Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)

[RainLover]

If all of that is true then it is frightening.

I am sorry that is frightening. The best advice I can give you is don't bang on the side of my RV at 2:am.

This is interesting.

Bang on Dick's RV at 2:00 AM and he will go and get his gun and kill you.

Perhaps we should start gun control by taking Dick's gun away from him.

 

[RainLover]

ChrisO, I quote Mark Twain: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." The problem with statistics is that statistically, the number of kids killed by violent shooting incidents is far lower than the number of kids killed by vehicular accidents. Do we ban cars? I don't want anyone to think I'm not appalled by the Newtown tragedy. It is just that I would prefer to spend my resources on what I firmly believe to be the correct way to fix the problem rather than a fix for which I have absolutely no confidence in its effectiveness. Gun bans are a "feel-good" fix that I don't see as being effective. What else can I say? I think it diverts attention from the real problem.

Doc Man is not the only person to say something about the real problem.

Please explain, what exactly is the "Real Problem"

 

[RainLover]

A while back I heard a podcast from a leading policeman in New York talking about how they had managed to reduce crime levels in the city.

They had come to the opinion over the years that a significant proportion of all types of crime is not particularly planned it being largely opportunistic and that if a person could be prevented from committing a crime on a particular day rather than displacing that crime to another day that crime may never happen.

An example in Britain were the London riots of 2011 - a small minority decided to go on a rampage after a perceived injustice against an individual.
Subsequently many of the rioters and looters were interviewed.

• Many conceded that their involvement in looting was simply down to opportunism, saying that the perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford. They often described the riots as a chance to obtain "free stuff" or sought to justify the theft.

Unfortunately murder is most usually a crime of passion occuring between people who know each other. Something breaks in one or other individual and they strike out with whatever they have to hand with very little reason or thought for the long term consequences. It's why we keep guns away from children they might not mean to hurt anyone but at some point they might do something on the spur of the moment without thought. Keeping guns from them doesn't simply delay a crime they are destined to commit later it completely prevents a tragedy and crime from ever occurring.

It is an achievable goal to remove dangerous items from the vicinity of individuals or parties who you suspect lack responsibility. (which incidently closely tallies with the US foreign policy on nuclear weapons.)
It is a far harder goal to allow dangerous items to people and attempt to monitor them in the hope you can step in at an appropriate time to prevent disaster.

No guns and you don't have to monitor people - guns and your government may have to increase its monitoring of you.

It’s a perverse truth but your desire for guns may increase your governments wish to monitor your every movement. One of the very things you are rallying against.

It is my opinion that the statistics from other countries from Hawaii from New York all point in support of this theory. Reduced availability of guns isn't simply delaying crimes it is preventing them from ever occuring.

Adam Lanza would appear to fit this profile completely - he was upset with someone he knew ( his mother allegedly because she was seeking to commit him) he quite clearly lashed out against her and then with the opportunity in hand he lashed out against her place of work (quite likely because he associated it with her)

An altercation between mother and son looks like it was always going to happen but if the mother had been prevented from owning guns we have proof that the son would have been denied access to buying a gun. Would that have prevented further disaster?

I don't know but I strongly suspect it might have.

This theory makes sense to me.

New laws to Remove guns will not stop premeditated actions but it does go a long way to preventing opportunistic killing.

President Kennedy, one of your better Presidents was well aware of this during the missile crisis in Cuba. He did not want them removed because Cuba had plans to launch against the USA but because situations change. If the missiles were there, then someone someday just might in the heat of the moment give the order to launch.

 

[RainLover]

Who is in charge of the Armed Forces in USA.

I would think the President.

A Hypothetical Question. Is there a safety valve. What if the President ordered the troops to march against the people of America.

Is there another person like the Leader OT the Senate, Vice President, Four Star General etc who has the power to revoke that order.

I ask this question because firstly I do not fully understand the working of your government, but more importantly because it has Been said in this thread that the citizens need protection against their own government.

 

[Libre]

After reading some of this thread (not all of it - it's pretty long) the following has become clear to me. If everybody could had a gun, we would have less to fear from those who don't want them (i.e. avoid threats, run from danger, let the police do their job, etc), than we would from those who do (i.e. nobody messes with ME or my WIFE! Let them just TRY something - I'll show those punks, etc)
Another of life's ironys. Those who want the guns the most shouldn't have them, and those that don't want them at all have the best temperment to have them.

 

[dan-cat]

As to whether our house has ever been broken into? No, but only because someone was home, turned on a light, and scared away the ones making the attempt. We had to buy an alarm system because of that.

No gun use > everyone lived

I haven't had to defend myself with a weapon, but I do personally know someone who did so. He walked away. His assailant and would-be robber didn't. It happens.

Gun use > someone died.

When a government has its people totally subjugated, that is when the greatest atrocities begin.

