Gun Control Anyone?

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

"I simply don't want to live in a country where you - YOU, Buckaroo - or anyone - "grownup" or not - can buy it."


What are you going to do when anyone can just print it?

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/16/gun-control/

Okay, that's going to happen. Let's ensure that it illegal before it does. That won't prevent wackos from doing what they do, but I'm not about prevention: I'm about reducing the likelihood of a repeat occurrence.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I understand where you are coming from, but is this really relevant? Violence is violence -- those students could well have died and everyone in the gun attack could have been only wounded.

"In less than two months, China has seen six cases of men charging into schools and kindergartens to kill and hurt children. On April 28, 29, and 30, there was one incident per day in three separate cities. On Wednesday, a man with a cleaver killed seven children and two adults in a central China kindergarten, while on Saturday the man behind the April 29 attack was sentenced to death for stabbing 29 children in an eastern province. The situation has become not only very dark, but very surreal."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ing-spree.html

I simply disagree when you say that violence is violence.

Tell that to the mother of a dead child who hears that there was a ZERO PERCENT mortality rate on the attack in China.

Yeah, both were violent, but death is death. It is different than wounded.

Those children in China may be scarred for life, or maimed, but they'll get to go back to school. Not so in Connecticut.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Frankly to assert that without guns, fewer would have died is probably true but irrelevant. Lakedaemonian can speak to this better, but IMO this guy was a pretty good shooter. The wounded/dead ratio was very low - most of the time most people get wounded and are saved by the paramedics.

Just because in the China knife incident, no one died it doesn't mean future incidents will be the same.

I respectfully disagree.

There is no more effective method of killing than a well-aimed gun.

I believe that effort and specialized knowledge required for explosives decreases their effectiveness to a degree greater than the breadth of their affect.

Take a look at the suicide statistics:
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-metho...lethal-methods

Explosives are about as effective as a shotgun to the chest and less effective than a shotgun or other gun to the head.

Note that these statistics are about killing one. Once the explosive goes off, game over. With the shotgun or the handgun, the killer can continue his spree.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

It's not about blaming guns for violence. It's about noting that the people who are to blame for violence, will be able to kill more people more frequently if they have easier access to more deadly weapons. Guns are dangerous and the government is entitled to regulate access to them in the interest of public safety. The same is true of knives, which are also regulated in most (all?) western countries.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

If you are a pacifist you still don't get off the hook for violence you enable.

Our troops in Iraq are coming back with horrific wounds. The gunshots can usually be sewn up, the blown off limbs can be replaced with prosthetics, but the mangled skin and brain injuries have no good treatment, leaving our troops disfigured and permanently mentally diminished.

China is one of the worst offenders for government sanctioned violence against it's own people. Would you trade your freedom of expression Tienanmen Square style justice?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HG21Ad01.html

You see, the world is not bundled into neat little packages that you get to choose from. Life is not multiple choice. Decisions have consequences.

You make some powerful points here, but I respectfully disagree.

As a pacifist, no I am not off the hook for the atrocities of foreign governments. It is something we fight against every day, every year, and through the decades. We oppose trade agreements because of them.

And I am totally on the hook for the wounded soldiers here in the U.S., as I recognize the benefits of their sacrifices over the decades.

Particularly their sacrifices in recent decades, which have resulted in more psychological wounds than physical (though physical wounds are substantial), by my feeble estimation. We are a nation in trouble, with a troubled population.

I think it's high time we recognize this and at least consider the possibility that a large percentage of young adults leaving military service are entering a difficult (to say the least) work environment and are highly trained in the use of firearms in a country where weapons such as these are so readily available.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Making guns illegal will NOT give you the freedom to live your life without the need of being armed . . . if by that you mean being SAFE from violence.
Criminals will always have access to guns through the black market.
Only the better behaved members of the community will obey the anti-gun laws.

