedmont]

5. Tell us what YOU would do about it. nt

[Bluebear]

16. "What is the DEMOCRAT plan for ending the Iraq War??" nt

[piedmont]

18. A non-response. That's what I figured. nt

[Bluebear]

24. Are you troubled and concerned? nt

[piedmont]

25. nope. nt

[noahmijo]

12. Message to those who say all gun owners are criminals

My personal philosophy has always been "Those who live by the sword die by the sword but those who know how to use the sword never starve"

No I don't think there's ANY danger in my firearms being taken away. No I don't sleep with them by my bedside. No I don't live in fear that someday some maniac is gonna crash into my upper-middle class neighborhood with an army. Global Warming scares me more than the thought of having to defend my home bunker style.

I grew up around firearms I enjoy shooting and I think it's important for everyone to at least be educated about them-even if you hate them and vow to never own one.

I despise hunting and if there's anything I pray for on this matter it's that I never have to ever use a firearm to protect myself-but it's nice to know that if I ever did I would know what to do.


So for those of you out there who equate gun owners with maniac murderers and racist rednecks just know that you are dead wrong in your blanket stereotypes and people like myself are not going away anytime soon.

PS. Fuck.The.NRA

The NRA cares about my rights and about my well being as much as Bill Gates cares about saving consumers money on Microsoft Products.

[Possumpoint]

55. Couldn't Agree More!

NM.

[PsN2Wind]

78. Like you Noahmijo, I grew up around guns

and have owned one since I was 12 years old. BUT we both know that something needs to be done about gun violence in Tucson. I don't have an answer but it's obvious that too many guns are getting in the hands of the wrong people.

[noahmijo]

95. Agree completely keeping guns out of the wrong hands is something I totally agree with

Therefore people should be focusing their attention on those causing the violence rather than guys like you and me is all I'm saying

:toast:

[iverglas]

168. try sending yourself a memo

So for those of you out there who equate gun owners with maniac murderers and racist rednecks just know that you are dead wrong in your blanket stereotypes and people like myself are not going away anytime soon.

Or maybe write it on the blackboard 100 times:
I will not invent straw people to argue with.
I will not invent straw people to argue with.
I will not invent straw people to argue with.
I will not invent straw people to argue with.
I will not invent straw people to argue with.

If you like, add:
I will not pretend that any of my fellow DUers are evil morons, at least when they have not exhibited any tendency in that direction.


Therefore people should be focusing their attention on those causing the violence rather than guys like you and me is all I'm saying.

I have no idea what you're like, but there seem to be an awful lot of guys killing their wives and kids. I'm sure some of them are guys like you. And damn, when they kill themselves too, there isn't even anyone left to point a finger at. Still quite a few dead women and children lying around, though.

[BlackVelvet04]

14. Yeah, it would have been so much

better if he had hacked them to death.

Seriously, you think this is the only way he could kill them?

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. Yes, the NRA caused all of this man's problems in his life,

which led to his mental meltdown and killing rampage.:eyes: While I can honestly say that I'm not a fan of the NRA, I don't think they should be blamed for this, nor do they deserve to be painted with such a broad brush.

What's wrong with the right to keep and bear arms?

Yes, I'm a gun owning, gun toting Liberal!

Ghost

[ComerPerro]

108. they sure insist on making it easy for people like this to have access to firearms

[silverojo]

19. So the gun is to blame?

I guess he couldn't have done something similar with gas from an oven, an ordinary ice pick, or kitchen knife? Should we ban those, too?

Should we ban the swimming pools in which children drown every year?

Should we ban automobiles, which kill more adults and children than gun accidents/crimes combined?

It's not the guns. It's the mental illnesses that aren't being treated, which are killing people. It's the parents not watching their kids that are allowing gun accidents to happen.

I think the NRA often goes too far, but whiny gun-grabbers go too far, as well.

[piedmont]

23. exactly.

Humans are pretty smart critters. If one wants to do something badly enough, he/she WILL find a way to do it. We need to address the reasons why some people want to kill themselves ans/or other people.

[Strelnikov_]

40. "Whiny Gun-Grabbers" Wow. Wonder If I Wandered Into Libertarian Underground

or maybe Free Republic has highjacked the site.

I have no problem with gun ownership, within reason.

For one, gun owners should submit to the same level of regulation as a automobile owner/operator. That is, registration and licensing. No good according to the NRA.

For another, there is absolutely no reason for private citizens to own assault rifles. I could live with a heavily regulated class of owner having the right to own this type of weapon. Otherwise, weapons should be limited to those that are used for hunting. Again, no good according to the NRA.

Hell, a freeper horribulus who I had the misfortune to engage on the subject heaped scorn on Clinton and the Democrats for banning the possession of heavy machine guns (I think it was a 30-cal., antique, couldn't really tell through the frothing).

And, yes, only criminals will violate the above. So what. Criminals are the only ones selling drugs, pimping etc. etc.

If that makes me a "Whiny Gun-Grabber", so be it.

I'll tell you what I also am. I am a Progressive and a Liberal (maybe) who understands that to have a functioning society there has to be limits to individual rights for the GOOD OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.

And to those saying the perp could have killed those people with a knife. Sure, but the victims also would have had a hell of a lot better chance of fighting him off, and surviving once injured.

[piedmont]

45. you really don't know what you're talking about.

You should read more about what's allowed and what's not under current laws, and what the Assault Weapons Ban really banned. You might think differently, or at least be able to put up a better argument.

[Strelnikov_]

52. What Argument Am I Putting Up? I Was Simply Building My "Whiny Gun Grabber"

creds.

So, please enlighten me. Where in my post did I speak on what was or was not banned in the assault weapons ban?

[piedmont]

58. You made at least 4 arguments....

For one, gun owners should submit to the same level of regulation as a automobile owner/operator. That is, registration and licensing. No good according to the NRA.

They do, if they want to carry their gun around in public loaded. That's the same standard as for driver's licenses. Want to operate a car on public streets? Register it and get a license. Same for guns.


For another, there is absolutely no reason for private citizens to own assault rifles. I could live with a heavily regulated class of owner having the right to own this type of weapon. Otherwise, weapons should be limited to those that are used for hunting. Again, no good according to the NRA.

Assault rifles are automatic-firing. When you hold down the trigger, they keep firing. They are already very severely restricted. "Assault Weapon" is a tem invented to demonize semi-automatic guns, many of which are useful for hunting or target-shooting.


Hell, a freeper horribulus who I had the misfortune to engage on the subject heaped scorn on Clinton and the Democrats for banning the possession of heavy machine guns (I think it was a 30-cal., antique, couldn't really tell through the frothing).

I have no idea what you're talking about on this one.

And, yes, only criminals will violate the above. So what. Criminals are the only ones selling drugs, pimping etc. etc.

And how many hardened criminals are in prison for marijuana possession? If you want to make something illegal, it should at least be destructive, shouldn't it? How is mere possession of something supposed to be destructive?

[Strelnikov_]

73. Arguments? I Was Simply Stating Opinion. Thought This Was GD

and not the law forum.

OK, let's begin:

They do, if they want to carry their gun around in public loaded. That's the same standard as for driver's licenses. Want to operate a car on public streets? Register it and get a license. Same for guns.

Was not talking about carry, was talking GUN OWNERS.

Assault rifles are automatic-firing. When you hold down the trigger, they keep firing. They are already very severely restricted. "Assault Weapon" is a term invented to deionized semi-automatic guns, many of which are useful for hunting or target-shooting.

Opinion, not fact. And, no, people should not be able to own semi-automatic, high velocity, large magazine military hardware, IMHO (unless they have a special license, as I noted). Legitimate hunting or target rifles, no problem. From what I remember, when I target shot decades ago they were fairly specialized, one-shot rifles. Be hard to do a lot of damage with them.

And how many hardened criminals are in prison for marijuana possession? If you want to make something illegal, it should at least be destructive, shouldn't it? How is mere possession of something supposed to be destructive?

Again, I am a Progressive and a Liberal (maybe) who understands that to have a functioning society there has to be limits to individual rights for the GOOD OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Using your argument, people should have the right to own their own: M1 tank? Bradley? Hummer with the TOW anti-tank package (guess you need that if the ex-boyfriend has an M1 tank)? How about a few tactical missiles? None of these are destructive simply in possession.

Yes, the above is hyperbole. You are correct, nothing from a ice pick to a tactical missile is destructive without human intervention. Society as a whole makes a determination of relative risk, and passes laws accordingly. My scale trends much further to the left "Whiny Gun-Grabbers" end of the scale then you. So be it.

Again, all of the above is IMHO.

Bottom line, though, when I see Freeper talking points on this board, it makes me sick.

[piedmont]

84. Do I have to define "argument" for you?

argument: 2C A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason --American Heritage Dictionary

Was not talking about carry, was talking GUN OWNERS.

