Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Shooter used legitimately purchased guns to kill students

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 05:34 PM
Original message
Shooter used legitimately purchased guns to kill students

"He bought a Sig Sauer 9mm on Aug. 6 and a Highpoint .380 on Dec. 30. Two of the weapons the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun were purchased less than a week ago, on Saturday, authorities said.

He had a valid permit required for all Illinois residents who buy or possess firearms, authorities said."

"There were no red flags. He was an outstanding student, an awarded student" who was even "revered" by faculty and fellow students, Grady said. "A fairly normal, undistressed person."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23171567/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gee; no replies. Quelle surprise. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. There's not much to say.
Everything she said is true.

This guy purchased firearms, legally, in one of the most restrictive states in the Union as far as gun control goes. He passed NICS background checks, had a permit, the whole nine yards.

Ultimately, it didn't stop anything.

There are only two things that I could see being done further that could have had an impact:

1) Ban and confiscate all firearms. Ain't gonna happen. That's some 40 billion dollars worth of private property you are talking about - property that is often considered family heirloom stuff. Property aside, there is likely a significant portion of firearm owners who would see a move by the government to confiscate firearms as the signal that tyranny and the time for violent action has arrived. It may well incite civil war.

2) Allow the federal government complete access to all private medical records so that they can make a determination on your suitability to own a firearm. Boy is this opening a can of worms. Are you going to deny the beaten housewife who is on anti-depressants because her life sucks so bad the ability to buy a firearm when she decides to finally defend leave her abusive husband? Already a lot of people don't get mental health treatment because of the associated stigma - do we want to add the burden of losing your second amendment rights if you seek it? Do we really want to let our government get into the business of being an aribter of what we can and cannot do based on their assessment of our medical condition? I don't know the answer to this one. Maybe there ought to be a flag that goes into NICS for all persons that are taking certain drugs. Maybe if you are taking certain drugs you have to get special permission before being found competent to own firearms.

I really don't see anything else that could be done that could have prevented this situation, other than allowing people to carry weapons in nearly all public places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boomer 50 Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Third option and the only one that will make a difference......
Pass shall issue concealed carry and allow those students who have a permit to carry to defend themselves and others. Gun bans, restrictions and barring self defense only makes it easier for the bad guys who won't obey the law anyway.... I mean come on, they are going to murder people, think a stupid gun law is going to stop them? How about giving some of these victims the opportunity to fight back and live?

And you know that people blame Dems for these restrictions and this will only help the Repubs in the elections.

When people realize that gun bans and restrictions kill innocent people and repeals of this shit happens, then you'll see far fewer of these tragic horrors happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
50. In other words, to hell with the rest of us, huh?
Only gun-toters have a right to safety and if you don't have a gun you have to go out a buy one and keep it on your person at all times. Way to go, Einstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #50
96. I did not say that.
Only gun-toters have a right to safety and if you don't have a gun you have to go out a buy one and keep it on your person at all times. Way to go, Einstein.

I don't believe only "gun-toters" have a right to safety. Nor am I saying you have to go out and buy one and keep it on your person at all times. I'm not sure how you got that from my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
134. I support everybodys wish
to be a grass eater. Just dont try to force me to eat grass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #50
154. Not at all.
That's the great thing about concealed carry. It works in a manner similar to the "herd immunity" principle.

Assume you and I were in the same public place; a mall, restaurant, whatever you prefer. Also here is a creep with a sawwed-off who decides we're using up too much air, or whatever goes through a creep's head. You don't have to tools to respond to this threat, but I do. That doesn't mean I can prevent all harm to innocents, and it's stupid to imagine I could, but my being there means you have a far better chance to survive.

Hence, there's no reason for every law-abiding citizen to carry or even own a gun. My mother and stepsister hate the idea. But they feel safe and secure in the knowledge that my stepdad and I own and carry legally.

Simply put: If you agree to let me carry my gun, I'll agree to protect you. I'm more than happy to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
43. Thank you for allowing a full two minutes for a coherent, detailed response,
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. LOL, an ANTI
that's quicker on the draw than us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ac2007 Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. What is the problem then?
This monster obtained his arms through legal means. No mean feat given he also possessed a valid Illinois FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card aka a gun license) which is a prerequisite to buying any gun in that state.

What perfect law or process are you going to suggest now that will be able to predict future criminal behavior so it can be applied at the moment of purchase to prevent a crime such as this from being committed again?

Or better yet, what law, process or regulation are you going to suggest that might actually have a realistic chance of being implemented by any political party? Hint: Total gun bans, forced confiscation, national registry and licensing will not fly or pass muster. Nor would any of these have prevented this.

I fail to see your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The shooter was also taking psych meds....
anybody taking those sorts of meds should not be allowed to purchase weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Why not?
Just because someone is on some form of medication does not mean they have given up their rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That particular "form" of medication...
is for someone who is not of sound mind. People not of sound mind have limited rights in other areas, why not guns for the safety of the populace?

The mentally ill should not be able to purchase weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Ignorance is not a good position from which to argue
Being of "unsound mind" in the legal sense which would limit your rights also tends to entail being in a full-time psychiatric care facility and being incapable of caring for yourself.

Obviously this was not the case here.

So, since the person is capable of surviving in society on his own, and is deemed quite capable of making any other decisions he should wish to make, why should he have to give up his rights?

In this country, we don't strip people of their rights without due process, and seeing a physician or taking medication is NOT due process.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. The shooter was irresponsible...
he stopped taking his meds. He obviously wasn't capable of "taking care of himself".

And a several people are dead or injured.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes, this is true
Unfortunately, this is going to happen, and there is nothing you can do about it. He gave every indication to his doctor and to everyone around him that he was a normal, responsible individual and based upon legal standards, he was quite capable of being in society.

People are irresponsible all the time, and unfortunately that irresponsibility kills people. While this is regrettable, it does not justify taking away rights because someone MIGHT be irresponsible.

People are irresponsible when they drive automobiles at times, and kill large numbers of people. In fact, this happens far more often than something such as this. By your logic, should we prevent people from owning cars because they MIGHT do something irresponsible with them? No, we don't do this. Instead, what we do, is expect people to be responsible for their own safety while driving.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
52. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
60. Gun owners believe guns should always be the exception.
Gun manufacturers are the real culprit in the obsession with guns here. They spend bazillions in ads, lobbyists, marketing, etc. to make guns seem like an innocuous product that is being done wrong by those who want guns heavily controlled or banned altogether. It's advantageous for right winger when a country is terrified of even walking out on the street because it's so filled with guns that there's no guarantee you'll get back home alive. A nation that is scared even of being shot in the manner of all these school shooters, road rage shooters, and all kinds of shooters, is a nation that will sit quietly while a fascist-Nazi government takes over.

That's why gun clubs and the NRA are filled with right wingers and its presidents are right wing extremists. No surprise there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #60
93. "Bazillions?"
Do you know how large the US gun industry is? The total revenue for every gun-related business in the country is around $2-2.5 billion a year. The McDonald's corporation alone makes more than $12 billion a year. There are only two publicly traded gun companies -- Smith & Wesson and Ruger, and S&W has been bounced around between different holding companies like a football. These are not signs of a powerful industry. The NRA's lobbying power doesn't come from the gun industry, but from its 4 million dues-paying members who don't tolerate abrogations of their rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #93
104. Oh. So the gun industry is in it to do a public service. So tender aren't they?
It's not really profits that keeps them there. I feel like giving them a little hug, they're so sweet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #104
114. As was said...
Oh. So the gun industry is in it to do a public service. So tender aren't they?

