America is looking at removing the 2nd amednment.

[Robot Boy]

Criminals don't follow laws. Thats true. However your local lunatic can simply waltz into walmarts, purchase an assault rifle and start shooting. Not all gun crimes are commited by criminals. For instance you know that singer Marvin Gaye? He was killed by his father during an argument. Don't you think such a death would have been prevented if he simply didnt have a gun?

Even if thats true it still shouldn't be applied to the rest of us for what an individual who can't even control himself did. We shouldn't have to pay for what he did. Plus he would've used something else to kill him if that was the case.After all your hands are the most dangerous weapons at your disposal because a gun can't act on its own unless it was being controlled.

 

[Aim64C]

Criminals don't follow laws. Thats true. However your local lunatic can simply waltz into walmarts, purchase an assault rifle and start shooting.

No, he cannot. There is a waiting period in effect.

Case-in-point, the shooter in Connecticut attempted to purchase an assault rifle at a local dealer the day before he acted. He was denied an immediate purchase because of the waiting period.

Obviously - the law didn't stop him. He simply took one of this mother's.

Why he bothered to try and get his own in the first place is a bit of a mystery. I doubt we can ever completely route the logic used in his decision.

Not all gun crimes are commited by criminals.

I'll give you a few hours to think on how to rephrase this.

For instance you know that singer Marvin Gaye? He was killed by his father during an argument. Don't you think such a death would have been prevented if he simply didnt have a gun?

Is it our responsibility as a society to prevent people from making decisions in anger?

You're comparing apples and oranges, here. There is a huge difference between the vast majority of firearm homicide (committed with handguns in close quarters in one-assailant/one-victim scenarios) and the rare rampages that set the media abuzz for weeks.

It's flawed reasoning to believe that society is responsible for the actions of individuals decided in anger.

I dealt with anger while I carried enough firepower to put an end to the entire compound; none of us ever let it lead us into violent displays with a firearm. I'll gladly take the chance that I have to deal with some other person's poor decision to draw on me or someone near me.

"Oh, yeah, because you're going to carry that firearm around with you everywhere?"

No.

Like I said in another discussion. You can sprint the effective range of most handguns in a very, very short order of time. The people who are most likely to be trained and effective at employing the weapon at nominal ranges are also the least likely to use it in abusive scenarios.

If we want to argue that it is society's responsibility to try and take away devices that people abuse at a cost of human life...

I very easily make the argument that motor vehicles should be much more heavily restricted. They are instrumental in over 35,000 deaths annually (the population of the town I currently live in) - that is with standardized, mandatory performance evaluations and licensing for ALL motor vehicle operators on public roads. Private vehicles are also a prime facilitator involved with the roughly 12,000 murders made annually.

Thus, restricting the private ownership and operation of motor vehicles on public roadways to only those individuals whose livelihood is completely dependent upon that vehicle would cut motor vehicle related death to a mere fraction of what it is overnight. Further, emphasis on public transportation allows for the better coordination of public security and would contribute to a decline in violent crime and murder rates along with it.

And then let's not even get started on how alcohol plays into both motor vehicle related death and firearm homicide (and suicide).

Do we blame alcohol as a society? No. That shit is sacred. Banning it doesn't do much to firearm homicides (may even increase them). Tried that before.

Do we blame cars? No. It's always the idiot who doesn't know how to drive who causes the problem. Certainly, you, with your low-profile tires that hydroplane on the morning dew, are careful and responsible in your use of a 3,000 lb incendiary bomb traveling at 70 miles per hour.

The only reason people subscribe to this idea that firearms need to be removed from the hands of private citizens is because they, personally, do not use one on a regular basis for non-murderous purposes.

You look at a firearm and see a death machine. I look at it and see it as a tool - like a pair of scissors, the smart phone in my hand, or the car in my garage.

The difference is that I recognize the tool for what it can do, as well. Like I said - your car is a one and a half ton incendiary bomb that regularly travels at 60-70 miles per hour ( - no, let's be real, I'll be cruising a hundred meters or so behind a semi traveling 85 and have people blow my doors off or get pissed because I'm going too slow for them).

 

[Aim64C]

Don't we need guns to hunt animals cause if we don't then the population of animal like the deer would grow to big and the food pyramid or whatever would be disrupted. I personally don't believe in killing animals but other people hunting Is the only way for animals to live.

Not so much the food pyramid. If the hunters don't get the deer, the cars will.

Pro-animal nuts were ecstatic when Missouri announced a program to return elk to parts of the Ozark and Meramek regions. That's going to be a good idea until, five or ten years from now, people start running into them on the highway.

