Gun Issues page 25

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

Another shooting in Aurora today

Geez. OK. Maybe Aurora’s not the best place to live. Although, the shootings seem to be hitting everywhere all of a sudden. Maybe it is stress from the economy. I don’t know of any other factor that has suddenly changed in the last couple years (that wasn’t present before) to correlate it to.

To be fair, that article tells almost nothing about the incident. All it says is that some guy apparently took hostages, murdered thhem and was found by the police and shot when they moved in.
It can hardly be compared to the incident in the theatre.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Guns don’t really solve any core problems and really have nothing to do with the core problems.

You still haven’t said what those “core problems” are, you know.

Actually, have you said anything other than “core” or “real problems?”

The fact that we refuse to look for is the real problem. There is some reason these shootings are happening and it isn’t because we are allowed to own firearms.

And do you have any idea what they could be, or are you just as “in the dark” as everyone else?

Originally posted by jhco50:

I hadn’t even heard about that one. I don’t know what is going on but we have never had this much carnage before.

So, does this count as a mass shooting to you, and if so, was the townhouse totally “gun free,” because I think this might contradict one thing you said if both are true.

We don’t really know the core problems because we are ignoring them. We are trying to take the easy way out and blame something besides the person themselves. I have stated two suggestions several times and they are a common between all of the young shooters, even dating back to Columbine.

Do I know the problem? No. But I have at least made some suggestions. We have a problem, yes, but it isn’t the firearms. There is something we are overlooking that sets these shooters off.

Not a mass murder, but a murder none the less.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

One of my daughter’s friends has had her own Facebook page and iPhone for some time now. She’s only about 12, but I think she’s all but lost touch with what it is to be a kid. She’s basically acting like an adult, posting sexy pictures of herself up on facebook, sitting on her iPhone all the time, and so forth…I don’t know, I think some parents either let their kids grow up way too fast with these things or just lose control.

That is what my niece is doing too…along with a few words that should get her mouth washed with soap.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Do I know the problem? No. But I have at least made some suggestions.

When? No seriously, when? I don’t remember.

There is something we are overlooking that sets these shooters off.

Well I’m going to assume that in some cases it’s an existing (but possibly unknown) psychosis.

Not a mass murder, but a murder none the less.

Technically several. And a suicide.

Originally posted by jhco50:

That is what my niece is doing too…along with a few words that should get her mouth washed with soap.

Wait, why don’t we hire people to jailbait? /philosoraptor

On a completely unrated note, is To Catch a Predator still on?

 
Flag Post

Tenco, I suggested mind altering drugs like Ritalin and the ability to pick a place that was openly unarmed. Didn’t allow firearms. Actually, you may be on to something with an existing psychosis.

I have never seen that show.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Tenco, I suggested mind altering drugs like Ritalin and the ability to pick a place that was openly unarmed. Didn’t allow firearms. Actually, you may be on to something with an existing psychosis.

I’m not sure why you are fixated on this prescription drug thing. You do realize that this is the same argument in the anti-gun/pro-gun mess, right? i.e. “Taking guns away because of something one person did hurts all the law abiding gun owners and their ability to protect themselves.” Now put Rx in that place: “Taking Rx away because of something one person did hurts all the law abiding prescription medication users and their ability to help themselves.” Something to think about before we go blaming another inanimate object/concept.

I have never seen that show.

It was an interesting show. You can probably catch them all on YouTube.

 
Flag Post

Because all of these young shooters were on one of these drugs. This isn’t exactly they same type of argument. I have see our news media fixate on this same thing. You do know my youngest son-in-law is on that one you said the little girl was on? He hasn’t gone berserk either, but something is causing this and I am trying to get people to discuss this and maybe come up with more ideas. I’m not suggesting we take all of these drugs away because some people do need them. I am suggesting we are over prescribing them and this might have something to do with what is going on.

I’m also blaming, and really feel this is one of the problems, no gun zones. The reason I feel these have something to do with it is it gives them a guaranteed pool of unarmed victims. There is absolutely no chance of anyone shooting back. Say the teachers were armed. Tis would create enough doubt in the mind of the young shooter that he may think twice about using these schools for a source of victims.

I don’t recall ever seeing that show, but it sounds interesting.

 
Flag Post

Don, here is a good video on gun-control in your country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoV7TgAXKO8

And for you Canadians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Don, here is a good video on gun-control in your country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoV7TgAXKO8

And for you Canadians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw

Again, if you’re going to post videos at least try to give more information than “hey look at this, it’s relevant.”

