Slashdot Mirror
Congresswoman and Staff Gunned Down
tkprit writes "What a shame that a Congresswoman makes herself available to her constituents and she and six of her staff were gunned down for the effort. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot, along with members of her staff, for trying to hear the concerns of the people she represents."
CNN reports that at least 12 people were shot by the gunman. According to NPR, "The suspect ran off and was tackled by a bystander. He was taken into custody. Witnesses described him as in his late teens or early 20s." Update: 01/08 20:07 GMT by S : Other sources are reporting she's still in surgery, and early reports have been amended to list Congresswoman Giffords in critical condition.
Check out the comments on there.
Living With a Nerd
Or so says yahoo news.
http://yhoo.it/hBMCx6
Right now there are conflicting reports on whether she is dead. There are reports that she is in surgery. In either case, this is an absolute tragedy.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
is this guy affiliated with American Extremist Groups? People should be more concerned about American Terrorists more than any others.
Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
Living With a Nerd
Banning the possession of firearms by civilians will ensure that only tyrants and criminals will have them.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
This matters.
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
that works.
Read radical news here
Multiple sources, including a spokesman for the Tucson University Medical Center, are saying she is alive and in surgery, albeit in critical condition.
FC Closer
It is incredibly sad that people are mouthing off their vile political views even before all the facts are in.
They don't care that this lady, and her staff members, were killed and/or severely wounded. They just want to exploit this horrible event for their own ends.
This type of story is news for everybody, including nerds. Secondly, she serves or served on the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics which affects funding for one of Slashdot's favorite government programs called NASA. Her husband is also an Astronaut for NASA.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
That's right! If murderers knew that bullets can kill people they wouldn't fire them. As well all know, people only get shot because people firing the guns haven't been taught that it isn't a magic tickling stick.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He already broke the laws already in place to control this sort of thing, starting with it being illegal to murder someone. So what makes you think banning guns would prevent this from happening?
On the other hand, if the folks around her all had guns, he wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people. He probably wouldn't have tried in the first place!!
The answer is MORE guns. Make it legal, by default, for people to carry concealed weapons (and prohibit selected people from doing so, like felons, mentally retarded, etc.). People don't even need to actually do so - just the possibility will deter crime. More guns is the answer.
Of course they wont ban them. When political figures can point the finger and say "Won't someone do something about this person?" Both sides need their zealots intact.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I love how stuff like this gets modded insightful. I bet the shooter will turn out to be white, just like the Ft. Hood shooter and the DC Snipers. Oh, he will be a Right Winger, just like the guy that flew his plane into the IRS office.
How's this for the nerd connection: From TFA:
Giffords, a Democrat, was first elected in 2006. She has served as chairwoman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and also holds seats on the House Science and Technology and Armed Services committees.
This was an assassination, asshole. Education about gun safety had nothing to do with it.
"More civilized?" Really? The people who can't go a couple decades without having a genocide or two?
Please.
Representative Giffords is the wife of astronaut Mark Kelly, and seems to be one of the few congresspeople who are knowledgable about science and technology.
This is a great tragedy.
Politics should not be conducted by gunfire.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Before everyone starts speculating on why this was done and politics etc etc. Try to remember that people were killed and their families and they did not deserve such a thing regardless of your political affiliations. This doesn't solve anything.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords isn't particularly liberal but is one of the 20 in Congress "in Sarah Palin's crosshairs" for her vote on health care reform. I don't know the motives or mental state of the shooter, then again people could have said the same thing during 9/11...in this instance, look at the target, look at the political climate. Sure, many times it's the most unstable people who take the final step but they obviously pick up on signals from all the vitriol. That particular brand is simply more prevalent on the Right (or at the very least, more "popular" in media). And yes, any knee jerk reaction with gun control ideas would be completely misguided.
Crazy, paranoid, murderous people exist in every society - in all subcultures, in all religions, in all age groups (with the capability to express it), across all education levels, etc.
The problems we've been having in the US, as I see it, largely spring from ignoring this, and forcing every response to a tragedy to be an implication of any groups they belong to.
Are republicans or tea party members responsible for this act? That's a misleading question. Neither answer leads to a meaningful result - and only forces us to alienate eachother further, resulting in more tragedy.
If we are to avoid having every response wedge us further into madness, the shame of such tragedies, the murder of well-meaning and innocent people, must be a problem that we all have to solve, rather than a point of blame we use as a tool.
Does the frequent madness expressed the tea party help? No - but that's all of our problem, and it isn't going to be solved just by mocking them as an enemy, or thinking of them only as monsters who kill people.
Any of us could find ourselves romanticizing violence, like the tea partiers (the legend of the tea party IS one of violence) and other folks. There but for the grace of chance go any of us.
Insanity is not something we can every 'get even' for - whether it is terrorists or confused local murderers. We can only rebuild, and work together to be able to live in a way that makes it ever less likely, while knowing that freedom will always allow it in one way or another.
Ryan Fenton
This just popped up in yahoo news. There are conflicting reports on whether she's dead or in surgery.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
http://i.imgur.com/eDr2J.png
the crosshairs don't help your case
Interesting, one of the by-standers, who helped hold the gunman down, said he was white and clean shaven. Where did you hear he was hispanic?
"The gunman was young, mid-to-late 20s, white, clean-shaven with short hair and wearing dark clothing and said nothing during the shooting or while being held down, although he struggled at first."
http://gawker.com/5728501/arizona-congresswoman-shot-outside-grocery-store
Seems somebody looked at the gun sights on this http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sarahpac_0.jpg and acted on it. Scary.
Take a look at what happened in Australia when guns were banned.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Way to not make this political, jackass. Think you could have made your point without taking the opportunity to jump on progressives?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
It was certainly fascinating to watch the story evolve amongst the social and news media. Perhaps if someone could work in that angle...
Regardless of her political party, regardless of YOUR political party, we did not need this. We are all, on both sides of the aisle, diminished when this happens.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Some time what the majority think they want is wrong. that we have congressmen, we are a republic for good reason.
In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition. Same sort of nonsense in France, Greece, etc. over reductions in entitlements meant to keep the countries solvent. When such widespread mayhem and wanton destruction crosses the pond then you can come talk to the US about how civilized other nations are.
It's a complete and utter lie, intended to deflect blame from the responsible party onto everyone's favorite scapegoat, "some hispanic guy". Witnesses at the scene described the attacker "as a white male in his mid-20s with short hair and “dressed in a shabby manner." Furthermore, they report that "the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing." No mention of any shouting.
you preach hate, you get hate. you preach violence, you get violence
a certain unnamed political movement is reaping what it sows
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The first moderation this comment received (-1 flamebait) was the correct one.
Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
There are reports on Twitter that the rightwing Free Republic website has crashed because of celebratory messages about the shooting from its contributors. It's hard to confirm this, but I couldn't get to the site about 10 minutes ago.
"What would men be without women? Scarce, sir. Mighty scarce."- Mark Twain
Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.
All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Not dead, but according to the New York Times report, it doesn't sound good. This is not a minor injury:
Dr. Steven Rayle, a former emergency room doctor who now works in a hospice, said that he had witnessed the shootings. He said the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing.
. “He must have got off 20 rounds,” he said. Ms. Giffords slumped to the ground and staff members immediately rushed to her aid, Dr. Rayle said.
Dr. Rayle said he performed CPR on some of the victims. He said one of the victims was a young child and appeared to be in critical condition with a gunshot wound.
link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
No. That's the real difference between some people. Perhaps I'm being optimistic here, but I like to think that most people here value human life. I may disagree with the bulk of their politics, and I may think that they're being juvenile in congress, but I would be just as apalled if it were a Republican who had been shot. Violence is *not* the answer.
And there have been several attempted and successful assassinations of Republicans in the past. Were they cheering when Hinckley took a shot at Reagan?
Actually, pick a much more recent president, and a much more despised one... were people cheering and giving each other high-5's when Vladimir Arutyunian threw a hand grenade at Shrub?
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
Palm trees and 8
Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
That's right! If murderers knew that bullets can kill people they wouldn't fire them. As well all know, people only get shot because people firing the guns haven't been taught that it isn't a magic tickling stick.
mod parent up!
Our representatives are not simply expected to vote as their constituents feel at the moment. If they were, we could shut down this whole elaborate structure of elections and simply run referenda on everything.
We expect them to vote for what is right and in our long-term interest. Sometimes that means something other than reading polls and being a weather vane. Many a politician has voted against his state's wishes and later been revered by those same voters for taking a stand that they themselves couldn't see. Many more have been voted out of office next time around, because them's the breaks.
There's a reason we call them (well, some of them) "leaders" rather than "followers."
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
You're making a lot of assumptions by claiming Republicans did this. Why not wait until you actually know something about what happened to make partisan comments that may very well be lies.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Technically speaking, their role in killing people is exactly the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The amendment's purpose isn't to ensure the ability to hunt, it's to ensure the ability to engage in acts of war.
In short: everybody knows the purpose of guns is to kill people, your argument brings nothing new to the table.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
How so? She's a minor member of a minority party.
Um, since the Democrats hold two out of three of the elective branches of the US government, I don't see how you can call them "a minority party."
She is also the wife of astronaut Mark Kelly, a member of the House committee on Science and Technology, and the chairwoman of the House subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; so this is news of interest to anybody interested in science and technology.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Are you sarcastic? I ask because on Slashdot you may really find someone who believe this is true.
You are a douchebag troll. If it was the other way around and someone had shot Palin, you'd be here supporting it.
FC Closer
Yeah, palin nuked her "kill these 20 democrats site." guess she got one.
A politician was shot at a public event. This wasn't, say, a carjacking gone bad. Yes, I'm implying assassination. Part of a conspiracy? I'm leaning between Mexican hitman (based on comments of her work against cartels) and a frothing Republican decided to follow all those hinted "second amendment solutions" from Beck and Palin and company.
Plus, I don't know if you noticed but there's a politics section here.
This would require law enforcement to be perfect and everyone to already be educated. Impossible. Good thought, but impossible.
Part of gun safety is storing guns in a manner that makes it difficult for people to steal them or for children to use them without adult supervision. A lot of guns used by criminals are stolen from law-abiding citizens' homes, who were not using a gun safe; a lot of school shootings involve guns that children take from their parents, which were not kept locked.
Palm trees and 8
Indeed... but it would be incredibly difficult to shoot someone without a gun.
I was being facetious, but seriously... hammers don't build houses, people do. But try doing it without a hammer.
Tyrants? If USA would have a tyrant, he would have supporters and detractors. In such cases letting population have firearms without restriction only makes easier to provoke a really bloody civil war.
If you ban guns in America then the people doing the daily killings in Juarez Mexico will spill over into New Mexico and nearby Arizona and start killing and robbing people like fish in a barrel, helpless to defend themselves.
Sure, guns can create violence if used in violent ways, and bad people do just that, but don't be so naive as to think that if we throw down our guns the rest of the world will follow suit.
The article states that he was using an automatic weapon. They aren't clear on what type, but it's quite possible that the gun used in this incident was ALREADY illegal.
I love how people on this very forum have had "Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo" at the bottom of every one of their posts for years. And when that shit actually blows up suddenly it "isn't the time for politics."
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
More than likely she was the target, and the reason the other 11 got shot. I admit I'm not in full possession of the facts, and that I may never be, but historically when there's an assassination attempt in such a public place, and involving such a public figure, that public figure is the target, not her aide.
The other people do matter. But those people are private citizens and they and their families have a right to be left alone while they recover. Their names will be released with, and only with, the permission of their families. They aren't public figures.
Umm.. No they wouldn't... Apart from people so far outside the realms of being normal humans that they think people dying is funny.. Those are the kind that need to be locked away anyway..
However much you disagree with what someone says, taking a weapon out on them means you lose the argument and whatever point you were trying to make. It's the resort of the unthinking and the incompetent.
If you believe that a gun or two will shoot down a tyrant you are an idiot.
I would say delusional, but you will never actually see an armed revolt crushed down precisely because it would be crushed without effort.
Governments around the world do not fear people armed with guns, they fear people armed with cellphones, especially camera-equipped ones.
For those asking, yes I meant that in an extremely sarcastic way.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
That his twitter account info was given to the government.
He could have gone after twitter, but they just have to follow the law...
He could have gone after the DOJ, but again, they just follow orders...
He went after someone from Congress, the people who make the laws... sounds about right.
Far more incidents of this sort happen in the Middle East so why is this "a very american thing to do"?
How does similar events happening in the Middle East make it a less American thing to do? Overeating and watching TV is a "very American thing to do," yet people also overeat and watch TV in other countries.
... and then they built the supercollider.
That is troublesome, especially since there was also a federal judge and a child among the dead. However, the shooting happened during a public event that she was hosting, so we're assuming (ASS out of U and ME, I know) that she was the primary target.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
You're quoting gawker, seriously?
Get on Target for Victory in November. Help Remove Gabrielle Giffords from Office. Shoot a Fully Automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2011/1/8/13371/41091/21#c21
This sounds an awful lot like incitement to commit murder. Is there any chance this tough guy will get charged?
I spent the last election cycle hearing about 2nd Amendment remedies and how we've got to keep the members of congress in our crosshairs.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions but, quite frankly the last election cycle made me a little you know, jumpy.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
She voted for the healthcare bill despite knowing that 67% of her constituents opposed it. She's no "representative." Just a political whackjob
...and yet she was reelected by those same constituents, so apparently they think she represented them well enough.
No matter how many votes you got to get in, it only takes one "vote" to take you out.
Shh.
Impossible. Good thought, but impossible.
The good thoughts usually are :(
Living With a Nerd
By the way, the gunman was taken down by someone without a gun - so there goes your theory.
She is on the Science and Technology Committee and the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. Slashdot is not evolving into generic news. Slashdot has mixed in generic news from the beginning. Some its biggest stories were Columbine-related.
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
No kidding. If some of her supporters were armed, instead of there being 12 injured people, there'd be just one: the gunman himself.
Yes, sure, because their reactions would be so fast that they'd see the attacker drawing, identify the situation, draw their own weapons and shoot the attacher before the attacker gets a round off. Or maybe this isn't the movies, and the stoormtrooper effect doesn't work in the real world.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I know, I was wondering where the tech angle was. Was she a voice in the pro or anti net neutrality camps? Did she have controvertial views on technology? Did her son do a computing degree? Anything.
From what I found out on her wikipedia page she supports renewable energies and is a member of the NRA. The renewable energies bit might classify it, but as no-one has brought it up until now, it's a bit outside /.s supposed remit.
Horrible situations are horrible situations, but let proper news agencies report on it, this is /., an international (though mainly american) technology news aggregate. I've only got /. on my feeds now because Digg has become even more crap. I hope /. doesn't go that way (any more)
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Ban murder. That aught to fix things, right?
THL phish sticks
So, when is the time for politics? The GOP has in recent years been playing with fire. It's going to be some time before we know what the motivation for this was, but the fact remains that the GOP has been using this sort of hateful motivation for political gain for years.
The GOP tends to say that whenever they get taken to task for their irresponsible politicking on people's fear and hatred.
I completely agree. Total public disinterest in politics is a hallmark of a really civilized country. Protest should be limited to following people on Facebook. Public protest is bad for business and should be discouraged -- if necessary, it can be exercised in a civilized manner in first amendment zones.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
yes, but you can still kill people without guns. As long as the will is there, means is just a detail.
So sack up or shut up.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
This is purely political terrorism egged on by a political party that doesn't seem to have a human heart, in particular, Sarah Palin.
This may have earned the flamebait mod. Palin did include Giffords in a black list of people responsible for abortion laws, there is no evidence that this was the reason behind the shooting.
I completely agree. Civilized countries split up their killing according to economical benefits and spread it in bite-sized atrocities all around the world.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
It would not, however, be difficult to stab them, beat them with a blunt object, hit them with a car, poison them, set their house on fire, or even just go extra-savage and punch and kick them to death. It is true, guns make killing a whole lot easier (at least in terms of the mechanics of it), but America is not the only developed nation where a large fraction of the population has guns, yet we seem to have a much (by orders of magnitude) higher murder rate. There is more to the story than just the availability of guns and ammunition.
Palm trees and 8
A tad be sensitive are we? It's a perfectly legitimate point that Sarah Palin has been engaged in hate and fear mongering and that she's in part to blame for anybody that takes her suggestion seriously.
The various white supremacist groups have been using tactics like that for quite a while to shield their leaders from the consequences of ordering contracts and to make it hard for the FBI to stop their plans.
The interesting thing is that gun crime doesn't seem to be correlated to gun ownership. The Swiss have one of the highest per-capita rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest rates of gun crime. It seems that gun crime tells you more about the culture than about gun ownership.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
As video games had in the Columbine High School shooting, and it should be given EXACTLY as much air-time and attention.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Ahhh... the gun control wankery begins.
As cliche as it sounds: Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and sometimes they use guns to do it.
If somebody had wanted these people dead badly enough, they would've done it through some other means if guns weren't available.
Also, let's look at our southern neighbors: Guns are very highly illegal in Mexico, yet gun violence there is much, much worse than it is in the US.
A word of advice to you gun haters: Don't like guns? That's fine. Don't own them.
If the moose, wolves and bears want to take a crack at Sarah, I'm all for it. Fair is fair.
What? Gun nuts produced far more FUD about banning guns? Or where the previous ten years before the ban there were 13 mass killings, and there were NONE in the ten years after?
I find it interesting that one of the local TV station's call letters in Tucson is "KGUN".
Too bad the Fox News crowd and other right wing paranoid freak tea baggers can't figure out that there are far more people killed in the United States by gun toting fools than any "terrorist" could ever hope to match. Since 9/11, there have been tens of thousands killed in gun violence in the United States (over 90,000 firearms related murders when extrapolated over nine and a half years). Maybe these idiots should recognize that gun violence needs far more attention than plane passengers X-rayed crotches. Seriously, there are third world countries that are far safer to live the United States. You are far less likely to die from a gun crime related death in Israel (even from terrorism... even from bombs... even surrounded by enemies) than you are in the United States. Idiots like you are the reason so many people die. You stick your head in the sand whenever the truth about firearms is mentioned.
If you want to protect your country from the government join the army... it is made up of normal citizens who are just as patriotic as anyone else, and who want the best for their country.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
In Arizona, it means hitting what you aim at. Lots of bumper stickers around here say so.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The first moderation this comment received (-1 flamebait) was the correct one. Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.
Wrong - people with guns shoot bullets. If you're going to attempt to argue a point by being a pedant, at least try to get it right.
535 assholes, by any chance?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
CNN reported on a live feed @ 1:40 PM PST that she is expected to get out of surgery (presumably alive).
While the story indicates that a motive has not yet been determined, it also states that she recently won a close and hotly contested race with a Tea Party candidate. Hopefully, it will not be found that the teenage shooter was not responding to the Tea Party rhetoric of if we can't win in the ballot box, we will win in the streets.
It is truly a shame, but something angered the shooter enough that he took it upon himself to "fix" a problem. I wonder if election campaigning were more civil and less mud slinging/hate mongering if this shooting would have occurred.
While many people on slashdot are of many different political views and seem to be able to discuss issues civilly (for the most part), there seem to be pockets of society in the US that are not able to do that. How does anyone expect to solve any of the issues in the US or world, when there isn't even enough respect of the human person to allow for differing opinions?
Whatever the cause of the shooting, it is truly a sad day.
I Secondly, the early reports are that the suspect is hispanic and shoutted something in another language (presumabbly spanish if they are hispanic) before the shooting.
Ahhh, the "some say" technique. Do you work for Fox News? Can you provide a link, I haven't heard this.
Oh come off it.
The point was clearly that guns don't shoot people by themselves. People use guns to shoot other people. With bullets, if you must.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Yes, You have pointed sticks, the banana and the raspberry, but it's on effective on the tiger.
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
Human beings are also animals (even those who are vegetables or those living under a rock). Maybe when we can move our consciousness into silicon you'd be able to consider us "mineral".
No, its the bullets that make holes in peoples bodies that kill them, ban bullets.
In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition
And we managed it without anybody getting shot. Compare and contrast.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
A representative is not supposed to be merely a voting conduit for the currently-polled state of her constituents. The whole point of electing representatives is to put someone in place who's actually familiar with the issues and exercises her judgement, because the vast majority of her constituents will likely not be as informed.
You can argue that any particular vote was the wrong one, but it's non-sensical to say "she voted against the polls for her district, therefore she's a whackjob", especially when she gets re-elected after casting an unpopular vote.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Careful with those stones. The US has one massive genocide on its hands as well, one which it has never properly acknowledged either.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'd rather have some political rioting (though I abhor violence) than an apathetic populace. Democracy can deal with the former, it's dead with the latter.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Just look at the murder rates in the US vs in Europe. I would say that the country with lower murder rates is more civilized. It took 2 world wars, but now Europe has learned its lesson.
Are the wolves going to jump on her from a helicopter? That sounds like a Family Guy episode.
He did, in his own inimitable style.
I will do so in a different style.
USA has 90 guns per 100 residents, Sweden has 30 per 100.
Yet USA has almost 6 times the murder rate (the same goes for all the scandinavian countries)
Why?
Well, guns in Sweden are mostly hunting weapons. We don't have concealed semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons generally have only one intended use, and that is to kill people (usually at short or medium range). Sprayfire weapons (MAC-10, Uzi and the like) are no good for ANYTHING except trying to injure or kill a crowd. That's what the "spray" in spray-fire stands for. The spray is powered by the recoil of 1000 rounds per minute powering out of the barrel of a snub-nosed weapon with little in the way of stabilization.
Semi-automatic handguns are similarly useless for any legitimate use. Well, handguns in general are useless.
Hunting weapons don't need to be semi-automatic or fully automatic for any hunting (I think Cthulhu hunting doesn't count, as that is in imaginaryland)
So, does that fill in the lines enough?
She's also been a major contributor to the debate over the space program (given that her husband is an astronaut).
More importantly though, this has the potential to be a major political event for the US right now, depending on the motivations of the perpetrator. Slashdot normally covers major political events (congressional elections, repeal of DADT, etc.) that aren't primarily techy or nerdy, and this is no different.
Nerds are people too.
There are probably more guns than people in the USA. Oddly enough, even though "their only reason is to kill people", we don't have 300,000,000 murders per year. Or even 300,000. Or even 30,000.
For the record, last year we had fewer than 10,000 firearms murders. South Africa had three times as many, in spite of having far fewer firearms in civilian hands.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Sarah Palin just took down her USA Map with targets drawn over democratic leaders, one of them was for Gabrielle Giffords.
Bullshit. The gunman was tackled while running away, and immediate and verified reports were that he's white, twenties, and clean cut. The whole "La Raza" angle is defensive politics by the Tea Party and the GOP who know that this is a textbook case of violent rhetoric whipping up a mob, one of whom actually acts on it. Whether or not that's truly the case, the right wing knows they've got a perception problem and immediately dove into the political side on their own.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.
All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.
Wait a moment... You're honestly saying that free societies cannot stop determined crazy people and you accept that as a consequence of being free while having just advocated the wholesale elimination of what most people in this country consider an absolute core piece of that freedom?
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
handguns that are only useful for killing people are taken from nightstand drawers and used to *gasp*... kill people?
Surely not!
The shooter is white, mid-twenties, and clean cut. He was tackled trying to run away, and is now in police custody. There's no dispute on this.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Should everyone be afraid at every moment that their going to be shot by a gunman? Should everyone shoot first and ask questions later? Is one really free if he is afraid to go outside without getting shot?
You are a disgusting person.
FC Closer
I don't remember any liberals cheering when Reagan was shot.
Why are you bringing politics into this?
"Off with their heads! Off with their heads!" sound like a reasonable UK response to you?
Despite the impression you might get from the US media, we don't live in a fantasy world.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Don't forget the Tea Party people being blamed for that SUV bomb in New York that didn't go off.
Oh bullshit.
"spray-fire"?? Really? Did you make that term up? It's certainly not used by anyone who knows anything about guns.
Semi-automatic handguns are extremely useful -- why do you think police carry them? Because they're useful for self-defense.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
[Citation Needed]
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
Chechnya (1992-), Abkhazia (1991-1993), Nagorno-Karabakh (1990-1994), Ukraine (40's and 50's)
I was born and raised in Tucson, this type of crime rarely happens. Most people usually hear about crime in Phoenix. Anyways, appears there were multiple suspects in the shooting. 4+ people dead, local sheriff reports that Giffords was gravely wounded, some reports that she's dead, others that she's in surgery. Local newspaper has story up now, http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/389 No matter what your political affiliation, murder is still murder. I've heard one report that Giffords was shot point-blank in the head. I think it's time to really consider leaving the US before this sort to stupid political strife becomes a full blown civil war...
"The only constant in the universe is change." - Unknown author
There are many things that "matter", shall we forget the purpose of Slashdot and turn it into a generic news site? To what purpose?
Riiiight - so let it go back to discussing star wars and comic books.
(Most) things evolve.
Your hatred for anything conservative and Republican doesn't help yours, either.
I'm starting to feel like my hatred of the right is pretty damn justified right about now.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Not to mention that Eugenics played a pretty big role in the US before the 2nd World War. Only after discovering the holocaust it became "unfashionable" to sterilize poor, criminal and dumb people or those of the wrong race.
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
Yes, might as well hand everyone a gun when they turn 16. That'll ensure total safety.
We are all God's parents.
That would be this one, complete with the gunsights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html But true, no evidence yet that she or any of her followers were involved.
Fog of war? I mean, had there been opposing demonstrators you might have had a full blown fire fight.
I've seen this argument before, but it sure doesn't hold up when you look at the numbers. Armed citizens intervening in conflicts shoot an innocent bystander in the confusion much less often as a percentage of incidents as police responding to a shooting. Frankly, a nonprofessional that is there when things happen is a better judge of where to aim their firearm than a policeman coming into a situation with minimal information.
Yes lets integrate tools that blow big holes in people in to society.
Next everyone should have their own guillotine, and be educated on how to use it safely. That'll work!
You'll notice "Ammo" is at the end of that list, and it usually comes with the admonishment, "In that order". Do you think that guy (or the people he represents, if any) went through any of the other steps, except maybe possibly the ballot box?
Politics (which I hate, by the way) encompasses the first three. The reason the fourth is there is both in order to point out that it's at the end of the list, and also to remind people that if it all really does go down shit creek, you shouldn't sit there and take it.
Yep.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080627143201AAUfXM3
You're never supposed to open the last fucking box. We tried it during the Civil War, concluded that it was a shitty way to solve our problems, and closed the damn thing up for good.
This here's the soap box. You stand on it and you speak to whomever listens. (Hello, NSA! :) But they're part of the public, and if you're going to stand on a soap box and howl into the wires, well, they've got as much right to read it as anyone else. That's how public anonymous/pseudonymous speech works. It's how it worked all the way back to before the Declaration of Independence.
The Ballot Box seems to be working pretty well. Sure, our candidates suck, but if there were really an Estabishment(tm) that selects our candidates for us, do you think it would have let Christine "Not a Witch" O'Donnell run? How 'bout Dennis Kucinich? The reason we get wacky candidates is because we, the people, can be pretty dumb ourselves. In the meanwhile, I ain't interested in smoking pot or marrying dudes, but those two things also seem to pop up on state initiatives every year.
The Jury Box is working fine, too. It's taken a few years, but MAFIAA's barratry isn't working as well as it used to, and states and municipalities everywhere are pulling their redlight/speed cameras in favor of real cops who might (a) actually change the offending behavior, and (b) keep the revenue in the community, rather than simply forking the profits over to Redflex. (Bonus points - if the driver's running a red light because he's, the cop who pulls him over can keep him off the road. A camera can't.)
The system works. It may not work quickly. It may not work well. It sure as hell doesn't work efficiently. But it beats the hell out of the alternative.
Arizona is an unrestricted state, meaning no permit is required to carry a handgun. Presumably, anyone who wanted to be armed at that event, could/would have been. So, permissive gun laws did not prevent/mitigate this shooting, i.e. by resulting in a sheepdog (armed civilian) taking down the gunman. Early reports say the gunman had an "automatic" weapon. It remains to be seen whether this means a semi-auto pistol (like those used at Virginia Tech, acquired legally), or a fully automatic "assault weapon". Chances are, it will turn out that the gunman used an illegal firearm, either acquired illegally or modified. So, it's unlikely that tighter gun laws would have prevented/mitigated it either. This is a failure of security (to protect the congresswoman, staff, and the public at the event) and possibly law enforcement (to prevent an illegal firearm from getting into the gunman's hands), though Arizona gun laws being as permissive as they are, it's possible the gunman's firearm will turn out to be completely legal.
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
In Brazil, country ranked #1 by gun deaths, gun crime fell almost 10% in the first year of a disarmament campaign after 13 years of steadily rising. Probably because 72% of all the weapons used by criminals there had previously belonged to law-abiding folks.
Also, Australia. After tightening gun control in 1996, gun deaths, that were already dropping, started dropping way faster.
In Japan, country listed as having fewer gun deaths per capita than any other, gun control is extremely strict.
So I don't get where your statement came from. Or were you being ironic and I just have a case of the whooshies?
As of 2 PM PST:
11 patients
===
1 dead (9 year old girl)
5 in critical condition
5 in surgery
Giffords is one of the patients in critical condition; shot once in the head; surgeon optimistic regarding recovery; reported as lucid and following commands.
When your protests fail and your political system is rigged in such a way that democratic change is made impossible, you can either pull a Ghandi and wait for a miracle or torch a few cars and break some windows. Not saying violence is the better option, but what good is protest when it is not heard?
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Me and 3 buddies say different. Now send me your address. ;) [this is a joke! please don't take it seriously!]
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It's a trade off really. Europeans statist instincts, that come from a long history of strongly class based societies made up of ruling nobles and subservient rabble, lead to more or less willing subjugation of the individual to the collective, which on the surface seems more civilized because there is less crime and seemingly more sense of community etc. Also, European countries are much more demographically homogeneous than the US which also produces less crime. Recently with more immigration there is more crime as well, even in Sweden. On the other hand, all that power and trust placed in the state is there just waiting for the right person and the right moment to be abused - just look at the bloody European history over the last couple of centuries. That is true even today, it's just a matter of time. In America, the collective tends to be mistrusted and individuals are expected to provide for themselves which means more people who are unable or unwilling to do that legally and turn to violence. It's nothing to do with number of guns per 100 residents.
Semi-automatic handguns are similarly useless for any legitimate use
What do you mean by legitimate use though? In the US, the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution explicitly so they can provide defense from a potentially tyrannical government (not so people can use them for hunting), so semi-automatic weapons are not useless at all.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
And there is no connection between the number of guns available in Mexico and the country with very lax gun laws to the north.
Uh, no, most people wouldn't do that, not Republicans, not Democrats, not anybody.
This happened because of you, and people like you, promoting the notion that one side and the other are totally different. Your belief that the Other Side aren't people is what creates this kind of thing. Not the biases you think other people have; the biases you have. As long as it's all about how you feel the other side has "double standards", you're the one with the double standard.
When you can react to something like this without using it as a chance for a pot shot at the other side, you will no longer be part of the problem.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
We don't have concealed semi-automatic weapons.
Bullshit. If you think that passing a law has made all such weapons magically disappear from your country, I've got a bridge to sell you ...
is called KGUN. wow.
New Economic Perspectives
I thought this was exactly why Americans wanted to keep their guns, so they can shoot at the government when the government doesn't suit them. It's right their in the second amendment.
DISCLAIMER: Being swedish I've never read the second amendment, but that's what a lot of people, ie on slashdot, claim that it says.
If noone rtfa, then what's the slashdot effect?
You want to outlaw guillotines? Really? What else? Samurai swords? Nun-chucks? Big sticks?
Australia. Good luck getting a gun here - even a rifle for hunting is difficult to get. :p
Just look at Mexico.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. If the fellow did not have a gun, he could have used a stolen cement mixer or truck to run over the politician. I prefer, since in the US at least, to have a gun to defend me and mine, since the police have no responsibility nor obligation to do so. And since if I don't have a gun, because they are outlawed, you can damn sure bet the criminals will have them, leaving all law abiding citizens defenseless.
I'd argue you know nothing about firearms or their defensive use.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
You know, it's funny.
We have a law against killing people, but sometimes people still do it.
You're telling me that, while they aren't going to follow our law against killing people, you think they'll follow the law against having guns?
Yeah, uhm. I don't think it works that way.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
You're right, of course, that banning guns is a limitation of freedom. However, there does not seem to be any serious debate on whether governments should regulate the access to weapons: all functioning countries do it, including banning the access to certain kinds of weapons (e.g. rocket launchers, certain bombs). So it's really just a matter of deciding where to draw the line.
Deciding which points along the line are reasonable and at which points you start cutting into what you refer to as absolute core pieces of freedom seems, to a certain degree, arbitrary. I guess you could even call it a matter of taste. If somebody came along and suggested banning chefs knifes, I'd probably have a similar reaction to it as you.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
no one believes that criminal masterminds won't get guns no matter what the legality
the point of making guns illegal is that your casual moron won't get a gun. casual morons are the kind who shoot up discos because some chick looked at him funny. criminal masterminds won't do that. criminal masterminds, in fact, will use their gun to kill you in such a way that, even if you yourself have a gun, you won't be able to defend yourself
the point of making guns illegal is to cut down on deaths by casual morons. no one thinks that some criminal mastermind won't get a gun. and even if you have a gun to defend yourself in a land where guns are legal, you're still pretty much dead if a criminal mastermind intends your death
so the lesson are twofold:
1. don't piss off criminal masterminds, no matter how well armed you are
2. outlawing guns prevents senseless deaths by casual morons only, not by criminal masterminds. but that's the whole point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, my point was that if nearly every person in the US had a guillotine then it would be very very bloody.
As it stands, its just guns, and its very very bloody just as your congresswoman found out the hard way.
USA has 90 guns per 100 residents, Sweden has 30 per 100.
That's disingenuous. You're implying that out of every hundred Americans, ninety of them possess a firearm. I'd like to see some real research to back that up that claim. You're also implying that without guns, people wouldn't find some other ways to kill each other. That's another fundamentally unsound assumption: guns make killing easier in some ways, but that's all. If someone wants you dead, he doesn't need a gun. People have been committing acts of murder, both individually and en masse, for thousands of years before gunpowder came along. Geez, you're as bad as the RIAA claiming that every illegal download is a lost sale.
Also, trying to compare a culture like Sweden's to the United States, which is currently under violent assault from a number of quarters (most of them south of the border) is just ridiculous. Does Sweden have a collapsing third-world nation right next door, one that is largely controlled by drug cartels that have no compunction about killing anyone that gets in their way, and are perfectly happy to export that violence northward? The vast majority of U.S. citizens are just about as violent as the average Swede, which is to say, not very, and of those who do own guns, very few ever have to use them. What violence we do experience is largely confined to a few specific subcultures, and no form of gun control will ever manage to either prevent such people from owning firearms, or from killing. If you believe that, you're naive.
Personally, I don't own a gun (well, I have a BB pistol, if that counts) but if more law-abiding citizens did have guns, and knew when and how to use them, they might suffer less collateral damage. Perhaps we should require gun training by law, as we do for obtaining a driver's license: a car is arguably a more dangerous weapon than any handgun, given the fact that we mow each other down by the thousands every year.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It would not, however, be difficult to stab them, beat them with a blunt object, hit them with a car, poison them, set their house on fire, or even just go extra-savage and punch and kick them to death. It is true, guns make killing a whole lot easier (at least in terms of the mechanics of it), but America is not the only developed nation where a large fraction of the population has guns, yet we seem to have a much (by orders of magnitude) higher murder rate. There is more to the story than just the availability of guns and ammunition.
You forgot the standard weapon of choice for the politically disgruntled in other countries when they've moved beyond riots in the streets. Bombs. Which usually end up being far more deadly.
You're correct, guns isn't the reason for the high murder rate. The cause can easily be found elsewhere.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
I wish people would stop repeating the fundamental misstatement that is "gun crime". Reducing "gun crime" does not indicate an actual improvement in our lives. Reducing violent crime and murder does. "Gun crime" is fallaciously subdividing the problem of violent crime in order to try to make it look like statistics show an improvement when, in fact, the problem is unchanged or worsened. The term originates from politicians trying to make it seem like their measures have been effective after analysis of the data showed no benefit.
Let me provide a rather extreme hypothetical case to explain:
Case A, a man goes into a home with an axe and attacks a family. A family member grabs a gun, shoots at him and misses, then chases him out into the street shooting at him and eventually killing him.
Case B, laws have gone into effect that prevent gun ownership. A man goes into a house and kills six unarmed people with an axe.
So, let's analyze the different cases with regard to violent crime. Violent crime is higher in B than in A because instead of one manslaughter, we have six homicides. Now Lets examine the same two cases with regard to "gun crime". "gun crime" is lower in B than A because one manslaughter did not happen. This misguided analysis supports the theory that we should promote laws that encourage case B instead of A.
Any analytical subdivision that can take the above hypothetical situation and show case B as a net positive for society over case A, is misstatement of the problem. Please people, ignore fallacious "gun crime" studies and please look at real numbers on murder and violent crime. Note, I'm not advocating for or against any particular gun control law here. I'm just asking that people please be careful when you look at the data. From what I've seen, there hasn't been any convincing scientific evidence that gun control laws have much correlation (let alone causation) with either reductions or increases in violent crime or murder, when normalized for other, known factors.
You are an idiot to use Israel as an example, as their population is one of the most highly armed ones in the world. Look at any tourist pictures of Israel and you will see folks, dressed in civilian clothes, doing their shopping, swimming, etc toting uzis and other weapons just as US citizens tote cell phones and computers.
Reading the articles reporting on this sad event, I learned the Congresswoman Giffords is Jewish. I know everyone is assuming a Tea Party motivated attack, but there is a possibility of it being an anti-semitic attack. There is also the possibility that both of these are correct, as they do not appear to be mutually exclusive.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
...or to kill animals.
There are two basic categories for guns - those to kill humans and those to kill animals. They are generally very different and relatively easy to distinguish* from one another. Most countries ban** those guns that are used to kill humans but allow those that are used for hunting. When weapons can fit in either category, limitations such as clip size are instigated.
I make this point because it seems that everyone in the US sees guns as being the same - odd for a country that knows so much about them. Too many think that "ban all guns" or "allow all guns" are the only valid options. Or maybe it is just that these people are so loud, who knows....
*distinguish - An easy way to identify if a gun is designed to kill people is to look at it's firing rate and load capacity. Hunters do not need to shoot more then a few rounds in quick succession. People who want to go on a killing spree do.
**ban - This term is used loosely because there are always exceptions determined on a case by case basis. For example, workers in remote environments might be allowed a handgun - typically only used on humans - if bear defence is required.
I think she is on the NASA subcommittee.
Just look at the murder rates in the US vs in Europe. I would say that the country with lower murder rates is more civilized.
That would make North Korea a very civilized country indeed.
The article states that he was using an automatic weapon. They aren't clear on what type, but it's quite possible that the gun used in this incident was ALREADY illegal.
Your point would be valid if it really was an automatic weapon. However, I'm sure you've noticed the press is rarely accurate with these things and I'm sure we'll find out later it was just a regular semi-automatic handgun of no particular note.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Its insane just to think that you actually need a weapon at home.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion.
Pray it never happens to you, because if it does, you'll wish you had a trigger to pull.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Why wouldn't he have?
Soap: someone willing to gun down people is probably going to have gone on a rant at some point.
Ballot: Who knows, seems reasonably likely though, since he seems to have some interest in politics.
Jury: You don't get a choice in that one, you can't decide "I'll be on a jury today" and do so.
So I see no reason to believe he hasn't worked his way down the list.
The only conclusion we can successfully draw in this sea of ill-conceived conclusions is thus: once again, the actions of one hateful lunatic, and the lives of his victims, will be used as tools to further an agenda against a legion of overwhelmingly peaceful, law abiding citizens. I'm not sure I would want the memory of a loved one to be used (and undoubtedly abused) by strangers in such a manner, or for such a cause, but it will happen. May peace be with the victims and their families.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
No, its the bullets that make holes in peoples bodies that kill them, ban bullets.
Bullets are a lot easier to make than guns. And, if you ban the legitimate sale of bullets, you'll just create an enormous opportunity for a black market, which is even hard to monitor and control.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The guns that are legally registered (and of whose existence the government knows) actually aren't used for murders - except by idiots, I guess. A few of the many many other guns are.
Well, not used by the registered owners I think you mean. But yeah, you're right.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
we are a republic for good reason.
The U.S. isn't, and hasn't been, a republic for some time. Corporate interests have maintained a stranglehold on our gov't for almost as long as we've had a gov't. The propaganda that constitutes history is often far from accurate.
Some time what the majority think they want is wrong
Regarding majority consensus, true direct democracies don't work for the same reason most people are dysfunctional. When given an option, people tend to choose the most self-serving option available, regardless of social or fiscal responsibilities.
I love how people on this very forum have had "Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo" at the bottom of every one of their posts for years. And when that shit actually blows up suddenly it "isn't the time for politics."
So do you think the gunman went through the recourses of "soap, ballot, and jury" before settling on ammo? They come in that order for a reason. It's also worth noting that the ballot worked pretty well last November. There's no rationalization nor incitement here for what happened.
So a small group who wants some special privileges tries to obtain them by violence and that's a good thing for democracy? No, if you have a case there are plenty of mechanisms for you to express it: voting, courts, peaceful protests. If your case is worthwhile, you will have plenty of other people join you, you will probably even have free legal representation. With a peaceful protest other people who disagree with you have an option to ignore you, which is their right. You don't have any right to smash their property and burn their cars and injure police and bystanders, ever.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
It isn't just "crosshairs". People like Palin are continually exhorting their followers to "reload". Her facebook page even has crosshair symbols on a map and the names of politicians who didn't vote the way Palin wanted them to.
http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sarahpac_0.jpg
And Gabrielle Giffords name is on that.
So, now that the alleged shooter has been identified, and lists Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto among his favorite books, and has a single video listed as his favorite video -- a video of the American flag begin burned, care to revise your statement?
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
I remember when Reagan was shot, there was speculation that the shooter was politically motivated. It turned out he was mentally ill with delusions.
At the present time, no one really knows the why of this. Thankfully, they caught someone so we may know more in time.
For right now, the main thing is to hope that those shot and still alive pull through and make full recoveries.
As an aside, Gifford's husband is an astronaut on the next shuttle crew and her brother in law is currently on the space station. This has to be weighing very heavily on them.
What genocide has taken place in Europe post-WWII in any location other than former Yugoslavia? You Americans are crazy in love with your guns. That's why when one of you goes over the edge, he's always got a gun nearby to get the job done. The sooner you face that, the sooner you might do something about your horrible crime and violence problem.
Honestly, this is the most bigoted and ignorant comment I've yet seen (this week) on Slashdot. I know a lot of people who tell me (because they, too, are ignorant of actual fact about gun ownership) that we should "ban all guns." Our horrible crime and violence problem is, if you would bother to research it, not what you think it is, nor is gun control anything even resembling an answer.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Where I live there are very strict gun laws, and gun crimes are very low compared to just a couple hours south of me in the US. Even taking the population density difference into account, there is a very distinct difference between our two countries when it comes to gun deaths. I have lived in the US, and in a couple of European countries and I think the major difference is not just the availability of guns (though more guns = more gun deaths is a given) but the attitude towards guns and gun violence in the US is really a scary thing to behold.
That's all well and good, but I gave up when you touted your two completely opposite scenarios. I could just as easily do that myself. Watch:
Case A: Random lunatic breaks into a house, finds a gun and kills all 6 members of the household, as well as 3 neighbours and 1 police officer who attended the scene, before blowing his own head off.
Case B: Nutjob enters the home and is quickly subdued by the 6 people, who easily outnumber the crazy fool and keep him down long enough for police to arrive. Minor injuries were caused when the man attempted to cause harm with a bread knife but all involved made a full recovery.
So you see, these entirely hypothetical scenarios prove absolutely nothing useful.
It is easy to argue that letting everyone have guns is better than letting just the criminals have guns, but the idea is that it's harder for criminals to get guns. Furthermore, by making it illegal to own firearms, police can easily stop anyone that looks dodgy if they can prove they have a weapon on them. Without anti-gun laws, they would be forced to leave them be, not knowing what their intentions are.
Even if "gun crime" did rise after a ban, eventually it would fall as weapons are harder to obtain.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Yes, because it would have been SO much better if the killer had used a bomb packed with nails instead.
See cache here as the Kos revisionists are on the double.
If you want to protect your country from the government join the army... it is made up of normal citizens who are just as patriotic as anyone else, and who want the best for their country.
LMFAO @ your naivite.
Signed,
Former member of the U.S. armed forces
And it's so much less tragic when someone is stabbed or beaten to death than when they are shot.
Yeah, the "ban the guns" thought is so stupid...
In Mexico our government has banned guns... feel free to get any kind of statistics from there ;-)
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
I can agree that an ordinary citizen has absolutely no good reason to own an automatic or spray-fire weapon, but having a weapon adequate for self defense may indeed be more important in some regions of the world than others. Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
You could also build a house without a hammer. Point is... the best tool for putting a nail into something is arguably a hammer.
A gun (again arguably) is the best available tool to kill people.
I happen to come from Northern Ireland, Belfast is my home town and I can tell you that you've just made that statement up about them having the "loosest gun laws". The gun laws in Northern Ireland don't differ that much from the rest of the UK.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
"This type of story is news for everybody, including nerds."
Good thing Slashdot aired it or we'd never know it happened.
"Secondly, she serves or served on the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics which affects funding for one of Slashdot's favorite government programs called NASA. Her husband is also an Astronaut for NASA."
Trifles.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
However, I'm sure you've noticed the press is rarely accurate with these things and I'm sure we'll find out later it was just a regular semi-automatic handgun of no particular note.
The Washington Post is reporting that the weapon was a Glock handgun of unspecified caliber with an extended magazine. (Meaning, most likely, a clip that sticks out of the bottom of the handgun so it can hold a lot of bullets.) The gun is pretty typical for American handgun owners. The magazine is of some particular note, because extended magazines are themselves illegal in many states.
Compared to my home state (California), though, Arizona's gun laws are particularly lax. Phoenix recently passed a law eliminating the concealed-carry permit... meaning, Phoenix gun owners may now carry their firearms concealed on their persons in most public places. (I think schools and bars are excepted.)
Breakfast served all day!
Switzerland has one gun per individual, issued by the government. But they also have compulsory military service and required firearms training.
See a difference from a country where "gun rights" morphed into "every two-bit thug can get a pistol and hold up a convenience store"?
So, here's a list of violent crime by state. Note the top 5 are: California, Florida, Texas, New York, and Illinois. So of the most violent states the highest has very middle of the road gun control laws (somewhat more strict than average), two have very lax gun control laws, and two have some of the most strict gun control laws in the country. Notice the strong correlation? Neither do I.
Frankly, if you're looking for causative factors for violent crime and murder, gun control laws are a red herring. There is little or no correlation demonstrated scientifically either regionally or nationally. Trying to fight violent crime with gun control laws is like trying to fight syphilis with prayer in public elementary schools. Everyone will have an opinion, get mad, and politicians will love it... but no matter what happens it's not going to help the problem significantly. Real solutions have worked other places though, reducing wealth disparity, social safety nets, decriminalizing narcotic use and personal possession, free addiction treatment programs, educational initiatives, socialized healthcare... all can be shown to have demonstrable effect in reducing violent crime. Of course they're also harder and expensive and not as easy of political targets.
Her husband is Mark Kelly, who is commanding the next (and last) shuttle flight. His brother, Scott (Gifford's brother in law) is currently on the space station. Gifford is also on the house science and technology committee that sets funding for NASA.
That makes it news for nerds. And more importantly, it matters.
Apparent identity of the shooter is Jared Lee Loughner.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Jared+Lee+Loughner
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=gabrielle+giffords
Youtube channel is still up and the videos are backed up.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
Who's debating this? Nobody.
There will always be people out there who will use whatever is at their disposal to cause harm or even death. The argument here is that guns serve no purpose other than the intention of killing someone else. Knives, on the other hand, have many useful and practical applications. The fact that someone might use one for harm is irrelevant, particularly as your chances of surviving a knifing are far greater than your chances of surviving getting shot.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers.
Then move. We don't need you here.
You know someone is out of soap when they start lacing their arguments with the words "hater" or "hateful".
Aren't you actually confused with the Civilian National Defense Force" proposed by Pres. Obama? Its only political equivalent in modern times are the Brown Shirts or the Khmer Rouge.
Or, perhaps you had duck hunting in mind? That point of that video begins at about 4:15.
Both parties, and all their satellites, are mirror images of each other, and both are worthless as representatives of the people. Their common core is their love of corporate bribe money, a.k.a. "Campaign Contributions". That's how Pres Obama lost the health care "debate". He got one of the largest mandates in history to pass SIGNIFICANT health care reform, and he was given majorities in both houses to make sure he could do it. But, Dems couldn't keep their fingers out of the corporate cookie jars so a few million dollars nullified the votes of millions of voters. Now those Dems and their Rep clones can take their "campaign war chests" into retirement with them, along with their salaries, free health care with no caps or exemptions, and a 10% COL raise each year, all of which pass on to the spouse at their deaths, so they can live in the same luxury as the CEOs whose bribes they took.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Europe kills it's own, the US goes abroad to kill other people. I don't know which one is more civilized.
So, when Germany invaded Poland, and France, and dropped V-2's on the Brits that was "killing it's own"? Look, once you drive your tanks across a border into another sovereign state, guess what: you went abroad. Doesn't matter whether it was one mile or ten thousand, you are the aggressor, you committed an act of war. Hell, it's worse if they happen to be a people that you once called friends and with whom you maintained economic and cultural ties.
We just bomb complete strangers for the most part, so from the standpoint of who is more civilized in this regard, I'm going to say that we win on points. In either case, I don't suppose it matters much to the victims.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Why? It's totally missing the point about education. The education isn't to teach someone not to murder someone else, it's to teach people not to accidentally shoot themselves or someone else.
Look at the op's statement again.
Not as much of a connection as gun grabbing nuts like yourself would like for people to think that there is.
Because saying "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people" is an attempt to duck the issue.
After all, it's not often that you to hear of someone who doesn't have a gun shooting someone near-fatally, and killing others.
And if this guy didn't have a gun, maybe he would have had to settle for shooting her with a camera. Or a paint-gun.
Gun control doesn't mean taking away peoples right to own guns - it means keeping guns out of the hands of nutcases and those not qualified to own a gun. The militia was defined as able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 who are otherwise qualified to serve. A nut job is neither "able-bodied" nor otherwise qualified by temperament or comportment.
But leaving aside the issue of "rights" (because certainly your right NOT to get shot by a nutjob is a right that is so basic that it shouldn't even need enumerating), there IS a gun culture in the US, and this is why the homicide rate is so much higher than other countries with guns that also have gun control laws.
Then again, the US also has more people in jail than any other country in the world ... so obviously something can stand improvement.
The timeline of US military operations begs to differ with your high flying analysis of Europe's bloody history. Also the US has used dictators to topple democracies and create some pretty horrible situations all on their own.
There is more to the story than just the availability of guns and ammunition.
Exactly, and the hard question is who shoulders the blame and to what degree. Do you place blame solely in the hands of those pulling the trigger or in the profoundly sick society which encourages and enables such violent behavior?
Nothing occurs in a vacuum. We all have aggressive tendencies. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No, I tend to think it's just a survival mechanism engrained by millions of years of evolution. Anger is very healthy when directed at the right places(i.e. injustice), but unfortunately most people aren't discerning enough to accurately identify said injustice. Nor do people possess enough self-control to manifest their anger without violence.
In case you have problems with Math, HOW would ONE Person kill 12 people with an Axe/Knife or Crossbow?
That's easy. Use twelve crossbows.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You left off the part where other people tell groups of potential crazies WHO TO KILL.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434
Scroll to the bottom.
The read up on her rhetoric about reloading.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-10/-don-t-retreat-reload-palin-tells-republicans-in-new-orleans.html
So you're saying more murders = more civilized? Man, that's messed up.
Semi-automatic handguns are extremely useful -- why do you think police carry them? Because they're useful for self-defense.
When everybody starts using them for 'self-defence' that's where your logic falls apart.
Her staff should have been armed and ready to respond.
This is Arizona, I was under the impression that everyone and his dog in rural America walks around with guns. Bystanders apparently tackled the shooter without using guns. The only gun involved here was the murderer.
I'm guessing parent got their numbers straight from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Also, it's 90 guns per 100 people, not 90% *of* people. So if 10 people are armed and one other nut has 80 guns in his basement, you can still get 90 per 100.
Just FYI.
