School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[rikzilla]

I wonder if the anti-gun people notice how much they sound like Pro-lifers? It's the same appeal to emotion, irrational fear mongering, and both based on "think of the children!!!!"

equally useless

It's not abortion,...it's not children...maybe next time it'll be in your local mall, or your home? It's a bit like the Spanish Inquisition only it's not nearly so fun and there are no comfy chairs.

-z

 

[Kestrel]

Canada has had a handgun registry since 1934. The reason for maintaining the registry is to deter the criminal use of handguns. The bad guys still aren't taking it too seriously.

Despite all the laws, rules, regulations, prohibitions and restrictions, apparently any clown can still get one...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/armed-clown-robs-winnipeg-credit-union-124717408.html

Some criminal managed to acquire a handgun, therefore all regulation of handguns is pointless?

 

[rikzilla]

Australia managed

So did every other "rich" nation. I don't fault other posters here from wondering out loud what's wrong with Americans...I'm a US Army veteran....and I wonder every day how things got this bad. This country has a sick interest in death and a gun culture based on fear and pumped up by jingoism, This is what happens when propaganda incites daily fear. We pour 600 billion into the Pentagon to keep us safe from illiterate desert dwellers...and then spend even more to prep for doomsday, or make up for that limp appendage, or because God told us to...or because we live in an urban area ravaged by the self-inflicted financial collapse and are scared senseless by the resulting crime and violence.

I guess I better go buy some guns like everyone else...

-z

 

[StankApe]

There were more guns per capita before, spare me the "good ole days" logical fallacy

 

[lionking]

There were more guns per capita before, spare me the "good ole days" logical fallacy

I read rikzilla's post again and didn't see any mention at all of the "good ole days". Yet more straw.

 

[StankApe]

He said "how did things ever get this bad".

For things to have "gotten this bad" there,by definition, must have been a prior time when things were "better" hence the "good ole days" fallacy.


and I thought I told you to go get your shine box

 

[lionking]

He said "how did things ever get this bad".

For things to have "gotten this bad" there,by definition, must have been a prior time when things were "better" hence the "good ole days" fallacy.


and I thought I told you to go get your shine box

No. When you go from cancer to terminal cancer, you have hardly gone from a "good" position.

 

[StankApe]

it's still a logical fallacy....dude

we would never allow anybody to come and pull this stuff in any other thread. People use that all the time:

"It was better back when children could pray in school"


"it was better back when women didn't work"

"it was better back when people earned off of the sweat from their brow and came home to their family"

"it was better back when..............."


it's a logical fallacy, it doesn't jive in ANY situation. not about jesus, not about women's rights and not about guns.

just because you happen to be overly sensitive to this issue, doesn't mean a logical fallacy gets to be "overlooked".

 

[rikzilla]

it's still a logical fallacy....dude

we would never allow anybody to come and pull this stuff in any other thread. People use that all the time:

"We"?? You've been on this forum a few months and in a few more months you'll probably be flouncing off to make straw sculptures elsewhere. dude.

-z

 

[gumboot]

"Some of the strictest gun laws" does not mean strict gun laws, compared to other countries. The mother was a survivalist food hoarder, with far more weapons than she needed, including the Bushmaster .223. There is no known reason why anyone needs one of these for civilian purposes. He would have also had high capacity magazines. Also unnecessary.

Another thing to consider is that "gun control" is not linear in function with "less strict" at one end and "more strict" at the other. Gun control laws can be quite strict, but still be ineffective if they're the wrong controls.

 

[mike3]

Another thing to consider is that "gun control" is not linear in function with "less strict" at one end and "more strict" at the other. Gun control laws can be quite strict, but still be ineffective if they're the wrong controls.

And I suppose also, not so "quite strict" yet very effective. So what are the "right" controls?

 

[Multivac]

And your glorification of violence and guns.



They rather pale into insignificance when you look at the US list!

Which shows this year alone there have been seven school shootings in the USA.

 

[Multivac]

Then on the flip side of things, had a single one of those teachers been armed, they could have possibly disabled the shooter before he killed all those kids.

Do you really want to live in a society where school teachers need to be armed in the classroom?

 

[Multivac]

I'd suggest you actually read Biscuit's comment.

Thankyou for taking the time to reply, but I did read Biscuits post and still don't understand your reply.

 

[gumboot]

I wonder if it is even possible to roll back firearms violence in the US.

Here's why:
The US has had a gun culture for centuries, during this time many guns have "leaked" into the black market.
Guns, unlike cartons of fresh milk, do not have an expiration date. If you don't mistreat them and oil them once in a while, they keep working for 100 years or more.
I used to shoot a M1 carbine, a gun from WWII. You can buy old Russian rifles from that war that work fine.
Restrict guns, or completely outlaw them and criminals in the US will have a pool of guns that will take forever to run out, even without the illegal import of new ones.

