School shooting: but don't mention guns! - Page 8

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:02 PM

I have to wonder why republicans want to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote.

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I have to wonder why republicans want to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote.

A background check to vote. Now you're talkin'...

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you.

Removing my guns from me would require passing a law. That would take my guns away from me. Guns that have never shot at anything other than tin cans and paper and other typical recreational targets. Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family.

it's about keeping your toy?

Bikewer · 14th December 2012, 02:05 PM

I've weighed in on this question several times...
There are no easy answers.
In this case, (so far as the latest reports are saying), this is a 20 year old fellow who is in some way connected to the school principal. (Son? Not told yet)
As well, we can consider that he is insane.
At 20, in most states, he is not able to legally obtain a handgun. Where did he get them? Steal them from his home? We are not told yet, but with younger individuals that's often the case, they take advantage of unsecured weapons at home or at a friend's.
Has the individual displayed warning signs of potential violence? We don't know yet. Is he under the care of a psychiatrist?

Many of the people who decide to "go out" in the midst of a spree killing or rage killing or whatever you call it display little or no problems before hand. They often already have weapons, obtained legally and normally while they were still sane.
Something goes bad. Depression, psychopathy... Whatever. The ideation of going out in a blaze of glory and taking a bunch of people with you is there... It's a cultural meme as I've talked about before.
Charles Whitman, the guy at the Lubey's, the "going postal" shootings, Virginia tech... Those get the big headlines and the CNN coverage that just further ingrains the idea into society, and it resonates with a certain type of disturbed individual.
We've had several cases locally of homicide/suicide where the disturbed person kills the entire family and then themselves.
Dave Alvin does an old folk song about a guy who did the same back in the 1800s. There is something in this sort of ideation....

How to prevent or stop or control it? You've got me. If you could make all firearms vanish somehow, it might lessen the incidence, but there are other ways...People are inventive.
Gun control? What would you do differently? If a person buys firearms legally and then some years later becomes homicidal.... If a person is having homicidal ideation it's often secret....Unless the fellow has been committed to a mental-health hospital legally there will be no record of this, and patient confidentiality will often prevent a physician from coming forward.
All you have to do is sign... "No, I am not under the care of a psychiatrist".

Unfortunately, we don't often get to study these people. They normally suicide at the scene. When they don't, it's pretty obvious that they are insane. They may be tried legally in many cases, as was the fellow in Arizona, but there's no doubt he was a violent paranoid schizophrenic.

Ranb · 14th December 2012, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I have a hard time believing this guy would've killed people if he didn't have access to guns.

You know that people have been killing each other long before guns were available and kill often without guns. What intimate knowledge do you have about this guy that leads you to believe he would have not killed if he didn't have access to guns? Have you actually met him?

Ranb

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

A background check to vote. Now you're talkin'...

background check is not required to buy a gun in the USA

NoahFence · 14th December 2012, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you.

Removing my guns from me would require passing a law. That would take my guns away from me. Guns that have never shot at anything other than tin cans and paper and other typical recreational targets. Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family.

I think there should be a middle ground. Nobody rational is talking about going into every house and taking owners' guns away. But something needs to be done. SOMETHING.

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

You know that people have been killing each other long before guns were available and kill often without guns. What intimate knowledge do you have about this guy that leads you to believe he would have not killed if he didn't have access to guns? Have you actually met him?

Ranb

I have as much to go on as the opposing argument. Also, difficulty of task discourages many that would do the task if it were easier.

a_unique_person · 14th December 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you.

Removing my guns from me would require passing a law. That would take my guns away from me. Guns that have never shot at anything other than tin cans and paper and other typical recreational targets. Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family.

That's right. The law would not interested in your amenity, but the safety of everyone.

Quad4_72 · 14th December 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Why should I have to?

I can't sit and try to hit tin cans at 100 yards with my Marlin model 60 and CCI Stingers on a Saturday afternoon because a mentally ill person went off and shot up a school?

It doesn't make sense.

We should make heroin and meth illegal too. That will prevent all of the senseless overdoses and deaths those things cause.

lane99 · 14th December 2012, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you.

Removing my guns from me would require passing a law...Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family.

If, hypothetically, it could be conclusively established that there would be less mass killings of children, and fewer murders and suicides overall in the U.S. if all handguns were removed from society, would you voluntarily give up your guns and be willing to find a new hobby.

Or would that void be too difficult for you to fill? I'm partial to golf, myself.
.
.
.