 
Flag Post

It’s pretty obvious what they are when you watch them. Did you enjoy them? Here is another video (guess what I’m doing?) for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

Hahahaha! This video shows the intelligence of our ATF people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2sWiZ8BizI

 
Flag Post

I think we should ban all assault weapons.

Nobody needs more than a handgun for self defense.

All other guns are just so people can kill or compensate.

 
Flag Post

And you know this how? Could you elaborate on your feelings about this?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Because all of these young shooters were on one of these drugs. This isn’t exactly they same type of argument. I have see our news media fixate on this same thing. You do know my youngest son-in-law is on that one you said the little girl was on? He hasn’t gone berserk either, but something is causing this and I am trying to get people to discuss this and maybe come up with more ideas.

Yes, it does seem to me that many posters here ACTUALLY ARE discussing more ideas. It is YOU who maintains the status quo when ANY idea gets ANYWHERE NEAR guns.

I’m not suggesting we take all of these drugs away because some people do need them.

And, I’m (we?) not suggesting we take away all of these guns…because some ppl do need them.

I am suggesting we are over prescribing them and this might have something to do with what is going on.

I (we?) am suggesting we are OVERSUPPLING” guns and this might have something to do with what is going on.
I’m also blaming, and really feel this is one of the problems, no gun zones. The reason I feel these have something to do with it is it gives them a guaranteed pool of unarmed victims.

There cetainly IS merit to this position.
BUT, all it addresses is the “one-hand” side of the issue. What is the “other-hand” of this point? What kind of licensing would be required for teachers to carry? How many teachers does it take to ENSURE a maniac doesn’t kill the whole of 35 kids in a classroom that a teacher have a gun? What happens when, even if ALL teachers are armed, the maniac drops him/er first upon coming through the door?

It is the NRA et.al who is tossing bullshit ideas at the problem. I would like to know EXACTLY what saturation level of guns “EVERYWHERE” is sufficient to “solve” this problem.
I want to see a rational CORRELATION between number of guns per capita and number of gun-related homicides for the U.S. Then, compare it to other countries. I’ve already given Austrailia’s.

There is absolutely no chance of anyone shooting back.

This is tacitly true. I’m certainly in favor of discussing how this could be changed.

Say the teachers were armed. Tis would create enough doubt in the mind of the young shooter that he may think twice about using these schools for a source of victims.

ALL of the teachers? Do YOU realize the obsticales associated w/ a proposal like that? How many good treachers would we lose because they either couldn’t be qualified or wouldn’t opt to do so? It’s not like we have a surplus of GOOD teachers. It would be interesting to know the percentage of teachers that could be armed…for each level of schools,,,plus many other areas that have “gun-free” zones.

This “one-trick-pony” concept that “pro-gunners” offer is now at the point of dimining returns. Yes, guns are (can be) “good”. BUT, it is ludircous to say that MORE GUNS WILL BE MOREGOODER”. I have yet to hear of a sensible feasible extention of this “heavily armed society” concept being even put forth by the “pro-gunners”. I want to hear some rational ideas of how it would be implimented, at what co$t, at what level of scrutiny, etc.

Does the NRA et.al seriously think “concerned ppl” are buying into this load of overly-simplistic rational on how to thwart incidents like these mass shootings? This is what I mean by the audacity-0-arrogance being put out by “pro-gunner” groups that are themselves either very naive or just full of shit and can’t see beyond their own barrel sight.

 
Flag Post

OK let’s look at some statistics ten…

http://gigaom.com/data/maybe-big-data-can-quell-gun-violence-but-not-in-the-way-you-think/


http://aneconomicsense.com (scroll down).

 
Flag Post

Karma, the NRA doesn’t have anything to do with selling guns. All they are for is to protect one of our rights in the Constitution. Gun sales at the moment are a product of our president. I really am not thrilled with a historical peak in sales like this as it drives the cost of firearms up and soon ammunition will be disappearing off the shelves again. That and all of those new gun owners will have to be taught, filling up the ranges. But, that is what we have.

I would think if you allowed teachers to carry if the wanted to, and concealed, it would be a much better situation. Let them take there CCW classes and go through the background checks and they carry at school. Teachers are not prone to going berserk, you are thinking of postal employees.

I have already told you I am not in agreement with them on that proposal. If you would look at the first link I gave to Tenco. It is a report from PBS journalist John Stossel.