Ok, here's what you said: "For one, gun owners should submit to the same level of regulation as a automobile owner/operator. "

The same level would be just what I pointed out-- register in order to carry it in public, just like car owners must register in order to operate in public. And that's already the way it is.

Opinion, not fact.
Which part? I assume you mean the "demonize" part? BTW, in my original post I wrote "demonize." In your quote of me it says "deionized." Be careful with spell check.

And, no, people should not be able to own semi-automatic, high velocity, large magazine military hardware, IMHO (unless they have a special license, as I noted). Legitimate hunting or target rifles, no problem. From what I remember, when I target shot decades ago they were fairly specialized, one-shot rifles. Be hard to do a lot of damage with them.

What, exactly, makes it "military hardware?" MANY hunting rifles are semi-auto and high-velocity. There are large-capacity magazines out there for them as well. "Assault weapon" is a mostly cosmetic term. Most of the guns of the AWB differed from allowed guns only in styling like a protruding grip or a bayonet lug. There hasn't been a jump in gun crimes since they became legal again.



Again, I am a Progressive and a Liberal (maybe) who understands that to have a functioning society there has to be limits to individual rights for the GOOD OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Using your argument, people should have the right to own their own: M1 tank? Bradley? Hummer with the TOW anti-tank package (guess you need that if the ex-boyfriend has an M1 tank)? How about a few tactical missiles? None of these are destructive simply in possession.

Yes, the above is hyperbole. You are correct, nothing from a ice pick to a tactical missile is destructive without human intervention. Society as a whole makes a determination of relative risk, and passes laws accordingly. My scale trends much further to the left "Whiny Gun-Grabbers" end of the scale then you. So be it.


I think your scale trends more to the authoritarian "people can't be trusted" end. But ok. Just don't take my kitchen knife away! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


Bottom line, though, when I see Freeper talking points on this board, it makes me sick.
When I see fallacious "guilt by association" arguments, I get sick.

[Strelnikov_]

89. And Where In My Post You Responded To Did I "Put Forth As Proof Or Evidence"

The statements were clearly opinion.

And thank you. I can now call myself an "Authoritarian Whiny Gun Grabber". Has a ring to it.

And if you think "limits to individual rights for the good of society" is "authoritarian, people can't be trusted", then maybe you have lost your way. This is Democratic Underground, not Libertarian Underground.

Do I think guns should be outlawed. No. Regulated, some heavily, absolutely.

And, praytell, where is the "fallacious guilt by association argument". If you don't think "Whiny Gun Grabbers" is not a Reich-Wing label for those on the left who want some semblance of gun control, then I really don't know what to say.

[piedmont]

92. So you state something...

and then if anyone disagrees you just say "hey, that's my opinion." Whatever.

And if you think "limits to individual rights for the good of society" is "authoritarian, people can't be trusted", then maybe you have lost your way. This is Democratic Underground, not Libertarian Underground.
The ol' "you disagree with me so obviously you don't belong here" bit. Priceless.

And, praytell, where is the "fallacious guilt by association argument". If you don't think "Whiny Gun Grabbers" is not a Reich-Wing label for those on the left who want some semblance of gun control, then I really don't know what to say.
Didn't know that's what you meant by "Freeper talking points." I think of "Whiny Gun Grabbers" not as a talking point, but as a term of derision. Seemed like you were tagging the posters on the other side of the issue all as freepers.

[Strelnikov_]

93. Don't Know If You Will Like It Here Or Not, Since You Have Only Been A Member

for two months. Everyone 'belongs' here.

If I would have stated "For one, gun owners should submit to the same level of regulation as a automobile owner/operator because it will definitely lower crime rates." then yes, I would have presented an argument. I did not though, did I.

And saying "limits to individual rights for the good of society" is "authoritarian" is a Libertarian position. Sorry.

No problem with people stating Libertarian positions, just that I do not agree with some of them, as the basic premise of modern Libertarianism seems to be more about selfishness than anything else. Sorry, I'm a Progressive and believe in the 'commons'. Way I see it. Now, was that an argument or opinion?

[piedmont]

103. I like it here just fine, thanks.

You Have Only Been A Member for two months
Shocking! I must be in the wrong place! I can't be trusted!


And saying "limits to individual rights for the good of society" is "authoritarian" is a Libertarian position. Sorry.
More "guilt by association" smearing. I am not a member of the American Libertarian Party, for good reason. But I don't have to be to see authoritarian sentiment for what it is.


Now, was that an argument or opinion?
You seem to have some sort of "opinion defense mechanism" going on here. You put something out there, then if anyone disagrees it, you hide behind "that's my opninion!"

[Strelnikov_]

112. No Defense Mechanism. You Simply Seem To Want To Take Opinion

and spin it into a proof which is debatable.

And I would have to say that if you view my position as authoritarian, then you seem to trend strongly Libertarian. Just doing a favor and reminding a very short term member that this is a Democratic/Progressive site. Don't want you wasting your time here when there may be a more compatible home.

No accusations, no guilt, just stating fact. Libertarians should proudly state their positions. I just simply don't agree with most of them, because they appear to me to mostly be selfish assholes. Opinion or argument? I opine, you decide.

[piedmont]

117. Seems to be one to me. My opinion-- no debating it.

You Simply Seem To Want To Take Opinion and spin it into a proof which is debatable.
It is my opinion that you don't think others should debate what you call your opinions. So you just put it out there and hide behind the "opinion" cover.

And I would have to say that if you view my position as authoritarian, then you seem to trend strongly Libertarian. Just doing a favor and reminding a very short term member that this is a Democratic/Progressive site. Don't want you wasting your time here when there may be a more compatible home.
Translation: "I disagree with you on this issue, therefore you don't belong here." The lamest debating technique on the internet. FYI I am a Democrat and a progressive as well. You calling me otherwise doesn't make it so.

Good night.

[Strelnikov_]

121. ..

Why bother.

[slackmaster]

142. loindelrio, posting your subjects with all initial caps doesn't do any good

In fact it looks kind of silly.

[Strelnikov_]

143. And What, Praytell, Am I Trying To Accomplish, In That I Am Failing?

And more silly than your post?

Damn, did it again.

[slackmaster]

144. Looks like a slightly watered down version of posting in all caps

A cry for attention.

[Strelnikov_]

145. Oh, My. And Here I Thought It Was That I Was Treating The Subject

like the heading of a report section, similar to the following example.

Gosh.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pdf

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strelnikov_]

147. Thought Free Contributions? You Are Welcome. My, My n/t

[billbuckhead]

118. Libertarians are the most dishonest actors in politics

I wished they would put their money and energy into just making one town or county work according to their utopian principles. Alas, it's all an unatainable "greed is good" pipe dream to con people against government.

[billbuckhead]

59. The assault weapons ban is so evil almost every civilized nation has one

:sarcasm: Even Switzerland is switching to EU gun regs.

Skier's murder prompts Swiss women's campaign for ban on guns in the home

"Now, Switzerland's biggest women's magazine is leading a campaign to tighten what they see as the country's archaic gun laws. They want lawmakers to create a national gun register and ban loaded weapons being kept in the home.

A petition to the Swiss parliament contained the signatures of 17,400 Swiss women who support the reform campaign.

"There are more and more homicides in the home and more and more of the victims are women," says Lisa Feldmann, editor-in-chief of Annabelle. As well as having one of the highest gun-suicide rates in Europe, Switzerland has more women shot dead than almost anywhere in the Western world, many of them after arguments with men."
----snip-------------------
<http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1919124.ece>

One very interesting thing is how much gun politics around the world has such a large gender gap with so many women feeling threatened by guns and so many men threatened that they might lose their guns.

[piedmont]

61. not evil-- just stupid and deceptive nt

[Small Axe]

189. Woefully misinformed as to what an assault weapon is..

Assault weapons are defined by the DoD as, in part, having the capability of fully automatic fire. These weapons came about as the face of warfare changed following WWII.

Therefore, assault weapons have been highly restricted since the NFA of the 1930s. What you're speaking of is a made-up term for semiautomatic rifles, a political football.

And if you want to talk about civilized nations and their stance on such weapons.. In Finland, one can posess automatic weapons and fire them at shooting clubs. Sound suppressors or 'silerncers'? They're just considered a courtesy to your neighbors, like having a muffler on your car.

[The Straight Story]

66. Banning things based on fear seems almost like the terrorism/patriot act stuff

In regards to the 'heavy machine gun'. Not sure I fully understand what you are referencing but here is my take on it:

I used to sell .50 cal and 20mm lahti dies for reloading. Them thar is some bigguns.

Shooting for a lot of folks is a sport. Sure, some wacko folks will use guns to harm others, but most gun owners don't and have no desire to.