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

it's about keeping your toy?

Is there some reason for the attempts to get a rise out of me?

Guns are not toys.

But that's not the point, is it?

I went through background checks to buy my guns. I got the handgun permits to buy the handguns. I don't have anything other than a single speeding ticket on my record.

I have done what was legally required and I legally own my firearms.

I have two permits now to buy two more handguns.

I went to the police and gave them my info, and waited several days, as required.

Why can't I shoot my guns at targets on the weekend?

Is it because some nut went off, or what?

Is it because you think I will eventually?

anglolawyer · 14th December 2012, 02:10 PM

Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+.

A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts?

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

We should make heroin and meth illegal too. That will prevent all of the senseless overdoses and deaths those things cause.

We should legalize it. If everyone had a pipe no one would overdose and go nuts.

Agatha · 14th December 2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What's the gun crime rate in the UK?

You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that.

A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states

Originally Posted by BBC

In 2010-11, England and Wales witnessed 388 firearm offences in which there was a fatal or serious injury, 13% lower than the previous 12 months. In Scotland during the same period, there were two fatal and 109 non-fatal injuries during the same period, a decade-long low.

These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries.

Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths.

a_unique_person · 14th December 2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

You know that people have been killing each other long before guns were available and kill often without guns. What intimate knowledge do you have about this guy that leads you to believe he would have not killed if he didn't have access to guns? Have you actually met him?

Ranb

The gun is designed primarily to be cheap, efficient, convenient and reliable as a tool for killing people. You can also use it for recreation.

Dr.Sid · 14th December 2012, 02:12 PM

It's a tragedy. I don't think any regulation can prevent this. But maybe it can make it harder .. less probable .. just a bit.
Armed teachers ? Not sure about that .. but metal detector and armed guard at the doors ? You bet ..

JihadJane · 14th December 2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

We should make heroin and meth illegal too. That will prevent all of the senseless overdoses and deaths those things cause.

Legalizing drugs reduces overdoses and drug-related deaths.

Or was your post ironic?

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

That's right. The law would not interested in your amenity, but the safety of everyone.

Where is your evidence that I or my guns have ever been a danger to anyone?

scarlettinlondon · 14th December 2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

It should be obvious - and it is obvious to a number of posters here and in the (gag, puke) blogosphere - that the common factor in the mass shootings is that the shooters are mentally ill, to say the least. That to me seems like the best route for the discussion to take: how to keep weapons out of the hands of the insane, and beyond that how to treat the insane in the first place (and reduce the stigma, if not eliminate it).

The most obvious common factor in mass shootings is the gun.

Dr.Sid · 14th December 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+.

A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts?

Norway requires license. Breivik had all his weapons legal and licensed, and semi-auto only. You don't really need full auto for people who don't shoot back.

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+.

A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts?

I think murder sprees have been around forever. There were certainly plenty of them prior to Columbine.

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 02:17 PM

anyone who thinks outlawing guns would stop stuff like this is delusional and not very bright.

I want to kill people at school, I goto local "guy" and buy illegal gun and ammo. Problem solved....

why is it people don't get this?

Not to mention that the Mexican Cartels would be very happy to get rich shipping illegal guns into the country.

waits for the overly emotional whining by the turtle neck clad weenies

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

The most obvious common factor in mass shootings is the gun.

There are plenty of mass killers who didn't use guns, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Hercules Rockefeller · 14th December 2012, 02:17 PM

I don't think gun control is the issue here. There's some kind of sick trend with these mass shootings.

Forensic Psychiatrist Dr Park Dietz:

Quote:

He takes an equally severe attitude to news shows. Twice, he appeared on CNN in the middle of a sensational murder case and warned the network that if it didn't tone down their coverage it would lead to further crimes. On another occasion, he told a production team from 20/20, a magazine show on ABC, that he would not participate in a programme reconstructing a workplace shooting because he feared their approach would encourage copycats. The programme went out on a Friday; by the following Tuesday there had been two fresh mass murders in other parts of the United States.

"Here's my hypothesis," he said. "Saturation-level news coverage of mass murder causes, on average, one more mass murder in the next two weeks." The reason, he says, has something to do with the USA's size. In a country so large the likelihood of one or two people snapping becomes quite high.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...ds-412116.html

scarlettinlondon · 14th December 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that.

A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries.

Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths.

Thank you for that.

Very informative. I'm sure that everyone here can both read it and understand it. They still won't give up their guns though, it's a shame.