Deer are bad enough - some of them walk away from crashes that total a car (granted, the "collapsible car" crash concept doesn't work quite as well in protecting drivers from deer). Elk are like twice the size and easily three to four times the mass.

 

[TrollingSage]

No, he cannot. There is a waiting period in effect.

Case-in-point, the shooter in Connecticut attempted to purchase an assault rifle at a local dealer the day before he acted. He was denied an immediate purchase because of the waiting period.

Obviously - the law didn't stop him. He simply took one of this mother's.

Why he bothered to try and get his own in the first place is a bit of a mystery. I doubt we can ever completely route the logic used in his decision.



I'll give you a few hours to think on how to rephrase this.



Is it our responsibility as a society to prevent people from making decisions in anger?

You're comparing apples and oranges, here. There is a huge difference between the vast majority of firearm homicide (committed with handguns in close quarters in one-assailant/one-victim scenarios) and the rare rampages that set the media abuzz for weeks.

It's flawed reasoning to believe that society is responsible for the actions of individuals decided in anger.

I dealt with anger while I carried enough firepower to put an end to the entire compound; none of us ever let it lead us into violent displays with a firearm. I'll gladly take the chance that I have to deal with some other person's poor decision to draw on me or someone near me.

"Oh, yeah, because you're going to carry that firearm around with you everywhere?"

No.

Like I said in another discussion. You can sprint the effective range of most handguns in a very, very short order of time. The people who are most likely to be trained and effective at employing the weapon at nominal ranges are also the least likely to use it in abusive scenarios.

If we want to argue that it is society's responsibility to try and take away devices that people abuse at a cost of human life...

I very easily make the argument that motor vehicles should be much more heavily restricted. They are instrumental in over 35,000 deaths annually (the population of the town I currently live in) - that is with standardized, mandatory performance evaluations and licensing for ALL motor vehicle operators on public roads. Private vehicles are also a prime facilitator involved with the roughly 12,000 murders made annually.

Thus, restricting the private ownership and operation of motor vehicles on public roadways to only those individuals whose livelihood is completely dependent upon that vehicle would cut motor vehicle related death to a mere fraction of what it is overnight. Further, emphasis on public transportation allows for the better coordination of public security and would contribute to a decline in violent crime and murder rates along with it.

And then let's not even get started on how alcohol plays into both motor vehicle related death and firearm homicide (and suicide).

Do we blame alcohol as a society? No. That shit is sacred. Banning it doesn't do much to firearm homicides (may even increase them). Tried that before.

Do we blame cars? No. It's always the idiot who doesn't know how to drive who causes the problem. Certainly, you, with your low-profile tires that hydroplane on the morning dew, are careful and responsible in your use of a 3,000 lb incendiary bomb traveling at 70 miles per hour.

The only reason people subscribe to this idea that firearms need to be removed from the hands of private citizens is because they, personally, do not use one on a regular basis for non-murderous purposes.

You look at a firearm and see a death machine. I look at it and see it as a tool - like a pair of scissors, the smart phone in my hand, or the car in my garage.

The difference is that I recognize the tool for what it can do, as well. Like I said - your car is a one and a half ton incendiary bomb that regularly travels at 60-70 miles per hour ( - no, let's be real, I'll be cruising a hundred meters or so behind a semi traveling 85 and have people blow my doors off or get pissed because I'm going too slow for them).

Its not society's responsibility to prevent people from doing stupid things out of anger. Not going to argue with that. However don't you think its safer for the rest of us if weapons aren't readily available to psychopaths? In the case of the shooter you mentioned there was a waiting period for the gun right? He then decided to use his mom's instead. Thats the problem right there. The weapon was readily availabe to him. He had access to his mom's and had he been patient he would have gotten his own. So it might not be our responsibilty to protect others from making stupid decisions, thats true, but we're humans and guess what shit happens. There're psychopaths and mentally unstable people amongst us. The best we can do is make sure such people don't get their hands on weapons for our own safety.
And no offence but comparing cars to guns is a bit desperate. Cars are means of transport. Guns are made to kill. Simple.
Besides to own a car, you have to pass a test that shows you know the rules of the road. It doesnt stop accidents completely but hey its an imperfect world. Am not saying banning guns will completely eradicate gun crimes but it sure as hell will reduce it.

 

[Aim64C]

However don't you think its safer for the rest of us if weapons aren't readily available to psychopaths?

You make the error in assuming that a sociopathic state of mind persists indefinitely.

I'll give you an example: I'd recently lost my father (two years after my mother), and was dealing with my girlfriend (at the time) who was quite blatantly fooling around with another guy.