I've yet to see someone drop a cement mixer truck at a political rally. Guns are used in the US a political scare tactic.
You have absolutely no idea about Europe, do you. If you did, you wouldn't say anything like subjugating to the collective, or homogeneous demography. All in the US tend to disagree with the government, but I see no action whatsoever in actually showing the gov that you disagree. You still sheepishly vote for Dems and Reps. I don't believe there's a country out there that throws country-wide strikes more than the French if they disagree. Overall strikes are pretty common in Europe. Also, I do not believe that there are countries with a more varied population than The Netherlands, France, Germany, Luxembourg...
Do some homework before you go out and sprout this misinformed BS.
P.S. Posted anonymously to prevent mods being cancelled. ~Xiph1980
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
A large number of legally possessed firearms increases the number of illegal ones. I'm afraid that doesn't mean anything, but it's typical of the mental gymnastics that Americans typically perform to justify widespread gun ownership.
That's all well and good, but I gave up when you touted your two completely opposite scenarios. I could just as easily do that myself.
Great, lets do that.
Case A: Random lunatic breaks into a house, finds a gun and kills all 6 members of the household, as well as 3 neighbours and 1 police officer who attended the scene, before blowing his own head off.
Case B: Nutjob enters the home and is quickly subdued by the 6 people, who easily outnumber the crazy fool and keep him down long enough for police to arrive. Minor injuries were caused when the man attempted to cause harm with a bread knife but all involved made a full recovery.
Okay, so lets analyze those two cases using both methodologies:
"Violent crime": case A results in 10 homicides and one suicide racking up 10 violent crimes. Case B is one assault. Clearly laws that promote Case B seem to be indicated by this one sample.
"Gun crime": Case A results in 10 homicides and on suicide racking up 10 gun crimes. Case B zero gun crimes. Clearly laws that promote Case B seem to be indicated by this one sample.
I guess I'm not seeing your objection to evaluating this case in terms of "violent crime" or how that is in any way worse than evaluating it in terms of "gun crime". Are you sure you understood my post? Maybe you should re-read it.
So you see, these entirely hypothetical scenarios prove absolutely nothing useful.
Actually, although you do not seem to realize it, you just supported the point of my post with your example.
It is easy to argue that letting everyone have guns is better than letting just the criminals have guns...
Please stay on topic. This is not about what gun control laws are a good idea. It's about objectively evaluating the effects of gun control and other laws using valid, logic criteria instead of logically flawed problem statements designed to hide the fact that evidence does not support a particular conclusion.
Even if "gun crime" did rise after a ban, eventually it would fall as weapons are harder to obtain.
Clearly you did miss the point. I don't care if "gun crime" rises. You shouldn't care if "gun crime" rises. This is because only someone who hasn't thought about it or who has a phobia cares if they are murdered with a gun or with a bomb or with a baseball bat. The goal needs to be reducing violent crime and murder and "gun crime" is just a term used to obscure the data on that issue.
Yet USA has almost 6 times the murder rate (the same goes for all the scandinavian countries) Why?
Here is your reason, but you're not going to like it, and I'll probably be modded down, even though the following is 100% factual - anyone here can confirm it by just plugging the census data and crime statistics into Excel:
http://comfortabletruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/fun-chart-of-day.html
If you normalize for demographics, the USA is just as safe as Europe. It really is that straightforward. Don't hate me for pointing it out, I'm not biased, the facts are biased, I'm just the messenger. Like I said, anyone can confirm this with Excel and a few minutes of research. We can argue endlessly about the reasons for this incredibly strong correlation, sure, but we cannot deny the story the numbers tell us.
I nebraska there are 3 guns per person on average, I have friends and family that have many more guns than that(assault, hunting, handguns, etc.) yet not a one of us has ever committed a gun crime and the state is a safe place to be
the logic of banning guns doesn't work because the shooting at a high school in omaha would have still happened because it was a cop's weapon used(which we would not ban I bet)
You are implying that just owning a gun (or guillotine) automatically turns you into a crazed murderer, this is not the case in fact every year of all the people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a License to Carry Firearms only 0.1% of them commit any felony or misdemeanor. You would be hard pressed to find crime rates lower than that and all of these people own guns and most carry them frequently.
Instead of blaming an inanimate objects for crimes and passing draconian laws that only serve to keep law abiding citizens defenseless from criminals and tyranny we could try and do a better job of keeping career criminals and violent mental patients separated from the rest of society or at least under tabs. Unfortunately it is much easier to pass laws banning scary looking guns knowing that law abiding citizens will surrender them and criminals who bought them from a smuggler will just ignore that law like so many others, this way you can say you took thousands of guns off 'the street' and line a bunch of scary black assault rifles on a table for the media. It looks like you've made the world a safer place for everyone when in reality its now only safer for criminals.
Quote The suspect fired indiscriminately from about four feet away, Michaels said. A congressional official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that the gunman was using an automatic weapon. unquote Unless specifically registered by the ATF automatic weapons are illegal already.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The problem with that rule is that we probably have at least one person somewhere in this thread tree who thinks they're sufficiently without sin to start casting stones.
The point is that banning guns will do nothing at all to prevent killing. It'll just shift it to stabbing, beating, and poisoning. Meanwhile, more people will die in the wilderness. There is even evidence that crime as a whole would increase.
Nobody debates that gun crime declines when guns are banned either, but it's not a worthwhile statistic. We care about the crime part, not the gun part. Nobody surveys the scene where some nutter drove a car into a crowd of people and says "thank god he didn't have a gun"!
And allowing everyone to have them will ensure that the lunatics will be able to get one.
It took 2 world wars, but now Europe has learned its lesson.
You keep saying that, but I have yet to see any evidence of it being true. European Imperialism isn't dead, it's just on leave. Besides, the old Weimar Republic had a very modern gun-control law. It didn't stop the Third Reich, in fact that law was used to disarm everyone that the up-and-coming Nazi regime didn't like.
... laws. So they make more of them, but you can't change how a person thinks by simply passing a law that says he can't have or do something.
Guns are tools for killing people, no more and no less. If you want the use of such tools to be less of a problem, you have to fix the people. That's a much more difficult problem, unfortunately, and lawmakers have only one weapon at their disposal
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think this is more of a perfect example against the idea that guns are good for self defense: even though the US allows people to have guns for self defense, it didn't help here.
You're also implying that without guns, people wouldn't find some other ways to kill each other. That's another fundamentally unsound assumption: guns make killing easier in some ways, but that's all.
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
If someone wants you dead, he doesn't need a gun.
That's the wrong logic. If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes. With a gun you can do it any time you want, and that increases the temptation.
Also, let's look at our southern neighbors: Guns are very highly illegal in Mexico, yet gun violence there is much, much worse than it is in the US.
Owning an automatic weapon is illegal in most if not all African countries, in some (Kenya for example) it is a capital crime. This hasn't stopped Africa from becoming one of the most dangerous places in the world.
I forgot that when laws said things shouldn't exist, they stopped existing. That drug war was pretty easy. So was the war on rape and murder ;)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
This was an assassination, asshole. Education about gun safety had nothing to do with it.
Exactly. If guns were completely removed from our society somehow(house to house searches? I'm not sure what the plan is there), and for some reason this guy couldn't go down to Mexico and buy whatever he wanted, then this would have just been a bombing. Maybe we should focus on figuring out what makes people so deranged that they think assassinating a public figure will solve their problems, and try to fix that?
I don't know about that. Simply putting a gun in someone's hand changes a person because of the culture weight of the thing. Guns have a social symbolism of power and prowess that is different from vehicles or even cars (also a potent symbol, but one of freedom). When one weilds a gun, it makes the user feel elevated and virile in a way which entices the user to employ that power. Pulling a gun carries the implication that you will use it, and stepping back requires giving up that mantle.
Cars, cricket bats and other mundane, but lethal, items are all capable of killing if killing is the plan, but ne'er-do-wells inevitably flock to a means that make them feel empowered. Invariably it seems that massacres are the work of disenfranchised individuals who feel powerless and frustrated. It's no wonder they choose a means that they feel puts control back in their hands.
It's not something intrinsic to guns that makes them a lunatic magnet, it's the culture around them that's the problem. It's partly the allure of martial prowess and the intrinsic respect granted by carrying a weapon (eg. police authority) that means that any device made to kill will attract them, but it's also the fault hollywood that imbues guns with mystique.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Their only reason is to kill people.
Tell that to a woman walking home alone from work in a dark street. And imagine that woman might be, say, your daughter or sister or another loved one. You don't have a right to render them defenseless.
People like TFAFalcon will try to pin this on the US and it's "lax" gun laws too.
Hey TFAFalcon! Why not put some of that blame on Switzerland? After all, in many ways their gun laws are a lot more lax than the ones in the US.
Handgun rounds are not always deadly, they often lack penetrating power traveling at a fraction of the speed of a rifle round. The famous 1986 FBI Miami shootout has the agents putting multiple rounds (6 in one, 12 in another). Shot placement is probably the number one important factor in single kills. Though even that doesn't assure a single shot kill. For instance, from news reports at this point it sounds like Representative Giffords will survive while even being shot in the head.
So, your argument is wrong, even in the case of a single assailant. If you are in a situation where there are two or more attackers a single shot will be wholly ineffective.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
No, my point was that if nearly every person in the US had a guillotine then it would be very very bloody.
Yeah, I don't think so. Every person in the US has a knife. Most have a meat-cleaver. A whole bunch have axes and chainsaws. Hell, pretty much everyone has a 1-or-more-tonne device capable of moving at 100+ miles per hour. But you think the addition of guillotines would be the tipping point? Right. Go on, pull the other one.
"More civilized?" Really? The people who can't go a couple decades without having a genocide or two? Please.
Americans constantly kill each other - that is the civilized way.
Fandroids hate facts.
Exceptionally well from a combat standpoint, the problem is that we are trying to change the society so they don't support terrorism anymore. We are losing a propaganda war and winning a shooting one, but even when you kill a hundred of them for each of our guys it still adds up over the years, and its looking like our society doesn't have the resolve to wait it out.
No. It is absolutely *not* an attempt to duck anything. The gun itself is not the problem. The problem is the nutcase wielding it.
And it's quite often that you hear of someone who doesn't have a gun using another tool to kill someone -- such as a knife, or a bomb, or any other thing that any criminal would do to kill someone.
The point is that regulating things doesn't accomplish what you want to do. The guy tried to kill a congresswoman -- which laws do you think he might think should be followed? None -- as observing his youtube page shows. He's an anarchist.
Obviously responsible gun owners don't want criminals to kill people any more than those who would regulate us. Attempting to restrict our rights (as the OMG GUNS KILLED SOMEBODY crowd always does, which is why I always point out the ridiculousness of the statement) does nothing to actually deal with crime. We've already got laws against killing people -- do you think making laws against guns (which only law-abiding people, by definition, will follow), will cause a person bent on murder to change his mind? The idea is ridiculous.
You hypothesize that the gun culture in the US is why the homicide rate is much higher than that in other countries, and yet the counter example is that we've watched crime rates drop in each state that has legalized concealed carry.
Our high crime rates may have their roots in other than the "gun culture" -- correlation != causation. I have carried a firearm for years, and it's never jumped out of its holster and killed anyone yet, and the "gun culture" areas where I've grown up and spent most of my adult life have very low crime -- perhaps because nearly everyone is armed.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
How can you honestly say that removing guns will do "nothing at all to prevent killing"? Look at any of the major shootings over the last couple of decades, do you seriously mean to say that the lone gunman who shoots and kills say 10 people would be able to stab 10 people before being taken down?
That's just one example off the top of my head. Yes, people who want to kill will still kill, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a blade than it is to do it with a gun. Not impossible and certainly not as difficult as would be ideal, but definitely harder.
Plus, as for the wilderness thing, most countries that ban guns don't completely ban them, they often allow people to own a firearm license for a valid reason, such as hunting. Even in the UK.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion.
Have you ever thought about visiting the planet Earth at any point?
Newsflash: We Brits left America over three hundred years ago, basically because we couldn't afford it. That's when the United States needed an armed militia. A home invasion is not likely I'm afraid, and you have this thing called the armed forces these days. Difficult to believe, I know.
In principle I agree with you, but the thing is that a lot of people saw this sort of thing coming. There has been a lot of commentary and, at least in my own discussions, worry, about the winking incitement to violence that has been broadcast since Obama was elected.
Wrong, it started when Bush was elected. A lot of the strong anti-government movement started With Bush, pushed by people like you stating the government was a bunch of jackboot thugs.
So this is really reaping what you have sown, even though you wished for a different target at the time.
The shooter you see was a nut-case very much into government hatred, communism and flag burning. Not exactly the type to follow Palin or indeed any of the "America First" people. Just a crazy hater whose hatred was fueled long before Obama ever saw office.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition. Same sort of nonsense in France, Greece, etc. over reductions in entitlements meant to keep the countries solvent. When such widespread mayhem and wanton destruction crosses the pond then you can come talk to the US about how civilized other nations are.
American students have obviously seen the errors of their ways after Kent state.
Fandroids hate facts.
That's an interesting opinion. I personally find it to be either insane or trolling, but it's interesting regardless. You've used a gun crime as an example of why guns should be freely available--I think most people would go the opposite route and use this as an example of a need for stricter gun control laws.
"should be shot in the head"?
You, sir, are one sick person. To advocate that anyone in America should be shot because of their political views is INSANE! The person who did the shooting in Az also shot the 1st and 2nd Amendments, or what's left of them.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
A thousand bucks a piece.
I can make zip guns in bulk for $10 at most.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The shooter you was a nut-case very much into government hatred, communism and flag burning. Not exactly the type to follow Palin or indeed any of the "America First" people. Just a crazy hater whose hatred was fueled long before Obama ever saw office, by the same people that hated Bush so much... Kind of like the IRS plane guy, a lunatic pushed over the rbink of madness by those that hate the government, period.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The appropriate place for a gun is not a safe. The safest place for a gun is with its owner, by his/her side.
So a small group who wants some special privileges tries to obtain them by violence and that's a good thing for democracy?
That's not even remotely what I said. Re-read my post and try to come up with a response that actually addresses it. Hint: something along the lines of "false dichotomy" might work.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I love how everyone talks about banning guns, yet nobody has a good plan about how to do so. For instance; I have 4 guns, 1 that I purchased for concealed carry when I was stationed in a terrible part of Virginia while in the Marine Corps, and 3 that were handed down to me from my father. My recent weapon is registered, and if they really wanted to they could come get it, its not worth going to jail over, but they don't know about the others and I wouldn't tell them. So, in the society with banned guns, I would have 3 guns instead of 4. The only change would be that I would be using an older firearm to defend myself and my family.
That's overly broad for "unrestricted" isn't it? Felons are still prohibited from owning or carrying a gun in Arizona.
From what you said, the logical conclusion is that the strict gun control laws are a response to the high homicide rates. To prove the reverse you must establish that an *increase* in gun availability in the general population deters homicides, which is not what you said.
Japanese-Americans may have a low homicide rate, but that may be due to the social economic-class rather than any real cultural phenomenon. It would be good to cross-tabulate the data to see what the results are but I am confident that Japanese-American would have a *similar* homicide rate to their mainstream peers in the same social-economic class (maybe with geographical adjustments as well).
In short - statistics, learn it.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Really? Coming from you that is a compliment. Here are some facts.
Any retard in America can own a firearm. That would include you.
In Israel you must be one of the following:
a. Part-time reservist (volunteer) for 3 years- may own 1 handgun
b. Such a reservist (volunteer) is a member of a gun club- may own 1rifle
c. Professional, licensed public transportation driver, transportinga minimum of 5 passengers- may own 1 handgun
d. Licensed animal control officer- may own 2 hunting rifles, *not*full automatic weapons, or semi-automatic weapons with a limited capacity magazine.
e. Full-time dealer of jewelry or large sums of cash or valuables-may own 1 handgun
West bank residents may carry a firearm IF:
1. A resident in a militarily strategic buffer zone, essential to thesecurity of the State of Israel- may own 1 handgun
2. A business owner in these geographic areas- may own 1 handgun
Every citizen of Israel must serve in the military at least a year, and everyone of military age must be in the military reserves. They are all trained and disciplined. And since they are all pretty well educated and informed (as opposed to many morons like yourself) I would trust them far more with a weapon than almost anyone in the U.S. Finally, maybe you haven't realized it yet but the American news like your favorite, Fox News, likes to show lots of guns even if the overwhelming majority of a population isn't walking around with one.
My point was that even in places that many consider a war zone where acts of terrorism are perceived to abound (but which in reality aren't), there are far less gun crimes than in the U.S. So how can morons like you try to tell us that guns reduce crime. Get your head out of your ass it's killing off your brain cells asshole. Americans are irresponsible in how they deal with firearms, since anyone can buy a pistol or assault rifle.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Cute. I'm not from the US, though.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and sometimes they use guns to do it.
This is always a nice one to hide behind. Alas, countries with more lax gun controls and where guns are more widespread have a higher number of murders committed and guns are always involved the majority of the time. Why? If it's difficult to kill someone then you might think twice about it and cool off. When you have a weapon where you can stand off and detahc yourself from the physical act of killing it all becomes so much easier.
Guns are very highly illegal in Mexico
Not the greatest example in the world you could have come up with.
A word of advice to you gun haters: Don't like guns? That's fine. Don't own them.
I'm afraid that me not owning a gun will not save me from being shot and killed.
Or an car?
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
However, in Israel, while I trust the 18-year old woman sitting next to me with my life, it isn't as if she's just toting around an Uzi for fun. She's a member of the armed forces; her weapon is officially issued to her for that time; all the ammo is logged and checked; unauthorized use, as far as I know, is next to unheard of, though there have been a few, minor incidents. Israel is safe because of the presence of arms, but also because those who hold them are serious, trained and disciplined-- and have a respect for life that is often overlooked from the outside.
A congresswoman gunned down in front of her constituents is an enormous tragedy-- but also one which reveals the moral failures of the United States. This young man should have never had a gun in his hand; someone should have noticed. Surely Israel can't insure that similar acts never happen-- but we come a lot close, and I like to think, despite all the internal conflicts, by occasionally putting principles above all.
Mod troll. Guns don't kill, people do. Higher murder rate in US? Sure, we also have more general crime and much of our youth are little shits that need to be spanked and properly raised. Semi-auto rifles and pistols are also fun, but if you weren't so anti gun you would know that. Oh yeah, most gun crime (as opposed to lawful killing using a gun) is committed by CRIMINALS WHO CANNOT LEGALLY POSSES A FIREARM!!!
We are talking about Europeans here (see the comment I replied to), a category in which both Germans and Polish fall. People you are culturally and geographically close to (as you yourself point out) can be described as your own.
You should carefully consider the sordid history of US wars and interventions (installing friendly tyrants to do your genocides for you), as well as the high horse you're on.
I don't feel defenseless where I'm living.
It is what it is.
In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition. Same sort of nonsense in France, Greece, etc. over reductions in entitlements meant to keep the countries solvent. When such widespread mayhem and wanton destruction crosses the pond then you can come talk to the US about how civilized other nations are.
Yeah, but you see, no-one got killed there, except for a student accidentally shoot by the police in Greece. See, in civilized Europe, people may make a fuss about being screwed in the ass by the capitalist system, but either because we are civilized, or either because guns are not allowed (like it should be in any sane country) people are not shooting each other around, are they?
Incorrect regarding concealed-carry permits. Concealed-carry permits still exist in Arizona. They are not necessary for purposes of concealed-carry. However, a resident may opt to get a permit for purposes of permit reciprocity when traveling to other states.
Getting rid of permits entirely would be a terrible thing for Arizona residents.
http://handgunlaw.us/states/arizona.pdf
<quote><p>Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion.</p></quote>
Guns at home are used to:
1 kill yourself (30%)
2 kill your wife
3 kill your or your wife friends
4 kill your children
5 kill your neighbors
...
10 kill trespassers (5%)
But that's 20 year ago, now it is OK
Actually, outside of the military community and people living near borders or in settlements you will barely find anyone with guns in Israel. All those people you see in the pictures with M16s and Tavors in civilian clothing are usually combat soldiers on leave. The first thing they do when getting home is getting rid of the uniform (it gets annoying after a while). Many carry their guns with them because the rules about how to store your weapon at home are extremely tight; the weapon must be locked up, the bolt separated from it and hidden in a different room, and to get to either of these rooms you must have 2 locks. Many soldiers find it easier to just carry their weapon with them. As for older people, they are usually in special reserve response units that are trained in fast local response to problems, and must be available and with their weapon 24/7
yes fight amongst your selves huahaha we elite win everytime. You know why evil triumphs? It is because good is dumb.
Perhaps we should require gun training by law...
Gun training doesn't solve anything. With the proliferation of guns all you're doing is ensuring that at some point someone will think "I hate that person, and I have an easy weapon with which to kill them".
, as we do for obtaining a driver's license: a car is arguably a more dangerous weapon than any handgun, given the fact that we mow each other down by the thousands every year.
I'm afraid no matter how hard you try you can't compare this to anything else. A gun is a weapon. End of. A car isn't. It's used to get around. People getting killed by cars is part of the risk of living and getting around. There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
So political disputes are now to be resolved by private armed militia, supporting opposite factions?
If politics in the US turns into a streetfight, there aren't enough cops to issue everyone a bodyguard.
Armed gangs used to settle political disputes? Sort of like Weimar Germany?
Laws only restrain the lawful. Arm up and mobb deep.
What you are describing is a complete breakdown of civil society (think Somalia).
This is not the society we should be planning. This is not the world we should be creating
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
"It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate."
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
"If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes."
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
So uh, what would you do about the exploding wildlife population then? Start handing out condoms or begging nicely? Or we could start having our police jacked for their guns by law abiding "youths".
it was the right wing whoresons' scaremongering and provocation that caused that oafbrain to attack that congresswoman. is that it ?
Read radical news here
He sounds like your basic garden variety crazy of the anti-government persuasion. Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto are basically at the lunatic fringe opposites of the political spectrum - it seems this fellow is more interested in violence against the government then what the particular goal of said violence is.
Did you mean the "Left" in the USofA ... or in England?
The guy who made that movie is British.
Good. Then keep your nose out of our business.
Yes, and banning double parking will ensure that only assholes will double park. I think we should globally allow it since otherwise just a few will do it which seems unfair.
Your narrative engages in a common but ultimately naive whitewashing, which is the story that genocides happen when the people are deprived of rights and a big, bad authoritarian government forces people into the trenches.
While attractive for its ability to keep people asleep at night and its praise of The People, it's also a Big Lie. The Holocaust did not happen just because of the Nazis; every place and people across Europe engaged, without much State co-ordination, in the persecution and murder of ethnic minorities in the lead-up to and course of the Second World War. No big bad monster in leather and heels was needed; people were quite glad to slaughter their neighbors if they could, if there was no one to stop them of punish them.
Or are you familiar with the Terror in France? When hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen, were gleefully put to death by their fellow countrymen, with the help of Mr. Guillotine? Such was the work of 'the People!'
Have you ever thought about visiting the planet Earth at any point?
Are you even on it? Holy cow. You Brits have been trained to believe that the government can protect you from anything, I guess. I feel sorry for you. Fact is, we both need defense from our respective governments. Whether that be political or physical only time will tell.
Now, regarding a home invasion (or any other situation where you are being threatened by another) you have to face a few more facts. I shouldn't need to spell this out, but you sound like someone who has never faced a violent situation.
Here's the thing: a cop can rarely defend you from the bad guys, unless he happens to be right there when the bad guy pulls a gun on you. Bad guys are pretty good at making sure that said cop is not right there (difficult to believe, I know.) For the most part, defending you is actually not a cop's job: his job is to come in afterwards and pick up the pieces and figure out who to arrest, so that justice can be served. The law knows that perfectly well, which is why it's perfectly legal to defend yourself in most places on this planet. Not that outlawing it would make much difference: most normal humans will fight to survive and deal with the legal consequences later. So the question is this: if the excrement hits the air circulation device, are you capable of mounting an adequate defense?
Maybe for you a home invasion is "not likely", but for many millions of people that's just not true. It just isn't. I have relatives who live in the U.S. not too far from the Mexican border, and I'll tell you this: a home invasion (or some other act of violence) is anything but unlikely. In fact I want them to move for that reason alone.
Get back to reality. The world is a dangerous place, and like it or not, firearms make a damned good defense.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I've served with Canadians...you're not any better. Sorry.
Note that one of the other "targets" on Sarah Palin's map had his home's propane line cut.
Fortunately, no other damage occurred.
The problem isn't guns - it is a political movement that pursues eliminationist goals.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_and_arrow
and it's accurate
Yeah, if you happen to be within a couple feet of your target. Beyond 10 feet, things start to change; you need more time to line up the shot, and believe me, the further away the target is, the harder it is to do that, especially with a handgun (the preferred firearm for criminals). This might be part of the reason why most shootings occur at close range (at least shootings that involve police officers):
http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_training/what_happens_gunfight/index1.html
Palm trees and 8
Ha ha ha. Out of cold dead hands, does that work for you?
--
But you should use that logic for all those terrorist cases.
Why don't they ban all those explosives I wonder? Hmmmmm.
You can't handle the truth.
which moron, and i reiterate, moron, modded down the above, FACT containing post, so that it had to be modded up to remain at +1 normal ?
im openly calling you a moron. come out and justify your morondom. that is, if you can. while youre at it, explain the domestic and friendly uses of a close-counters fucking smg apart from killing people.
Read radical news here
The important part of this is "NUT". The ideology of a murderous wacko is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if he was a "Tea Bagger", although I'm glad hes not just so I don't have to hear about it for months on end.
We are talking about Europeans here (see the comment I replied to), a category in which both Germans and Polish fall. People you are culturally and geographically close to (as you yourself point out) can be described as your own.
You should carefully consider the sordid history of US wars and interventions (installing friendly tyrants to do your genocides for you), as well as the high horse you're on.
I know exactly what you meant, and I'm sorry you took my reply as "high horse" but it wasn't. Maybe you should read it again, I don't know. But here's the thing: I don't consider the act of making war to be morally superior just because you're attacking a neighboring country, versus a nation that's halfway across the globe.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And you're forgetting Oklahoma, unabomber etc.? Also, bombers choose bombs because they're more effective; not because they are easier to come by.
Or, as the sibling post points out, with cameraphones.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
You are exactly what is wrong with politics. He is a crazy person. There are crazy people of every political inclination, it has nothing to do with the validity of the ideals they twist into violence. Stop hyper-politicizing tragedy. And by the way, if you will kindly take a look at his youtube page you will see that "Communist manifesto" is one of his favorite books.
Um, that movie that you're linking to is written and directed by a BRITISH guy.
England != The USofA
You make a valid point-- violence in US society is not JUST about guns, but, about, for instance, the continued ghettoization of blacks-- but I fail to see how this disturbed young man could have punched and kicked six people to death in the course of 30 seconds, and critical injured 20. At least, it would have required some more planning on his part.
"It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate." Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock. "If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes." Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
The knife has one thing going for it: it's silent. You fire a gun, your odds of your crime being noticed immediately are much higher.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If you really think a ban would help, might I remind you that bioweapons are very much illegal in this country.....wasn't much of a deterrent for the anthrax mailer, now was it? The Unabomber managed his efforts for how many years before he was finally apprehended?
So why don't you legalize bioweapons and explosives? Clearly the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) illegal to own and handle is, in fact, the reason why more people don't die from being exposed to them. More than that, the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) internationally sanctioned even for military use makes this true on a global scale. Not because of the legal deterrant, but simply because the lack of a legal chain of manufacture and distribution makes them plain unavailable. Conversely, handguns with their huge legal (civilian and LEO/military) market are widely available. I'm not too worried about domestic use by lone gunmen (since they will always find a way), but about the global destabilizing effect this easy and cheap availability has.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
If you believe home invasion is unlikely, try substituting the synonym armed burglary, which the armed forces (US or Brit) do not respond to.
If the fellow did not have a gun, he could have used a stolen cement mixer or truck to run over the politician.
Very, very strange logic. How many murders were committed where stolen cement mixers were used and the killer said "I would have used a gun but I didn't have one"? For people who should understand guns better than anyone Americans really have a warped sense of what they actually let you do.
...since the police have no responsibility nor obligation to do so.
As Dirty Harry said: "Then you end up executing your neighbour because his dog pisses on your lawn" as a reponse to vigilantes. When you meet an opposing force with force, the opposing force merely thinks that it has to get stronger. It never ends. Oh, and everyone ends up believing that they're right.
And since if I don't have a gun, because they are outlawed, you can damn sure bet the criminals will have them, leaving all law abiding citizens defenseless.
Newsflash: In countries that have adequate gun laws and where guns are taken out of society criminals have to work far, far harder to obtain guns. It also makes it far easier to spot something that is illegal. I'm afraid your warped logic isn't backed up by evidence from countries that have gun control that takes guns out of society as everyday objects.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1942286&cid=34806696
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, I mean to say that a gunman who kills 10 people would be able to come up with some sort of improvised weapon or just an illegal gun that might well kill more than 10 people.
How can YOU honestly say that a crazy hell bent on killing 10 people or more will hesitate for a moment because guns are illegal? Do you REALLY think they will be unable to come up with any way to harm people if they can't just use a gun? They're crazy, not stupid.
Plus, as for the wilderness thing, most countries that ban guns don't completely ban them, they often allow people to own a firearm license for a valid reason, such as hunting. Even in the UK.
So a crazy killer would never consider sawing off a rifle or shotgun to do their killing?
That's not true at all. Police use guns everyday in an effective manner without killing people (which isn't to say that police don't kill people with their guns, just that the vast majority of the time that they point one at someone they don't). Police can use their guns to kill people to defend themselves or others if necessary, but most powerful aspect is the threat of such a thing happening that allows them to better control situations.
That same aspect applies to people wanting to protect their homes from invaders and pretty much any other situation where a gun is pointed at a person as well. Even someone committing armed robbery need not kill anyone.
Pretty much no one buys a gun planning to kill someone with it. And very very few of those said people or guns will end up killing a person. I'm willing to bet that better than 99.9% of the time a gun is used there is no killing of people going on.
Of course, they may end up killing someone by accident, or in a fit of rage, or in self defense. People may even end up having their gun taken from them and end up being killed by it. I'd even say that in a way, guns make it far too easy for people to kill each other. But that isn't the point. The point is that saying that guns only purpose is to kill people is far off the mark.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
Running around in the trees and bush with a high powered rifle killing critters is not a sport.
Sort of a non sequitur there huh, since the person you're replying to didn't say anything about it being a sport.
There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
All I can say is, you're far too trusting, and whatever "safe" part of the world you live in, I strongly urge you to stay there.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
...or to kill animals
Or even to prevent people from being killed. When you have someone hell-bent on killing people, maybe with a bomb or some other large-scale means, then using a gun to kill him could prevent the deaths of a lot of other people.
A gun is a tool. It is neither inherently good or bad. If there weren't any guns then people would find other ways to harm others - just like has happened for thousands of years in the past.
Not to mention that the genii is out of the bottle. There is a worldwide availability of guns that won't be stopped any time soon, if ever. Banning guns is just going to take them out of the hands of responsible people who could use them to defend themselves, not just against individuals but also against abusive governments.
It's very sad that there are sick individuals who misuse these tools to shoot innocent people but overall it's not going to help the majority of people to ban legal ownership of firearms.
Sapere aude!
Rwanda.
I agree...
My point was that the poster to whom I replied earlier had already decided that this was "political terrorism egged on by a political party that doesn't seem to have a human heart, in particular, Sarah Palin", which is bullshit.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
And the previous Slashdot's posting was about Digital Afterlife:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/08/1825239/Are-You-Ready-For-the-Digital-Afterlife
Talk about bad timing...
So restrict handguns or something. I've got four rifles in the gun case on the farm-- they're remarkably effective at changing the mind of a 1200-pound bull, and would work for anyone bullheaded enough to come on the property without permission, but don't lend themselves well to concealment.
By "crazy people", the GP doesn't mean tyrants - he means deranged people bent on massacre. You can't stop a lone lunatic from killing people with cars, scissors or cricket bats - it's just not possible to always catch them before the act. That's quite distinct from the crazy person you voted in who is now suddenly a despot. Two different problems entirely.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I see nothing wrong with compulsory military service and required firearms training. In fact, I'm all for it. The beauty of a militia army is that it's a very good tool to defend your country and a very bad one to use against the population - ANY population. Besides, have you seen any nerd in Switzerland, or Israel? They're all jocks. All of them. Drop one Swiss soldier in any US high school and he would beat up everybody without breaking a sweat. Drop in an Israeli soldier, and everybody would beat themselves up in fear of that the Jock from Sion could do to them.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
In America, the collective tends to be mistrusted
Rubbish. This might have applied in some frontier town in 1885, but today, and particularly post 9/11, Americans bow to the 'collective' to a greater degree than Europeans. You willingly shut down airports because someone a child got through security without a full body scan or a fondling, bring out the SWAT team because someone glued a robot to a centre-divider and on and on... As a majority you give up your rights left, right and centre willingly using the argument that says "They can search me - I have nothing to hide" - An argument that would turn the stomach of any European who has learned about Hitler.
So spare me this "freedom of the individual" BS. Americans like guns, plain and simple, particularly hand guns and assault weapons, and it makes no sense to the rest of us in jurisdictions where guns are banned.
It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_and_arrow [wikipedia.org]
Yeah, I couldn't believe he said that either. Apparently he's never seen Robin Hood. And besides, you can throw a knife.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You need to enable disqus.com, it's the service that provides the comment system. Also, click on comments - at least, they wouldn't load for me before clicking it.
Dilbert RSS feed
It happens that congresswoman supports gun rights so each and every anti-gun comment from loserboys here are null and void.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem
Amen to this.
Keep the guns. Ban people.
I never said they would, but if guns were illegal, they're a lot harder to come across. How many times do you have to read about someone taking a gun from their uncle or whatever and using it to murder someone? You'll never rule out this sort of thing completely, but as it gets less "convenient" to pull off, it's less likely to happen.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Hmmm? And were did you get the information from that no one was armed?
If they were armed they would have shot the person before he killed anyone so no one in the crowd exercised their right to carry a PDW, including the security people. Arizona laws allowing people to carry weapons did not achieve their objective but the solution is simple - make it mandatory for everyone in Arizona to carry firearms!
BM3
And how does a law abiding citizen, owning a gun, pose more threat than a criminal armed with an illegal gun? A criminal, by the very definition, will be armed, no matter if it is legal or illegal. And confiscating all the legal owners' guns will not deprive a criminal of their guns. If someone wants something, 99 times out of 100, they will find someone who will provide it. I routinely work in areas that are dangerous, and full of very ugly people. Crack dealers, drunks, winos, prostitutes, and sundry criminals. And usually it is in the middle of the night when I am there. I also carry large sums of cash on a regular basis, either to buy parts and equipment or received for services while working. I tote a gun, and usually have my toolpouch, where I keep a duct knife with a 10" double sided blade within reach. I have had to pull the duct knife twice, but thankfully never the gun. But peacenik pussies like you would rather see folks like me robbed and/or killed, rather than some scumbag criminal shot. Fuck you.
Just because the books you want to burn aren't the same ones as the Nazis doesn't mean you aren't a book burner.
The reported gunman in custody is one Jared Loughner.
Here is the youtube channel of a "Jared Lee Loughner" , self identified as a student at Pima Community College.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u
Smells like a schizo-fruitbat to me.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
"This is not the society we should be planning. This is not the world we should be creating"
Being prepared is NOT the same thing as "hoping it will happen".
If it DOES happen, would you prefer to be on the losing side because you failed to prepare? Pacifism doesn't deter serious people.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yes, armed and ready to respond to her being shot, by which point she's already been shot.
So how is it "bad taste" to have a graphic of crosshairs and the name of a person AFTER that person is shot ... but not BEFORE that person is shot?
It's not like this is the first time that graphic has been brought up. It was in the news when she posted it. And people were worried that it would lead to violence against the people named on it.
But it was okay then and not after one of the people named on it is shot? That's some pretty flexible "logic" you have there.
Jury: You don't get a choice in that one, you can't decide "I'll be on a jury today" and do so.
The jury part of that quote refers to using the judicial system, as in you can sue someone over the issue. Yes, serving on a jury would go towards that too but it's not the only action you can take.
Sapere aude!
You are showing your ignorance of firearms. A large number of semi-automatic weapon models are perfectly legitimate hunting weapons.
Furthermore, there is no such class as a "sprayfire" weapon, and the weapons you use as examples, the MAC-10 and Uzi have been illegal to possess without state and Federal permits for decades.
Although I agree with you on locking up stored guns, I think it's worthwhile to point out that criminals only really prefer stolen guns because there isn't a paper trail that leads back to them (and possibly they're cheaper (especially if you're the one who stole it in the first place!)... I haven't compared the price of stolen guns vs retail lately). If everyone started locking up their guns it wouldn't really reduce the number of criminals using them.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
Well that's the thing -- gun control has nothing at all to do with these sorts of planned assassinations. Do you think that handguns being illegal would have stopped this guy from obtaining one to carry out his attack? When it comes to gun control, the question is really about common criminals being able to obtain guns, not about people who are planning out their crimes.
Palm trees and 8
Firearms like a 9mm, 45 caliber, .38, take more than one round to stop a human sized target.
Now I live in Alaska where a 9mm or .45 will take an entire magazine to stop a pissed off moose or bear.
"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
--Gabrielle Gifford March 25, 2010, MSNBC Interview.
http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the
I second the parent post!
It is too early to start blaming or trying to figure out why this happened and at our end of the information chain we should be the ones who withhold judgment until more information is known and presented. Speculation and guessing will only form the wrong ideas in our minds as to why this happened and our own thinking will be clouded with judgment and bias instead of facts. We will become swayed by our own personal prejudices and when the facts finally come out we'll be skeptical of them if they don't form up to our own derived conclusions.
"Why did he do this?"
The assailant who's in custody should be asked the most important question of all so that we can figure out his method of thinking and have a clearer understanding of the purpose behind his actions.
Like the posters above have mentioned, some attacks and assassinations are clearly politically motivated while others are just done by mentally ill people, or some are even perpetrated due to secret personal vendettas or retributions.
And what is the militia? According to the United State Legal Code, it includes all able-bodied persons 18 or older.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Representative was shot! So were some other people! We have no idea who else was shot, who did it, why, or what the condition of the representative is! We're at the scene with news outlets contradicting each other trying to be first to say anything-at-all to get their ratings up. Political trolls are drawing conclusions and throwing around blame with absolutely nothing to go on. *YAWN* Can't wait a day or 2 until we actually know anything, can we?
If a baseball bat or knife was used, he might kill one person in a surprise attack. If an automatic weapon is used, he might kill 10 people in a surprise attack.
And if he threw some fertilizer and oil together he might kill a couple of hundred people (maybe even thousands) in a surprise attack. The point is that guns are not necessary to kill lots of people.
Sapere aude!
> Interesting, one of the by-standers, who helped hold the gunman down, said he was white and clean shaven.
> Where did you hear he was hispanic?
Crap. Who said that? I thought we had screened everyone on-site and they were supposed to say he was Hispanic and had a big beard.
Damage control? Who's doing damage control on this? Sarah-- can you send one of your tanning beds down to the jail?, we need to get some color on that boys cheeks before we have him shot in front of the cameras.
Sure she was on the Tea-Party's hit list, and the Federal Judge slaughtered today had numerous prior death threats, but it's a bit early to call this an assassination.
6 people have died, at least an additional 6 injured.
To me, that doesn't seem to be very targeted.
Is is possible for a young white male to be a terrorist? I forget the rules.
Performance must be inherent in every aspect of the system. It is not an afterthought, but always thought. - me
In countries where guns have been outlawed criminals don't need guns. They can just beat you to death with an iron pipe. Guns are a good defense from iron pipe, even knives.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
I have a guillotine and I use it only in self defense to chop carrots, you "insensitive clod" :-)
They were health care supporters, I see. In my country media put a stress on the abortion support...
a lot of school shootings involve guns that children take from their parents, which were not kept locked.
If you think your kids over 8 don't have access to every nook and cranny of your house, I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Gun locks are great: They keep babies and small children away from guns. But if you think a lock is going to prevent a teenager from getting into anything... Let's just say this: does the vodka in your locked liquor cabinet taste suspiciously like tap water yet?
The ______ Agenda
Gun laws didn't stop Timmy McVeigh. They didn't even inconvenience him.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yeah, the "organized militia" rationale expired long ago, but I think that by "home invasion" ScrewMaster was refering to garden-variety criminals invading one's home rather than organized armed forces.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Stabbing someone to death is not a silent crime; people usually scream, loudly, when they are stabbed. Stabbing also tends to result in the murderer being covered in the victim's blood (shooting may also have this effect, but not to the same extent).
Palm trees and 8
Indeed. This is what happens when you have prominent candidates for major political office throwing ad hominem attacks at their opponents, telling people the world will end unless they win, and advocating violent insurrection if they don't win. At least three Tea Party candidates advocated actions like what happened today:
It's inevitable. If your rhetoric involves implying that violent acts are an acceptable means of political pressure, some percentage of people will believe your bulls**t, and eventually, somebody will take it too far. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to act like these Tea Party idiots acted in this election season. When you act that way, events like those of today are what you get.
If there is any justice in the world, the three political candidates above will be arrested promptly and charged with treason.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Most of Slashdotters are very Liberal, and the victim was both.
No, Rep. Gifford is not very liberal.
Nobody likes own-side casualties, but politics is war
No, it isn't. Politics is the process by which large organizations make decisions between various options. It's not fucking war!
If someone had whacked a TeaPartista the response here would be more muted.
I doubt this, but I have no way to prove it one way or the other.
It's OK to admit we take sides, have enemies, and cheer their misfortune (or just plain want them to FUCKING DIE!). Human nature, nothing to see here. We should expect those we disagree with to wish us death also. There is no victory without defeat.
What the hell is wrong with you?
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
The reason why the Second Amendment was included is for the same reason why the US Founders used guns to revolt against the British parliament. Without guns they would not have succeeded, and we'd still be the British colonies, or possibly a British Commonwealth country like Canada rather than independent like India.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
the United States, which is currently under violent assault from a number of quarters (most of them south of the border)
South of the border? Really? Which border? The North Dakota border? The Kentucky border? Citation, please.
Since the op's statement totally misses reality, I guess we're all even. Strict enforcement of current gun control laws would not have prevented or altered this event either.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
When the GP said "home invasion" I don't think he was talking about being invaded by a foreign country. I think he meant criminals coming into your home to steal from, harm, or kill you. Of course, the invaders don't need a gun to accomplish this. I'm sure it happens in Britain as well.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
Hilariously enough, your statement is (at least partially) correct.
Sent from my CR-48
Well it started when the US was founded, I would imagine. I was pretty uncomfortable at the hatred shown towards Clinton in the 90s. I noticed & didn't like the comparisons of Bush to Hitler and Bush republicans to nazis.
The root problem seems to be the fact that a lot of people on both sides talk past each other, don't trust each other, don't follow the wikipedia 'presume good intentions' rule any more. That's a collective problem that will eventually need to be solved. That doesn't change the fact that, since Obama was elected, the bulk of the crazy paranoid tripe has come from the tea party fringe, and a lot of that has (a) been broadcast on network tv or said by mainstream politicians (Palin), and (b) this time the tone (to me at least) seems more threatening, what with the crosshairs and urges for america to 'rearm'.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Anyone here can buy a crossbow, accurate and lethal to 50 yards and easy and cheep to learn. Any yet almost no one is assassinated with them. Same with long range hunting rifles. Long range assignation just isn't that popular.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
i don't want to burn any books
how the fuck you deduced that special brain fart must make an interesting story
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well-- you can't stop everyone, can you? It's equally valid to point out, that a citizen on-site, armed, might have stopped this.
What you can do, is lower the chances by putting barriers in people's way. We don't know the details here yet, whether this guy was highly planned or a nutjob who strolled in and picked up a Glock.
If a nutjob, reasonable restrictions might have made it a lot harder. If instead he's someone who planned this in detail-- well, that's a lot harder to prevent, because someone can always steal a gun in that kind of case-- but it makes the chances, a lot less.
The way I see it, it's a matter of reason. We can and should, put up some reasonable restrictions. But the debate today, is polarized and filled with animosity. Both sides, politically, are extremes and outside the bounds of reason. You don't want a mentally ill 24-year-old walking into WalMart and buying a Glock without anyone blinking an eye, but a total ban on handguns is equally extreme.
Can you say Sten gun? Probably not, but anyone with a basic lathe and hand tools can make them all day.
I agree with your point in general (that anyone with enough motivation can make their own gun), but doesn't a Sten (or any other rifle/carbine/pistol) essentially require a rifled barrel, and therefore either the rifling tool(s) or the ability to make those tools as well as the final product? Obviously a shotgun or other smooth-bored weapon is exempt from this. Maybe the Sten is a smooth-bored design, but a quick search didn't turn up anything indicating as much.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
You're absolutely right, it was bullshit. But it's hard to be rational when this is what you hear every day, day in and day out from those around you.
There's still a chance I could be right, initially, that this guy was a tea party wingnut, but the odds of it are slim.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
While I think they "buy" that crap because they WANT their party to be like that. And it's okay if my party is like that if the OTHER party is also like that.
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
Different guns for different purposes. A handgun is ideal for walking into a crowded place and shooting people with. A deer hunting rifle is ideal for shooting deer. There isn't a lot of point comparing them.
Gun training doesn't solve anything. With the proliferation of guns all you're doing is ensuring that at some point someone will think "I hate that person, and I have an easy weapon with which to kill them".
If everyone was willing to pull the trigger every time he saw someone he hated, human society wouldn't be possible. Murder has been with us since almost the beginning of human history, and societies have almost universally treated it as one of the most egregious offenses.
Since there are some who are willing to pull the trigger whenever they see someone they hate, others need to be able to oppose them, and being armed and capable with the weapon is useful for that purpose. Sometimes police will be able to do that and sometimes it will be ordinary citizens.
I'm afraid no matter how hard you try you can't compare this to anything else. A gun is a weapon. End of. A car isn't. It's used to get around. People getting killed by cars is part of the risk of living and getting around. There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
Why is the risk of being in a deadly accident a reasonable risk, but the risk of being killed (or watching someone else killed) because you don't have a weapon or training to use it always acceptable? I don't currently own a gun for defense because I don't need it where I live, but some do. There are also places and situations in which people don't need cars for their daily lives.
She was only the congresswoman to the people in Arizona's 8th district.
9mm, according to CNN. Could have been an automatic Glock handgun, especially with the extended mag. Not likely, but possible.
Sent from my CR-48
Even if "gun crime" did rise after a ban, eventually it would fall as weapons are harder to obtain.
Except it doesn't, just like marijuana et all are not difficult to obtain in the slightest, and have been illegal for many many years now.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
House Speaker John Boehner condemned the attack. "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve," he said in a statement. "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society."
I don't support this shooting, but let's be real here. The US government is so full of shit. Acts and threats of violence are an every day tool of the US government.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Javelin, blowgun, slingshot, and let's not forget, longbow and crossbow.
AFAIK, they are not illegal here in the US. Using them on humans is a different matter, but we could all have one if we wanted.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
The difference is that the Swiss don't have the gun for "personal protection".
Actually, the differences are myriad if you're looking for factors that actually correlate with violent crime statistics. The Swiss have very low wealth disparity, socialized healthcare, good education, free addiction treatment programs, and significant social safety nets for the poor. All of these factors correlate strongly with lower rates of violent crime and murder. If people were serious about scientifically reducing violent crime in the US and tackling the problem we could work on any of those and have reason to expect improvement. Of course those are all a lot harder politically than getting people mad about gun laws because people are irrational and frankly not very interested in facts.
Not really. The elephant in the living room is the difference in ethnic makeup between the countries you are comparing. The murder rate in Malmö compared to that of the rest of Sweden might give you a clue, but I'm sure enough epicycles can be added to explain that away.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Correlation != causation, anyone?
The cities with the most gun crime are obviously more likely to enact gun control laws; it's not necessarily true that the cities with the most gun control laws will spawn more gun crime.
Semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons generally have only one intended use, and that is to kill people
What? You've never seen a semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun?
More importantly, even when used against people, guns' function is not to kill people, it's to incapacitate people (which does include "kill" as a subset, but is much broader). And this is not always a bad thing, and sometimes, in fact, necessary - which is why we give guns to policemen and security guards. But situations where the use of a gun in self-defense also arise when there are no policemen around - and why, then, is it wrong for private citizens to use guns to the same effect?
It may well be that lax gun control increases the number of people shot (and possibly killed) by guns, but that statistic is meaningless. To make it important, you'll also need to consider the number of people shot (and possibly killed) by guns in legitimate self-defense.
Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people
Wrong. People with guns shoot people. And there are many incidents where shootings occurred due to accidents without a 'shooter' being involved. There have even been (very rare) cases where a pet or other animal disturbed the gun resulting in it being fired and shooting someone. The _only_ common factor in _all_ shooting incidents is a gun.
Civil and well punctuated, I appreciate that. I'll explain; you want certain views not to be available to the public because you think the reaction is going to be bad for society. You are attempting to do so by expanding your definition of hate speech to include things it hasn't in the past, and your end objective is only views that you approve being presented to the public. You are a essentially book burner, which is ironic, because from your writing it seems like you've never read one.
Not really -- his youtube videos make it pretty clear who he was.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes.
Quit lying. Do you have any idea how many people are beaten to death, clubbed to death, macheted to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, choked to death, poisoned to death, drowned, run down with cars, and so on? Google for multiple homicides in Asia that involve knives? Of course you do, but you'd like to pretend it wasn't so. Or, just take a peek throughout the middle east, where guns are widely available, but you have people using cheaply made home-brew bombs to kill individuals or large numbers of people every single day. Guns used to be more widely and easily available in the US, but are now far less so. This has absolutely nothing to do with murder rates, as can be seen through even a casual review of the facts.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A gun in a safe is useless. Mine are loaded and kept in convenient locations where I can get them quickly. If I ever need a gun, and I sincerely hope I never do, I don't expect to have time to take it out of a safe and load it. I expect that seconds will count.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Banning the possession of firearms by civilians will ensure that only tyrants and criminals will have them.
So there are only three categories of people: civilians, tyrants, and criminals? I thought there were others, such as members of the armed forces, security forces for legitimate governments, and police officers, too.
-Gareth
No. A handgun is the first weapon that gives a 90pound woman a chance against a 200 pound man.
A bow or crossbow are both far far older and let you kill at a distance - and often silently.
There are plenty of knifings in this country - a gun may make it easier, but if someone wants to kill you, they will.
Allegedly his youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a
If true: A nut who sounds like he's recently taken a basic logic course and has become infatuated with the transitive property...
This guy didn't need educated. He knew pulling the trigger would kill those people. He wanted that! This isn't a 6 year old playing with daddy's revolver. This is a terrorist with the intent to kill. I hope he hangs, because he is why America isn't free anymore: Fuck Heads.
You're right. People don't need guns to kill people.
In fact, I just solved the US debt crisis. We can arm the military with pointed sticks instead! They don't need guns to kill insurgents.
One uses what one can use I guess:
http://news1.capitalbay.com/news/europe_strikes_demonstrator_drives_cement.html
Europe strikes: Demonstrator drives cement truck into gates of Irish parliament
Why don't you ask some of these guys? Most of them managed to kill several dozen without any use of guns, all by themselves.
That channel and videos don't seem to have a particular political slant one way or another.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
In short: everybody knows the purpose of guns is to kill people
I spent all morning today carrying a gun, with absolutely no thought to killing anyone. Rather, I killed about 15 birds, which are now in my freezer. I and one other person carrying a gun were shooting right next to a dozen other people, dogs, and horseback mounted people watching the proceedings. Nobody was scared, nobody felt threatened. Why? Because the guns weren't there to kill people, and despite being used, weren't used that way.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
What about non-gun crime? You know, it doesn't take a gun to murder. A knife works just fine for an armed robbery, as well. What about rapes?
Its kinda hard to have 'very strict gun control laws' if I can go off to the nearby state - buy a gun and bring it in.
"Armed citizens" are statistically a lot more likely to kill themselves or a family member than they are a bad guy.
Now, lets not get ahead of ourselves. We're talking about the viability of armed people in the crowd or among the staff. Are you implying that those people would be too busy murdering their families or are you just going off topic here? Clearly family members kill one another by all means much more often than anyone else, but that doesn't have a lot to do with firearm ownership. There are more successful suicides in places with high firearm ownership, but as I support the right to suicide I'm not really upset by that.
It's not even so much that I thing guns should be illegal. It's that I think the idiotic assertion (which only dates back to the 1980s) that the Second Amendment guarantees the "right" of every citizen to own a handgun ought to be illegal.