Dr.Sid · 14th December 2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think murder sprees have been around forever. There were certainly plenty of them prior to Columbine.

This one was mentioned at local newspaper and caught my attention ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_bombings .. May 18, 1927

Ranb · 14th December 2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I have to wonder why republicans want to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote.

I think you have republicans on the brain. In WA State it is the Democrats that are leading the way in easing unnecessary gun restrictions.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

background check is not required to buy a gun in the USA

For the most interesting and least abused guns (imo) there are.

Ranb

Chris L · 14th December 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

I can see that you don't LIKE it. I don't see why it's silly. You might not like the idea of giving up your rights. It can't really be silly to have a country where civilians don't carry\own guns. Boring perhaps. Safe and dull possibly. Not silly though.

You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that.

A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries.

Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths.

Are suicides included in the US firearms deaths?

anglolawyer · 14th December 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

There are plenty of mass killers who didn't use guns, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

I think serial killers are different, not better or worse, but different. Maybe they have an issue with prostitutes or bums or junkies, whatever. But these mostly young men who target schools and colleges in a single incident, often killing themselves, are saying something else. Don't ask me what.

Quad4_72 · 14th December 2012, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Legalizing drugs reduces overdoses and drug-related deaths.

Or was your post ironic?

Ironic.

scarlettinlondon · 14th December 2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

anyone who thinks outlawing guns would stop stuff like this is delusional and not very bright.

I want to kill people at school, I goto local "guy" and buy illegal gun and ammo. Problem solved....

why is it people don't get this?

Because I disagree with you doesn't mean either of these things. I am certainly not delusional. Brightness appears to be in the eye of the beholder - I disagree with you, therefore I am not very bright. Ho hum.

I think a country is safer if civilians do not own guns. This appears to be backed up by gun related crime statistics from the UK.

my interpretation is as follows. You don't want to give up your guns not because you disagree with my position, but because it's your right to carry them and you don't wish that right to be restricted by law because you personally are a responsible gun owner.

I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights.

scarlettinlondon · 14th December 2012, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Chris L

You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?

Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse.

jhunter1163 · 14th December 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

It's a tragedy. I don't think any regulation can prevent this. But maybe it can make it harder .. less probable .. just a bit.
Armed teachers ? Not sure about that .. but metal detector and armed guard at the doors ? You bet ..

The shooter was the son of one of the teachers. He was known at the school. He'd probably have gotten past any security measures you'd realistically put in place at a freaking elementary school.

This happened only about half an hour from me. Some of my co-workers have kids in that school.

Ranb · 14th December 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I have as much to go on as the opposing argument. Also, difficulty of task discourages many that would do the task if it were easier.

What is your opposing argument? One of these?

Quote:

I have an easy time believing this guy would've killed people if he didn't have access to guns.
or
I have a hard time believing this guy would've killed people if he did have access to guns.

With 40%(?) of the homicides in the United State non-gun related, do you really think there was big chance that this deranged person would have never tried to kill anyone if he didn't have a gun? I am not arguing that he could have killed more or less with a non-gun method, but it appears that you claim the gun was somehow to blame and not the person.

Chris L · 14th December 2012, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration.

That depends on whether you are talking about legal or illegal gun ownership. If it's legal owners you are talking about, then no, having the gun does not make them more likely to commit crime. If you are talking about illegal gun owners, then yes, having the gun makes it easier for them to exercise their propensity to break the law. In their case though, more gun laws would not change that.

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Ryan Lanza, 24, brother of gunman Adam Lanza, 20, tells authorities that his younger brother is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a “personality disorder.” Neighbors described the younger man to ABC as “odd” and displaying characteristics associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Personality disorder?

Noztradamus · 14th December 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

I would differ. I would prefer to live in a country where only the police and the military have guns that one where everyone, including the crazies have access to guns

You would prefer to live in Rwanda?

Chris L · 14th December 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse.

New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago all have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the country. They are also some of the easiest places in the country to get a gun to use in a crime.