I was plagued by suicidal thoughts, and not at all mentally or emotionally stable. While I would like to think I never would have utilized a firearm in a foolish manner if I had had one readily available (as coincidence would have it - a few months earlier, we were one home among many victimized by a rash of holiday thefts - to include my father's firearms... it's that kind of stuff that makes me consider the possibility of an 'active' deity... though why such an active deity would choose to act in that particular way rather than fixing other problems is a question that eludes me). However, looking back - I would not have trusted myself to freely have one outside of a controlled environment.

Would I have gone on a shooting rampage? Probably not. I'm too prone to brooding for random acts of violence. But the same does not apply to others.

So... you're presented with a problem. A year before that whole fiasco - I would have been perfectly fine and competent as well as within the legal age to own any firearm on the market. Today, the same applies. I'm doing pretty good, financially secure, much more experienced in handling stress, etc.

But that one time of weakness....

Further, the diagnosing of psychological pathologies is a sketchy art. The borderline between "normal" and "pathological" is a hell of a lot thinner than we really want it to be. In other cases - it's impossible to tell what someone may do. Individuals with certain classes of autism can display no violence - no malice - and then suddenly kill people because it's a new phenomena to study. Nearly all autism-spectrum afflictions come with a difficulty in connecting in an empathetic manner with others - a component which can go from 'socially awkward' to 'cold and unfeeling' depending upon the situation.

I would probably be classed as having or Asperger's, as I reflect a number of the different characteristics (though detrimental traits are not nearly as pronounced as in others). Some of the people with more extreme cases should probably not be given a firearm (some would have no interest in a firearm... or if they did, they might have an interest in collecting firearms but no interest in actually shooting). But how do you determine who really is and is not a high risk case?

You're talking about in-depth psychological analysis programs that can easily take months of weekly observations to even detect some of these things. Are you going to tack that onto the background check for a firearm and expect the person purchasing the thing to front the cost?

... I'm sure the lobbyists for unions of mental health clinics would be thrilled at such a prospect... but let's return to reality.

In the case of the shooter you mentioned there was a waiting period for the gun right? He then decided to use his mom's instead. Thats the problem right there. The weapon was readily availabe to him. He had access to his mom's and had he been patient he would have gotten his own.

You already illustrated another pretty big problem in your whole idea. So you determine that I'm not a high risk for flipping out and dressing up as the joker for a trip to the movies. What about my room mate? Kids I have in the future?

Sure - I, personally, will be taking measures to ensure that my weapons are properly secured so that I'm not having to explain why a weapon registered to my name was used to kill 50 people. But that's me; and just because I have the thing secured does not mean they cannot defeat the security.

So it might not be our responsibilty to protect others from making stupid decisions, thats true, but we're humans and guess what shit happens. There're psychopaths and mentally unstable people amongst us. The best we can do is make sure such people don't get their hands on weapons for our own safety.

So... if your response to me saying: "why do you stand on the high ground and tell me that I should subject to increasingly oppressive laws because of the decisions of a few idiots among us" is "shit happens"....

Why can you not accept that "shit happens" and the idiots will always ruin your plans for a perfect society in the end? Why punish people who don't cause problems?

And no offence but comparing cars to guns is a bit desperate.

It's desperate to compare a 1.5 ton mass of metal and composites powered by an engine that can pump more energy into that mass in 2 seconds than is possessed in a hand grenade ... to a firearm that packs less overall kinetic energy than a standard punch?

We trust people with these masses of machinery day-in, day-out. We think nothing of it when a 16 year old gets into a vehicle and merges onto the highway with a crowd of 30 people clustered 400 feet away. We even allow ourselves to rev our engines, slam on our brakes, or spin our tires as a show of frustration and aggression (aside from flashing certain symbols and sentiments through the window).

We also talk on the phone, check text messages, and eat food while driving a machine that can end the life of a family in a fraction of a second.

Over-reacting, you say? Happens all the time. Talk to a highway patrol officer how many kids they've cleaned out of wrecked hulks due to someone who was busy fapping to a text or searching through the classifieds.

Cars are means of transport. Guns are made to kill. Simple.

It's interesting that there are more firearms in America than registered motor vehicles in operation on the roads:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

"According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 193,979,654 were classified as "Light duty vehicle, short wheel base, while another 40,488,025 were listed as "Light duty vehicle, long wheel base." Yet another 8,356,097 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,617,118 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 7,929,724 motorcycles in the US in 2009. [5]"

"U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies."

.... Yet these "transportation devices" kill far more people than the "killing devices" ....

You deny that the intended function of an object has little baring on its capacity.