You think making assertions about the constitution ought to be illegal nd you don't see the irony of that in light of the first amendment?
Before 1980, even far-right conservatives like Judge Robert Bork agreed that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with any "right of everyone to own a handgun".
I'm well aware of the political opinions on the topic and how they've see-sawed over the centuries.
This is where the "constitutional" "right" to "bear" "arms" comes from. Not the Second Amendment.
I guess I'm not understanding your meaning. Those words are in the constitution, it's the interpretation that is in dispute, as to whether it is a personal right guaranteed or simply a right protected from intervention by the federal government but that can be banned by state and local governments. Also, most of the scholarly articles on the topic seem to indicate it was originally a much different interpretation, but in a way no one in modern US politics finds very palatable.
And yet all adult male Swiss have a full-automatic military weapons at their homes, given to them by their government and they still manage a lower murder rate that the US.
Of course, more people are killed in the US by drunk drivers every year than by firearms, yet we still allow cars and alcohol. Knives are really good for killing, and you need little training to use them as well, and they are easy to purchase. A good chef's boning knife is real nice for killing. Willing to put some effort into it, a baseball bat has been known to be real effective, whether you go old school Louisville Slugger or more modern aluminum. And so on.
I've had my firearms (pistols and rifle..one revolver, two semi-auto) for years...two of them for over 20 years...and not killed anyone with them yet. But, with 22 years of military training, I am perfectly comfortable in their use for defense purposes, and would have no issue killing someone to defend my family. Hopefully, that will never be an issue....because, after all, criminals never try to harm people....
Those guys who've covered up the reality of the universe for the last 60 years? ... Fuck you.
Oh boy. Please tell me that you don't have a gun.
"I'm afraid that me not owning a gun will not save me from being shot and killed."
But owing one might.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
The day that the US Airforce's first nuclear-tipped ICBM went online the second amendment to the US constitution was obsoleted.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
I should hope the police will continue to destroy any robots that mysteriously appear and attach themselves to load bearing supports of bridges and the like. It's not a violation of our rights, Cylons aren't covered under "we the people" and we must remain vigilant ;)
So posting crosshairs and names is okay ... until someone actually puts the person with that name in crosshairs ... and pulls the trigger?
Again, that's some very flexible logic you have there. Particularly since this has been brought up on the news when she first posted it.
I am not naive enough to think I'm immune to home invasion, especially since I had my home broken into once.
I'm also not naive enough to think that owning a gun is a good idea in light of that. Why?
Because I'm not ignorant of the fact that most people killed in home invasions are shot WITH THEIR OWN FUCKING GUNS.
This space available.
There are plenty of knifings in this country - a gun may make it easier, but if someone wants to kill you, they will.
So the availability of guns helps how? Certainly doesn't seem likely to help people "protect" themselves.
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
Not to mention:
and even less direct means:
Mankind has come up with lots of ways to kill another person. The problem doesn't lie in the weapon used, they are just tools. The problem lies in the killer themselves.
Sapere aude!
let's make this simple:
you have every right to say anything you want to say, and i will defend your right to say that to the death because i am a real american
at the same time, depending upon what you say, i also have a right to say you might be a fearmongering hatemongering antiamerican right wing demagogue douchebag
are we clear?
because i say something against your opinion does not mean i am censoring you. if i describe your words as hate mongering, or fearmongering or antiamerican right wing douchebaggery, i'm not censoring you
do you understand that?
apparently, according to you, just the act of DISAGREEING with someone is an act of censorship
LOL
like i said, how that particular bit of hilarious ignorance about free speech got stuck in that low iq mind of yours must make for an interesting story
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why do people keep trotting out "gun crimes" as if it's something that matters?
If you reduce the number of guns, the number of "gun crimes" also goes down. Well, duh, of course it does, because "gun crimes" are by definition crimes committed with the help of a gun. But if I'm robbed, do I really care if it was done at the barrel of a gun, or at a knife point? Why do you make this distinction?
The important number is the number of violent crimes. Note that both parts are important. The number of weapon-inflicted deaths, for example, is irrelevant, because some of those may well be in self-defense - it's the number of murders that matters.
How do you know? The strange thing is that in countries where we have gun controls and guns are largely taken out of society and aren't seen we have virtually no incidents like this.
To you? No, it wouldn't.
Alright, Cylons, I'll give you. Imperial probe droids? Sure. Ten-dollar plastic toy robots? Not so much.
And when guns are outlawed, criminals won't carry them because they're actually just misunderstood artists and sensitive souls crying out for succour. Making something illegal means that _nobody_ will use it.
And while we're at it, why not outlaw cars too? Crazy people can use cars to mow people down, so because of that, nobody should be able to use one, they should have to ride buses or trains which are driven by credentialed civic employees.
Yes, but Israelis are not likely to go batshit insane and start shooting at each other, because there are already enough real enemies out there. In a country that has never had a war inside its borders for one century the situation is completely different.
Very interesting. Neither I myself or anyone I know has ever had any use for a gun to defend ourselves. But then I live in Sweden where the cult of the gun never really has taken off.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
but having a weapon adequate for self defense may indeed be more important in some regions of the world than others
Aside from being able to defend against wild animals, is there *really* any use in having a gun for self-defence? I can't imagine any realistic scenario where would-be burglar/thief/assassin/rapist is likely to get into a situation where their intended victim has a gun trained on *them*. Most likely, the victim will still be the victim, but thanks to lax gun laws, the perp. has access to guns.
I further suspect that the only real winner from such a situation is the manufacturer and sellers of guns.
In countries where guns have been outlawed criminals don't need guns. They can just beat you to death with an iron pipe.
You're less likely to get killed because doing that is harder than shooting, and the facts bare that out. Someone can be jumped on before they get anywhere near you.
Guns are a good defense from iron pipe, even knives.
This is completely upside down. If you have a gun to defend yourself then a criminal will have a bigger gun because if you can get them, he can. It just doesn't work the way that you wish.
No, I never claimed that the British protesters were more civilised. I claim that the response to protest is more civilised. Anyway, "Off with their heads" was the cry of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. One thing I'll say for British students is that they are well read (in children's literature, at least).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I'm going to let you in on a secret: the second amendment isn't about hunting.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Its insane just to think that you actually need a weapon at home.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion. Pray it never happens to you, because if it does, you'll wish you had a trigger to pull.
This is the line of thought that confuses me. I live in Canada, and I do not know a single person in real life, who owns a Handgun. I think I might know 1 or 2 people who own hunting rifles, but I've never seen them personally. I had n discussion with an American friend who said he thought it was crazy I didn't have a gun for that exact reason, a home invasion. He's never been the victim of home invasion, nor have I, nor have either of us been able to recall a single incident where it happened to someone we knew. That isn't to say it never happens but...
His point was that he needed a gun so that the invader wouldn't be able to shoot him first, because he certainly would, so as to not be able to have anyone identify him. I argued that the difference between Home Invasion and Murder are pretty large with regards to the amount of police investigating your crime. I also argued that it's possible a person breaking into his house would find it easier to procure a gun than someone up here, but not only that, he would have to ASSUME that the man who's house he was breaking into also had a gun, and needed to be shot before he could be shot himself. Where as here, it is generally assumed that people do NOT own guns, so a home invader doesn't need to carry a gun to break into someones house to begin with, and if he DOES carry a gun, does not need to be as edgy about a shootout, ergo, less chance of someone being shot.
You seem to think you need a gun to protect yourself in the society you live in, but what are you protecting yourself from? All the other people in your society who own guns.
What genocide is that?
Because it wasn't the American Indian Wars, in combat the southeastern and plains Indians killed about 1 US soldier for ever 1.3 Indians lost. Compared to a small war like Vietnam, where the Viet Cong lost about 3 soldiers for every US soldier killed, the American Indian Wars were pretty even, the American Indians just didn't have the numbers or political unity to hold out.
And also remember that in places like the Northern Great Plains, there was as much inter-tribal violence as there was violence between the American Indians and United States.
And even now there are at least 2.5 million full blooded American Indian and Alaska Natives and 1.6 million tribal members who are mixed blood. The American Indian population of what is now the United States in 1800 was 3-4 million.
12 reservations are larger than Rhode Island, 9 are larger than Delaware.
Lets compare that to a modern genocide like Poland. In 1938 there were 3.1 million Jews in Poland, in 1946 there were 44,000.
The constitution doesn't mention citizens carrying guns. It does talk about an armed militia that can be disarmed, however.
If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes.
Tell that to Michael Myers.
No, seriously, the more I'm hearing about the shooter in this case, he was obviously mentally disturbed, probably suffering a psychotic episode.
Breakfast served all day!
Should everyone be afraid at every moment that they're going to be stabbed by a kitchen knife? Is one really free if he is afraid to go outside without getting stabbed?
A large number of legally possessed firearms increases the number of illegal ones.
What, do they fuck in the gun safe and start having little unregistered baby guns or something?
Gun control is racist, either against the Irish (origins of British gun control), or blacks (most US gun control).. Is it any wonder that the areas with the strictest gun laws in the US are also the ones with the highest concentrations of black people? You'd think that the hippiest-dippiest places in the US would have the strictest laws, but look at Vermont.. Hyper-liberal, but with the freest gun laws in the US. It's also one of the lily-whitest states in the union. In California, gun control only got popular after the Black Panthers scared whitey by indulging in their right to bear arms openly.
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
It's strange that countries that don't allow firearms don't see people walking around with arrows, spears or killing people via throwing rocks.
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
No I won't, even if I can verify that that is correct which I can't. Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates.
Care to support that claim with some data?
San Francisco (my home city) doesn't rank anywhere near New Orleans or Detroit in murders, and it actually tried to ban handguns altogether a couple of years ago. (It couldn't, because it was ruled only the federal government has that authority.)
Meanwhile, Phoenix just passed a law that allows gun owners to carry handguns concealed on their persons without a permit -- and Phoenix's murder rate is about the same as that of L.A.
Breakfast served all day!
As someone that carries an FNH Five-saveN daily, I feel somewhat not antigun and her staff being armed has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. As a Congresswoman she cold have had armed staff regardless of normal firearms laws. I feel you are using this instance to move a pro gun agenda. This took place in a state with liberal gun laws, if it was where I live a dozen people in the crowd would have been legally armed and perhaps there would have been less carnage. I have no explanation as to why there were no armed civilians there. Someone did something there otherwise the suspect would have gotten away. I also agree this is not a gun issue, this is about a deranged individual taking a literal message from Palin and her kind. Guns are easy to come by regardless of any status or legal metric and time and again we see psycho's with knives and IED's. Do we live in a time where this is going to become common place? Maybe, but we are not all unarmed cattle or D&D players with a made in Pakistan 440c broadsword in our basement.
I do not play in the middle of the road
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
There are no borders when you cross from one city to another. Gun Control in one city, when you can go 5 cities over to get one doesn't mean much, especially to organized crime. The issue is, that American society as a whole, owns guns. If you create a single little section that doesn't have guns, they are surely at a disadvantage to the rest of their own society, but don't let that fool you into thinking that less guns means more murder. It's the fact that the rest of your society has so many guns, not that one small part that doesn't.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The problem with that rule is that we probably have at least one person somewhere in this thread tree who thinks they're sufficiently without sin to start casting stones.
"A great rabbit stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife's adultery, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death. (There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine, a speaker for the dead, has told me of two other rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.)
"The rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears, and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. 'Is there anyone here,' he says to them, 'who has not desired another man's wife, another woman's husband?'
"They murmur and say, 'We all know the desire. But, Rabbi, none of us has acted on it.'
"The rabbit says, 'Then kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong.' He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, 'Tell the lord magistrate who saved his mistress. Then he'll know I am his loyal servant.'
"So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.
"Another rabbi, another city. He goes to her and stops the mob, as in the other story, and says, 'Which of you is without sin! Let him cast the first stone.'
"The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman, and I'll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I wish to be treated.
"As they open their hands and let the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman's head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her brains onto the cobblestones.
"'Nor am I without sin,' he says to the people, 'But if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead, and our city with it.'
"So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deliverance.
"The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis, and when they veer too far they die. Only one rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation. So, of course, we killed him."
-Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the dead, p. 277-278
Lack of gun violence in nations where unarmed people are ruled by tyrants and criminals is an indicator of progress!
No, I didn't mean that sarcastically at all *roll eyes*
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
The knife has one thing going for it: it's silent. You fire a gun, your odds of your crime being noticed immediately are much higher.
They might have caught the guy who shot those people today, but someone has still died and many more may yet die. Personally, I don't think catching someone is worth people being dead.
Oh, and notice I said people - plural. How many people do you think he would have killed with a knife there?
I haven't heard the gunman identifed yet, and the Pima County sheriff is not yet speculating on motive. to try and ascribe this to any political motive is premature and without evidence.
Children, you are. Or just fanning the fire. Pointless either way. Here in Arizona this seems to be the only thing to talk about today. Even the usual talk show hosts have come on on their weekend to run on about all this. Great. It's tragedy enough without piling on this crap.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yeah, if you happen to be within a couple feet of your target. Beyond 10 feet, things start to change; you need more time to line up the shot...
As opposed to what, exactly? Spitting at them?
But there is a big difference - one is a demonstration, a protest, the other a threat.
"See this gun, change your vote, or else you'll be gunned down."
"See this cement truck? Change your vote or we'll ram the parliament gate!"
[The exact quote used at Gabrielle Giffords' rally was "I suggest you tell your people to calm down, act like American citizens, and stop trying to repress people's First Amendment rights... That, or you all are gonna come up against the Second Amendment."]
if you preach violence and hate, you get it expressed you reap what you sow ... they are the tip of the spear, they do not act alone, and you are a fool if you don't understand the hate-filled group and its rhetoric enables them
As nearly as I can tell you are saying in that quote that you think the views of your opponent preach, and cause, violence. You declared the very act of expressing those views dangerous to peoples well being, that sounds like a condemnation of their right to express them to me. I also really like the attack on my IQ in the middle of a post devoid of a single properly placed capital letter.
He's a self-confessed Brit. I don't think he's ever heard the term "home invasion."
FWIW, my UK friends, a home invasion, in U.S. law enforcement parlance, is when armed criminals enter your home while you are present, for purposes of robbery, rape, murder, or whatever.
Breakfast served all day!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Handguns are the number one murder weapon by far, outnumbering all the other weapons added together. Will you take your own advice and revamp YOUR argument? Or will you be a hypocrite?
The standard mag holds 13 for 9mm and .40, the most popular sizes.
standard magazine sizes for 9mm glocks are 10 rounds (subcompact glock 26), 15 rounds (compact glock 19), and 17 rounds (full size glock 17). you can also add 1-3 rounds onto any of these magazines by changing the floorplate in addition to being able to use any of the larger magazines in the smaller model glock, eg putting a 15 round magazine into the glock 26. there is also a 33 round 9mm magazine intended for the glock 18, which is a full auto version of the glock 17. this magazine is also usable in the other 9mm models.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
New Orleans makes the list of the 5 most dangerous cities in the world, alongside Capetown and parts of Somalia ...
I don't get that impression at all.
Granted, whoever posted the thoughts at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHoaZaLbqB4
is more nut than political...
But all that mistrust of government, the ideas that the government is trying to use grammar rules as a method of mind control, the thoughts of a new currency manipulated from on high...
Rings more far right than far left to me... Far left generally means someone who wants greater government control, far right generally means government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub.
Some seem to be focusing on some of the tombs he lists as books he's read...
Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto do make for good spin points, but they represent more of a totalitarian point of view than a left wing point of view. America's far right resembles totalitarianism much more than the far left does.
Frankly, neither you nor I should try to make a political argument about this until we have more facts... That youtube channel was a barely coherent rambling of thoughts, simultaneously lamenting people's poor grammar and complaining that the government is trying to control people's minds through grammar... all while making grammatical mistakes.
The gun part will be less likely, but I doubt very much that the murder part will likewise decline.
I have also heard of got a baseball bat and murdered someone, got a meat cleaver and murdered someone, got rat poison and murdered someone. Got a gas can and some matches and burned the house down killing everyone inside, ran someone down in the car, drowned someone in the bathtub, dropped a plugged in hair dryer into the bath tub and I heard of one case where a woman poured a frying pan full of molten sugar over her husband and his mistress. The point is if someone has murder in mind, they'll find a way to accomplish it.
Interestingly in the UK, since they tightened up the ban in 1997, gun crimes are UP. Here in Georgia a few years ago, Kennesaw passed a law REQUIRING each head of household to own a gun. They saw a drop in the crime rate after that but no increase in homicide or accidental deaths.
Yeah, I couldn't believe he said that either. Apparently he's never seen Robin Hood. And besides, you can throw a knife.
I wasn't aware that Robin Hood carried a gun. Oh, and I wasn't aware that people in countries with stricter gun controls walked around with bows and arrows because they are the next best thing to guns.
Yes, you can throw a knife but you aren't going to hit much. With a gun you are pretty much guaranteed to hit something, and multiple time within a short space of time. It might not be what you wanted to hit but the net result is that someone has a much, much, much greater chance of being killed.
I love the comments by people who have no idea what a gun even looks like. Handguns are used for hunting, and rifles have been used in plenty of mass shootings. In fact, rifles and carbines are used by almost everyone in the military, both for offensive purposes (even in crowded places!) and for personal protection.
What's the common trait in mass shootings? The nutjob behind the gun, not the weapon itself.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Everyone who has been screaming about how the ballot and soap boxes have let the United States down, here is the results of your rhetoric. Someone has resorted to the ammo box. Aren't you proud?
....and yet, you don't hear of people being killed by them when someone couldn't find themselves a gun. Go figure.
He makes comments about government control and implies that it is bad, which is usually something you hear from which side?
Getting rid of permits entirely would be a terrible thing for Arizona residents.
How so? Out here in California, you pretty much have to be a politician, certain classes of law enforcement, or a judge to get a permit -- thankfully.
Breakfast served all day!
Not nearly as many as are shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
yes, i am saying that if you get up on a soapbox and preach violence and hate, violence and hate will follow, and you should feel responsibility for reaping what you sow
what's the problem you have with that concept?
by your words, hitler is completely innocent, because he didn't actually kill anyone himself, he just talked a lot!
you have the right to say whatever you want. but that doesn't absolve you of responsibility for what is done because of the words you say. do you understand that?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Extended magazines are illegal almost nowhere in the US. CA and NJ are the two I can think of right at the moment, there may be one or two others. They're certainly not illegal in AZ.
And it's a magazine, not a clip.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
You've been watching too much John Wayne if you really think owning a gun is likely to save you. If a "criminal" has decided to make you a victim, they're unlikely to put themselves in a situation where you have the upper-hand.... they are presumably being proactive in their pursuit of crime, whereas you are presumably being a "law abiding citizen" and thus unaware of impending criminal activity.
The magazine is of some particular note, because extended magazines are themselves illegal in many states.
"high capacity" magazines are only restricted in a handful of states, not many. the only states i can think of with these laws are hawaii, california, and massachusetts, though there might be a couple more.
in addition, any prexisting "high capacity" magazines were grandfathered in and are perfectly legal to own and use in those states.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
As opposed to a close-range shot?
Palm trees and 8
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that you don't get to ban weapons, and has at least sort-of articulated what kinds of weapons you cannot ban. See Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Quit lying. Do you have any idea how many people are beaten to death, clubbed to death, macheted to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, choked to death, poisoned to death, drowned, run down with cars, and so on? Google for multiple homicides in Asia that involve knives?
The problem with this warped little piece of logic is that countries that have gun controls still have knife crime, and they tend to have less of it bizarrely. Countries that allow guns in society have a lot more knife crime plus a hell of a lot of gun crime and murders as a result because killing becomes easier and more accepted.
Stop lying to yourself to justify carrying a gun around on you that gives you some warped sense of security. Your country has a muder rate well in excess of any country that doesn't control guns.
Its insane just to think that you actually need a weapon at home.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion. Pray it never happens to you, because if it does, you'll wish you had a trigger to pull.
Because killing someone in order to protect your stuff from being stole is perfectly reasonable?
The crazy side, because hes talking about mind control rather than the commerce clause.
One big difference too is that people who live in Switzerland (that I've met) aren't all political ideologues - a lot of people here in the US are.
Just as an example - see how upset or defense even the most apathetic citizen gets when you challenge something they believe in (could be anything too - like drinking milk is murder, the iPhone isn't nearly as capable as another phone, or that you believe in a certain way in a political issue).
No. A handgun is the first weapon that gives a 90pound woman a chance against a 200 pound man.
You've answered at least part of this for yourself.
A bow or crossbow are both far far older and let you kill at a distance - and often silently.
Strange that you don't see people carrying bows as gun replacements. Anywhere.
There are plenty of knifings in this country - a gun may make it easier, but if someone wants to kill you, they will.
It's strange that multiple people don't get stabbed to death in a roomful of other people. Making killing easier makes it more likely that it will happen. Strange that.
A "Home Invasion" is when a person enters your home without permission, it includes entry through an open door or a closed but unlocked door or window, where the term "Breaking and Entry" involves a forced entry through a locked door or windows. Persons who commit the crime and encounter the homes lawful residents frequently commit crimes against the occupants, rape and murder aren't uncommon, in addition to the burglary.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I can't help but have trouble imagining how one could injure and/or kill at least 12 people by beating them, hitting them with a car, poisoning them, etc. A single person, maybe. Guns make killing easy; just spray and you're done. Almost all other weapons and methods tend to focus on a single target. There's also the point of ease: you know you cannot entirely eliminate violence, but your goal is to make it as hard as possible so that you discourage more and more people from attempting it. If that guy didn't have a gun, he could've used, what, a knife, a crossbow, a car? Chances are he would have been easier to detect and easier to stop, faster. 12 people might not have been injured, and maybe not so severely. Good luck running over somebody with your car without anybody noticing your approach.
Yes, guns make it easy to kill people.
Which is why slaves don't have guns.
In the case of the recent student riots the current UK government is a coalition of 2 parties the Conservative and Liberal Democrats. Before the last election Every Liberal Candidate made a point of publicly signing a pledge stating they would oppose any raise in tuition fess. This government just voted to raise tuition fees. How does one hold a MP accountable at the beginning of their term?
I wrote to my local MP asking him to hold his pledge and vote against tuition fees rise and implement a graduate tax. I told him I thought the arguments being made were the result of short term thinking and explained why. He wrote back telling me those arguments wern't short term and then voted for a tuition fees raise.
The legal system in the UK works differently to that of the USA. Here you have to show proximate cause and then show the law violates basic rights granted to you as a citizen. For example the Digital Economy Bill wasn't in acted until the end of last year. We will have wait until someone is prosecuted by the law, then that person will have to slowly move up the ladder until the Supreme Court of EU Court of Human rights strikes it down. Which will mean a legal means of revoking the law will take years. In the case of a tuition fees rise I doubt it would be possible.
I'd also like to point out that watching the Sky News and BBC News coverage the violent protesters numbered in the dozens while the peaceful ones were in the thousands.
A number of people at the protests have stated the crowd seemed "infiltrated" or "some people here don't look like they would ever have gone to uni". Making me think the protests we prey to football hooligan types. By that I mean people who claim to support a football team go to where the matches are played and never watch the match but instead find people who support the other team to fight.
Lastly the police continually "kettled" the protesters effectively bottling them up and away from everyone else. There have been a lot of complaints about police brutality during the event. There's even a video of police pulling a student protester out of his wheelchair and then dragging him into the kettle zone.
Britain as a rule is calmly accepting the necessary austerity measures and has done a lot to mitigate its effects. What has been getting people on to the streets is the fact alot of MP's stood on a platform for something and now in power are doing the complete opposite.
If only you and your people had some kind of an organized, trained and heavily equipped and armed group whose job and duty would be to defend you from foreign and domestic enemies.
Or some trained and armed group that would investigate and possibly prevent any such attack.
Or even organized and trained professionals who would patrol and control your countries borders.
Fuck son...
What kind of a poor excuse for a country do you live in, where you must be your own army, police and border guard?
What happens when you go to sleep? You get robbed and killed each night?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Then surely you don't need handguns, semi-autos and fully automatic weapons, right? Surely those hunting guns can also be restricted and monitored so that they are only used in proper hunting territories? Plus, it's a lot easier to notice the guy with his hunting rifle standing in the crowd than it is to see that crazy shooter with a small pistol under his coat.
If that guy didn't have a gun, he could've used, what, a knife, a crossbow, a car?
How about a truck filled with explosives, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_city_bombing
Interestingly, McVeigh's original plan was targeted shooting with a rifle, rather than mass killing.
Palm trees and 8
Don't the bad guys bring their own weapons though? And, I'm guessing, they don't announce their arrival? So... the scenario is, you've got yourself a gun, bad people turn up, but luckily, you hear them, you get your gun, ?????, profit - it all ends well?
Honestly, that really sounds like a hint you (or whoever) need to move if that's the situation. I doubt there are any stats, but I'd love to know the success/fail rate of people defending their own homes with firearms.
If there were no weapons at home would cops need guns?
All I can say is, you're far too trusting...
....and here we get a perfect insight into why these things happens with the American psyche. When no one trusts anyone else, and you don't have laws to give people confidence in that trust, all you're left with is a place where everyone mistrusts everyone else and killing is inevitable. As Dirty Harry said: "You execute your neighbour because he pisses on your lawn". Mistrust simply breeds in that kind of environment.
Incidentally, it's why a lot of the rest of the world hates Americans, and I don't just mean Muslims when I say that.
....whatever "safe" part of the world you live in, I strongly urge you to stay there.
I certainly will, because I don't have any problems with people being shot where I live and a murder is a major event that shocks everyone.
I agree. And for the "ban guns" advocates out there? I hate to break the news to ya but criminals don't follow laws which is why they are called criminals and not boy scouts. I can buy the finest crank, coke, smack, hell 16 year old girls, thanks to the giant leaking border that is less than a day from where I live. You think it would be ANY TROUBLE to add guns to that list?
ALL YOU DO with your stupid "lets ban guns!" crap is take them away from the people and give them to the criminals because if I'm looking to rape, rob, and kill I don't really think I'm gonna give a shit if you tack on a weapons possession charge. Where I live you see thieves break into businesses but not many home invasions. In fact it is almost unheard of, why? Because you might get your balls blown off by the owner of the home, that's why. Take away guns and the dealers will just have a nice selection to go along with the smack and coke, and it will be open season on anybody else. You've tried the "lets ban!" bullshit for about a century with dope, hows that working out?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
A lot of people are afraid to sit at home without getting shot.
qntm.org
By my words? I'm surprised you can even understand my words because I keep using those mysterious bigger letters. My problem with your concept, and you by proxy, is that the purpose of everything you have posted is to immediately politicize a tragedy. You are so blinded by a political belief system that you spew hate in all directions under the guise of intellectual superiority, yet you can't even format a sentence properly. You imply responsibility for mass murder to the opposing political views, then backtrack when I accuse you of wanting that view suppressed. You are the embodiment of bad politics and lopsided thinking. A crazy person killed some innocent people today. That is what happened. Anyone who uses this as an opportunity to spew their political views is scum.
The congresswoman supports gun rights according to wikipedia but earned a "D+" from the NRA. I don't think guns should be banned either, but I think we clearly don't have enough control on them given how much gun violence there is compared to other first world countries.
If the NRA labeled me an enemy of gun rights and then I got shot, that might change my views on whether or not we should ban guns.
The suspect appears to have been delusional for some time. Yet he was apparently able to buy a gun.
Call me crazy, but I think we need to start having psychological evaluations for people seeking to buy firearms. If you want a handgun, okay, but you'll have to convince someone that you're sane enough not to use it except in self defense first. I think we can all agree that crazy people should not have guns. I'm dubious that the founding fathers would have been so convinced of the right to bear arms if they knew exactly what arms we'd develop in the future, but I'm positive they would not have suggested that the right to bear arms extends to people who aren't right in the head.
I think that would be a fair compromise as opposed to banning all guns.
If that comment was meant for me then I would be tempted to agree.
I don't know much about guns at all.
I know how to shoot hunting rifles and shotguns, that's it. And my knowledge of the tools themselves are limited to what was required to pass the gun license in my country.
While a few bullets are required from a handgun to stop an assailant the risks of gun ownership are just so much, much greater.
Question, are there more successful home defenses performed every year, or more accidental shootings of family members?
huh? really?
So, it may be better to just, I dunno, NOT have a gun. That may leave you and your family safer...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
look for the term "spray firing" (you can actually use your browser's built in "find" function....)
Some assault weapons are optimized for this type of use.
And english is my third language, which is usually a valid defense in the case of strange use of terminology.
It's not just Hollywood that sensationalizes guns--the news is probably even more responsible for it. I can't wait to cringe at all the anti-gun stuff we'll see on the media in the next few weeks. The issue of gun control will see more coverage than the reason the crime was even committed. But if this had been a case of knifing, you wouldn't hear a peep about it. Society loves to attack the symptom of a problem, not the cause. Why? It's easier.
Guns do have a certain mystique to some people. For the people who use them responsibly and correctly--i.e. those who follow the laws--there's nothing mystical about them. Some of the nicest, most down-to-earth people that I've met were at the firing range. I've never actually met a whack-job at the range, and I go pretty often. Unless, of course, I'm a whack-job myself and just don't notice it anymore :P
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. Somebody who has decided to commit murder isn't going to care over the legality of their implement of choice.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
Can you back that assertion up with anything?
Absolute, unadulterated bullshit. There's always a shooter involved, even if it was unintentional. Guns don't load and fire themselves.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Your violent crime statistics are misleading also. Your chart lists total incidence of violent crimes. So naturally California would probably top the list -- California is the most populous state in the union. Better to look at it per capita.
So, take Wyoming, with a population of 544,270 and 1,234 violent crimes. 1234/544270 = 0.0023
California, by comparison, shows a whopping 194,120 violent crimes. But it also has a population of 36,961,664, seventy times that of Wyoming. 194120/36961664 = 0.0052, making it overall just a little more than twice as violent as Wyoming.
Arizona, with 30,916 violent crimes and a population of 6,595,778 comes to 30915/6595779 = 0.0046, making it just slightly less violent overall than California, despite the fact that its gun laws are much less lax.
Agreed that there's little correlation between gun laws and violent crime, if you look at this spread. So why do people in states like Arizona keep clamoring for gun ownership as a way to reduce violent crime? By your own admission, whether individuals are allowed to own guns or not has little to no bearing on violent crime in their state.
Breakfast served all day!
Correction: Arizona's gun laws are much more lax than California's overall. Got my wires crossed.
Breakfast served all day!
If everyone was willing to pull the trigger every time he saw someone he hated, human society wouldn't be possible.
I didn't say that, but it makes it more likely that it will happen. I meet with my local politician at local meetings all the time but I've never seen people getting badly injured and killed en masse like this.
Since there are some who are willing to pull the trigger whenever they see someone they hate, others need to be able to oppose them, and being armed and capable with the weapon is useful for that purpose.
What you don't get is that carrying a gun merely makes it almost certain that someone who would like to pull the trigger first will have one as well. It doesn't make you safer.
Why is the risk of being in a deadly accident a reasonable risk, but the risk of being killed (or watching someone else killed) because you don't have a weapon or training to use it always acceptable?
A gun is a weapon for killing people. A car isn't. What you've got there is so arse backwards I don't know what else to say to you. A lot of people get killed by falling down stairs. Are stairs unacceptable?
Oh, and again, you don't get killed because you don't have a weapon. You get killed because you are allowed to carry a gun and as such the other guy has easy access to a gun and he is willing to shoot first. Carrying a gun isn't a defence.
"Technically speaking, their role in killing people is exactly the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The amendment's purpose isn't to ensure the ability to hunt, it's to ensure the ability to engage in acts of war."
If you had bothered to read the 2nd amendment you'd know the public's right to arms is so that "we the public" can protect ourselves from our own government, not just other governments.
2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Well regulated" meaning "functional" in 1789, hence, A functional Militia, being necessary ... right of the people to keep and bear Arms, ...
The founding fathers could have ignored the general public and defined a standing army instead. They didn't.
people on the left have been warning that hatemongering and fearmongering from the right would lead to violence. now it has. we were right
we are not turning this into a soap box for our views, we are saying the right is wrong to turn their soap box into a pulpit to preach violent fear and hate of the government, because it motivates wackjobs to start shooting. we are not making this political, the right made this political, and is reaping what they sowed
hatemongering leads to violence. the right has been hatemongering for years. here is the violence they preached for. the left is not making this political. the right made hate a political tool, and this is what they get
respect for life? WHERE WAS THE RESPECT FROM THE RIGHT when they crossed the line into hate and fear?
this is the conversation:
right: {hatemongering speech}
left: if you hatemonger, there will be violence, so don't do it
right: {continues hatemongering speech}
-violence happens, just as predicted-
left: i told you hatemongering...
right: don't make this political!
seriously?
look, asshole, the RIGHT HAS BEEN PREACHING VIOLENT HATE, AND VIOLENT HATE HAPPENED
i am not making this political. the right made violent hate political a long time ago
got it?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms, Open carry is the primary example of the right to bear arms.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What's the population density of Canada?
You're using misleading statistics to push an agenda.
And there's essentially no crime where I grew up, and where I live now. Crime usually exists where high population density exists -- not where guns exist. You might find it interesting to know that where there is extremely low population density, there is a much higher rate of gun ownership, and a much lower incidence of crime. I'll leave the why to your imagination, but I think I know what it is.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Fox and the right wing don't live in the real world they create their own relative reality as Karl Rove openly intended to do as a founding principle of his campaigning technique; I heard it myself over a decade ago. They want to not feel bad or at all responsible or guilty and one of many rationalizations and emotional escapes is to belittle and make less of the situation - and.... their popular technique of blaming the victim, used for many decades by their party as if it was part of the playbook (although I think its a sign of a deeper character trait common to them, as they have targeted certain demographics strongly and therefore have large numbers of certain types of people in their party-- resulting in the character of the organization to shift to reflect their changing makeup. Quite likely to the point where we can create profiles or brain scans to ID what is wrong with them-- its hard to filter out groups you can study like this and I think to some degree they've done all the hard work for researchers.)
Idiots they used to sucker with a few lines and slogans have taken it too far. It has gone out of their control, where some of those suckers are even getting elected believing the empty rhetoric that was never intended beyond getting some votes. The fanatics are so upset the instigators are getting boxed in by their own lies and deception - in a mob gone wild off of propaganda. It makes compromise more difficult and when global warming is impossible to ignore any longer they'll have their hands tied because they didn't think far enough ahead.... its already happened (different issues) to many republicans already. Bad times only make people more scared and unable to ignore problems - as times continue to get worse more scared angry people will surface. Emotional people don't think. Black and White takes less thinking-- the other party must be pure 100% evil, your politician must be 100% corrupt if they don't vote the way you want (you must be 100% correct and informed....) etc.
The only thing I find funny is just how accurately the assessment was a few years back: people are scared -- they cling to god, guns, and country(nationalism.) Bet this gunman had all 3.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Criticizing the government, protesting and even hating is not a problem. Violence and incitement to violence is the problem. I do not know a poster similar to the crosshair one against Bush. Surely not endorsed by a democrat governor (or VP candidate!). Nothing like this either: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2011/1/8/13371/41091/21#c21
That's your opinion. The problem is ... Palin doesn't seem to share it.
No. That's the problem. It is only "clear" to her existing fans.
Once her rhetoric was actualized, she immediately pulled the graphic because she was afraid that she'd lose popularity if people saw that graphic AFTER they heard the news of the shooting.
It was in bad taste to post it in the first place.
The bad taste was compounded every time they updated the site and did not take that graphic down.
Now she's backing away from it by pulling it when the "undecideds" might see it on the news.
If it was "innocuous" then it wouldn't be a problem after the shooting. And she wouldn't have pulled it. But she did. Because it wasn't "innocuous".
You're probably responding to something else because I never posted that. Try to stick to what I've posted, kthx.
So what you're saying is that countries that have more crime have more crime, and that it doesn't matter what tool is used.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.
*DrugCheese rants*
It displays no grasp of logic whatsoever. Criminals will always have guns. Those of us who don't want to be their victims, carry them for self-defense.
Criminals using guns to commit crimes are not using them for self defense, they're using them to break the law.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
The law you ware referring to was a state law, not a city law.
My mistake; it was explained to me by Phoenix residents in a way that made it sound like it was a city/municipality-wide law.
Breakfast served all day!
Well, the thing is, if people don't generally walk around with specially designed murder weapons in their pockets, then the police has less need of deadly weapons as well.
This means that:
a) police may not carry a gun (guns kept in a locked chamber in the boot of the patrol car, for emergencies only) or that only special forces carry guns.
or b)police carry guns but don't grab their gun at the first sign of a disturbance.
See, the US also has a little problem of accidental shootings by police, which is almost unheard of in the western world. There was an incident where this happened in the UK in a train station and is still being discussed. The accidental shooting of a citizen by police actually makes international headlines in other parts of the world. In the US it barely makes the local news unless it was a well off white person. Not really news, you see.
I remember being in Tulsa, OK, and in the next street to me a dude got shot due to some gang/drug issue. I didn't see anything about it even on the local news... I mean, WTF?
So what about hand guns? Are they used for killing animals too?
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
Do strict gun control laws lead to high homicide rates, or are strict gun control laws passed in reaction to high homicide rates?
That's a NRA myth. Sort US cities by the murder column in this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Take the states of the top 3. Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri.
Louisiana has the 2nd weakest gun control laws. Michigan and Missouri are mid table.
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport_Chart1.pdf
Take the states of the cities with the lowest murder rate. Hawaii,Nebraska,Texas.
Hawaii has extremely strong gun control. Nebraska is mid-table, and Texas has weak gun control.
There's no simple correlation there as the NRA claim. Some cities are more violent and some are less violent for a huge number of social and political reasons. There's nothing in that data to say that weak gun crime means less murder.
.....the shooting at a high school in omaha would have still happened because it was a cop's weapon used(which we would not ban I bet)
The cops carry guns freely because everyone else does. In countries that don't have widespread gun use guns are only carried by armed units that are called out specifically, and so, that shooting would not have occurred because the opportunity to obtain that gun wouldn't have been there.
That's the flaw in using this logic.
No -- it was in response to the "one bullet" guy.
There are far more self-defense uses of firearms than there are accidental shootings.
I've used and carried firearms, in either a civilian or a military capacity, for my entire life. Never once has one done something to shoot anything I didn't intend for it to shoot.
So no, my family is safer because I do have guns.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
In Australia there are laws about how your guns are stored, they must be in a locked cabinet following the guide lines that are set out in the law. (eg. A strong metal cabinet with a lock on it).
First of all, there are people who hunt with handguns, as well as people who carry a handgun while they are out camping to protect themselves from bears. People also hunt using semiautomatic rifles (not as commonly as bolt or level actions, but some people prefer semiauto, and it is fairly common for a .22 caliber). Second, where exactly do you propose hunting rifles and ammunition be stored? Designated shacks in the woods? People need to be allowed to keep their own equipment in their homes; for some people, that might be very far from the nearest hunting grounds (yes, city dwellers go hunting too, and they might not be comfortable leaving their rifles unattended in a cabin for months at a time during the off-season).
Yes, it is true, handguns can be concealed more easily than long guns can, which is why criminals prefer handguns, and why more crimes are committed using handguns than long guns. The answer not an outright ban on all guns, or even an outright ban on handguns. Really, shootings are a symptom of a much broader problem in society, and addressing the symptom will only have marginal benefits. I would say that a much bigger problem than the availability of guns is that fact that in some communities, one out of every three men are incarcerated -- fathers, brothers, husbands, uncles. Take away the guns, and those communities will still have problems, and the criminals will resort to other weapons (knives, bats, etc.; right now, I hear about more muggings at knife point than at gun point, and I live in a fairly gun-friendly state).
Palm trees and 8
Banning the possession of firearms by civilians will ensure that only tyrants and criminals will have them.
Not only that, but what a dangerous precedent! The right to bare arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. If the precedent is set for overturning that, what happens next? The freedom of press dies? Right to assembly gone? Illegal search/seizure free for all? State sponsored religion?
We have a right to militia and bare arms so that when/if We The People decide the only way to affect change in our government is through violence, we have the means to do so.
I bet the Stormfronters out there would like to see some genetics showing how much Moor blood flows the veins of the average Spaniard.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Do you have so little faith in the human race that you believe someone will come along into your house and decide it's a grand idea to kill you all?
Your odds of killing someone with a knife are drastically reduced if your victim has a gun.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Jared Loughner's YouTube handle was Classitup10 and until YouTube takes it down you'll see his reading list there. Looks rather normal:
Books:
I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
So it seems he favored some books over others, and had a good deal of insanity pitched in.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Actually, yes, some people do use handguns for hunting. It is also not uncommon for people to bring a handgun with them when they go camping in grizzly bear territory, for protection.
Palm trees and 8
Higher murder rate in US? Sure, we also have more general crime and much of our youth are little shits that need to be spanked and properly raised.
Murder is easier and more accepted. Getting rid of that attitude would help.
Semi-auto rifles and pistols are also fun, but if you weren't so anti gun you would know that.
A gun only has one purpose, no matter how much fun they might be.
Oh yeah, most gun crime (as opposed to lawful killing using a gun) is committed by CRIMINALS WHO CANNOT LEGALLY POSSES A FIREARM!!!
The problem is that the more 'legally' possessed guns you have the greater the number of illegal ones as well because of greater supply. Where do you hide a needle? In amongst a lot of other needles.
Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them,
I guess you've never heard of the crossbow, the bow and arrow, the slingshot, or the rock. You should check up on your killing technology.
No all the AK-47 available for about $12 in Congo are/were legally owned guns at some point?
Oh, well good to see you know how to use wikipedia. Did you edit that into the article?
There are no "assault weapons" "optimized for this type of use". It's a made up term, that means nothing.
there are weapons that are optimized for use in providing suppressive fire, for instance the M240 and the M249 -- and they are extremely accurate -- not "spray firing" weapons.
Having used firearms my entire life, I have never heard that term -- with the exception of from people who don't know anything about guns.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
And yet you come back with more politics. I'll take one more crack at you on this view suppression thing, but I get the feeling you're just going to come back with more gibberish: If you believe that a action inexorably leads to violence on a mass scale, yet that action should be allowed, what does that make you? Now, back to why you're wrong about the shooter anyway: Go look at the youtube page, the guy was obsessed with mind control. He is a crazy person. The story here is that a mentally deranged person existed in our society undetected and untreated for too long and a tragedy occurred. The fact that you can not stop blaming this on right wing politics indicates one of two things, you're a uncaring scumbag who has to use every possible moment to support his political belief system, or you're very very stupid. I'm leaning towards the latter.
Not really. The elephant in the living room is the difference in ethnic makeup between the countries you are comparing.
There is no ethnic elephant. People who get shot are people. Now, there might be other factors such as poverty and a greater chance of crime in the rest of Sweden but that doesn't alter the greater murder rate in the US.
Well I cordially invite you to come try to take mine any time you're feeling froggy.
Frickin' Aye!
And I'm not even an American....
Yeah.... see, knife killings are NOT like the are shown in the movies. Hollywood LIED to you, son.
knife killings often take up to multiple dozens of stabs. People tend to voice their displeasure at all this stabbing...
Added to that, knife throwing is hard, accuracy is limited, and penetration depth is likewise limited. I HAVE practiced that, and it is not the easiest skill I tried to acquire.
Gun training is peanuts in comparison. I haven't shot from any large caliber handguns, only .22 long rifle guns (one step above a pellet gun, almost no recoil) and accuracy at a range of around 20 meters just isn't a big deal. Although in action you would probably be limited to around 10 meters unless you're pretty good.
That is a piece of metal, flung at speeds of around 350 m/s (1200 feet/second) with the only design specification of penetrating a human, flattening (or tumbling) and ripping through internal organs.
No, guns designed for killing people actually make killing people much, much easier.
Bang, bang bang bang bang bang
Reading that fast aloud is the time it takes to fire six rounds into a human being, easily at a range of ten meters. There is no other tool that does that, fits in a pocket, and has millimetre accuracy at that range.
CNN.com reported that the weapon is a Glock 9mm, so it is a semi-automatic pistol. Such a weapon could be obtained legally.
And yet all adult male Swiss have a full-automatic military weapons at their homes, given to them by their government and they still manage a lower murder rate that the US.
The supply of those guns is strictly controlled as part of National Service. Not exactly the same thing.
I seriously have to question the people who go out hunting animals when there's a perfectly good grocery store down the block. They like to talk about how you should kill the food you eat and blah blah blah, but all too often it is so clear that they're just wankers practically ejaculating at the idea of getting to fire a gun -- or even better, kill something! WHOOOOO!
However, I am the last person who wants any kind of gun ban. For one thing, banning guns doesn't restrict their flow. Banning guns doesn't eliminate murders. After all, how is outlawing firearms going to change the mind of someone who is already planning to murder someone (an already existing crime)? Not to mention, you know, the whole Constitutionality of it.
More importantly, a wise man once said something along the lines of how people should not be afraid of their government -- government should be afraid of the people. Kind of hard to do if people only arm themselves with butter knives and baseball bats.
Also, if we're so concerned with the value of human life, why don't we outlaw cars? Automobiles kill FAR more people very year than guns do. If we're not going to start outlawing things based on their true and actual mathematical impact on society, then we're just being disingenuous prigs.
Anyway, the point shouldn't be to strip rights away from the American people. It should be to uphold the rights of all Americans, while finding a way (impossibly difficult as it seems) to protect ourselves. And when it comes down to it, we have to accept that being a truly free society means having to endure some awful outcomes. This means that free speech comes with some truly vile speech. The right to own weapons includes the occasional freak that misuses them (though usually not a legal gun owner, it seems). And as I pointed out, above, we're already willing to make certain sacrifices. We've decided that even though cars kill FAR more people than guns do, the convenience of driving a car to the 7-11 for some nachos far outweighs the value of human life.
Bad taste doesn't figure into this. If it's popular with her core supporters ... she'll do it.
Right up to the time that it becomes more of a liability with the "mainstream".
Which is the situation here. When she put it up, her supporters were happy with it. But now, people who are not her "base" might develop a negative opinion of her if they saw it on the news.
At which point, her speaking fees dry up because fewer people want to pay someone who hosts a graphic like that to speak at their functions.
Of particular note: the top 4 are also the top 4 most populous. It's figures like #6 where Michigan is not the 6th highest population; a state which has stringent laws on hand guns (direct permission from local law enforcement).
It might be better to see numbers comparing violence with population.
You make a good point. Here's a map There still seems to be no correlation. I might mention Michigan is middle of the road for gun ownership, no registration for rifles, and approval for both pistols and concealed carry is mandatory for people that pass the criteria. Theoretically, open carry is legal as well.
yeah... the crossbow always makes my pockets BULGE slightly when I conceal it on assassination missions... /sarcasm
While the government does have tanks and nukes, it would be at least moderately difficult if they had to content with a couple hundred million armed citizens.
Of course, the government doesn't need to fear any of its own people at any rate, because we'll tolerate any violation and abuse of our rights and privacy and humanities -- as long as we can still get a mocha latte, buy in bulk at Costco, drive a mini-van, and watch Jersey Shore.
A semi-automatic hunting rifle helps ensure you put your quarry down humanely.
The difference between working the bolt manually and letting the gas discharge do it for you, means you have time for a second chance at that lung shot you just screwed up.
I'm not saying anything else about the rest of your argument. That all looks sound to me.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
your words have consequences. do you understand that simple obvious fact?
if you have been preaching violent antigovernment rhetoric for years, and you motivate a nutcase to do exactly what your OWN WORDS CLEARLY ENUNCIATE AS AN EVENT YOU WANT TO HAPPEN, you share responsibility for what the nutcase does
all nutcases act alone in actions, but not in motivation. they derive support and sustenance from all their compatriots egging them on, all the hate and violence in their own hearts that they don't make happen, but the nutcase knows their compatriots will be glad if violence actually does happen. it allows the nutcase to be a martyr for the cause, it empowers them to act, to do something brave and heroic for the cause
no cause, no martyr
now, on the left, saying we need to stop the hate speech. on the right: the gunman is a crazy on his own
why? because the right benefits from the hate
you see that right?
but its too bad... the right had a bigger target in mind, right?
maybe the next crazy person all the violent rhetoric motivates will aim a little higher, right?
pffffft
according to you, a large group of people can preach violent antigovernment hate, thousands can go "hurrah! hurrah!" for years. then, when what these people clearly have said they want to happen for many years actually happens... nope, no connection at all
i think i understand you and what you represent perfectly well
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are implying that just owning a gun (or guillotine) automatically turns you into a crazed murderer, this is not the case in fact every year of all the people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a License to Carry Firearms only 0.1% of them commit any felony or misdemeanor. You would be hard pressed to find crime rates lower than that and all of these people own guns and most carry them frequently.
The problem with this logic is that it allows guns to be supplied acceptably, and when you have an increase in the supply of weapons held legally you also have an increase in the supply of weapons held illegally and used nefariously.
Clearly, shock trauma and exsanguination are the real killers. Let's ban those!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Yeah, I don't think so. Every person in the US has a knife. Most have a meat-cleaver. A whole bunch have axes and chainsaws.
It's funny. I don't see many politicians in public places being killed with knives, meat cleavers or axes and chainsaws.
Hell, pretty much everyone has a 1-or-more-tonne device capable of moving at 100+ miles per hour. But you think the addition of guillotines would be the tipping point? Right. Go on, pull the other one.
Yes they do, and they use them to get from A to B. There are a lot of dangerous things people have access to, but funnily enough they aren't designed completely for the purpose of killing someone.
I seriously have to question the people who go out hunting animals when there's a perfectly good grocery store down the block.
Where I live, the idiots who populated the area 100+ years ago thought that killing all the wolves and mountain lions would be a good idea. Now, the only predator deer have to contend with is the one with a rifle. If it weren't for hunters, we would be overrun -- there are more deer here now than when the Europeans first arrived. It is unfortunate, but that is the state of affairs.
Even if that were not the case, and even if you do not like the argument that meat eaters should do their own killing, there is the simple fact that some meats are just not available in supermarkets. I have only seen venison in jerky-form at the supermarket, it is fairly hard to find duck meat, and I have never seen rabbit or dove being sold in supermarkets. Some people like variety; what is wrong with that?
Palm trees and 8
It happens that congresswoman supports gun rights so each and every anti-gun comment from loserboys here are null and void.
Well no. In fact, the irony is only made sharper.
What's the population density of Canada?
You're using misleading statistics to push an agenda.
And there's essentially no crime where I grew up, and where I live now. Crime usually exists where high population density exists -- not where guns exist. You might find it interesting to know that where there is extremely low population density, there is a much higher rate of gun ownership, and a much lower incidence of crime. I'll leave the why to your imagination, but I think I know what it is.
Canada is much more urbanized than the United States. Almost 80% of the population lives in cities. Even though Canada is larger than the United States, and has only 1/9th the population, most of the people live in cities, which is why Toronto, for example, is North America's 5th-largest city, and why, even though the US has 9x the population, it only has 3-1/2 times the number of cities (7) in the top 100 largest cities in the world vs Canada (2).
So, according to YOUR theory, murder rates should be several times HIGHER in Canada, not several times LOWER.
For most Canadians, a city of under 250,000 is a hick town.
Agreed that there's little correlation between gun laws and violent crime, if you look at this spread. So why do people in states like Arizona keep clamoring for gun ownership as a way to reduce violent crime?
I wouldn't say they're exactly clamoring for it, but gun control is often suggested as a way to reduce crime and conversely the relaxation of gun laws is often suggested as a way to do the same. My theory is it comes up so often because it is an excellent political tool. People are afraid of being disarmed and helpless to crime and people are afraid of others with guns that could hurt them. So you get a lot of afraid people, spout off political nonsense that makes people more afraid and you have a lot of angry, scared people who will vote against whoever they fear and ignore all the more relevant topics of the day. It's easy politicking.
Does that include the various Colonial Wars around the world as killing their own?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Do you plan on not sleeping, too?
Are you kidding?
AHHHHH no, american..... sorry.
See, yes, there are some organized crime members who have handguns in my country. Not all that many, but they exist.
However, if someone attacks me in an alleyway I can be 99.9 percent sure that he will at most have a hunting knife or a bat.
BECAUSE not everyone has a handgun. As availability isn't that high, the criminals don't generally have access to these weapons, and as the law is quite strict you have to be an extremely hardcore criminal to even contemplate carrying one.
See, if you get caught for burglary you can get a few months in prison. If you get caught for burglary while carrying a gun.... a few years.
It's just not worth it for most criminals here.
Remember that being screamed out by some guy when McCain was talking about Obama's policies?