14th December 2012, 02:02 PM	#281
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	I have to wonder why republicans want to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:04 PM	#282
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I have to wonder why republicans want to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote. A background check to vote. Now you're talkin'...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:04 PM	#283
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you. Removing my guns from me would require passing a law. That would take my guns away from me. Guns that have never shot at anything other than tin cans and paper and other typical recreational targets. Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family. it's about keeping your toy?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:05 PM	#286
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 A background check to vote. Now you're talkin'... background check is not required to buy a gun in the USA
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:07 PM	#287
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,320	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you. Removing my guns from me would require passing a law. That would take my guns away from me. Guns that have never shot at anything other than tin cans and paper and other typical recreational targets. Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family. I think there should be a middle ground. Nobody rational is talking about going into every house and taking owners' guns away. But something needs to be done. SOMETHING.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

14th December 2012, 02:05 PM	#284
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,525	I've weighed in on this question several times... There are no easy answers. In this case, (so far as the latest reports are saying), this is a 20 year old fellow who is in some way connected to the school principal. (Son? Not told yet) As well, we can consider that he is insane. At 20, in most states, he is not able to legally obtain a handgun. Where did he get them? Steal them from his home? We are not told yet, but with younger individuals that's often the case, they take advantage of unsecured weapons at home or at a friend's. Has the individual displayed warning signs of potential violence? We don't know yet. Is he under the care of a psychiatrist? Many of the people who decide to "go out" in the midst of a spree killing or rage killing or whatever you call it display little or no problems before hand. They often already have weapons, obtained legally and normally while they were still sane. Something goes bad. Depression, psychopathy... Whatever. The ideation of going out in a blaze of glory and taking a bunch of people with you is there... It's a cultural meme as I've talked about before. Charles Whitman, the guy at the Lubey's, the "going postal" shootings, Virginia tech... Those get the big headlines and the CNN coverage that just further ingrains the idea into society, and it resonates with a certain type of disturbed individual. We've had several cases locally of homicide/suicide where the disturbed person kills the entire family and then themselves. Dave Alvin does an old folk song about a guy who did the same back in the 1800s. There is something in this sort of ideation.... How to prevent or stop or control it? You've got me. If you could make all firearms vanish somehow, it might lessen the incidence, but there are other ways...People are inventive. Gun control? What would you do differently? If a person buys firearms legally and then some years later becomes homicidal.... If a person is having homicidal ideation it's often secret....Unless the fellow has been committed to a mental-health hospital legally there will be no record of this, and patient confidentiality will often prevent a physician from coming forward. All you have to do is sign... "No, I am not under the care of a psychiatrist". Unfortunately, we don't often get to study these people. They normally suicide at the scene. When they don't, it's pretty obvious that they are insane. They may be tried legally in many cases, as was the fellow in Arizona, but there's no doubt he was a violent paranoid schizophrenic.

14th December 2012, 02:05 PM	#285
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I have a hard time believing this guy would've killed people if he didn't have access to guns. You know that people have been killing each other long before guns were available and kill often without guns. What intimate knowledge do you have about this guy that leads you to believe he would have not killed if he didn't have access to guns? Have you actually met him? Ranb

14th December 2012, 02:07 PM	#288
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Ranb You know that people have been killing each other long before guns were available and kill often without guns. What intimate knowledge do you have about this guy that leads you to believe he would have not killed if he didn't have access to guns? Have you actually met him? Ranb I have as much to go on as the opposing argument. Also, difficulty of task discourages many that would do the task if it were easier.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:09 PM	#289
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,326	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you. Removing my guns from me would require passing a law. That would take my guns away from me. Guns that have never shot at anything other than tin cans and paper and other typical recreational targets. Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family. That's right. The law would not interested in your amenity, but the safety of everyone.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

14th December 2012, 02:09 PM	#290
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Why should I have to? I can't sit and try to hit tin cans at 100 yards with my Marlin model 60 and CCI Stingers on a Saturday afternoon because a mentally ill person went off and shot up a school? It doesn't make sense. We should make heroin and meth illegal too. That will prevent all of the senseless overdoses and deaths those things cause.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

14th December 2012, 02:10 PM	#291
lane99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: in MO Posts: 444	Just the price of doing business? Originally Posted by LTC8K6 But I don't see or agree with that, and I am very much civilized, thank you. Removing my guns from me would require passing a law...Guns that have done nothing but provide fun and entertainment to me and my friends and family. If, hypothetically, it could be conclusively established that there would be less mass killings of children, and fewer murders and suicides overall in the U.S. if all handguns were removed from society, would you voluntarily give up your guns and be willing to find a new hobby. Or would that void be too difficult for you to fill? I'm partial to golf, myself. . . .
	__________________ Qte: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me. Twitter: @Perugiamurderfi

14th December 2012, 02:10 PM	#292
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken it's about keeping your toy? Is there some reason for the attempts to get a rise out of me? Guns are not toys. But that's not the point, is it? I went through background checks to buy my guns. I got the handgun permits to buy the handguns. I don't have anything other than a single speeding ticket on my record. I have done what was legally required and I legally own my firearms. I have two permits now to buy two more handguns. I went to the police and gave them my info, and waited several days, as required. Why can't I shoot my guns at targets on the weekend? Is it because some nut went off, or what? Is it because you think I will eventually?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:10 PM	#293
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+. A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts?