Besides to own a car, you have to pass a test that shows you know the rules of the road. It doesnt stop accidents completely but hey its an imperfect world. Am not saying banning guns will completely eradicate gun crimes but it sure as hell will reduce it.

And cars STILL kill more people than firearms.

Quite obviously, you all can't handle the responsibility of operating a car.

 

[TrollingSage]

You make the error in assuming that a sociopathic state of mind persists indefinitely.

I'll give you an example: I'd recently lost my father (two years after my mother), and was dealing with my girlfriend (at the time) who was quite blatantly fooling around with another guy.

I was plagued by suicidal thoughts, and not at all mentally or emotionally stable. While I would like to think I never would have utilized a firearm in a foolish manner if I had had one readily available (as coincidence would have it - a few months earlier, we were one home among many victimized by a rash of holiday thefts - to include my father's firearms... it's that kind of stuff that makes me consider the possibility of an 'active' deity... though why such an active deity would choose to act in that particular way rather than fixing other problems is a question that eludes me). However, looking back - I would not have trusted myself to freely have one outside of a controlled environment.

Would I have gone on a shooting rampage? Probably not. I'm too prone to brooding for random acts of violence. But the same does not apply to others.

So... you're presented with a problem. A year before that whole fiasco - I would have been perfectly fine and competent as well as within the legal age to own any firearm on the market. Today, the same applies. I'm doing pretty good, financially secure, much more experienced in handling stress, etc.

But that one time of weakness....

Further, the diagnosing of psychological pathologies is a sketchy art. The borderline between "normal" and "pathological" is a hell of a lot thinner than we really want it to be. In other cases - it's impossible to tell what someone may do. Individuals with certain classes of autism can display no violence - no malice - and then suddenly kill people because it's a new phenomena to study. Nearly all autism-spectrum afflictions come with a difficulty in connecting in an empathetic manner with others - a component which can go from 'socially awkward' to 'cold and unfeeling' depending upon the situation.

I would probably be classed as having or Asperger's, as I reflect a number of the different characteristics (though detrimental traits are not nearly as pronounced as in others). Some of the people with more extreme cases should probably not be given a firearm (some would have no interest in a firearm... or if they did, they might have an interest in collecting firearms but no interest in actually shooting). But how do you determine who really is and is not a high risk case?

You're talking about in-depth psychological analysis programs that can easily take months of weekly observations to even detect some of these things. Are you going to tack that onto the background check for a firearm and expect the person purchasing the thing to front the cost?

... I'm sure the lobbyists for unions of mental health clinics would be thrilled at such a prospect... but let's return to reality.



You already illustrated another pretty big problem in your whole idea. So you determine that I'm not a high risk for flipping out and dressing up as the joker for a trip to the movies. What about my room mate? Kids I have in the future?

Sure - I, personally, will be taking measures to ensure that my weapons are properly secured so that I'm not having to explain why a weapon registered to my name was used to kill 50 people. But that's me; and just because I have the thing secured does not mean they cannot defeat the security.



So... if your response to me saying: "why do you stand on the high ground and tell me that I should subject to increasingly oppressive laws because of the decisions of a few idiots among us" is "shit happens"....

Why can you not accept that "shit happens" and the idiots will always ruin your plans for a perfect society in the end? Why punish people who don't cause problems?



It's desperate to compare a 1.5 ton mass of metal and composites powered by an engine that can pump more energy into that mass in 2 seconds than is possessed in a hand grenade ... to a firearm that packs less overall kinetic energy than a standard punch?

We trust people with these masses of machinery day-in, day-out. We think nothing of it when a 16 year old gets into a vehicle and merges onto the highway with a crowd of 30 people clustered 400 feet away. We even allow ourselves to rev our engines, slam on our brakes, or spin our tires as a show of frustration and aggression (aside from flashing certain symbols and sentiments through the window).

We also talk on the phone, check text messages, and eat food while driving a machine that can end the life of a family in a fraction of a second.

Over-reacting, you say? Happens all the time. Talk to a highway patrol officer how many kids they've cleaned out of wrecked hulks due to someone who was busy fapping to a text or searching through the classifieds.



It's interesting that there are more firearms in America than registered motor vehicles in operation on the roads:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

"According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 193,979,654 were classified as "Light duty vehicle, short wheel base, while another 40,488,025 were listed as "Light duty vehicle, long wheel base." Yet another 8,356,097 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,617,118 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 7,929,724 motorcycles in the US in 2009. [5]"

"U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies."

.... Yet these "transportation devices" kill far more people than the "killing devices" ....

You deny that the intended function of an object has little baring on its capacity.