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D39843233193D0F3&playnext=1&v=jw3o3y77MaA
Did anyone else hear about this and then hear Kosh (Naranek) in his head saying "It has begun?"
I think I'll drink myself to sleep tonight. :P
Most Americans don't consider Mexico as part of North America, but they are wrong too. Hell most American don't know that Cuba and Russia boarder the United States either.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
samma här
Same here.
for a very long time, and wants more. They continue to call for it, on the air, every day, at various events. They have some of the highest-paid political voices in the nation on their side, actively encouraging people to pick up arms and "defend" America from "socialists," which happen to be anyone that is not a far-right ideologue.
Whether or not this particular incident was driven by right-wing ideology, the Republican party and the Tea Party wanted this and wanted it bad, and they continue to want more. Or, the voices that they promote and that are supported by their rank-and-file are lying through their teeth on the air every day.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Are you even on it? Holy cow. You Brits have been trained to believe that the government can protect you from anything, I guess. I feel sorry for you. Fact is, we both need defense from our respective governments. Whether that be political or physical only time will tell.
....and yet I don't see children getting shot in schools or politicians being gunned down en masse in public. Go figure.
Now, regarding a home invasion (or any other situation where you are being threatened by another) you have to face a few more facts. I shouldn't need to spell this out, but you sound like someone who has never faced a violent situation.
I've faced violent sitiuations very rarely because violence is less well accepted. The one thing you can't do is add the ability to create more violence to violence and expect you to be making yourself safer. All that happens is that things get more violent. It's a curious phenomenon. That's how the First World War started.
Here's the thing: a cop can rarely defend you from the bad guys, unless he happens to be right there when the bad guy pulls a gun on you.
Hears the kicker. The bad guys around here are less likely to be able to pull again because it isn't acceptable for citizens to carry them. Guns being in easy supply merely makes it easier for a criminal to have one, and have one that can do more damage than what you have.
are reasonable, because it has been water-cooler discussion for quite some time that Beck/Palin/Hannity/House Repubs et. al. continually call for political violence and subversive unrest rather than civil political activity.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Not as such. That is not enough data to draw conclusions.
The wide gap between rich and poor has been blamed for some of this (the famous American capitalistic system). When large areas of low income are created, and large groups of disenfranchised groups live therein then elevated crime is a foregone conclusion. Don't give those people any way out (bad health care, low living standard etc.) and the problem gets worse.
Add a plentiful supply of weapons and the problem turns from awful to truly horrendous.
If you and all the other head in the sand Democrats don't think our side kills people have never dealt with union members up close and personal.
The media just doesn't report it the same.
Or for that matter looked at cheating in elections, which we Dems are experts at, to my dismay. i.e. IL, NY, etc.
And I am NOT a Republican, I just don't have my head in the sand.
I hate sigs, and refuse to have one.
People other than me dying is always funny. And no, taking a weapon out on your opponent generally means you win.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Yeah! ;)
Science. It works, bitches
right, because the technology that makes killing an easy point and click effort, has no meaning whatsoever
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A poster further up (not you, I realize) basically says it's irresponsible to not luck up your gun in a safe, lest it be stolen). You're saying that a home invasion is a good reason to have a gun. But what good is a gun in a safe going to do in a home invasion?
That was my post that you are referring to, and it is worth noting that not everyone shares the view that it is irresponsible to not lock up your guns. Personally, I side with the statistics: more often than not, people are shot with their own guns, which were left unlocked, during home invasions. Some people like to sleep with a gun next to their bed (or even under their pillow); I am not one of them. In fact, when it comes to guns, I only own rifles; my guns are used only for hunting and practicing at a shooting range.
Frankly, if I had to choose a weapon for home defense, a handgun would not be my first choice. I would much rather have a weapon that requires less accurate aim to be effective; a shotgun, for example. The tactical advantages presented by handguns -- portability, concealment, etc. -- are not particularly important for home defense, and handguns are targets for theft (criminals love them precisely because of their tactical advantages). Like I said, though, not everyone agrees with me, and if you look through the comments in this thread, you will see a lot of people who think that owning a handgun is a good idea.
Palm trees and 8
... or to exercise control and finesse. ie, putting holes in a quarter at half a mile away.
Sure, you could argue that you're just honing skills intended to kill - so what? If I have no intention to do that, and just enjoy the execution of the skill itself - what is wrong with that?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Good point. Genocide doesn't count if it's inefficient.
So we don't actually sound like we disagree on much. My question is: Why is it so easy to get the angry, scared rhetoric to take root in people's minds and so hard to get it out again, no matter how sensible the evidence to the contrary might seem? I don't mean just on the gun control issue, I mean on everything across the board. My parents retired from California to Arizona a number of years ago and under the influence of their neighbors they've switched from fairly run-of-the-mill California conservatives to right-wing whackos who think the financial crisis was caused by illegal immigration, healthcare reform is about letting bums and Mexicans get free medical care while the rest of us have to pay for it, and Obama was really born in Mexico. These are not stupid people. But when I offer them evidence to the contrary on just about any issue -- I don't mean blue-in-the-face arguing now, just "hey, don't you think it could be..." -- they sort of nod, agree, say I've got a point, and then the next time they open their mouths its right back to the anger, vengefulness, and conspiracy theories.
Breakfast served all day!
That post reminds me... I'd like to see a comparison of gun ownership to IQ. I'd expect to see a strong negative correlation.
Unless he had a class 3, it was. In which case, in addition to being a criminal, he's also a fucking idiot.
Even if he didn't hit anyone with it, he would have been going away for a looong time.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
... and a much smaller territory to do it in, no less!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Bush woke up a lot of people into what has been going on. The hate is justified, the irrational directing of it is the problem. People should have been extremely upset before Bush even stole the election with the stuff Clinton did. More people are upset now, the ones who were upset long ago have been stewing for a long time. When I think of the WTO protests... and how it is twice (10x?) as bad as that today.... to the point where the libertarian/republican types are starting to get upset.... We haven't had too many people who were awake 15-40 years ago going violent, just these young ones unable to handle the spoonful they just got.
The parent's FTA says he liked Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha -- I don't see how people are bringing up Communism with him and not Fascism when that book is there as well---- and it would take a really messed up person to attack a democrat 1st if they are Marxist fanatics when there are extreme Corporatists all over government.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The shooter hardly seems like a clear leftist. In the article you point to they also favorited Mein Kampf, are against federal laws, and insists on the gold and silver standard. That's a good mix of hard right and hard left. I'd say they're just pure anarchist with a mix of pure crazy.
Cow Cube
I think this is what people mean when they talk about gun 'education'. Familiarity with guns reveals them to be tools, not fetishied symbols. People who go to the gun range regularly probably just like shooting and hitting targets for the sport of it. As you say, nice people. The sort of person you'd worry about has probably never set foot in a firing range, but he might have a stack of gun magazines under his bed and fantasise about them. When the time comes that suddenly have one in their hands, they haven't been demystified - that makes them dangerous.
I'm not arguing for or against guns or bans. I'm simply pointing out that guns are 'special' as a class of tools in that they carry symbolic weight. There are lots of ways to kill people, culture has made this way the way of choice for many people.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
It's funny. I don't see many politicians in public places being killed with knives, meat cleavers or axes and chainsaws.
Right, but it happens every day with guillotines.
Yes they do, and they use them to get from A to B. There are a lot of dangerous things people have access to, but funnily enough they aren't designed completely for the purpose of killing someone.
Ah, that asinine old argument. As if objects give a shit what they're designed to do. Dozens of everyday objects are better murder weapons than a gun, but a gun is meant to kill people, so it's eeeevil!
I'm surrounded by superstitious fuckwads, I swear ...
LOL! You right-wing libertarian American's make me laugh. You're bat-shit insane.
Getting back on topic of today's news: what's the betting today's mass murdering shooter is one of you.
Guns are find so long as people get to use them and their not something to scare or attack other people with.
Banning Guns is fine, so long as you ban all governments from having them too.
as for the claim that the motive was that she was trying to listen to the people she's supposed to represent (link has she never done things before, there is a first time for everything I suppose).
Did the gunman come out with a tea party flag on one hand and an Uzi in the other?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"An eye for an eye" is a false maxim. The whole world only goes blind if you return the harm twice over.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
It's far more common that they end up shooting themselves or a family member, rather then an actual criminal intruder. God help the poor bastards who end up shooting their own child.
We're not exactly known for downright murdering our public officials. Other countries hold that 'honor'
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Oh sure. I was talking about what's reasonable, not what's legal. Not that that's necessarily mutually exclusive.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
It displays no grasp of logic whatsoever. Criminals will always have guns.
Criminals will always have weapons, but they don't have to be guns. For example, store robberies here in Norway usually do not involve proper guns (some involve toy replicas).
In such a scenario for example I think it is very good that the criminals does not have guns. It is far harder to accidentally attack someone with an axe than to accidentally shoot someone.
That is a piece of metal, flung at speeds of around 350 m/s (1200 feet/second) with the only design specification of penetrating a human, flattening (or tumbling) and ripping through internal organs.
*ahem* guns are also good for killing wild animals. Please do not perpetuate the rhetoric about guns only being useful for killing people. I have met quite a few farmers who use small caliber rifles (.22lr, .22wmr, .223, .22-250, .204, etc.) for pest control, and plenty of people who hunt with firearms of various calibers -- .22lr all the way up to .30-06 (depending on what they are hunting, of course). I have met people who have hunted using handguns, and people who carry handguns for protection when they are camping in grizzly bear territory (yes, bear attacks are rare, but when you have a grizzly biting down on your leg, you will want something to repel or kill it, and a handgun is a pretty good way to do that).
Palm trees and 8
Ah - my openly despising an administration that allowed the largest terrorist attack in history months after suppressing FBI investigations into the Bin Laden family, which proceeded to use lies to justify invading a country that had no links to the attack, who speak to this day with pride about authorising warcrimes including waterboarding is of course exactly equivalent to the eliminationist rhetoric coming from the right wing establishment.
Against people that spoke with pride about authorising . . . heathcare for poor people and children.
I mean, other than the fact that the left never called for eliminating right wing politicians (Excepting some marginal comment down in a blog somewhere), that many people would not consider better healthcare morally inferior to, say, torturing people to death or going to war without cause, and . . . oh yeah . . . by odd coincidence despite your deep belief that we were all planning on it no left wing nut ever tried to take out the American Enterprise Institute nor has there been so much as a threat against a right wing politician . . . ever . . . these are completely identical.
Other than being completely different of course.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
The discussion was about availability of firearms per capita. If they are in the home (which they are in Switzerland), then they are available. If they wished to go on a shooting spree, what would prevent it? Simply because the source of the weapon is the government (who tracks who has what serial number) does not prevent the use of the firearm in illegal ways.
The culture of the Swiss is what prevents their use in crimes, which leads to the argument that guns inherently are not the cause of shootings.
Whoa their dude, just because you have a gun and can defend yourself and your peers, doesn't mean you'll have a clean shot; especially in a crowd. Do you take a shot to save your own life in a situation where your likely to miss or have a bullet pass through your target and kill an innocent? That the kind of question a responsible gun owners has to be able to face.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
My point is that you are comparing apples to oranges. comparing crime overall in the US to crime overall in Canada is pointless, as the population distribution, demographics, and even the crime statistics reporting are completely different. Comparing individual cities and actual homicide rates might give you a place to start.
"The 8 states with a murder rate less than Canada" is an obvious statistical failure. Compare like things.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
I tend to go with what the Constitution and SCOTUS says in terms of both legal and reasonable, in general.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Should everyone be afraid at every moment that their going to be shot by a gunman? Should everyone shoot first and ask questions later? Is one really free if he is afraid to go outside without getting shot?
I love how every time there is a shooting the anti gun people jump right in with their propaganda. The fact is criminals love gun control. They have no regard for the law and don't care if the gun they have is legal or not. Outlawing guns will allow them to perpetuate their crimes with impunity. So protect your local criminals and ban legal gun ownership. They need to practice their trade with some measure of safety.
were people cheering and giving each other high-5's when Vladimir Arutyunian threw a hand grenade at Shrub?
.45 at President Ford.
Why yes, yes they were. They same people who call him Bushitler, nice people like that. The sort of people who spent eight years burning him in effigy. The kind of people who did cheer when a crazy guy tried to kill Reagan, or when apocalyptic hippie Squeaky Fromme pointed a
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Did anybody say that? I sure didn't.
Don't like guns? Don't own them. I see that you live in NYC, so your local laws has made that choice easy enough for you already, hasn't it?
I guess it is a matter of semantics, but if a loaded gun is stored in a cupboard, a child opens the cupboard and the gun falls over and discharges through the child, I wouldn't ever phrase that as "a person shot that child", but the phrase "the gun discharged, shooting the child" would make more sense.
So the criminal might "accidentally shoot someone", and that's your argument for banning guns?
I might "on purpose" defend myself with a gun, from a criminal with an axe -- or a gun, or a baseball bat.
And yes, criminals will always be able to get guns. In countries that have no gun culture it might be more difficult, but there will always be guns in the US. Discussing "banning" them is silly -- it can't happen, for a number of reasons, including the SCOTUS rulings in Heller V. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Arizona is an open carry state but a permit is required to carry a concealed weapon. The permit process requires class work, background checks, fingerprinting, and no felony or domestic violence charges.
Of course not, I was pointing out that hunters do not need access to all possible guns. So saying that hunting is a valid excuse to allow all weapons is ridiculous. Other countries allow guns for hunting but do not allow you weapons that could have inflicted the damage seen today. If you want to allow access to all possible guns, fine. Just be honest with the reasoning why - and the reason is not hunting.
So your thinking is that a person willing to break the law and shoot at these people would have obeyed the gun ban? Seriously? I'd really love to hear the thought process at work here...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
My mother works in South Boston not far from the projects and there have been quite a few robberies and shootings. I urge her to carry a stun-gun, some pepper spray, and a rape whistle on her key chain just in case. Her keys also have a panic button. She never had to use it, and she usually forgets she has it, but it does kind of make you feel a little bit more secure walking through those neighborhoods. If there weren't so many shootings every year, then I don't think she would carry it. Carrying anything lethal like a gun doesn't make sense in this situation. But yeah, if the threat has a higher probability of taking place, then you should be prepared. These shootings at rallies in the United States are rare and I don't think you need to carry any kind of protection.
My question is: Why is it so easy to get the angry, scared rhetoric to take root in people's minds and so hard to get it out again, no matter how sensible the evidence to the contrary might seem?
People in general do not form opinions logically. They don't form opinions based upon facts. The vast majority of people, intelligent or not, form opinions based upon emotion; upon what they want to be true or what they've heard and catches their fancy or what is socially acceptable and convenient. They then use logic and facts to support and defend that opinion in discussion. Facts that don't support the right opinion are more easily forgotten or rationalized. Show people a scientific study on a topic, and regardless of the conclusions of the paper, studies show everyone will be more convinced of the opinion they had before reading the paper.
The answer to all this is to be methodological when forming opinions. People need to grow up and learn to rely upon logic and the scientific method to not only justify opinions, but to form them in the first place. The fact that our schools don't teach such basic mental tools is the root of the problem in my opinion.
The anti-gun mod-points crowd is out in force today, modding everything they disagree with as "flamebait", and "overrated". Interesting to see the attempt to suppress discussion rather than engaging in it, and a willingness to misuse the site's moderation features to do so.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
No, It is the design purpose of a handgun to kill a person.
Ok, murder... blahh... maybe a little melodramatic, I admit.
But a 9mm Glock is not all that good for hunting or fishing, now is it?
That's not what the designers design it for, OR what it is generally marketed for.
Handgun advertising tends to be in terms of accuracy, stopping power (against a person), how well it secures you, etc.
Bombs are generally illegal, unwieldy and dangerous to the person using it as well as to others. Killing with a knife isn't easy. I think back to a knife murder that happened a few months ago in the country I am originally from. A guy snuck into another guy's room at night and stabbed him in bed. The stabbed guy got up after a few stabs, and a fight broke out. A total of 17 stabs (if I recall correctly) were needed.
Not the same as a gun.
Stabbing someone in public? Not so easy. Not likely that you kill a bunch of extra people "just because". Nope. One target, and you'll probably fail.
Baseball bat? Even less successful as a murder weapon. Yes, people can die from brain hemorrhaging, or general blunt force trauma, but this is a major act of violence which requires determined intent. It's not a "hey you there, BANG" type of action.
This is about the handgun being a device that is designed from the beginning to kill people, and nothing else. Bombs are mostly used in construction and demolition. Knives mostly for cutting food, carpets and whatever else. Baseball bats are generally found... well.. in baseball. Handguns are mostly found where you want to be able to kill someone (even if the idea is to limit it to self defense).
The "genie back in the bottle" comment is the one that I can buy.
The problem has already been created, and fixing it is no joke.
Leftists tend not to list "Mein Kampf" among their favorite books. Or anything written by Ayn Rand. Particularly not THAT book.
Unstable "gonna fix the guberment myself" gun-nuts on the other hand...
Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
If anything, the list screams "I just want to be a kid!" and "I need a strong male role model" while questioning morality of the world order.
Also, videos are apparently a manifesto of a an anti-grammar-Nazi.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
And the idiot who put it in a cupboard within reach of a child is the one responsible.
Of course one should also point out that modern firearms do not "fall over and discharge", as they have multiple redundant safeties that prevent this from happening. In general, the only way a firearm is going to discharge is for someone to physically pull the trigger.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
ok, so i just won't care that thousands of my fellow americans are killed every year because some morons believe easy access to killing technology isn't a problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A Democrat congresswoman is shot, and a federal judge and 8 others are killed. This would be shocking, except that it's not. The congresswoman "beat back a tough challenge from a Tea Party-endorsed opponent."
So we have organization that promotes having its supporters brandish weapons at its rallies, has its most prominatent supporters openly talk about advocate armed rebellion, and armed secession, and other defunct 19th century extremist ideas, demonizing a duly elected political opponent, and now we have her shot, and 9 others killed.
Um - where are you getting 'Far Left' out of that - looks more like standard Ayn Rand-ophile pseudo-logic than anything to me.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I don't have a whole lot of respect for politicians or lawyers. If they actually mean what they say about SERVING THE PEOPLE then I don't think it is all that bad if a random segment of them die at a high enough frequency to deter many self-serving "ambulance chasers" from running for office.
Sure that sounds bad, but governments kill thousands of people each year (the USA does more like hundreds of thousands per year) so for a few politicians to die as collateral damage I think is worth the price of gaining the power an elected office affords them. Unfortunately, the most corrupt ones seem to do just fine.... (I'm not implying conspiracies, just observing.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The thing is, Sweden has actually quite strict gun laws. You have to be a hunter or an active member of a gun club to own a gun. If you don't go to the gun club often and practice/compete, your licence will be revoked. Generally you give it to the police, or sell it, or the police will come pick it up for you if you break the law by having it without license. I believe there will also be some legal aftermath from that.
I think that if you're a hunter the license is unlimited in time but you can only buy hunting rifles. And if your doctor notices that you have a drug problem you'll lose the license. Someone with a hunting license could probably clear this up a bit as I'm uncertain.
So, would you concider Sweden, or most/all scandinavian countries as opressive? Like limiting the press or other freedoms?
And we have quite an open society where most politicians regularly meet "the people". Not at all what you described.
Another funny thing. We actually have more guns per capita than the US has. And yet we have very few shootings. Most murders here are done with a knife or blunt force.
I think there's something in the US culture that glorifies guns and their use, which makes this a much bigger problem there than here. Probably some manliness issue that sais that you have to be the biggest and strongest at all times, and the guy with the biggest gun is the strongest. And I think you have a social problem that aggravates this, meaning that when people have very limited options they'll use whatever resort they can to improve their situation.
This from my limitied view here overseas. I'm sure I've fallen for a few myths and misconceptions, but I try to keep up on current events, even in the US.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Ranting in general and "getting on your soap box" (in other words, making your displeasure publicly known) are different. Ranting in general has absolutely no intent to change anything; public speaking is generally done to raise awareness, gather like-minded fellows, etc, and by doing so put pressure on the person in charge.
As the sibling comment points out, the power of the "jury box" means civil or criminal lawsuits. Those are only applicable to serious injustices (otherwise the law won't recognize your case), but if you're willing to kill someone, you probably think it's pretty serious.
a 9mm (or even a .45) mostly irritates a grizzly unless you are an excellent marksman.
Carry a rifle in bear country.
Handguns are designed for killing people. That's their design, that's their marketing (MAXIMUM STOPPING POWER! Feel safer with the Smith and W.... etc.)
Sure, it is possible to kill animals with a handgun. A small calibre rifle is pretty much always better.
For fitting in a backpack?
Just stick the rifle on the outside so you don't have to go through your lunch and your underwear when that wolf/grizzly attacks.
but that means all guns if civilians don't have guns why would police or military need them? Unless to kill unarmed people.
You do realise that the so called gun control even in those states is _nothing_ compared to countries with real gun control?
Certainly, but I already addressed that when I wrote that there was no correlation nationally either. Whether a country has strict or lax gun control does not seem to causatively effect the amount of violence and violent crime, with examples on both ends of the spectrum.
The pervasiveness of weapons in private hand is and will continue to be a major problem for public safety in the US.
Firearms are dangerous and will result in accidental deaths, like many other tools and recreational items. That said, there isn't really data to support them being any more of a threat to public health than say, backyard pools.
Just look at the stats of heavily regulated countries.
I certainly have. I've also looked at countries like Switzerland and Sweden with very high gun ownership. There is no correlation. No study has been able to show one that I've ever read. Unless you'd care to cite some comprehensive study I've missed.
Neither do they have more violence nor do the citizens feel threatened because they cannot arm themselves.
Umm, so you can't prove guns don't cause crime, even though there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis so we should pass laws to ban them?
I laugh at the "progressives" here who were waiting to jump on the GOP for this. First off, now isn't the time for politics.
Yeah, and when someone throws a shoe at Bush, it's the time for military action.
Fandroids hate facts.
Your link to violent crime statistics don't indicate whether those figures are for raw totals or for per capita totals. A quick run down of the list shows that it mostly tracks with population size, so I would assume that the figures are not adjusted for per capita.
True enough, I later in the thread linked to a map of violence by population and as several people have noted there is still no correlation.
Try a new argument when you have per capita figures.
Keep up, the discussion covered that more than an hour ago.
It seems that he did go on a rant couple of months ago.
Except, it seems to have been a kind of a rant that would/should have attracted attention of a trained psychologist.
Too bad he just yelled at the emptiness of the internet, instead of at say... other humans.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Guns are generally designed to be effective against a certain mass of target, with a certain thickness of hide, using specific mass of bullet coupled with a specific size of load. All for a certain range.
A 9mm Glock, a .38 special and a .45 all work best for a target with relatively thin skin, at a range of not more than 20 metres (accuracy under pressure) and a target mass of less between 50 and 150 kg.
That's a pretty good description of a human in an urban environment, not a good description of a rabbit, grizzly or a deer (although the deer may match in weight it has thicker skin and is generally at a longer range. If you would manage to hit it properly you might kill it. IF you hit it..)
I'm a moron because I believe in the United States Constitution, which guarantees me rights that allow me to defend myself? Is that what you're trying to say. You can go to hell.
People like you, you are the lowest of the low. You are the ones that like to take advantage of a tragedy such as today's in order to further your own personal political agenda. How pathetic.
I'll tell you like I told the other fellow: Feel free to come try to take away my guns any time you're feeling froggy.
So the story about the shooting only happened in my imagination?
I'm sure that Giffords would prefer it that way. But it isn't so. She was shot, in the head.
If you had bothered to read my comment you would have noticed my very particular wording:
Notice I did not say who's ability to fight a war, nor did I say a war with who.
My statement is completely compatible with the interpretation that you describe (off-topic: which I personally agree with) but it is deliberately neutral. It's reactionist comments such as your own that give this discussion it's bad name.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.judge.obit/index.html?hpt=T1
Apprently he ruled an immigratin law suit could continue. This is looking more like a political act to me than just a wacko. Watch the people who created a climate of fear and hate; such as Karl Rove, Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh; distance themselves from this ASAP. They will express "plausible deniability".
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Like saying slavery is acceptable as long as the slaves are treated in an enlightened manner. Just a flaw in the constitution, which would take an amendment to correct, but it won't happen since the multibilliondollar arms industry will not let it happen.
It's quite hard to stab 20 people to death before you get stopped, even if there are no guns at the scene.
The consequences are bigger if there are rapid fire guns involved.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Does Sweden have a constitution which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms?
Here in NJ it very hard to legally get a hand gun and not legal to carry one. Probably one of the strictest gun law states in the nation. Yet in Newark we have shootings all the time by young men and even teens with illegal guns. So much for gun control. They do have them and they know you don't because you are law abiding. It's good to be a bad guy here. You can practice your trade with relative safety.
You seem to forget that those 1.3 Indians "lost" included women and children (which also means that the Indians seemingly were a lot better at killing soldiers than those soldiers were at killing Indians when, let's say, 2/3rds of them were actually not combat able).
better yet, carry pepper spray.Also works on humans.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The idea, as I understand it, is that the handgun is a last resort -- when the grizzly is already biting down on your leg, you can shoot it in the head at point blank range, no marksmanship required.
Palm trees and 8
Maybe you should re-read the post that you responded to. NeutronCowboy made a comparison between the comments on Huffpost and Fox News. He states, and my observations agree, that the posts on Fox were angry, bigoted, and generally disgusting, while the comments of Huffpost were useful. Then he extends that comparison to imply that the extreme wing of the Republicans espouse violence. NC does not at all encourage violence in his post. In fact he uses the suggestion of political violence a tool to smear the tea party types. Take a deep breath and relax, KingSkippus.
-- QED
I guess I wouldn't be considered "reasonable" either by someone who didn't think that Palin's poster was okay.
Meanwhile, if there really wasn't anything wrong with that poster, then why take it down after the shooting?
So by that logic, if cancer is cured, all it means is that the body will find some other way to die, so what's the point? Gotta start somewhere.
the second amendment is about muskets and militia and native americans and red coats running around on the frontier. it has nothing to do with lone vigilantes with dirty harry complexes walking around with a .38 special. completely different situations, and you know it, however you CREATIVELY INTERPRET the constitution, the constitution clearly DOES NOT literally support the point of view you have
btw, if guns are made illegal, i have no doubts that some truly malintentioned criminals will still have guns. but making guns illegal is not about keeping guns away from the crafty evil criminal, it never was. it is about keeping guns away from the casual moron. the casual moron is the kind of guy who will shoot up a disco because some chick looked at him funny. by definition of what a casual moron is, this is not the kind of guy who will devote much time and effort to getting a firearm. thus, you save thousands of lives form pointless death every year when you make firearms harder to get. see?
the flip side of that observation is the well-armed criminal mastermind, now, he has a gun whether guns are legal or illegal. additionally, being the crafty fellow he is, if he is your enemy, he will make sure you are dead no matter how well-armed you are. your trusty side arm is no defense against the intelligent amoral individual. it simply isn't. unless you never sleep and live in a bunker. if you make enemies with the wrong type of guy, you're simply dead, whether guns are legal, or illegal, or you are well armed, or unarmed
additionally, the causal moron, when he pulls out a side arm and starts firing, this follows no rational line of thought. because he's a casual moron. so maybe you'll get the jump on his trigger finger. maybe you won't. who knows what sets a drunk casual moron with a gun off? good luck figuring that out
so: you have a strange faith in an object that doesn't really protect you from menace. and yet, you also believe that the free access to that object, by any random asshole, somehow makes you safer! hilarious
in short, sweet dreams, fool, with your false faith
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It looks fairly balanced politically overall, despite being all over the place. The list contains both pro and anti communist and fascist rhetoric. There are a lot of classics, as well. If the list is real, he was likely relatively intelligent. I wonder who or what drove him insane. Contrary to popular belief, most people find it extremely difficult to kill another person, even when their own lives are in danger. External forcing has to be applied to get most people to kill. The pattern would indicate some resistance to traditional mass brainwashing methods, as people that are easy to manipulate usually only seek information that confirms what they want to believe to be true or from authority they are seduced by.
Wait, anti-social people are notorious for faking credentials to give themselves the image of authority, and appearing "normal." It would also fit the behavior. It's at least a possibility.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
No, for that you need a rock... and for bears you need a tax
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Those five states also happen to be the top 5 states by population. Perhaps it would be more prudent to look into violent crime statistics per capita....
You are trading in the possibility of your own countrymen turning against for the certainty (clearly YOU are certain about that) of "them furners" killing you in your sleep?
How do you know that they don't have flamethrowers too?
Do you too have a youtube channel where you rant against the guberment trying to confuse you with "grammer" and about your plans to create your own currency?
Only with blackjack. And hookers.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The news was that a representative who wanted to be more available and hands-on for her constituents — a different kind of politician who takes time to make herself available in a less-scripted manner than "Town Halls" — gets gunned down for her trouble. And not only her, but her staff and others.
I don't think it's a 'guns' issue — biologicals or chemicals (ricin, sarin) could have done the same or worse. Or a simple suicide bomber could have made as much of a splash (though not as many frags, probably).
I think it's a political issue, and a damned shame that a probable real 'do-gooder' and maybe even 'honest politician' (hold the oxymoron comments!) gets herself and her staff shot up for trying to change the political landscape.
The representative was right: emails are impersonal; and imo Town Halls are scripted b.s.; but constituents ought to be able to communicate directly with their reps, and there ought to be more transparency in govt. Hell, maybe she ought to have used Skype; there SHOULD be a tech solution for honest govt reps to speak to voters on a personal level w/out citizens losing even more civil rights.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates.
It has always seemed to me that being an island of strict gun control in a larger area with lax gun control is about the worst situation to be in since the criminals won't care about bringing guns in illegally.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!!!
When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.
By your own philosophy, if anyone kills a would-be censor you are now partially responsible. Preach on.
Jury: You don't get a choice in that one, you can't decide "I'll be on a jury today" and do so.
That's not what that one means. It's obvious to everyone, except you, that it refers to the courtroom in general. Since there's no such thing as a "court box," the rather obvious substitution of "jury box" (which nearly every courtroom has) ties the whole statement together into a nice little package.
You certainly can *sue* and ask for a jury trial, which would result in the jury box being present. Everyone else who has seen the little "soap, ballot, jury, ammo" thing understands that.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Don't worry, it's not very long :)
Silly rabbit
1 anonymous person on yahoo answers (seriously?!) with a single upvote.
So, that's two. Any more evidence for this?
How did you even find that cite? Had it bookmarked since it happened for just such a debate?
As a pretty hefty lefty, I thought Bush was the worst thing that happened to the world in recent years, but killing him was absolutely not the thing to be done.
No, we don't.
The fact that California, Texas, etc. have large populations is probably what causes them to appear at the top of that list. A more interesting comparison would be firearm homicides per capita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
is there *really* any use in having a gun for self-defence?
Apparently, somewhere between 800 thousand and two and a half million times a year.
I can't imagine any realistic scenario where would-be burglar/thief/assassin/rapist is likely to get into a situation where their intended victim has a gun trained on *them*.
Tell it to this lady. Lots of things that you can't imagine, happen every day.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
For most Canadians, a city of under 250,000 is a hick town.
I'm from Regina, Saskatchewan. I can confirm this. It's definitely a hick town.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
It's also insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a gun accident at home.
Pray it never happens to you - because if it does, you'll wish you never had a trigger to pull.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
So the criminal might "accidentally shoot someone", and that's your argument for banning guns?
It's a bit deeper than that. If regular people don't have guns (or knifes and similar), criminals won't need to use guns as any other weapon (knife/axe) will most likely do the job of scaring the victims into submission.
In addition fewer guns in the population will make it harder to obtain a gun illegally, so even if the criminal wanted they may have to "make do" with something else.
Now back to my hypothetical situation, if the criminal has a gun and there's a good chance you have a gun, he will probably be quite a bite more on the edge than if he had a knife and there's a miniscule chance that you have a gun, knife or similar.
I believe the chance for someone to get hurt in the first scenario is far greater than in the second. That is why I wouldn't want the gun (or knife) laws here lifted.
As for "fixing" the situation in the US, I think it's naive to expect that simply banning guns will make everything all right. However I imagine it's part of the solution.
If one could grow unlimited amounts of guns from seeds rather than having to source them individually, then the two would be similar. But they're not.
It's an awful lot easier to source an illegal gun when there are many legal guns. You just steal one.
I think you are right about people in the US thinking guns make them the biggest and strongest, and it is very unfortunate, and tragic things occur, like this shooting, or any shooting where innocent people are killed or injured. I have mixed feelings about guns.
I think certain guns should be illegal. The ones that are useful for hunting, are perfectly fine to me. The think that makes me lean towards the for guns side, is that our country sometimes seems to open to who is qualified to do so many things. Just about anyone can own a gun, and they don't have to have classes or tests to make sure they are mentally and physically capable of handling them. So for people like me who have taken classes, and training, for my family it's safer. There have been many times where I've been threatened at my front door, and all it took was telling them, I a gun and know how to use it, as of yet I have never fired my gun at another person, and hope to never have too. If guns were illegal, then the thugs with that "i'm an American and can do what I want" and will kill someone for it, will be the only ones with guns.
Another thought I've had, is that if this government that is supposed to be so small, and run by the people, gets to power crazy (which they seem to have been heading down that path for a while now), a gun might protect me from the police state thugs, and help those that are ready to over through the Police state.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
In the USA, we are number 24 in the world for murder rates
Whereas Britain, where guns are basically illegal, is # 56.
This is because tools for killing people make it easier to kill people. So more tools available means more killing. Just like more gambling machines means more gambling, and more pinball machines means more pinball playing.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
The correct term is "reticle" of the type called "crosshair" and they are not unique to guns.
The sights are the little metal parts on the gun above the barrel that you use to aim.
The reticle in a rifle scope (which the image appears to depict) are usually indicative of the aiming point of the weapon, yes. Then again, many laser range finders, golf scopes, binoculars, and other optical devices also have them for indicating aim or other purposes.
I do agree that using images reminiscent of the view through a rifle scope is a bit tasteless. Moreso now.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
As one of the few native Muskogee left in Southwest Georgia, I can attest to that. The local museum here is named Thronateeska, after our capital that was located in my home town, yet it has nothing about the Muskogee and the cities history starts with white settlement and most of the exhibits are from the late 19th early 20th century concerning plantation work and the Flint River. Most of our people were transplanted to Oklahoma, and our history in our native land is all but wiped out.
Nope. In Britain its very hard for criminals to get guns from honest citizens, by purchase or theft. Which means less murder. Which is why they have so few murders, and we have so many.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
The odds of killing someone with a gun are drastically reduced if you are in a country where guns are strongly controlled and very difficult to get hold of.
Oh cry me a fucking river, you liberal pansy.
People like you make me want to vomit broken glass.
The invitation still stands.
Historically it's been a lot easier for European countries to get into warfare than the US. There are simply many more international borders in Europe. Despite that, the US has managed to get itself in rather a lot of war over the last century.
And as for the genocide mentioned by an earlier poster, I have to say I don't view bombing civilians of the enemy country with Napalm and White Phosphorus to be so many notches higher on the morality scale to gas chambers.
No, your last line of defence against criminals is the police. If it is not, then your country is a failed state, and discussing laws a mere fantasy.
As a side note, your guns will in all likelihood never help you defend your family. They might, however, be instrumental in a tragic accident involving two members of your family. That you seem to be preparing yourself to kill another human, even in self defence, probably indicates that your family might need protection from you, rather than you protecting them.
You mean, on the one hand, the extreme that's packing heat so they can blow away people in Safeway parking lots, and on the other hand, the extreme that doesn't?
Or perhaps the extreme that sends swat teams to raid small farm coops to seize shipments of raw milk cheese? The extreme that sends swat teams into family homes on a faulty warrant for suspected marijuana possession and shoots homeowners in the middle of the night? The extreme that provides a personal security detail to the mistress of a certain city's mayor but won't let a corner newsstand owner in a bad crime district get a firearm permit? The extreme that pays out trillions of dollars to large bankers so they can pay their bonus checks after defrauding the country? The extreme that wages wars across the globe to "spread democracy" by the sword?
There is a lot of crazy going around. It does not matter whether it is tyranny of the individual of tyranny of the majority, both are tyranny. Government is intended to strike a balance, protecting us from both. Neither party is doing so very much.
But as far as I can tell so far, the guy who did this is just a nut and a rotten one--- an equal-opportunity hater.
i'm not going to take your guns away from you, ever. that's not my intention. i know someone like you will still have them even if they were illegal
i'm simply telling you the gun in your hand does not do for you what you think it does
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You seem to have truncated the full quote for some reason. In full, it's "There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
This was the place for the soap box obviously. The last only exists for the same reason the second amendment does. America was founded on the principle that it's justified to take arms en mass (i.e. militia) against an oppressive government, so having an armed populace is to ensure a government fears its people.
Criticizing the government, protesting and even hating is not a problem. Violence and incitement to violence is the problem. I do not know a poster similar to the crosshair one against Bush. Surely not endorsed by a democrat governor (or VP candidate!). Nothing like this either: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2011/1/8/13371/41091/21#c21
Yes, when left protested against Bush it was all very peaceful and civilized.
i will preach on. and i am happy that my words will be heard by and agreed to by intelligent and sane people. unfortunately, by what you have written, you aren't in that group. good luck on your journey to logical coherence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
CNN already has a story up with quotes from the suspect's various online accounts
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shootings.suspect.social/index.html
Interesting, the suspect has a youtube account and has 5 videos posted. They are here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u/0/7uRjwPWaxiY
The videos are fairly strange, exhibiting a repeated use of arguments that beg the question (I use "beg the question" in the sense that I referring to the logical fallacy). Clearly they are not the product of a healthy mind. He seems to be stuck in some sort of rut. Common themes include a new currency, mind control, and confusion about the way we number our years.
-- QED
It's interesting that the US right/gun supporters are pointing to the Swiss
Well, that's not me. I like the fact that where I live only criminals, the military and law enforcement [1] have guns. I just think the situation is more complex than either side makes it out to be.
[1] For some reason the US gun lobby tends only to mention the first bit.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Clutching at straws to the last...
If you really care about your intellectual honest, I'd recommend some introspective study.
That's not a particularly clever response. All of those places are only part of Europe geographically. Politically they were soviet block countries. Politics explains the violence, not geography.
No, guns shoot bullets. People cannot shoot bullets, regardless of whether or not they have a gun. Bullets are shot by guns.
At least in that sense of 'shot'. In the other sense of 'shot', people shot people.
All this is idiotic, anyway. The problem isn't 'gun control'.
The problem is that a certain political party has been sprouting threats and metaphors using violence ever since the last election, yammering about 'second amendment remedies' and using bulleye's on political opponents.
I'm sure this guy is deranged and isn't a normal person on the right, or, hell, could be anything at all. But that doesn't change the fact that the victim's opponent had a rally where you shoot an M-16 to 'tell her how you really feel'.
YOU DON'T GET TO USE THE RHETORIC OF VIOLENCE IN POLITICS.
If you do, no shit you're in trouble when people actually, duh, start using violence. And of course they'll be the crazy ones, but that really doesn't matter.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
LOL! I have come to realize no matter how insane the proposition is, reality proves to be even insaner!
But let me post this in the internet wylds:
Of course Congress will issue statements of appall and denounce the shooting of Giford - after all, they are in the gun sights. But let me, a voter, one among the many who put Congress into place as our representatives, denounce this shooting, thereby disenfranchising all who put her into Congress to speak for them. -- Scott Auge
Okay, I'm not going to advocate terrorism, or violence -- but on some level, I think the government will be more apt to work "for the people" if they're afraid of getting shot. Hell, that's kind of the values America was founded on. Revolution. I dunno, I think it's best summed up like this:
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Clarie Wolfe
Maybe the hour is just later than many suppose for people on the extreme short end of the stick.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
There are far more self-defense uses of firearms than there are accidental shootings.
Do you mean "uses" or "occurrences"? If you're claiming occurrences, I call [citation needed].
BTW, I own guns, hunt, and was a competition shooter in my teenage years. I support reasonable gun ownership, but I think the self-defense aspects of it have been overblown. Likewise with the effectiveness of gun control laws.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
I guess more Americans realise it since Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
And also her supporters would also know that the orginal gunman was the only "bad guy" and wouldn't start shooting each other mistaking those people for gunmen intent on harm. Also, they would have all been perfect shots as well, not missing and hitting the innocent bystanders right next to the gunman. Also, they definitely wouldn't misidentify someone reaching into his coat pocket to pull out a black camera to take a photo of the congresswoman, thinking he was pulling out a gun and deciding to "take him out" before he hurt anyone.
Yes, if everyone there been armed as well, the gunman *might* have shot less people had but other people might also have been shot/killed thanks to the other armed people at the rally who meant well.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I can't carry a policeman around in my pocket.
In fact, I go many places where there may not be a police officer within a hundred miles. There might be a criminal though -- or a bear, or a wolf, or a mountain lion. Calling the police from the middle of the high desert and asking them to come get the bear off of me is highly unlikely to be a successful course of action. The same goes for calling them and asking them to come get the guy who is shooting me or chopping me up with an axe. When seconds count, the police are generally several minutes away, and sometimes many hours away.
My guns will never be involved in any "tragic accident involving two members of my family". I know that for a fact. Your contention that my family needs protection from me, indicates to me that you have a problem you are attempting to project onto me.
Fear of inanimate objects -- you should look up what Freud had to say about it.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Something really rotten has evolved in the last 16 years of American politics. It started with the character assassination of Bill Clinton, followed by the character assassination of George W. Bush, and over that period of time the shouting across the divide between left and right has exploded, spilling out into hateful slogans on the backs of cars and in store windows. The problem appears to be that a geographic majority feels disenfranchised by a numeric majority, and they appear not to mind destroying a political process that represents to them the destroyer of their way of life. I believe it can be likened to a man who becomes irrational when his wife leaves him: it degrades into an ugly scene where nobody wins.
Anger is a poison that runs its course and can't really be treated. Every crackpot who puts his opinion on the back of his car incites another crackpot to do the same, and by this time it's no longer free speech, but rather the people being held hostage by free speech. Good luck with your country guys. I hope it works out for you.
Fortunately, reality is not limited by your imagination.
I agree that guns made to kill people being on the streets is bad. It's always been bad, and it's tragic that it's already there. But it is. What I would like to see is strict, even tighter, even to the point of out right banning, of guns made specifically to kill people. and maybe safety classes or psychological screening to be qualified to own/carry guns made for hunting. We do it for driving, so why not projectile weapons?
To counter the expected "criminals will still have guns made to kill", anyone in there right mind, being educated, trained, tested, whatever, can defend themselves with a shotgun, or rifle just fine. And it probably would make very little difference to the outcome, if I and the attacker both had handguns, as opposed to him having an illegal gun and I having a shotgun.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
The discussion was about availability of firearms per capita.
Indeed. It is about supply. For every 'legal' gun in the US you've probably got at least one illegal one because of the increased supply and market that surrounds them.
The culture of the Swiss is what prevents their use in crimes, which leads to the argument that guns inherently are not the cause of shootings.
It's not the culture of the Swiss at all. Whichever way you look at it these guns are restricted because there is not a proliferation of supply as there is in the US. The only cultural difference is that the Swiss don't see guns around very often and so are likely to view things differently. It just lends more weight to my argument.
No matter how anyone cuts this the simple fact is that a steady supply of a wide variety of guns to ordinary people which also in turn feeds an illegal market makes it a hell of a lot more likely that you'll get shootings.
In retrospect I should have added "aim" to my list of things they'd have to do, shouldn't I?
From what we hear from the sheriff, the gunman might not have been the only "bad guy", so having the gunman alive might yet prove useful. Kudos to those who tackled and captured him. I doubt I'd have the cojones.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
That's the wrong logic. If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes. With a gun you can do it any time you want, and that increases the temptation.
Your logic only works when you assume that people are on equal footing. A tough street thug can easily kill (or just beat the hell out of) an arthritic octogenarian store clerk without a gun. The store clerk cannot realistically defend himself without a gun. Lawful guns, and concealed-carry handguns in particular, disproportionately help women, the elderly, and the disabled, who tend to be physically less powerful than their attackers.
Being disabled myself, I cannot defend myself from a thug, especially multiple thugs, without a firearm and should not be forced to try. I am skilled with a knife or sword, but would be at a severe physical disadvantage against a healthy opponent. Whatever evil they may cause, firearms level the playing field, and you cannot put the genie back into the bottle anyway.
I actually meant occurrences. Accidental shootings are relatively rare.
John Lott Jr. and Gary Kleck have done a great deal of statistical analysis in the field of analyzing firearm use in the US.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
"I'm sure it happens in Britain as well."
It happens in Australia, it's rare enough to make national news and the invaders are usually not carrying firearms.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That comes as a great surprise to me, as I used a semi-automatic weapon just this morning to kill some ducks. Oddly, that's the purpose the manufacturer (Remington) intended this model (SP-10) to be used for.
Let's not make semi-automatic weapons to be some kind of extra super-scary weapons that only murderers use - they're routinely used for hunting, for example. And it's not like banning them would really solve anything - this guy could have fired just as quickly and hit just as many people with a pair of revolvers.
Right, but it happens every day with guillotines.
No actually, it doesn't, but someone above wanted to equate guillotines with guns. Same difference.
Ah, that asinine old argument. As if objects give a shit what they're designed to do. Dozens of everyday objects are better murder weapons than a gun, but a gun is meant to kill people, so it's eeeevil!
Ahhhh. That old chestnut! Trying to tell us that a gun is just an ordinary everyday object like anything else. Like I said, I don't see politicians being murdered at meetings with a pair of kitchen scissors. I don't think you're going to get a much better murder weapon, especially as it's only use is for killing.
Well it is an everyday object if you see guns in widespread supply, and so are murder and shootings funnily enough.
You're getting it confused with the time we cheered and high-fived when an Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at him, one of the highest insults imaginable in Iraq. And even then, we only cheered and clapped because Bush's monkey reflexes allowed him to duck in time. The look on his face when the first shoe sailed toward him was priceless. Had one actually made contact with the President, no one would have laughed nearly as much.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
I remember a long time ago during an interview with a teenager who killed his father with his fathers gun.(I think his name was david something) His dad had been abusing the family or something, the interviewer asked what he would have done if he hadn't had a gun. The reply was that there was a heavy glass ashtray nearby that he would have used to smash his father's head in with. Ashtray, cement mixer or gun, Dead is Dead.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
This on a day (and a thread) when there was an attempted assassination attempt on one of your politicians? And six dead as a result? And somehow you think this is more civilised than some students spraying graffiti and smashing a few windows? How many people did the students kill?
Get some fucking perspective.
Your explanation is not the correct one. Contrast Canada which has more guns per citizen than the US, or Switzerland, where most adult males are required by law to keep an assault rifle in their residence - a military weapon that is most certainly meant to kill people. Still the murder rate is minuscule compared to the US.
It's not about the availability of guns, and it is not about the types of guns. As an European living in the US, all I know that the answer is complex. It has to do with people living in poverty, it has to do with a part of the population that believes that it will never get a fair deal, and it has to do with glamorization of violence and guns. In Sweden, the social safety net is what keeps your murder rates down. I hear that's changing, with the influx of people who don't believe in the system, or who want to game it.
But seriously, in this specific case, the perpetrator seems to haven't been all there mentally. This kind of shooting is exactly as common in Europe as it is here.
No good deed goes unpunished...
Well, it's a good thing he didn't try to use a toner cartridge, at those can apparently blow up a whole airliner! Thankfully, those in charge of "protecting" us have banned them from checked luggage and cargo flights.
On a more serious note, this is a horrible blow against the accessibility of public officials, and a senseless attack against some very good people. But I fear it'll only get worse if the US is unable to reboot itsself.
I think the main reason there are so many more gun deaths in the usa compared to other countries is the attitude towards firearms. Allowing semi-automatic and automatic weapons makes shooting incidents worse, but the frequency of shootings is mainly due to these ideas:
Canada has a lot of guns, but we have a LOT less shooting deaths. Partly because a lot of the guns are long guns for hunting, but mainly because we think the correct response to a trespasser is to call the police, not shoot them.
Anarchists never rule
Owning a fire extinguisher doesn't make me paranoid of fire, merely prepared if one should happen.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Not to mention the fact that having a whole bunch of people shooting at each other in a crowded grocery store is not necessarily an improvement over one guy shooting in a crowded grocery store. Did the GP ever stop to think that the good guys' bullets keep traveling? And said supporters would probably never mistake a guy reaching for his cellphone for a gunman, right?
Look, I'm a gun owner and I'm not in favor of taking away everyone's guns. But the idea that what we ought to do to be safer is have a whole bunch of random schmoes running around carrying pistols everywhere quite frankly terrifies me.
...if you ban crime, only criminals will use it.
You don't?
There's obviously no point in arguing with you. You're not going to let facts get in the way of outlandish hyperbole.
Ever hear of "fact checking?!"
I'm sorry but the line you're claiming is so clear just is not. Yes there are some weapons that are primarily intended for self defense and some that are primarily intended for hunting, but naive approaches like you advocate are the reason we had politicians in the 90s banning one rifle because it had a black stock that looked like "scary" to a bureaucrat but putting essentially the same rifle with a nicely finished wooden stock. The line is hazy at best.
What this man accomplished could have been accomplished with a pump action or semi automatic shotgun, which are both very common hunting weapons and home defense weapons.
Or take the m1 garand, the primary service rifle of WWII and korea. It's a simple semi-automatic rifle. It's essentially equivalent in capability to a modern semi automatic hunting rifle.
A shotgun or rifle is easily modified to be concealed under a coat or loose clothing. Shortening the stock and barrel will compromise accuracy, but that doesn't matter when you're a madman targeting a crowd at close range.
So where do we draw the line? Bolt action? WWI was fought primarily with bolt-action rifles. Even a bolt action rifle can do an enormous amount of damage. Fuck, Kennedy was assasinated with a bolt action rifle. Single shot? It only takes a single shot to kill a person. Initial reports at that the congresswoman was shot at close range.
No, if you combine mental illness and firearms of any kind, you will have dead people. If you then expose that individual to radical political rhetoric, you'll have dead politicians or a dead mentally ill individual or both. Mental illness needs to be identified and treated and those who are mentally ill need to be prevented from possessing firearms. Even the NRA agrees with this.
I love how people on this very forum have had "Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo" at the bottom of every one of their posts for years. And when that shit actually blows up suddenly it "isn't the time for politics."
Believing in the Second Amendment does not mean agreeing with misuse of deadly force. Unilateral use of force is wrong. Lawful possession of firearms is one of the mechanisms we have for balancing the evil which exists in the world and it is a mechanism which the Congresswoman who was shot supported.
Gun control debates are generally not about whether or not guns will exist but about who controls them. Clearly crimes can be committed both by governments and individuals with guns. You cannot take guns away from both and I would argue it is difficult to successfully take them from either.
The cops carry guns freely because everyone else does. In countries that don't have widespread gun use guns are only carried by armed units that are called out specifically, and so, that shooting would not have occurred because the opportunity to obtain that gun wouldn't have been there.
That worked out real well in Mumbai, did it not?
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
Your what?
You claimed that higher urbanization would lead to more violence - and yet Canada has 80% of the population living in urban centers, way over the US, and yet has 1/3 the homicide rate.
The fact is that 97% of the US population lives in states with higher murder rates than Canada, so it's apparent that population density, contrary to your assertion, has nothing to do with it, while the availability of guns correlates very well with the homicide rate. Per capita, both gun ownership and murder rates are 3x higher in the US.
So let's compare Chicago and Toronto. Chicago had 448 murders last year. Toronto had 60.
Or Phoenix, at 241. with Montreal, which never had more than 70 p.a.
You've got a gun problem. And a gun nut problem. Stop being in denial.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," the sheriff said. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Very spot-on (and unexpected) insight from a "Law Man".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
they're unlikely to put themselves in a situation where you have the upper-hand
Exactly, if I meet an armed thug with a weapon of my own they are most likely to back down and run away because they no longer have the upper-hand. The average criminal isn't willing to die for the money in my wallet or my TV.
they are presumably being proactive in their pursuit of crime, whereas you are presumably being a "law abiding citizen" and thus unaware of impending criminal activity.
The planning time for most crimes can be measured in seconds, usually right before the crime is committed. Criminals take advantage of opportunities, an unlocked car door, a lone person walking down a dark alley or an open window. Professionals planing crimes against individuals is exceedingly rare because there is very little to gain compared to other things such as bank and armored car robberies.
It's rather conceited to assume that anyone both intelligent and sane will agree with you.
> Countries that have strict gun control laws also have strict controls over the press and other ways that freedom is repressed.