The gun industry is relatively weak. The profit margins probably are not that high, and well-known firearms companies go out of business all the time, like Winchester did recently.

The gun lobby is powerful. No, they do not act as a public service. They represent the interest of tens of millions of gun owners who pay them to represent their interests.

Yes, it sucks that in our system of government you have to pay money to have a voice to represent your interest. But the fact is, there are some 80 million firearm owners in the United States, and they have demonstrated they are very willing and able to pay to have their voices heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #114
125. Gun manufacturers are the reason the gun lobby is powerful.
Here is a list of reports and books I'm considering reading. I'll bet you would not recommend any. An interesting point is that the gun industry was 1.4 billion profit strong in 1999. Wonder how much it is making today?


Firearms Production in America: A Listing of Firearm Manufacturers in America With Production Histories Broken Out by Firearm Type and Caliber, Violence Policy Center, Washington, DC, November 1999, 182 pages.
This bi-annual report details gun production in the United States from 1975 to the most recent data available from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). It lists every manufacturer that produced more than 1,000 firearms in any given year by federal licensee name or trade or product name. Firearms Production in America is a key tool for the news media, elected officials, public health professionals, attorneys and victims involved in firearms litigation, and any public interest organization involved in the firearms violence debate.

Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America, Tom Diaz, The New Press, New York, 1999, 258 pages.
This essential book moves beyond the familiar gun control debate and offers the first examination ever of the $1.4 billion gun industry. It reveals how the gun industry responded to stagnation in sales by producing increasingly deadly guns. It also shows how the industry collaborates with the gun press; capitalizes on sales to law enforcement; and targets women, youth, and minorities.

NRA Family Values: The Extremism, Racism, Sexism, Legal Woes, and Gun Industry Ties of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors, Josh Sugarmann and Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center, Washington, DC, June 1996, 10 pages.
This report counters the NRA's claim that it is the nation's "oldest civil rights organization" working to protect the interests of minorities, women, and gun owners. An examination of the NRA's board of directors shows some members belong to militia groups or sympathize with the extremist fringe, while others can be accurately described as racist or sexist, and some have had brushes with the law.

National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower and Fear, Josh Sugarmann, National Press Books, Bethesda, MD, 1991, 285 pages.
This in-depth book details the NRA's history from its beginnings up until the early 1990sincluding the organization's own internal battles. At the same time, it offers a detailed history of gun control in America and recounts most of the major gun control battles of the twentieth century. Finally, the book details the activities of other pro-gun organizations and members of the firearms industry.

Ring of Fire: The Handgun Makers of Southern California, Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH, Violence Prevention Research Program, Sacramento, California,1994, 107 pages.
"Ring of Fire" describes a small group of handgun manufacturers in southern California that produced the majority of Saturday Night Specials or "junk guns" during the 1990s. These guns are disproportionately involved in crime. This study details the origin and operation of the Ring of Fire gun makers, reviews their marketing tactics, and suggests legislative proposals to reduce the availability of their guns.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #125
127. If you really wish to educate yourself...
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 12:19 PM by EricTeri
...you may want to review information from sources which are not so obviously and openly biased in favor of gun control.

For pete's sake - thats like a racist pointing to KKK propaganda as "proof" of his claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Well then allow anyone to buy uranium. Why not? Don't remove our rights, eh? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Not even remotely the same thing
Are you aware of any private uranium mines? How many people could actually even afford it?

I see where you're headed, and besides being incredibly transparent, its also an amazingly stupid comparison. Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ac2007 Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. You already can.
http://www.unitednuclear.com/uranium.htm

You really should research things before spouting off your assumptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Cool!
Learn something new every day. Thanks! I'll have to keep that one for later :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Wow. I had no idea! Our country really is fucked up by people wanting to sell killing methods nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Killing methods?
I don't see anyone selling killing methods. Would you be so kind as to point me to one of those companies? I'd really be curious to see their marketing literature.

If you meant "items which could be used as weapons", well i hate to break it to you, but ANYTHING can be a weapon - its all how its used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plague Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
31. It saddens me that you beat me to this (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Yes, this monster obtained weapons for murder, all perfectly legal nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Yep - he sure did.
Again, do you have any point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
45. Are you angry that he didn't buy them from a gun show?
Becuase if he had bought them from a private seller at a gun show, you could be screaming about the "gun show loophole".

If he had bought them from an ad placed in a newspaper, you could be screaming about the "newspaper loophole".

If he had stolen them from his parents, you could be screaming about safe-storage laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
51. You don't fail to see the point.
When pro-gun control people try to stress that we need stricter gun laws, you say that that would be chipping away at your Second Amendment rights, and that most crimes are committed by people who buy illegal guns. Now that we've found that this monster bought guns LEGALLY, you say that no form of gun control would work. YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THE POINT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #51
86. Gun conrol laws do work
Sometimes. Of course, deterring people that have no regard for the consequences of their actions, or indeed, their own lives, is exceedingly difficult.

But enacting "moral panic" laws to try to prevent this kind of thing is silly. Remember how well that worked out after 9/11?

For every person killed on a school campus by a deranged nut, thousands are killed in everyday killings over love, lust, drugs, alcohol, and other stupid reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #51
115. I know I fail to see the point.
Look, this monster bought his guns legally in one of the most restrictive states in the nation concerning firearms.

He passed a NICS background check on at least 3 ocassions - in December, August, and as late as February 9th.

He had a state-required license to own firearms.

He satisfied the 48 and 72 hour waiting periods.

And still, at the end of it all, he decided to violate the law anyway and take his firearms where they were not permitted and commit murder.

What form of control WOULD work?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
153. So basically it's the fault of all those victims that they were remiss in not arming themselves?
Be sure and let their families know how you feel about their dead kid. Helps a lot in the grieving process, you know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex1775 Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Illinois also has waiting periods on purchasing firearms...
24 hours for long guns and 72 hours for pistols.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Did you have a point with this thread?
Yes, he bought them legally, and had legally obtained the FOID card to purchase them, as required by IL state law.

To me this is nothing more than proof once again that gun control is not the solution. Does it indicate something else to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
47. Excellent point n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. How about forcing doctors to turn them in?
Are you willing to give up some medical privacy for a little security?

The force MD's by threat of a fine, prison term and loss of license to report all prescriptions of psychotropic drugs to the NICS system and disallow purchasees of guns or ammunition for those people.

We already do it for people with Restraining Orders.

The ACLU has been fighting this on the grounds of medical privacy, but where do you draw that line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. How about this...
Accept that no law will prevent a crime, only provide penalties.

Gun control has been the knee-jerk reaction for 40 years or so. It has had its time to prove it could work, and the reality is, it does not. It is time to accept this, and move on.

Remember, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.

Obviously gun control hasn't worked in this case - what on earth makes you think it will work the next time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Penalties don't matter to the mentally ill. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. No they dont
Which rather proves my case.