I can see being reasonable on the whole matter - just like other things you have rules and regulations. It is the constant barrage of more and more laws that worries gun owners. There are enough on the books already that are not fully enforced (and how can they enforce them all?)

My friend Jimmy is a convicted murderer (among other things). He cannot own a gun. His mom owns them for him and he lives with her. I am sure the cops could do something about it, especially since he cleans them by firing them off in his backyard 2 doors down once a month or so (also illegal).

So our officials slack, then people like him snap, and folks go on and on that if we had more gun laws that would not have happened.

I know people heavily into sport shooting. They measure grains to a T. The handle every little aspect from reloading to casing type, weights, etc and so on. It is a science of ballistics that they love. And they abide by the laws.

Those that don't abide should be punished, we should not be making even more laws to make those folks have less freedom who already obey the laws.

[Strelnikov_]

79. You Have Your Opinion, And I Have Mine. It Is Not An Absolute Like

the damage Republicans have done to this country.

Your opinion is valid, as I think mine is. What functioning societies do is discuss, present their case, and come to agreement, for better or worse, on a set of laws to abide by. Not much we can do about those that skirt the laws, there will always be those.

To restate:

I am a Progressive and a Liberal (maybe) who understands that to have a functioning society there has to be limits to individual rights for the GOOD OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.

Society as a whole makes a determination of relative risk, and passes laws accordingly. My scale trends much further to the left "Whiny Gun-Grabbers" end of the scale than you. So be it.


I believe we need to de-militarize society, both the private and public sectors.


If someone wants to pursue shooting, say, those 50 cal. Barrets (Spec Ops sniper rifle), no problem. They are simply going to have to be heavily regulated. If you have a felony conviction and can't get the license, that's life. If you are in possession of one without a valid permit, the cops first question should be "who are you planning to assassinate". It may simply be a mistake, so be it. That is what the court system is for.

Bottom line for me, I am seeing a lot of Libertarian arguments here. Again, in a functioning society there has to be limits to individual rights for the GOOD OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. And I have presented my opinion on the 'limits' regarding gun control.

[Small Axe]

188. NOT ALL GUN OWNERS ARE PRO-NRA!

There already are liscensing programs and a background checks.

And assault rifles, as defined by the DOD, are capabale of firing in fully automatic mode (a 'machine gun'). And machine guns have been highly regulated since 1934.

[ComerPerro]

102. the gun sure made it easy and let it happen in a split second, didn't it?

the beauty of a gun is that you literally can kill something, at will, in a split second. So you don't have to worry about attacks of conscience, reason, logic, or rational thought.

Knives, gas, ice picks? Those take longer and a lot more effort.

[iverglas]

148. isn't it just the dangedest thing??

So the gun is to blame?

I thought it was unmistakably clear that the blame in the opening post was being placed on people who lobby for firearms to be available to anyone who happens to want one.

And yup, that includes real bad guys, because when there are that many firearms in a society, in that many hands, everybody knows perfectly well that some of them are going to end up in the hands of the real bad guys -- along with the stupid people, the transitorily problematic people, the completely mad people and any other kind of people you can think of. And we are all deemed to know and intend the foreseeable consequences of what we do.

Why would you make the statement "so the gun is to blame", as if the person you were speaking to had said that? The question mark is cute and all, but the sentence is still a statement, and your intent was still plainly to imply that the person you were speaking to had said or implied what you're now saying, and your implication is plainly false, because that person neither said nor implied any such thing. In fact, only a moron would say that an inanimate object is "to blame" for anything, so you do seem to be suggesting that the person you are addressing is simply not very bright.

Should we ban the swimming pools in which children drown every year?
Should we ban automobiles, which kill more adults and children than gun accidents/crimes combined?

Far, far fewer people are killed every year as a result of an alligator attack than as a result of a firearm assault. I must assume that given the relative safety of alligators, you go swimming in the Everglades on your vacation, or at least have no objection to your neighbour keeping an alligator or three in the back yard.

I can never figure out whether people who say such silly things actually know better than that or not.



type fixed

[EDT]

149. Actually over 800 kids under 15 are killed by swimming pools every year, and only 73 by guns

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Query on Unintentional, Drowning, US, all races and both sexes, for 2004. Add an advanced option of <1 to 15 years of age

I get a number of 801.

gun deaths next:

Query on Unintentional, Firearm, US, all races and both sexes, for 2004. Add an advanced option of <1 to 15 years of age.

73.

[iverglas]

151. and actually, your point was ...

I give up.

How many are killed by alligators?

[EDT]

154. to backup the comment about banning swimming pools.

Here it is again-

Should we ban the swimming pools in which children drown every year?

Statistically speaking, yes, we should do it- for the children of course.

[iverglas]

156. what was wrong with my question?

I'll tell you what's wrong with your question for free: it's stupid. For oh so many reasons. But let's get back to mine.

Should we allow the keeping of alligators in back yards?

Statistically speaking, yes, we should do it -- right?

Oh, all right, I'll answer your stupid questions: no, and no. We should not ban either swimming pools or motor vehicles. Why you ask me, I still wouldn't know. You must be under some really dumb impression that I have advocated banning firearms.

Now let's get on with repealing all the laws and by-laws that regulate access by children to swimming pools, motor vehicles and, of course, alligators.

If you really do need help in figuring any of this out, just ask.

[EDT]

157. ad hommed for a reply...

I was so hoping for at least a classic sarcastic subject line like

"Oh poo,", or "Oh my..."

Followed by a large circular argument leading nowhere. Rather dissapointed I must say.

[iverglas]

158. ah, I do so hate to disappoint my fans

Especially when they've offered such thoughtful and insightful things to talk about.

Are you a question? Even if you are, I wouldn't imagine that you are the question that was in question here. So why you would have the idea that you were "ad hommed" by my calling your question stupid, I wouldn't know.

Interesting you should raise the issue, though. How do you feel about people who say things that start out "So ..." and are plainly designed to make it look as though the person they are addressing said something s/he did not say, or thinks something there is no indication s/he thinks, when the thing in question is a really stupid (and/or evil) thing that surely only a very stupid (and/or evil) person would think/say?

Me, I think it's kind of ad homming. I'm sure you'll agree.

[EDT]

163. Oh poo...

If swimming pools and alligators were regulated to the degree firearms are, our children would be far safer. One can only hope.

[Irreverend IX]

153. And in a country where guns are banned...

Real bad people still manage to get their hands on guns, with the added bonus of a disarmed, defenseless populace to prey on. You haven't forgotten the article posted here on UK gun culture already, have you?

[iverglas]

155. forgotten?

How could I have forgotten anything as stupid and oft-harped on as that crud?

And in a country where guns are banned...
Real bad people still manage to get their hands on guns, with the added bonus of a disarmed, defenseless populace to prey on.

You, of course, seem to have forgotten:

- firearms are not banned in the UK;
- handguns were not available to the public other than for sports shooting purposes *before* the "ban" you refer to, and certainly no one was permitted to promenade around in public with handguns on their person; and
- a huge propotion of "firearms crime" in the UK is committed with imitation/air weapons.

So I'm back where I've always been, wondering what the point is supposed to be.

Can you tell us how many firearms homicides there were in the UK in 2005?

When are you folks gonna get a grip and either learn about reality or admit what reality is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime

There were 12,805 recorded offences in England and Wales involving firearms in 1997/98, compared to 22,789 in 2004/05. Much of the numerical increase, however, can be attributed to a massive rise in the use of imitation firearms (566 in 1998/99, rising to 3,333 in 2004/05) and air weapons (8,665 in 1998/99, 11,825 in 2004/05). Excluding homicide, 61.1% of "violence against the person" offences are committed with either imitations or air weapons. Such usage figures are likely to be underestimates, however, since only weapons positively identified as such as so classified; many counted as "handguns" may in fact be imitations or air weapons.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf
puts it a slightly different way:

SUMMARY

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 22,789 recorded crimes in 2004/05. This is five per cent down on the previous year, and the first fall since 1997.

• The overall fall masks a big increase in imitation weapon offences, up 55 per cent to 3,333. In contrast, air weapon offences fell by 14 per cent to 11,825. Handgun offences fell 15 per cent to 4,347.

• Less than three per cent of firearm crimes resulted in a serious or fatal injury in 2004/05. They numbered 631 crimes, five per cent fewer than in 2003/04. Within this total, there were 78 homicides involving firearms in 2004/05, up from 68 the previous year. Nine per cent of all homicides in 2004/05 involved firearms ... .

... As stated earlier, over half of all firearm offences involved an air weapon. Of those offences involving a non-air weapon, 40 per cent involved a handgun ... . These handgun crimes fell by 15 per cent to 4,347 in 2004/05, following a seven per cent decrease in the previous year. Shotgun crimes also fell, by 17 per cent to 598 in 2004/05 ... .