Seeing as how you haven't actually given any evidence to support this comment I'll assume it's a troll. Here in Australia we have excellent gun control and excellent freedom of the press. When I go to the store, I like knowing that there is very, very little chance of even hearing the word, 'gun', let alone seeing one.
Anyway, you are wrong.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
And there is a significant opposition to excessive security measures, not least in courts: http://www.google.com/search?q=lawsuits+against+tsa In any case, intrusive security is only the most obvious example of government overreach. In most European countries, taxpayers have delegated the responsibility to the government for everything from healthcare, and education to all encompassing cradle to grave nanny state to even silly things like art. Many of the most important things in an average European's life are decided not by him individually, but by the collective. This includes his life too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm If your life costs the taxpayer more than £44K per year or whatever the amount is today as decided by NICE you are left to die for the good of the collective.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Alright, you got me there. What *did* happen (more correctly, what do *you* think happened) in Australia when guns were banned?
I've been out of Australia for a long time, but I was there when the ban you're referring to took place (and the event that triggered it). As far as I know, guns as such were not banned. Automatic (and, probably, semi-automatic) weapons were banned, yes. Other guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols etc) were not, as far as I know. Perhaps someone in Australia can confirm this?
The bottom line is this: Automatic weapons have no other use than to kill people. If you think you need an AK-47 to defend yourself from marauding kangaroos, then you're sicker than I thought.
What might that be? Shooting clay pigeons, shooting game, shooting people -- all the same purpose?
Using that logic, a knife has only one purpose. Making people very dead.
Countries in Europe have riots from time to time you say? I think it's time you looked a little closer to home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States
It turns out that this guy has posted stuff on the Internet about his political philosophy. He is a fan of "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf". He is also an avowed atheist. Everything I have seen about him (that is based on actual facts, not supposition) indicate that he is a complete nutjob who has more in common with the left than the right (although I want to repeat here that he is a complete nutjob, not representative of the left).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Actually, if the laws in place right now, and the common popular opinion of firearms were different, there would have been a different outcome.
A random shooter at a public event wouldn't have the opportunity to fire 30 rounds, injuring or killing a dozen people.
If several trained Joe Public's were there and carrying their sidearms, the threat would have likely been neutralized after just a couple shots were fired at most. How many times have we read about workplace shootings, someone shooting random individuals in the public, and other events like this. Depending on the jurisdiction, people are either encouraged not to carry, or forbidden by law.
Simply enough, there is no way for your average unarmed citizen to fight back. Some people will say "this never happens". It does happen. It happened today.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Actually, you can't. That's illegal under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Also, let's look at our southern neighbors: Guns are very highly illegal in Mexico, yet gun violence there is much, much worse than it is in the US.
And your "southern neighbours" get their "highly illegal" guns where?
People like you, you are the lowest of the low. You are the ones that like to take advantage of a tragedy such as today's in order to further your own personal political agenda. How pathetic.
Not that I disagree with everything you say... yes *you are pathetic*, and clearly irony is lost on you.
I'm a moron because I believe in the United States Constitution, which guarantees me rights that allow me to defend myself?
Straw man. You are a moron because you pluck things out of your arse and call them facts, and "rights". Like the link between the militia and *your* "right" to defend yourself (presumably from "liberals").
--
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so -- some dead french guy
A 9 year old child lost to this.
So senseless.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Here, I'll fill it in a little more.
So what? We don't really care about being like you.
Congrats, I guess. Did that masturbatory post feel good?
i don't expect you to agree with me. you're well indoctrinated and entrenched in your point of view. like a creationist. logic and reason, you are impervious to
however, when a tragedy like in arizona strikes, the anger wells up, and i recognize what ignorance like yours costs this country, and i am filled with a simple motivation: WAKE THE FUCK UP, YOU IGNORANT FUCKING MORON
not that i think you will change, but because i need to get my anger off my chest at how this country is held hostage in insane thinking by assholes like you
what happens next is events like the one in arizona convinces more people that we need more limits on guns. i take solace in that. the present may belong to ignorance like yours on easy gun access, but the future belongs to me
simply because gun advocates are crazy if they think easy access to guns won't result in more tragedies like the one in arizona. and tragedies like the one in arizona will inevitably turning public opinion against easy access
so i look forward venting on an ignorant like you the next time a tragedy like this happens
oh wait! a tragedy like this will never happen again. because everyone will be armed and the shooter will be magically stopped since everything always plays out in real life like in a dirty harry movie in a well armed populace. never is it true that easy access to guns just results in senseless pointless death
riiiight, i forgot, sorry
you ignorant asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The equivalent US figures are the New York (~20 million), Los Angeles (15 million) and Chicago (10 million) metropolitan areas, which total 45 million - less than 15% of the population.
The skewing of populations into larger urban areas is more apparent when you look at cities over 250,000. Canada has 17, the US, with almost 10 times the population, 85. about half what you'd expect if the levels of urbanization were comparable.
American psyche.
I'm so sick of you, so sick of me....love the new cake song...makes me reminded of all you European snobs and Middle Eastern folk blaming us for all your problems.
The USA Is huge...many many many areas are very very safe. Hate to break that to you.
The US just has to let some Europeans run the country for a while. Clearly everything everywhere in Europe is perfect, and we poor Americans are craving their superior leadership. After all, it's obvious from reading Slashdot that they know everything.
I'm simply telling you that you have no idea what you are talking about, kiddo.
I know you're not going to take my guns away from me, ever. The harder that you ultra-liberal types push to take those rights away from us, the harder gun owners push back. Therefore, instead of seeing a decrease in gun rights in this country, I see states granting more rights to gun owners. Does this bother you? Do you hate it that I legally own both an AK-47 and a tactical shotgun and that they are both loaded and readily accessible in my home? Don't you hate it that there's a little card in my wallet that bears my thumbprint that allows me to carry a concealed pistol in 24 different states? The fact is, Sir, that your opinion is in the MINORITY and therefore doesn't matter.
You say "someone like you" like you know me or something. Dude, you don't know jack shit about me, so don't even play that little game. Just keep holed up in your shitty little Times Square apartment and let the rest of the world go about its business.
You have a right to your opinion, and you have the right to never own a firearm. I see you are exercising both of those rights today. Good for you.
Like I said, I don't see politicians being murdered at meetings with a pair of kitchen scissors.
I don't see midgets being killed with a gun during a full moon while the tide is low. I do, however, see people being killed with scissors on a fairly regular basis. Google it.
I don't think
Yeah, I know.
No, stupid, I have the right to defend myself from those who wish to harm me.
The last time I checked, Mexico was getting most of it's illegal firearms from South America, not the US.
What am I plucking out of my arse and calling a fact?
The fact that you say "arse" means you're some snaggle-toothed Brit who's opinion means nothing to me, anyhow.
...it is a political movement that pursues eliminationist goals.
To a dark place that line of thought will carry you.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Americans like guns, plain and simple, particularly hand guns and assault weapons
Really? What percentage of Americans like assault weapons, or own them? Your use of the plural form suggests that it is a majority. Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
its nice to see that easy access to guns, resulting in the tragedy in arizona, has taught you some humility
the simple political reason you still have your gun is demographic: the usa is more rural than urban as compared to somewhere like europe. but that's changing as time goes on
and as more senseless killing comes from easy access to guns, as is inevitably the case, more people will understand what easy access to guns really means, and opinion will simply shift in my direction
i own the future friend, you currently own the present. currently, people die, for the sake of strident assholes like you. blood is on your hands, whether your vain ignorant ass realizes it or not
i realize it. and every day, with more tragedies like the one in arizona, other people will too
oh no wait! the next time a crazy person starts shooting, everyone will armed and tragedy will be maagically stopped like in the movies! lol. what a retard
enjoy the future conversation with your children or grandchildren, who will think like me ;-)
xoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The shooter hardly seems like a clear leftist. In the article you point to they also favorited Mein Kampf, are against federal laws, and insists on the gold and silver standard. That's a good mix of hard right and hard left. I'd say they're just pure anarchist with a mix of pure crazy.
A gun in a safe is useless. Mine are loaded and kept in convenient locations where I can get them quickly.
Which means they are instantly accessible to anyone in your house. The intruder will have no more trouble finding them.
If I ever need a gun, and I sincerely hope I never do, I don't expect to have time to take it out of a safe and load it. I expect that seconds will count.
The "intruder" has the initiative.
He can find you lying in bed, more than half asleep, and blinded by the light.
Being quick on the trigger means you are only seconds away from making an unforgivable mistake. You stand a very good chance of shooting your wife, you kid, or the cat.
As a slender woman, I'm not likely to fight off an attacker that's 3x my size with a knife or baseball bat. I imagine slender men and maybe the elderly might feel the same way.
I've never shot anybody, but I've wielded (brandished?) my 9mm with the intent to protect myself, went to court and had the mf'er prosecuted. I have no doubt he would have severely hurt me (and others) if I hadn't had access to a handgun.
(Plus the whole 4th amendment thing — it's there for a reason.)
OTOH, I see no reason for assault weapons to be available except to the military; there's self-defense (handgun), then there's just DRIVE BY.
Both of them. They are both real. Neither are imaginary (as you had claimed).
The reason gun control laws don't work in the US is that if one city or state has strict gun control laws, anyone can simply go to the next town, buy a full automatic gun without having to show any kind of ID, and march right on back. If there were stricter gun control laws across the country it would be much more difficult for people to illegally obtain weapons.
You can look up the statistics that show clearly that when concealed carry began to be legalized throughout the US, violent crime statistics dropped.
A favourite NRA saying, that. What they fail to say is that for the same period, the statistics dropped also in the states that didn't lift the ban...
As for causality, yeah, there probably is a small positive effect to concealment of the weapon -- if you don't see the gun, you might not believe it's as important to take that person out. I.e. the cause wasn't that guns reduced violent crime, but that reduction of displayed guns reduced violent crime.
As for the NRA argument that if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns, that's obviously true, because possession of a gun then would would be a crime.
But statistics seem to indicate that when guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.
The main reasons are
(a) guns being harder to get (you can't just steal them from legal gun owners, which is the background of almost all the guns in the hands of criminals), and
(b) there being less of a need to carry them if your opponents don't have them either. Criminals also have guns because home owners and police carry, and aren't afraid of shooting them.
Don't believe me? Look at the statistics for England, who just a decade or so ago banned handguns and required registrations for other guns. The amount of criminals arrested with weapons has steadily declined. So again, when you outlaw guns, fewer criminals will have guns. Which many people think is a good thing.
In case you have problems with Math, HOW would ONE Person kill 12 people with an Axe/Knife or Crossbow?
Please - trotting out ill considered statements like that do no one any favours. It's just plain stupid. Open your mouth and show yourself a simpleton if you want - just don't complain when you get called one.
Hint - you "can" kill 12 people with a roll of Glad Wrap, but what the fuck would that have to do with those that equate the "right" to have firearms with "self-defense"
For the fools who confuse reading Slashdot with editing Wikipedia (sigh) lookup Tsuchiura mall and consider what might have happened if the guy took an elevator and had a sharpened bicycle spoke instead of a blade...
> All I can say is, you're far too trusting, and whatever "safe" part of the world you live in, I strongly urge you to stay there.
I can do one better. I'll never visit the US, how about that? Because then I won't have to meet people like you, with the attitude you have, and the knowledge that you might have a gun on you to back it up.
Gun deaths in Australia (2006): 27.
Gun deaths in US (2006): 12,791
Your silly bravado becomes even more laughable when you factor in the population. USA has about 14 times the population of Australia (hint: 27*14 is considerably less than 12,791). You are wrong and deluded. Try opening your eyes and maybe visiting a country outside your paranoid, "free" borders.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
Given that you have failed to use any, there's no way you could know that.
You don't need to get all of them to disappear -- only enough of them to reduce the number of shootings.
ok, so i just won't care that thousands of my fellow americans are killed every year because some morons believe easy access to killing technology isn't a problem
You fail to take into account the huge number of lives saved and crimes prevented by guns in the community.
Caribou is *not* a woody word
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns
If you outlaw guns, then fewer outlaws will have guns.
If you don't believe me, check statistics from countries which have tightened up gun control.
btw, if guns are made illegal, i have no doubts that some truly malintentioned criminals will still have guns.
Japan would be a case in point.
i'm simply telling you the gun in your hand does not do for you what you think it does
If you could see what he's doing with the other hand you might reconsider that statement...
i have no doubt lives have been saved by gun use by virtuous individuals
the point here is you don't understand those examples are massively dwarfed by senseless killing. moron shooting up a disco because a chick looked at him funny, kid finds a gun and plays with it, well intentioned smaritan gets confused and shoots an innocent, husband loses it and shoots wife, etc, etc, etc
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just like there's no connection between Mexico's southern borders, where *anything* can be bought it you have the money, just like there's no connection with Mexico's estimated 100,000 military deserters--some of whom formed the Zeta cartel we hear so much about (and the others who joined because the pay is better and they don't get shot up by cartels...
But those guys are former Mexico Special Forces, and they continue operate like it... Not only are their tactics better than the federal police force, they're also armed with heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, RPGs, helicopters, and likely at least one of a number of Stinger SAM missiles which were conveniently 'unaccounted for' at some Mexican armories. You can bet many of their other weapons are similarly sourced. The remainder of the really fun toys are probably weapons the US dumped on the Nicaraguan contras. Yeah, no connection there.
But nobody talks about the thousands upon thousands of automatic weapons and explosive devices captured by the police--because it's the gun shows and the 'gun show' loophole in Texas which are responsible. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. If we keep telling this lie long and loud enough, everyone will believe it! *smile*
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Are you for real? How about Canada, Australia, England? These countries have open press and the leaders of these countries regularly walk into crowds without fear of getting shot. The only time a US president would ever wade into a crown would be if the crowd was pre-screeened.
I would say the opposite - countries with little or no gun control laws typically also have freedom repressed. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. Guns (a lot of guns) are readily available to any religious crazy that want them, and freedom itself is very limited. Kinda like a bunch of crazy fundamentalist Republicans.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Number one murder weapon - knife.
That's partially due to availability, because knives have multiple other uses, and partially due to the vengeance-based legal system in the US, which tends to classify homicide as murder, especially if it was a bloody mess.
When people lose it, they grab what they have. If they have guns, they go for guns, else they go for a knife. And if neither can be found, crowbars, bottles, ropes, rocks or whatever else is handy, including bare hands.
But reality is that few people go on a stabbing spree.
Governments around the world do not fear people armed with guns, they fear people armed with cellphones, especially camera-equipped ones.
There were plenty of pictures taken in Myanmar before, during, and after the monks and hundreds of protesters were methodically slaughtered. Governments only fear cameras if the pictures can mobilize a populace. They only fear a populace which can defend itself.
That being said, guns as a defense against tyranny only works if the moral high ground can be taken and kept and that requires extreme restraint in using them. Otherwise not enough of the populace supports it and it fizzles or worse, it succeeds, but does not result in a stable country.
Gun control is clearly to blame -- If she had been packing heat, she could have defended herself! But seriously folks... If any good comes of this, it will be in the form of a people's movement that calls for greater responsibility in political speech, to disagree rather than demonize each other. Here's hoping Jon Stewart picks this up and runs with it.
You have more strawmen than Kansas.
Shooting someone to settle an argument is murder. There is one or two jurisdictions in the US that allow a person to defend property (absence the threat of force (aka "your money or your life")) with deadly force, but they are rare and IMHO wrong.
The US has more gun deaths because we have more murderers. We have more knife deaths per capita in the US than Canada or the UK. More people per capita in the US want to kill and hurt people than in Canada. Why? There are a lot of possible reasons, but I won't start to speculate.
Israel hands out fully automatic weapons. The Swiss keep automatic weapons in every household. Neither has our murder rate, so it's not just the guns.
I will paraphrase John Lott: More Americans legally defend themselves from deadly harm using firearms than the total number of non-justified deaths (accidents, manslaughter, etc.) and shootings. By this count, guns are a net positive for the US.
Fists make it easier to kill people than thinking them to death.
Boots make it easier to kick people to death without breaking toes.
Knives make it easier to kill people than bare fists.
Bats make it easier to kill people than knives, boots or fists.
Cars make it easier to kill people than any of the above.
If someone wants to kill you, they're going to try to kill you. Period.
The fact that a tool makes it "easier" is irrelevant.
The crime is in the intent and the actions, not in the tool.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm fairly certain you're talking about the death of Jearn Charles de Menezes.
You can describe it in a lot of way, but calling it an "accidental shooting by police" is like calling the bombing of Hiroshima "a minor bombing raid".
Not only wasn't it an accident - the guy was shot seven times in the head; once might be an accident, seven times sure as hell isn't, there was also an active attempt at covering it up as 'necessary' - not something you do if it was accidental.
There were plenty of very unfortunate fuck-ups in the situation, but none of them were 'accidental'.
But I've never said that.
I won't even say "nice try at a strawman" because it wasn't. It's just you repeatedly posting and not even bothering to relate your posts to what you are replying to.
The point is that Palin's poster was in bad taste PRIOR to the shooting and only her followers defended it. As you are doing now.
How about some blame for the hyperbolic partisan atmosphere in the US right now? And the media that feeds it?
If the bear is biting down on your leg, I doubt shooting it in the head will help much. That line from Shawshank Redemption comes to mind:
Andy Dufresne: All right. But you should know that sudden serious brain injury causes the victim to bite down hard. In fact, I hear the bite reflex is so strong they have to pry the victims jaws open with a crowbar.
Plus there's also that thing where having the proper state of mind to grab your gun, point it at the bear's head and pull the trigger while it's doing it's best to detach your leg from the rest of your torso.
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
*ouch*
WIth a gun you are pretty much guaranteed to hit something, and multiple time within a short space of time.
Yes, but is that something the something you wanted to hit? Will someone who's being stared down by a criminal know not to pull the trigger because there are innocent people behind that criminal? How much time and training does someone need to be able to hit their target reliably when they're hopped up on adrenaline and fear?
Also, I have no idea how true this is, but I remember an episode of Criminal Minds where a character stated they carried a knife instead of a gun because inside ten feet ( I think that was the range ), he could pull a knife and throw it ( accurately, mind ) before someone else could get a gun out of their holster. Now of course, I don't know how that holds up to real life -- the character in question was a police officer on a Native Reserve who had been training to throw knives for a fairly long while, and I don't really know if an untrained user would be any more accurate with a thrown knife than a gun.
The thing is, just because guns can be accurate, doesn't mean they will be -- especially in the hands of someone who may not be fully trained in their use, but is also having to fire their weapon in a stressful situation that may have never been in before.
There is no guarantee that a gun is more accurate than any other weapon.
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
oh, "i know you are but what am i"
nice, take it to the kindergarten level of argument
you want some lucidity and coherence? ok:
if guns are cracked down on, of course crime with guns will still happen. but a lot of the casual morons who shoot up discos because some chick looked at him funny and wackjobs like in arizona and virginia tech: that will stop. that's the point of cracking down on guns. not to stop the criminal mastermind, he will always get a gun, legal or not. but the criminal mastermind is smart, careful, and rare. you won't catch him shooting up a kindergarten or disco. the point is to stop the casual morons and insane people getting guns
but apparently, if i say something like that, i will encounter NRA assholes like yourself who say this is unamerican and against the constitution
so its apparently not america until every paranoid schizophrenic can freely buy an uzi and walk around with it under his coat in public
that's america! fuck yeah! woohoo!
fucking retards with blood on their hands
i take solace in the fact that every tragedy like in arizona brings freethinking people to my side. you take solace in the fact that random vigilante assholes in public with guns will magically stop the next tragedy (like in gun happy arizona today, right?), because real life works like the movies
the real world doesn't work like your boy scout fantasies, you ignorant twatstain
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Getting rid of permits entirely would be a terrible thing for Arizona residents.
How so? Out here in California, you pretty much have to be a politician, certain classes of law enforcement, or a judge to get a permit -- thankfully.
Setting aside whether or not you personally would want such a thing, why is it that only people in those classes should be allowed to have the best tools for self defense with them outside the home?
Is it because they're better than you? More responsible? More valuable? More interesting? Better trained? Most of those aren't true and the last probably isn't true or at least a person can get such training easily enough. So, why them and not you?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Except for the Kleck study, most studies show that self-defense is not common. A more typical study found:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Anarchists never rule
It's nice to see that the tragedy in Arizona has given you a convenient platform to spew your nonsense. ..and you're wrong. As I have already pointed out to you, this country has gotten more and more permissive with gun laws. I own the present, and I will own the future too.
I am vain and ignorant? Heh, you've proven to us all that you're the vain and ignorant one. You think that the police are going to protect you, don't you? You fool. The police are under no legal obligation to protect you. The only person that can protect you is you.
I guess in your imaginary little world, the next time a crazy person starts shooting, 100 carloads of cops will show up and tragedy will be magically stopped like in the movies. What a dumbass you are.
My 12 year old son can shoot nearly as well as what I can with a rifle, and someday he'll be taught how to handle a handgun as well. So I imagine that if you ever come out of your apartment long enough to get laid and you actually procreate, my child and your child will be having this same conversation, and once again, the gun owners will be prevailing. Yeah you might be in one of the minority of states with FASCIST gun laws, but that's ok. The rest of the US could give fuck all about NYC, Chicago, and LA or your citified, nonsense. Get out in the world a little bit. You've already shown that you know very little outside of your own little Manhattan world. What a strange place it would be for you to venture to some faraway land such as Vermont or probably, for you, New Jersey.
You're an idiot.
By "crazy people", the GP doesn't mean tyrants - he means deranged people bent on massacre. You can't stop a lone lunatic from killing people with cars, scissors or cricket bats - it's just not possible to always catch them before the act. That's quite distinct from the crazy person you voted in who is now suddenly a despot. Two different problems entirely.
Well yes, obviously that's what was meant. Who said anything about tyrants being the nut ball in question?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
"advocated the wholesale elimination of what most people in this country consider an absolute core piece of that freedom"
Here in Australia most people think a potent symbol of our freedom is the fact that the Prime Minister can go for a jog in the morning whithout the protection of a small army. The cultures are different. The Australian people themselves demanded tighter gun laws and lierally boo'ed the NRA out of the country because they were seen as the marketing arm of the small arms industry. The murder rate hasn't changed much at all since the laws changed, but we haven't had a mass shooting for the last 20-odd years (and only one assination in over a 100yrs). Even when it was legal to own a handgun for self defense, very few actually did, it was never a social norm to own one unless your job required it.
Banning or not banning guns, it makes very little difference in the freedom-saftey see-saw. The difference in violence levels between US/AU can be explanied more convincingly by how they each deal with urban poverty and the level of blatant political/corporate propoganda on the idiot box.
Culturally the US is just not willing to give up the freedom to carry guns, whereas culturally Oz is just not willing to give up the freedom from guns. - Seems democratic and diverse to me.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Wait... White tailed deer are now people?
Or maybe they could draw and shoot at some point before he got to his twelfth victim?
What about pepper spray? Or a taser?
Why is it that the 90 pound woman needs a gun to protect herself, instead of something that can disable her attacker? Something that will not accidentally discharge and harm herself, or be found by her children and possibly cause their death ( yes, I know that tasers and pepper spray could conceivably cause death in a small child, but there'd probably be more time to get little Davey to the hospital after he accidentally tases himself than if he shot himself )?
What about the fact that a taser or pepper spray ( or any other non-lethal means of defense ) probably has a much smaller chance of accidentally killing someone who wasn't the intended target? Let's be honest, if a 90 pound woman is being attacked by a 200 pound man, she probably isn't in the proper state of mind to ensure she won't injure someone else if her shots don't hit her intended target.
On a lighter side note, every time I read "200 pound man", I'm imagining some overweight fellow with sausage fingers instead of some muscled gang hooligan ( my imagination seems to be inflating him to be 400 pounds ).
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
Lawful guns, and concealed-carry handguns in particular, disproportionately help women, the elderly, and the disabled, who tend to be physically less powerful than their attackers.
In theory guns are a great equalizer, but in practice they only help the party who is prepared to carry a weapon for the purpose of employing deadly force. This is more far more likely to be the attacker then the victim.
Then there is the fact that carrying a gun if you are NOT prepared to employ deadly force puts you in more danger then you would be without one (as the attacker will use it against you).
Simply having a gun does not level the playing field. Pepper spray is far more suitable for self-defense against a more powerful attacker.
We're not exactly known for downright murdering our public officials.
Except for the fact of all the murdered public officials in American history. Yeah, we're pretty well known for this kind of thing.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Okay, now explain how that links to guns, exactly...
I see a murder problem, perhaps, but how are you going to link higher crime rates to guns? Do the guns cause the murders? Or perhaps the fact that Chicago does not permit its citizens to own firearms, and has a significant organized crime problem might have something to do with it. In fact, this completely invalidates your hypothesis -- since guns are banned in Chicago, the murder rate should be in line with Toronto, right? Or maybe the problem is not, in fact, guns. Maybe it's something else.
Maybe Phoenix' crime rates are caused by the fact that it's on the I-10/I-19 corridor, and has a massive drug and human trafficking problem. I would advance that as a far more likely hypothesis than that the problem is inanimate objects.
And gun ownership rates in the US are not "3x" the gun ownership rates in CA -- they're closer to 200x the gun ownership rate in Canda (1.6 million in Canada, 250 Million+ in the US, by best estimates). So if your hypothesis holds true, instead of 70 - 241 (montreal to phoenix), we should expect nearly *nine thousand* murders in Phoenix. Of course, that ignores the fact that gun ownership in Phoenix is probably about 3-5 times the US national average, as the north-eastern states with their draconian gun laws skew those numbers, and thus the murder rate in Phoenix, again, by your hypothesis, should be much higher.
So, does the US have a crime problem? Sure -- nobody's ever argued that. Guns don't cause that problem -- guns do give us the ability to defend ourselves against it.
Again, you're making a correlation == causation argument -- and ignoring clear evidence that is not the case.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
You're right, of course, that banning guns is a limitation of freedom. However, there does not seem to be any serious debate on whether governments should regulate the access to weapons: all functioning countries do it, including banning the access to certain kinds of weapons (e.g. rocket launchers, certain bombs). So it's really just a matter of deciding where to draw the line.
Deciding which points along the line are reasonable and at which points you start cutting into what you refer to as absolute core pieces of freedom seems, to a certain degree, arbitrary. I guess you could even call it a matter of taste. If somebody came along and suggested banning chefs knifes, I'd probably have a similar reaction to it as you.
Perhaps it is arbitrary or perhaps it is not. In most cases we allow infringements on Liberty only when we get a sufficient return on that infringement. Though, really we should instead look at things from the perspective of "harm". Which is to say that we should instead be more concerned with initiation of force and not tools and such. If it is held that it is wrong to initiate force against another, then it doesn't really matter what we own or don't own, no?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
why do you think that if you have a gun you will stop someone who intends you harm? why do you believe you are some sort of superhero? if someone intends you harm, you are dead. you're not omnipotent. you don't sleep with your gun in your hand (maybe you do lol). and, YOU SLEEP. they won't let you get to your gun in time
your failure is you believe your gun protects you from scenarios it doesn't protect you from. if a guy with a gun intends me harm, i'm dead. if a guy with a gun intends you harm, you're dead. your gun won't save you. in fact, there are plenty of scenarios where, simply having a gun around you, due to confusion or miscommunication, you use it in ways in which tragedy strikes you or your family. that stranger fumbling into your window at night turns out to be your son who forgot his keys. oh well, nice shot
you seem quite happy with your tool which grants such easy power over mortality. what you don't understand is that real life is not the movies, and such easy access to that power puts you closer to death, not further away from it, as life plays out in various rare scenarios. the universe of possible events due to easy access to mortal power definitely includes the virtuous use of a gun to save your life or family or property. yes. unfortunately, the ease of the use of that power includes many other paths of possible outcomes that greatly outnumber the good scenarios. so, playing the odds, its simply better for your life and limb not to have a gun
if some guy puts a gun in my back, i'm out a wallet. if some guy puts a gun in your back, and you try to fight back, you have a bullet in your back. you can list me a dozen scenarios where the presence of your gun saves you. and for every one of those scenarios, i can outline 12 more where the presence of that gun results in some tragedy or loss for you. the mere presence of the gun in your life puts you closer to tragedy. its statistics friend. good luck to you and your boy scout thinking. too bad you're not in a movie, where you make no mistakes, misjudge no scenarios, and always shoot fastest and aim perfect every time. because if you don't?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Australia. Good luck getting a gun here - even a rifle for hunting is difficult to get. :p
Cough - no getting a firearm is easy, though semi-automatics and pump-action shotguns are more difficult.
Pistols are easily (and legally) purchased (I own two). Provided you are a member of a pistol club and you leave them at the club. I neither know nor care about carry permits - though I have been offered unregistered handguns (in the carpark of the Mt. A*cough*ie Na*cough*l pistol club).
The difficulty for most people is one of two things - one is stupid and the other sensible. One is a prior drug conviction (pot possession?), and the other is having somewhere to shoot your rifle. To gain a rifle or shotgun license you need to show you have somewhere to shoot it - which is sensible. Ever noticed those ads in the paper where people are looking for landholders who will let them shoot? That's so they can try and shmoose us into signing their license application. I no longer allow shooters on my properties because too often it's one guy with a license and two mates who want a license - that's three guys so gung-ho and over excited that they *have* to shoot something, anything, that they don't seem to be capable of unloading rounds except through the barrel. No they're not all that bad - but *most* of them are. One of the neighbouring properties was bought for the express purpose of having somewhere to shoot, by a dickhead and his mates. We've all lost stock, and had to deal with near misses - but after calling the police because the dickheads thought firing a .50 cal uphill on a 4 acre property was "sport" - one of my neighbours was threatened by the same dickheads who stopped her car (with her children in the back) - though they didn't point weapons, they were holding them while they made threats. This is Australia - not some trailer park in the USA - yet when I ran into the same dicks at the local pub they gave me the same speel as Spazz spouts.
Never before have I taken so much pleasure in watching a woman punch the crap out of blokes. After loudly and obnoxiously harrassing some women and their friend the barmaid told them to drink up and leave, one got mouthy and slapped her arse - she dropped him, and then his hero mates made threatening moves. Point being - some "people" need more self-defense than others.
"advocated the wholesale elimination of what most people in this country consider an absolute core piece of that freedom" Here in Australia most people think a potent symbol of our freedom is the fact that the Prime Minister can go for a jog in the morning whithout the protection of a small army. The cultures are different. The Australian people themselves demanded tighter gun laws and lierally boo'ed the NRA out of the country because they were seen as the marketing arm of the small arms industry. The murder rate hasn't changed much at all since the laws changed, but we haven't had a mass shooting for the last 20-odd years (and only one assination in over a 100yrs). Even when it was legal to own a handgun for self defense, very few actually did, it was never a social norm to own one unless your job required it. Banning or not banning guns, it makes very little difference in the freedom-saftey see-saw. The difference in violence levels between US/AU can be explanied more convincingly by how they each deal with urban poverty and the level of blatant political/corporate propoganda on the idiot box. Culturally the US is just not willing to give up the freedom to carry guns, whereas culturally Oz is just not willing to give up the freedom from guns. - Seems democratic and diverse to me.
It is your country and you're free to run it as you see fit. :)
That said, I suspect the level of protection that government officials do or don't need has less to do with the arms the people at large have and more to do with how that government is behaving and such.
You are correct that it is a cultural difference. We believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves and such. Other countries will throw you in jail for daring to defend yourself. Happens often enough in the UK after all.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
so let it go back to discussing star wars and comic books.
Front page has already gone back to discussing Androids and iPhones. Apparently that's all there is these days. The site has become a bit of an aggregator. I see the same headlines on a lot of other sites. Sometimes in the same order. And summaries are rarely more than snippets from the article. Looks like the whole thing is becoming automated.
Comic books? Freak Brothers.. There is no other
Star Wars? Meh... Silent Running
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You must be from the USA, as the rest of the civilized western world agrees that you must be insane to think you should have a gun for home defense.
I know people with guns for hunting, but not one of them would think of using them to defend their home - they call the police. One, the guns are locked up, the ammo locked up separately, so the weapon won't be close at hand. Second, the chance of an accident being caused by an improperly stored weapon is a LOT higher than the chance of a n armed home invasion. third, even if there was a home invasion, the worst that is likely to happen is you get tied up and your house robbed.
Anarchists never rule
The "Fox News crowd and other right wing paranoid freak tea baggers" as you put it are simply being more rational than you apparently are.
Most gun violence in the US is tied to alcohol, or drugs or other criminal activity (such as robbery which in turn is also often tied to drugs) and is not related to politics, a desire for smaller government, or any other activity of decent law-abiding hard-working tax-paying citizens. We lose tens of thousands of people each year to drunk driving, so presumably we should ban alcohol and cars too as we ban the guns? The tea party people you slimed with your gay sex rhetoric have little in common with this gunman who was a pot-head loser who liked leftist rags The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf (Tea partiers reject the philosophies of both the old union of soviet socialist republics, and the old national socialist workers party).
There's something particularly nasty about the way that some on the left will use any crime they can to try to justify taking away the 2nd amendment rights of all Americans. If we are to use individual acts of murder to eliminate one constitutional right for all, then we may also use individual acts to justify removing other rights like the 1st amendment rights from all, or 4th amendment rights from all. Our society has already done too much of this (as with the underwear bomber becoming justification for TSA grope-fests)
If you want to protect your country from the government join the army...
I already served in uniform, have you? That service has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The military role is the protection of these United States from external threats as directed by the congress and the President. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and little to do with external threats; it's about the citizens having a check on government. The founders wanted to do two things: first, prevent the federal government from needing a huge standing army that could be used to oppress the citizens (by having the citizens themselves be available as local voluntary militias for repulsion of invaders) and second, guarantee not just the right but the ability of the people (as a whole, rather than as individuals) to rebel should a tyrant ever arise. They also believed individuals had the absolute right to defend themselves, their families, and their property from criminals though this was obvious common-sense to them. Read a little history (not the pre-chewed, pre-digested grade-school pablum most get in school, but rather the actual writings of our founders). I would not choose to live in a country whose government did not trust me to keep and bear arms. Such a government would not view me as a responsible adult and, in turn, would not deserve my trust. If you want to live in such a country with a government that trusts and respects you so little, you have many choices. Do not be so eager to mess up this last, best hope of man on Earth
So the differences between the US and Sweden's murder rate couldn't be because there are 30 times as many people in the US? Or the difference in social programs, level of education, job opportunities and so on? I mean is it just that simple that it's the number of guns? I mean they were number 2 on the UN's development index in 2004 after all.
But lets look at this a little deeper why don't we. The median age in the US is 38 years old and 42 in Sweden. Not much of an age difference but likely a maturity difference there. According to numbers in the CIA world fact book, unemployment in the US is at 9.3 and 8.3 in Sweden. Again, still no big differences but perhaps with the differences in government services, it's a huge difference. There's also compulsory military service in Sweden up until 2010. I'm sure people who serve in the military are a little more disciplined then those who don't. I'm also pretty sure the US is the leading Cocaine consumer and has a relatively high drug use population.
But lets look at gun ownership. Switzerland has a higher gun ownership rate then Sweden does. It's like 46 percent to 31.5 percent. Yet Switzerland has a lower murder rate then Sweden does. Now let's look at England. The UK's gun ownership is a dismal 5.6%. That's quite a bit lower then Sweden's 31%. Yet the UK's murder rate is much higher then Sweden's. In fact, it's about 5 times higher.
I'm not going to get into your gun theory on "spray" weapons outside of saying that it's illegal in the US to own a fully automatic weapon unless you have a valid permit for one and pay a pretty high fee for it. It's not like you can go to walmart and purchase a fully auto mac10. People who get a hold of these things are generally either responsible individuals or criminals violating the laws in the first place.
Anyways, I believe it has more to do with the socio-political realities of the countries then gun ownership and availability.
All guns are capable of killing people. "Specifically made to kill people" isn't a characteristic you can "ban" or regulate based on. In fact, for a handgun you use to defend yourself, do you want it to *not* be good at its job?
I can't carry a shotgun around with me. It's simply not feasible. So I'll carry a handgun, tyvm. While it may make no difference to the outcome in your world, it makes *all* the difference to the outcome in mine -- as a handgun on my person will do a whole hell of a lot better job than a shotgun stored in the safe at home.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Dude...
Did I ever say that my gun was going to keep me 100% safe? I don't think that I did, because I know that it doesn't. However, it is available to help me when the police are not.
Like I said before, if you think the police are always going to be there to help you, you're dead, dead wrong. This is doubly or even triply so in a rural environment. I live in a suburb of a large city, and I bet you that it would still take the police at least 10 minutes to get here if I were to call 911 right now. A lot can happen in 10 minutes. My parents live in a very rural area and on a good day it's going to take the police at least 30 minutes to get to their house in the event of an emergency.
There's thousands of documented cases where lawfully armed citizens have defended themselves (and others) against unlawfully armed criminals and lunatics. Books have been written about them. I suggest reading a few of them.
Like I tell everybody: If you don't want to own a gun. That's fine. Nobody is twisting your arm and telling you that you need to do so. However, let those who exercise the PERSONAL CHOICE to own and legally use their guns continue to do so.
Now do you get it? I doubt it, because you're too fucking dense.
accidental shooting by the UK police in a train station? if you are referring to the incident I think you are, it was an outright execution of an unarmed and completely unaware person.
I think this guy skipped a step.
'In knowledge is power, in wisdom humility.'
the problem with that is, it is unfairly lumping assults/homicides against lawful gun use. It is safe to assume that the assults/homicides are not committed by persons who legally owned a gun and just randomly decided to murder the hell out of someone. People that do that sort of thing tend to have prior criminal records, which results in them being forbidden to own a firearm. Thus, your are weighting your statistics with illegal gun possession and use against a smaller statistic of Legal Possession and use of a firearm. As it turns out, Criminals tend to commit more crimes than Non Criminals. (go figure) thus, the weight of your statistics is skewed, and results in a biased presentation of the information at hand.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
the second amendment is about muskets and militia
And the first amendment is about vocal cords, quill feathers, simplistic printing presses and stagecoaches. That was the sum total of communication technology at the time--so naturally only those modes of communication are constitutionally protected. Can you imagine a world with such lunacy?
All of these modern 'high capacity', 'rapid fire' communication methods you like to use... You use hem because your government is generous enough to grant you the privilege.
Video cameras? We'll outlaw them because they capture dozens of frames per second, and they have hours of recording time. The casual moron could inadvertently embarrass someone important, after all. Heck, the casual moron could use these devices to make child porno. That's pretty evil. We need to ban private ownership of video cameras. Only licensed journalists will be able to own one.
Radio? Television? E-mail? The founding fathers could have never dreamed of such things--and the casual moron could use these technologies to do something bad. Come to think of it, he could distribute and consume child pornography with these technologies. So, we're free to peruse your private correspondence to our heart's content, and we'll also censor the TV clear of things which are arbitrarily 'too controversial', or 'lacking in decency', or things which just happen to be politically damaging. Wouldn't want to cause a fuss.
But things aren't so glum, chum. If you want to communicate freely, you can simply use quill and ink, and disseminate your mail via stagecoach courier. We can't snoop on you then. Too antiquated to be useful in the modern world? You can't find someone willing to carry your mail across the country via horseback? The horses get frightened while crossing the freeway? You don't say?
Tough shit.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
"Assault Weapons" are generally out of reach, financially, of the general populace, due to the fact that select-fire weapons made after 1986 are not legally ownable by civilians. An M16 costs about twelve thousand dollars, and MP5 can cost over 30k. They're also heavily regulated by the BATFE. I disagree with that, select-fire weapons are no more dangerous than anything else, and can be manufactured relatively easily if one wished to do so. In the history of this country, I believe only one has ever been used in the commission of a crime, and it was by a police officer.
Your points about handgun usage are spot on. God made men, Sam Colt made them equal...
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
if someone is bringing a gun to your house, he could be a serial killer who is going to kill you. but 99% of the time he is fronting force to rob you. correct?
if you have no gun, say good bye to your valuables. absolutely
but if you fight back, i agree that it is most certainly can chase him away or bring him down, which i would agree you have a right to. but you could also raise the stakes: instead of merely pointing a gun at you, now the criminal has to fire back at you. are you awake at 3 am? you have your gun ready and waiting under all scenarios? now, instead of losing your computer, you're using your life. or maybe you mistake your son drunk, in a few years, coming home inthe middle of the night and he forgot his keys. feel good about your gun now?
see my point? the mere PRESENCE of a gun in these scenarios where you think the gun makes you safer, no: it simply changes what happens, the universe of possible outcomes. and it mostly raises the stakes to one of more deadly use of force, on either side, in your favor or against. i don't want ot play that game. i'd rathe rlos emy valuables. understand my point of view now?
what i am saying, is that with a gun, an analysis of probability and odds says that you raise the chance you will be dead
without a gun, with CERTAINTY i am losing valuables. but i'm still alive, and probability says that without a gun, i have abetter chance of staying alive than if i had a gun
that's the point
the mere presence of a gun chances the possible universe of scenarios in such a way that your death is more likely
understand that, and stop believing your gun is a virtue in your life. its a liability
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's what I said elsewhere -- he's an anarchist, not right-wing Palinbot.
The video isn't talking about gold & silver standards for money -- watch it all the way through if you can tolerate the ravings.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
"gun violence" statistics are junk. Guns are inanimate objects that function as enablers/force multipliers. As a result, "gun violence" lines-up more with illegal activities and other violence than with concentrations of guns. In rural areas where many people own ten or more guns you generally see lower "gun violence" rates than in big cities where most people own no guns. Look at where drugs crimes, robberies, prostitution, etc are more frequent (not making a moral point here just listing activities banned by law) and you will see higher rates of "gun crimes". People who are already breaking the law are simply more willing to add a gun to the mix either for intimidation or to directly aid in their law breaking.
If you find a magic wand that will eliminate all guns, you will quickly find criminals resorting to knives, clubs, or worse like bombs. The problem is not the tool, but rather the person who holds the tool.
before society has a right to take them off the streets as quickly as their rhetoric indicates they may be a potential problem? The shooting at the Washington holocaust museum, the incident in New York, the Tiller murder. This is becoming more of a pattern than "isolated incidents".
There needs to be a special form of banishment for politicians and talking heads who advocate and encourage the use of violence and routinely employ violent imagery to make their point, that is unless we all want to see this kind of thing escalate to a "bleeding Kansas" type situation.
There need to be laws that require people to pass some form of psychological test before they are allowed to buy a gun. Otherwise, we are just advocating crazies should be allowed to kill at will. It is also time to reverse the trend started by Ronald Reagan, who in his first official act as governor of California, closed many of the states mental hospitals and threw the patients out on to the streets. We need more mental health clinics not less, particularly as social and economic pressures are pushing many past the breaking point.
There are far more self-defense uses of firearms than there are accidental shootings.
Do you mean "uses" or "occurrences"? If you're claiming occurrences, I call [citation needed]. BTW, I own guns, hunt, and was a competition shooter in my teenage years. I support reasonable gun ownership, but I think the self-defense aspects of it have been overblown. Likewise with the effectiveness of gun control laws.
Mod up that post please
I agree with what you say. Though I'd add that on a few occasions I've been tempted to use firearms for self-defense, fortunately sanity prevailed. Anger, jealousy and fear cause people to do stupid things - if they feel compelled to do stupid things when in control of a bicycle they are less likely to act out their violence, and less likely to do harm - then if the same thing happens while they control a car.
The argument some advance... no scratch that, the lame justification some try and sell is that the police can't be trusted or relied on. Implicit in that argument is the sophistic contention that *they* can be (trusted and relied on). I vote, I pay taxes and I pay rates. I am the government and I expect police and the military to use firearms against humans - if the system doesn't work - insist that it does. Resort to deadly force and you clearly need chess lessons.
While I like Hemingway's quote about a three-day open season being a cure for what's wrong with the world - I recognize that most people can't be trusted to not misuse the power of firearms because it is about power and fear, insecurity, and often, guilt (protect me from the black man, militant feminist etc).
She never said she could see Russia from her house...
but now we know you get your news from Saturday Night Live and/or other comedy shows
Why would you pick Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston?
When I see things being cherry-picked, I assume that's done for a reason. Then I see that Arthur Kellerman is the one who did the study, and I already know that he did the study in order to prove that guns are dangerous to keep in the home, and that he didn't properly evaluate the information he gathered.
His biggest problem is that he only evaluates a "use of a gun in self defense" where a criminal is actually shot or killed. This *vastly* understates the facts, as *most* defensive uses of a firearm do *not* end in anyone being shot.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=119
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
by the explanation you just gave, that means there could be 11 armed people in america for each 100, and 30 armed people in sweden for each 100. Remember, statistics can point both ways.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Semi-automatic handguns are extremely useful -- why do you think police carry them? Because they're useful for self-defense.
Police "carry" handguns because "carrying" long guns is impractical. Sometimes the least worst option is confused with the best.
What the police use and self-defense nuts demand has no particular relevance.
If you didn't have gun companies pumping out guns by the thousands there would be less likelihood of criminals getting them. Do you not realize the Mexican government is supremely pissed at the United States because almost all the guns being used by the narco terrorists there are being imported from the United States. Gangs in Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg and other Canadian cities that have seen rise in gun violence are pissed at the U.S. for not doing more to stop the flow of illegal gun shipments to Canada. Your love of guns is a cancer to others around you as well as yourself.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
These kinds of arguments are so sophomoric (sophomoronic actually) that it is sick. Get a brain.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
The fact is that most planned murders would happen no matter what and even gun control doesn't really help, I don't have a security perimeter and probably wouldn't know it until the knife was in my back. The difference is that by the time you've stabbed one to death, everyone else in a full panic run away from you and probably out of reach while a gun is just bang bang bang. Same with unplanned murders, how many people get shot just to be on the safe side? I mean the burglar doesn't know if the house owner has a gun, but best to shoot him before he shoots you right? And fatal gun accidents happen far more often than fatal knife accidents. Basically, a lot of situations defuse if you don't have guns while guns tend to turn every situation into a shoot-out, seeing as people are much slower than a speeding bullet.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Better keep the soldier from helping during national disasters. They are so focused on taking over you homes and lives that it will be dangerous having them around when you are in dire need. Oh wait, they might be your neighbors kid serving his country. But then again, the police are evil too since they serve their local community. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. You're a fucking idiot.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
The first two victims of any conflict are the innocent and the truth. Just watch what happens to the laws, rights, and justice after this fiasco. My question is: Whose behind this?
Was it a conspiracy or a lone gunman ala L. H. Oswald?
What is gained and lost by this action?
What laws will be steamrolled through Congress?
Where is the new war front?
What will be the cost and who will pay?
I see absolutely no good coming from this.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
You make some good points while ignoring or missing others.
16 year old girls are not illegal. Buying / selling them is. There is nothing that could be done or proposed to eliminate their existence, so let's set that aside as an apples to motorcycles comparison, shall we?
Crank, coke, smack, etc. are all chemical substances. Many drugs can be created with little technical know-how, and in some cases, just the ability to cultivate plants. Others (Meth for example) can be created with easily obtained items that are not strictly controlled due to many and common other uses. Meth labs are dangerous, yes, but you make a good point that the fact that they're illegal and dangerous does not stop them from existing.
Guns on the other hand are not typically built in people's garages. They are mass produced in factories. In countries where they are illegal, their existance in the underground is largely made possible by border crossings where they are legal.
This is where you miss the biggest point. Yes, we have a porous border. But guns flow south out of the U.S. into Mexico, not the other way around.
Mexico has one gun store, which is run by the military. It's near impossibly to own a gun legally there. And that's why the same cartels that are smuggling drugs into the States are smuggling guns south so as not to waste a trip back.
The people that were at this meet and greet today presumably had the right to own guns. It didn't help them stave off this nut. Even if one of them had a gun, do you honestly think that would stop the 19 (or more) shots he managed to get off? It was a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine. Assuming a magazine that holds 20 something rounds, he didn't have to reload. How long could it have taken? 5 seconds?
I am not saying that banning guns makes everything magically wonderful. I'm not even suggesting we should do it. But to say it shouldn't be on the table seems irrational.
If you limit the supply of guns, you will limit their availability. The only question in my mind is what about all the pre-existing guns? How many can you reasonably expect to recover? What mechanisms would lawfully allow existing guns to *be* recovered? It seems to me that if you ban guns, the existing guns will create a supply for the underground that will last for decades.
Addressing the other side of your argument, I don't believe that you should have the right to shoot someone unless you can prove they're threatening your life. Castle doctrine is bullshit. If someone wants to steal your TV, they're an asshole, and if they do so, they are a criminal. But if they get caught, they're not subject to the death penalty anywhere in the U.S.. Why should it be okay to kill them if you catch them in the act?
In many states, shop owners can have guns. And in many states where they can't, they do anyway. This doesn't stop liquor store or convenience store robberies because the owner might have a gun. Your idea that this is a cause for fewer "home invasions" (a bullshit politically loaded term if there ever was one) is completely without unsupported by any data. UCR data suggests that home robberies are more uniform within demographic areas regardless of gun laws. In other words, major metros with similar income levels and ethnic / educational distributions will have similar break-ins regardless if they are in Georgia, New Jersey, Michigan, or California.
Thieves don't pick businesses over homes because of fear of being shot. They do so because stores tend to be places where they think they can easily score cash. The average home is unlikely to net the thief much cash directly. He has to find something to rob and hope he or she can pawn it without being caught. They also can't as easily case the place out before hand. But any 7-11, you can walk into any time you please.
This is besides another point of fact: criminals don't commit crimes thinking ahead of time that they'll be caught. The average burger doesn't want
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
I dare him to try that in Zeta country. You realize the big problem with 'drug cartels' in Mexico right now is that half of them are hardcore Catholic and killing the other half that has destroyed their communities? The drugs are the safest form of income if you live in an area with corrupt enforcement agents. The days of going down to T.J. for donkey shows are over... You don't know who is running that show or how many older brothers/fathers/uncles they saw gunned down and never avenged by the government - all to feed the Hunger of El Norte.
Not only do we have more guns, but we also have more politicians encouraging people to use them against others when they don't get their way.
We also have a media culture that makes killing people with guns a form of entertainment to be profited from. Those who watch these kinds of programs and buy these kinds of games really need to reflect on the consequences.
LOL
No, I actually don't fear anything -- whether I carry a gun or not, I'm pretty secure in who I am and what I can do, and, unlike Lisa's rocks, guns are actually capable of being used for protection. A gun is not a talisman, it's a tool.
Apartheid?? hahahaha. That's a good one. The completely irrelevant ravings of a lunatic mind.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
When Palin said: "We've got to stand with our North Korean allies." Even Tina Fey couldn't make it funnier. :-)
Yes.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Perhaps you will feel differently when the victim is you.
If it wasn't in bad taste BEFORE the shooting then it wouldn't be in bad taste AFTER the shooting and it would still be posted on Palin's web site.
And since I haven't said that Palin was guilty of the shooting ... you're just going to keep making baseless statements until I get tired of replying to you, aren't you?
That's great. Nothing like having you demonstrate how vacuous your position is on your own.
Your supply side argument fails when EVERY Swiss household is likely to have a full mil-spec firearm inside it...unlike the US. This means the per household chance of coming in contact with a firearm is HIGHER than in the US. While the US may have 90 firearms per 100 people, many (if not most) of firearms owners have more than 1 gun. I, for example, own 3. I have friends whose collections number in the 100s. The likelihood of there being another house on my block with a firearm is statistically low....lower than the likelihood of them having a dog over 40lbs.
The Culture of the Swiss is not one where firearms are seen as for personal use...hence a lower issue with them. Also, the Swiss' penchant for being the "neutral" nation has caused outsiders who may agitate in some nations to leave the Swiss alone...so they can use Switzerland as the go between (or safe haven for their funds). If they caused issues in Switzerland, then that government may actually take a position on their activities and so become persona non grata.
It is a cultural issue, not a supply and demand issue. If there were a cultural want of firearms, there are plenty of people to supply them. See many parts of Africa, Northern Ireland, etc for examples of where these is a demand, there will be a supply.
While in the military, I discovered while deployed in various places around the world, weapons are cheap and plentiful if you want them. Hell, in some countries, their military will take you to their armory and let you pick out what you want for the right price! And the right price is a LOT lower than you would think!
Bad logic throughout your entire post
Note that one of the other "targets" on Sarah Palin's map had his home's propane line cut. Fortunately, no other damage occurred.