Oh look, the use of superlatives in a pro-gun argument, go figure.

Governments will be reluctant to do that when their people can shoot back.

Do please remind me of Saddam's reluctance in these matters or perhaps the Taliban or indeed the current Syrian government over the past two years.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the ethnic cleansing in Serbia, my bad.

In a sense, it is probably why many of the Middle Eastern countries can't control the terrorist groups within themselves. The terrorists have at least as modern a set of weapons as the governments.

Ah yes the linking of social instability to a rampant gun culture, now we're getting somewhere.

Let's see if you can draw yourself away from AMERICAN history for a short while and broaden our horizons. The overthrow of Milosevic for example where not a single individual was killed by gunfire. Or perhaps you'd like to try India's winning of independence. Doesn't work for you? How about Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Bulgaria all breaking free from Communist rule in 1989, peacefully?

Now do me a favor. Stop using the American Revolutionary War as a global template for how all suppressive regimes are overturned. It's hogwash, ego-centric and downright ignorant.

 

[Libre]

I've read here, and on other threads, statements like: i want an American to answer this; Americans think like this; in America they do this, where in (Belgium, Canada, Lichtenstein, take your pick) they do it like that.
Those that are guilty (yes guilty) of statements like this need to understand that America (call it the United States) is a nation of > 300 million, as diverse as African Bushmen are from Eskimos. Your attitude about "Americans" is narrow minded and bigoted. I'm no more like the gun zealots than Ghandi is to Idi Amin. So please stop lumping all of us into this tiny concept that your mind has constructed.
Thank you,
Marc from New York City, a Jewish atheist liberal democrat in favor of banning all private guns and in favor of legalizing gay marriage and pot.

 

[RainLover]

I've read here, and on other threads, statements like: i want an American to answer this; Americans think like this; in America they do this, where in (Belgium, Canada, Lichtenstein, take your pick) they do it like that.
Those that are guilty (yes guilty) of statements like this need to understand that America (call it the United States) is a nation of > 300 million, as diverse as African Bushmen are from Eskimos. Your attitude about "Americans" is narrow minded and bigoted. I'm no more like the gun zealots than Ghandi is to Idi Amin. So please stop lumping all of us into this tiny concept that your mind has constructed.
Thank you,
Marc from New York City, a Jewish atheist liberal democrat in favor of banning all private guns and in favor of legalizing gay marriage and pot.

Are you Marc.

But this is the fault of your Media. It is what we read in papers and the internet, and it is what we see on your TV and your big screen.

I would say that we are as diverse as the USA but we got rid of most guns and these mass shootings stopped. Bad guys still kill bad guys and they always will. But unballanced people do not have guns so they just kill themselves.

Pot and poofters are another subject.

 

[Steve R.]

Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this opinion piece: The roots of mass murder. Of course please read his full opinion piece.

Krauthammer, by way of introduction writes:

Every mass shooting has three elements: the killer, the weapon and the cultural climate. As soon as the shooting stops, partisans immediately pick their preferred root cause with corresponding pet panacea. Names are hurled, scapegoats paraded, prejudices vented. The argument goes nowhere.

He goes on to write:

The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.
...
A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

So do we deprive the mentally ill of their civil liberties OR do we deprive the responsible general public of their civil liberties?

 

[Libre]

But this is the fault of your Media. It is what we read in papers and the internet, and it is what we see on your TV and your big screen.

Okay, where to start.
1- it is not MY media.
2- those who believe whatever they read in the media and see on TV are the unquestioning sheep that I directed my comments to.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Okay, where to start.
1- it is not MY media.
2- those who believe whatever they read in the media and see on TV are the unquestioning sheep that I directed my comments to.

Only a pedant would think that Rain meant it was his/her media as in Libre was responsible for it.

Point 2 so those kids didn't die, I can't believe they did as I wasn't there!

Rain mentioned various sources, he like all thinking people will examine and question what he reads, you are insulting to say that he doesn't, but then you are a Jewish atheist what a contradiction, do you actually ever think?

Brian

 

[RainLover]

Okay, where to start.
1- it is not MY media.
2- those who believe whatever they read in the media and see on TV are the unquestioning sheep that I directed my comments to.

It is your Media.

1- It is not the German, English, French or Australian Media I am referring to it is your Media. The Media of the USA.

2- If we (the sheep) can't form an opinion from the sources I quoted, please tell me where do I go to form an opinion. Or more importantly where do you go to find the truth.

EDIT

From what I have seen of your posts you believe that there should be gun control. If that is the case then I agree with you.

You will do naught for your cause by offending others. Especially those who agree with you.

 

[dan-cat]

So do we deprive the mentally ill of their civil liberties OR do we deprive the responsible general public of their civil liberties?

First up, fallacy of the false dilemma.