The gun can be a protector of the non-violent.
It can prevent a weaker victim from being injured by a stronger assailant.
If a BIG drug-crazed criminal enters your home, you can stop him from harming you or your family with a gun, whether he is armed with a gun, a knife or a club.
If you pass anti-gun laws, you lose that protection.
I don't care if you voluntarily choose to forgo that protection for youself and your family, but don't tell me I can't have it.

As the global economy continues it inexorable slide into depression and poverty, crime will rise.
I'm glad that I have guns to protect me from those who wish to do me harm.

I fear that you have me here.

Excepting that those who wish to do you harm will need guns, and thus will need to acquire them on the black market. I'm not naive enough to consider eliminating the black market, and I respect the ubiquitous nature of shotguns to the hunting public.

A shotgun would wound me quick and my gold would be gone even if it didn't kill me.

Maybe I should get one.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

That's bullshit! Do not put false words into my mouth. Never once did I say we needed to "teach our children to fire weapons because eventually they might have to." I said parents should teach their children how to behave around guns and handle them safely. Because someday they will encounter one (the way you did), and when that day happens they need to know how to not accidentally blow somebody's head off.

My deepest apologies, Shiny, for misrepresenting your stance. You had outlined some pretty detailed rules for handling and firing a weapon that I misrepresented. In fact, your post was highly informative and responsible with regard to handling a firearm. There was no reason to delete it, as it was a very good post.

I did misunderstand it, as we should teach our children to use firearms, and not as we should teach our children how to "behave around guns and handle them safely."

That said, I don't want my children to ever handle a firearm with the kind of intimacy that you outlined. I was never taught it as a child and I never needed to be taught as an adult.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Firearms are tools.......they aren't satanic objects possessed by the devil

I agree... There are no "satanic objects." But in the hands of the possessed (using your terminology), a firearm is a far more effective tool than, say, a knife.

There have been very few times in my life in the US where I felt the need to carry a concealed weapon...while I could legally, I would avoid those situations/locations.

I have never felt such a need, despite being in some very dire circumstances. Perhaps you'd care to share with us a time you felt the need to pack heat in the general public and, more importantly, the number of times you've felt the need overseas as a civilian.

To me, and many others, the 2nd Amendment is not so much about the right to individual self defense as it is a responsibility to provide a check/balance against tyranny.

I hate to resort to ridicule, but is the King of England poking you right now? Are you really the subject of tyranny? Ok, put down the gun. Now, is the King of England poking you?

300 million privately owned firearms backed up by a healthy number of well trained veteran citizen soldiers who swore an oath against all enemies foreign and domestic is the best insurance against domestic tyranny.

Until one of them shoots up a school, right?

Before responding please think long and hard about what I stated before about the loss of the 4th Estate.

If the 4th Estate had not already been compromised, we would not be here because EJ would be on CNBC and not that muppet Jim Kramer.

Ok, so the King of England is poking you.

[bpr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Lot of responses...

Nothing from Buckaroo.

I can admit when I'm wrong, or have going off the reservation, as I did here.

But nothing from... Silence.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell123.html

Ideas to avert further tragedies:

Some have proposed arming teachers. Of course many, being more liberal, dislike guns. Why no fill open teaching positions with out of work military veterans? They definitely have the training with weapons, and know how to tell enemy from friend.

The war on handguns is a war on women. How many women would be protected from rape and murder by having a small handgun in their purse.

Assault weapons and hgh capacity magazines are another matter. That will certainly be addressed soon. The desire for these weapons is driven by far more than the concern over protecting the home against criminals. It is driven by fear of tyrannny of a repressive dictatorship. Our country was populated by people fleeing repression and tyranny, and still is. Citizens fear government and crime.

I would normally agree the idea of hiring out of work military vets being able to make the difference....except when one considers the damage accomplished by the Ft. Hood shooter within an active military base (and that this was in Texas.....).

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I fear that you have me here.