There were 78 firearms homicides in the UK in 2004/5 (non-calendar reporting year) -- population approx. 60 million.

There were 9,326 firearms homicides (about 2/3 of homicides) in the US in 2004:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
-- population approx. 290 million. A rate of about 0.13/100,000 in the UK; a rate of about 3.2/100,000 in the US. With a rate the same as the UK rate, the US would have had 377 firearms homicides in 2004.

I'm sure there are millions of Brits who would trade the existing possiblity of being held up by someone using a fake firearm for a 25 times greater chance of being killed by someone using a real firearm.

Well, there probaby are. There are stupid people everywhere.

Do you actually know what this means?

If the US had the same firearms homicide rate as the UK, there would have been 78 firearms homicides, total, in Florida, Illinois, Michigan and New York in 2004. Say: 23 in Florida, 16 in Illinois, 13 in Michigan and 26 in New York. Can you even imagine a world like that?

And that's just homicides, no consideration of injuries or worse crimes/crime rates facilitated by real firearms.

In 2004/05, 24 per cent of crimes involving firearms (including air weapons) caused injury, either because they were fired or used as a blunt instrument (5,358 offences) (Table 3.07). This compares with 20 per cent in 2003/04, and represents a rise of 13 per cent in numbers of offences since then. Crimes involving shotguns, handguns, and other non-air weapons caused injury in 23 per cent, 18 per cent and 49 per cent of incidents respectively. Most of the non-air weapons were imitation weapons, where over 95 per cent of the injuries were slight. As shown above, air weapons were most likely to be fired, but caused injury in only 13 per cent of crimes, and in the vast majority of these cases (90%) the injury was slight.

... There were 78 homicides involving firearms in 2004/05, up from 68 in 2003/04 but fewer than in the previous two years. One homicide involved the use of an air weapon. There were a further 553 firearm crimes that resulted in serious injury, down seven per cent from 594 in 2003/04. Overall, 631 resulted in serious or fatal injury, down five per cent on 2003/04. However, this accounts for only 2.8 per cent of all firearm crimes.

You wanna get us some comparable US figures -- something to compare to the 553 firearms crimes in the UK (that would be about 2,670 for the US, proportionately) that resulted in serious injury? Or shall we just agree that they aren't going to be comparable -- agree that in addition to having a firearms homicide rate 25 times the rate in the UK, the rate of injury during the commission of firearms crimes is a multiple of the rate in the UK?

Here are 1997 figures:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

Figure it's down under 3,000 yet?

But I tend to think you and your pals will actually just keep spouting the same nonsense noise. And pretending that the relative non-availability of firearms in the UK has nothing to do with the relatively low rates of firearms homicide and injury.

[Small Axe]

204. in a free society..

"when there are that many firearms in a society, in that many hands, everybody knows perfectly well that some of them are going to end up in the hands of the real bad guys"

That is one of the consequences of living in a society where there is freedom. Bad guys sometimes get guns. This won't change if you made them all illegal tomorrow. Prohibition doesn't work, and we will never get rid of all the guns.

But every time I've purchased a gun, I was required to prove that, among other things, I'm not: A) a felon B) a domestic abuser C) guilty of a crime of hazing D) someone that's been adjudged to be mentally ill.

So to say that everyone that wants a gun can have one is incorrect. I am not a member of the NRA so I can't say if that's a correct characterization of their organization.

[iverglas]

206. in a free society

I could take your stuff if I bloody well wanted it.

That is one of the consequences of living in a society where there is freedom. Bad guys sometimes get guns.

And that is meaningless noise. Bad guys get guns in very unfree societies, too. What conclusion might you want to draw from that?

But every time I've purchased a gun, I was required to prove that, among other things, I'm not: A) a felon B) a domestic abuser C) guilty of a crime of hazing D) someone that's been adjudged to be mentally ill.

Bully for you. And the individual who took his guns to town a few weeks ago and shot up a college in Montreal had passed all those tests, and in fact more. Any conclusions you'd like to draw?

This won't change if you made them all illegal tomorrow. Prohibition doesn't work, and we will never get rid of all the guns.

Who suggested making all firearms illegal? Who suggested prohibition? What are you on about, and why are you addressing me?

The plain fact, as I said, is that when there are that many firearms in a society, in that many hands, everybody knows perfectly well that some of them are going to end up in the hands of the real bad guys. Perhaps you have a problem with facts.

So to say that everyone that wants a gun can have one is incorrect.

Goodness gracious me. Did someone say that? I don't recall saying it. But I'll say it now. Everyone who wants a gun can get one -- because, you remember, bad guys don't obey the rules. And as long as there are stupid and/or evil certified-genuine good guys somewhere in the food chain who don't obey the rules and/or behave like fools, thus delivering their firearms into the hands of bad guys, whether intentionally or negligently, anyone who wants a gun is going to be able to get one. Do you have some other explanation for the fact that so many bad guys have guns? Dropped like lawn darts from the sky, did they?

I am not a member of the NRA so I can't say if that's a correct characterization of their organization.

I don't recall offering any characterization of the NRA, so I guess you really weren't talking to me.

[Small Axe]

207. Individual freedom within an organized society does not equate to anarchy.

And the only conculsion I draw from your posts is that you have lots of things to say but no answers or solutions to offer up.

And that you could use a refresher course on manners.

[iverglas]

208. ah, an ORGANIZED society

You need to say what you mean and mean what you say, methinks.

An organized society. A society in which rules are made and enforced regarding what individuals may do and may not do, in the interests of other members of the society and of the society as a whole. Is that kinda what you had in mind?

Individual freedom within an organized society does not equate to anarchy.

And I say: the existence of rules within a free society does not equate to slavery. Or totalitarianism, or fascism, or whatever you might like to call the opposite of "freedom".

There we go, eh?

And the only conculsion I draw from your posts is that you have lots of negative things to say but no answers or solutions to offer up.

If that's the best you can do, then you appear to be either living in a fantasy world or unwilling to see the real world around you. Either way, you would seem to be wasting your time here. Or someone else's.

[Small Axe]

210. You're a waste of time.

I'm done arguing semantics with you.

[iverglas]

212. you're a big poopoohead

I do wish some of you people would use a dictionary occasionally. No one here was "arguing semantics", of course, but a whole lot of people seem to think that accusing someone of "arguing semantics" is the world's biggest insult. It always reminds me of the time my little brother was so sputteringly mad at me and my best friend that as we walked off down the street he bellowed after us "YOU'RE PREGNANT!!!"

[Irreverend IX]

22. No reason he couldn't have done this with a knife.

As demonstrated by plenty of other psychos who didn't need guns to kill their families. What would you tell people who live in high-crime areas and need protection? Call 911 and pray that the doughnut-munchers stop the bad guy? Be aware that cops don't give a damn about your life, and prefer photographing corpses and taping off crime scenes to fighting violent criminals. For every gun that gets misused, there are thousands owned by peaceful, law-abiding citizens. I don't get why some people think that only George Dubya's minions should have guns--an armed state with a defenseless population is way more scary than random nutjobs.

[billbuckhead]

116. If knives work so well then why do wife killers overwhelming choose guns?

I guess the obvious answer is because guns work a lot better than knives or anything else.

<http://www.vpc.org/press/0509wmmw.htm>

[krispos42]

133. For the same reason I grab I gun when somethings goes bump in the night

Guns work a lot better than knives, usually.

I've investigated things with clubs and knives, too. I know which one I prefer.

I outlined 4 other ways this guy could have killed himself and those other five people, all without using a sharp object. In fact, if he had done my Chuck E. Cheese idea, the surviving family members might well have gotten some insurance money to help them out after the tragic 'accident'.

[Small Axe]

179. Look at Scotland. No guns, so they're looking a banning long knives to reduce murder rate.

They've pratically legislated private gun ownership out of existence. And now they're seeing an increase in stabbings, and trying to make kitchen knives over a certain length illegal. You see? Where does it end?

[windbreeze]

32. that's a cop out and a crutch...

and the NRA had nothing to do with it...the man acted alone, and the gun he did it with, didn't kill anyone...he did....blaming the NRA is just a way to make excuses, how about we lay the responsibility where it belongs?? right square at his feet....!!

I don't want anyone taking my right to own a weapon away from me, because.....sadly, all those illegal guns that no one can do anything about....WILL STILL BE OUT THERE...and a killer, IS still a killer...if he doesn't kill by gun, he will kill by knife, or aluminum bb bat...or whatever..fire, arson...poison, bomb....more than one way to accomplish it, once the mind is made up to do so....
windbreeze

[ctaylor721a]

47. Glad he ended with

...taking his own life. Thats one less mad shooter on the loose.