Secondly, you don't have to be mentally ill to be dangerously irresponsible. It is being speculated that Adam Lanza's mother was in the process of having him committed. Let's say this is true. In what way is it responsible to hold semi-automatic weapons in the same house as a person you think requires forced psychiatric treatment? What's the difference if danger arises from insanity or stupidity?

Gun enthusiasts cannot stop disabling their "self-defense in the home" argument by simultaneously adopting gun safety. Gun safety dictates they are to be unloaded and locked up. If criminals are armed and coming in ready to kill how does gun safety not impinge on the right to defend oneself? Again, no matching up of their outlook to reality.

Lastly we hear how militias are required to rise up against tyranny. No mention of the fact that the entire Eastern Bloc fell without a single militia. Yet again, external reality conflicting with the pro-gunner's version of it.

I'm sorry but when it comes to guns, people in general are too dumbed down to not have restrictions placed upon them. If an individual simultaneously knowingly has an arsenal big enough to start a one-man war and an individual needing to be committed in the same house doesn't convince you, then I rest my case.

 

[Libre]

Only a pedant would think that Rain meant it was his/her media as in Libre was responsible for it.

Point 2 so those kids didn't die, I can't believe they did as I wasn't there!

Rain mentioned various sources, he like all thinking people will examine and question what he reads, you are insulting to say that he doesn't, but then you are a Jewish atheist what a contradiction, do you actually ever think?

Brian

Brian- let me try to straighten you out.
1- a "pendant" is a piece of jewelry, suspended from a chain and worn about the neck. Did you really mean "pendant" or were you referring to something else?
2- Point 2 - I didn't warn against believing ANYTHING thing you read, I was warning about believing WHATEVER you read. Think about the difference between the two and get back to me;
3- I'm warning against forming strong opinions based solely on what you read in the media. If you don't disagree, why dispute it? If you do disagree, then I wonder which one of us doesn't think;
4- if you think being a Jewish atheist is a contradiction, then you're confused about what it means to be Jewish and what it means to be an atheist. One is a matter of birth and culture, and the other is a state of mind. No contradiction.
5- Yes, I think. Deeply and often.
Marc

 

[Brianwarnock]

Libre try reading as well as thinking,I said pedant, notice no n between the e and the d.

So if Jewish is not a religion can you be a Jewish Muslim .?

Brian

 

[Libre]

It is your Media.

1- It is not the German, English, French or Australian Media I am referring to it is your Media. The Media of the USA.

2- If we (the sheep) can't form an opinion from the sources I quoted, please tell me where do I go to form an opinion. Or more importantly where do you go to find the truth.

EDIT

From what I have seen of your posts you believe that there should be gun control. If that is the case then I agree with you.

You will do naught for your cause by offending others. Especially those who agree with you.

Out of line of me to call you a sheep - which I did not do directly but if you took it that way I'm sorry. I was referring to those that see something on TV and assume it is reflective of reality. I did not really mean you, specifically, but you made the argument that my (our) media portrays us this way.
Let me answer by saying, that if all you read or see in the movies are super-hero action movies, and can't distinguish the difference between this and real reporting, and don't ever explore more sophisticated or balanced offerings, then you will certainly wind up with an unbalanced and innaccurate view of the US and its people.

 

[Libre]

Libre try reading as well as thinking,I said pedant, notice no n between the e and the d.

So if Jewish is not a religion can you be a Jewish Muslim .?

Brian

Okay - you wrote pedant and I read it as pendant. You got me there.
I don't know if a Muslim can be Jewish.
I don't pretend to have all the answers.
I just know what I am.
I'm Jewish.
I've been Bar Mitzvahed and circumcised, but I don't worship God, or pray, or keep the Sabbath holy.
I do eat matzoh on Passover and fast on Yom Kippur, because I choose to. I think there is value in doing so, and I enjoy our traditions.
Maybe there is more to this than you've given consideration to, Brian.
Maybe there is more than 1 kind of American regardless of what you choose to watch on TV.
But do you really think that "the media" portrays Americans this way?
I'm sure you can distinguish between fiction and non-fiction in the media, can't you - and without being told.
I dispute the fact that the media portrays Americans in any one way or other.
Have you seen President Obama in the media?
Have you seen Stephen Hawking in the media?
Have you seen Jay Zee, Ice Tea, Snoop Dog, Lady Gaga, Arnold Schwartzenegger, and Bugs Bunny in the media?
Did you think they were portrayed all the same?

 

[Steve R.]

Secondly, you don't have to be mentally ill to be dangerously irresponsible.

Quite true. You have raised valid points.

 

[spikepl]

And here is NRA's "contribution" to the "debate": http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

So, what do our American friends think about the NRA's vision of all schools being renamed into O.K. Corral?

(Where I reside for the moment, a seldom unified voice of public opinion has largely declared Americans as nutters)

 

[Dick7Access]

I've always had my suspicions about you Dick

Does that mean I can't sleep at your house?