And cars STILL kill more people than firearms.

Quite obviously, you all can't handle the responsibility of operating a car.

Uhm hellooo. People use cars everyday. If everyone who owns a gun used it as frequently as they used their cars, I doubt we will be having this discussion. Fact of the matter is guns used to be legal here in the Uk. They were outlawed after the dublane shooting. Since then there's hardly been any major shooting incidents.

 

[Aim64C]

Uhm hellooo. People use cars everyday. If everyone who owns a gun used it as frequently as they used their cars, I doubt we will be having this discussion.

You've, obviously, never taken a trip to the U.S. and spent time in rural and suburban midwest.

The U.S. regularly consumes more than enough ammunition to kill the world several times over each year.

You must be registered for see links

Much of our ammunition is sold for pennies a shell. NATO 5.56 (Civilian .223) rounds can be as low as $0.30 per round.

Over 90% of that ammunition goes into a paper target and the mound of dirt or steel deflectors behind it. The other 10% gets used in combat theaters and the tiny sliver of a percentage not even worth mentioning gets used in violent crime.

Fact of the matter is guns used to be legal here in the Uk. They were outlawed after the dublane shooting. Since then there's hardly been any major shooting incidents.

There have hardly been any major shooting incidents, here per-capita.

You see the offenders change. In the U.S. - it's very often mentally ill people who end up committing mass shootings. These people do not value their own life or weigh their decisions the way most people do.

In the UK - you see more blatant, organized or targeted crime. Police in the UK are not readily equipped to handle active shooter scenarios (what's the probability?) - thus, the acquisition of a firearms becomes a primary goal of anyone who expects to end up in a conflict with the police.

It's a Pandora's box.

 

[TrollingSage]

You've, obviously, never taken a trip to the U.S. and spent time in rural and suburban midwest.

The U.S. regularly consumes more than enough ammunition to kill the world several times over each year.

You must be registered for see links

Much of our ammunition is sold for pennies a shell. NATO 5.56 (Civilian .223) rounds can be as low as $0.30 per round.

Over 90% of that ammunition goes into a paper target and the mound of dirt or steel deflectors behind it. The other 10% gets used in combat theaters and the tiny sliver of a percentage not even worth mentioning gets used in violent crime.



There have hardly been any major shooting incidents, here per-capita.

You see the offenders change. In the U.S. - it's very often mentally ill people who end up committing mass shootings. These people do not value their own life or weigh their decisions the way most people do.

In the UK - you see more blatant, organized or targeted crime. Police in the UK are not readily equipped to handle active shooter scenarios (what's the probability?) - thus, the acquisition of a firearms becomes a primary goal of anyone who expects to end up in a conflict with the police.

It's a Pandora's box.

You obviously haven't been to the UK. You know how many police officers have been shot on duty between 2000-2011? 3. Thats right only 3. You heard me right. Only 3 police officers have ever been shot on duty over an 11 year period despite the fact that most police officers here are unarmed. A quick trip to wikipedia tells you the number of homicides per capita by firearms is 40 times more in the US than in the UK.
Remember the london riots last year where thousands of people took to the streets robbing shops? Wanna know how many people wer killed by guns during the riots? None. 3 people died but none of them were shot. Imagine if that was the US. How many people do you think would have been killed?
Its not as easy to obtain firearms here as you'd like to believe. Only the most organized and "hardcore" gangs have access to guns. Most of the thugs use knives. Its what you call the "ripple
effect". The criminals dont expect normal citizens to be armed, therefore they dont arm themselves as heavily as a criminal in the USA will.

 

[Robot Boy]

You obviously haven't been to the UK. You know how many police officers have been shot on duty between 2000-2011? 3. Thats right only 3. You heard me right. Only 3 police officers have ever been shot on duty over an 11 year period despite the fact that most police officers here are unarmed. A quick trip to wikipedia tells you the number of homicides per capita by firearms is 40 times more in the US than in the UK.
Remember the london riots last year where thousands of people took to the streets robbing shops? Wanna know how many people wer killed by guns during the riots? None. 3 people died but none of them were shot. Imagine if that was the US. How many people do you think would have been killed?
Its not as easy to obtain firearms here as you'd like to believe. Only the most organized and "hardcore" gangs have access to guns. Most of the thugs use knives. Its what you call the "ripple
effect". The criminals dont expect normal citizens to be armed, therefore they dont arm themselves as heavily as a criminal in the USA will.

(sighs)What this again?...I thought we dropped it...man what a pain...and stop comparing my country to UK its annoying. Sides that was UK's problems and no one here in the US died from a riot. Injured at best. :|