14th December 2012, 02:11 PM	#294
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 We should make heroin and meth illegal too. That will prevent all of the senseless overdoses and deaths those things cause. We should legalize it. If everyone had a pipe no one would overdose and go nuts.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:11 PM	#295
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,216	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken What's the gun crime rate in the UK? You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that. A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states Originally Posted by BBC In 2010-11, England and Wales witnessed 388 firearm offences in which there was a fatal or serious injury, 13% lower than the previous 12 months. In Scotland during the same period, there were two fatal and 109 non-fatal injuries during the same period, a decade-long low. These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries. Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

14th December 2012, 02:12 PM	#296
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,326	Originally Posted by Ranb You know that people have been killing each other long before guns were available and kill often without guns. What intimate knowledge do you have about this guy that leads you to believe he would have not killed if he didn't have access to guns? Have you actually met him? Ranb The gun is designed primarily to be cheap, efficient, convenient and reliable as a tool for killing people. You can also use it for recreation.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

14th December 2012, 02:12 PM	#297
Dr.Sid Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 398	It's a tragedy. I don't think any regulation can prevent this. But maybe it can make it harder .. less probable .. just a bit. Armed teachers ? Not sure about that .. but metal detector and armed guard at the doors ? You bet ..
Dr.Sid Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 398

14th December 2012, 02:12 PM	#298
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,720	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 We should make heroin and meth illegal too. That will prevent all of the senseless overdoses and deaths those things cause. Legalizing drugs reduces overdoses and drug-related deaths. Or was your post ironic?
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

14th December 2012, 02:12 PM	#299
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by a_unique_person That's right. The law would not interested in your amenity, but the safety of everyone. Where is your evidence that I or my guns have ever been a danger to anyone?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:13 PM	#300
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193	Originally Posted by Polaris It should be obvious - and it is obvious to a number of posters here and in the (gag, puke) blogosphere - that the common factor in the mass shootings is that the shooters are mentally ill, to say the least. That to me seems like the best route for the discussion to take: how to keep weapons out of the hands of the insane, and beyond that how to treat the insane in the first place (and reduce the stigma, if not eliminate it). The most obvious common factor in mass shootings is the gun.
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193

14th December 2012, 02:14 PM	#301
Dr.Sid Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 398	Originally Posted by anglolawyer Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+. A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts? Norway requires license. Breivik had all his weapons legal and licensed, and semi-auto only. You don't really need full auto for people who don't shoot back.
Dr.Sid Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 398

14th December 2012, 02:14 PM	#302
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by anglolawyer Here in the UK there have been several of these incidents now and guns are not freely available here. I am not sure of the position in Norway but they just had Breivik rub out 70+. A question that arises is what has happened to or in these societies that produces these extreme events? Maybe I'm wrong but weren't they unknown before Colombine or thereabouts? I think murder sprees have been around forever. There were certainly plenty of them prior to Columbine.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:17 PM	#303
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	anyone who thinks outlawing guns would stop stuff like this is delusional and not very bright. I want to kill people at school, I goto local "guy" and buy illegal gun and ammo. Problem solved.... why is it people don't get this? Not to mention that the Mexican Cartels would be very happy to get rich shipping illegal guns into the country. waits for the overly emotional whining by the turtle neck clad weenies
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th December 2012, 02:17 PM	#304
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon The most obvious common factor in mass shootings is the gun. There are plenty of mass killers who didn't use guns, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:17 PM	#305
Hercules Rockefeller Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Ponylandistan Posts: 1,383	I don't think gun control is the issue here. There's some kind of sick trend with these mass shootings. Forensic Psychiatrist Dr Park Dietz: Quote: He takes an equally severe attitude to news shows. Twice, he appeared on CNN in the middle of a sensational murder case and warned the network that if it didn't tone down their coverage it would lead to further crimes. On another occasion, he told a production team from 20/20, a magazine show on ABC, that he would not participate in a programme reconstructing a workplace shooting because he feared their approach would encourage copycats. The programme went out on a Friday; by the following Tuesday there had been two fresh mass murders in other parts of the United States. "Here's my hypothesis," he said. "Saturation-level news coverage of mass murder causes, on average, one more mass murder in the next two weeks." The reason, he says, has something to do with the USA's size. In a country so large the likelihood of one or two people snapping becomes quite high. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...ds-412116.html
	__________________ Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra

14th December 2012, 02:18 PM	#306
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193	Originally Posted by Agatha You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that. A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries. Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths. Thank you for that. Very informative. I'm sure that everyone here can both read it and understand it. They still won't give up their guns though, it's a shame.
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193

14th December 2012, 02:19 PM	#307
Dr.Sid Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 398	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 I think murder sprees have been around forever. There were certainly plenty of them prior to Columbine. This one was mentioned at local newspaper and caught my attention .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_bombings .. May 18, 1927
Dr.Sid Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 398

14th December 2012, 02:19 PM	#308
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,101	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I have to wonder why republicans want to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote. I think you have republicans on the brain. In WA State it is the Democrats that are leading the way in easing unnecessary gun restrictions. Originally Posted by thaiboxerken background check is not required to buy a gun in the USA For the most interesting and least abused guns (imo) there are. Ranb
	Last edited by Ranb; 14th December 2012 at 02:21 PM.

14th December 2012, 02:20 PM	#309
Chris L Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,153	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon I can see that you don't LIKE it. I don't see why it's silly. You might not like the idea of giving up your rights. It can't really be silly to have a country where civilians don't carry\own guns. Boring perhaps. Safe and dull possibly. Not silly though. You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?
Chris L Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,153	__________________ "The lie is different at every level." Richard C. Hoagland

14th December 2012, 02:21 PM	#310
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,657	Originally Posted by Agatha You were quoting Ben Adams, who lives in the USA; I don't know if you were aware of that. A little investigoogle finds a BBC page which states These numbers include injuries, not just deaths. The UK has roughly a fifth of the population of the USA, so an equivalent number in the USA based on that would be 2,495 - that's deaths and serious injuries. Again according to the BBC, in 2009, which is the latest year for which figures are available, there were 31,347 firearms deaths in the USA. That's just deaths, and is over 12 times higher than the rate per capita in the UK which includes injuries. If we excluded injuries from the UK rate, or added injuries into the USA rate, the USA rate per capita would be even higher. I hope that answers your query, though I recognise that the figures I have found so far aren't comparable because the UK rate includes serious injury and the USA rate only includes deaths. Are suicides included in the US firearms deaths?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:24 PM	#311
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 There are plenty of mass killers who didn't use guns, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ers_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States I think serial killers are different, not better or worse, but different. Maybe they have an issue with prostitutes or bums or junkies, whatever. But these mostly young men who target schools and colleges in a single incident, often killing themselves, are saying something else. Don't ask me what.

14th December 2012, 02:25 PM	#312
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by JihadJane Legalizing drugs reduces overdoses and drug-related deaths. Or was your post ironic? Ironic.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

14th December 2012, 02:26 PM	#313
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193	Originally Posted by StankApe anyone who thinks outlawing guns would stop stuff like this is delusional and not very bright. I want to kill people at school, I goto local "guy" and buy illegal gun and ammo. Problem solved.... why is it people don't get this? Because I disagree with you doesn't mean either of these things. I am certainly not delusional. Brightness appears to be in the eye of the beholder - I disagree with you, therefore I am not very bright. Ho hum. I think a country is safer if civilians do not own guns. This appears to be backed up by gun related crime statistics from the UK. my interpretation is as follows. You don't want to give up your guns not because you disagree with my position, but because it's your right to carry them and you don't wish that right to be restricted by law because you personally are a responsible gun owner. I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights.
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193

14th December 2012, 02:29 PM	#314
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193	Originally Posted by Chris L You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them? Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse.
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 193

14th December 2012, 02:30 PM	#315
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,576	Originally Posted by Dr.Sid It's a tragedy. I don't think any regulation can prevent this. But maybe it can make it harder .. less probable .. just a bit. Armed teachers ? Not sure about that .. but metal detector and armed guard at the doors ? You bet .. The shooter was the son of one of the teachers. He was known at the school. He'd probably have gotten past any security measures you'd realistically put in place at a freaking elementary school. This happened only about half an hour from me. Some of my co-workers have kids in that school.