No form of penalty will PREVENT This from occurring - only provide punishment after the fact.

Since you're advocating stripping people of their rights because they choose to seek medical attention, have you considered the law of unintended consequences which would cause people with minor issues to avoid help because of the legitimate fear of losing their rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. I disagree...
I have read in the past that many people who should be seeking mental health services are not doing so because of the stigma associated with it.

Add real civil penalties to receiving mental health services and I would have to believe it would keep more people from seeking them.

You guys already think gun owners are crazy. Do you really want to keep the craziest of them from seeking mental health treatment for fear of loosing their firearms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. In this instance...
an asshole that didn't want to take his meds anymore went on a shooting spree.

Crazy people have no business being permitted to purchase firearms. They can not be trusted.

If it came down to a choice for me... get rid of my suicidal tendencies and/or delusions, or keeping my guns, I would choose my mental health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. How many veterans would fall into this catagory? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #40
95. You mean veterans like this?.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #95
100. Those.
But in the case of Matthew Sepi, it sounds like it was a justifiable homicide except for the weapon he used. Can't carry concealed without a permit!

But also just the ones that need somebody to talk to. They've been through numerous tours in Iraq because our Dear Fucking Leader doesn't have the stones to a) have a draft, b) call it a mistake and pull out, or c) dramatically increase mental-health benefits to our soldiers returning home.

Do we prohibit all returning Iraq vets from owning a firearm until and unless they're psychologially cleared?

Do we evaluate all soldiers upon return and enter that information into NICS?

Do we update that evaluation at regular intervals, and if the information changes from "can own" to "can't own", do the police raid their houses and seize the guns?

I dunno. It's a can of worms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SCRUBDASHRUB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
94. I have a problem with people calling the mentally ill or anyone
who seeks mental health treatment "crazy."

Is someone who goes to a psychiatrist so they can get help, say, for PMDD and being prescribed anti-depressants crazy? Is someone who goes to a therapist to vent issues crazy?

More people than you think are taking meds for anxiety, depression, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/09/antidepressants/in...

<snip>

According to a government study, antidepressants have become the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. They're prescribed more than drugs to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, or headaches.

In its study, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 2.4 billion drugs prescribed in visits to doctors and hospitals in 2005. Of those, 118 million were for antidepressants.

High blood pressure drugs were the next most-common with 113 million prescriptions. The use of antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs -- those that affect brain chemistry -- has skyrocketed over the last decade.

"Fifty percent of African-Americans who have depression don't seek treatment for it," she said. "Not enough people are getting the treatment they need."

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
97. OK..
Crazy people have no business being permitted to purchase firearms. They can not be trusted.

OK, but know that this means opening up your private medical data to the government. What other conclusions are they going to draw about you based on your medical history? What other penalties will they exact up on you, and for what conditions?

If it came down to a choice for me... get rid of my suicidal tendencies and/or delusions, or keeping my guns, I would choose my mental health.

I think a lot of fiercely devoted firearm owners would hesitate before making that decision. I think I would. Also, I wonder if people would not go crazy and then not be able to make rational decisions like that anymore because they have gone crazy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #37
99. And here is the proof...
From CNN:

Meanwhile, the AP reported that Kazmierczak's parents had placed him in a Chicago psychiatric treatment center after high school. A former employee of the center said Kazmierczak habitually cut himself and wouldn't take his medication, according to the AP.

The ex-employee, Louise Gbadamashi, told the AP she could not recall Kazmierczak being violent during his stay of more than a year at the Thresholds-Mary Hill House in the late 1990s.

"He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she told the AP. "That was part of the problem."

As an undergraduate at Northern Illinois in 2006, Kazmierczak wrote a paper called "Self Injury in Correctional Settings: 'Pathology' of Prisons or Prisoners?" Former professors said he had a keen interest in prison social work.

The AP also reported Kazmierczak briefly had a job as a prison guard in 2002 before failing to show up for work.

He also told a friend that he was given a psychological discharge from the Army after six months in the service in 2001-2002, according to the AP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
108. What kind of due process would you propose for "crazy people?" Any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. Are you saying...
Are you saying that gun control is failed even in gun control utopia Illinois? Where...you know...gun owners are liscensed, registered, and so on? You gun haters got your way in Illinois, and I'd really like to hear your explanation of why the measures you treasure just aren't preventing incidents like this one. And don't hand us the "well, they can be bought out of state" line. In THIS case, they weren't. Why didn't your "solutions" prevent the shooting in Illinois?


Are you attempting to use the failure of the measures you normally hold in such high regard as evidence that more of the same failed "solutions" need to be put into effect?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Guns have only one purpose. This man bought a gun (for that purpose), and children are now dead nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Even if your assertion were correct...
Edited on Fri Feb-15-08 07:58 PM by EricTeri
...and it isn't, so what?

Guns have far more than one purpose, and it ultimately comes down to how the person using it chooses to use it.

Gun control laws do not make guns magically go away. That genie cannot be put back in the bottle. So, rather than explore some Utopian fantasy where guns don't exist, how about you deal with the real world?

By the way - university students are hardly children. Your hyperbolic statements only make you that much easier to discredit.

So, other than simply spewing ignorance, do you have any suggestions as to what could be done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. No, not "even if." My assertion *IS* correct. Guns have only one purpose, to murder
If guns could not be purchased, this man might have stabbed one kid. If he were Spiderman-swift, maybe 2 kids. They'd have been sent to intensive care and would be fine. He'd have stabbed himself in the heart and died, or stabbed himself in the chest somewhere be in a hospital under watch and awaiting his healing for his arraignment to take place.

INSTEAD, because of the love of profits of GUN MANUFACTURING CORPORATIONS, we have to have guns shoved down our gullets via propaganda, lobbying, and promotion of violent gun loving movies, violent gun loving music and violent gun loving computer games, and we have to live in constant fear of shit like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. and if frogs had wings...
Edited on Fri Feb-15-08 08:37 PM by EricTeri
they wouldn't bump their ass when they walked.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, guns DO exist, CAN be purchased (or stolen or made by hand) and people are going to use them to do bad things.

As you have been asked before, do you have any ideas which are rooted in reality?

One more thing - if you think a gun's purpose is only to murder, does that mean police officers carry them so they can commit murder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. no cops, don't carry guns so they can commit murder
they carry guns so they can kill people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. You're right. It's a matter of semantics. Under the law, cops are allowed to kill using guns
Sometimes those cops get killed by people who are not cops, using guns. The overwhelming majority of cops are in danger constantly due to the proliferation of gun ownership because of the money gun corporations put into lobbying, advertising, and the creation of activities and clubs pertaining to such efficient killing machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. Citizens are allowed to kill using guns, too.
But that's not why I posted this nifty graph.



http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/leok.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #41
57. Wow! That's simply amazing given that gun murders are higher today than in the 70s
So basically cops are the only ones that are getting shot less since gun violence has gone up? Wonder what the real story behind this study is? I'll have to research it, if you don't mind. (Particularly since in my neck of the woods a day doesn't go by when cop isn't killed by a handgun owned or stolen by some individual). :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #57
63. Gun murders are not higher today than in the 70's.