[Strelnikov_]

56. Following Is A Story Where A Non-Gun Owner Obtained A Gun Due To A Threat

An it saved his and his girlfriends (and possibly her son's) life.

And note, all he needed was a hunting shotgun. Not a Steyr Aug with the 1000 round clip and grenade launcher option.

Then again, I am just a "Whiny Gun Grabber".


http://www.startribune.com/467/story/875873.html

The crashing back door snapped Eric Cegon and his girlfriend awake in her apartment. Fear grew as they heard feet rapidly climbing the stairs to their barricaded bedroom door about 3:30 a.m. Wednesday. Cegon, 30, grabbed the shotgun next to their bed and sat up, hoping the locked door would hold. He said he knew the intruder was the man who had threatened his life and held a knife to his girlfriend a week earlier.

The girlfriend, Samantha Simons, covered up her 2-year-old son and screamed as her ex-boyfriend kicked in the door, knocking over the small dresser lodged against it. "I knew if that door came open what I would do," Cegon said Thursday. He fired the 12-gauge shotgun he had borrowed from a friend two weeks before to protect himself. The blast knocked Erik A. Richter, 35, to the floor.

. . .

Cegon said that he had never used a gun before but that he decided to borrow a shotgun two weeks ago from a friend who showed him how to use it. He said he had met Richter while working at a feed elevator. Cegon said it felt like Richter had been hunting him for the past month. After the predawn shooting, Cegon sat in fear, disbelief and shock. He said it happened less than a minute after they heard the back door kicked in, ripping off the security chain. He said he shot Richter in the chest from about 5 feet. He continued to hold the gun on him while handing the phone to Simons to call 911.

. . .

"We didn't want any problems with him," Cegon said. "I didn't do it. He did it to himself." He said he won't keep a gun in his home anymore. "I never had one. I never hunted. I never wanted one," he said, as Simons held his hand. She said she has had nightmares and went to see a doctor about sleeping medicine Thursday. She said that she won't return to her apartment and that she has given notice to the landlord.

[originalpckelly]

64. Cars accidents and medical errors kill far more people than guns...

When do we ban cars and hospitals?

[Bluebear]

69. Oh no you didn't. nt

[Major Hogwash]

70. That is the same argument the NRA made in 1934 about cars.

Coincidentally.

LoL

[ComerPerro]

105. well, yeah, where else would he get his talking points?

[billbuckhead]

71. Around 30,000 people are killed by guns vs around 43,000 in car accidents

"Gun deaths fall into three categories: homicides, suicides, and accidental killings. In 2001, about 30,000 people died from gunfire in the United States. Set this against the 43,000 annual deaths from motor-vehicle accidents to recognize what startling carnage comes out of a barrel. The comparison is especially telling because cars "are a way of life," as Hemenway explains. "People use cars all day, every day—and 'motor vehicles' include trucks. How many of us use guns?""
-------------snip----------------------
<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html>

[krispos42]

82. Oh, about half of all homes in the US have at least one gun

I think it's like 45% or so.

And the majority of gun deaths are suicides, nearly two-thirds or about 19,000 per year.

You also forgot the catagory of "justifiable homicide".

[billbuckhead]

88. There are only 200 justifiable homicides a year vs 835 femicides

Violence Policy Center Issues Annual Report When Men Murder Women


Study, Released for Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, Ranks Alaska #1 in Rate of Women Murdered by Men

WASHINGTON, DC—The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2003 Homicide Data. This annual report details national and state-by-state information on female homicides involving one female murder victim and one male offender. The VPC releases the study each year to coincide with Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October. In 2003, the most recent data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report, firearms were the most common weapon used by males to murder females (835 of 1,678 homicides or 50 percent). Of these, 77 percent (647 of 835) were committed with handguns. Alaska ranks first in the nation in the rate of women killed by men. Ranked behind Alaska are: Nevada, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. Nationally, the rate was 1.31 per 100,000.

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "These numbers should serve as a wake-up call to the states with the highest rates of female homicide. In identifying solutions to domestic violence, the role firearms play must be addressed."

The study's release comes as the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), originally passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000, is set to expire on September 30th— unless Congress acts. VAWA has improved awareness, protection, and criminal justice response for victims of domestic violence.
--------------snip------------------------------
<http://www.vpc.org/press/0509wmmw.htm>
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm>

[krispos42]

101. Well, that's a big fat DUH!!!!

Most murderers are men. Two-thirds of all murders are done with guns. So then it's pretty damn likely that women are being killed by men with guns. It's also pretty damn likely that MEN are being killed by men with guns as well!

The chart is interesting...



After 9/11, many states allowed more concealed-carry permits to be issued, or liberalized the current ones. Currently, only two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, have totally outlawed civilian carry.

And, look, the number of civilian justifiable homicides went up sharply while criminal homicides remained flat! And when the oh-so-effective 1993 AWB expired, they went back down, almost as if the criminals began to fear the armed citizenry again...

Remember that the rate of grabbing a gun for self-defense compared to the rate of killing somebody in self-defense runs between 5,700:1 to 11,000:1. In other words, for every felon killed by an armed citizen, between 5,700 and 11,000 crimes were prevented by an armed citizen who did not have to kill anybody.

The reason the number is so broad is that solid numbers on how often a person uses (not neccessarily shoots, just uses) a gun in self-defense are not available because 90% of the cases go unreported.

[billbuckhead]

114. 200 justifiable homicides vs 30,000 dead over 100, 000 wounded

You don't take into account account all the crooks using guns to commit crimes who don't get caught and the huge and very costly advances in medical care that came into play to keep the death rate from guns down.

Sure doesn't seem like very smart balancing of moral and financial costs vs benefits, much like the rest of America's failing society.

[krispos42]

119. So you want 0 justifiable homicides instead of 230?

Actually, I think you would like that, because that would reinforce your drive for even more gun control. "See? See? Only criminals use guns! Ban them! Ban them!"

And only 10,000 of the 30,000 you mention were homicides. 19,000 were suicides, the balance accidents and police shootings.

And what about all the honest citizens who use guns to prevent a crime? 90% of those go unreported, but the number is estimated at somewhere between 1.2 and 2.5 million times a year.

Scaring off an intruder or an attacker with a gun is a lot cheaper than getting medical treatment for the victims, calling the insurance company to replace the family silver and plasma TV the guy stole, calling AFLAC to make car and morgage payments while you're in the hospital, etc.

[happyslug]

127. What about the difference between Pistols and Long Arm Crime?

Which is even mentioned (in passing) in the Harvard Article. 95% of ALL homicides (And that includes Suicides and "Justified Homicide if reported to the FBI by local Police) are done by a PISTOL. 5% of all Homicides are done with "Long Arms" i.e Shotguns or Rifles (including Assault Rifles and Machine Guns).

The problem is NOT firearms themselves but Pistols. It is hard to carry a Rifle into a bar, or into someone's house. Now you have had some drive-by shootings with Rifles from car, but these are included in the number of Rifles used in crime NOT pistols (Which tells you how rare it is to see someone use a long arm in a crime).

Remember, According to FBI statistics, Knives and "Blunt instruments" are used more often then Shotguns and Rifles (With the later DROPPING over the last 20 years). In fact the drop in Rifles and Shotguns has been enough that the last few FBI reports I have read showed that Rifles and Shotguns have finally DROPPED below BOTH "Blunt Instruments" or Knives (10 years ago more people using Shotguns and Rifles than use EITHER "Blunt Instruments" or Knives, thus it was common at that time to combine homicides by "Blunt Instruments" and Knives when looking at homicides by Rifles and Shotguns. This is no longer needed for homicides by Shotguns or Rifles have BOTh dropped below EITHER "Blunt Instruments" or Knives). Just a warming to always watch Statistics for they can be often manipulated.

My Points here is the problem is NOT firearms in general but pistols. In many ways we would be better off DROPPING or REDUCING the regulation involving Rifles or Shotguns (including Assault Rifles and Automatic Weapons) while INCREASING the restrictions on Pistols. Why regulate something that is NOT causing any MAJOR Harm (Assault Weapons and Automatic Weapons) while keeping legal something that is causing MAJOR HARM? Remember SOMEONE has to enforce any ban or regulation, if the ban or regulation is useless in preventing crime it will consume money so that there is less money available for use in effective methods to reduce crime. Thus ineffective regulation tie up scarce resources. Thus if a regulation is ineffective it should be stopped, while regulations that do work must be expanded.