The rhetoric of "targeting" in politics has been used for decades (it particularly arose post-WWII when so many Americans became familiar with terminology related to strategic military activity resulting in large successes) and the vast majority of the population, having more than a couple of brain cells to rub together, never used to confuse this form of strategic planning rhetoric with personal acts of physical violence. Democrats used to talk about "targeting" Republicans and then some nutjob shot Reagan; but that did not make any of those Democrats responsible for the shooting. Yes, Palin (and others) "targeted" Democrats recently and now a nutjob has attacked one of her "targets" with a gun, but she's no more responsible than Obama will be if anybody he "targeted" becomes the victim of some random nutjob violence.
The problem isn't guns - it is a political movement that pursues eliminationist goals.
Here, you are actually almost right; it is not the instrument (the gun), but then you go doubly-wrong (it's not any "movement" nor is any significant American political movement including Palin's "eliminationist"). The problem is entirely with the individual who carries out the act. If no German is willing to kill a Jew, Nazism is incapable of the holocaust. If no Russian will abuse his fellow citizen, the Gulags do not exist. If no American had been willing to "own" a black person or defend the supposed right of others to do so, the American civil war would have not only never happened, but it would have been un-necessary. If there were no Muslims who were willing to blow themselves up in an effort to wipe-out innocent men women and children, Bin Laden would just be another creepy dude in a cave. The most foul and obnoxious rabble-rousing criminal or political leader cannot achieve a significant bad result without the actions of individuals who are willing to take individual acts. Each individual is completely responsible for his or her own acts.
Jesus died for sombody's sins but not mine
Funny, but also wrong. It is a matter of historical record (even secular records) that a Jew named Jesus did exist and did die. His followers made many claims about why and there's no more reason to question their statements about his motives (though it might be rational to believe those motives were invalid) than, say, to question the contemporary accounts of why any Roman (for example) of the same era did whatever he is said to have done. Your opinion on the matter approx 2K years later has no impact upon either the event or the motivations a person at that time may have had. It may be an open question as to whether what he did would, or would not, have any effect on your particular sins, or you may claim to be sin-free, but your contemporary opinion cannot change the motivation of somebody when he took certain steps centuries ago. Your rejection of a gift also has no effect on whether or why the gift was offered. Your parents could leave you a house in their will and you could reject the house, but it would not mean they had not left you a house, nor would it mean they had not left it for your use. If you want to use an anti-Christian tag-line, try to at least come up with something that's rational ;-)
False dichotomy. Most unarmed populations are not ruled by tyrants or criminals. They just tend to shoot each other less.
Ok, and? Were you trying to make a point or something? Because if you are, no way in hell should we suppress the freedom of speech just because some mentally ill wackjob decides to go to war with civilians.
Life is not for the lazy.
You obviously haven't heard of poison, explosives, throwing knifes, mines, axes, several siege engines? A gun is a tool like any other. The problem is the user and always will be. Would it reduce the number of crimes of passion? Maybe, for a time until society adjusts but another tool will replace it. It's human nature to kill. Nothings going to stop someone from strangling someone to death, beating their head on concrete, stabbing them with a knife or any other of the endless possibilities.
It's nonsense like this that allows gun control laws to erode the peoples rights.
I don't hate conservatism, in fact, I'm slightly right of center on certain fiscal issues and left of center on social issues. I don't think anyone (sane) is implying that Mrs. Palin was advocating the gunning down of Democratic representatives. I don't think in a million years she'd think it would happen. But to post such a map with the phrase "It's time to take a stand" using cross-hairs to mark these representatives is wildly irresponsible coming from the position of authority that she has. This woman is in the national spotlight, there are possible aspirations of a presidential run and people listen to her.
This increases quite considerably the chance that someone on the fringes will act in a extreme way, they see stuff like this and feel as though they've been given carte blanche to take matters into their own hands. So, do you blame her for this? Not directly, but her statements play a factor. The blame lies with the shooter, but there's going to be questions as to what pushed him over the edge.
Stupid is as stupid dies.
From what you said, the logical conclusion is that the strict gun control laws are a response to the high homicide rates. To prove the reverse you must establish that an *increase* in gun availability in the general population deters homicides, which is not what you said.
I merely stated that culture is a more important influence over suicide rates, than gun control laws.
When homicide rates fluctuate, it's difficult to pin-point an exact cause, as gun control laws are not the only contributing factor. However, it's worth noting that Florida, Texas and Michigan have adopted Right-to-Carry laws in 1987, 1996 and 2001 respectively, and in each case the states have seen reduced murder rates, thereafter, though (based on the data I've seen) Texas was already experiencing a drop in murder rates when their Right-to-Carry law was enacted, and Michigan's homicide rate didn't change nearly so much as the other two states. Florida's change was much more pronounced, with a 36% reduction in the state-wide homicide rate by 1996. This information suggests that a Right-to-Carry law will improve a homicide rate, but it's hardly conclusive, without knowing what other contributing factors may have existed in that period.
There are places which have strict gun control laws and low crime rates, and there are places which have strict gun control laws and high crime rates. Both circumstances also occur with very lax gun control laws. Homicide rates are linked more closely to the motivations of the population in question, than they are to the availability of guns. This is my only real point.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
LOL No, I actually don't fear anything -- whether I carry a gun or not,
Then, as if further evidence was necessary, you've proved yourself a dickhead.
I'm pretty secure in who I am and what I can do,
When you're not calling out strangers? "feeling froggy"
and, unlike Lisa's rocks, guns are actually capable of being used for protection. A gun is not a talisman, it's a tool.
Apropos of what? Or are you simply demonstrating your stupidity in case it was overlooked, like you overlook what doesn't serve you narrow purposes.
Apartheid??
I took the time to actually read the guy's writings, and check his conclusions. You should try it sometime - though in your case given that reading makes your lips sore, try a little lubricant.
hahahaha. That's a good one. The completely irrelevant ravings of a lunatic mind.
Your personal failings hardly translate into any sort of authoritative insights. Tell me again about how you can carry a handgun in any of 24 states - I'm so impressed, does it convince women to stop crossing the road away from you - 'cause you sure sound like a blowhard with a micro-penis complex. Yawn.
The woman came out to talk, to listen, probably to change her opinion. Put the table, a chair and a clear sign that it will be a discussion. He could argue with her openly, present his arguments and grievances.
Instead he hit her in the head. What a senseless stupid act of violence.
I hope that the people in the USA are smart enough not to let their great land, the land of the free, to plunge into a chaos because of these isolated provocations.
Suddenly the words "don't retreat, reload", "Kill him" etc. have such a heavy weight to them. What a senseless act, one cannot help but think that such vitrol and caustic rhetoric had some part to do with this heinous act. But who will bring the shock jocks, demagogues to justice? Who will take them to task and not let them hide behind "free speech" specious arguments?
> And they don't need a gun to kill a bunch of unarmed witnesses,
> your axe or whatever will do quite effectively -- the end result is
> the same, dead civilians. That's unacceptable to me.
That's an absurd example. For starters, while this criminal is hacking away at the first victim, the others can be running in all directions. With a gun, said criminal can shoot more of them in less time. So without a gun, end result is fewer dead civilians.
And if you take away the guns; yes, there will still be violent criminals. But if you take the gun out of the equation, the civilian has options. For example:
I'm a clerk in a store. Robber enters and is armed with a gun. He aims gun at me and demands money. Basically, I'm boned. Unless I have a gun myself, and I'm a faster draw than Chuck Norris, anything I do besides open the register and hand over the money gets me killed. It's faster to pull that trigger than just about anything.
vs.
I'm a clerk in a store. Robber enters and is armed with a knife. He brandishes knife at me and demands money. Here, I have options. Maybe I bolt for the back room and by the time he can make it over or around the counter I have the door locked and the alarm triggered. Maybe I have a crowbar or baseball bat behind the counter (longer reach) and I shatter his arm. Is it a liquor store? Maybe I smash a bottle over his head. Heck... maybe he's a smaller guy than me. Unless HE is a regular Chuck Norris with that knife; there's a chance of overpowering him, getting to his airway, and choking him out.
Basically, with guns out of the picture the would-be victim has options to make himself not a be victim that are not possible with guns at play. Thus would be, IMO, a very good thing.
And yes, effective gun control is possible. It's even possible to keep them out of the hands of criminals. All it takes is the appropriate political will. See, for example, Japan, Singapore, or Taiwan. Gun crime is all but unheard-of in any of these because they have and enforce effective laws to keep guns out of the wrong hands. There's no magic that happened. They're not inherently better or more capable than us. They just decided that they had the will to fix the problem. Hopefully, one day, so shall we.
Imagine all the people...
Hatred of the 2nd amendment is much more closely-tied to hatred of the 1st, which it protects, than most like to admit. It's no surprise that the same leftist judges who approve of gun control laws also tend to approve of limits of free speech, warrant-less e-mail searches, warrant-less use of GPS devices to track the vehicles of citizens, etc. Our founders gave us all ten of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights together as a group, and it should arouse a very healthy dose of suspicion when any American wants a full-scale repeal of any one of the ten.
Consider that land-of-enlightenment Canada, where gun rights are reduced and, oh yeah, you can go to jail for saying or writing something if it makes some protected group of people unhappy.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates.
Well, gee, that's a correlation, don't you think there's a causation? Yes, the cities where violence is high will enact gun legislation.
If you can't get the difference of rate of fire between hunting rifles and automatic ones, yet are familiar with weapons, you're just acting stupid. Well, I sure hope you're just acting, seeing how you handle weapons.
i have no doubt lives have been saved by gun use by virtuous individuals
Nor do I dispute that - I simply question the sanity of those that argue concealed weapons reduce crime.
Note: I'm not arguing guns should be banned.
the point here is you don't understand those examples are massively dwarfed by senseless killing. moron shooting up a disco because a chick looked at him funny, kid finds a gun and plays with it, well intentioned smaritan gets confused and shoots an innocent, husband loses it and shoots wife, etc, etc, etc
You have me confused with some one else. I understand irony when I hear/read it. Do you? Do yourself a favour, read it again, and try quoting at least some of the post you're referring to. Cheers.
Yes, there will always be criminals who have access to guns, but that's not the same as every criminal who wants one getting one easily. Just because we can't do a perfect job means we shouldn't do better?
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
Guns are banned in my country, and yet we have 1/1000th of gun crime that you have.
Your logic is flawless.
No, stupid, I have the right to defend myself from those who wish to harm me.
You sound a little angry... and you're either ingenuous or confused. I didn't say you "don't have a right to defend yourself" - only that it's not related to a "right to bear arms". So many basic abilities appear to elude you - like reading, logic, and comprehension. Are you the sort of cretin who calls "college" higher education?
The last time I checked, Mexico was getting most of it's illegal firearms from South America, not the US.
What am I plucking out of my arse and calling a fact?
Confusing - you now answer your own questions? Are Colt now manufacturing weapons somewhere in South America. Please point us at where you "checked" the "last time". In fact, why not point at where you checked both times - or did you check more than once?
The fact that you say "arse" means you're some snaggle-toothed Brit who's opinion means nothing to me, anyhow.
Well, no, but don't let the incredible difficulty of finding out for yourself stand in the way of a little meta-semantic bullshit. And, most educated people can tell the difference between a donkey like animal and their fundamental orifice. Could it be that you belong to one of those perpetually confused types that have fanny and ass (arse) confused, root for their team while sitting on their "ass" - then call getting laid getting some "ass". Sigh, You need all the weapons you can get.
"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
--Gabrielle Gifford March 25, 2010, MSNBC Interview.
http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the
w t f ...
I can see it now... "Oh.. but it was all 'jokes' ya know... for sure... nobody meant to shoot her. Its like crosshairs, like we joke about shootin a bear in Alaska!" -- Sarah Palin, predicted quote for future response to this event.
I am ambivalent about parent post in a very curious way. I have re-read it several times. Some of the time I think it goes too far. But some of the time I think it does not go far enough.
It would be nice to see it modded up (I don't have mod points at the moment).
The idea that a politician should be held culpable for the effects that their inappropriate speeches have on our unstable American citizens is an interesting one. A politician is someone who seeks to develop a public following, and perhaps they should be held criminally accountable for instigating any assassination attempts. Perhaps what they say and how they say it should be held to a higher standard than Joe Sixpack's words, the same way we hold members of professions to a higher standard of behavior in matters concerning their areas of expertise.
Will
I've always thought of handguns such as mine to be recreational firearms. I'm not going to use my handgun to protect my family. How could I? I keep it in an inaccessible location, in a locked box, unloaded, and I don't even keep bullets in the house. From time to time, though, I like to buy some bullets and take it to a firing range.
I think of semi-automatic weapons the same way. I imagine they are crazy fun to shoot, but much like skydiving I've never tried it.
As an Arizonan, I must say that you are incorrect - as of last year, concealed carry permits are no longer required. Anyone over 21 who is legally allowed to own a firearm can carry it concealed, with very few restrictions. This has been a contentious issue in the state and I'm sure this latest incident will not make it any less so.
In theory guns are a great equalizer, but in practice they only help the party who is prepared to carry a weapon for the purpose of employing deadly force. This is more far more likely to be the attacker then the victim.
Actually, that's an over-generalization. Many criminals are not very good at using force, they are simply used to an asymmetrical situation--- bullies--- and do not expect a determined victim. Some criminals are actually trained and skilled (and therefore extremely dangerous) but, on the average, a victim with any skill and training is likely to be more skilled than the attacker if they can keep their heads. And quite a few people are very determined not to be victims; they should be given the choice of how to do it.
Then there is the fact that carrying a gun if you are NOT prepared to employ deadly force puts you in more danger then you would be without one (as the attacker will use it against you).
That I agree with wholeheartedly. You should not carry a gun unless you are willing to learn how to use it, when [not] to use it, and are determined to do so. You should thoroughly consider the moral implications of when to shoot before you pick one up. You also need situational awareness to ensure that it is not taken from you. I find that when I am armed, I am much more aware of what goes on around me because I am subconsciously keeping track of who is close to me and ensuring that my weapon is secure. That is probably something I should be doing when I am not armed as well, but psychology can be tricky that way.
Simply having a gun does not level the playing field. Pepper spray is far more suitable for self-defense against a more powerful attacker.
Not really. I have pepper spray and there are places and times I carry it instead of a gun. There are situations where I would use it in preference to a gun, but it is no substitute. For one thing, it will not stop a determined attacker who is carrying a gun faster than they can hurt you, especially at some range. Of the various options for self-defense, including no resistance, using a gun is the least likely to end with both you and the bad guy injured.
A gun also has a deterrent effect which pepper spray does not. If I pull a gun on a bad guy, 9 times out of 10, he will surrender or run. If I pull pepper spray, I will have to use it more likely than not. On the farm, if I confront an intruder or stranger, the fact that I am (visibly) armed also keeps things very polite. I do not have to threaten or brandish the gun, they just know it is there. If you keep a cool head, it keeps things cool; if you have a hot head, a gun will escalate things. There is no reason to be discourteous until and unless things turn deadly and then you have more important things to worry about.
A gun, like many things, is a tool. It has to be used and handled properly. A lot of people do not like seeing guns because they crystallize issues of justified force, violence, evil, and mortality we do not like to face, but we do face them just the same, usually just unprepared.
a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. You're arguing using the exception to the rule as the basis for your sweeping generalization. One nutter uses a gun to do harm, therefore all gun owners are dangerous lunatics. You're using demonstrably false logic.
Furthermore, your hypothetical 'vigilante' scenario illustrates your extreme level of bias on the subject. To be honest, you really seem to be confused on that particular issue. A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, which makes said vigilante himself a lawbreaker--for taking the people's and his victim's right to due process into his own hands when he has no such authority.
Suppose some witness to the event pulled his gun, then and shot and killed the crazed man while he was in the commission of his ill-deeds. He would be defending the lives of himself and anyone in the vicinity--no? This slaying would be justified in any sane court of law. By the very definition, this hypothetical individual could not be a vigilante. I suppose the onlookers who tackled the madman are vigilantes too, for exercising their power of citizen's arrest?!
If someone there was armed, maybe he did not have a clear shot? Maybe he thought he saw a crowd of girl-scouts behind the murderer. Or maybe a gun isn't a magical item that will save all victims from harm--even in "gun happy [sic] Arizona"? But I have never seen a sane person claim that.
Having a gun on your person simply gives an individual more opportunity to defend oneself and his/her loved ones. You won't see Suzanna Hupp say that having her revolver (which she had to leave in her vehicle, by law) would have prevented the deaths of her parents or the other 21 good people slain by a madman that day... But you will hear her say that it may have given her an opportunity she would not have had otherwise. We all know how today's tragedy ended, we know how Luby's ended. These tragedies are diverse situations.
But even this lady, who is as much a victim as any other person at Luby's cafeteria that day, argues for more liberalized gun laws, at the very same time strangers were using the deaths of her parents as a tool to leverage for stricter law.
No. We should put the blame were it is deserved. On crazy humans. There are sick individuals out there who receive no/little help. Instead of going after their chosen instruments--which could literally be anything... Cars, knives, sharp rocks, you name it... We aught to seek them out and treat their conditions where applicable, and segregate them from society when it becomes apparent that they can't be successfully treated.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Well, I think you've covered in that post, the entirety of every debate technique *not* to use, if one wishes to retain any credibility. You're obviously projecting your own inability to function in the presence of an inanimate object -- I believe Freud had something to say about that.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Almost every point in this post is wrong either by omission or assertion. [snip ..... The government does issue and permit fully automatic weapons to citizens in danger zones .... ]
The MoD is quite liberal in issuing gun permits to Jewish Israelis. .... they're quite strict on issuing permits to non-Jewish Israelis.
I think what he means is to stand up and defend the trust fund and right to profit from exploiting people and resources.
The most aggressive movements right now are telling people they don't need to get along to have a successful society. They're saying its a ME thing not a WE thing. I wish I knew of an anarchy to send them to so we can all be happy with where we are. I just can't believe so many people having benefit from WE, are now claiming self success and pointing at it as the only lifeline one can have. Have you a life that required nothing of others? How naive can a person be not to see how everything comes from others?
You should look up the 21 foot rule sometime. You can be murdered just as quickly and effectively by a complete amateur with knife, as by someone with a gun. And what if your escape route to run away is blocked by your executioner -- you know, because you did what he said and went where he wanted you to -- perhaps into the walk-in freezer as has happened in cases in the past. You obviously know nothing about the defensive use of a handgun. I do. Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan are very regimented feudal societies whose subjects do not have the rights we do. We didn't found this country on that model, and we'll never go there. SCOTUS has made that abundantly clear in Heller and McDonald.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Semi-automatic handguns are similarly useless for any legitimate use. Well, handguns in general are useless.
First of all, there is a world of difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic one. A (double-action) revolver is a handgun which will fire every time you pull the trigger. The difference in rate of fire is not why you would choose one over the other. There are a lot of differences in the way they shoot which determines which are appropriate for which people and situations.
Second, the purpose of a handgun is portability, period. Obviously it is a trade-off in effectiveness, but I can carry one everywhere. Since I do not know when I will need one, that is important: if it is ever appropriate to carry a gun, it is nearly always appropriate to carry a gun. That is the same reason I just about always have at least a mini flashlight and some basic first aid supplies on me. No substitute for a full emergency kit but I am more likely to have them when actually needed.
On the farm, a handgun's purpose is to keep a bad guy at bay (or feral dog off of the sheep, whatever) long enough for my wife or I to get the shotgun out. Off the farm it's there to keep them at bay long enough for me to get my family and myself out of there. If I know I am going to to encounter trouble, I don't carry a handgun, I carry a shotgun (or, when an option, go in the other direction). But a handgun is small enough to have with me 24/7; a shotgun is not. Neither is my multi-D-cell maglite. Choose the tool for the need.
I do not know of many criminals who announce robberies or rapes or assaults ahead of time. If there is a twitter function for that, I have not found it yet. That means you have to have something portable.
Good points.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
It's quite hard to stab 20 people to death before you get stopped, even if there are no guns at the scene.
And it's not at all hard to load up a car full of fertilizer and diesel fuel, a homemade detonator and cell phone, and blow the entire building to shreds.
If you ban guns, people will just other, sometimes much more effective and deadly, means to kill each other. You can't legislate violence out of existence, and in trying to do so you're hurting people's basic freedoms.
It's quite hard to stab 20 people to death before you get stopped, even if there are no guns at the scene.
Sure, they'll just be restricted to the criminals who really want them. And all of the law abiding citizens will lose one of their God given rights. Great tradeoff.
Does the way this it getting reported in the media remind anyone else of columbine. They already have the loner tag front and center. Next they will also discover his love of video games. There may not be a serious discussion about hate speech and the 1st amendment, which IMO is the real issue here.
no sig.
Well, to bastardize Carl Von Clousewitz ...."Violence is Politics by another means".
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
Really? What about bows, and their cousin the crossbow? Those aren't deadly and accurate over long range?
We Americans don't have to "justify" a God damn thing. Gun ownership is a right that many of us will defend to the death. Just TRY and take our guns away and see what happens.
Hunting rifles? When did we discuss hunting rifles?
A huge percentage of hunting rifles are semi-automatic, and only marginally different (missing one or two fire control group components) from their fully automatic cousins used in the military.
Did you know that it's entirely possible to fire a single round with a machine gun, and an "assault rifle" generally has a single-shot semi-automatic selector setting? Or that a 30 round magazine in an AR-15 pattern semi-automatic hunting rifle can be emptied in about 3 seconds by a trained shooter?
The line between "hunting rifle" and "assault weapon" is so blurry that neither are accepted by anyone familiar with firearms. They're simply not precise, nor do they accurately describe anything.
If you want to describe the difference between bolt action and semi automatic, or fixed magazine and detachable magazine, then we could have a discussion, but if you don't even understand the terms it's going to be pretty much absurd to try.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
If by "do better", you mean restrict my Constitutionally guaranteed access to firearms as a law-abiding citizen in order to obtain some imagined gain, I don't think that's a very good description of "do better".
Guns are an equalizer. The 5' 90lb 75 year old lady can protect herself with one, or she can become a victim without. I want her to have that ability, don't you?
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Reading that fast aloud is the time it takes to fire six rounds into a human being, easily at a range of ten meters. There is no other tool that does that, fits in a pocket, and has millimetre accuracy at that range.
And yet, the lady who was shot point blank in the back of the head survived. 12 out of 18 of the victims survived their gunshot wounds. My own father was accidently shot with a rifle when he was a kid and survived.
Gunshot wounds aren't exactly a guaranteed death sentence either. A person who is competent with a knife, and uses a sufficiently large knife, can be extremely deadly. There's dozens of other types of weapons that can be used to kill people, or to kill scores of people. A homemade car bomb, for instance. Or do you think banning cars, diesel fuel, and fertilizer is the solution?
Also Australia
That is a highly prevalent problem too, especially in politics. It is easy to sell people and voters on good thoughts. But when one considers what is required to implement them, all of a sudden everyone stops listening, there is no money, no one wants to do it, there is no time to get it right... or it's simply impossible. But hey, it was a good thought and it's what got you elected.
Handguns are the number one murder weapon by far, outnumbering all the other weapons added together.
Except in the UK, where it is knives. Oh, and guns (in this gun controlled police state) still account for 9 percent of murders.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scourge-of-the-most-common-murder-weapon-478909.html
Guns are #1 because guns are lethal and available. Ban them, and people will use other weapons. And they'll still use guns too, just not as frequently. AND you'll be trampling on the rights of millions. Good luck with that.
And the funny part about it is that you guys still have a lot of gun violence for a place where public ownership of firearms is more or less banned. What I find even more humorous is how the murder rate in your country actually increased after guns were banned...hmmm I wonder why. Make guns illegal, and only criminals will seek to have them.
-Oz
There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
Actually there are quite a number of sane reasons; just because you declare them to be "insane" does not change the rationale or logic.
Thankfully however, our founders saw these needs and planned for them. And even more thankfully, we live in a country where our basic RIGHTS are not based upon "need."
Go live in Juarez Mexico if you doubt it!
-Oz
Because it wasn't the American Indian Wars, in combat the southeastern and plains Indians killed about 1 US soldier for ever 1.3 Indians lost. Compared to a small war like Vietnam, where the Viet Cong lost about 3 soldiers for every US soldier killed, the American Indian Wars were pretty even, the American Indians just didn't have the numbers or political unity to hold out.
So mass-eradication as a government policy is ok if the losing party put up a good fight?
And also remember that in places like the Northern Great Plains, there was as much inter-tribal violence as there was violence between the American Indians and United States.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there's at least some internecine fighting going on in the target population?
And even now there are at least 2.5 million full blooded American Indian and Alaska Natives and 1.6 million tribal members who are mixed blood.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if it wasn't 100% successful?
Lets compare that to a modern genocide like Poland. In 1938 there were 3.1 million Jews in Poland, in 1946 there were 44,000.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there ever was a more successful mass eradication program in history?
I'd like to see you advocate that position to some American Indians.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Indeed, let's make this a generic news site with an intelligent audience engaged in actual debate. Looking around other "news sites", none of them offer even a shadow of that, so yeah... good suggestion :P
What is this original purpose of Slashdot you are speaking of? Gagdets? Escapism? Hmmm... I always read "news for nerds, stuff that matters" not as "nerd stuff does matter", but as "here's some nerd news, plus some things that *actually* matter". Maybe that's just me though, and of course what "matters" is highly subjective..
Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
DING DING DING--we have a winner. THANK YOU.
I'd argue it goes beyond culture--it's genetics.
And guess which country is amongst the most genetically and culturally diverse on the planet?
And which ethnic groups compromise large percentages of this country's population?
This wikipedia article might be enlightening to some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Hint: look at which countries/regions have the highest murder rates. Which ethnic groups, with genetic/cultural origins in regions on this list, are widespread in our country?
And do the rates of violent crime in our country, broken down by ethnic group, show any correlation with the above list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
If you think someone pointing out a mirror hates you, because the thing you see in the mirror is so. fucking. hideous., you're shooting yourself in the foot and that's all you're doing.
I can't imagine any realistic scenario where would-be burglar/thief/assassin/rapist is likely to get into a situation where their intended victim has a gun trained on *them*.
I dunno, the Fort Hood attack, just to name the first thing that immediately popped into my head?
And yours are frankly bullshit. I watched a big bust in Mexico not a week ago on CNN. You know what kind of guns were lying on the ground? Fully auto AK47s, enough grenades to blow up a couple of city blocks, several RPGs, hell the closest thing they had to "handguns" were some custom fully auto 9mm. So tell me, oh wise one, where do you buy fully auto machine guns in the USA hmmm? Answer: You don't, it is red herring bullshit by those that wish to ban guns.
It is very simple: with the drugs come the money, with the money comes the power, with the power comes any damned thing you want including all the quality Russian military weapons you can carry. There is a damned good reason why every battle against the cartels you see bad guys with AK47s and it is precisely because the USA DON'T SELL AUTOS to civilians and the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc don't care if you got $$$.
So please, tell us another one. If you'd like I'll be happy to post about a dozen links to Mexican drug busts and you can count the AKs and grenades for yourself. And unless you are gonna turn the USA into a police state with towers frankly anybody can make a single shot zip gun or shotgun. The reason you don't see those? Because criminals have NO problem getting real guns and believe me your average felon isn't going through a background check, he is getting them from Mr Dealer, who can have a load of cheap Russian guns just as easily as he has that load of smack dropped off. Or do you think they are growing Opium in the ghettos? ALL banning does is take guns away from the citizens while doing jack and squat about criminals. Like I said if they're going to rob or kill someone feel free to tack on a weapons charge, see how much they care.
Give me $1000 and ONE hour, I'll come back with ANYTHING you want INCLUDING one of several choices of guns. Do you think that will change one damned bit if you pass some sort of law? Please! I repeat you've been trying that with dope for nearly a century and it is a hell of a lot farther from the golden triangle than to South America. It is ONLY the law abiding citizens that jump through your flaming hoop gun laws NOW, you think further hoops will do jack shit?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"the early reports are that the suspect is hispanic"
Uhm no, actually they are that he's white...
Also, that's not how you spell "handle", Mr. Brainiac.
I see from your comment history that NO ONE thinks you have anything of value to say.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Exactly. That's why there is a need for gun control.
Since you're comparing with gun-controlled UK, you will see that the overall murder rate in the UK is much lower than the US.
UK: 1.28 per 100,000
US: 5.0 per 100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Which demonstrates very well the falsity of your assumption that other weapons will be substituted if guns are less available.
"I'm afraid that me not owning a gun will not save me from being shot and killed."
That isn't my problem or concern. You choose not to arm yourself, (with wit or other weapon) that is your reality to deal with. I think the trouble most people have with the idea of getting rid of guns, is that even in places where they don't have a means to produce or purchase firearms, people still manage to get ahold of them. The idea that if you make guns illegal that gun-violence will end is pure folly. The idea of a weapon that omits a projectile is in the human mind. Where a need or desire to possess such a thing exists there is a demand that will be supplied.
To me the best solution is to arm everyone, and make safety classes as requisite as ownership. It won't mean that no one dies via gun-violence, but it will reduce such occurrences, and you can be sure that there would be far fewer "accidental" gun-related deaths. Also there would be far fewer murders and robberies. Knowledgeable owners of firearms statistically kill the least number of people (barring police and soldiers). Therefore an armed and knowledgeable populace would be a more polite and safe populace.
-Oz
LOL! You right-wing libertarian American's make me laugh. You're bat-shit insane.
Getting back on topic of today's news: what's the betting today's mass murdering shooter is one of you.
The shooter is a left-wing liberal. Oops!
Funny how so many Slashdotters are blaming Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for making this guy kill all these people.
I guess in their minds, all liberals are wonderful people, and any violence or bad act can only be done by those evil right wingers, right?
And hundreds of American civilians died in the wars as well.
Like the Sioux Uprising of 1862, and many more died during the American Revolution and War of 1812 when Indian nations took sides as proxies of the British.
The casualty rates I mention were of combatants, didn't talk about civilians, but say on the Northern Great Plains from 1860 to 1890, say about 1000-1400 white civilians and 1700-2500 American Indian civilians died at the hands of the other side, not sure now many inter-tribal casualties there were, but likely another 500-1000.
Yeah, but look at all the holes they shot through their cheese!
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
It's unclear where the line between advocacy and conspiracy is drawn, but I sure wouldn't want to find out. Even in the best case, it's rebellion/insurrection and advocating overthrow.
Either way, their actions should render them ineligible to hold office.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You might want to wait for slightly more evidence than a 22 year old that claims to know him in a twitter post!
Which demonstrates very well the falsity of your assumption that other weapons will be substituted if guns are less available.
LOL, no it doesn't. The only thing it demonstrates is that the murder rate is lower in the UK. There's about a thousand different reasons that could be, any number of which are far more plausible than your unfounded assertion that's it due to handgun ownership.
For instance, the US is far more ethnically diverse than the UK. Interesting that the highest rates of homicide are not in the US, but in Africa, and in South America. Guess which ethnic groups comprise a large percentage of our population? And guess which ethnic groups are disproportionately responsible for violent crime in our country? And guess which ethnic groups are most prevalent in areas (big cities, such as Detroit, Atlanta, DC, etc) where violent crime is high?
Nearly insurmountable? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you want someone dead there are a LOT of ways to accomplish it without the need for a gun. If murder was at all difficult there wouldn't be so many of them around the world. Poisonings to sabotage all the way to just plain sticking a knife in their back. The number of physical altercations in the UK are nearly identical to the US, firearms simply make more of the attacks successful in the US. This isn't even considering that most of the attacks in the US are drug related and a result of gang warfare where the majority of those killed are involved in gangs.
I'm not a criminal, nor will I ever be. My ownership of a firearm is none of your business or anyone else's. What I don't understand is why all you anti-gun nuts think anyone that would own a firearm is somehow deranged or a criminal in someway. The incredibly small number of firearms (vs the total) used in crime in the US are almost always illegally acquired. Conversely, the number of legally owned and purchased firearms used in criminal acts is mind numbingly small. Hundreds of millions of firearms are purchased, owned and used regularly in a responsible manner in the US. As an anti-gun nut you might find this hard to believe but those of us that like fire arms like them for lots of reasons, from target shooting (a hobby that requires a lot of skill) to hunting to simple collecting and to a more minor extent self defense. But the most important point is that my ownership is none of your fucking business. What I own, what I do in my free time is not your concern and this belief by you anti-gun nuts that you are somehow entitled to dictate who can and can't own a product is the most amazingly stupid and fascist point of view. And the most evil thing about it is that you assume anyone that would own a gun is violent or is capable of murder, frankly that's offensive. In my mind that's what makes you more dangerous than anyone that owns a fire arm. You judge someones intent and capability for violence by a product they own. I'd consider you more of a danger to society than any law abiding gun owner.
guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them
No, they aren't. We've had these things called ballistic weapons for thousands of years - bows and arrows, spears, catapults, you name it.
Then there are things like poison, which require no intimate contact for the deed to be committed.
Prior to firearms, the weak were preyed upon by the strong. There was no force equalizer: with firearms, the weak - your grandmother or daughter, for instance (presuming you have one), are able to defend themselves. Guns enable 'prey' to not be such.
Predators, on the other hand, will always be predators. Gunpowder is thousands of years old and has been used for just as long as a weapon of offense. Criminals in prisons are able to fashion weapons from pretty much anything (up to and including crude ballistic weapons in maximum security prisons).
If we were to make all firearms simply disappear today, those with malicious intent would have working examples of firearms tomorrow. (The primitive AK47 'factories' found in 3rd world villages are good testament to this capability.) People, even malicious people, are inventive and will be able to
A race which is able to both get to the moon in a couple years of heightened societal research and figure out how to get high off fermented shit is capable of pretty much anything. Outlawing guns, or even removing them outright from a society, does nothing.
You can even ignore the fact that crime rates have been at historic lows during this recession - despite the never-higher firearm ownership rate and almost universal US 'concealed carry' laws allowing the "common grandmother" to pack a man killing weapon under her petticoat.
What you can not ignore is that banning guns and removing them from a society will not remove violence. Something like this could have easily happened without the invention of firearms - as evidenced by the Gunpowder Plot, over 400 years ago.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Nobody said it had to be scientifically proven for its veracity to hold. We have observed, as a society, that increased legal (lawful, as to not mean "highly regulated and licensed") firearm ownership has resulted in decreased violent crime rates, despite historic precedence which suggests that, in similar economic situations, what our society would be rife with violence. (1920s prohibition; 1970s). Surely, you aren't implying this to be false, are you? What is different now, other than legal firearm ownership and (almost) universally allowed concealed carry, has changed to allow for such a socially observed fact?
The inverse has been anything but proven. We have no instance of decreasing firearm ownership (or eliminating it outright) resulting in less violence. (In fact, we have the inverse - Britain saw a huge increase in violence as firearms were banned, for instance. There are many similar instances, most more disastrous. Thirty minutes googling the history of gun control should tell you this - if not conclusively, then at least substantiatively enough that you will pause and reconsider.)
In a world where circumstantial societal mores and means are a bit part of determination, such a thing as "is this good for a society?" must be disproven, not its negative proven in affirmation, before banning something through regulation makes any sort of sense. Too much ill has become humanity through such wanton application of diktat.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If I recall correctly, the following are also true:
* Most gun-owning Americans have multiple guns. I know people with 20 or more. Surely, this would somewhat skewer your 'ratio of death' ? (Does this mean that Americans with multiple guns are more violent? It would be a necessary requisite for your comparison to mean fuckall.)
* Every citizen is (or was, until this past July) conscripted in Sweden; every military serviceman has a full-automatic weapon in their home for said service. (Surely, the evil black rifle would jump out and, due to its fully automatic nature, just start shooting people?)
Semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons generally have only one intended use, and that is to kill people (usually at short or medium range). Sprayfire weapons (MAC-10, Uzi and the like) are no good for ANYTHING except trying to injure or kill a crowd.
You watch too many movies. Seriously - go outside, go to a firing range, SOMETHING. Just no more Ronin or NBK. Let's just get this out of the way: guns are, indeed, very useful for killing other people. (This is all the more true if they "spray" bullets, as you so technically described later in your post.)
That's what the "spray" in spray-fire stands for. The spray is powered by the recoil of 1000 rounds per minute powering out of the barrel of a snub-nosed weapon with little in the way of stabilization.
This reads like the technical jargon on, oh, Star Trek: TOS or when they start talking about guns on CSI. (IE: it's complete bullshit.) Seriously - you should consider a screenwriting career. They like this kind of inaccurate, jib bullshit.
Semi-automatic handguns are similarly useless for any legitimate use. Well, handguns in general are useless.
Which is precisely why police departments issue them to their officers for the safety and protection of their officers! Right? Or is this one of those trick questions?
You do realize that this shooting could've been accomplished with three 100-year-old Colt revolvers, right? Not exactly difficult to hit that many people in a crowded area, I imagine - somewhat like shooting a wall. (He didn't even - apparently - hit his intended target!)
Hunting weapons don't need to be semi-automatic or fully automatic for any hunting (I think Cthulhu hunting doesn't count, as that is in imaginaryland)
I suppose you live in imaginaryland, then, because fully automatic weapons have never been legal (in the US) for hunting, as far as I know. They haven't been legal to manufacture for 40-odd years, at this point, and were never all that common.
Semi-automatic weapons, on the other hand, are quite useful for hunting. I take it you've no concept of how birds (say, pheasants) tend to "group together", and it is not uncommon to see a single flush of 4-6 birds in a day. The semi-automatic weapons we have today are simply a linear engineering progression over the double-barreled guns used to acquire multiple birds over 130 years ago in a similar fashion (this is, of course, assuming that a person hits their target with every pull of the trigger.) The same applies to hunting pretty much any other animal: they're social creatures. They go in packs, herds, and so on: having multiple quick shots available is useful for the harvesting of multiple game animals. (At the very least, dispatching the same animal quickly, when the first shot was not as clean as you'd have liked, is useful for the humane treatment of the creature.)
So, does that fill in the lines enough?
I get it. You want to ban guns outright, or at least limit them to single-shot shotguns for birds, or something like that. I have an alternative proposition for you: if we cut off the hands of every living person at the age of 12, we will drastically cut down on the number of stabbings, shootings, and vehicular homicides. Just think of the savings in life!
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Here here!
Personally, I'd like to be shot - that is, assuming the alternative is to be bludgeoned, stabbed, skewered, sliced, or otherwise mutilated. I'm much less likely to end up severely mutilated from the event, and my chances of survival are somewhat better as well - assuming I'm not dead right there from a cranial perforation (or similar).
I'd only assume someone attacking me would appreciate a similar consideration. Don't ban guns - it's cruel to home invaders and other violent criminals. It puts them at a severe workplace disadvantage.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
There are also ranchers and farmers.
What do you propose these people do about vermin and the other animals threatening their livelihood? They can:
1) Continue to do as they have done for the better part of a century, and shoot and trap the offending animals (deer eating their crops, rodents digging up their fields, etc.)
2) Do as the government does when these animals get out of hand, and poison the ground on which they live. The animals will die the painful death of dehydration, over-hydration, or slow nervous system shutdown. Scavengers (or prey animals, before the victims die of the poisons) eat these diseased animals, suffering similar fates. These poisons are also introduced to the soil which ultimately make their way into the ground waters, ultimately...
Yeah, I like option #1, personally.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Technically speaking, their role in killing people is exactly the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The amendment's purpose isn't to ensure the ability to hunt, it's to ensure the ability to engage in acts of war.
Hopefully not! It's to prevent (or delay) such an eventuality through the deterrence of force. "Do as I say, or else!"
Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment is there to preserve "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are other, normally more immediate dangers to these goals, not inclusively:
* predatory animals eating your livestock
* pestilent animals eating your crops
* predatory humans threatening immediate harm
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The media often casts shooters (or criminals in general) who are "hispanic" (from South/Central America) as "white" if there is the potential for a race-war inciting event.
Hell, they do it in general as a token gesture for political correctness. They have for decades. Many, many times I've seen "white male" does this or that, only to find out later that it was a Latino associated with a gang, or someone of mixed white/black ancestry.
Though, honestly, this has nothing to do with race, though. It's 110% culture - just as a "white American" today would be castigated and denigrated as a dirty dago or wop, or an Irish-American as a mick or paddy, today we're looking 180 degrees the other way, culturally. We're so afraid to "go there" that we're being racist be occlusion.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
There are some places (Cities? Counties? I forget, and cannot link, sorry) where they have implemented laws which permit concealed carry of handguns, and found a DECREASE in violent crime. That would be an increase in gun availability, which decreased violent crimes. Whether it increased or decreased homicides is a different matter, but if you look at the overall crimes where force is used to coerce people (such as rape) in addition to killings, it's interesting.
The difference in the murder rate has little to do with the relative availability of firearms that don't require manually cycling a bolt vs those that do (the only meaningful difference between those in your Scandinavian examples vs those in the US). It has everything to do with culture.
Things like this are actually pretty rare, and most firearm murders only entail the firing of a handful of rounds at most. That is as easily accomplished with a non-semi-auto as it is with a semi-auto. The addition of fully automatic or legally concealed weapons in the comment is wasted space, since the statistics on those are crystal clear even to most ardent anti-gun people of average or better intelligence. With auto weapons, the suppliers are typically corrupt personnel working police evidence lockers or corrupt supply chain workers in the US or foreign militaries.
I addressed two major points in my post. You addressed one, which I conceded might be a problem in the first place. You ignored the other.
The point you addressed was guns getting into the hands of criminals. I conceded that even with an outright ban, it's likely that the supply for the underground would continue to be strong. You chose to address this point which I already conceded. I'm not sure why.
The other major point was that it doesn't do you any good to be armed if you're not one of the bad guys. It's a dangerous illusion of control.
Let's imagine a typical pro-gun fantasy of why it's good to have a gun.
It's 3:00 AM. I'm fast asleep in my bed, and I hear a noise.
1) I wake up and get out of bed to investigate or
2) I stay in bed and ignore it.
I think most normal people could choose either depending on the severity of the noise. So let's pick 1).
I've got a gun in my night stand. I need to decide if I take it with me or not while I investigate.
1) I take it
2) I don't.
I suspect most normal people aren't thinking "OMG SOMEONE IS COMING TO DO ME HARM!!!!!" as their first thought, but perhaps if I were inclined to own a gun it would be because this was my first thought? So let's again pick 1).
So you decide to take the gun. But this is dependent on a choice that you made before this night! Is the gun loaded?
1) Yes it is (You are retarded for keeping a loaded gun next to your bed)
2) No it's not (You are retarded for thinking an unloaded gun is any good to you in a crisis)
Let's pick 1) and hope that you don't have kids who'll blow their foot off some day.
So you creep down the stairs with the gun. You see a shadowy figure sneaking from your kitchen into your living room. You can't make them out clearly, but you realize they're facing away from you and haven't noticed you.
1) Shoot them and ask questions later. They're in your home after all.
2) Hold your fire, and get a better look risking getting hurt yourself.
Maybe you choose 1) and it's your spouse or kid coming in late. Maybe you just killed a burglar who only wanted to take your Blu-Ray player. Or maybe you stopped a rapist.
Maybe you choose 2) and get shot and killed yourself. Maybe you find out that it's your spouse or kid. Maybe there was nobody and it was your fucking cat knocking over a picture frame.
Of all these possibilities I think killing a rapist is the lest frequent thing that happens, and the cat knocking over a picture is the most. Followed by killing your spouse or kid.
So let's say you go down stairs and there's a guy with a gun. If you get they don't know you're there AND you positively identify them as a stranger AND you manage to disable them with a gun, then you win. That's a lot of fucking ifs. But if you go play cowboy down stairs with a gun and they do notice you (far more likely) now you're in a firefight or a standoff. Good luck!
There are just so many variables. People love to fantasize about a gun giving them this level of control and power and it's sad. If you're not an irresponsible nut job, it doesn't. The odds of the stars aligning and you saving the day are very low. If I'm in that scenario and I know for a FACT that someone is in my house and it can't be someone who should be, if I had the choice of a gun, I wouldn't take it. I'd grab my cell and go out the fucking window.
The cops can get to my house in a couple minutes.
I'm okay with only criminals having guns. Because only criminals having guns doesn't mean only criminals will have guns. It means only criminals and cops will have guns. And the supply to criminals will be constrained. I do however question if this constraint would be effective.
Addressing your points on the data being wrong, Fox News and other right wing outlets cried foul at the 90% statistic, and (correctly) pointed out that it's not 90% of guns in Mexico that were traced to the U.S. It's *only* 90% of weapons that were sent b
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
I'm pretty sure that every American who supports the idea of an armed populace (with backing by the second amendment) is quite aware and honest with the reason for it. That said, it's quite valid that many people who want to own guns have no intention of using them on other humans, but rather for recreation.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Sweden have national service.
Perhaps this has a part to play in how Swede's handle guns, then again Walt Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald were both military men.
Your point demonstrates that the problem with the US is not the existence of guns but rather the attitude towards them. The Swede's I know love shooting but are reluctant to do it outside of approved area's (ranges, hunting grounds), Swedes (in my opinion) dont view guns as a possible solution to their problems so they go about fixing them in other ways. Americans I dont believe think like this, rather some of them view firearms as a solution to a perspective problem.
In Australia, it's not hard to get guns, in fact it's easier to get my firearms license then my drivers license (but then again, guns kill less than 10 people in my state, motor vehicle accidents kill almost 300 yearly) but still they are hardly ever used in a crime. Those predisposed to random acts of violence (read: gangs) tend not to have firearms as the licensing route is denied to them and not enough of a black market exists to allow cheap guns to enter the country (as the licensing route is hardly ever denied to people). Aside from the odd armed robbery, I dont need to worry about crim's with guns as the only ones with a few guns are the organised kind (read: bikies) and as long as I dont get involved in their business I have nothing to fear.
The point to this rant is that Americans need to change their attitude on guns or it's going to turn around to bite you. Owning guns can be very dangerous, you need a little bit of responsibility with it and if you cant be responsible you need your guns taken away. Licensing would be a huge step in the right direction because just like with motor vehicles it shows you know how to operate one safely and understand all the rules regarding their use.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Wow, it really wasn't! I was expecting some pages of legalese =).
If noone rtfa, then what's the slashdot effect?
No, your last line of defence against criminals is the police.
You've apparently never lived in a rural area where the nearest police officer might take an hour to get to you at top speed assuming you can contact him the second you need him and he leaves immediately.
Leaving rural areas aside, there are never enough police anywhere to do much about preventing a determined criminal. Their limited presence may prevent random, petty crimes, or larger crimes of opportunity, but the police are never actually a line of defense against crime. Their primary job, everywhere in the world is to respond after something has happened and, if necessary, investigate and apprehend people who engaged in criminal activity at some point.
Police are fundamentally reactive, not proactive.
That you seem to be preparing yourself to kill another human, even in self defence, probably indicates that your family might need protection from you, rather than you protecting them.
Nice ad hominem. I'll tell that to the man down the next ridge who would've been gunned down at his door two years ago had he not answered with a loaded firearm in his hand. That he was a deputy sheriff is irrelevant, since the job doesn't magically make one more responsible than ordinary mortals. There are some nasty, brutal people out there. Being prepared to take another's life in self-defense does not make one dangerous. Honestly, I'm glad that most people who espouse that sort of opinion are anti-gun. If you believe you are more dangerous for owning a firearm, then please never, ever purchase one. Such beliefs seem to have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.
Hi, this is bollocks.
The way to defeat this is simple, to make gun control restrictive enough that criminals cannot source guns legally and to make the laws lax enough that the demand for a black market in firearms is unprofitable and therefore beyond the budget of your average criminal.
This is exactly what happened in Australia, the Asian and Lebanese gangs have to fight with knives which cant do a great deal of crowd damage, in fact it's very hard to do permanent damage to your opponent even if you get the jump on him. So I dont worry about gangs.
We have the odd armed robbery but shootings, fatal or otherwise are such rare occurrences that if it happens to anyone, it's considered nationwide news. Now only organised criminals in AU have guns, these are predominantly our biker gangs or "bikies" who typically run drugs. The brilliant part is that if I have nothing to do with a bikie, I have no fear of being shot or threatened by one.
I'm really sorry you live in a place that requires you to carry a gun to feel safe, I feel perfectly safe anywhere in my nation armed with fist, foot and common sense.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The point wasn't to set up a straw-man argument, it was to point out that all the other illegal things are the result things that are created or imported. 16 year old girls are pre-existing things that are exploited.
In other words, you can ban all of them (regardless of if you should), except 16 year old girls which is an entirely different problem, so let's exclude it from the discussion.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Nowhere in the previous comment was a statement made concerning failure to understand RoF differences. He said he's unfamiliar with a specific term that is not encountered amongst educated firearms users (except, possibly, in discussions about people who are not educated regarding firearms).
There's no irony in supporting other people's right even when one ends up on the receiving ends. If you're not prepared to do that, say goodbye to your beloved internet and computer in a few years and hello to MallCenterNet and iCantdownloadanythingmymastersdontwantmeto.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
AFAIK, previous studies into this has been proved unreliable into establishing whether concealed carry laws are the causative factor in reducing violent crime. Violent crime has established causative and inverse correlative relationships with income, education and police presence. Changing economic outlook in the city, police presence and changing demographics should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions.
The increase in gun ownership in the general population also is not the same as having implemented concealed carry laws. Increasing gun ownership in the general population may make it easier for some to defend themselves (which may in turn have an effect of deterring crime), but it may overall have the effect of enabling more of those with the motive to harm to action it.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
With a fork I can do it any time I want. Hell, if I still a petroleum truck I can reak a s##tload of havok. And yet Those, that have decided to break the law (hold up a store or kill a person) won't hesitate to use illegal means of getting a gun. While law abiding citizens should have the right of owning and carrying firearms after receiving the required training.
Hey, I've got an idea! Let's ban all guns. Because it will be illegal to own them, all criminals will give them up, because, you know, it's illegal.
And then, you will not have to have a fear of being shot by anyone, right?
She was actually against gun control and for anyone being allowed to carry guns. I wonder if that will change now.
I wonder what the gun-nuts say who always claim that guns make you safer because the criminal will be gunned down by the honest citizen. Didn't happen in this case, did it?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
hmm .. Pretty sure half automatic and automatic weapons are banned (for civilians) in Switzerland.
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Let's take murder for example. Looking at it from a purely utilitarian point-of-view, guns enable those that have the motive (or placed in the right situation as the mens rea does not require a strict motive). Assuming those that are willing to commit murder as W, we can state that the total number of attempted murders at M = W*X, where X is the factor, between 0 and 1, expressing the rate at which willing to commit turns into an attempt.
Gun control mainly deals with the X factor, whereas demographics and economic outlook deals with the W factor. Actual homicide rates are a little more complex as they deal with the success of the attempt (which is further influenced by guns), but it is clear that homicide rates are in part influenced by how easy one is to attempt the homicide.
If you state that gun availability in the general population is not closely linked with the intention to commit homicide, then that's a separate discussion altogether (and gets into this "culture of crime" thing which I refuse to comment on).
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
None of the rights enumerated when the Constitution was written mention citizens at all. What is mentioned repeatedly is "the people." There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution to suggest it does not mean the same thing every place it occurs. The use of dependent clauses to preamble the specific delineation of powers, rights, and prohibitions occurs in many places because it is a perfectly natural way to write. Then, as now, those who understand the usage of dependent clauses and preambles know that they can be stripped from the text and the meaning is not fundamentally altered. Just because the original wording now means something else in the common vernacular does not remove the clear meaning of the independent clause when using the only definition that existed at the time it was written.
The Milita, as referenced in the Constitution, is clearly intended to mean the normal use of that word for the time period: every able-bodied citizen of one of the several States. In this case, that was white males, though now it includes women and non-whites. This is evidenced by the power granted to Congress earlier in the Constitution: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States[...]" Congress is authorized to govern the part of them that is actively called into service, but the Militia itself is a larger body that Congress has no authority over when not in direct service to the United States.
Additionally, the enumeration doesn't make sense if it is intended as a right to protect only those actively serving the United States as a member of some branch of the Armed Forces. The power to regulate firearms in regard to the Armed Forces is clearly within the purview of the powers granted Congress by the Constitution. If it means that, the amendment is grossly redundant. In addition, including it in a set of amendments designed specifically to alleviate fears about rights the Federal Government might take away from the States or the people should they not be explicitly protected would be incredibly illogical. If it means that, it is the ultimate non sequitur in the Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to protect the ownership of firearms that are designed primarily to kill people. If you want to ban firearms, repeal the amendment.
If the attacker turns out to be a tea party paranoid type, then I honestly believe people like Beck hold indirect responsibility for the attack.
You obviously haven't spent much time getting to know Beck.