And in your neck of the woods you have a lot of bad things happening concurrently. A lot of illegal immigration is one, and illegal immigrants tend to not call the police to report crime and to deal with problems themselves.

It's a red state, so forget a progressive income tax and good public schools.

It's full of retirees on a fixed income, so forget about raising taxes.

It's a major illegal drug trans-shipment point, so gang activity is hopping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. Do you mind if I research that myself rather than take your word for it? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. Not at all..
although if you researched the graphs I posted, you would find that they link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a federal agency.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm

Enjoy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. I think I'm going to research that and much more. I'll get back with you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indy Lurker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #29
49. Police never try to KILL with a gun
And neither should any defensive gun use.

The police and CCW holders use deadly force to STOP a criminal from doing great bodily harm or worse to another.

This is done by firing at the center of mass of the criminal until their bad behavior stops.

If Star Trek phasers were available to stun, they would easily be the weapon of choice. At this time however, the handgun is the most effective tool available to STOP a criminal trying to hurt another.

There are other tools available, such as tasers and pepper spray, but they are far less effective at STOPPING a criminal.


Fornatuely for the police, they have firearms available to protect themselves from criminals when they work. This is why their jobs are relatively safe compared to something like cab driver or pizza delivery.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #49
58. I agree with my cop friends. Only cops should have guns. Guns are a danger that gets in the way of
cops doing their jobs. Of course, gun owners who are not cops don't agree. They're obsessed with thinking of themselves as some sort of Clint Eastwood in one of those archaic gun violence movies he used to do. Thank goodness he's now passed MEN-opause and is producing feel-good movies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #58
64. Yes, guns do get in the way of Cops raiding the wrong
houses and killing their owners, dumping people out of wheel chairs, beating up 14 year old skateboarders. Cops that are the only ones professional enough to handle a Glock right before they shoot themselves in the leg. You are right, only cops should have guns. :puke:

Or as my favorite saying goes "when life or death is only a matter of seconds, the cops are only minutes away."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #64
69. Oh a cop hater? As for handling a murder implement, I didn't say you weren't capable of handling
murder implements. Anyone could learn to handle an implement of murder. So what? It's still an implement of murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. Wasn't that a cop in Wisconsin last year that killed
five people over his ex girlfriend dating someone else? Cop hater? guess you don't know me than like some others do. I have almost thirty years LE behind me, military and civilian. I do know this cops are people, with all the same weaknesses and prejudices as non cops. And one thing I do know is that most "civilians" are better gun handlers than 98% of the cops out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #58
87. check this out
http://www.aphf.org/survey.html click on the link the bottom of the paragraph and you will see how the majority of police officers support gun rights

I dont know many cops that are anti-gun..im friends with many cops, i go shooting with them, we go out drinking together. They are all pro-gun. They realize that most legal gun owners are not the ones shooting at them.

Your friends may support gun control but the majority of cops don't. hell, my friend bought a Semi-auto Uzi off of a cop (legally) and got some standard capacity magazines too. I also work in a gun store and sell guns to many cops, all of them seem to support gun rights when i talk to them.

Also i might add that the majority of the American public still believes handguns and firearms in that matter should be legal....are you willing to tell the majority of americans "well we know whats best" sounds like something W would say.

You are just as much as an extremist as the people you are "fighting" against.


btw if you do have stats that show police officers do support gun control (and i dont mean big city chiefs) i would like to see it...im really curious because i have found no such poll or article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiDemGunOwner Donating Member (166 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #58
152. I don't know how many "cops" you count as friends,
but I have many who are rank and file police officers and federal agents...almost all of them disagree with most gun control efforts and most believe law abiding citizens owning are not a danger to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiDemGunOwner Donating Member (166 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
151. That's true...
Sometimes police officers are killed by criminals using guns, but, a study published in 2001, in the Journal of Law and Economics demonstrated that the number of police killings went down when legal gun ownership went up. Doesn't that mean more guns mean our police will be safer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plague Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Bombs?
What makes anyone believe that he wouldn't have considered strapping explosives to himself instead?

Where there is a will, there is a way. The weapon used can always be replaced or surpassed by another option. Never assume that removing firearms somehow prevents someone from committing mass murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
59. He could've! However a bomb is not as easy.....
I watched a program in which a bomb expert explained that to actually create a bomb and make it go off is so complex and requires such skill and good luck that the chances of it succeeding are not good.

However, buying guns and shooting 17 students is quite easy in the United States. The formula is as follows:
1) Buy guns
2) Go shoot students

Unless some legislation is passed that bans guns except in the hands of officials, this country will continue to be a shooting gallery with us as the ducks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
80. Are you going to go door to door and pick them up?
Unless some legislation is passed that bans guns except in the hands of officials,

Unless you go to the areas which have the highest rates of gun homicides and pick up those guns first you are not going to get past my front door you loon.

Do you actually think before you open your head or are you living in a bubble?

Explain exactly how your plan works?


this country will continue to be a shooting gallery with us as the ducks.

I always love it when one of you fanatics site the extreme danger in our society and in the next breath call law abiding responsible adults paranoid for possessing a firearm for defensive use.

and as for your utterly idiotic, moronic statements about guns only being for killing, tell it to these people you nut case fanatic:

http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/index_uk.asp...

From just three shooting events at the 1896 Olympic Games to 17 today, the sport has grown steadily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #80
105. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Plague Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #59
91. I disagree on your assessment of difficulty.
Explosives are incredibly easy to make. One need only take a quick search of the internet or even make a few buys from amazon.com to find any number of accurate and detailed guides to the creation and use of explosives. Indeed, one can get the base components for any number of explosive compounds from your local craft store and/or pharmacy, no questions asked.

To argue further, the Oklahoma City bombing was accomplished using a very simple explosive formula that was not only inexpensive to create, but just as easy and inexpensive to detonate.

Additionally, look up information on any number of teenagers that maim and kill themselves every year making simple pipe bombs.


As for your argument, that banning all guns would reduce the number of gun crimes. While that outcome is likely, I can't conceive of any way that such a law or regulation could be enforced in the United States as it stands. I'm told that there are nearly four guns to every one person in this country. I'm also aware that most 'gun nuts' hold thousands of rounds of ammunition. Nobody can tell you where these are, who owns them or how many they own.
That on it's own is a daunting task.

Consider that an entire occupying military force in Iraq still can't keep weapons out of insurgent hands, imagine trying to find and confiscate every firearm and ammunition cartridge in this country. Just the cost alone in manpower and money is staggering.

It's one of those ideas that sounds great until you look at the logistics of it. It's simply impossible to accomplish. That and consider how many otherwise innocent and good people would be thrown in prison or have their property taken from them in such an effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. I've been misusing my firearms then.
No, not "even if." My assertion *IS* correct. Guns have only one purpose, to murder

I've got firearms in my collection that date back to the 1920s. None of them have every been used for murder, and they get used a lot. I guess I've been misusing my firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #34
61. Well, think of it this way, if someone is a collector of nuclear bombs......
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 11:35 AM by Sarah Ibarruri
... one could say:

1) He's a whacko who likes collecting nukes or
2) He's stashing them just in case one day he gets really pissed off.

