These Students will change US gun landscape

[oldbadger]

Geeze, Louise....are all you anti-gun types living in a world of self-serving stereotypes?

Come to the debate, Revolting!
There's nothing quite as 'usual' as the gung-ho gun-nut demanding the right to defend 'loved-ones' from the 'invaders'.

Have you been reading the posts?

Your children are beginning to move, and they are calling out 'Vote No!' We've been watching them on the telly. We got tellies here......... can see them. We don't need smoke signals here, mate!

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure how simple logic is surprising. A person bent on murder is going to be able to kill a lot more people with a gun and especially with a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15 than they are with a knife, car or whatever else. Do you think Stephen Paddock would've been able to mow down 58 people if he had a bolt-action rifle and not an arsenal of legal assault weapons, high capacity mags and bump stocks?

People love to bring up the terror attacks in Europe ("see, they still kill people but with trucks!") but can you imagine if the Bastille Day mass murderer used an AR-15 instead and how many more people would've been killed?

Yes, obviously the gun makes the difference. It makes killing very easy, very simple. Add to that semi-auto rifles (or fully auto in practice, with bump stocks), high capacity magazines and lax laws and high casualty killings are a cinch to pull off.

Well what you described was certainly not the mere existence of guns. But let us consider the issue since it seems to be the number of people murdered that you point to as the problem.

When we look at the murder rate in the U.S. we do see that compared to many, counterparts, it is higher. Is that just the guns though? The majority of crimes occur in areas of high poverty. Is it possible poverty has a role? We can predict prison populations by 3rd grade literacy? Can we say education has no role? Some mental illness has a high incidence of violence, can we say that mental illness doesn't play a role?

For you it seems quite apparent that guns and the ease of killing that they bring is the problem. For me, it is not so clear. I still see murder (and other violent crime) in countries that is not trivial. I think looking at guns as the cause is simplistic. And while I do concede that we would likely see a drop in these rates if we did ban all guns, I do not think that the rate would be one that brought us on parade with the other countries that are greatly lower than ours.

 

[oldbadger]

Car slams into crowd of people outside school in Toulouse

The article explains that 3-4 people were badly hurt in that crash, which is not terror related.

Your average stats suggest that 80 people got shot in the US today. Could we see 76 other incidents of car deaths? Please not that you can pick from the whole world for your stats, all we need to do is pick from US mass murders...... with fast-fire guns.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well what you described was certainly not the mere existence of guns. But let us consider the issue since it seems to be the number of people murdered that you point to as the problem.

When we look at the murder rate in the U.S. we do see that compared to many, counterparts, it is higher. Is that just the guns though? The majority of crimes occur in areas of high poverty. Is it possible poverty has a role? We can predict prison populations by 3rd grade literacy? Can we say education has no role? Some mental illness has a high incidence of violence, can we say that mental illness doesn't play a role?

For you it seems quite apparent that guns and the ease of killing that they bring is the problem. For me, it is not so clear. I still see murder (and other violent crime) in countries that is not trivial. I think looking at guns as the cause is simplistic. And while I do concede that we would likely see a drop in these rates if we did ban all guns, I do not think that the rate would be one that brought us on parade with the other countries that are greatly lower than ours.

You can continue to deflect all you please but I'm not buying it. Less guns = less murders and suicides. Semi-autos, high capacity magazines, bump stocks, etc. illegal? Watch those mass shooting rates drop. Period. Case closed.

 

[Curious George]

Oh, you knew about a car attack in 2001, but you're not quite sure about all the mass school shootings since?

Your schoolkids seem to know.

They've been demonstrating across America, and, surprisingly, European schoolkids have been demonstrating here in support of those US schoolkids.

You might not know, but they do.

Lol. You seem surprised. Like I should be keeping a tally or something. I do not know how many mass school killings or school killings there have been since 2001. Are you really trying to take me to task for not knowing?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Lol. You seem surprised. Like I should be keeping a tally or something. I do not know how many mass school killings or school killings there have been since 2001. Are you really trying to take me to task for not knowing?