By "leaders of our country," Beck means people like Rep. Giffords. But here you are, holding someone "indirectly responsible for the attack" on Giffords, who in fact implores people to pray for her safety. You're a real, uninformed, piece of work. When you've promoted nonviolence 1% as much as Glenn Beck has -- which you never will in your lifetime, "chebucto" -- come back here and take some more cheap shots at him.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Guns are not there to protect you against robbers.
Guns are not there for your personal amusement.
Guns are there to take down oppressive governments, actually what is interesting in this case is that the gun in question was used for its direct purpose as it is stated in the Constitution of US of A.
Well now, the question whether shooting this Congresswoman will do anything to take down any oppressive government can be legitimately raised. Personally I think it will only make the already oppressive government of US of A MORE oppressive as it didn't achieve any useful goal.
Now, if MANY people decided that they are fed up with the system and took their guns and went to the White House and Congress/Senate and escorted the government officials out of the premises (hopefully without too much shooting) then that would be the ULTIMATE GOOD USE of guns, as the Constitution clearly provides, because that would mean that people DID exercise their rights and judgment and decided that this government must be stopped.
I don't think Americans are there yet, and BTW, it looks to me like the US government is very good at destructing the people from what's really happening by starting the current class war - accuse all of the 'rich' people and banks etc. of the economic collapse, which is in reality clearly the doing of the government.
You can't handle the truth.
If they are hundreds of millions they do not need to be armed at all. What keeps North Korea there is not that the governement is better armed, it is because they avoid opposing people to meet and organize they stop ways of gathering consensus and to peacefully show the government crimes. This way the opposition to the governement will always be fragmented and powerless.
Yeah, semi-automatic handguns are totally useless. Except for, you know, self-defense.
The gun ownership statistics are relevant to the crime statistics only if the crimes are being committed by legitimate gun owners. And they are, by the vast majority, not. The areas with the highest gun crime are generally the areas with the lowest legitimate gun ownership. The exceptions are few (Miami, Florida being the most notable of those exceptions).
And no, much as popular media likes to depict it, the primary purpose of fully automatic weapons is not to fire into a crowd.
Here in scotland, gun deaths make national news and there are between 0 and 4 fatal shootings a year in a country with 6 million people. Every other week, I read about a school shooting on this site, followed by thousands of people spouting rubbish like you.
Just man up and admit that guns are cool and dangerous. I know
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Here in the UK me and my friends and the vast majority of the population don't own guns, and we get by quite nicely without them. Screwdrivers are useful for fixing bicycles and lights, Hammers are useful for fixing pictures to the wall. Spades are useful for digging the vegetable patch. Lots of tools are useful.
But semi-automatic handguns? No, never found myself walking along the street and thinking "dang! what I need to make my life easier would be a semi-automatic handgun!".
Self-defence? I get the feeling in the USA quite a few people don't feel safe unless they have a gun at home. Here very few people would consider getting a gun to protect themselves at home. Different culture I think. We just don't really have many guns here. Even the majority of our police don't carry them.
Is this also true of going out in the evening? do lots of people in the USA feel unsafe about going out to the movies with friends, or going shopping unless they carry a gun?
Personally, I don't have a strong enough opinion on gun control to say much. Automatic weapons should be very difficult to obtain, but hand guns and hunting rifles--I dunno. I've never lived in a place with lots of violent crime so I can't really speak to guns as protection, and I don't hunt; nor have I been even distantly related to gun-related violence. My comment wasn't meant to necessarily imply I think this incident means we need tougher gun control, just that I imagine most people would use this situation as an example that gun control isn't strict enough.
Italy has gun control. The latest shooting occurred this morning in Liguria, man shoots wife, then goes to the bar shoots two people then gets back home and now he'll talking with police. He either obtained a gun or at one point of his life he was deemed apt to keep one. Even if you restricted guns to the police, members of the police go nuts and shoot, it happened.
Gun control doesn't stop teen criminals who rob shops - one shot down in Naples a few days ago by a police officer after he started shooting in a shop).
Gun control CAN be effective if it balances the right to defend oneself with the right of society do defend itself from nutcases (but then, why do gratuitous violence pervades the media even here?).
But reality disagrees with your assertion.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
""Off with their heads! Off with their heads!"
sound like a reasonable UK response to you?"
Over here in the UK we go for ironic humour a lot more. I think you might have missed the inherent joke being made by the students at this point. The quote was from Alice in Wonderland. Students know their European history as well so were alluding to the French Revolution and the guillotine. But the idea that you'd seriously cut royalty's heads off to effect political change would be laughed at here. It was clearly a joke. Even republicans who want to get rid of the monarchy would be happy for them just to be pensioned off to a small house in the countryside, we don't tend to go for death sentences as a legal response here.
Curiously, its interesting to note the undoubtedly armed police officers in the following vehicles didn't feel the need to present their weapons, let alone fire them, in this situation. I guess this shows how little threat they felt the royalty to be in. I suppose in the USA they'd be considering the likelihood of the protestors being armed and would have been more ready to act more aggressively?
Alright, but laws against murder don't prevent shoplifting either--they don't even inconvenience shoplifters. I don't see the difference between this sentence (which pretty clearly has no content) and your post. You seem to be trying to imply something, but I can't figure out what.... Maybe that gun laws are useless? That seems pretty clearly wrong--and even if not, it doesn't follow from what you've written.
How do you educate people with serious mental or personality disorders?
It's accidental in exactly the same way that "accidental" shooting by the police in the US are.
Actually, you can't. That's illegal under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Illegal does not mean impossible. You'd be breaking the law by doing it, but there's no barrier actually stopping you at all.
I have to say, I'm imagining you playing an RTS or FPS while forming those opinions. You seem to value human life through the lens of the ability to respawn. Phrases like "own-side casualties" and "whacked a TeaPartista" make me think you see this as a game, with you in the role of strategic leader. Civil war (which is what you're advocating) is not a game, and when someone dies, they don't respawn. Without knowing more about you, I think "couch slug" is an appropriate handle.
Also, I do not wish you death even though I disagree with you, and if you wish me death for the same thing I strongly advise you to seek counseling. That level of hatred or disregard for human life is dangerous. It is also possible to have victory without defeat--when two sides work together for the same goal, neither has to be defeated.
I think the system is bigger than the government. A complete government change with honest people, which would be a succesful revolution, would have to exit the global financial system to be really independent and able to manage itself, so the system would react with sanctions, cold war, psychological war, possibly outright war.
I'm not saying resistence is futile, just don't mistake one step for the whole walk.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
For definitions of "left-wing liberal" equal to "anti-government, anti-immigrant nut". You do realize that both "left-wing" and "liberal" have a meaning other than just someone you dislike?
If they were armed they would have shot the person before he killed anyone so no one in the crowd exercised their right to carry a PDW, including the security people. Arizona laws allowing people to carry weapons did not achieve their objective but the solution is simple - make it mandatory for everyone in Arizona to carry firearms!
If I had mod points I would mod this as 'Funny'. Still, I really think you should clearly label this as sarcasm. Some poor soul might think you are serious.
Please repeating this myth. The ammunition for the guns is stored separately, typically at the town center.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I can build a gun with parts and tools I can buy at the flea market. You won't prevent guns, only reduce their numbers slightly (again, at this point, you will never root out all the guns in this country anyway!) But you CAN be armed so that when someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting, you can start shooting back.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sweden, non-violent? Their prime minister was shot and killed, and another leading politician stabbed to death on the streets. So much for strict gun control.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Another thought I've had, is that if this government that is supposed to be so small, and run by the people, gets to power crazy (which they seem to have been heading down that path for a while now), a gun might protect me from the police state thugs, and help those that are ready to over through the Police state.
It doesn't work that way. an armed populace resists government control but an armed person can be easily overwhelmed by a group of government thugs. So you do have to be willing to shoot back but you shouldn't have in your mind that you're going to walk out of the situation. You can only hope to take more than one of them and so leave the world a better place as you depart it.
That's patriotism, baby.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Guns on the other hand are not typically built in people's garages. They are mass produced in factories. In countries where they are illegal, their existance in the underground is largely made possible by border crossings where they are legal.
Drugs are made in people's garages because they are illegal in the next country too. If you made guns illegal everywhere you'd see a revival of gunsmithing. Drugs are easier to make than guns but guns work again and again. Today's black powder weapons are actually quite accurate so there is little need for modern cartridges except for sniping. The existing stock of hunting rifles, most of which are designed for accuracy over distance, can fulfill that need for the foreseeable future.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I agree that the gov't and the financial and other industries are ALL together on everything.
Of-course they are, that's what happened - Rockefeller and JP Morgan started the Federal bank in 1913 in order to create their monopolies and to rob everybody blind.
The gov't was usurped in 1913 when the Fed was created so that gov't could grow in unstoppable manner and also the IRS was created to collect income taxes, also to make gov't grow, but this one was done mainly to prevent competition from arising - if you have no savings are are living paycheck to paycheck, you cannot form competition to any large institution.
So the gov't has been corrupted and it needs a huge overhaul, all of the special interests must be kicked out and gov't must return to its direct obligations - protecting Freedoms of the people as well as providing a working Justice system.
People however, have been duped with all the bread and circuses and debt and will not rise.
You can't handle the truth.
The cops can get to my house in a couple minutes.
It only takes a fraction of a second to put a hole in you. Best-case the cops can get to my house in fifteen minutes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Per capita gun ownership is rising in the US (the number of guns is rising faster than the population) but gun violence is falling.
Don't believe me? Look at the statistics for England, who just a decade or so ago banned handguns and required registrations for other guns. The amount of criminals arrested with weapons has steadily declined. So again, when you outlaw guns, fewer criminals will have guns.
Logic fail. When you outlaw guns, fewer criminals will get caught with guns.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Stabbing someone in public? Not so easy. Not likely that you kill a bunch of extra people "just because". Nope. One target, and you'll probably fail.
Your argument can be boiled down to the idea that less people will be killed in public. I can get behind the idea of less innocent bystanders dying, I guess.
This is about the handgun being a device that is designed from the beginning to kill people, and nothing else.
Well, I agree that the 9mm handgun is pretty useless for hunting. As a backup for killing wild boar I'd want at least a 10mm.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, hot-heads are everywhere, this is why the leaders should be very careful with words and discourage this instincts. Instead it seems that Palin caters to the worst impulses and gives these guys the idea that she would applaud violence. I do not find a similar behavior in the democratic party, do you?
I am questioning the leaders' behavior. Inciting the mobs is not ethical. Maybe they are careful with rhetorics and could claim that they never said "she/he should be dead" directly, but this is the message they pass to the followers.
Semi-automatic weapons are not so exciting to shoot as you might think. Full auto might be real exciting, though. I get more of a kick (no pun intended but it reared its ugly head anyway) out of firing my bolt-action .30-06 than I do out of my semi-auto .22. The results are suitably more impressive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Glad you picked up on the intention mean pun.
BM3
So you prime minister was assassinated with a gun and another politician stabbed to death in the streets. Non violent multicultural Sweden is a myth.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Sure, I get that, and that's the POINT!
It only takes a fraction of a second to put a hole in you.
So which reaction is the safer bet of getting you safer faster?
Arming yourself and confronting the intruder and hoping you come out on top?
Or grabbing your cell (or not) and jumping out a window and fleeing to a neighbors, or somewhere else safer?
I know what I'm choosing.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
And she doesn't have the right to shoot me in the face when I stop to ask her for directions because I'm lost in a dodgy neighbourhood.
If she has a gun and thinks she needs it for self-defence then statistically it's more likely to be used on her than it is on anybody else, and she's also more likely to shoot someone that's innocent of action against her than shoot someone trying to assault her.
There are ways to defend yourself. Carrying a gun happens to be one of the more stupid ones.
Shit, if I wanted to attack a woman walking alone I'd start from behind her, I'd take her bag off her and I'd physically restrain her. That's just to stop her phoning for help, let alone any weapons she may be carrying. How exactly is a gun going to help?
Or is she wearing it in a garter holster? Except of course, a rapist's hands will be heading prety rapidly that way anyway..
Any further alarmist emo bullshit you'd like to throw at us?
For a couple thousand dollars one could purchase a lathe and drill press, and crank out plenty of handguns for next to nothing. .
I know someone who makes his own guns...old fashioned flintlocks, which he creates from little more than a piece of wood and a metal rod using hand-powered tools. It is not a trivial process, but a serious craft. It takes him weeks to make one, and he charges thousands of dollars for them. I have no idea how they perform, but I imagine they are still technologically dated and largely inaccurate.
I don't think anyone is going to start banging out handguns by the truckload without a significant education on the topic and heavy personal investment. Most criminals are far too lazy to make that sort of commitment for a deferred result. That's why they steal stuff. Someone willing to take the time to learn to use a drill press and other tools necessary for metal work would be more likely to get a job in a machine shop than start their own arms factory.
A stabbing does not say anything bad about the countries gun control, at least...
:|
And their prime minister was shot in 1986.
Oh, I just fed the troll, didn't I?
It's an abbreviation for law enforcement officer.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I'd be worried my neighbors were the ones invading my house.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's the wrong logic. If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes. With a gun you can do it any time you want, and that increases the temptation.
Tell that to the dozens of people that die by stabbing in England each year.
Unbanning guns of course wouldn't be better, but still...
how long until
Indeed.
And can I just say, from a non-American's perspective, you guys take your politics WAY too seriously. I mean, in my country (Australia), people discuss politics in a serious fashion ... but at the end of the day most people don't hold political views personally against others. People at work might give each other a bit of a friendly ribbing about voting for 'the other guy', but that's about it.
Whereas in the US it seems if you are of a different political persuasion, well, you can't even be friends with each other. So much hatred seems to spew forth from Americans' mouths directed mostly at other Americans. It's bizarre. Assassinations have occurred comparatively often in the US (even of Presidents!). But if you look at other western countries, most have zero assassinations in their entire history.
I mean, I could understand the vitriol and violence if politics was going to determine whether or not you starved, or your kids would be enslaved or something if Party X got into power. But America is a first world country and life there is still better than most of the rest of the world. Politics might affect your wallet a bit but geez, talk about blowing things out of proportion...
You seem to have selective memory -- there have been quite a few examples of Israeli military personnel (usually religious zealots) going batshit insane and murdering and assassinating people, including fellow Jews not to mention numerous Arabs. Yitzhak Rabin ring a bell?
Other murder rates (baseball bat, pipe, poison) are comparable.
So guns are the problem.
Also gun ownership rates are per capita, you moron.
As you alluded to, all those methods require more effort, more time and in most cases, physical contact with the victim. A gun on the other hand can be fired, from a distance, with minimal effort, at a moment's whim. Even if you regret the action 1 second later ... it is too late. Whereas if you are beating them to death, your actions can be reconsidered (or stopped by others) before it's too late (unless you managed to kill your target with the first blow, which is not particularly likely ... not to mention the fact that you'd have to actually get in contact with them first, which would be difficult for a guarded target like a politician).
Having said that I don't disagree with you - gun control isn't the whole story here (or, I suspect, even a large part of the story). As you say, other countries with high gun ownership rates have far less crime. The cultural and societal problems in America need to be addressed for gun control to have any effect.
And frankly, there are too many guns in America to ever have any hope of recovering them all, even if draconian laws were introduced - the cat is out of the bag so to speak. Strict gun control works well in countries that never HAD much of a gun culture in the first place ... the number of weapons that require recovering is much smaller. But in America? No chance. Gun control laws would pretty much result in only criminals having them. So even though I strongly support guns being banned in my home country (where it has worked very well - I have never even ~seen~ a firearm other than on a cop's belt), it wouldn't work in America. It'd simply be impossible to recover them all (or even a substantial portion of them). Better off keeping the balance of power between criminals and the rest of us, by allowing both 'sides' to be armed.
Well if you look at countries that have 'banned guns', you will generally find they have banned ~handguns~, not all weapons.
Specifically, in countries like Australia, hunting firearms are still perfectly available if you have a legitimate need for them. People hunt. And farmers need a gun as a tool of their profession (shooting pests on their property, protecting livestock, etc). What is 'banned', are guns that primarily designed to shoot people (i.e. handguns). They are useless for hunting or farming purposes due to their lesser range and power (as you mention), and are also concealable. A hunter or farmer doesn't require a small, concealed weapon, so they can continue to own a rifle or shotgun etc. as required...
Excellent point. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm very glad you brought it up!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The view that the second amendment is there to protect the people from the threat of government oppression is a popular one. It is not spelled out in the constitution if it is the case. I am not saying it is wrong, because I don't know the founder's intent. All I can know is the text itself.
Let's assume that you are right though. If that's the case, making political assassination illegal would be unconstitutional.
It also puts the power out of the voting public and into the armed minority. If a well organized and armed group of people decided to stage an attack on the capital, they can? Their reasons don't have to be good or anything, it's just might makes right?
Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilks Booth, and John Hinckley, Jr. were simply executing their constitutional rights?
With all the trouble that the second amendment causes, I do not understand why it would be a big deal to strike it from the constitution and replace it with an amendment that is clear, and reflects the will of the American people today. Regardless of what that will is. Then "what the founders intended" ceases to matter, because it will be spelled out.
There is a provision in the constitution for amendments to be passed. The reasons for this are clear, and undisputed. I don't know why there is zero will to ever change the document.
That said, and also assuming you're right, it's an out-dated concept. Letting people keep muskets to defend from a military that's largely armed with similar weapons (and some artillery as well, but mostly muskets) could work. Today our military has body armor, Abrams tanks, attack helicopters, and warplanes. the second amendment would not allow you to protect yourself from this in the first place.
A quote from Barney Frank comes to mind. He was talking about giving government regulators discretion on health care reform and what guarantees there would be that they would make good decisions. But it applies to any government power at all:
"'What's the guarantee that this discretion bodes well?' And the answer is: In democracies, there are no guarantees. Elect good people."
We live in times where this is more true than ever. We're not about to, as a society allow private ownership of B-2s and Abrams tanks. Nobody wants to see that. To say nothing of the cost prohibitions of doing so.
But without that level of "right to keep and bear arms", we put absolute trust in our government to operate in a just manner. We rely on government's internal checks and balances. Our military does not swear fealty to The President or to Congress. Their oath swears to "protect and defend The constitution against all enemies". The three branches are set in a work together / work against each other checks and balances scenario. The Republic, and the Democracy are our defense. If you're relying on your rifle to defend against the U.S. Army, you're laughably foolish.
Again, was this the founder's intent? I don't know. It could be. But if it is, it's a meaningless academic distinction now.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
See, if there was a law banning guns it wouldn't just say "Can't have guns. Period.".
Instead, it would describe in detail what KIND of guns, NUMBER of guns, right down to type and number of rounds of ammo you may have in your possession legally.
Then, as I imagine that this would be a brand new law and as such a part of a heavily promoted campaign - there would be collection locations where you could bring in your illegal guns and ammo for collection and later destruction, with full amnesty for possessing now illegal guns and ammo.
There would be a certain set date after which you would no longer be able to do that freely - there would be at least some kind of a fine for not doing that earlier.
But that would depend on the actual law.
Naturally, if it turns out your gun was used to commit a crime, you WOULD be questioned and possibly charged for that offense(s).
Then, after that date passes - police would get their lists of known owners of guns and start going door to door.
Don't worry, they would all have warrants to search your house, car, boat, log cabin etc. - as there is a strong probability that where there is one gun, there are also more guns.
Naturally, that would all go in as civilized way as possible - until some "from my cold dead hands" nut opens fire on police.
From then on, each search would probably be done with expectation of turning into a siege.
Also, you can forget about a fine at this point. Every single illegal piece of ammo would warrant the maximum penalty as described by law - if you decide to "duke it out" with the police.
After a while, the campaign would end, the lists of known and suspected gun owners would be all checked, and from that point on it would be just like it is today regarding illegal drugs.
With the difference that it would be far easier to purchase and posses illegal drugs than illegal guns and ammo - as drugs don't make a loud sound when used, they generally take up lot less space so they are easier to conceal AND it may prove difficult to flush an AK down the drain should someone knock on your door late at night.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Well, obviously you're trolling, but a few points. One, the 2nd Amendment was intended as a guard against reprisals from England and other such foreign threats. Jefferson's quips aside, America has never tolerated the idea of armed rebellion. Washington himself put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and the South did all the right things in trying to seceed; wrote up a constitution, all that stuff.
Besides, now that Republicans control Congress, how is gunning down a Democrate congresswoman 'ridding themselves of a tyrannical government?'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Switzerland has a 46% gun ownership rate, ranking in third of the listed 34 (3/34). That's because every male (and female) can chose to enter milita service (it was "mandatory" for males until a few years ago, and now less people enter the military every year) and gets a rifle.
However, a gun isn't any good without ammo, and that is stored in "weaponaries". It's harder to obtain ammo than a rifle, whereas in the USA this goes hand in hand. Thus, reducing the ability of the gun owners to actually fire the weapons certainly plays a role in the statistics.
Then again, gun ownership does correlate with gun crime.
While Switzerland has a good reputation for being "civilised" and relatively crime free, the relative gun crime rate is quite high.
What else to expect when so many guns are in circulation?
Anyway, the country is in the middle of a "gun ban" national vote.
Heh, for me 1986 is not ancient history, I remember it very well, Chernobyl power plant also exploded that year. The prime minister is shot, so Swedes tighten their gun laws, next thing their foreign minister is stabbed. Does it prove gun control effectiveness in combating crime?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I don't have hard evidence to support the idea that underground gunsmithing couldn't crop up here (mostly because of the difficulty in proving a negative). But the lack of a similar underground in any country with strict gun control laws makes me think we would not see widespread gunsmithing here if a ban ever happened. Some quick Googling finds no evidence of underground gunsmithing in the U.K., Australia, Japan, China, or anywhere really except for the Philippines where, oddly guns are legal. Clearly this is not absolute evidence, but if it were wide spread, I'd think there would be some evidence.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Touché.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
I think you missed the post where I said that I was blatantly being sarcastic.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
False sense of security? That's funny. There is no security when you feel you have to use guns.
Sure, the military is powerful. But in most cases military or at least part of it takes sides when revolutions happen.
But to say that Constitution is absurd clearly shows what the problem with the society is today.
If the Constitution is absurd, then stop pretending you are living in a Constitutional state.
You can't handle the truth.
Which is EXACTLY what was said when she first posted it.
So it's okay to encourage shooting specific people BEFORE one of them is shot ... but it's in bad taste to remind everyone that you encouraged shooting specific people AFTER one of them is shot?
And what was the "change in context"? Crosshairs and a list of names.
If those could imply something bad AFTER the shooting then how could they not have implied that BEFORE the shooting?
But feel free to ignore that as you've ignored it all the other times its been posted.
Then you are going to have to link to a post of mine where I posted that she was. Otherwise you're lying. But that's what I'm demonstrating with this thread.
I would suggest you not use words that you do not understand. She did not pull the trigger. And you should not try to imply that I said she did. But, again, that's what this thread is about. I'm demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.
So I'm the only person in the world who thought that the solution to oppresive governments under the US constitution would be:
1. Tell others about their action.
2. Vote against them.
3. Jury nullification of their laws.
4. Armed revolution.
It got to step 3 under prohibition after all, and that worked well enough.
Fine, I don't mind being ignorant of a foreign saying.
The "jury box" still makes no sense since if the you win the other side can and will (we are talking the government, right) just appeal (you aren't the government trying to convict someone of a crime) and now the decision is in the hands of the people the next step it to shoot.
Did you read the article you posted to? It points out that the numbers are wrong and wrongly used and then points out why the comparison to the US wouldn't make sense anyway.
I could see linking to the email as support of the idea of gun control. I could see to linking to a rebuttal of the email as support of gun ownership. I fail to understand the point of linking to an email analysis where it is pointed out as having no reliability.
I've read quite a few good articles on both sides of the argument over gun control vs. ownership rights. Try these instead:
If you really wanted a link using the numbers snopes points out as unreliable, you should have used: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
Personally, my opinion is that freedom is more important than safety. Whatever the statistics, whatever the arguments are about crime rates, murder and preventative defense, I believe that an individual has a right to any reasonable self defense they choose. Freedom absolutely does cost lives, but I believe that even as tragic as they can be, preventing them by restricting legitimate freedoms is worse.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
1)Where do Mexicans get their guns from? 2)What causes the (gun) violence?
1)The USA. 2)Illegal drug exports to USA.
I am neutral regarding gun control, but I do like truth. And I'm not too fond of murder.
...buy a full automatic gun without having to show any kind of ID...
Are you really that ignorant? Because that's very, very far from the truth.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
You don't?
There's obviously no point in arguing with you. You're not going to let facts get in the way of outlandish hyperbole.
Segedunum is a troll, pure and simple, and not a particularly good one. I've stopped responding to him: he has no room for any views but his own.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
American psyche.
I'm so sick of you, so sick of me....love the new cake song...makes me reminded of all you European snobs and Middle Eastern folk blaming us for all your problems. The USA Is huge...many many many areas are very very safe. Hate to break that to you.
Segedunum is a troll, and an ignorant one at that. Don't waste your time, there are a number of more rational, interesting people in this thread.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I wasn't aware that Robin Hood carried a gun. Oh, and I wasn't aware that people in countries with stricter gun controls walked around with bows and arrows because they are the next best thing to guns.
Dude, I made my point and left it at that. Why don't you troll somewhere else, and let other people express their opinions (whether you agree with them or not) without interrupting? Learning a little civility wouldn't hurt you either, especially if you'd like others to take you more seriously.
This is not as simple an issue as you would like to make it out to be, and the fact that you cannot recognize that fact makes your conclusions suspect.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people"
Yeah, but the gun helped.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Yes, you can throw a knife but you aren't going to hit much.
That depends largely on the thrower. If, for example, I were to throw a knife at you, your career as a Slashdot troll would be over.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Are you kidding? AHHHHH no, american..... sorry.
Oooh, nasty.
It's just not worth it for most criminals here.
And that applies to my country ... how? I truly wish the rest of you from other countries would stop generalizing from your own experience (it's especially irritating because you get sooooo torqued off if we do the same thing to you. Hypocrites.) It's a big world out there, and the dynamics of what works in one part of it do not necessarily apply in an another. So take your in-built sense of superiority and stuff it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Murder is banned and that didn't help prevent it. So why would doing the same thing to guns have a different outcome? If something is outlawed criminals will continue to do it (public and private.)
Only 1?
While the European colonists might have viewed the native population as a homogeneous ethnic group, that population viewed itself as a patchwork of competing and often warring groups. Further, the notion that the European Americans didn't recognize those differences is given the lie by their apparent, well-documented willingness to deal individually with these groups along acknowledged political, linguistic, cultural and geographic lines.
If we accept that the standard for being a discrete ethnic group is the same for all such groups regardless of continent, then the US has participated in hundreds, if not thousands, of genocides spanning a region comparable in size and ethnic diversity to the entirety of Europe.
Now THAT'S what I call "American Exceptionalism". /sarcasm
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
We have Neo-Nazis gunning down members of congress, mainstream political candidates superimposing crosshairs onto the districts (and occasionally likenesses...) of political opponents, and small armies of people toting effigies of the president and making overt threats to take up arms against the legitimate government if it doesn't make relatively minor policy changes... often without any clear or rational statement of precisely what changes they want.
Holy fuck, what are you talking about?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Discussion of demographics and violence in the US is almost taboo, due to the controversial reflections on the race and culture of a disproportionate number of the perps.
Other interesting outcomes, like "floods in New Orleans" vs "floods in the Midwest", are instructive.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
OK, then please post one statistic: how many successful self-defense occurrences (i.e. criminal stopped and no victims seriously injured) versus how many accidental shootings (i.e. gun owner injures himself or a bystander, or a third party finds the hidden weapon and injures or kills an innocent person) there have been in the past X years?
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Again, don't use words you don't understand. It isn't "libel" and you're a liar for saying that it is.
If Sarah didn't think there was anything wrong with it then she wouldn't have taken it down. It's as simple as that.
Don't use synonyms. That's an equivocation fallacy.
You might also want to brush up on your understanding of pronouns.
Did I say you said that? No. So your "red herring" is a strawman. And a pretty pathetic one at that.
What I said was that you were trying to imply that I had said that. Here's your direct quote:
Like I said, don't use words that you don't understand. I never posted that she actualized the shooting. That is you lying and claiming that I said that.
Then you're going to have to link to one of my posts where I said that because I haven't posted that. You're lying, again.
And yet she's pulled that poster after the shooting.
Thanks. It's always good to have a nutjob reveal himself in a thread.
Giffords supported gun ownership and owned a gun herself.
"I've yet to see someone drop a cement mixer truck at a political rally."
Fill it with ANFO like the rental truck used in the Oklahoma City bombing, and it could ERASE the whole rally.
The diesel smell would be unremarkable, and the cement mixer would even take care of the blending.
Truck bombs are quite common elsewhere, easy to build, require no secret or even "hard to get" information to produce (it can be derived from innocent sources with no effort), and really the only reason they aren't common in the US is Americans are content with their lot.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I agree with what you say. Though I'd add that on a few occasions I've been tempted to use firearms for self-defense, fortunately sanity prevailed. Anger, jealousy and fear cause people to do stupid things - if they feel compelled to do stupid things when in control of a bicycle they are less likely to act out their violence, and less likely to do harm - then if the same thing happens while they control a car.
This is one reason I don't carry. I'm a great marksman. But going to the range and being a great marksman teaches one nothing about how to handle a situation requiring a weapon. Most of the people I know who carry go to the range regularly, but the fact they carry scares me because it creates an air of cockiness and bravado around them that ultimately will get them in a situation where they'll need to pull their weapon. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you have a weapon, you have to make a decision when to cross that line. If an assailant sees you have a weapon, it's an immediate game changer and you may be forced to take an action that otherwise wouldn't have been necessary. Too often I think people who carry concealed weapons think the end goal is punishment of a criminal and protection of property. The focus should really be on one's survival. I think for many people having a weapon readily available actually decreases their chance of survival as they make unwise decisions and rather than walking away from a situation, they escalate it.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Except that doesn't work, because nobody carries a loaded, ready weapon with them at all times, and even if they did an attacker will generally have theirs aimed and unsafe before you could even draw. Unless you walk around with a pistol in hand at all times, in which case you're a nutjob.
If having a gun makes you feel safer, then fine, knock yourself out, but thinking about it for a few moments in rational, realistic terms will generally drive home that there is absolutely no reason to conclude it really does. Fraction of a percent fantasy-land movie scenarios just don't count for much.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
It's the first EFFICIENT killing weapon...
Not even that. Firearms are just one in a long line of very efficient killing machines that the human race has proven very efficient at devising.
... if people want it, and are willing to pay enough for it, someone will take the risk of providing it. Like it or not, millions of us want firearms, for a variety of reasons, most of which are perfectly legitimate and have absolutely nothing to do with committing murder or any other crime.
... and that's just wrong. No different, in that sense, than the RIAA considering everyone with an iPod to be a "pirate."
... or guns. As a responsible adult and a U.S. citizen, I will say this: if government wants to tell me that I cannot own something, they had better have a very, very good reason for that. So far, I've not heard a single good reason as to why firearms should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens.
... but I reserve the (Constitutionally-protected) right to do so if I deem it necessary.
Besides, what ignorant types like the GP, and those like him, are forgetting is one simple fact: where there's a demand, there will be a supply. Doesn't matter what it is: booze, drugs, medicine, guns
Consequently, there is not, and can never be, any such thing as a gun ban: all you can do is raise the bar on the difficulty of acquiring one. A bar that, I might add, criminals have no problem hurdling at will. So the idea that we will become safer, as a society, because the criminals will be disarmed is a lie.
However, by our various governments, with the willing complicity of the gun-control crowd, society itself is being slowly and inexorably disarmed. Not just the criminal element, but the ordinary people of this country. I think that some of you might want to ask yourself why that is (and please don't tell me "it's for our own good", there's too much paternalism already in this country.) The problem with gun control is that it considers the law abiding majority to be no different than that comparatively tiny criminal sector
Face facts here, people (and yes, Segedunum, I'm talking about you.) Banning guns is a shortsighted effort by lawmakers who have no other means at their disposal to deal with a manufactured "problem." The anti-firearm movement ultimately devolves from people who live in fear of a machine, a tool, an artifact, and being incapable of handling that fear, expect their leaders to deal with it in their stead. That means forcing the consequences of their emotional disturbance upon the rest of us. I, for one, resent that, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking alcohol, cigarettes, drugs
Besides, bans are rarely as successful as people think they will be. Prohibition should have taught us that, and the current War on Drugs is repeating that lesson.
Just for the record, I don't currently own a gun
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Nowhere in the previous comment was a statement made concerning failure to understand RoF differences."
But that's what the OP was about which got replied to with "hurp durp what is spray firing" etc. was about. So yeah, your statement is *technically* correct but, but another level it's just as much as waste of time.
Nonsense. Ammo is freely available, and the Swiss regularly OPENLY carry their issued firearms to practice ranges.
In addition, they are each issued a pack of "emergency ammunition" to be kept in the home. They can also buy ammunition at the ranges tax-free for practicing. Technically it's supposed to be all used up at the range, but there's nobody keeping count to enforce that.
Now stop being an idiot.
Because his identity is already known, and he is not. I guess somebody could suggest it, but they would simply, flat-out entirely incorrect. Oh, hi there...
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
And early cyber-stalking reports indicate that his favorite author is Adolf Hitler, and that he has devoted significant time and effort to rambling incoherently about the Constitution and how socialists are destroying it.
So yeah, that pretty much puts him in the category of "people who are likely in the Tea Party movement".
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Very interesting. Neither I myself or anyone I know has ever had any use for a gun to defend ourselves. But then I live in Sweden where the cult of the gun never really has taken off.
Where do you get your information about the United States from? Incredible. "Cult of the gun." Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
Aye. There's the rub. And this has yet to be shown to be the case.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
That's a good mix of hard right and hard left. I'd say they're just pure anarchist with a mix of pure crazy.
You know, I see a lot of this language. "We can't put him in a box, he's obviously crazy."
I have a wide mix of left and right beliefs. I think that gun control means being able to hit your target, that abortions before a certain time should be legal, that immigrants who entered the country illegally need to leave and come back in legally if at all, and that any two people should be able to marry each other if they want to (and, c'mon, valuing your currency against a precious metal isn't exactly a crazy idea). Like "the crazy" in this story, I also live in AZ and own guns. So, am I crazy? Am I some "weird" outsider suitable for ignoring because my political views happen to come from both columns? Are you only a valid citizen if you can put either a D or R next to your name? Your comment stands at +5 insightful, so several people must agree with you, what's the deal?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yeah, the "organized militia" rationale expired long ago, but I think that by "home invasion" ScrewMaster was refering to garden-variety criminals invading one's home rather than organized armed forces.
You are correct, sir.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Its insane just to think that you actually need a weapon at home.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion. Pray it never happens to you, because if it does, you'll wish you had a trigger to pull.
Because killing someone in order to protect your stuff from being stole is perfectly reasonable?
If an armed intruder wants to take my big screen TV, he can have it. I have insurance for that. On the other hand, if he wants to rape my wife and daughter, I'm going to blow him away.
See the difference?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
As cliche as it sounds: Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and sometimes they use guns to do it.
As cliche as it sounds (and at the risk of using up some of my karma) just Shut The Fuck Up already. Some lunatic manages to bypass all the completely worthless controls on who can get a gun and goes out and starts shooting people, and you resort to tired clichés about how it's really the fault of the people. And you know what? I agree with you already. Now lets make sure people can't get their hands on fucking guns anymore.
Fucking wankers.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
I noticed a pattern forming regarding the reporting of this story. One I've seen before. The young man who did this had, as stated by the sheriff on the scene yesterday, sang like a bird regarding his political views. As of late yesterday the media began to report that there were no statements by the shooter. Suddenly, we don't get to know his views and thus why he had committed wanton mass murder. Today, his online ramblings have been removed.
It is within the corporatist interest to censor violence that may have a causal connection to the rhetoric the corporations put out, namely the demonizing of anything 'Liberal'. After all, does anyone know what Timothy McVeigh thought when he blew innocent people in Oklahoma to bits? No, because the media didn't print that. They didn't even interview him or print any statements he made. The story always comes down to the same, lame, narrative... he was a quiet seemly normal guy. Like the guy who opened fire in Penn. on three police officers because Glenn Beck was telling him, at the time, Obama was going to take his guns away. The guy who shot a doctor on the steps of the doctors church because Bill O'Reilly called that doctor a murderer over and over for weeks. There are many other cases but the corporations don't report why these people do these things. We are left to mourn and to guess and wonder as too why.
As the Sheriff in Arizona wisely said about what inspired the young shooter; 'it might be free speech but there are consequences.'
If there were no weapons at home would cops need guns?
Wrong question. If there were no weapons at home ... can we trust the cops, and the leaders who control them?
And yes, cops will always needs guns because a good part of their job is crowd control, and some people only respect force, or the threat of it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well you're not discussing anything anyway, that's for sure. But since you're unable to click the "parent" button here you go:
Well, guns in Sweden are mostly hunting weapons. We don't have concealed semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons generally have only one intended use, and that is to kill people
That's bullshit. The "line" may be blurry, but the extremes aren't. Sure, you can use any assault weapon to hunt, and any hunting rifle to snipe people, but you can't fire a gazillion rounds in 3 seconds with a hunting rifle. That may not make it "a hunting rifle", because the experts haven't agreed on a definition, but it makes it "not an assault rifle", period.
Also, anyone with half a brain, familiar with weapons or not, can easily understand what they were getting at without that knowledge. As in "this is so fucking easy to understand unless you're really trying not to, people who don't aren't really accepted by anyone who does."
You never heard of "spray firing"? What about Spray and pray? Gimme a break. Which is basically the gist of my post and all I have to say: YEAH FUCKING RIGHT.
I know a thing or two about computers. Now, if anytime someone not as knowledgable as me says something about them, should I refuse to try to understand what they mean, as long as what they say is not 100% correct? Yeah right.
If you wanna act all professional let's go all the way... Did you know that for anyone familiar with reality no distinction is actually valid and everything is one? You're giving perceptions names and then think they exist, and then debate about fine distinctions within that soup of error haha? Just saying.
LOL you're a funny guy, you know that? It's almost like you're trying to be a real life Dr. Bones, but failing miserably.
Gun bans should be entirely off the table at the moment. The Constitution of the United States explicitly prevents the federal government from banning guns, and for very good reason: so guns can be used to protect the citizens against an aggressive government. If you want to ban guns, what you should be talking about is an amendment to the Constitution to grant the federal government that power.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
Do you have so little faith in the human race that you believe someone will come along into your house and decide it's a grand idea to kill you all?
Yes. The only question is what are the probabilities of that happening, because there are certainly people that are both willing and able to do just that. Where I live the chances are very low, which is why I don't own a gun. If, at any point, I decide that I need to shift the odds in my favor I can and will obtain one.
Ask yourself this: if you find an armed intruder in your home, are you going to assume that:
a. he just wants some milk and cookies.
b. doesn't want to miss the game on TV.
c. is intending to do harm to you and yours.
If the answer is anything but "c", you are dangerously naive, and your family would be ill-advised to depend upon you in a crisis.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Guns on the other hand are not typically built in people's garages."
That doesn't mean that is difficult to do, and folks like the Afghans do it all the time, minus modern facilities.
A basic lathe and common hand tools along with common steel stock can be used to make simple submachine guns like the Sten which fire from an open bolt.
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=422-Blueprints-for-The-STEN-MKII-(complete-machine-plans)
Fabbing bombs such as EFPs is even easier, and one needn't stick around to use them. All that's needed is a container, explosives, and a detonator.
If you want the classic anti-vehicle sort, a stick of 6" Schedule 40 pipe, a 4'x8' sheet of 1/4" plate for end caps and projectile discs, explosive, and detonators wouldn't set you back much money or effort. (No, I haven't made any, but if it's obvious to one mechanic it's damn well obvious to hundreds of thousands since it's so very basic.)
"Why should it be okay to kill them if you catch them in the act?"
To ensure they don't attack you as a target of opportunity. How dare you value those people? How dare you value a burglar more than his victim?
Do you hate good citizens?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Frankly, if I had to choose a weapon for home defense, a handgun would not be my first choice.
Yes. A shotgun that has sufficient stopping power, but won't penetrate drywall would be a good choice, I think.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It's also insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a gun accident at home. Pray it never happens to you - because if it does, you'll wish you never had a trigger to pull.
Cute. But you know what? You could say the same thing about your power saw, or that nail gun. Learn to use the tools safely and you'll do okay. The fact that some people don't isn't the tool's fault, and pretending that it is is disingenuous at best.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And these citizens are not military reservists? Are you saying that pretty much no Israeli is a military reservist? Talk about omissions... on you part.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I'm astonished that line of drivel got modded interesting. You clearly know nothing of America beyond what your local news channels tell you (to be fair, Americans generally know nothing of other countries beyond what their local new channels tell them). America does not have some "model citizen" that is representative of the population as a whole. In general, we are quite fragmented. We have many, many citizens that hate guns and want to see them banned at the first opportunity. The reason they aren't is because of the Constitution of the United States which explicitly prevents that. These are also the same people that are willing to shut down an airport because a child got through security without the body scan or fondling. The Americans that are against gun bans are also against the invasion of our privacy by the government. In fact, that is why they fight so viciously to keep guns: so they can be turned against those government officials who want to invade our privacy and restrict our rights. That is why the Constitution explicitly prevents the government from banning guns.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
Ahh yes, because it's so easy to obtain fully-automatic weapons and grenade launchers here. That reminds me that I need to chug right on down to Wal-Mart this afternoon and restock my own arsenal.
Nope. YOU can shut the fuck up.
I guess you're in favor of a whole slew of kneejerk legislation and regulations because of A SINGLE ISOLATED INCIDENT.
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
This country is jacked up enough as it is with all of the knee-jerk regulations that do nothing to solve any real problems. Look at all of the post 9/11 shit. Look at all of the moral panic laws that were passed in the 1800s and early 1900s that seem pretty fucking ridiculous today, but still exist.
Thanks, but no thanks.
And your "southern neighbours" get their "highly illegal" guns where?
Yeah, because the cartels clearly got the .50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, RPGs, anti-tank rockets, and thousands upon thousands of grenades from the US civilian gun market--where those devices don't exist. Enlighten us, will you please? Where did those weapons come from?
So, they've smuggled over a few semi-automatic AR-15s / AK clones. A few rifles, compared to the above weaponry which has been captured from the cartels, are hardly interesting.
Maybe they aught to secure their borders, and stomp out the fuel for their cartel problem??? I for one wish we had the good sense to help with that particular issue.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
...and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes.
First, provide a citation that proves countries without adequate gun controls have citizens that think killing people is more acceptable. Second, you claim that guns are basically the sole enablers of crime and then you point out the fact that knife crime exists anyway, so your arguments don't even have an internal consistency.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
The explosives bit is true, interesting, and complethy besides the point of the discussion. Criminals are not using (nor likely to start) explosives. Those are tools of war, not crime. Some bizarre outlier cases not withstanding.
How dare I value these people? Excuse me for not wanting to see someone die for a crime that in some cases is a misdemeanor.
I don't value the burglar more than the victim. I simply don't think one has the right to take another life over personal property. Regardless of who's in the right.
I don't hate good citizens. I simply think "bad citizens" (to extend the idea you posited) don't deserve to forfeit their very lives because they were stupid and / or desperate enough to do something like try to take your TV.
Again, if the damn courts can't impose a penalty for something, you should have no right to do so on the spot.
As far as ensuring that they don't attack you as a target of opportunity, I've already addressed numerous times that you're far better off retreating regardless of your access to weapons than taking your chances in confrontation. If the intruder is unarmed, they pose little threat. If they are armed, you've just put yourself into a firefight. No guarantee you'll be the one to walk out of that one. Where is the rational reason for wanting to confront someone under these circumstances?
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Maybe her polls indicated that "the healthcare bill" polled poorly, but that everything actually contained in the bill did not. There is a stunning level of misconception out there on this issue, leading to overwhelming opposition to legislation that mostly, albeit with some flaws, does what people want.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
“Ought”. “Aught” is a negation meaning “none, no one”, fallen into partial disuse.
Which makes your post more of a double entendre than you meant...
Read further along (different post in this thread, I think). I am talking about doing exactly that.
The way I see it, the second amendment is ambiguous and troublesome. Regardless if you want to ban guns or keep it, I think the amendment should be repealed and replaced with a more explicit one. If for no other reason than for clarity.
Do we want citizens to be able to bear any arms? (Clearly not, Abrams Tanks should be regulated, but this isn't in the constitution).
Is the purpose of letting citizens bear arms self defense? Defense against government? Simply on the principal that denying the right to arm ones self would encroach on freedoms unnecessarily? What's with the "well regulated militia" bit? These have become important questions that are not addressed.
Again, I lean toward the guns do more harm than good side. That said, I'm not explicitly taking sides in ban vs. allowing guns. I'm simply saying that the second amendment is unnecessarily contentious, we have a constitutional process to fix it.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
I'm in favor of not letting mentally unstable people have guns. Clearly, the current controls aren't working, and yet people like you march on oblivious to the cost of easy access to guns.
Either prove that the legal controls can work (which you clearly cannot, since they aren't) or shut the fuck up. Callous use of clichés while people are dying will make more people turn against your "cause".
Idiot.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Wait, I thoguht guns were supposed to stop burglaries?
I am one of her constituents.
I voted for her because her opposition was even whackier.
I ALSO voted for the proposition to exclude Arizona from the very same healthcare bill. A majority of Arizona voters agreed with me, and we are now excluded.
Gabby Giffords doesn't represent me, her district, or our best interests. We showed THAT through referendum.
I sure don't know everything about everything, but I *read* that bill before I voted for the Proposition to exclude Arizona. She admitted she did not.
It's not a republic. It's not a representative democracy. It's Demagoguery Gone Wild.
E
Ever thought that a high-crime society has a greater need to ban guns than a peaceful country where people use them for hunting and sport? Gun ownership might work in Canada or Finland, but is totally inappropriate for violent, crime-ridden places like the UK and USA.
As long as cops are not accountable for their actions and prosecutors have immunity we need guns. It is the only way to balance things out. Hitler and Stalin fist required a gun registry then they used the registry to confiscate the guns then well you know the rest. One group can not have all the power or they will use that power against those that disagree with them.
Please note that I do not own any guns as I live in town and have no need for a gun (I have an air gun and a couple of bows ) and have children to young to be taught anything about gun safety. They will be getting their licence to buy guns as soon as they are old enough however if we still live in town there will be no guns in my house. If I want to shoot some targets I go to my dads in the country were it is reasonable to have guns.
The whole problem is the pro-gun/anti-gun crowd are all a bunch of nut cases that have no brains just big mouths.
The sentence for carrying such a weapon is massive - 10 years. The guns are confiscated, and are not produced in the country. Imports are all carefully screened and any weapons that are found are confiscated and destroyed. Anyone found selling these weapons are jailed for very long times. That means the number of these guns in circulation is constantly decreasing, and the likelihood of them being carried by someone wanting to commit a crime is very very low indeed, as they will spend a decade in prison if found with one. So yeah, the number is practically zero. There is just no need for them.
It's very hard to kill innocent bystanders with a glass ashtray, or to have thoughts about killing folks when handling one. Handguns are there to kill people, ashtrays are not.
If your life costs the taxpayer more than £44K per year or whatever the amount is today as decided by NICE you are left to die for the good of the collective.
BS. NICE only issue guidelines, and if you really disagree with them, you have the option to get private treatment (e.g. from Bupa) who will give you access to treatment regardless of NICE as they are not part of the NHS.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Fills in the lines for me. It tells me you don't have a clue.
First of all, the difference in US violence and most other of the Euro countries is that the US has a history of personal use of violence. This is the "wild west" sort of attitude that makes people resort to fists, broken beer bottles, and guns, rather than calling the police. Yeah, the murder rate is much less using guns than places like Switzerland, that have a fully automatic militia weapon in most homes, but so is the murder rate using knives and other weapons. In other words, its the PEOPLE that don't choose to murder, rather than a lack of a particular means of murder.
As for the handguns that don't supposedly have any use but killing people, I'll have to tell my buddy that hunts deer with a .44 magnum revolver. While the revolver is not generally thought of as a semi-auto, it works the same way - each pull of the trigger produces a shot. He hauls deer out of the woods very nicely with it.
And as for killing people, some people just need it. I read the back of a T-shirt that said something to the effect that, "A liberal is someone who thinks it is morally superior for a woman is found dead in an alley, strangled with her own panty-hose, rather than a woman explaining to police how her attacker received that bullet hole right over his heart."
And, yes, some hunting weapons need to be semi-automatic. It is, for instance, recommeded that when hunting for bears, you put 3 rounds in them in quick succession if you want a clean kill. Mostly you can only do that with a semi-auto, most other actions being too slow. The bear will naturally run. You need a weapon that can operate for those 3 rounds in the bear's first couple strides, or you'll likely miss after it gets going. If you don't want the bear to make it over the next hill and get totally lost from your vision, and possibly die days later where you cannot find it, you need a semi-auto action rifle.
An independent crown corporation is not exactly independent. A set of newspapers owned by a person, whom apparently wants to be a politician, is not good. A politician who is a newspaper column writer is not independent.
So an olympic sport should be banned? They use semiautomatic handguns for rapid fire in the Olympics. The Walther GSP was designed by a Swedish fellow. It is named after Gothenburg. Semi-automatic shotguns are useful. Semi-automatic reduces recoil and allows for better followup. They are great for ducking hunting or upland game bird hunting. Semi-automatic is not the exclusive domain of the MAC-10 or the Uzi. Those are generally useless for most people accept bodyguards. It is not fair to base your line of thinking on those as being the solely available semi-automatics.
Do you understand the definition of the word, "BEAR?" This means carry.
I'd argue you know nothing about firearms or their defensive use.
Maybe because they don't have one.
Any firearm i know of can only be used offensively.
Protective Clothing is another matter...
You mean after paying £3700/year for the NHS (average cost per taxpayer), which you have no choice but to pay, you can pay for the private insurance as well? How nice. My completely private insurance in the US costs about half of that and I get much better care, non-existent waiting times, and no rationing of drugs I might need based on decisions of a government committee. NICE denies hundreds of important drugs, including latest cancer treatments, based purely on cost.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Presumably a majority, or the law and/or constitution would have been changed.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That is exactly the GP's point - these are only good for killing people.
Loughner wanted to enlist. Would years of government training have made him less lethal? US drug dealers usually miss or superficially wound their target. Would training them for combat reduce violence?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/ Between 36% and 93% of guns recovered by Mexican LE are traced to US sources.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081116211345AAiwdoQ How to make a AR15 into a M16. Seems to be pretty easy.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/charged-121070-connection-grenade.html Does this mean there were successful attempts? IDK, but it's been tried in USA...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story This article says that many of the grenade launchers and rocket launchers come from south of the (Mexican) border, but note the gem in par. 5: "Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said."
Actually in China and Japan people do attempt mass killings with knives or hammers. Those attacks on school children were more brutal than any gun crime that the US has seen.
Except in this case the shooter was just crazy. Thrown out of school, rejected by the army, and knowing that it was only a matter of time before he was declared incompetent, he had nothing to lose. He could have shot up a mall or his college just as easily, but went for the grander gesture.
First, my apologies for my unduly harsh reply. I was a bit charged up from the story/discussion as a whole.
"Jury box" includes, of course, nullification. But it's not limited to that. Of course, there is an inherent risk in the other means of involving a jury, but if the law is truly that unpopular then the likelihood of getting a nullification when bringing up a lawsuit significantly increases.
If the law truly isn't that that unpopular, then being on a jury gains nothing, especially in a civil case where it only takes a majority of jury members to decide (in the U.S. anyway). Many states have criminal jury procedures that require only N-1 of members to convict, to avoid cases where one person is holding out to force a mistrial.
Saying that "jury box" only refers to being an actual jurer is rather limiting. It's like saying the "ammo box" part means that you run around swinging an ammo can at people. Instead, it means you put the ammo in a gun.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Well said. When I was a reckless youngster I had a bit of a temper. I can't count the times when some idiot cut me up on the road or spilled my beer in the pub and I, in the heat of the moment, improvised a bomb and blew hundreds of people to fucking bits.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Just when I think I get the hang of sarcasm...
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
OK, well maybe I should have pointed out that VIOLENT crime has gone DOWN here every single year since '75 as well. MOST gun deaths by far in the US are accidental BTW, not murders. So either way, less guns, less death. Better?
I detect sarcasm in your post. However the solution must be education. I suggest they take a single family that is very well educated about guns, I mean really know their stuff, and then breed that single family (inter-breeding is crucial, we can't have external non gun-educated genes interfere) until we can populate some states with these people.