Either one is disconcerting. I don't want around me people who are obsessed with guns. It's a clear indication there's something seriously wrong there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
111. Oh yes, the nuclear bomb argument.
Look, the "nuclear bomb" argument is hardly new. That old chestnut is the epitome of a straw man. No one is advocating the personal ownership of nuclear weapons.

I'm curious what you think is wrong with me because I am a staunch defender of the founding principles of this nation. I am an Eagle Scout. I am a college graduate. I have never committed a crime more serious than a moving violation. I believe I am an upstanding citizen in all respects.

Guns are not the obsession - freedom is the obsession. Guns are just the means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #61
129. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
east texas lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #24
39. Well, you can live in fear...
Or you can accept the harsh reality that there will always be those who would do harm to you
and yours, take personal responsibility for your survival, then take the necessary steps to
ensure that survival. Such as arming and defending yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #24
42. And home invasions would go up.
More and more people would face emboldened, knife or club-armed intruders that stabbed and bludgeoned innocents and raped women.

Oh, but it's okay because guns weren't used. I forgot about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #42
65. Where do you gun lovers get the concept that if guns are banned, illegal guns will remain undetected
Do you believe if guns are banned, and a prison sentence imposed on those who are in possession of guns, that guns will FOREVER continue to be pulled out of hiding to shoot, then magically hidden again, never to be found till the next shooting, for the rest of the history of the United States?

Where do you people come up with that? No, don't tell me. lol

If guns are banned, granted, the day after all guns will not have disappeared, nor the week after. Things don't happen in one fell swoop as in Hollywood sets. This is life, after all, and reality takes time. But guns will slowly disappear. Crooks will be found with them, honest people will turn theirs in, others will report those who don't (I would and I've never been a snitch for anything else, but I would rat out any gun owner in the blink of an eye!!!), and slowly the only guns that would be in existence, would be a piece here, and a piece there, maybe a few that came in from Mexico in a truck because gun owners build some kind of underground way to get guns, etc. They would pretty much disappear.

I think once you begin removing guns from the U.S., thieves with guns will spend most of their time in prison, and thieves that break into homes will use knives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
81. We can't stop billions of dollars of drugs flowing into this country!
Or hundreds of thousands of Latinos annually!

But we'll be able to make a gun-tight shell around us?

First off, you have to get Congress and 3/4th of the states to pass a new Amendment to the Constitution that a) repeals the Second Amendment, and b) specifically denies people the right to keep and bear arms.

Then you'd have to find and destroy 260 million guns.

Then, you'd have to also find all the guns stolen from cops and security guards and military bases as well as stop all those being smuggled in from overseas and through Mexico and Canada.

And this should scare the hell out of you as well...




http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/9mmPistol.shtml



But the real question is "Why do you think taking away guns will make us less peaceful?" First off, the law abiding will be the first to turn in their guns, and the career criminals (which are the real problem) the last. So under your plan we'd have decades where career criminals have guns but nobody else does except the cops. Sounds like a good recipe for crime run amok.

And second, without addressing the motives and drives for committing violence, trying to take away one means to commit them is an idea doomed to failure!


Sarah, you and I are in a room. I'm six feet tall and 250 pounds, and for the sake of this little example I'm also a violent criminal who'd decided to assault you. Behaps you came home while I was robbing you, perhaps I mistakenly thought the house was empty, perhaps I'm a rapist, perhaps I'm a junkie looking for prescription drugs. Whatever.

I'll let you have the choice in armaments,but we both have to have the same thing. Parity.

Do you want you and I to have matching: a) baseball bats, b) kitchen knives, c) bare hands, or d) .38 revolvers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #81
107. Sure we could. We don't.
Plus drugs are not for shooting 17 kids in a classroom. Drugs are something one does to oneself, not to ones neighbor. Guns are for killing the neighbor and everyone else around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #107
112. So then we need a police state?
It is so critially important to you that nobody have any guns that you're willing to... what?

Completely militarize our borders?

Shoot all illegal border crossers on sight?

Warrantless searches of all homes to confiscate guns?

Metal detectors on all street corners?



What?

Hey, I bet we can use the military's ground-penetrating radar to look for buried guns in people's backyards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #112
117. Why do you believe I'd resort to searches?
I believe that you ask people to turn over their guns and that's that. If they don't and they get caught somewhere somehow with a gun, they go to jail. It's that easy. Judging from the gun-loving going on in this country, turning this country from a shooting gallery to a pleasant place to live should take at least a decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #117
120. Fair enough.
Okay, who will turn in their guns first? What kind of citizen would be first in line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #120
124. Anyone who doesn't want to end up in prison? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. And who fears going to prison?
And, perhaps more imporantly, who does not fear going to prison?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #126
128. Anyone in their right mind should fear going to prison. Look, I'm not trying to be unreasonable....
I think simple, old fashioned hunting rifles are probably okay. I say probably because I'm not entirely sure this country can handle ANY guns whatsoever in any form. There's a lot of insanity and sociopathic behavior here due to the very savagery of its laws and its violent-based culture, so no, I'm not sure the U.S. can handle any guns. Aside from basic, old-fashioned hunting rifles I'd allow no other guns. Most assuredly nothing whatsoever automatic. Nothing else.

The most common argument I'm given by gun owners for owning guns is to defend themselves against the very problem they caused: gun murders due to gun availability thanks to them. That's like someone who's got COPD due to smoking, needing to CONTINUE to smoke because it helps him catch his breath. The problem was caused by gun availability, the problem has been exacerbated by gun manufacturers and their gun lobbies, their justification has continued because back in olden days we had no military and our now-archaic constitution had to have a way to fight a war in the absence of a military. However, now we're living in 2008 and we have a military. Our country has turned into some futuristic shooting gallery. It's time to STOP.

I understand gun owners have quite an obsession. So do drug addicts. It's really not my problem that people are obsessed. If something is creating a problem that is resulting in death and terror in society, it has to be dealt with, and firmly. The majority should not be forced to pay for the obsessions and addictions of the addicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #128
131. And since criminals don't fear prison (are not in their right mind)...
then who will turn in their guns last?

And when the law-abiding people like you and me turn in their guns, what will the criminals do with theirs?

And what invasive, intrusive procedures and gestapo-style tactics will the police and government start doing to combat the sudden outcry of the citizenry as crime goes up?


The most common argument I'm given by gun owners for owning guns is to defend themselves against the very problem they caused: gun murders due to gun availability thanks to them.


Most crimes are not committed with guns. Therefore, people don't own guns to stop gun-armed crooks, they own guns to stop crooks.

Shifting the murder weapon is the best you can hope for with this kind of logic.

In the UK less than 8% of homicides were performed with a gun, 56 in total. Is that a cause to celebrate? Not when the other 678 people killed per year are killed with "other".

The reported uses of "real" (not air gun) firearms in crimes has doubled in the last decade. Four years after banning handguns, handgun crime had doubled. Use of firearms in robbery and assault has gone up markedly in the past decade, nearly doubling just a few years after banning and confiscating handguns.