When it comes to Fire Arms, we need more regulations on Pistols, but the need for regulations on long arms is clearly unnecessary and should be stopped. I have always suspected that the ban on Automatic weapons adopted in 1986 (and its regulation since the 1930s) had more to do with passing SOMETHING regarding firearms, but making sure the profit centers of fire arm makers are NOT touched (A secondary reason has been to make sure working class people do NOT have access to military weapons lease the communist use them to launch a revolution). Thus Congress would gladly ban Automatic Weapons (No one lobbies for such weapons for the real profit centers when it comes to the Civilian market has been pistols since the 1960s) while the fire arm makers lobby to keep their most profitable profit centers (i.e. Pistols and by permitting semi-automatic assault style weapons, by making them different from their full automatic cousins so that US makers have an advantage over foreign makers of such weapons).

As I said we need a complete re-write of out Gun Laws, I am afraid I do NOT see such a complete re-write unless the US Supreme Court rules on the Second Amendment. I see the Court ruling that the Second is a private right but restricted to Military usable weapons. This would end all restrictions on long arms (Which are military usable when no other weapons are available), but based on the limited military usability of pistols (especially compared to Long arms) Pistols could be baned. Congress restricted to what it can do (i.e. could NOT outlaw Automatic Weapons unless of no military usability) Congress to show it will RESTRICT firearms to reduce Crime will get around to put huge restrictions on Pistols and their owners (Congress may even ban pistols, but I doubt that).

[krispos42]

131. That makes much sense

Which is why the people in this forum fight so bitterly about so-called "assault weapons". Some people throw up a big noisefest about how simply terrible they are, how nobody needs them, how they are weapons of mass destruction (!), etc., etc., etc. And when you say "Hey, these things are not the problem" it's like talking to a brick wall.

The problem with banning pistols is that a) it won't stop there, and b) there will be a rise in crime as the still-armed criminals prey more on the recently-disarmed honest citizens.

Frankly, I think we could wipe out nearly all violent crime tomorrow if we legalized drugs. Wipe out the gangs that sell the drugs, wipe out the black markets that launder stolen merchandise for money to buy drugs, wipe out a big chunk of the reason people steal and rob and mug in the first place. Put a reasonable tax on it, and between the tax revenue and the savings on jail time, judicial time, and police time we'd be in the black.

But that, also, makes too much sense.

[ComerPerro]

104. when you buy a gun, do you check your logic and reason at the door?

[krispos42]

76. So, if this dad had...

Slashed there throats with a carving knife, how would you feel, and who would you blame?

Called up his cousin and said "Hey, I just got a bonus at work, let's take your kids out to the Chuck E. Cheese for some pizza and arcade games!", then drove his car into a bridge column at 105 mph, turning all six of them into chunky salsa, how would you feel?

If he doused the house in gasoline, set it on fire, then threw himself into the flames, how would you feel?

If he had gone into the basement, broken the gas line and set a lit candle at the top of the stairs, letting the basement fill up with an explosive heavier-than-air mixture of natural gas and oxygen before finally hitting the candle and exploding, how would you feel?

Would you say "Oh, thank God those poor people were not killed by guns!"?

The guy was a psycho fuckwad that had serious problems.

[billbuckhead]

83. Recently a madman with sword got loose in a church in England

and around the same time a madman with a gun got loose in a Texas church. No one died in this UK sword attack but the Texas gunman killed 4.
-------------------------------------
Gunman kills self after shooting four in Texas church

By ANABELLE GARAY
The Associated Press

SASH, Texas- A shooting rampage outside a rural Texas church left five dead, including the suspected shooter who turned the gun on himself Monday after a nine-hour standoff with police, authorities said.

Witnesses told police that A.P. Crenshaw, who lived across the street from the Sash Assembly of God church, exchanged words in the church parking lot Sunday night with church member Wes Brown, who asked Crenshaw to leave.
<http://www.policeone.com/news/118401/>

--------------------------------------

"Police are questioning a 26-year-old man over a sword attack which left 11 churchgoers injured and four in a critical condition."
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/540387.stm>

BTW, this wasn't even the Texas record for a gunman commiting mass homicide in church, that belongs to Wedgewood Texas which had 7 dead gunfire victims plus the shooter.
<http://www.cnn.com/US/9909/15/church.shooting.04/index.html>

[krispos42]

96. That Texan's a slacker

The monickers are already flowing thick and fast. The Suffolk Strangler. The new Jack the Ripper, the Victorian bogey-man whose toll the killer of the women in Suffolk has already equalled. Brazen. Swift. Whoever he is, and we will have to suppose with no evidence to the contrary that it is a lone killer and not a group or a woman, the man remains at large. Much of Ipswich is quiet at night. People are afraid. This man is killing at a rate three times faster than Jack, more than hundred years ago.

Jack killed his victims with a knife. This man appears to have taken considerable measures to leave his victims unblemished. Barely a mark was found on the five women. There were no signs of struggle. Nor was there any sexual contact. All had been strangled.

But, it wasn't gun violence, so I assume this barely registers on your radar.

And if the next intended victim shoots with a pistol the serial murderer that attacks her, SHE'S the one that goes to jail for years. Real fair, isn't it?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1973815,00.html

[billbuckhead]

111. The USA has 3 times the murder rate than the UK, we should copy success

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

And the USA has twice the rate of rape vs the UK but very interestingly, the rate of assaults in the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are virtually identical. So easy access to guns doesn't seem to discourage rape or assault. Further, the similar nations of the UK, Canada, Australia, USA and New Zealand have similar assault rates but when murder comes into play, the gun loving USA alone of this group has multiples higher murder. Pretty obvious to everyone not blinded by gunsmoke and mirrors.
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita>

[krispos42]

122. Oooh, goody, can we?

Since 1997, when the Brits totally banned all handguns in the UK in reponse to a nutjob going on a shooting rampage, gun crimes have doubled. And in the same time frame, some 4 million police-monitored public surveillence cameras have been installed, 200,000 in London alone. The average Briton is photographed 300 times a day by both private and public cameras.

So, what you want goes something like this:

We start banning certain types of guns. The crime rate does not move, then there's a media-induced frenzy about some shooting.

So, we ban more guns. The crime rate still does not move, or worse, moves up. The public cries for action.

So, with the gun boogyman finally removed from the situation and not able to be blamed anymore, the government decides to spends billions of dollars on millions of security cameras, operations centers, and people to watch them.

And when the cameras don't work... then what? Automatic facial recognition software? Massive government computers automatically identify everybody on the streets and put it in a database? Other computers analyse the time, date, location, and person in an attempt to create a link to crime patterns? Oh, and we need a system to track cars, as well. Recording plate numbers through intersections. Then we need to correlate that information with credit-card purchases, bank deposits and withdrawals, subway and bus usage information, and airline traval. Maybe the charitable donations on your taxes as well...

So, now I have no guns and no privacy, public or private. And the crime rate still hasn't changed.

Yeah, it's really worth it for zero net crime rate change.

[piedmont]

125. krispos, how dare you forget my favorite measure....

The kitchen knife ban!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

edit: didn't realize there's no t in rofl!

[krispos42]

128. Oh, that's right. Silly me!

Of course we have to ban kitchen knives. Here are tools specifially designed for stabbing and slicing meat. And what are humans?

MEAT!!!!!

How could we have not seen this before?

And the oven! The ovens are specifically designed for cooking food! And what are humans made of?

FOOD!!!!!

Oh, the humanity!

[piedmont]

130. Soylent Green is people!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

[krispos42]

132. Had to look that one up... lol

Yeah, we'll have to eat only raw soft food now. No ovens, no knives... Hello, cheese!

For my last meal I want a 5-pound block of chedder. I want to bubble and brown when they throw the switch! lmao

[piedmont]

137. A 5 lb block? Heavens no! You might beat your neighbor with it.

or choke on it, or put your eye out. Besides, what would you cut it with? One them evil kitchen knives?

[krispos42]

123. Oh, and I forgot one other thing...

We have thousands of times the guns they do, with the aforementioned massive drug and employment problems, yet it's only three times higher. Fascinating...

[iverglas]

159. and if you don't read the truth

can you pretend it doesn't exist?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=132832&mesg_id=132995

Right here in this thread. You won't want to miss it. Of course, if you do, you can just keep on spewing the crap about firearms crime in the UK as if it were true ...

[krispos42]

160. Speaking of ignoring the truth....

We have thousands of times the guns they do, with the aforementioned massive drug and employment problems, yet it's only three times higher.

USA homicide rate: 4.3 per 100,000 per year
UK homicide rate: 1.4 per 100,000 per year

4.3÷1.4= 3.071

So where exactly was I ignoring truth? Where exactly was I pretending it didn't exist? Or is your response going to be that 3.000≠3.071?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita



On a seperate issue, note on page 54 of the British Home Office report you have a URL for.

In 1967, the UK homicide rate was 0.73 per 100,000 per year. In 2004/2005, it was 1.55 per 100,000 per year, the second-highest in the four-decade history of the report and over double 1967. Only 2002/2003 was higher, at 1.83 per 100,000 per year.