Oh, wait, they already tried that with a few Southern US states... Never mind...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
For sure, not personally as I am not that old but aware that the USA has its own culture. Your rights, your decisions. From over this side of the pond it seems an interesting anachronism, you needed them in 1776 but then your founding fathers also thought slaves were a good idea and you've got over that. So clearly as a country you have changed in some of your views over time. Just to put your mind at rest: we're not thinking of invading again, we kind of left that behind a couple of hundred years ago. Over here we just tend to get by without guns. Nobody really thinks about owning one apart from farmers and a very small number of hunters and hobby shooters.
I am still interested in a response to my question though, do you and your friends feel unsafe if you go out without weapons? Say to watch a movie or go shopping or similar?
I'm a moron because I believe in the United States Constitution, which guarantees me rights that allow me to defend myself?
Which part of "well-regulated" is unclear to you? The fact that mentally unstable people have access to guns means the regulations aren't working, and therefore are failing the constitutional test. Gun nuts have consistently opposed ANY regulation on their freedom to buy guns, in complete ignorance of the first part of the second amendment.
But thanks for playing!
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Oh cry me a fucking river, you liberal pansy.
Sir, it is people like you that give Americans a bad name around the world.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Apparently, somewhere between 800 thousand and two and a half million times a year.
That looks like a nice objective website! ;)
Tell it to this lady. Lots of things that you can't imagine, happen every day.
Good for her, but it's worth noting that (1). news articles tend to report the exception rather than the rule, i.e. this lady has novelty value for *not* being a victim, and (2). the article also says:
The McCullocks say they have been threatened as they run trouble makers out of their mobile home park, and have seen the man who shot her before.
The McCullock family moved to Albany from Manhattan two years ago, and this is their second time being victims of crime here. Their home was burglarized. They say that's why the entire family has armed themselves, and they will continue to wear guns constantly.
So, yeah, things are working out really well for them. I'm pretty sure that this will never happen again to them, and it's all thanks to their gun ownership!! </scarcasm>
In 1996, 35 people were shot dead and 21 were seriously injured by a lone gunman in the tourist village of Port Arthur, Tasmania (Australia).
The response by both State and Federal Governments was to introduce some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. Gun crime fell significantly and has stayed low ever since.
Yes, criminals still get guns, yes, the odd "archival" firearm turns up in a crime, but overall, Australia is a safer place to live now because guns are tightly restricted to police, military, sports shooting clubs and limited rural applications.
The snivel libertarians will say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but people with guns kill people more effectively than any other way and we're safer without them.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
Only if you consider hunting to the be the sole legitimate use of guns. Self defense is a perfectly legitimate use of guns, and semi-auto handguns are generally the best option for self defense due to their size and maneuverability.
Furthermore, statistics about countries really don't show much. There are places with stricter gun control laws and which have higher gun crime, and places with lenient gun control laws with less crime and vice versa. If you pick and choose specific regions you can show a correlation in either direction. Either way socioeconomics almost always has a stronger correlation with gun crimes than the availability of guns.
I called him Bushitler. Doesn't mean I sympathized with hinckley or Fromme.
Instead of outright assassination, I wanted Bush to be dragged through the streets, tarred and feathered, then tried and executed for treason and/or war crimes.
Would I have complained if Bush was shot? No. He was a LOT more deserving than this congresswoman. Hell, Palin DEFINITELY is more worthy than this congresswoman. Bush directly screwed all of us with absolutely no remorse and removed a lot of the checks and balances that make it possible to settle the score without bullets and Obama is doing more of the same. Any one of us is now considered either a terrorist or a felon by some definition.
This woman from what I can tell certainly deserved nothing like this. She certainly doesn't seem like a tyrant.
Bush was a tyrant. Plain and simple. I can see why he had attempts on his life. They were warranted.
Obama has perpetuated the tyranny and added some of his own. I understand why he gets death threats.
What did THIS woman do that was remotely in the same class? This guy was a retard. And he's now a child murderer as well. I hope they botch his execution so it's extra painful.
No, it's not safe to make that assumption. It's a plausible argument, and it *might* be true. But I'd put the odds at less than 50%. I have enough uncertainty that my error bars are pretty large though, so say somewhere between 35% and 65%,
In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if your argument was correct, but that's definitely not my default assumption. Just for one example, a homeowner who shoots a robber is clearly committing assault whether the robber is advancing on them or trying to flee. And claiming that one is being threatened dangerously doesn't mean that is what actually happened. It doesn't even mean that is what the person speaking really believes happened (though they will certainly believe that in a few years, and possibly sooner, if they repeat the story often enough).
Now if you argue that the person was an intruder, and deserved what happened to him...I might agree with you. The law, however, wouldn't. And we're in that case presuming that we are in the branch of the tree where the home-owner fired. Without further analysis I put the chances of that at 50%(plus or minus 15%).
As you can see, the arguments here are, to me, too speculative to assign *any* definite conclusion WRT the point you raise.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I am more than willing to debate that point with you. While I've grown to think that the Constitution has problems with how the laws are presented, and that it might be better to break the Constitution into two parts (one which states the law explicitly, and another which states the reasoning behind the laws in part one), the Second Amendment is quite frankly the clearest law of the Bill of Rights. The intent is very clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms (notice it says arms, not guns) shall not be infringed. If you interpret it as written, then yes, Abrams tanks should absolutely be available to private citizens. Honestly, I fear people owning Abrams tanks far less than I fear people owning handguns. Abrams tanks are built for a specific purpose and cost far more than most people can afford. However, coalitions of private citizens have a better chance of owning one, and the coalition will only deploy it when threatened and they have need to punch holes in the sides of other tanks.
Guns are different than most conventional warfare weapons like tanks. Tanks are designed to destroy another armies tanks and soldiers. They aren't as good for robbing individuals, they aren't inconspicuous for selling drugs or stolen merchandise, and so on. Guns are useful because they enable one person to easily kill another person. The problem is the reasoning behind the killing. There are many viewpoints about guns, and very little information on which ones are "right". People use them to hunt, people use them for self-defense, people use them to commit murder and other crimes, and so on.
The United States holds the idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as the defining characteristics of the country. Gun ownership clearly falls into the "life" category. They can be used to take life, or to prevent the taking of life. It doesn't matter who is doing the taking, nor the reason. The question simply boils down to this: does an individual have the right to own a gun to prevent someone else from taking their life? The Constitution explicitly say yes. That brings up other problems to deal with, but quite simply private gun ownership helps far more than it hurts.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
I'm not aware of any studies which have shown consistent correlation between gun control (or lack thereof), and violent crimes overall going down. The two things seem to be largely unrelated from everything I've seen.
If most gun deaths are accidental, then it would support the pro-gun position, unless you're willing to argue that anything that poses a higher risk of accidental injury of death should be similarly restricted. If that sounds absurd, that's probably because it is, and guns aren't really an exception.
Ultimately, as most other things, it is an issue of balancing individual rights and the public good. In case of guns, the individual right in question is the right to self-defense - banning e.g. handguns does not take it away entirely, but it certainly does hamper it significantly. The adverse effect on public good, on the other hand, has not been consistently demonstrated, and seems to be negligible in any case (whether adverse or not). So I think that individual right should win in this case.
You mean after paying £3700/year for the NHS (average cost per taxpayer), which you have no choice but to pay, you can pay for the private insurance as well? How nice. My completely private insurance in the US costs about half of that and I get much better care, non-existent waiting times, and no rationing of drugs I might need based on decisions of a government committee. NICE denies hundreds of important drugs, including latest cancer treatments, based purely on cost.
Don't fool yourself; the UK spends less per capita* than the USA. Your insurance is also on top of government spend. We get the NHS for our money, what does your government spend it's health budget on?
Is it as good as a system where a 15yr old can have temporal lobe brain surgery from some of the best neurosurgeons in the world? I got that more than a decade ago at Great Ormond St. Hospital. for my epilepsy. Your private insurance would probably count that as a "pre-existing condition". Do you think they would have paid for he operation? What if the operation didn't cure the epilepsy after your parents were forced to re-mortgage to pay for it because the insurance wouldn't? That's the real state of US health care. I'll stick with the NHS, thanks.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
"Go fuck yourself" -Dick Cheney
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
I think if you examine it more carefully, you'll find my statement was not equivalent to this.
Tacit admission you didn't have any before noted.
Before this can qualify as lucid and coherent, you'd have to define what "cracking down" on guns exactly is. Usually "cracking down" means stricter enforcement of a rule which previously existed but was loosely enforced. However, this does not appear to be the meaning here.
As for "a lot of the casual morons who shoot up discos because some chick looked at him funny", I am not convinced there are a lot of such people. Nor am I convinced that any sort of gun control would have stopped the Virginia Tech killer; he may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid nor did he lack the capability to plan. And there is a rather large category you have failed to address -- the ordinary criminal. Not crazy, not particularly intelligent, but in need of a firearm to effectively commit his crimes.
I'm not a member of the NRA. And without your definition of "cracking down", I cannot say whether your proposal is against the constitution. If it's something along the lines of taking guns away from everyone in order to prevent psychos from getting them... well, yeah.
I can make a simple, functional, modern firearm with a mill and a lathe in a few hours. Anyone can be taught the basic skills to do that in a couple of days at most.
Your friend is crafting a work of art -- that's not what I'm talking about.
Look up what happened during prohibition for an example of what happens when you ban things.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
No, I'm using absolute numbers, not per capita. That should have been obvious.
And your comparison is statistically moronic. Take a basic stats class, as you continue to argue correlation equals causation. That's a typical fallacy perpetrated by someone who doesn't understand basic statistics.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Well. First of all, the term "assault weapon" is being used incorrectly by you. The term "assault weapon" refers to a select-fire weapon, whose manufacture for civilian use has been prohibited by the Hughes Act since 1986. The legally transferrable ones that survive command prices that range from five thousand up to several hundred thousand dollars, and require approval from local law enforcement and the BATFE to purchase.
Second, there are many semi-automatic hunting rifles, some that are even functionally identical to their civilian legal semi-auto "assault-weapon" clones. See the Remington R25, for an example.
Third, there is no weapon that fires "a gazillion rounds in 3 seconds", and that ridiculous statement simply shows your complete ignorance of the topic. One can fire exactly the same number of rounds, in the exact same amount of time, from a Remington R25, that they can from an AR-10.
You're being imprecise in your language, and by doing so you are attempting to draw distinctions that do not exist. If you actually had some concept of what you were discussing, you might argue that semi-automatic rifles, no matter what their marketing, make you nervous and afraid, but bolt action rifles are okay -- in which case I would have to point out that the Remington 700 is used by military snipers all over the world, as well as by hunters all over the world.
There is no distinction between a military and a hunting weapon -- except for the fact that most military weapons use intermediate calibers that are somewhat less effective than most hunting weapons. Kind of turns your argument on your head, doesn't it?
Oh, and "spray firing" is not a correct term. It's not used anywhere. If you want to talk about "spray and pray", that's a term we use for idiots who can't hit anything with their weapons. They're completely ineffective. And they don't require automatic weapons to do it.
Argue from facts, not emotion. You're allowing your irrational fear of pieces of metal to drive your emotions, and omitting fact from the discussion.
I hope you're not a native english speaker, because your last paragraph is completely incomprehensible. I have no idea what you mean.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
He said "useless for any legitimate use". Self defense is a perfectly legitimate use -- see Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
So educate yourself. Go take a class, learn the basics. Many firearm ranges offer free or nearly free introductory courses, where they offer a basic familiarization with firearms, and allow you to use one for a little bit.
Hobby shooting is actually a pretty fun sport, IMHO -- I don't get much time to do it these days, but when I do, I enjoy it.
The use of a firearm is determined entirely by the user -- not the firearm. Any firearm can be used either offensively or defensively, depending on the desire of the user.
Ballistic armor is unwieldy and not as effective as you may have been led to believe.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
"Your comment stands at +5 insightful, so several people must agree with you, what's the deal?"
Ignoring the fact that mental illness has no relation to violent and certainly doesn't explain the cause any better than saying he was male or the sky was blue, I think it is just a way to "other" the person. If he is different then we don't have to really consider the reasons behind WHY he did what he did. We just assume the label is the reason and continue in our (blissful) ignorance.
"That's what I said elsewhere -- he's an anarchist, not right-wing Palinbot."
If we assume that is true, that doesn't really help your argument. Because that side has been spouting a signficant amount of anti-government rhetoric for a significant amount of time. Where exactly did he get the idea to take out this particular person? And why?
Based on your assumption you could make the case that extreme views of either spectrum could have pushed him to commit an act of political violence. But we don't have that situation at the present time.
We already have laws in place that says that mentally unstable people should not be allowed to have guns.
We also have laws in place that make murder illegal.
I don't think we need anything else.
Kiss my ass.
This is Slashdot. We are the scientific, technical, and logical people of the world - let's be scientific. Let's do a benchmark, so to speak. We'll take a few states that want strong gun laws and give them those laws. We'll take a few states that DON'T want strong gun laws and weaken their laws. Then we can compare the results after a few years. Real people can put their opinion aside and try science.
Blah blah blah you sound like a broken record. You're a fuckin' retard, and I would tell you this to your face.
Between 36% and 93%, eh? That's a pretty uhh... wide metric, which makes me question the reliability of it.
I seem to recall reading that most M16s confiscated in Mexico came from the factory as full auto M16s, and most likely made their way onto the black market in Vietnam.
You can keep right on blaming the US for things, though, and I will keep right on laughing in your face.
On the contrary, it's narrow-minded fuckwits like yourself that the rest of the world hates.
Go fling yourself from a fucking bridge, you big sissy.
The GP's assertion that the gun was used for that purpose lacks evidence (from the cnn webpage, "Authorities said they did not know the motive for the shooting -- the suspect was not talking and had invoked his right against self-incrimination"), but even presuming that the constitution does enable the populace to be armed for the purpose of countering government oppression, it still does not make it unconstitutional to criminalise assassination.
"He needed killing" is a defence, not a license. James Bond is a work of fiction.
Oh stop before you embarrass yourself. The guy's friends even say he's a leftist, if you can find a political motive (which I doubt you will -- I think he was just crazy, and she was the closest government type figure he could find) it will likely be that he was upset Congresswoman Gifford was so moderate.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
In fact there doesn't appear to be a correlation at all between them. There are places like Pakistan that have a high amount of gun ownership that are also very dangerous. There are places in Europe that also have a high amount of gun ownership but very low gun violence crimes. There are places like Japan which have very low gun ownership and tough restrictions and yet have very low gun violence crimes. There are places like Mexico that also have very tough gun ownership laws but gun crime is very high. Mexico is an interesting case where a lot of the crime and guns are probably due a neighbor....
In any event, what makes a place safe or dangerous appears to be the culture where neither ownership of guns or laws over guns seems to effect. If we want people to stop shooting each other in the US then I recommend we stop the aggressive attitude and hyper, reflexive response instead of arming or disarming people. Basically it doesn't matter if you give everyone a gun or take everyone's guns away if they are rude, cure and hate each other which kind of describes part of the political climate doesn't it?
, as you continue to argue correlation equals causation. That's a typical fallacy perpetrated by someone who doesn't understand basic statistics.
... and your falling back on that tired old saying, without presenting ANY evidence to the contrary, is also BS.
Don't bother trying to troll a troll, moron.
The problem isn't allowing or banning guns. The problem is that people can't be bothered to include the education that should go with either.
Sad thing is the rot is spreading.
I'm going to stand in front of your house with a megaphone, and tell anyone passing by your house for a year that someone should throw rocks through your window.
Then someone throws a rock through your window.
Then I'm going to say that the guy who did that is a crazy loner, and his actions have nothing to do with me and my megaphone for a year.
Thank you, Right Wing America, for your awesome sense of responsibility, and your awesome sense of integrity. Stay classy, Right Wing
pffffffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"If the intruder is unarmed, they pose little threat."
Bullshit. Tell that to any woman who has been raped by an "unarmed" assailant!
"If they are armed, you've just put yourself into a firefight."
That implies I didn't kill them from behind visual cover, lie down on the floor (assuming darkness) or other alternatives. I have no duty to warn an armed intruder.
"No guarantee you'll be the one to walk out of that one. Where is the rational reason for wanting to confront someone under these circumstances?"
That the alternative is being AT THEIR MERCY. I can't retreat through a wall, I have a wife I'll not abandon, and running just makes for an exposed target.
Anyone who gets past the dogs and breaks in has demonstrated they are determined to enter, so there is no benefit in giving them MASTERY of the situation. The proper combat response is to neutralize the threat. I wouldn't stand up in a window while deployed and politely ask an armed Jihadist to play nice, and I won't offer myself as a target in my home.
It's also perfectly fair. If I break into your home, I encourage you to shoot me! Heck, if I go that nuts, follow up with the bayonet.
My way of avoiding ventilation is to stay where I belong, in MY space, in MY "castle", hence my support for the castle doctrine. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
if i stand in front of your house for a year saying someone should throw a rock through your window, then someone does
are you going to let me get away with me saying i have nothing to do with it?
please try to apply the slightest bit of intellectual honesty in the bullshit you say next time, ok asshole?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes, hot-heads are everywhere, this is why the leaders should be very careful with words and discourage this instincts. Instead it seems that Palin caters to the worst impulses and gives these guys the idea that she would applaud violence. I do not find a similar behavior in the democratic party, do you?
I am questioning the leaders' behavior. Inciting the mobs is not ethical. Maybe they are careful with rhetorics and could claim that they never said "she/he should be dead" directly, but this is the message they pass to the followers.
Yeah their presidential candidate applauds violence by saying thing like "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". Their House candidate incite the mobs by running a campaign ad with his opponent in a crosshair. And most horrifyingly, they make US maps marked with "targets" for their followers to shoot up.
I would have to concede that it would be difficult for me to find Democrats doing similar stuff... oh wait.
If the criminals has a gun and I don't, I'd define that as worse.
We don't have to justify gun ownership to anybody. We have them, we will have them, and that's that. In fact, recently the anti-gun nuts have lost battle after battle in their war to disarm the American public, and things have never looked worse for the cowardly anti-gun loons than they do now.
Mass shootings and murders are tragic, but that's just the price for having an armed society with so many people who are afraid to carry weapons themselves. If any of the victims had a firearm of their own, they would have had a chance to stop the assailant. That's the real tragedy - hoplophobia and the liberal agenda against guns has prevented another senseless tragedy from being interrupted. Perhaps the best outcome of an incident like this is that some more people will decide that carrying a concealed weapon themselves, and taking responsibility for their own safety, is the only realistic way to behave in an armed society.
You're also implying that without guns, people wouldn't find some other ways to kill each other. That's another fundamentally unsound assumption: guns make killing easier in some ways, but that's all.
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
If someone wants you dead, he doesn't need a gun.
That's the wrong logic. If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes. With a gun you can do it any time you want, and that increases the temptation.
You're the one spouting crap. If I want you dead there are a thousand ways I could make it happen, ranging from cars to knitting needles to bare hands or kitchen knives. As the original poster said, guns just make homicide somewhat easier. They don't magically create the desire to commit homicide. That's a separate societal issue that is not created by the mere fact that it is legal to own firearms. Your own argument is not logical in the slightest.
No kidding. If some of her supporters were armed, instead of there being 12 injured people, there'd be just one: the gunman himself.
Yes, sure, because their reactions would be so fast that they'd see the attacker drawing, identify the situation, draw their own weapons and shoot the attacher before the attacker gets a round off. Or maybe this isn't the movies, and the stoormtrooper effect doesn't work in the real world.
I know this may be difficult for non-gun owners to understand, but yes, many of those who choose to get certified and licensed to legally carry concealed weapons actually spend time mentally preparing and training for precisely that type of situation. So there would be a good chance that someone could react quickly enough to maybe cut the death toll in half in a situation like that. Six or more people could be alive today if there were more competent gun owners in the crowd.
I know this may be difficult for non-gun owners to understand, but yes, many of those who choose to get certified and licensed to legally carry concealed weapons actually spend time mentally preparing and training for precisely that type of situation.
Even though I'm doubtful about that claim, suppose it were true. The sheriff has pointed out that she could have had official security but had not requested it. The post I was commenting to referred to "some of her supporters", not to a professional security contingent. Would your claims likely apply to casual bystanders?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Did you read the first link? Factcheck.org supposedly is a nonpartisan website. If I am wrong, please let me know. The numbers are very precise and as accurate as possible. The simplest way I can explain how I understand it is, "of the ~30,000 guns confiscated by Mexico over a two year period around 2006-2009, ~11,000 were given to the US ATF to trace. Of those that were traceable, 93% were traced to American sources." ~38% of total guns were traced. 36% of total guns were definitively traced to USA. Any other supposition is just that.
I seem to have googled for the 'vietnam mexico m16' link and didn't find an article within the first 10 results. Maybe you could send me the article? I will retract if you are correct.
Hey, to me, the second amendment means a US citizen can own any armament that a militia could field. Such as Javelin, M203, M1A3 (Abrams), F16, M60, Cruiser, maybe even a destroyer, Howitzer, etc.
Answer me this, if there were no controls on arm types sold to US citizens, would that make it easier or harder for Mexican drug runners to get RPGs and M19s? (also which a militia (well-regulated) could field.)
First you say "Gun control wankery" and then you use the difficulty to get guns as a defense for your position. Which way is it?
When does it become wankery? Honestly, If you answer no other question, I would like that one answered, I am curious on what your viewpoint is.
I agree that a gun in and of itself is not necessarily extremely dangerous to human life.
Got any citations for any of that? Because what I've read about Swedish gun laws is quite a bit different. For one thing, you can legally buy handguns if you're a member of a shooting club. And i think the 10 year sentence is for weapons used in the commission of a crime (ignoring the question of parole rates, and the fact that long sentences generally don't seem to be much of a deterrent). Canada has laws and measures which are somewhat similar, but getting a handgun is pretty damn easy in any major city.
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
I hope that you're the one they send to confiscate mine.
NTITE
-You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
Thank you for making my point.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
At least you admit what you are.
You've done nothing to refute my initial premise -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. Being afraid of an object is absurd.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
And I'm far better at it than you'll ever be :-)
The violent rhetoric in American society comes, almost exclusively, from the right-wing:
George Bush received about 8 death threats a day.
Barack Obama receives about 30 death threats a day.
Think about it.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
It was a response to something equally made-up: the terms "spray fire" and "assault weapon."
So, responding in that manner is no more a waste than using the above terms in the first place. They're used out of ignorance or with intent to cloud the issue. They do not serve any other meaningful purpose in any discussion involving firearms. The first can only apply to a very small subset of firearms, most of which are in military hands. The others they apply to are illegally modified in a manner that is not possible to stop, and is rarely used to commit crimes even when it happens.
The latter is a made-up political phrase. It means, quite literally, "weapons that look, but do not actually function, like an assault rifle." Oh, and a lot of other weapons that aren't even that close.
There is no agency that I know of that funds the collection of statistics on the use or display of a firearm as a defensive act.
There is not even a national clearinghouse for data on civilians shot by police in the United States. Groups have been working for the past 10 years to set up data aggregation on it and are still waiting for funding (initiated by Don Pierce, executive director of WASPC). You think they're going to aggregate data on something that doesn't necessarily even warrant an officer follow-up? Don't hold your breath.
By casting it in that light, no victim-initiated contact with an aggressor is defensive.
A woman kicking a rapist in the junk is not defending herself.
The guy in Alaska who killed a charging brown bear in '09 with his sidearm was not defending himself.
Someone using the closest club-like weapon against a mugger armed with a knife is not defending themselves.
Interesting re-definition of "defense."
"They do not serve any other meaningful purpose in almost any discussion involving firearms."
I apparently missed that when I wrote the sentence. There are times when a term like "spray fire" is meaningful. This is just not one of them, aside from the necessity of using the term in a discussion directly about said term.
If you believe, honestly and sincerely as many Republicans do, that the Healthcare Reform Law contains "death panels" and is going to "kill your grandmother" then you must believe that the "Soap, Ballot, and Jury" boxes have already failed. How could a person believe that a well functioning government that continues to serve the will of the people would pass such a law?
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
I hope you're not a native english speaker, because your last paragraph is completely incomprehensible. I have no idea what you mean.
It's comprehensible, but it's an asinine extension of philosophical thought. Extremist philosphers can argue, quite correctly from a theoretical point of view, that no distinction is provably valid. The concept requires re-inventing the wheel (actually, all language) if it is accepted as a valid basis for arguing against a given point.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not trolling.
You obviously are. Have a nice life.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Ah, thanks. I see what he was trying to say now, and I share your opinion of it.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
In fact, I've heard it used by members of our own armed forces as part of an explanation as to why the US military has, for the most part, abandoned full-auto in favor of burst fire.
This is also one of many reasons why bringing up automatic weapons in a discussion on gun control is at best extremely ignorant. "Spray and pray" is a term for idiots who use a firearm in a manner that almost guarantees they aren't going to hit anything they're aiming at. Fully automatic weapons are difficult to control, run out of ammo almost immediately if not fed by a drum or belt, and overheat and fail if over-fired. They are less effective than a similar non-automatic weapon in untrained hands. They're just a hell of a lot scarier to most people.
911 isn't as responsive as you think or hope it could be. Let me explain.
I can recall three times having to dial 911. The 1st one involved me being shot at while driving. The police nabbed the person only after flipping their truck over on its side. Both were on PCP and committed murder moments ago. The 2nd and 3rd time was some thug griefing the front entrance of my apartment at 3am threatening residents for money before they could enter.
In all three instances, it took the police well over 20+ minutes to respond. Think about that for a moment. A LOT of stuff can and does happen in that time frame.
As God as my witness, I don't ever want to take another mans life. It was never mine to give, nor should it be mine to take at whim. But when it comes down to a binary life or death situation, I will protect my family and myself. I'm a giving person. But I will never give up my life to someone who wishes to do me harm.
Life is not for the lazy.
You're trolling, but I'll bite.
In my opinion the most important reason for guns is self defense. With a gun, a 90-pound woman is on equal footing with any attacker who has a gun, and has the advantage over any attacker without one -- provided that she knows how to use it properly and is willing to kill rather than be raped/murdered/whatever. I believe that the right to defend oneself is an inalienable right -- it's the life part of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
Do guns cause or exacerbate other problems? Yes. You have to take the bad with the good. People are free to use alcohol and this causes problems, too, but I don't think most people in the U.S. are in favor of prohibition of alcohol. I'm sure there are better examples that will occur to me after I press Submit.
A gun for self-defense is like insurance -- you hope you won't need it, but you want it there in the unfortunate case that you do. It is simply impossible for the police to protect everyone at all times. I'm sure there are plenty of guns=glory people out there, but I think they are the idiot minority.
snip...
USA has 90 guns per 100 residents, Sweden has 30 per 100. ...snip...
I hate statistics.
How many guns does an individual own.
One could wonder if one person in 100 owns 90 guns of if 90 persons own one gun.
If we do not know the intersection rate of armed wackos per 100 count we are pissing in the wind.
Many wackos know the difference between right and wrong. And many are happy sleeping in a box but that is food for another rant.
Lets put the man on mars stuff on hold and put some money and brain-trust into mental heath. Not witch hunt TSA stuff but honest mental health research.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Yeah I know, such things happen all the time in the US. Why, over 300 people were seriously injured or killed in road rage accidents last year. I'm sure that unpremeditated, heat of the moment shootings are the MOST common cause of firearm deaths, rather than other much less common causes, such as criminals purposely committing crimes. I think we should definitely ban firearms and trample on the rights of millions so that these folks will have a slightly more difficult time accomplishing their goals.
Yes, if only you had the resolve to commit genocide, that would stop 'bad people' wanting to attack you in the future.
That looks like a nice objective website!
That looks like you trying to deny information that doesn't fit your prejudice. Do you have a better source for estimates of the number of defensive uses of firearms?
As for your condescending attitude towards someone who successfully defended herself: it's your prerogative of course to be irresponsible regarding your own self-defense. I truly hope that if you ever find yourself in a situation where you might regret your decision, there's someone on hand who's equipped and prepared to save you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
::In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private ::property over increases in tuition :And we managed it without anybody getting shot. Compare and contrast [wikipedia.org].
You imply that social misfits with a tendency to violence are ACCEPTABLE?
I disagree.
I need to see some data. For example, handgun data suggest that Switzerland enjoys similarly high levels of handgun violence. I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the other data I've seen also suggest that Switzerland has high levels of firearm violence.
And your "southern neighbours" get their "highly illegal" guns where?
Yeah, because the cartels clearly got the .50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, RPGs, anti-tank rockets, and thousands upon thousands of grenades from the US civilian gun market--where those devices don't exist. Enlighten us, will you please? Where did those weapons come from?
So, they've smuggled over a few semi-automatic AR-15s / AK clones. A few rifles, compared to the above weaponry which has been captured from the cartels, are hardly interesting.
Maybe they aught to secure their borders, and stomp out the fuel for their cartel problem??? I for one wish we had the good sense to help with that particular issue.
The question wasn't directed at you - but as you have done me the courtesy of qualifying your question (and I've previously read your posts - so I'm reasonably sure you have a brain, and are not a sock-puppet like some of the others in this thread) I'll try and answer it. (briefly as it's late)
Firstly I never said, thought. or implied that the guns in Mexico (I'm presuming you're referring to the so-called Drug Wars) came from the "US civilian gun market". I'll save you actually looking for my post.
And your "southern neighbours" get their "highly illegal" guns where?
The "?" is a question mark. As in "where did those weapons come from" question. I don't know for certain, but what little I know is that they originated outside of Mexico, and I'm curious as to where, and why despite all the press coverage the question hasn't been asked, and answered. I spent a number of years in the military - the last 9 of them as an MP (Oz) and I find it hard to understand how that question is so hard for the powers to be to answer.(that *is* sarcasm)
As for the borders - have a dig through my (and other Aussie's posts) and see our questions and anger over the Nugan-Hand Bank prior to which their was no heroin problem in our country.
Take heroin, cocaine (crack), speed (ice) out of the picture and most of the civilian deaths by gunfire (outside) of war disappear.
Not to distract from the points at hand - I've often traveled to the U.S. (and spent part of my childhood there) - and been to plenty of gunshows - I'll allow that things may have changed in the last 8 months - but in the past I would have had no problems buying .50 cal machine guns (legally). As to the other ordnance you mention - I have a neighbour, a thoroughly respectable gentleman (in Oz) whose company supplies AK-47s, RPGs, mines etc to the rest of the world. His company (*cough* Grycol *cough*) got a slap over the wrist after the Martin Bryant shootings for importing the Colt AR-15 long rifle (note I don't say carbine) and being unable to account for over 8K of them. Apropos of nothing - Australia is a port of origin that attracts little interest when containers arrive in Europe, or South America (hint CFTZ).
stomp out the fuel for their cartel problem?
Now there's a point! And here's another question in lieu of an answer - if all that money moves somewhere, through where does it move, and who would complain if it didn't? (that's a truly staggering amount of money)
Interesting that this particular story seems to have broken two Slashdot records - most posts and, most sock-puppets (posters manufactured on the spot to falsify support for "issues")...
An independent crown corporation is not exactly independent.
Why? The government is not involved and it means they cannot be *bought* by the advertisers which you see so much of in the US.
A set of newspapers owned by a person, whom apparently wants to be a politician, is not good.
Until that person actually becomes a politician at which point he will have to separate himself from his business then nothing can be done. You prefer a president that is heavily invested in oil and gives ridiculous perks to his friends in the oil industry (who incidentally made a lot of money off of a bullshit war)?
A politician who is a newspaper column writer is not independent.
A column writer is basically an opinion piece. Whats wrong with stating an opinion?
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
That makes sense.
Though using the court system tends to cost a fair amount of money compared with the other 3 items - guns and bullets aren't free either of course...
the US also has a little problem of accidental shootings by police
They also have a little problem of 'accidental' shootings by police, where the police shoot intentionally and afterwords claim it was accidental in order to get away with it.
I am officially gone from
- These weapons are unloaded. People receive sealed ammunition but using those bullets without a direct army order is a crime.
But since the issue is gun crime, it's hardly significant that using the guns for crime would be a crime.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
If someone wants to kill you, they're going to try to kill you. Period.
The fact that a tool makes it "easier" is irrelevant.
That's a fundamentally ignorant argument. It ignores the fact that the difficulty of killing a victim often factors into the decision. Maybe you need to think of it like the economics of murder, in that the higher the barrier to entry, the fewer participants there are in the murder market. If someone really, really, wants you dead, they may try to kill you regardless of the circumstances but a great many murders and attempted murders are committed in the heat of the moment and occur because the victim has not only a motive, but the opportunity. Having a loaded gun means you always have the opportunity.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
I think not letting mentally unstable people own guns would be quite a good idea too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Colombia is no different there too. We all know what Colombia's reputation is, but guns are illegal there, so you can see how effective that has been on keeping them out of the drug cartel's hands.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
From what I've heard, violent crime decreased at a similar rate at the same time in a number of places where they didn't implement concealed carry laws. The reason being that the violent crime rate in the U.S. has been declining since 1993. You need to be very careful to make sure that reason for the change has been properly isolated.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
So, where does a revolver fall in your logic? 8 shot .357 revolver versus a 7 shot 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol. In the case you represent the semi-automatic pistol is an evil assault device useful only for killing people and the revolver is a harmless hunting firearm? Sorry. Your logic fails the reality test. Try again.
Also, the "1000 rounds a minute" needs some debunking. The action of the weapons is theoretically capable of that, but the magazine would never allow that rate of fire. You have been getting too many of your "facts" from movies, television and George Soros' talking points.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
Which translates into .2% per capita. Auto fatalities are far beyond that in the same interval. How do you feel about banning automobiles? I notice that Nationmaster ranks them on raw numbers first, and South Africa ranks highest in numbers of deaths. Do those statistics also include legitimate self defense, criminals killing other criminals and police killing criminals? I really DOES matter how you parse these "statistics".
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
FAIL. The purpose of the second amendment is to prevent another government from putting their boot heel on our necks. The last government that tried that had to be sent packing.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
You do understand that you seem to be equating shooting people as a good thing?
Don't get me wrong, if I were being attacked, I'd be glad if I had a firearm to hand (and could use it), and were able to see off my assailant, but I'm not sure I'd be at all happy if I actually killed said assailant.
Not trying to take the side of the "criminal" here, but these are people too and don't necessarily deserve to die.... obviously, we could take an emotive subject such as a "criminal" trying to rape someone's daughter in which case I'm sure many of us could at least understand the desire to kill said assailant, but for the most part, the criminals you're likely to face are petty criminals -- theives/burglars. Not that being a victim of such a crime isn't an awful thing, but what you're advocating is the idea that everyone should be armed so that they can make a split-second decision that could very likely result in the death of either party.
So, specifically, when do you think it's okay to kill people?
An alternative way to look at this is to not look at specific cases as we tend to empathise with the victim, but just look broadly at the idea that criminals do their thing, and is it a good idea to arm everyone to prevent that? It doesn't appear to prevent it. Criminals are more likely to bring their own firearms and shoot first -- plus they generally have the upper hand since the "crime" whatever it is, is their initiative. So overall, I think it likely that more people will die as a result. Yeah, obviously, if it were me, *of-course* I'd be able to keep a cool head, and only shoot if it were necessary... in exactly the same way I'm the best driver in the world too. Shame about all those other idiots. But you still think they should be armed too?
You have a much better chance of being killed in a car accident. Do you drive a car or allow yourself to be a passenger in a motor vehicle?
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
Their primary job, everywhere in the world is to respond after something has happened
The rest of the world thanks the US once again for speaking on its behalf. Where I come from, police uphold the law, not enforce it. Police in other areas "protect and serve" - which is rather different from the "respond and serve" you are suggesting. For example, "The mission of the Minnesota State Patrol is to: protect and serve all people in the state through assistance, education, and enforcement". Maybe you see assisting as responding, but that's probably a culural thing. I live somewhere that help is offered far more than it's asked for, but YMMV.
If you believe you are more dangerous for owning a firearm, then please never, ever purchase one.
Surely the whole POINT of having a gun in your hand is to be more dangerous than not having one. Are you saying that having a gun does not make you more dangerous? What were you expecting the gun to do if you ever needed it to protect yourself, use harsh language?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
True enough. The courts have turned into a domain that only aristocrats have easy access to.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
You know, you may think you can always retreat. But that would be wrong. When the big ugly bad guys have backed you into the corner, what do you want in your hand? A cellphone or a shotgun? You think you are safe if you just cooperate with the bad guys? Or if you scream your fool head off they'll just leave? You can't take comfort in the correlations, because the variance just might be your life.
When I travel, I always keep a loaded firearm next to the bed where I sleep, and I rehearse falling off the bed and grabbing my piece. You might perceive this as insane paranoia. Having been the victor of 1 home invasion and 2 hotel room break-ins (without firing a shot, thank god), I reserve the right to make my own decisions about self-defense planning, and I loudly decry the false authority of anyone who wants to take that right away from me, regardless of a suavity of their argument.
I recall reading an news article crowing over the successful impact of a new anti-gun proscription intended to reduce drive-by shootings; in the column next to it was a report on a stabbing incident where the attackers jumped from a moving car, stabbed the victim to death in one thrust, reentered the vehicle and escaped - a drive-by stabbing...so the attackers cared enough to use a knife instead of a gun - what a comfort....
I am not a police officer, not a vigilante, not in the military or any organized militia. I have used a firearm in self defense 4 times in my life (thankfully without having to fire a shot). I didn't bother reporting these incidents to the police.
I wish people would just realize gov't in the US has no power over the law-abiding and forget about trying to further their agenda through gov't control. There's already too many bad laws; bad law breeds disrespect for the rule of law and undermines civil society. For this reason some laws and authorities are banned outright in the US constitution, but somehow this doesn't act as a deterrent to would-be tyrants, because, well, they're not respectful of limits to power...
Javelin, blowgun, slingshot, and let's not forget, longbow and crossbow.
Or the highly effective Atlatl, there's even a silencer for it...
Or, you know, shoot targets. That's actually a lot of fun. A friend of mine has a rather large gun collection. He doesn't hunt. He's not mentally unstable (so far as I can tell). He just has a fascination with guns. He (like many others) get enjoyment from going to the firing range. He's never shot a person. He's never even threatened to shoot a person.
I like to go out and shoot clay skeet and trap. Given those aren't hand guns, I could kill a person or animal much faster with a shotgun than a pistol.
Also, some people feel safer knowing they have a handgun in their house, even if they've never had a break in or a reason to pull that gun out on someone.
Some people like to shoot guns because it makes them feel powerful. The feeling of a gun going off in your hand(s) and seeing something you were aiming at blow up or get torn to shreds is a pretty amazing feeling. And that's just fine, as long as what you're aiming at isn't a person.
All I'm saying is that there are more reasons to own a gun than to just kill people or kill animals.
The guns aren't the problem, it's the mentality of the people holding them. Unfortunately, we seem to have quite a few more loons with guns in the US than other places.
... is one in which a gunman starts shooting people in a public place, and comes under fire from one or more "good guy" bystanders in the crowd. The argument from gun ownership proponents is that this situation would be better than the default (in which the gunman is the only one doing the shooting). My argument is that it would be worse, because of the likelihood of even more danger to innocent bystanders (plus: what the hell are responding law enforcement people supposed to do in this situation? Just shoot everyone?).
True but irrelevant. What you're saying is that most people aren't, in fact, running around carrying pistols in the hopes of defeating gunmen. My point is that if they did start doing that, we'd be worse off and not better.
Also true but irrelevant. Getting killed in a shootout in a grocery store is statistically fantastically improbable. I am, in fact, a lot more worried about dying in some form of a car wreck than I am about getting shot. But it's still true that having lots of people running around with guns makes me MORE likely to get shot, not less.
Woot! A new freak! And an idiot to boot!
"Bring a gun to a knife fight" is just a reference to bringing overwhelming force against opposition. If your opponent has a knife, you bring a knife and have roughly equal odds of survival. You bring a gun and remove all doubt. Your opponent spends $1 million on his campaign, you spend $100 million on yours. If you want to win, leave no doubt. Get it? Or did you really think Obama was talking about carrying a gun?
As for crosshairs? How about this? Personally, I can see the difference between the symbolism of marking someone with crosshairs as a target for "defeat" as opposed to one that needs to be shot. Some nuts, obviously, can't. While I don't believe that anyone was calling for anyone's death, I will point out that whoever releases these images should realize that they hold some accountability for how people will interpret them. Personal accountability has never been a strong part for politicians though.
Also, interestingly, your 3rd link at verumserum calls out the media for getting all worked up over Palin's crosshair. The EXACT SAME LOGIC could be applied to your chest-thumping about how some Democrats put bullseyes on maps. On top of that, those bullseyes were just on a map; they weren't crosshairs superimposed over an actual person's face.
And, finally, how many are dead now due to violence from the left?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Agreed.
Isn't selective quoting fun?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
...is that Rep. Giffords hadn't even arrived at the hospital before one of her aids appeared on FOX and CNN blaming the Tea Party. Never mind that the whole POINT of the Tea Party is to work within the system, any excuse to vilify them, even a mass shooting of one's boss and innocent bystanders, must be used. What was that Democratic motto Beck was castigated for mentioning? Oh, yes, "Never let a good crises go to waste."
My sympathy to Rep. Giffords and the other victims of this tragedy. Now let us ALL learn the lesson, monsters are made, not born, and as a culture we continue to operate the monster factory. Can we drop the "Socialism at any cost" on one side and "Democrats are evil cockroaches" on the other? Please?
Are they really more expensive though? Law enforcement and incarceration are really damn expensive. After someone has been through the legal and prison system, they become very difficult to employ, which leaves them dependent on other resources (like rehab clinics, or welfare, or whatever) anyway.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point; just disagreeing about the misconception that alternatives are somehow expensive. If you look at it as an investment, it's going to cost money, obviously, but in the long run it pays for itself in lower costs. Similar to how universal health care (should) work. Sure, you might have a bunch of people going in for unneeded $70 doctor's visits or to kick that crack habit, but if it saves you one $50k amputation and dialysis for life, or one 10-year prison sentence at $40k/prisoner/year, it looks like a much better ROI.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
In Arizona, it is legal for people to carry concealed weapons by default.
The rest of the world thanks the US once again for speaking on its behalf. Where I come from, police uphold the law, not enforce it.
Please describe, in detail, how the police where you live functionally are more proactive than reactive.
Lots of police forces have a mission to "protect." Yes, the existence of armed forces deters crime (well, non-state crime anyway), but that is hardly a descriptor unique to benevolent police forces. In theory they have proactive roles, but those have nothing at all to do with protecting anyone, and everything to do with the fact that they are a well-known armed force.
Surely the whole POINT of having a gun in your hand is to be more dangerous than not having one.
Surely you are not that ignorant. Having a firearm does not make someone more dangerous. It is strictly situational. The statement is like saying holding a hammer makes one more dangerous. While it is true from a very specific philosophical standpoint, it's also a moronic thing to say in most contexts.
Having a firearm does not make someone more dangerous.
Seriously? You say that without sarcasm, irony, and with a straight face?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Right. First, I must apologize, I guess I misidentified your Aussie sarcasm for American stupidity. Lot of that in this story.
Secondly, I can only think these flows of money haven't been targeted, because it's either convenient to let it go, or more likely, extremely profitable to someone important. My guess is that it goes to both the Republican and Democratic parties, who use it to keep the reform parties out of contention. Apparently, they put the remainder up their nose in the form of a fine white powder.
That's one explanation, anyway. :)
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Yes. Whether someone is more or less dangerous is strictly situational. Including a firearm can potentially change that, but does not by any means necessarily do so any more than holding a hammer necessarily makes one more dangerous. I have a hard time believing you have any way to add even the slightest logical support to a contrary argument. This would be the time when most people try to shift targets. Your ball.
-1: Scary
--
No, it's a cultural problem.
This guy is way out there
Reading comprehension and you are not on the best of terms are you?
No part of your statement is incompatible with my own. I left mine purposely vague and neutral because any more detail has nothing to do with the point of my response. The only point that I was attempting to make is that the 2nd amendment specifically recognizes that firearms are meant to kill people.
You are the worst sort of idiot: an idiot that feels the need to have and voice strong opinions and disagreement, but can't be bothered to listen to what others say.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Nice, can't just disagree with my statement, have to add in the personal attack.
Your statement fails because you don't understand the full spectrum of force. Yes, a gun can kill people. It can also be a test of skill in a recreational activity. It can also be used to put meat on the table. It can also be used to signal the start of a race. But the presence of guns in the hands of an armed citizenry has a chilling force on the exercise of power by a government. Once it was demonstrated that an armed citizenry can successfully resist not only the armed forces of a government, but the armed forces of the most powerful empire on the planet, then the concept of authority and power originating with the people was born.
An armed population tells a government that nowhere their armed forces go will truly be safe. A government, no matter how large, cannot guard every bridge and railroad crossing. Not every government official can be well guarded all the time. The citizens always outnumber the authoritarian forces. If the minds of those citizens have been set alight with the fire of freedom from oppression, no force can stand against them.
I don't know. Maybe you went to a school that didn't cover this concept. Pretty easy, considering the degradation of public education. The American Revolution gets glossed over. Maybe you're from a country that doesn't recognize the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms. Maybe you were just sick the day this topic was covered. In any case, you didn't get it. I hope this has been educational for you. But it isn't my job to increase the quality of your shoddy education. Good luck with the whole ignorance thing. I hope it works out for you.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
Sorry, but murder is already illegal.
Trying to divvy it up so "Murder with X" is segregated from "Murder with Y" is pointless.
And, again, your argument about a gun providing better opportunity still applies to my point.
And you also specified one other thing. A great number of murders are committed "in the heat of the moment".
This is one of the things that makes said potential murderer LESS likely to consider the difficulty of the murder.
But please, keep trying to ban kitchen knives because you could hurt someone with them if you get pissed enough.
Again, the crime is in the intent and execution. Not the tool. Stop trying to control intent and execution by attacking the tool.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
And, finally, how many are dead now due to violence from the left?
Hopefully Giffords and others wounded will all make a successful recovery and it won't grow anymore than six.
Once again you are displaying a fundamental inability to understand what other people are telling you.
When murder is committed in the heat of the moment the difficulty is probably the single most important factor because the more difficult it is to kill someone the less likely it will be accomplished before the moment passes.
So no, if someone wants to kill you, most of the time they will not. However, when someone has a loaded gun, they're much more likely to try and more likely to succeed.
Guns are not harmless tools, they are the proverbial double-edged sword. They have few legitimate benefits and many dangers. Limiting the availability and use of guns is a sensible precaution. It helps to ensure that mentally deranged people can't spray hails of gunfire into crowds of people no matter what they believe. What the proper limits are is debatable but there seems to be little doubt that there needs to be limits.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Actually the right is actively advocating violence. Especially with the rhetoric of "if we can't win at the ballot boxes, we'll win in the streets" and other such calls for revolution and using guns.
Also, there is absolutely no credible evidence that the shooter was extreme left or right. At best there is evidence of a mix of views.
^ This needs to be modded up. Severely. To 11.
And if it does, pray that whoever invaded my home doesn't find and use my own weapon against me...
I support the 2nd Amendment you fucking idiot. I don't disagree with your statement, I'm just calling you an idiot for not understanding the conversation you're attempting (poorly) to participate in.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
It is perfectly reasonable to require a person to pass a two-month long gun training, gun skill test with a theoretical exam and a psychiatric examination to be able to buy a gun. It would also be perfectly reasonable to require a person to belong to a gun club with regular dues, training and re-testing schedules in order to buy ammo. And it is also perfectly reasonable not to sell to civilians extended capacity clips, fully automatic weapons, sniper rifles and high power weapons or armor piercing or anti-personnel munition.
USA second amendment talks about 'a well regulated millitia', so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that every person with a gun is or must be a member of millitia and that the constitution demands of the government to regulate him, including striping him of this status, if he proves to be unregulatable (as in unstable, insane or just a lousy shot).
It's an awful lot easier to source an illegal gun when there are many legal guns. You just steal one.
First, theres a lot of guns int he world. Even in places where it is illegal to own them, criminals smuggle them in or buy them from police and military on the black market. Second, when there are fewer guns, people turn to other weapons, from fists to bombs and there is no objective evidence that murder or violent crime rates actually decrease as a result. You may not be able to grow guns from seeds,but you can grow weapons from them, from poisons to clubs, and you can make weapons and commit violence with almost anything. Look at the nonsense in Britain, they enacted very strict gun control laws and then changed their method of counting violent crime so no one would be able to tell if it helped at all. Objective parties doing studies seem to indicate both violent crime and murder went up and now the UK is looking at strict "knife control" laws. It's just useless legislation to appease the voters instead of useful legislation that actually makes a difference.
P.S. and before you kick in with a completely unsupported argument that guns are a special case and more likely to kill, look at the pipe bombings and molotov cocktail attacks so common in Brazil.
Look at the nonsense in Britain, they enacted very strict gun control laws and then changed their method of counting violent crime so no one would be able to tell if it helped at all.
Bollocks. The police recorded crime method changed in 1998 to record more offences in the violent crime category. But the most reliable record of the level of crime in the UK is the British Crime Survey. It's more reliable than the police recorded crime stats, because it doesn't rely on people reporting crime. And it hasn't changed it's methodology since it started in the early 1980s. Crime of all categories has been falling since 1995.
But anyway, your response didn't address my original point at all. Illegal guns are more easy to source when there are lots of legal guns out there. You just steal one. Sure, guns can be smuggled. And guns being smuggled may be caught and the smuggler imprisoned. But smuggling doesn't go away in countries where there is little gun control. The availability of guns stolen from licensed holdings adds to the the availability of illegal guns.
You have no argument against that. It's undeniable.
As long as cops are not accountable for their actions and prosecutors have immunity we need guns.
I agree. I was surprised a few years ago (a relative of mine was subjected to false arrest due to an error made by another State's DMV, and was rather badly treated by the officers involved) to find that the police in my State were immunized from any consequences of their actions. Yes, I spoke to my attorney about it, I was going to take them to court. What he told me was this: they cannot be sued by a private citizen, even for false arrest. So we have to depend upon the police policing themselves, which is an untenable situation. We obviously cannot depend upon our lawmakers to hold incompetent or criminal police accountable either.
Too many people in this thread have an unreasonable and unreasoning trust of government. Heinlein said it best, "Never trust another man's better nature. He may not have one." Now, having said that, I don't currently own a firearm, for the same reasons you stated. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to just give up the legal right to ever acquire one, just because some people have an irrational fear of a particular class of machine. Yes, guns are dangerous but so are many, many other aspects of our society.
Honestly, I'm under far greater threat of sudden death from the sociopaths I must contend with on the expressway every morning. Stupid bastards: get the cigarettes out of your mouths and the cellphones out of your ears and watch where you're going. It's amazing to me how many people can, on the one hand, rant about the need for gun control (so that they will (ahem) "feel" safer) and on the other hand risk their lives, and the lives of those around them, while they erratically pilot tons of metal and plastic at unsafe speeds, day in day out. Ignorance must truly be bliss, I guess.
Hitler and Stalin fist required a gun registry then they used the registry to confiscate the guns then well you know the rest.
Contrary to popular belief, Hitler actually didn't require a gun registry because he didn't need to do so. If you look at the post-World-War-I period, it was the Weimar Republic that passed a rather modern (by our standards) gun control law, that Hitler's regime simply extended to serve their own agenda. More info here. Here is the lesson that we should take away from that: social controls implemented during times of relative peace can be used against the population during periods of conflict. It's already happening to us now, if we only had the wit to see it. Put it this way: according to our government officials, we are now at "war" on multiple fronts ... and the Patriot act is about to be renewed again.
Regardless, I look at the focus on gun control (which I perceive as being all out of proportion to the actual importance of such things) as having roots in two different areas: fear, and social control. Unfortunately, the two are working hand-in-hand to take something away from us that we still need.
I hate to break it to all you gun-control fruitbats out there, but we have not, as a race, changed all that much from Colonial times. We really haven't, and the presumption that the Founder's wisdom no longer applies to us is misguided at best. Use your heads people: if we were so much more civilized now, the supposed "need" for gun control wouldn't even be on the radar. Keep in mind, also, that that need isn't yours: it's that of fearful, uninformed people led by a government who is twisting those fears to its own end.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You are right. I did not think this through.
What i really meant was that the only way to defend yourself with a gun is seriously injuring or killing an opponent.
That I would come closer to agreeing with. There are situations de-escalated through the display or non-injurious use of a firearm. However, there always exists the threat of deadly force, unlike many other "defense through offense" weapons. The minimum damage from use contact is much, much higher with a firearm, so in that regard I agree completely.
>when do you think it's okay to kill people?
It's morally acceptable to kill an attacker in self-defense, or in the defense of others. Are you actually unclear on this point, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."