But don't believe me, look in the UK's Home Office report for England and Wales. Incidently, it's where I got the numbers for this graph:



http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. A gun criminal is a gun owner who committed a crime, or,
a thief of a legally-owned gun who committed a crime. I say put people in jail when they are found to have a gun. As time goes by, there will be less and less guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #135
145. But not less and less crime
So, we're back to where we started.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. i dont see how we are
a shooting gallery. we are still a relatively safe country. in each given year you only have a .0035% chance of getting killed by a gun. only 3.9 people per 100,000 die from gun fire- i know its higher than most other countries but it in no ways shows that we are a warzone. the reason you think its a war zone is due to a couple of factors. First off, there are 300 million people in this country, so there will be more murderes reported than in a place like the UK. Second, the media loves death and destruction- hell it sells.

the overwhelming majority of this country is safe- our streets are safe, our parks safe. There are horrible rare acts (though recently we have seen a spate of them- but that is probably nothing more than chance) but thats what they are- statistically rare. Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all homicides.

No one is arguing that we dont have a high homicide rate for a "western first world nation" But we are almost know where near a war zone or a "poor 3rd world crime ridden" nation.

to say we are a war zone insults the citizens of this country. the majority of people will live there lives without even experiencing a single act of crime against them.

the media promotes fear mongering- they profit over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #133
136. We are not a safe country. In my little block alone there have been thefts, shootings and there are
all manner of criminals living, and I don't live in a bad area. All you have to do is call up your local police department and they'll tell you what kinds of crimes occur in your area. From moms and daughters shot in a thefts, to road rage shootings, to jealous men shooting their wife, children and themselves, to disgruntled employees or former employees shooting employees and bosses, and much more. The U.S. has turned into a shooting gallery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #136
138. wow
do you know almost every other nation on earth has those same problems- safe is a relative term. there are places in that gun control paradise we call UK that you just dont want to be in. But we are generally safe- we have crime yes, but only a small fraction of our population experiences it. most people go to work, and come home, without ever feeling that there life was in danger- thats why we are safe.

Also i know the crime in my neck of the woods- lets see we had about 15 murders in my country (of about 1.3 million people), we have a home invasion rate that is the 2nd lowest in the nation. in my town alone (27,000 people) we had 1 shooting in the last 4 years- and that was a cracked out druggie from NYC who shot a cabbie over 10 dollars

do you know all the shooting "events" you mentioned in the above post only make up a small fraction of gun homicide. do you know the majority of gun homicide is criminal on criminal. Do you know many of those people have been let back on our streets because of our court system and all of our due process- lets get rid of that- hey its for the children you know. IT would be so much safer if everyone who got arrested would just be locked up without any question- better safe than sorry ya know.

we are in no way a shooting gallery- i dont know how you can even say that- are you looking at absolute numbers? only .0035% of people will die due to gun fire...i think thats hardly a high number.

its like the airplane crash scenario- after an airplane crash people start thinking how unsafe it is to fly- no one realizes the other 9,999 flights that made it safely that day. I was taught by my father that the we are generally safe- i dont know- maybe i grew up the last of a generation- but my father always talked about how our society has become afraid of our own shadow- how we are so afraid of crime and harm that we don't even allow our kids to ride bicycles up and down the block. I think as a society we have become too overprotective of ourselves (especially when it comes in terrorism). that doesnt mean we shouldnt take precautions and that there arent dangers out there, but it shouldnt consum our lives because it really isnt that big of a problem.

and when it comes to guns for self defense- i believe in my neighborhood there is very little need for it, but that doesnt mean i do not support it. its a personal choice and i'd be damned if id allow the government to make that choice for me.

Our murder rate may be higher than other 1st world nations but its not even close to the point where we need to be wearing bullet proof vests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. Oh? I lived in Spain and Israel for years. Israel is always in a state of war, so I did
know of incidents there - bombs. In fact, one of my friends was a woman who had had half her arm blown off. The country was filled with soldiers. There wasn't anywhere you didn't look where you didn't find a soldier. Very disconcerting. One is always being observed, there are searches everywhere, etc. Don't get me wrong I love the country, but it's a country under siege because of its state of threat from the surrounding Muslim countries, the fear that death might happen anytime because a bomb might go off, and because of military presence everywhere. Nothing happened to me there but then that's a country in war so I had friends that had been injured or maimed. I lived there 6 years.

In Spain, nothing happened to me and nothing ever happened to anyone I knew. I lived there 6 years as well.

Here in the U.S., I had 2 cars stolen, a friend of mine was raped at gunpoint, I was pickpocketed by a guy that held his pocket up at me in what seemed to be the shape of a gun in his jacket, and I knew a man who shot his wife, 2 kids, then himself because he was having financial problems. All this, in the past 9 years.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. god i dont know what neighborhood you live in
but i am truly sorry that you have to experience such things. my mother lived in NYC for 40 years and was never a victim of a crime...then again my father also lived in the city for 30 years and he had his car stolen and was stabbed. But i garuntee you spain has their rapes.

http://www.unodc.org//pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

it shows you crimes accross many nations and you will see many other nations have many common crimes such as rapes, murders, robberies.

according to that chart, spain had more robberies per capita than we had.

as i said before- in every country there are places you don't want to be in...someone like you who has traveled the world should know that, these european nations are not crime free utopia's. London has more muggings that NYC- in absolute and relative numbers, i also believe it has more rapes but i really got to check that out

heres another article on london being less safe than NYC- except when it comes to murder rate

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_2002090...

btw this is the mayor of london 6 years ago saying this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #128
146. Some questions for you...
I think simple, old fashioned hunting rifles are probably okay.

What kind of firearm represents an "old fashioned hunting rifle" to you?

Most assuredly nothing whatsoever automatic.

I assume you mean semi-automatic? Fully automatic weapons are extremely regulated and have not been used in a crime except once, by a a police officer, since 1940 or something.

What is your stance on revolvers? They are not "automatic"

The most common argument I'm given by gun owners for owning guns is to defend themselves against the very problem they caused: gun murders due to gun availability thanks to them.

I still refuse to allow you to frame the argument in this way. Gun owners did not cause the availability of guns. They have been available to the common man since this country was founded. Like anything, bad people will get a hold of them. Just because a bad person goes and kills someone with "object x" does not mean that everyone else who owns an "object x" is somehow responsible for the actions of the bad person.

It does happen to be true that the best way to defend yourself from people with guns is with guns.

Yes, gun owners work today to preserve the availability of guns to law-abiding, sane people, to preserve the intent of the founders of this nation. The fact that bad people will continue to get access to the tools of liberty is sad, but not sufficient to remove the tools of liberty from the good people of this nation.

their justification has continued because back in olden days we had no military and our now-archaic constitution had to have a way to fight a war in the absence of a military. However, now we're living in 2008 and we have a military.

Your assessment is incorrect. The 2nd Amendment speaks of militias. Those militias were not created just because there was an absence of a military, they were made specifically to eliminate or greatly reduce the presence of a military. Why would the founders create such a decentralized military system? The answer is plainly written in many contemporary documents. They feared a strong central government with a strong military force able to enforce a tyranny. Consequently they enshrined the State Militia, made up of the people of the States and lead by officers from those States, as the seat of military power for our country. They knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and strove to prevent such a concentration of power. That concept is not archaic. Yes we live in 2008. Yes we have a military. We also have a National Guard, which used to be under the control of the State but now functions as reserve troops for the Federal army. We are moving farther and farther away from the balance intended by the founding fathers. Now more than ever it is necessary for The People to continue to be armed in the name of that vision.