Excepting that those who wish to do you harm will need guns, and thus will need to acquire them on the black market. I'm not naive enough to consider eliminating the black market, and I respect the ubiquitous nature of shotguns to the hunting public.

A shotgun would wound me quick and my gold would be gone even if it didn't kill me.

Maybe I should get one.

Tell that to the Oklahoma City victims. And the perps parked their truck and walked away. Most shooters are either dead or in handcuffs at the end of the day.

The Vancouver police department is even now apologizing for not capturing a serial killer before he killed 49 young women. It appears the victims didn't rate enough for a full investigation unitl the full nature of the calamitiy was revealed.

Single day events are news, but they're not indicdative of violence in general.


You gun haters would get a bit more sympathy from me if you devoted even an ounce of concern for car violence victims.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...d-into-cyclist

[jk]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

i think we shouldn't conflate car "violence" with gun violence. it is quite rare, i think, for someone to get into a car with the express intent of maiming or killing someone else. [i think of woody allen in "take the money and run," in the scene where he drives a volkswagen through his girlfriend's livingroom in an attempt to run her down.] this is not to say that automobile accidents aren't a significant public health problem, but i don't think it is relevant to this discussion.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

A shotgun would wound me quick and my gold would be gone even if it didn't kill me.

Maybe I should get one.

No, maybe you should NOT. You should get some training first or you're a prime candidate for a Darwin award.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/01/ob...bruce-lee.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,304026,00.html

Shotguns are as lethal as any other firearm and more so than most handguns or assault rifles.

I'm willing to give this a rest, but spreading potentially fatal misinformation is dangerous. Do you get the point? You are abusing the first amendment to near the breaking point.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

i think we shouldn't conflate car "violence" with gun violence. it is quite rare, i think, for someone to get into a car with the express intent of maiming or killing someone else. [i think of woody allen in "take the money and run," in the scene where he drives a volkswagen through his girlfriend's livingroom in an attempt to run her down.] this is not to say that automobile accidents aren't a significant public health problem, but i don't think it is relevant to this discussion.

Maybe in your world. I've been threatened and assaulted by drivers of automobiles several times in the last few years. I've never been within 1/4 mile of a gun crime. Keep in mind that violence includes the threat of bodily harm, it doesn't have to result in injuries.


EDIT:

Just because people don't currently choose cars now doesn't mean they won't (especially if guns get harder to get).

I also wanted to add:
Auto control: Horse power limits, speed governors, auto transmission ban, gas tank limits - all could be proposed to reduce auto fatalities. _ you get the same why nots - you don't need 100 mph, you don't need 200 HP cars, you don't need automatic transmission...... bla bla bla.

If so many people are killed by cars why doesn't this stuff come up?

Why so much focus on guns? The Conn killer used a car. Do you think he could have gotten to the school armed as he was on a public bus? Did the Columbine killers ride a school bus that day?

In the military mobility and firepower are inextricably linked. Why not in our public debates on violence?

[unlucky]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Parsing language and technical details and design intent and all of that is kind of a dead end. Not that it isn't important to know them, I am just not sure you could design a gun control law that will accomplish the complete abolition of these kinds of crimes and still be on the right side of the 2nd.

You are probably right. Attempting to reduce rampage shooting via gun control seems to imply going down a road of very tight restrictions that isn't going to be acceptable to a lot of Americans.

But you can start talking about what kinds of individuals are committing these crimes. And we are starting to understand that we have a system that just is not getting mentally ill and dangerous people off the streets. And certainly we aren't doing a very good job of keeping psychotic individuals separated from lethal weapons. It is only my opinion, but I think the discussion needs to be directed here moreso than anywhere else.

I am quite certain others will disagree.

Will

How about technology solutions such as biometrics that prevent a gun being used by anyone except its legitimate owner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun

(Just to be clear; the smart gun can also be considered a form of gun control, but it's a restriction on who can use an individual gun, rather than a restriction on the type of gun that an individual can use.)