To reduce mass shootings, throwing money at mental health care makes much more sense.

I think you could, potentially reduce the pool of firearms over time. It depends, of course, on how permeable the US border is. My understanding, based on findings post 9/11, is that US border protection is appalling. I think a notable thing about many of these other countries that have low levels of gun use in crime is that they have quite robust border protection. This highlights the fact that "gun control" is about something vastly more complex than "bad assault weapons" or something reactionary like that. Ultimately, the issue with gun crime is people having access to weapons to use them illegally. So the principal question is how you can limit access by these people to said guns with minimal restriction in access to guns by non-criminal users. Gun control measures that don't limit access to guns by these groups are pointless. If they limit access by legitimate users as well, they're doubly pointless, or have negative "point" if you will.

A notable thing about many countries with stringent gun control laws is that these strict laws came in after gun crime reached a high state, and society decided to address it. High numbers of guns were already in circulation when these controls were brought in, and while new control laws cut the inflow, that in itself doesn't do a whole lot.

What all of these countries also did was really work hard on seizing guns too. In a country like New Zealand, if a firearm is discovered in the context of any sort of offending, there is no warning. The weapon is seized, period, and a firearm license revoked (if you have one).

Even though firearms are used in a tiny fraction of crimes in this country, thousands of firearms are seized by police every year. If police seize more than criminals are able to get their hands on, you reduce the pool of firearms. It's very much a two-pronged assault - you have to reduce access to firearms by people who will use them criminally (and gun control laws are really only part of that approach), but you also have to take guns off the street at the other end too.

 

[StankApe]

"We"?? You've been on this forum a few months and in a few more months you'll probably be flouncing off to make straw sculptures elsewhere. dude.

-z

so, it's argument from authority too eh?

"Oive been here longah than you my son, so my opinion stands, yaws is just rubbish, cuz yer a noob, got it?"


ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, no................ sorry, logic is forever, just like herpes and radiation

 

[Multivac]

Personally, I don't see the big deal about a concealed carry permit holder carrying into a school with a holstered weapon. I know that sounds outrageous, but what harm does it cause? Obviously the law of no guns in schools does not deter criminals, so what purpose does it serve?

No, that doesn't sound outrageous at all. It sounds bat-**** crazy!

 

[StankApe]

I think you could, potentially reduce the pool of firearms over time. It depends, of course, on how permeable the US border is. My understanding, based on findings post 9/11, is that US border protection is appalling. I think a notable thing about many of these other countries that have low levels of gun use in crime is that they have quite robust border protection. This highlights the fact that "gun control" is about something vastly more complex than "bad assault weapons" or something reactionary like that. Ultimately, the issue with gun crime is people having access to weapons to use them illegally. So the principal question is how you can limit access by these people to said guns with minimal restriction in access to guns by non-criminal users. Gun control measures that don't limit access to guns by these groups are pointless. If they limit access by legitimate users as well, they're doubly pointless, or have negative "point" if you will.

A notable thing about many countries with stringent gun control laws is that these strict laws came in after gun crime reached a high state, and society decided to address it. High numbers of guns were already in circulation when these controls were brought in, and while new control laws cut the inflow, that in itself doesn't do a whole lot.

What all of these countries also did was really work hard on seizing guns too. In a country like New Zealand, if a firearm is discovered in the context of any sort of offending, there is no warning. The weapon is seized, period, and a firearm license revoked (if you have one).

Even though firearms are used in a tiny fraction of crimes in this country, thousands of firearms are seized by police every year. If police seize more than criminals are able to get their hands on, you reduce the pool of firearms. It's very much a two-pronged assault - you have to reduce access to firearms by people who will use them criminally (and gun control laws are really only part of that approach), but you also have to take guns off the street at the other end too.

Which may work for an isolated nation like yours. But, you don't have the gateway to South America at your doorstep. Gun ban= 1920's style prohibition at the border . We think the Cartels at the border are bad now? Let them have billions in guns running across the border along with the coke and the weed!!! it'll be a slaughter like we've never seen in this country.

 

[zooterkin]

Which may work for an isolated nation like yours. But, you don't have the gateway to South America at your doorstep. Gun ban= 1920's style prohibition at the border . We think the Cartels at the border are bad now? Let them have billions in guns running across the border along with the coke and the weed!!! it'll be a slaughter like we've never seen in this country.

Do you really think there is a public demand for firearms equivalent to that for alcohol?

 

[StankApe]

I think that there's a total demand for firearms that's close "enough" to booze to make things ugly.

You throw the criminal demand (which right now ,like it or not, relies on internal sources for guns) and combine it with the public (who will be paranoid as hell of their govt) and I think you are talking a serious issue.


Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just speculating as I am not a psychic. I will go peruse prohibiton numbers and gun ownership numbers. (but we shouldn't forget about how important this border with Mexico is when it comes to comparing nations like the UK and Australia to the USA)