It already seems the only people who don’t bring firearms on school grounds is the average citizen. The people willing to kill our children are not affect by this no gun zone. If the average citizen, normally the parents of the children were not hindered by this federal law, there would be the presence of some firearms in the area of these children and I think shooters would think twice about using the school for their 15 minutes of fame.

Of course these are just my thoughts on this and I am open for other inputs. BTW, This is the only site I have open at the moment and my headphones are broadcasting a Japanese movie audio. You ever have this happen before? Edit: It stopped when I saved this post. Hmmmmm

 
Flag Post

Damn…thijser, I was looking at that first graph and scratching my head.
I wasn’t getting the point of it….all the nations were so closely together I saw very little distinction.

T H E N,…I looked at the top-right corner. WOW-0-WOW.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

And you know this how? Could you elaborate on your feelings about this?

No, he can’t. He’s a troll. Haven’t you ever met CROW?

 
Flag Post

He probably hasn’t met him, but he eats crow a lot.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Don, here is a good video on gun-control in your country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoV7TgAXKO8

Thoughts/comments as I watch and work through the video…

So you’re suggesting that instead of protesting the then proposed legislation peacefully we, the gun owners of the country, should of what? Formed a mob and stormed parliament? Shot all those (unfortunately the great majority in the UK) who were in favour of the handgun ban? Why the great majority? Well, as already mentioned, one of the main reasons is that shooting was/is always seen as an elitist sport here, not to mention the role the press played in stirring up the ‘great unwashed masses’.

Secondly… the rhetoric in the video did/does nothing to support the cause… ‘pistols no matter how valuable waiting for destruction’, ‘collections ripped apart’, etc… true it became illegal to own a working firearm with a barrel of less than 30cm (from memory)… but if you are a collector and/or had something so rare and beautiful it would be a crime to see it destroyed, there was always the option of having it deactivated (e.g. it doesn’t need to be able to shoot to hang on a wall and look pretty).

Thirdly… olympic shooters… ‘only’ (and yes, that’s bad enough) the pistol shooting disciplines were affected so yeah, if you were one of the half a dozen or so elite/olympic pistol shooters you’re shit out of luck… like the rest of shooters we may not like the law but, being in the significant minority, we have little option but abide by it (unless we want to spend some time in prison, etc).

Personally, if I were good enough to have been in that position, I’d still travel abroad to shoot/train and do my damndest to get a medal… and then make a large political statement on the podium by either refusing to accept it or claiming it under the flag of the country in which I was training.

Side note: The pistol ban is not complete, it’s a bit of a catch 22 situation but if you’re good enough to compete internationally you may still own pistols, and there’s even a few ranges where shooters may legally train… of course, how you prove yourself good enough to be allowed to own one in the first place when you can’t own one to start with… well, you get the picture.

Next, while I was avoiding commenting on Australia (as not an Australian) I can’t ignore ‘gun shops closing because people have lost their rights’, etc… assuming their legal system was based on ours (a fair assumption I’m sure you’d agree) there was, as you are fond of telling us, no right to lose. To whit the commentator is both factually incorrect and, in my opinion, deliberately misleading his target (American) audience.

And continuing… ‘…gun owners gave up not only the guns that were banned but bowed to public pressure and gave up all their guns, giving up their rights…’ – as above, no rights were lost, they didn’t exist in the first place… more fool them but, as I mentioned in the opening para, such is the overwhelming public opinion (or certainly was at the time) that politicians could, for once, legitimately claim to be operating with the vast majority. And such is the price for living in a democratic country…

The majority wanted a public smoking ban… such a smoking ban was introduced…
The majority wanted a handgun ban… a handgun ban was introduced…
The majority wanted a ban on hunting with dogs… well you get the idea.

And finally… ‘…their message to those in America…’ shame is nobody’s been suggesting banning guns, either here or there but something has to be done to at least make it a lot harder for the unsuitable to get their hands on a gun (or any other lethal weapon) something your country’s crime stats demonstrate is a very real problem there.

Personally I favour better background checks, mandatory training (use and maintenance) and ‘safe storage’ requirements (with regular/random safety inspections, to make sure you’re living up to your responsibilities whilst enjoying your right).

 
Flag Post

Of course you would know more about your country than I would, but I though England had a bill of rights, this one.