The answer is they don't have any. Only America has this problem with school shootings.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not sure how simple logic is surprising. A person bent on murder is going to be able to kill a lot more people with a gun and especially with a semi-automatic rifle like an AR-15 than they are with a knife, car or whatever else. Do you think Stephen Paddock would've been able to mow down 58 people if he had a bolt-action rifle and not an arsenal of legal assault weapons, high capacity mags and bump stocks?

People love to bring up the terror attacks in Europe ("see, they still kill people but with trucks!") but can you imagine if the Bastille Day mass murderer used an AR-15 instead and how many more people would've been killed?

Yes, obviously the gun makes the difference. It makes killing very easy, very simple. Add to that semi-auto rifles (or fully auto in practice, with bump stocks), high capacity magazines and lax laws and high casualty killings are a cinch to pull off.

Some US folks just don't want to hear, see or speak about the 170 school shootings that have occurred since 2010.

I need to leave you to carry on the debate....... it's my bedtime.

 

[Audie]

How did that 'home invasion' happen?
Exactly what happened?

Uh..No.

 

[Curious George]

You can continue to deflect all you please but I'm not buying it. Less guns = less murders and suicides. Semi-autos, high capacity magazines, bump stocks, etc. illegal? Watch those mass shooting rates drop. Period. Case closed.

I am not deflecting. I am questioning your certainty. I am not bringing up irrelevant or unconnected issues. I am not saying you should be worried about this. I am asking how you so easily see the problem is not something else besides guns. You said the problem was obvious. I do not find it so. There must be a difference in how we see things. Where that difference is can only be discovered by exploring these questions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am not deflecting. I am questioning your certainty. I am not bringing up irrelevant or unconnected issues. I am not saying you should be worried about this. I am asking how you so easily see the problem is not something else besides guns. You said the problem was obvious. I do not find it so. There must be a difference in how we see things. Where that difference is can only be discovered by exploring these questions.

You don't see it because you don't want to.

 

[Curious George]

The answer is they don't have any. Only America has this problem with school shootings.

I think you are missing the conversation here.

Badger asked about mass car school killings.

I said I wasn't sure but here is one. Then I posted a link to a car rampage killing that happened in 2001 at ucsb.

Then he asked about how many mass school killings have happened since 2001.

I said I don't know.

Badger somehow found this offensive.

 

[Curious George]

You don't see it because you don't want to.

You do not think I could not say the same about people who want federal gun control?

It could be because I don't want to see it. But it does not feel that way from my end. You simply telling me that I do not want to see it surely doesn't help me see what you believe is so clear.

 

[Shaul]

Children are immature, obviously, and easily manipulated by authority figures such as teachers. Teachers are more liberal than society in general. It is high time that teachers stop using children to promote causes dear to teachers. It is morally wrong and disgusting. It is a form of child abuse.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I worked on a security operation for a national retailer in 1991.
The criminals were choosing a store at closing time, and ensuring that they were the last folks in the store at 'let-out' time. Then they soon had the staff on the floor at gun point in a neat line, picked out the responsible person/keyholder and beat them badly for safe position and keys/codes.

The store-detectives and retail investigators were all put on store-watch 'outside' the premises, and with a telephone arranged at any other venue, waiting for the same car to even pass by the watched store, and then get a call to waiting police teams.

Our ops were outside when they saw either the known vehicle or the hold-up, were outside when they alerted the police, and stayed outside after carrying out those instructions, taking as many details and descriptions as possible.

We were to stay outside. After each attack the store staff just insulted and screamed at any security op who had stayed outside and carried out their instructions. I often have thought of that recently.

That is interesting, though IMHO, armed comercial security is a very different proposition than private individuals armed for "self defence".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hi........ Absolutely!
This idea that a gun is best to protect from a 'home invasion'...... where do they get this crazy idea from from?