It seems to me that in the last 30 years we have seen incredible strides in power grabbing by our government at all levels. The War on Drugs was a handy excuse to spend trillions of dollars enhancing the police powers of the government. Now the War on Terror and the Patriot Act is taking us to new heights of government intrusion and power grabbing. If we are unable to stop this erosion of liberty at the ballot box, are you really wanting to limit our recourse with the cartridge box?

I understand gun owners have quite an obsession. So do drug addicts.

I cannot believe that you would stoop so low as to compare the obsession with liberty to an addiction to drugs. I truly and honestly feel my shoulders sag in sadness when I realize there are people out there in the world that would really and honestly make that comparison.

The majority should not be forced to pay for the obsessions and addictions of the addicted.

Should the majority of firearm owners be forced to pay for the actions of a few?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
89. They would be smuggled in disguised as routine cocaine shipments. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #89
101. You owe me a new keyboard!
:spray:
That should have contained a coffee warning!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #89
106. Because of people like you that are obsessed with the idea of being able to kill easy and fast? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #106
118. That misperception is the root of a lot of the disconnect in this thread, methinks.
Because of people like you that are obsessed with the idea of being able to kill easy and fast?

That misperception is the root of a lot of the disconnect in this thread, methinks. You are seeing your own caricature of what you think motivates gun owners, rather than who we really are.

You want to know how I view gun ownership? Read this.

Thought s on Gun Ownership, from This Gun Owner

You have this cartoon in your head of some bloodthirsty Rambo. Which is a bit comical, actually. I look like a college professor (5'6", glasses, goatee with a little gray in it, English driving cap), I have a B.A. and some master's work in English (I'm a professional technical writer), and I'm dad to a special-needs kid (22q11.2 deletion syndrome, aka DiGeorge syndrome, with severe cardiac sequelae). I shoot recreationally and competitively, but also enjoy sailing, kayaking (we have some nice creeks and rivers around here), cycling, and playing the guitar (badly). And yes, I am capable of defending myself and my family, though I avoid conflict if at all possible; I'm 37 years old and have so far avoided so much as a fistfight, outside of martial arts classes.

You have no point of reference at all. You really don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #118
137. You're mistaken. I don't have this "cartoon" in my head "of some bloodthirsty Rambo"
While I do think "bloodthirsty Rambo" is a very good way to describe what American males consider a hero figure, I don't think gun owners behave this way or (of course) look this way. Gun owners do commit gun crime but they can look quite ordinary, like the killer of the students in Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. most legal gun owners do not commit gun crimes
the majority are by criminals who are barred from possesion- but i know you will give me a list of 100 events where a "law abiding gun owner" commited a gun crime and then espouse how this shows that gun owners are evil people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. You're trying to separate the gun owners from the criminals.
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 11:04 PM by Sarah Ibarruri
Basically I'm telling you that it's no comfort to me that you sit there telling me that you're not out to kill anyone. Well then, why are you armed if you don't intend to kill anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. truthfully
i dont care if it comforts you, to be honest you are the small minority of americans that feel that way on the subject. Most american support gun ownership in general- for the purposes of sport, hunting, and self defense. Most americans are against banning guns altogether- even handguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #144
148. im reposting this
because my other messege got removed for some reason that i am unaware of. to answer your question- i own guns because i collect WW2 firearms. I hardly shoot them- and some i dont shoot at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #141
149. Simple answer?
Because there are people who may wish to do me or my loved ones harm and I want to be sure I have the tools to respond as needed.

I hope and pray I will NEVER have to take another life, but in case you've missed it, there are many people in this world who do not feel the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #65
110. Sarah. Marijuana.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #65
122. Sarah...don't get out much much,
do you? Caught any of the news for the last 10 years out of England? Your supposition of guns disappearing due to bans is a joke right?

Disappearing just like they did in DC, huh?

They've had a ban for 30 years and it hasn't worked, good luck with your plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiDemGunOwner Donating Member (166 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
150. And, "IF" there were an armed citizen, s/he could have kept the
carnage down to 1-2 students...I mean if were dealing in hypotheticals here....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-15-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. To their parents and families, 19 and 20 year olds are children.
I'm stunned at your callousness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
38. 60 million people own 200 million firearms in the U.S,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihave...

So if every person who owned a firearm used it for the purpose you suggest it was designed for, we might have at least 200 million dead people.

Something is wrong with your logic.

There are 243,023,485 cars in America. If you were to state that the one purpose of cars is to travel between places, I would point out that some cars are never driven. Collectors own some, some are in museums, some are sitting on blocks waiting repair. But most cars are used to travel between places. I would say that the cars that were not being driven are being misused (not fulfilling their purpose).

Guns have many purposes...hunting, target shooting, plinking, self defense. The overwhelming majority of the guns people own are used for these purposes. A very small number are used to murder. Guns used in this manner are misused.

We need to make every effort to curtail violence in our society. If we work together and force real action from those we elect, we may be able to reduce crime. Education, reduction of poverty, taking the profit motive out of drug dealing and better mental health care might be areas to work on.

Reasonable gun control makes sense, but gun confiscation or draconian laws will probably result in more problems than they will solve. The idea of forcing 60 million people to turn in their weapons or be viewed by law enforcement as criminals could lead to at the least more violence or at he worst an armed rebellion. Some gun owners will fight to keep their guns. Let's say 1/2 percent of the gun owners will be willing to fight to preserve what they view as their right. 300,000 "patriots" who are familiar with firearms could present a real dilemma for law enforcement or the military.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. Oh, it's more than that.
I think the latest estimates put about 240 million guns in the hands of 80 million people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #44
84. Bunny rabbits and guns
have something in common. They both can multiply in an alarming fashion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
48. BEER has only one purpose
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 07:42 AM by Tejas
and it's abused to no end resulting in broken families and broken homes and broken lives. Ever thought about banning beer to erase drunk driving from the face of the earth? Get back to us when you accomplish that. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #48
55. The same day as the U of I shooting, 273 people were killed by alcohol...
which shows that a lot of the "outrage" upthread is political opportunism, not concern for lives. They hate guns and the people who own them, so tragedies like this are an opportunity for some to lash out at those groups they hate.

In nearly all of the grandstanding posts I've read in the wake of this and other shootings, I've seen a lot of "outrage" directed against nonviolent, lawful people who choose own guns, and very little outrage at mass murderers themselves...

(And no, I don't support alcohol prohibition either.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #55
67. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #55
121. Thank you for
putting it into perspective. All too often I would simply throw the label "hypocrite" out there when "political opportunist" actually fits much better and is indeed more accurate.

Sad that people use this tact for their agendas/vendettas, to me they amount to no more than enemies of the country. When one wakes up each morning only to work to thwart the Bill of Rights, there is definitely something wrong with that person.