English Bill of Rights
freedom from royal interference with the law

freedom to petition the Monarch

freedon from taxation by royal perogative

freedom from the standing army during times of peace

freedom for Protestants to bear arms

freedom to elect members of parliament without royal intervention

freedom of speech

freedom to have a fair trial or not to be punished without trial

freedom from unjust punishment

incorporated in the Bill of Rights 1689, which apply in Britain today and in Commonwealth Countries

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_rights_are_guaranteed_to_the_people_in_the_English_Bill_of_Rights

This may or not be the current one, but it is my impression that some of the rights we claim in our Bill of Rights were based on yours.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:

Thirdly… olympic shooters… ‘only’ (and yes, that’s bad enough) the pistol shooting disciplines were affected so yeah, if you were one of the half a dozen or so elite/olympic pistol shooters you’re shit out of luck&#8230

Only that you’re not.
You could let the shooting range have the gun and get it from there to use it there and there only.

Problem solved.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

This may or not be the current one, but it is my impression that some of the rights we claim in our Bill of Rights were based on yours.

Or freedoms that, you know, weren’t given to us when Britain owned us as a colony.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPeeR:
Originally posted by donseptico:

Thirdly… olympic shooters… ‘only’ (and yes, that’s bad enough) the pistol shooting disciplines were affected so yeah, if you were one of the half a dozen or so elite/olympic pistol shooters you’re shit out of luck&#8230

Only that you’re not.
You could let the shooting range have the gun and get it from there to use it there and there only.

Problem solved.

That should work perfectly for everyone, not just olympic shooters, should it not? The gun is the property of the range. It never leaves the range. You as a paying customer come in, pass the basic range safety course, and pay for ammunition and time with a weapon that you are certified for.

Because it is specially designated for the range, there is nothing stopping a rather hefty GPS device being put into the handle. If you try to walk out of the range carrying the gun, you are committing a criminal offense, and an alarm flags up inside the range itself – tracking the weapon in realtime.

The basic tech is extremy simple, and has been used by supermarkets for years. Virtual walls surround the property. Everything works fine and dandy till you try to take the gun past the virtual wall. That’s when the alarms are triggered. Think of it as a real-world collision detection bounding box. Supermarkets use it for trolleys, if you try to take the trolley out past the virtual wall, a circuit inside the trolley is triggered and the wheels fuse together.

This is the same idea, but instead of parts fusing together, a tracking beacon is activated, and alarms sound. If someone is bound and determined to sneak a gun out, then they may well succeed, depending on how over-tired the range safety officers are that day. But the computer never gets tired, and triggers the alarm regardless of the method you use, once the gun either crosses the virtual wall, or stops reporting altogether (as in being placed inside a shielded box)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Of course you would know more about your country than I would, but I though England had a bill of rights, this one.

English Bill of Rights
freedom from royal interference with the law

freedom to petition the Monarch

freedon from taxation by royal perogative

freedom from the standing army during times of peace

freedom for Protestants to bear arms

freedom to elect members of parliament without royal intervention

freedom of speech

freedom to have a fair trial or not to be punished without trial

freedom from unjust punishment

incorporated in the Bill of Rights 1689, which apply in Britain today and in Commonwealth Countries

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_rights_are_guaranteed_to_the_people_in_the_English_Bill_of_Rights

This may or not be the current one, but it is my impression that some of the rights we claim in our Bill of Rights were based on yours.

English Bill of Rights

Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
No – “That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law” – an army may stand in peacetime if it is the will of parliament.
No – “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law” – (subsequently expanded to include other religions!) but people may own arms for their defence subject to any restrictions laid down in law by parliament.
Yes
No – “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament” – the only people with true freedom of speech ar members of parliament WHEN they are in parliament.
Yes (kinda)
Yes (kinda)


edit: and obviously, rights granted by such lawful process can be amended or even removed entirely at a later date by similar lawful process. As true for the 1689 document paraphrased above as the American constitution (including the bill of rights – over which, I note with interest, there was serious debate as to the validity and necessity of adding within the constitution).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPeeR:
Originally posted by donseptico:

Thirdly… olympic shooters… ‘only’ (and yes, that’s bad enough) the pistol shooting disciplines were affected so yeah, if you were one of the half a dozen or so elite/olympic pistol shooters you’re shit out of luck&#8230

Only that you’re not.
You could let the shooting range have the gun and get it from there to use it there and there only.

Problem solved.

Handguns are, generally, illegal here. The range can no more hold one than its members could. There are a very few exceptions made allowing olympic shooters to own and keep a handgun but, generally, in order to practise they either have to go abroad (or to the super secret range we mere mortals don’t know about where they’re permitted to be used).

Of course, something like Vika’s suggestion would work nicely and could lead to a widening of interest in the sport amongst the general population (meaning it more likely that the outright ban could be removed)… oh well, guess I’ll just have to dream and reminisce.