Some decent home-security keeps 'home-invasions' out. But I get the feeling that they buy a gun and do nothing else..... it's almost as if some of these gunners want to shoot at somebody.

and even if someone DOES break in, past security screens, sensor lights and deadbolts... is there anything in your house worth killing over? Everything in my house is insured. At the end of the day, if someone were that determined to break in to take anything in my house, there's nothing worth killing anyone over. I've killed people before, and believe me, I would happily pay the insurance deductible if it meant I could have avoided it.

And before anyone pulls a "don't you care about your family?" card, once again, I don't believe in roving bands of evil doers intent on breaking in to stranger's homes with an intent to do harm. If anyone breaks in here, it's because they either want to rob the place, or we already know them and it's a personal issue. Either way, arming for fear of strangers doesn't apply in either case.

 

[sayak83]

Huh? Felons (et al.) cannot legally purchase guns in any state.

What change in laws do you advocate in order to make "the state accountable for every life destroyed by a gun the state legally allowed the criminal to possess"? How many annual firearm deaths are being referred to by that designation?

Compensation to victim's nearest kin.
Most of these mass shooting have occured with guns that have been procured through legal means. That is correct, yes?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Compensation to victim's nearest kin.
Most of these mass shooting have occured with guns that have been procured through legal means. That is correct, yes?

Mandatory insurance with firearms, like cars, would help this.

 

[sayak83]

So you advocate total disarmament if it will save even just one life from criminals. No legal guns for anybody is Ok with you if I read your comment correctly. It sounds like you feel citizens like myself should not be permitted to have guns if it at all increases chances for someone to be killed. This seems extreme to me, not taking into account that people like to own guns and that people do not feel safe. Fear is the number one reason people buy guns, and you want to take those guns away. How reasonable is that?

The automobile argument goes both ways. People drive day to day in opposite directions passing only a foot or two from each other which is a testament that the public can be trusted. So, yes people should not be afraid, but no that does not support seizing our guns either. Seizing the guns is what happens when the government pursues a course like the one you are describing.

I did not say that at all. One of the goals of traffic and licensing rules could be said to be zero cases of drunk driving fatalities.

Here is a set of ideas that I think would be a positive step.

I have several propositions.
1) A person gets a gun apart from professional and personal security requirements only after he has held a job or is gainfully self-employed for at least one year. Otherwise, he/she would need a recommendation from the local citizen council (or whatever of that kind exists in US) to buy a gun. This, I will call "a responsible independent citizen requirement". The gun license has to be renewed every two years, where in addition to refresher gun training, a review of the responsible citizen requirement will be made. A centralized DMV like office should be responsible for giving, revoking or renewing the gun permits, or permits to sale the gun to a third party.

2) While giving gun permits, this DMV like office will review the person's law history and mental health records. Every new permit or renewal will require a psychiatric evaluation. Psychiatrists would be made available for appointment by the said office to applicants at a discounted price.

3) Revocation of license will require the person to submit his gun to the Gun Licensing Office within seven days. The person can choose to rent a locker where the gun will be kept until he gets his license back, or choose to sell it to a licensed third party.

Honest Discussion By A Pro-Gun Advocate On Firearm Laws

 

[Revoltingest]

Come to the debate, Revolting!
There's nothing quite as 'usual' as the gung-ho gun-nut demanding the right to defend 'loved-ones' from the 'invaders'.

Have you been reading the posts?

Your children are beginning to move, and they are calling out 'Vote No!' We've been watching them on the telly. We got tellies here......... can see them. We don't need smoke signals here, mate!

There's been very little to respond to.

 

[sayak83]

Hi........ Absolutely!
This idea that a gun is best to protect from a 'home invasion'...... where do they get this crazy idea from from?

Some decent home-security keeps 'home-invasions' out. But I get the feeling that they buy a gun and do nothing else..... it's almost as if some of these gunners want to shoot at somebody.

I would encourage people to buy or adopt dogs, real big one, not the little ones that yap away. Best home invasion security.