In 1967, the US homicide rate was 6.2 per 100,000 per year, 8.5 times that of the UK for the same year. In 2004, it was 5.5 per 100,000 per year, 3.5 times that of the UK.



We're getting better. They are not.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm


And the ratio of guns in the UK to the US...

United States: estimated 250 million firearms, divided roughly equally into handguns, rifles, and pistols
United Kingdom: 1,794,411 registered firearms, of which shotguns outnumber rifles about 4:1

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/global_1028/
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

The ratio of US to UK is about 139 to 1. I will note that number for the UK does not include unregistered firearms, so the actual ratio is almost certainly significantly lower depending on how many unregistered firearms (legal or otherwise) exist in the UK.

The ratio of US to UK populations are about 5:1, so on a per capita basis, the US owns as many as 28 times as many guns as the UK, but almost certainly much less, as noted above. And the US has vastly more handguns because the UK has always had severe restrictions on their ownership, and currently has a total handgun in that country. We also have vastly more of those dreaded 'assault weapons'.

[iverglas]

170. "The guy was a psycho fuckwad that had serious problems."

It is actually highly unlikely that he was a psycho, although he may have been a fuckwad.

He was apparently a controller. That's a bad enough thing, for the women and children whom such men try to subject to their wills. The problem is that when men like that become depressed to the point that they consider suicide, they quite often decide to take their (ex)partners and children with them.

This was a multiple murder-suicide, not a mere multiple murder. Your "slashed their throats with a carving knife" scenario (and the various references in this thread to similar forms of assault) really just doesn't apply. Very few people attempt to kill themselves by slashing themselves with a carving knife -- or suffocating themselves, or hitting themselves over the head with baseball bats, or other suchlike common homicide methods.

Someone whose plan is to commit suicide and take out a few people with him/her simply does not use blunt or sharp instruments. In the case of family homicides committed by men, firearms are way out in the lead as method of choice. Other kinds of murder-suicides tend to follow the same pattern: viz. both Marc Lépine and Kimveer Gill, the two men who committed murder-suicide at educational institutions in Montreal, just fer instance. They used semi-automatic long arms for the murder element and handguns for the suicide element.

As for the car crash and gas explosion scenarios, very few people really want to burn themselves alive or risk slow death, or miserable life, after a car crash.

This is an instance in which access to a firearm is almost a sine qua non for the event to occur. Murder-suicides of partners/families by controlling men may not account for a huge proportion of homicides, and the problem of their access to firearms may not be an easy one to solve, but it is simply ludicrous to pretend that everything would have turned out just the same in these particular cases if such men had not had access to firearms.


Even when they don't apparently need 'em, they seem to like to use 'em ...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/10/01/handelguilty031001.html

Jay Handel has been convicted on six counts of first-degree murder for killing his six children and burning their bodies at their home outside Quatsino, B.C.

... Handel had pleaded not guilty on grounds he was mentally ill at the time his children, ranging in age from two to 11, were killed.

... The defence had said that Handel knew what he was doing when he killed his children and when he set fire to the house. But they said he didn't know right from wrong at the time.

The Crown countered that Handel killed the children on March 11, 2002, to punish his wife Sonya who was planning to leave him.

... He previously testified how he drugged, strangled and shot his three sons and three daughters in March 2002 and then set their home on fire.

The question arises in this case -- as in the case of other crimes like robbery -- whether the homicides would have been committed at all if the person planning them had not the firearm that made the whole plan a sure thing. If a victim shows signs of resisting or escaping and you're wielding a knife or bat, you're risking failure and/or injury to yourself. And if you're setting out to kill your six kids, you might really be a little more likely to back down once you've got your hands on their throats, or even to form the plan if that is what it involves, than if you have a finger on a trigger.



Whew, thank goodness for preview. I had typed In the case of family homicides committed by me ...

[krispos42]

173. Enlightening

I usually leave the headshrinking to my mom. She's a social worker. I bought her "Bush on the Couch" for her birthday and she loved it...

I do wonder how this plays out in other countries like, for example, the UK or Canada. Does the controlling person kill the family, call the cops, then force the cops to shoot him? Does he jump into his car and plow into a bridge column at 110 mph while not wearing a seatbelt? Maybe a good old hanging from the staircase?

I don't understand his motivation at all. Even having my ex cheat on me and all the pain and lonliness that caused, even only having my son with me half of the times, I can't even imagine harming her or him.

I watch "Cops" regularly. Even seeing the events that unfold, seeing the testimony and end results of such actions, I still don't understand why at a gut level. My brain understands, my heart doesn't. I understand killing in war in my brain and in my heart. I understand killing in self-defense in my brain and in my heart. This kind of stuff... no. I understand that it happens without being able to emphathize with the emotions that drive it

[iverglas]

174. ah, even here, they get their hands on guns

That six dead kids case was in BC. A client of mine in Ontario was killed by the estranged criminal husband of her sister, with a handgun, when the sister discontinued his immigration sponsorship and he came gunning for her and her family.

That's what I meant by it not being an easy problem to solve -- it's the extreme and relatively uncommon result of firearms being available at all, basically. (Uncommon though it may be, though, the effects are horrific. It isn't really just one or two or six dead kids; it's families and communities and people devastated and traumatized; imagine being a Polytechnique or Dawson College student, and the permanent effect on the lives of those thousands of people.)

But obviously, in the case of my client's killer, he had the handgun illegally. Illegal access to handguns in Canada is far too easy, as a result, mainly, of smuggling from the US and theft from lawful owners in Canada. How likely that person would have been to climb in the family's window with a shotgun, or whether he would have been able to get hold of one, it's hard to say. But it's not too hard to say that access to handguns was behind quite a number of homicides in Canada in the last decade.

People in real extremis will indeed find ways of doing what they intend. Like this one:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012234

At 37, Killinger Johnson appeared to have it all. A physician and psychotherapist who often counselled depressed and suicidal people, she was pretty and fit, with a mortgage-free house and a charming new baby. But none of that mattered the morning of Aug. 11 when, at the start of rush hour, she leaped off a Toronto subway platform into the path of a train, her six-month-old son in her arms. The doctor, for all of her training and expertise, was beyond the reach of the help she offered her own troubled patients. She was in the throes of a severe form of postpartum depression, so depressed she did not want to live. Young Cuyler died instantly. At week's end, Killinger Johnson, the daughter of a medical professor and a psychologist, remained in critical condition in hospital, her devastated family at her side.

And of course there was Andrea Yates. But for the ones who aren't truly mad, like the controlling men who most commonly do these things, firearms really do offer the easiest path and access to firearms does have to be seen as a contributing cause.

[krispos42]

177. Low probability/high impact events

"Social panic" is what leads to the cries of gun control.

One of the practical reasons that I do not see strigent gun control laws as helping is that it is the same approach to the problem as the PNAC method of national security... if there's a one percent chance that Country X is helping terrorists, we have to treat it as if it is a certainty and respond accordingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_percent_doctrine

Well, we've seen how that works out in Iraq.

The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland was a horrific event. Yet it was a one-time tragedy by a madman. Unlike 9/11, it did not signify a coordinated series of attacks as part of a longer war against the UK by an organized and motivated enemy.

And acting from the mentality that you must do anything to prevent it from happening again is, I believe, impossible, counter-productive, and destructive. It works to make the price of the preventative measures less apparent.

I don't like it. I don't like sayings "Well, that incident was bad, but in the larger picture it isn't that bad" because I sound callous and uncaring and heartless. "Well, mass shootings happen" is another thing that sounds asshole-like and bloodhirsty.

I try to keep it in perspective. That is why I don't quote individual cases of self-defense gun use in response to these posts.

I know that in a massacre, it is the community that is traumatized due to the large number of fatalities in one location. But that trauma occurs whether its over big incident or sixteen individual incidents.

Handguns are banned now in the UK, so there haven't been any more mass shootings. Apparently the ban works. (Forget the mass bombing in July 2005.) But the murder rate is still comparatively high, and robberies and other violent crimes are up. In the 9 years since Dunblane, have 16 extra people died because of the ban? It's only by 1.78 murders per year that the national murder rate has to go up per year to negate any positive benefits of the handgun ban. And that number goes down with every year without a massacre.

It's shitty either way you look at it.

I am seeing my country destroyed by this mentality regarding terrorism and the "Global War" on it. Vital rights are being tossed in the scrapheap as an unaffordable luxury. Wars are being fought and Americans and Iraqis are dying in large numbers based on the "1% Doctine". My America is becoming unrecognizable.

And that means that the criminals and terrorists have won.

[Swede]

77. 50 megaton bombs don't kill people.

People kill people. :nuke:

[spoony]

138. Technically, that's correct :)

A 50 megaton bomb has never killed anyone. People have.

[William769]

134. I hate the NRA! With that said though

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. And have carried a concealed weapon in Florida since the mid 80's when they started issuing concealed weapons permits.

[slackmaster]

141. It's usually not worth the effort to respond to a rant as a rational talking point

But just in case the OP has some intention of engaging in a serious discussion, I'll try just once:

greiner3,

What part or parts of current laws would you change to reduce the frequency of tragic occurrences like the one cited, and how would you change them?

Also, please document how and when the NRA has prevented your desired legislation from happening.

Thanks in advance.

:popcorn:

[sir pball]

178. I'd like to add...

With all the frenzy here over the mean nasty scary "assault weapons", had an innocuous "sporting" 12-gauge pump-action shotgun been used, would you be blaming the Bradys/VPC/HCI for not pushing for a ban on them instead of semi-automatic centerfire rifles?

[Billy Ruffian]

180. That's just a sporting shotgun!

This one, though ... it's evil incarnate!



:sarcasm:

[sir pball]

181. That ain't evil..THIS is Evil! Hide the children!

Remington 11-87...once it takes off the "black BDUs" as it were:



I guess you can judge a book by its cover...anybody who finds the top gun unacceptable and the bottom one just fine care to explain their reasoning? Truly baffles me..

[krispos42]

182. I can! I can! :-)

I wrote the following response in a Gungeon post a few weeks ago. I think it's still relevent here...

When you touch a Mini-30, you are appreciating a finely-crafted sporting firearm with an action derived from John C. Garand's historic and storied war veteral "Rifle, Caliber .30 US, M1" and that never never never could ever be used to do anything but hunt dear, plink soda cans, and punch holes in paper.



When you touch a Kalishnikov-looking gun, you're a bloodthirty cop-killing, school-shooting, baby-bayoneting drug dealer who bought it at a gun show, which (as you all know) occur only in a mystic place called "Somewhere Else", next to nuclear power generators, asphalt plants, subsidized housing, and Katrina refugees, so that federal, state, and local laws governing firearm sales have no power.

[sir pball]

193. Uhoh

Just call me Johnny the Homicidal Maniac, instead of this

I bought this (both functionally identical - .308 semiautomatics)

Of course I can't hunt with either in PA, so I use this, with scope and bipod...

...even it's freaked a few people out, "why do you have a SNIPER RIFLE AAAAAAH". Guess black really does make a rifle evil.

[krispos42]

198. You can't hunt with a semi-auto in Penn? n/t

[sir pball]

201. Says the PA game regs:

"Unlawful Firearms & Devices: 1) Automatic and semi-automatic
(autoloading) rifles and handguns; 2) air or gas operated rifles
and handguns."

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/digestpdfs/2006/general_regulations.pdf

Moot issue for me, I prefer bolt-action for deer - I go against the common wisdom on COM/heart-lung shot placement and aim for the brainstem, accuracy counts to make it a clean kill.

[jody]

202. GENERAL HUNTING REGULATIONS say semi-auto unlawful but also says legal if plugged.

Unlawful Firearms & Devices: 1) Automatic and semi-automatic (autoloading) rifles and handguns; 2) air or gas operated rifles and handguns.

Firearms - Magazine Capacity: It is unlawful to hunt small game, furbearers, turkeys, waterfowl or crows with a manual or autoloading shotgun unless the magazine is limited to a two-shell capacity. A plug must be a one-piece filler installed so it cannot be readily removed without disassembling the gun or magazine.

[sir pball]

209. Rifles/handguns v. shotguns. n/t

[jody]

211. You're right so why are semi-auto rifles bad and semi-auto shotguns good? n/t

[sir pball]

213. I think..

..they want to keep people from emptying the magazine at anything that moves (and frankly, having seen what I've heard called the world's largest, drunkest milita turn out for PA deer season, that's probably a good idea). It occured to me that the shotguns might be allowed, with the block, because traditionally one uses a double for hunting and a semiauto with a two-round capacity is functionally equivalent. They probably didn't think about one in the hole, but we all know legislators don't always think things through that well.

[benEzra]

199. All of those are legal for hunting in NC. (n/t)

[shield20]

165. And I would like to thank those against gun ownership for this..

Occurrence of Rape

Rape is a serious problem in the United States today. The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan.
...

Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault (National Crime Victimization Survey, 1997). A study among college women has shown that 1 out of every 5 college age women report being forced to have sexual intercourse. (1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey) 22% of all women say that they have been forced to do sexual things against their will, where only 3% of men admit to ever forcing themselves on a woman.

http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php


I love knowing there are plenty of organizations out there telling women not to resist a violent assault against them, because that is the best way to avoid being a victim. They must be THRILLED AND PROUD that in 2002 there were around 260 forcible rapes a DAY in America. I can only hope the women in my family will not learn the hard way how STUPID it is to count on the suppossed...goodwill(??) of a murdering raping scumbag then on their own capabilities to defend themselves. They will understand why it so important that pro 2nd ammendment groups like the NRA help protect their rights - NOT TO BE A VICTIM.

Really it is amazing so many choose to be victimized when rights guaranteed in the constitution can/are be used so successfully to prevent such attacks.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

169. and I would like

to tell you to take your vile exploitation of victimized women and put it in the same place I suggest that anyone who chooses to exploit anyone's pain and fear for a cause not of their own choosing put it.

I love knowing there are plenty of organizations out there telling women not to resist a violent assault against them, because that is the best way to avoid being a victim. They must be THRILLED AND PROUD that in 2002 there were around 260 forcible rapes a DAY in America.

And there are a number of things you must be. You'd have to be, since no one else would voice such ignorant filth in public.

I can only hope the women in my family will not learn the hard way how STUPID it is to count on the suppossed...goodwill(??) of a murdering raping scumbag then on their own capabilities to defend themselves.

And I will hope that the women in your family have more sense than to allow themselves to be exploited in the service of your self-serving agenda.

[shield20]

171. So facts are exploitation??? Don't see it.

Don't refuse to see that exploitation (vile or otherwise) has nothing to do with this issue, REALITY however has everything to do with it. The reality is that really terrible things happen to good people; the reality is that there is evil in this word, and that there are those who gladly prey upon others, most often those seen as weaker and ill-prepared. Preying on others - now THAT is exploitation.

I am sure there are those who don't live in fear of assaults (sexual or otherwise), as I am sure there are those that do see the possibility exists, and some to an extreme. For whatever reasons many just choose not to be best prepared to defend against an event...I only hope naivete isn't one of them. Being fed false statistics about say, how safe it is not to resist an assault, like blaming inadamit objects or certain political groups for criminal behavior, is a dis-service to those who could easily and responsibly do more for themselves once they choose not to be victimized - if they only knew better. Truth. Reality...not emotional hype and irrational accusations.

I do agree you should not allow yourself to be exploited OR victimized.

[Small Axe]

203. The right to self-defense is a basic human right

Some people want to take that right away, because they believe the average citizen isn't qualified to make decisions regarding his or her own protection. They would rather us all hide behind momma's skirt, and rely on government for protection.

Any honest police officer will tell you, 95% of the time they show up at an incidient after it's over. They take a report.

[Township75]

172. One can practically bet on....

someone making a drivel filled shitty post but never defending it.

[SteveM]

176. Some progressive Dems addiction to prohibition

gets us into real trouble with sound policy and good-thinking. When I was in college and grad school ages ago, I was taught that the root causes of violence were poverty, lack of good jobs and opportunity, poor education and rotten family life/upbringing. Now, it seems, many Democrats have taken a cue from the drug prohibitionists and focused their attention on a piece of metal: prohibit these guns and cure the violence problem. So much for higher education; so much for tackling real social ills.

I think the real reason liberal "prohis" like this approach is so they can lance their own boils of animosity and act like the big boys on the far right; its so frustrating to have those bullies do it to us without reacting with fury and hatred. Trouble is, they know exactly how your reaction and hatred will be directed: against millions of law-abiding gun owners. You may not like the culture that surrounds many gun-owners, but to hate them and attempt to punish them with legislation will get you repeatedly slammed against the wall. And deservedly so.

End the prohibition-ism and let's get back to solving the crime problem by going after the causes we all learned about. It's more prosaic and less romantic, but the alternative of getting off to hateful passion is not only failure but counter-productiveness.

[Small Axe]

205. So right. Prohibition does not work.

Didn't we already figure this out once?

And the root cause of most homocides today is the so-called war on drugs.

[Small Axe]

183. Are you going to thank bathtub makers and the water dept. for 'allowing' Andrea Yates to kill?

Or thank Stanley for 'allowing' Mark Barton to murder his family with a hammer?

The NRA is a right-wing lobby, more concerned with protcting gun manufacturers than gun owners. I am a gun owner, but I would never join the NRA.