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.
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.
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.
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 find that when someone starts calling inanimate objects things like "specially designed murder weapons", it tells me more about their mental state than they might have wished.
My guns don't "murder" anybody. Never have, never will. They might get used to protect my family's lives someday though.
Criminals might use guns to murder people. Guess what -- they might use a knife or a bomb to do the same thing. Or maybe a baseball bat. UK banned guns, now they have knife crime. When they get knives completely banned they'll have baseball bat crime. Criminals don't follow the law. Law-abiding people are your last defense against them.
Regardless, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. There are more firearms in the US than there are people. We own them for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is because our Founding Fathers wrote our right to do so into our Constitution to ensure no one ever took it away from us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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 tend to go with what the Constitution and SCOTUS says in terms of both legal and reasonable, in general.
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 find that when someone starts calling inanimate objects things like "specially designed murder weapons", it tells me more about their mental state than they might have wished.
My guns don't "murder" anybody. Never have, never will. They might get used to protect my family's lives someday though.
Criminals might use guns to murder people. Guess what -- they might use a knife or a bomb to do the same thing. Or maybe a baseball bat. UK banned guns, now they have knife crime. When they get knives completely banned they'll have baseball bat crime. Criminals don't follow the law. Law-abiding people are your last defense against them.
Regardless, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. There are more firearms in the US than there are people. We own them for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is because our Founding Fathers wrote our right to do so into our Constitution to ensure no one ever took it away from us.
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.
Nice to see the anti-gunners have mod points today. Misuse the system and moderate down things you disagree with -- that makes sense.
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.
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.
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.
Absolute, unadulterated bullshit. There's always a shooter involved, even if it was unintentional. Guns don't load and fire themselves.
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.
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 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.
Not really -- his youtube videos make it pretty clear who he was.
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.
That statement doesn't even make any sense.
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.
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'd argue you know nothing about firearms or their defensive use.
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.
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.
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.
The first moderation this comment received (-1 flamebait) was the correct one.
Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.