Just my .02
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #18
54. That .729 caliber rapid fire pump-action shotgun...
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 10:52 AM by benEzra
Guns have only one purpose. This man bought a gun (for that purpose), and children are now dead nt

That .729 caliber rapid fire pump-action shotgun, that can fire twelve .30 caliber projectiles with a single pull of the trigger...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_870

...has been the most popular hunting shotgun in the United States for decades, with more than eight million in U.S. homes, and it is quite popular in Canada as well. It's also useful for skeet, sporting clays, and lawful defensive purposes.

http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/hunt/top_gun.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_870

Guns have a lot of purposes besides committing murder, and pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
109. You really need to speak the truth, Sarah...
Guns are used for hunting, target shooting/competitions and self-defense by the vast majority of Americans; tens of millions, in fact. A criminal element (who can get a gun about as easily as marijuana) may use them to kill others. YOU need to pay attention to the criminals out there. And YOU need to ask yourself this:

If you were in that classroom when the shooting started, would you have wanted it to be
(1) a "gun free zone", or
(2) a class where, say, three fellow students stood up and returned fire?

What say you, Sarah?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
53. Driver used legitimately purchased vehicle to kill
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 09:41 AM by Retired AF Dem
ACCOKEEK, Maryland (AP) -- Seven people were killed early Saturday when a car plowed into people apparently gathered to watch a street race on a suburban two-lane road, police said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/16/drag.race.deaths.ap/in...

The world sucks. No matter what gets banned nothing will change that fact. If I would ban anything it would be broadcasting the names of these assholes that commit mass murder than kill themselves. In reality that is all they are after, having their names in the news.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. If we'd only outlaw alloy wheels, rear spoilers, and clearcoat paint...
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 11:04 AM by benEzra
Driver used legitimately purchased vehicle to kill

ACCOKEEK, Maryland (AP) -- Seven people were killed early Saturday when a car plowed into people apparently gathered to watch a street race on a suburban two-lane road, police said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/16/drag.race.deaths.ap/in...


If we'd only outlaw alloy wheels, rear spoilers, and clearcoat paint, then incidents like this wouldn't happen.

Ban Race Cars to Protect the Public


In reality that is all they are after, having their names in the news.

"Now I'll be famous," said the Westboro mall shooter in his suicide note. Granting someone antihero/martyr status in the MSM because he murders a bunch of people is asinine, and IMHO is a big reason why these things have always seemed to occur in waves. If someone is loser enough to murder a bunch of innocent kids, they don't deserve remembrance, much less the postmortem celebrity and martyrhood that some would grant them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #56
66. Cars aren't used expressly to murder. Guns are, however. Your assertion is pointless.
Guns have NO OTHER USE other than to murder. Period. End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. Do you regard killing in self-defense as murder?
The law does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. I regard the entire gun industry and gun-love as creating a nation of murders from which
I now have to worry about having to defend myself. Thanks to gun-lovers I don't live in safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Yet your very safety is protected by
People who are armed with guns. Pretty ironic, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #74
123. Good luck with that, same thing that someone else
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 07:00 AM by Tejas
claimed about our sons and daughters serving in the military, that they were all potential murderers and would be swarming the streets of the country soon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #66
88. That was sarcasm...
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 01:57 PM by benEzra
of COURSE banning shiny wheels wouldn't reduce car deaths, any more than banning rifle handgrips that stick out would reduse gun deaths.

Unless you take the position that cars with shiny wheels or four valves per cylinder "have no other purpose than street racing," which is pretty much the position you are taking with regard to lawfully and responsibly owned firearms...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #53
62. The only place a gun will drive you is to the morgue.
You are right, there was a case in which that happened. I'm sure you could also find somewhere some case in which someone was fed rotted food and they died. But how many cases can you name for me right now of cases in which the driver directed a car at people for the express, unique and sole purpose of murdering them?

I can name plenty of gun murders. Care to sit down while I do? I can just pick up my paper and type them out on any given day. And my city is not unique. This country is filled coast to coast with guns, and it's logical it should be filled with gun murders, which it is. And those of us not obsessed with guns, are getting PRETTY TIRED OF IT.

As for cars, cars are for transporting goods, people, etc.

The only place a gun will transport you is to the morgue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #62
70. The only place a gun will transport you is to the morgue
Tell that to the 40000 plus people a year in the states and the 1.1 million world wide a year that get killed by motor vehicles. If guns could think they would be preatty jealous of the number of people killed by motor vehicles. There is no differnce between the guy in IL and the guy in MD. They both purchased legal products and used them in illegal acts killing several people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #70
79. Another argument meant to protect your killing implements.....
And it's not an argument. To defend a killing implement by saying that death can occur other ways, is not an argument that defends your killing implements, whose only and exclusive purpose, is murder. In fact, discussing these things in here, and seeing how gun lovers have no defense possible for their desire to own implements of murder, I am beginning to wonder if there are groups out there working towards the banning of guns. I might research them and see if they take members or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. You know what truly scares me?
It isnt gun owners. It is women driving and yakking on cell phones at the same time. That is my biggest fear when I drive to and from work. Women driving with cell phones stuck to their ear is the biggest public threat there is in my opinion. Oh and I will take a bet with you, get guns banned and I will bet that the murder rate in the U.S. will not drop one bit, and I will also bet the murder rate will go higher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. I wouldn't mind people talking on cell phones while driving if they'd keep their hands on the wheel
And their eyes on the road.

Every day I see people gesticulating with BOTH HANDS while driving.

At the risk of sounding ageist and sexist, it's usually young women who do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #82
103. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #103
113. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
85. Uh-oh, looks like those guns might not have been purchased legally after all
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 01:14 PM by slackmaster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. if thats true
we can thank all those privacy laws for this tragedy....and closed under-18 records.


does anyone realize that this tragedy could happen even in france?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #85
132. They were SOLD legally, just not PURCHASED legally.
The shooter circumvented the law. The seller did nothing wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #132
147. VERY GOOD POINT!!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
92. It's illegal for those who've received inpatient psych care
to purchase guns in Illinois. I have no idea how this guy was allowed to buy guns, but it wasn't legal. The law is very clear on this point. I've been hospitalized for depression myself, and have walked two parishioners through the process of being admitted due to suicidality. In every case, the patient signs a document stating they understand that by being admitted for inpatient psych treatment, they are relinquishing their right to own guns, and will not be allowed to purchase any.

I don't understand why this guy had these guns, but legally he shouldn't have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #92
98. Somebody screwed up his records, apparently...
I read on another thread that the state of Indiana made him a corrections officer, which is a law enforcement position. If his official background allowed him to become an officer of the law, then his background was missing a lot of important details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lepus Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #92
102. Recieving inpatient psych car does not remove a persons rights to own firearms.
Regardless of what they sign if they recieve voluntary inpatient care
.

If they are forced into inpatient care by a court, the law is different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #102
116. You're wrong. In Illinois, those receiving inpatient care for psych disorders
forfeit their right to own firearms. One signs a document stating you understand this as part of the intake process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-17-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that.
Edited on Sun Feb-17-08 10:23 PM by benEzra
Lepus was citing Federal law, but states can go beyond that.

Is it a "for five years" thing, or is it a life sentence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MAS 49_56 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
130. What???
No "drunk driver purchases car legally before going on a drunken auto rampage leaving a trail of victims" type stories? This guy had to purchase his tools somewhere just like any other criminal. Remember ladies and gents, around 160,000,000 guns in private ownership did not kill a soul yesterday. Can you say the same about booze and cars?


I do wish the media would quit glorifying these crackpots with so much exposure, they just feed into the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 26th 2014, 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC