Another day, another school shooting, another round of excuses from gun enthusiasts

Easy access to guns, while not the only reason for such incidents, is one of (if not the) biggest of the many contributing factors. To deny such a fact is to expose your bias, to be an NRA (A Republican organization, by the way) lapdog who speaks no evil, hears no evil, and sees no evil.

Too many guns. Too easily obtained. Too much gun culture. It all adds up to what happened today, what happened before, and what will continue to happen in the future until the most powerful and influential and corrupt lobby in Washington is taken out.

Go ahead. Let us hear the usual excuses for why the easy access and the sheer number of guns available have nothing to do with this. In the end they will forever be excuses, and the shootings shall continue.

:shrug:

"In a study of gun ownership in selected western nations, Canada's level of gun ownership (21.8%) was similar to France's (23.8%) and Sweden's (16.6%). Of the eight countries compared, firearm ownership was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in the Netherlands (2%)."Firearms in Canada and Eight Other Western Countries: Selected Findings of the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey" Canada Firearms Centre. Accessed: 2006-06-24. "

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#_note-1>

Wow... that's quite a disparity.

I get tired of having to do the debunking once a week.

A lot of people seem to think that Michael Moore said that the Canadian firearms ownership rate is similar to the US. He didn't.

I would just point out that the percentages in your post refer, I think, to households. Something just under a quarter of Canadian households seem to have firearms (from a variety of survey sources over the years).

Ownership of multiple firearms is less common than in the US, and as you point out, ownership of handguns is rare, as it would be in most other countries listed. The vast majority of firearms in Canadian homes are for hunting and other rural-lifestyle related uses. This was the case in the US a half-century ago, but handguns are far more prevalent now.

Ireland has a ban on handguns. I'd love to live there.

IIRC, they have about 12 million guns in a country with a population of 30 million or so.

We have about 260 milloin in a population of 300 million.

Actually, I think you know perfectly well how large the difference is.

12 million in a population of 32 million is about 0.375/person.

260 million in a population of 300 million is about 0.867/person.

Not very close, I'd say. In fact, a ratio of well over 2:1. And the ratio is also well over 2:1 when considering the proportion of households that have firearms.

Got any figures on how many of the firearms in the US are handguns?

I believed that of the many nations on Earth, Canada's rate was "closest" to ours.

No other nation I believe has anything close to our ratio of guns per capita, except possibly militarily-prepared countries like Switzerland and Israel.

However, I think somebody further down-thread posted more accurate numbers.


Welcome back, by the way. Long time no see! :hi:

IIRC gun ownership in America is split up roughly evenly between rifles, shotguns, and handguns. So, figure 80-90 million of each.

...at least until they put out more information about the shooter, before going on your "guns are evil tirade"?

before posting some diatribe linking the story with their own pet cause?

If that ever happened, the devil would probably have to start ordering snowplows.

Besides, many gun-grabber types wouldn't even think of targeting handguns - they'd rather go after your grandfather's M1 instead so they can pat themselves on the back and delude themselves into thinking they're "protecting our children."

Take the money out of politics and the gun pushers would lose much of their influence.

Trouble is, there are hundreds (probably thousands) of non-NRA gun sites on the Internet which keep up with the issues and their "constituencies." And for most of them it doesn't cost too much money -- one of the characteristics of the Internet. Following the money trail only gets you part of the way.

And threatening people with having some of their most valued possessions taken or rendered nonfunctional, or else, tends to motivate people to vote the issue.

:grr:

Knives kill people. Therefore we should ban knives.

:hi:

It's obvious guns escalate violence in ways a knife could not.

How is that obvious? And escalate in what manner?

It's a good way for them to get shot.

:rofl:

Never ever question the availability of any weapon, anywhere!

Have you polled this thread to see if ALL of us never ever question the availability of any weapon anywhere? You truly believe that every single person on DU who disagrees with you about this issue believes that, for instance, toddlers should have access to rocket launchers?

Way to escalate by assuming the absolute craziest thing about your opponent's position possible. I'm sure that will both convince them of your rightness and enhance the quality of discussion on this thread.

I'm a waitin'....

availability of any weapon, anywhere?

And nobody on this board who disagrees with you about gun rights has ever said anything different than that?

Well, here's your first: I own a gun, BUT....I don't think toddlers should have access to rocket launchers.

Shocking, huh?

Ok, all sarcasm aside, why don't you tell us what the NRA position is for real, rather than your over-the-top interpretation of it. Then those of us who own guns or don't mind other people owning them can let you know where their individual opinions lie in relation to that position. That would probably give you a better sense of the ACTUAL mindset of your opposition here. Then you won't have to make sweeping generalizations that make you look silly. (And yes, the poster who accused you of a strawman argument down thread is right.)

Quit apologizing for 'em! That's exactly what I'm talkin' about!

All I see them supporting is the right of law-abiding adults with clean records to continue to be able to own NON-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian (NFA Title 1) small arms under .51 caliber (except shotguns and some larger-caliber hunting weapons). They also support licensing requirements in order to carry a concealed firearm.

I do know they are on record as supporting the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (tight controls on all automatic weapons, sound suppressed weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, disguised firearms, M203-type grenade launchers, grenades, and weapons over .50 caliber), most of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (including the absolute ban on the possession of guns by convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent, the tracing requirements, etc.), the point-of-sale background check required to buy a gun from any dealer, the Kevlar-piercing ammunition ban of 1986, the ban on X-ray-transparent firearms, and probably more that I can't remember off the top of my head.

That may be less restrictions than you support (for example, they do not support banning protruding rifle handgrips or flash suppressors, or restricting civilian guns to pre-1861 magazine capacities), but their support of the aforementioned restrictions is a long way from "any gun, anywhere, by anybody." I think that's what the other poster was saying; you seem to be criticizing a straw man construct.

I don't belong to the NRA, don't read anything about the NRA, just couldn't give a shit about the NRA but yet I own guns and believe I have the constitutional right to own guns.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

He just thinks he knows something and is spouting off about it.

It is illegal for minors to own handguns. It is also illegal to bring a firearm onto a schoolground.

Also, could you show me where anyone on DU has EVER advocated the ability to purchase ANY AND ALL weapons currently available?



If so, I could use some grenades to take out the woodchucks and gophers in my backyard.




On Edit.

I, along with my friends when I was younger, had access to more handguns and rifles than some police departments. We never shot up the county because we had parents and family that were involved in our lives and made damn sure we knew right from wrong.

But what gun apologists refuse to hear is that flooding anomie-riddled communities with easily available -- and increasingly deadly -- weapons, may not be in the best interests of the most people.

Nor are they interested in communities -- states, cities -- being able to regulate such deadly weaponry they way they might regulate, say, traffic laws.

Ammophiles won't hear of it. And in the end, they default to what are essentially NRA positions.

I support laws that are responsible in curtailing the posession of weapons by prohibited people.

However, I do not support the outright banning of the purchase of weapons, because the only people who are affected by that ban are those that follow the laws.


Washington DC is a prime example of a failure of existing gun laws. The ONLY people who can not get a gun are those who follow the law.

n/t

They are hiding in their houses hoping the driveby doesn't hit them.

They are hiding in their houses hoping the driveby doesn't hit them.

How does having a firearm protect one against those driveby things?

Cut short: guns can do that.

If you are caught out in the open, and if you have the ability to fire back, it might be in your best interest to do so if you can end their shooting early. It also might not be in your best interest to do so. You will need to quickly analyze the situation at the time and decide what is best for you.

n/t

allowing law-abiding, mentally competent adults with clean records, to CHOOSE whether or not to own a gun...

Whether or not you have a gun in your house, assuming you have a clean record and have never been ajudicated mentally incompetent, is entirely your choice. No one who doesn't feel comfortable around guns should feel compelled to own one. But my wife and I both choose to own them, and we'd like to retain that choice, thanks.

Just because you can buy a gun in Virginia doesn't make it any less illegal to carry it into DC.

n/t

What are you talking about? Dude, guns have always been deadly.

Use hyperbole much, do ya?

Hey, I give robbers a fair chance. The first two rounds in my 357 are bird shot. After that, all bets are off.

Guns aren't "increasingly deadly"; the trend is actually toward smaller caliber weapons, not larger. The meme that civilian guns are "increasingly deadly" is a gun-control-lobby fiction; a 9mm is less lethal than a 1930's vintage .357, and a .223 is less lethal than a 1950's vintage .729 caliber shotgun or .308 caliber rifle.

The 1994 Feinstein ban did cause a surge in the sale of large-caliber handguns--if you're stuck with only 10 rounds for cost reasons, they might as well be 10 rounds that start with ".4" instead of ".3"--but things seem (to me) to be swinging back in favor of the 9mm (.36 caliber) a bit since the law expired in '04.


They ARE free to go after gun possession and carrying by criminals, and the illegal trafficking of guns. The problem is, of course, that it's not those guns you are so interested in, as much as the guns sitting in the gun safes of the law-abiding who are NOT the problem.

The gun-control lobby's 20-year fixation on banning small-caliber rifles with modern styling, when all rifles combined consistently account for fewer murders than shoes and bare hands (2.91% in 2006), are a case in point.

How, exactly, are they "flooding" neighborhoods?

Gun makers can't sell directly to the public. They have to sell to Federal Firearm Licencees (FFLs), who are usually large-volume distributers that buy in bulk from a variety of manufacturers, then resell the guns to other FFLs like your local gun store, who then sell to the public.

And many cities, counties, and state do have strict laws regulating guns. But ultimately what many of these laws do is disarm the law-abiding public first and foremost. Yeah, eventually, if the general public is disarmed enough criminals might start having a tough time getting a gun. But that approach has so far proved unsucessful. The UK, for example, is still waiting for the massive crime reductions to kick in after they banned all handgun ownership there back in 1997.

Mostly, I feel, is that the gun-control people come up with some idea like registration or ballistic fingerprinting or banning "assault weapons". Pro-gun people point out that it won't do anything, and then whole discussion devolves into a shouting match about shiny metal penises and fascism.

The gun-control people rarely ask pro-gunners what laws THEY think will help with crime and homicide. If you ask, you might be surprised at the answers.

The problem with the NRA is that on may issues they are essentially correct, except they use so much paranoia, hyperbole, rhetoric, and questionable information it's insulting and disgusting.

I'm an American gun owner. I'm not a part of any organization, but I believe just as strongly in the 2nd Amendment as I do in the other 9 that comprise the Bill of Rights.

I would hope that any organization that promotes itself as pro-gun ownership would align its positions with those of me and people like me. (You know, my family, my friends, my co-workers, most of whom own guns, and none of whom have ever shot up a school, or post office, or anywhere else?)

In many states it is not illegal for a minor to own a firearm. I am sure you are not talking about Federal Law and I am not certain what the law states in this particular state. And for your further information guns are quite often used illegally. Are you suggesting that the abundance of guns does not relate to armed crime?

sound-suppressed weapons, disguised firearms (cell phone guns, cane guns), M203-type grenade launchers, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), sawed-off shotguns, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, guns invisible to X-ray, etc. etc. etc. I'm also OK with restrictions on gun possession by criminals, background checks for purchase, and licensure for concealed carry.

Thing is, that stuff has been law for many years, though you'd never know it from Bradyite press releases.

The gun-control debate as it stands in 2007 isn't about "any weapon, anywhere." It's about whether or not to continue to allow law-abiding, mentally competent adults with squeaky clean records to lawfully and responsibly own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber that meet the length and barrel length requirements of the National Firearms Act, as long as they do not use them to unlawfully threaten others.

I don't speak for the NRA; if I did, I'd be mumbling lame stuff about "sportsmen" and hunters. I'm a technical writer who knows a fair amount about guns and U.S. gun law, and can darn well speak for myself.

Yes, my wife and I own guns, and we'll keep them, regardless of what the Brady Campaign or the NRA has to say about it.

but what this thread is about is actually, and I do quote, easy access to guns.

As has been pointed out, a lot of people don't seem to want to talk about that.

I wonder if your confreres can say the same?

There have been several DU polls asking whether or not respondants were gun owners. They pretty much always split 50-50. I would guess the vast majority of those voting "yes" are not NRA members, and probably have very negative attitudes about the NRA.

n/t

:sarcasm:

Abolish any minimum age to buy/carry concealed.

No more shootings with multiple losses. Oh, and bus stop violence and bullying will go down 85%.

if it might be a good idea to require conflict resolution classes in schools. It couldn't hurt.

How would conflict resolution helped in this case?

there was plenty plenty plenty of access to guns when I was young. (I even used to go target shooting. Don't think I ever hit a damn thing.) Anyway, there were guns in racks in dens and dining rooms, guns in drawers beside Grandma's bed, guns hidden 'just in case', guns in the gun rack in the truck window, guns in the damn glove compartment or under the front seat (even though that was a no-no). Guns, guns, guns. But I'll tell you what, no one I ever knew, not one person, ever would have thought about picking one up and hurting someone else just because they were unhappy, or thought they were slighted, or being picked on. Or just because they thought that would make 'em somebody. Make them famous.

This is a new phenomena. It's not a 'having a gun in the house' kind of thing. It's something that's gone very wrong with people, their perceived rights, their idea that they are allowed a deadly revenge, or just plain brain-dead stupidity. But so help me, people who put this on guns are just avoiding the real issue. What the fuck is happening to these kids? What are they learning? What AREN'T they learning?

Something is terribly wrong. I don't know if it is the bombardment in entertainment that glorifies violence or what. It wasn't like this when I was younger.

what is it with todays' United States view? Everyone is in a hurry to get to work, to get home, to get the biggest car, house, gun, boat, ad nauseum so they let the thinking go away. No one is ever home to tell these kids it's dumber than hell to kill people just cause you're pissed off. We've lost it as a country, first we were supposed to be able to afford all the shit advertised on tv and have great teeth and skin too cause if we have dandruff or unsilky hair, we're losers. Now, we're having a hard time just keeping a roof over our heads and the credit card bills paid.

and, yeah, growing up, I had access to guns at any time, in calibers small and large, I never thought of taking out my classmates though.

Our high school had a shooting team, there were kids that hunted, etc. I don't recall the topic of guns even being brought up in conversation. Sure, there were times when someone would mention wanting to shoot someone in anger but we knew that was just blowing off steam - no one was going to get shot.

Great post btw.

nor a solution for personal problems. They were viewed as tools, very dangerous tools, which were for target practice or hunting only. (Or in case of a national crisis, to defend the community.)

I remember my grandfather instructing me in how to properly use a gun; I was probably 6 or 7. The first safety rule was "Never, ever point a gun, even an unloaded gun, at any person." Period. And to "always handle a gun as if it were loaded."

I don't have a problem with gun ownership. However, they are tools, not solutions; as not everyone should operate cars or power tools, some people should not have access to weapons, for their own safety and the safety of others.

The problem today seems to be with the person, not the weapon. If there were no guns, they would use the next available weapon/tool. Kitchen knives, swords, billiard cues, large rocks, home-made explosives, or whatever. American society seems to be much more aggressive now than it was in the 1960s or '70s. But, then there was still "hope"; now there is very little.

I think you are correct that this is different from our generation. People settled their problems in a much less violent manner. I don't suppose this is going to be a popular statement on this board.

will blame guns, some will blame the lack of religion, but we are all born with a moral compass. Some choose to just be bad...

The right to own guns is a very liberal idea!

get in their trucks, and drive straight from the woods to school, with their rifles on their gun racks. They'd go to school all day, then go back to hunting.
And we never had a school shooting, ever. Not in that school, or the school system, nor even the whole state, that I know of.
Every school shooting is the last occurance in a long chain of fucked-up events in a kid's life. Reduce the stress, give kids constructive outlets for their energy, and provide better adult supervision, and we'd do even better than just drastically reducing school shootings-- we would produce healthier, smarter, happier kids.

Except instead of leaving the guns in the cars, we stacked them against the wall in the principal's office.

away the piss-poor examples of bad guys and bad guys wanna-bes who sing/rap/crap about the glories of violence, be it with guns toward someone that makes you mad by 'disrespecting' their precious impressionistic sensitive little hides, or against women just because it's soooooo manly (and believe me, there's more sarcasm in that statement than that little sign thingy can signify).

Don't misunderstand me. I understand kids being constantly picked on by the cool kids wanting to get back at them, but so help me, not by killing them (and 40 or 50 innocent by-standers in the meantime). About that time they prove to everyone that they are the dysfunctional little creepy weirdos that they are accused of being. I think the bullies need punishment, but not murdered.

But then, I guess when your country is led by people who lie to start wars and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent and defenseless people, preaching about this shit is like spitting into the wind.

I just don't get it. Never have. Never will. I don't understand the enjoyment derived from killing something, I don't understand any kind of 'power' rush associated with carrying or handling a gun and I do not understand feeling more safe because you have a gun in the house.

But that's me.

I don't think anybody 'needs' a semi-automatic weapon. I don't think anybody 'needs' a gun that could stop an elephant at full charge (unless they are a professional elephant hunter). I think there are types of ammunition which nobody 'needs'.

I think guns should be controlled. I think the problems BEHIND the violence should be addressed. But I don't think we should try to eliminate gun ownership. I have a friend who works in a rough area of town and she really feels like she is safer when she is carrying her gun. But she doesn't need a gun that could stop an elephant or fire five rounds in ten seconds or whatever.

as a precision piece of machinery. They are made to feel good to hold and use. You don't have to kill to enjoy firearms. A great many shooters never fire at a living thing. The enjoy shooting at range targets or skeet target.

It's not about enjoyment of killing, even for those who hunt, AFAIK (and I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter). The majority own guns for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting, with hunting third, and collecting fourth. My wife and I, both gun owners, belong to the nonhunting majority.

There is no power rush associated with handling a gun unless you are someone who has been conditioned to view guns as mystical power objects, a misperception that is fairly easily cured by a bit of actual shooting (which also helps cures one of Hollywoodesque misconceptions about how guns are handled and fired, and what they can and cannot do).

Shooting is Zen, not Rambo. It's all about breath control and focus. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the best shooting advice I have ever received was "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast."


You would if you were trained in their use, and had demonstrated the ability to use one effectively (ideally under stress).

If you were to obtain an advanced belt rank in a serious martial art, do you think you would feel a bit safer in your home than you would if you were totally unable to defend yourself? Such martial arts training would certainly not be a panacea, but coupled with intelligent security preparations and situational awareness, would prevent you from being helpless in the face of a threat, and would give you options in extremis that you might not otherwise have.

Would you feel safer, or less safe, if you had a trusted police officer in your home to protect you? Same thing.

My wife and I have both been shooters for many years. Were someone to break in while I am not home, she could certainly hold her own if someone attacked her while she was calling 911. So can I. It's reassuring.

That's not to say that a gun is some sort of magic shield that protects you from danger if you own one. But if you own one and know how to use it, you are far more capable (and IMHO far more secure) than if you are unarmed.


This is a semiautomatic weapon:



That's my 9mm (Smith & Wesson LadySmith). "Semiautomatic" means a gun that fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. A majority of handguns work this way, as do the majority of civilian rifles sold each year. I'm not sure what kind of handgun your friend owns, but if it's not a revolver, it's almost certainly a semiautomatic.

You may be thinking of automatic weapons (which spray bullets when the trigger is held down), which are very tightly controlled by Federal law. To use an analogy, an office stapler is semiautomatic; a sewing machine is automatic. Big difference.


An ordinary shotgun (.729 caliber), loaded with slugs, could do that. Wouldn't necessarily be my first choice for elephant hunting (I'd want something that would allow me to be at a safer distance!), but it would certainly have the ability to penetrate an elephant's skull.

Very high powered rifles are almost never misused, though; shoes and bare hands account for twice as many murders as all rifles combined.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (2006)

Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%


Most such ammunition is already controlled by Federal law, such as the 1986 Federal ban on handgun ammunition designed to penetrate Kevlar body armor.


Unless her handgun is a derringer, it will fire five rounds in less than five seconds (an 1836 Colt revolver or an 1861 Henry carbine could fire much faster than that). The speed at which rounds can be aimed, though, is highly shooter dependent, and also depends on the range in question. The media often confuses how fast one can pull the trigger at nothing in particular with how fast one can actually hit things, but target size and range make it a continuum between quite fast and quite slow.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

easy availability of cars is the number one cause of fatal car accidents and therefore we should ban cars.

rage, so we should ban cars.

What we should do is figure out what is causing the quick jump to violence in this country.

That's like saying the easy availability of cars is the number one cause of fatal car accidents and therefore we should ban cars.

Now, all you have to do is copy and paste the part of the opening post where its author said that anyone should ban firearms, and you'll have yourself an analogy.

Sadly, it appears that all you have so far is a great big ugly smelly




http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm

... or integrity ... or whatever else is lacking in people who spend their time trying to make other people believe that someone said something s/he didn't say. I've never understood the allure of doing that, and I've given up on trying to figure out the cause, so I express no opinion in this instance.

for aggression and makes violence more likely.

I'd hate to have to go dig up those studies. :)

that's bullshit. Everybody I know that has grown up around guns treat guns and their ability to kill with respect and not one of them has gone on a shooting spree......well, every year they shoot deer but that's another story.

Most of us seldom think about the guns we do own. We occassionally pull them out to clean them, maybe go target practice and then they get put away. I don't see them on a daily basis. Don't think about them on even a monthly basis. Everybody I grew up with was around guns. Pretty much everybody I know has a gun. Maybe that's why they aren't a big deal to us.

Maybe if parents showed their children how to properly use a gun, educate them on gun safety and teach them that guns and violence aren't the answer to their problems we might not have kids being enticed by the mysterious and fascinating gun.

lame excuses from alcohol enthusiasts.

Easy access to alcohol and cars is a greater problem in our society. Even with strict laws in place forbidding driving while drunk and laws requiring licensing and registration of EVERY vehicle in the country, people are getting killed every day.

Let's ban alcohol and cars!

Yes, damn it, I drink wine.

:hippie:

Great bumper sticker!

I'll Give Up My Drinking & Driving

When They Pry My Cold Dead Hands From The Steering Wheel

They. Don't. Care.

It's more important to them to own a gun (nobody's infringing on their rights, goddamn it,) than it is for someone else's kid to live. This is the bottom line. The kids that were shot today, the kids that died at Virginia Tech or in one of the scores of school and workplace shootings in the last ten years, are necessary collateral.

Please, NRA members and gun enthusiasts, PROVE ME WRONG. You can't. This is exactly why the NRA spent five million dollars in the state of Washington to defeat legislation requiring trigger locks, for instance.

Julie

They don't care about the kids that were shot today, the kids that died at Virginia Tech or in one of the scores of school and workplace shootings in the last ten years.

Or about the kids and adults and entire communities that are traumatized by incidents like this, and the effects that a single such incident can have on the lives of hundreds or thousands of people. Or the communities that are terrorized and intimidated by criminals using firearms to protect their market and carry on their activities without interference. Or the victims of all the crimes that are facilitated by firearms. Or the cost of firearms injuries to the health care system, or the burden that firearms crime and injury places on the economy. Or the children, adults and communities in places like Canada and Mexico where the same things are done with firearms obtained because of the inadequately regulated access in the US.

They care about themselves. Period.

Of course, outfits like the NRA and their fellow travellers and hangers on and admirers also care about keeping Republicans in office, that being the actual main reason for the political activities they carry on.

Didn't you just post something about "people who spend their time trying to make other people believe that someone said something s/he didn't say?"

I'm a "gun enthusiast" and I do care about school/workplace shootings.

Uh huh. And if the original post, to which the one to which I replied was responding, had said something about ALL gun enthusiasts, well, your comment would be relevant.

Once again, the disingenuous (I think, but hey, I could be wrong) pretense of reading a reference to "Thingamajigs" as a reference to ALL Thingamajigs.

If I say "people like to walk on the beach", I'm sure there will be people loudly objecting that they're people and they don't like to walk on the beach ...

Anyhow. I wonder what evidence there is that you care about workplace shootings. Bald statements do not proof make. Are there tears, and are they definitely not crocodile?

The other poster addressed ALL gun enthusiasts:

"Please, NRA members and gun enthusiasts, PROVE ME WRONG."

...which includes me. And I didn't provide any evidence to her for the same reason I won't provide it for you. It's an asinine demand. Prove to me that you don't secretly love the exhilaration of shooting little kids in schools. You can't, but I trust that you don't.
Bald statements on the internet are all I'm going to give you, and if that's not enough for you, put me on ignore.

The other poster addressed ALL gun enthusiasts:

"Please, NRA members and gun enthusiasts, PROVE ME WRONG."

...which includes me. And I didn't provide any evidence to her for the same reason I won't provide it for you. It's an asinine demand. Prove to me that you don't secretly love the exhilaration of shooting little kids in schools.


So now: where did that bit -- "Prove to me that you don't secretly love the exhilaration of shooting little kids in schools" -- come from??

What the poster actually said was:

Here's their ugly little secret

They. Don't. Care.

It's more important to them to own a gun (nobody's infringing on their rights, goddamn it,) than it is for someone else's kid to live. This is the bottom line. The kids that were shot today, the kids that died at Virginia Tech or in one of the scores of school and workplace shootings in the last ten years, are necessary collateral.

The assertions in that post were:

- they don't care
- it's more important to them to own a gun than it is for someone else's kid to live

The demand for proof was a demand for proof that THOSE STATEMENTS were wrong.

The demand for proof was NOT a demand for proof that you don't secretly love the exhilaration of shooting little kids in schools.


So why are you wasting your time and the time of anybody else who might happen to click on your post?

Just hoping that someone somewhere might believe that someone actually said the thing that no one said but you've decided to act as if someone said anyhow?

"They" is clearly defined in the post to gun owners and enthusiasts. Who else is being talked about and addressed? Plumbers? Gardeners? Indian chiefs?

The demand for proof was NOT a demand for proof that you don't secretly love the exhilaration of shooting little kids in schools.

Fucking DUH! That last demand was by ME, addressed to YOU, to illustrate how ridiculous it is to demand PROOF, over the INTERNET, of what's really in someone's heart.


So why are you wasting your time and the time of anybody else who might happen to click on your post?

Becasuse I don't appreciate it when people say I believe something that I don't. Why are you wasting your time in defense of such a thing?

Like a large number of people hereabouts, you appear not to have a clue as to what a straw person argument actually is.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XoTnmSXVLi0C&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=%22straw+person+argument%22&source=web&ots=cwQwnVwgS0&sig=uT3KJwEexLeWUEbO5rXmjbfB3UU

Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking By Diane F. Halpern

The link is to page 216, where you will find a concise and clear explanation of the straw person argument.


As things stand, I have no clue what you thought you were saying here.

Perhaps you were just giving a pictorial representation of the straw person argument you would otherwise have made ...

good God, you're pompous.

Arrogant.

Get with the programme now, 'k?

what I was thinking was pompous, arrogant asshole, but I would never come right out and say that.

when people like you say things like that about me. Positive reinforcement always welcome!

But enough about moi for this thread, surely. There will be other times and places, we can be certain.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I wish I were surprised.

Julie

...

In the meantime, you've now called me a liar twice with no evidence, so welcome to my ignore file.

I might also add that your comments violate DU's rules.

Julie

That kid in Cleveland broke the law. Whatever drove him to shoot up that high school, he apparently made a conscious decision to break the law and threaten the well-being of Cleveland students and their families. He decided that it's more important for him to take out his petty frustrations on everyone else than it is for other kids to live.

Keep the focus where it belongs. How do we prevent kids like this one from making such stupid mistakes in the future?

Keep the focus where it belongs. How do we prevent kids like this one from making such stupid mistakes in the future?

First, of course, it is unlikely that anyone can "prevent" anything like this from ever happening, just as it's unlikely that all occurrences of most things someone might do can be prevented.

Obviously, the goal is to reduce the risk of it happening, and reduce the incidence of it happening. Some people can be prevented from doing some things they might otherwise have done.

And gosh, I wonder how we might do that in this case ...

First, of course, it is unlikely that anyone can "prevent" anything like this from ever happening

We can't give up on the youth of America that easily. There is something terribly wrong with this nation, isn't there, when you suddenly have a rash of school shootings where such a thing would be unheard of 25 years ago.

If the problem isn't legal gun ownership, we'd damn well better find out what's causing our kids to short-circuit, and fast.

We could have started in 2004 by removing from the Oval Office a man who believes he doesn't have to obey the law, either, but that didn't work out so good...

I give up.

Why would you cut and paste this statement of mine:

First, of course, it is unlikely that anyone can "prevent" anything like this from ever happening

-- actually that PART of a statement of mine, which in fact went like this:

First, of course, it is unlikely that anyone can "prevent" anything like this from ever happening, just as it's unlikely that all occurrences of most things someone might do can be prevented.

... and disregard the obviously related statement that immediately followed it:

Obviously, the goal is to reduce the risk of it happening, and reduce the incidence of it happening. Some people can be prevented from doing some things they might otherwise have done.

... and then reply to my statement by saying something:

We can't give up on the youth of America that easily.

that has nothing at all to do with what I said, and looks like nothing more than an attempt to make it appear that I said something I didn't say?

The only reason that someone would say "We can't give up on the youth of America that easily" in response to something someone else said is if the first person had said something that implied that s/he planned to "give up on the youth of America".

If you really think I said something that implied that, you have serious comprehension problems.


The only way to PREVENT someone from doing something, essentially, is to chain him/her to a bed from birth, preferably with a gag on. And even then, something could go wrong.

There are virtually no human behaviours that can be PREVENTED from ever occurring.

The rational question is how do we reduce the risk of kids like this one from making such stupid mistakes in the future?, to use your characterization of the problem.

And one obvious answer is to reduce the risk of kids like that one getting their hands on firearms.

Hence: fuckin' duh.

How many kids in America grew up around firearms over the past 231 years and turned out just fine, devoid of any intent to gun down their teachers, classmates, neighbors, etc.?

Access to guns is one thing. Impulse is another thing entirely. And perhaps the problem with America is that there are too many factors in our overall culture that are opposed to instilling in our youth some measure of self-restraint and forethought. We're supposed to live in a "fast-paced" world, we are told, where stress is universal and the drive to oversaturate our senses is so overwhelming that we have ads for TV shows plastered all over - you guessed it - TV shows already in progress.

America, as a whole, needs to slow down. Relax. Breathe deeply. And take a hard look at what we're doing to our kids.

What about reducing the impulse to lay hands on a firearm?

And if it doesn't work, why, there are still firearms to lay hands on, right?


Access to guns is one thing. Impulse is another thing entirely.

Indeed! Inadequate impulse control is the very hallmark of adolescence. Along with inadequate skill at assessing risks and foreseeing consequences.

And perhaps the problem with America is that there are too many factors in our overall culture that are opposed to instilling in our youth some measure of self-restraint and forethought.

That is certainly an important goal in the process of rearing children. The fact remains that a child's brain is not an adult's brain, and most adolescents' ability to control impulses will remain not fully developed until they leave their teens. And all the culture change in the world won't change that.


People don't hand children matches to play with, and cigarette lighters are now manufactured to be childproof, or at least seriously child-resistant.

Why would people not support measures to reduce access to firearms by children and adolescents?

How hard would it likely have really been to keep the particular firearm used by this particular child out of his hands?

gun education. My dad took me out when I was 5 years old. He taught me how to hold the gun and then he took it and fired a bullet into a watermelon. That was a great visual as to what guns can do to a person. I got it. I understood it. And I was never tempted to play with a gun.

If you want to tell me what that had to do with something I said, I'll be happy to continue the discussion.

bloviating it's hard to tell what you are trying to say.

Bye.

I guess it's not a problem if it's not yourself or someone you love, right?

Julie

Not a civilian, not a anguished teen. A member of the class we train and trust as a law-enforcement officer.

Because OBVIOUSLY if someone doesn't support banning alcohol, then they must have no concern whatsoever for the 100,000 Americans per year who die as a result of alcohol. :eyes:

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf

That characterization fails, of course, to recognize the fact that one can also oppose alcohol prohibition on the grounds that alcohol prohibition would not have any significant effect on overall deaths, and would introduce serious social costs all its own.

I DO care. I dare say I am far more human than your prejudices would lead you to believe. But I also recognize that gun prohibition affects primarily the lawful and responsible, who are, generally speaking, not the problem.

FWIW, my wife and I keep our guns in a safe when not in use; the 9mm's are in condition two (magazine loaded, chamber loaded), and one carbine is in condition three (chamber empty, magazine loaded). I own a couple of trigger locks, but do not use them around the house, as they are a riskier choice than the safe (the cross bar of a trigger lock can often pull the trigger if the lock is jerked, and a trigger lock does NOT prevent a gun from being loaded or handled unsafely). The focus on trigger locks is more about self-defense prevention than about child access prevention; a simple lockbox is a much safer choice for us, and for someone who never has children in the home, other storage methods may be entirely appropriate.

Please, please, you be the one to tell us.

Who was talking about gun prohibition?

You. That much I can see. I just don't know why.

the 18th Amendment didn't prohibit all alcoholic beverages either, just "intoxicating liquors" (i.e., distilled beverages). Of course, it was all a bait-and-switch, because the Volstead Act then defined "liquor" as any beverage with more than 0.5% alcohol content. Still not all alcoholic beverages, but all of them that mattered.

Shades of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, that.

And now if you'll explain what part of the post you were initially responding to it relates to ...


(typo fixed)

mistakenly think you have all the answers. Please, enlighten us more since you know what we think, feel and do or don't care about.

http://www.kcra.com/news/14151108/detail.html

Ceres Toddler Finds Gun, Shoots Self To Death
Weapon Left Unsecured In Home, Police Say

The child's father, 26-year-old Felix Arellano is on felony parole, and should not have been in possession of a gun in the first place, police said.

Sgt. Allen McKay of the Ceres Police Department said the child managed to find a medium-caliber handgun that was left unsecured in the home.

Those criminals, they are so good at obeying laws! He should not have been in possession of a gun ... and yet he was. Just like he should not have done whatever it was that got him the conviction he was on parole for ... and yet he did.

Yup, laws that punish criminals when their kids shoot themselves, that's what ya need more of.

Never mind laws and policies that might actually reduce the risk of criminals getting guns in the first place ...

I guess all those drug laws are really working too. There are laws on the books. There will always be people who don't give a crap about the laws. Human nature.

... if people didn't own guns, they wouldn't kill?

That the number of homicides per capita is directly proportional to the number of guns per capita?

And I would be curious about the events you talk about in Washington state. What, exactly, was the law trying to do?

she really would be lying, wouldn't she???

Seeing as how you chose to respond before she did and all.

:grr:

will be making plenty of excuses why more gun control laws would have prevented this incident (and they'd be grasping at straws as per usual).

I'll give'em 24 hours or less before they release some blathering press release condemning/blaming the NRA and Congress for letting this happen
(Ohhh... and don't forget you can make a tax free deduction to assist them in their witch hunt).

because all of them (except Switzerland which is working on stronger gun regs) have stronger gun laws. Only 46 gun homicides in the UK lat year, a twenty year low. Only America among advanced nations has these weak gun laws and only America has these awful results.

Quite honestly, I don't give a flying fuck how they do it in other "industrialized nations"... including Switzerland for that matter.

:shrug:

If anything... there are a number of gun control laws in this country (both state and federal), that I'd like to see repealed.

Let France, Great Britain, Japan, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, etc pass whatever gun control laws they like just as long as it doesn't happen here.

"I don't care".

Apparently selfishness, arrogance and jingoism (and possibly xenophobia) trumps the lives of the thousands of victims of gun violence every year in the good old U. S. of A.

Other nations have figured it out. Why not copy them?

:eyes:

The fact that most of Europe has univeral healthcare, takes care of the mentally ill, has stronger unions that secure higher wages and better living conditions for their citizens, protects their industries from outsourcing, and has free or cheap college educations has NOTHING to do with it at all.

The UK's homicide rate has been slowly and steadily increasing for the past four decades until it is now twice at what it was in the 1960s.

You KNOW I never let you make that "46 gun murders" claim without putting it in perspective!

You're refined your "Only America" statement with adjective "advanced" now. Nice touch.

I don't blame other assholes for how you wield your assholeness.

Amazing how not one gun enthusiast here has addressed anything in my OP at all.

Read it again.

Now I'll repeat it in a different way. All I said was easy access to guns, and the fact that there are so many of them, is one of the root causes of today's events. The gun enthusiasts are so blinded by their hobby that they don't want to hear it, it seems.

There are other causes. Bad parenting. Economics. But why is it so hard for some to admit that guns are too easily available and that that is also a problem?

and a history of violence.

I'd like to know more about his home situation, how he got the guns, what sort of mental health treatment he had been offered, and such. I'm mostly waiting and seeing, though I've chimed in on a few "hey, let's bash the gun owners again" threads.

Appears that the weapons were 2 handguns, one of which appears to have been a .38 caliber revolver.

It is also being reported that the school's only security guard had been previously reassigned to guard the administrative offices rather than the school floors (?), so the school portion was unguarded when this went down. IF that is true, the school district may have some rather embarassing explaining to do.


Heroin is also too easily available, isn't it? Easier to get than prescription foot powder, in fact.

Lawful gun availability, IMHO, is just about right in most jurisdictions; D.C., California, Massachusetts, and Chicago go too far. But that's a constant; gun availability is more tightly controlled in the U.S. right now than it has ever been, so if something has changed to cause such incidents, it's not gun availability.

I didn't respond to the OP because I saw it as another "let's use this tragedy to go after the gun owners some more" thing--perhaps I misread you. But I can tell you that enacting more restrictions aimed at lawful and responsible adults won't do a damn thing about 14-year-olds with criminal records who shoot up schools with illegally possessed, illegally carried handguns.

... in order to make it hard enough for disturbed people like this to get a gun so that this doesn't happen so often? Do you have a number or percentage or something? I know I don't.


I fear that this is going to go on for a generation. Every few months or so, this will happen. It has been imprinted on this generation for some reason that we have only vague ideas about.

Everything that has happened in the past decade or so... Columbine, VA Tech, today's shooting, could have happened at any time in the past 100 years or more.

So why now? And how long will it be before this trend fades? I am fearful it will be a generation before this burns itself out, maybe longer. :-(

The problem is, what do you do about it? Law-abiding gun owners (like me) have no problem passing our criminal background checks and keeping our guns secure. (Mine are in a 500 lb safe when I'm not carrying them.)

There are already plenty of laws regulating access by those who should not have them (minors, convicted criminals, etc.) Yet, these people continue to get their hands on them.

What would YOU propose to do to change that? The laws are already in place to prevent it, but they don't. Do you think another law will somehow change that?

I'm honestly curious, not just throwing sh*t at you. What would you do to limit access to guns by people who should not have that access, while still allowing access to those who should? (Especially in light of the fact that guns are used somewhere between .5 million and 2 million times per year to PREVENT crimes. Do those 500,000 - 2 million people deserve to be robbed, raped, or killed because they aren't allowed to have a gun? Are you really willing to trade ~30-40 safe kids for 500,000+ new crime victims?)

Easy access to knives, while not the only reason for such incidents, is one of (if not the) biggest of the many contributing factors. To deny such a fact is to expose your bias, to be an NKA (National Knife Association - A Republican organization, by the way) lapdog who speaks no evil, hears no evil, and sees no evil.

Too many knives. Too easily obtained. Too much knife culture. It all adds up to what happened today, what happened before, and what will continue to happen in the future until the most powerful and influential and corrupt lobby in Washington is taken out.

Go ahead. Let us hear the usual excuses for why the easy access and the sheer number of knives available have nothing to do with this. In the end they will forever be excuses, and the stabbings shall continue.






It sounds ridiculous when you replace the big, bad scary GUN with an ordinary knife, and it should.

They're both tools, no more, no less.


EDIT: I take issue with the following assertion "...the most powerful and influential and corrupt lobby in Washington..." Um, in a word, no. You must have been thinking of AIPAC...

Has there been a rash of school stabbings I'm unaware of?

Can a knife wound and kill multiple innocent bystanders from a long range?

This false analogy employed by you NRA apologists always fails.

"Has there been a rash of school stabbings I'm unaware of?"

In this country? No. Australia and the UK, where most firearms are banned? Absolutely.

"Can a knife wound and kill multiple innocent bystanders from a long range?"

Yes, if multiple knives are thrown, then again, absolutely. Besides, did you ever hear of the bow and arrow? :eyes:

"This false analogy employed by you NRA apologists always fails."

I'm not an NRA member. Why would you think that I am?

You can't be serious. Comparing the killing efficiency of a gun to a thrown knife or a bow and arrow? Not to mention the difference in concealability of a gun versus a bow and arrow.

And I called you an NRA apologist, not a member of the NRA. :P

Why not?

"Comparing the killing efficiency of a gun to a thrown knife or a bow and arrow?"

OK, then a crossbow. Quite efficient, quite deadly, easy enough to conceal. Or even better, a blowgun. Or a slingshot. Or... you get the idea by now. At least you SHOULD get the idea by now. Oh, and by the way, I've seen knife throwers who could perforate your brain through your eye socket at twenty yards, farther away than most handguns are accurate.

"And I called you an NRA apologist, not a member of the NRA."

As far as you're concerned, what's the difference? Oh, and for the record, fuck the NRA.

My money's on the latter...

Knifes can be brought to schools just like guns can too...

Are knives long range weapons that can kill multiple innocent bystanders as efficiently as guns can?

Is there no intelligence at all out there among the gun enthusiasts?

What I'm saying is that they and any other dangerous objects/tools broughts from home can be used as a weapon to injure or kill if used for that intent.

All these countless debates on gun control arent going to solve anything unless you get to the root of the problem, and thats the people who are mentally unstable. If we can setup a better system to help them, we wont be having as many shooting sprees as of lately.

I'll say it.

They can't. It's a lot harder to throw a knife than shoot a gun. I can't throw a knife and stick in something on a regular basis if it's more that a couple of feet away. But I can hit a man's torso with a pistol many dozens of feet away.

The problem, Len, is that banning guns does not seem to affect the homicide rates to any appreciable degree.

There are fewer multiple murders, I believe is what I read, but the overall rate basically doesn't move.

It appears that the crime rate starts creeping up, so there are more chances for random murders to occur, even as the odds of any one crime incident turning into a murder goes down.

Knives are used in 4.2 times as many murders as all rifles combined, though that hasn't stopped the repubs at the Brady Campaign from making rifle bans Priority One...

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Knives are used in murders less commonly than handguns, but far more commonly than "assault weapons," or all rifles and shotguns combined, for that matter...

Those kids wouldn't become psychotic and murderous if they weren't abused by teachers, and if they weren't abused by other students while teachers watch from the sidelines and giggle.

You'll notice that there is nowhere near the level of American school firearm attacks in Canada, which has the same level of gun ownership. Something is different in those two cultures and it's not the guns. Go watch Bowling for Columbine again, and this time take notes.

Cops do more damage to the innocent over time than school shooters, which are an occasional phemonmenon at best. Don't ban the peoples' guns unless you are planning on banning police weapons and tasers.