Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We have examples of where restricting gun availability has little negative impact, and a measurable benefit to society. Interesting little article on the effects of restricted access to handguns and gun related homicides... http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ever-predictable-march-of-the-gun-grabbers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 ...Even if you don't want to completely ban gun ownership, why not at least restrict it? Farmers should be allowed to own rifles, but why does anyone need automatic weapons? Sport shooters can own specialised rifles, but they don't need them at home; why not have them kept, securely, at the range where they use the weapon? Isn't there a compromise between public safety and reasonable use? Huh??? Evan, some of our U.S. regional gun cultures are not even on the same planet as you are. No permit required, at all, to confinement of guns at a shooting range? Not in one hundred years from now, or maybe, ever. We're nuts here, Evan. No matter how many die, there is a greater potential for gun restrictions in some of our states to be eased further, than to be further resticted. States mull gun-access laws Issue: Whether employers can bar weapons from parked cars By Charisse Jones http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws:1%2Car%3A1&q=loaded+gun+glove+box+georgia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=loaded+gun+glove+box+georgia&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=b07f551f8262d809Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The : GEORGIA'S CONCEALED GUN... Pay-Per-View - Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Mar 8, 2007 Motorists in Georgia can already hide a loaded gun in a car's glove box or center console They can also keep it in the seat next to them or even on the .. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080221/a_gunlaws21.art.htm USA TODAY Feb 21, 2008 Some companies in several states could be barred from telling their employees to keep their guns at home if lawmakers prevail in a battle that pits gun rights advocates against private businesses. Although no state allows workers to carry weapons into the workplace, at least six states — Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi and Oklahoma — have enacted legislation prohibiting some employers from barring their workers from leaving guns locked in their cars in employee parking lots. Now, several more states are considering such laws. Supporters say licensed gun owners should have access to their weapons in case they need them for self-defense on the trek to and from home. If employers can ban guns from workers' cars, "it would be a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment," which governs the right to bear arms, says Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Many business organizations and gun-control advocates argue that such laws clash with employers' responsibility to maintain safe workplaces and their right to determine what to allow on their private property.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite. Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer. Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE. Yet people with guns kill other people much much much faster. Assassin boy was able to kill 5 or 6 people, and injure 12, in a matter of seconds. Explain how he could have done that with another weapon like a knife or a sling shot. How about a mini van driven through the crowd? Would you then want more restrictions on mini vans? It's not the object, its the person. How about a Pipe bomb? Or how about a few sticks of explosives strapped to his body? Both can be obtained. Where do your "restrictions" on objects that by themself cause no harm stop? You're saying a few sticks of explosives can be obtained legally and easily by any member of the general public the way guns and ammo are obtained easily and legally by any member of the public in Arizona? Do you think that a person with a history of mental issues - who was kicked out of college because of the mental issues, who was rejected by the military likely 'cause of his mental issues - should have free access to guns and a few sticks of explosives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Much as I'd like to, I can't say I am right and Craig is wrong about this issue. I live in a society where guns are heavily restricted, and we don't have any problems with it, so that is how I base my opinion... as a non-gun owner / non-shooter. Others may have a different opinion. It's just my opinion that some the US really does need to rethink its gun laws. Too many Americans seem to be being killed with them every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Correction: non sports shooter or hunter. I started learning weapons safety from about 15, when I was in the Air Training Corps. In the Navy I qualified as a marksman with the SLR (perhaps known to others as the FN 7.62mm or the L1A1). I also qualified on the F1 SMG and the Browning 9mm pistol. I've also fired the Steyr 5.56mm a few times, but never formally qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 ... You do realize that the Dems also posted their own "hit list" complete with bullseyes and the Daily Kos did the same and included Giffords? Can you please point me to these other hit lists? Especially the Dem one you say has bulleseyes. Not that I'm a Dem. And not that this is a strictly Dem vs Rep issue. Its a broader issue than that. Even people outside of the one major US DemRep party should be aware of possible consequences from such lists. Ah but the meme from the media and the left is that this IS a REP issue alone. I heard exact quotes for 1800's political ads today on the radio. Makes today's stuff seem kinda tame. The retoric has alwyes be shrill and partisan. Anyways some interesting links: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028104.php I really like this one... http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ And so it goes. Of course there is more on both sides. Well I wasn't making it a Dem vs Rep issue so it seems like your quibble is with the media and maybe you should invite 'the media' onto the forum for a discussion. As for your first link, it is an interesting one thanks for sharing it. I do think that a bulleseye, which was used on the maps in your link, could be from a game of darts and is far different from a map, like Palin's, with gun sight cross hairs. Especially when she accompanies it with rhetoric like "Don't Retreat…Reload." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We have examples of where restricting gun availability has little negative impact, and a measurable benefit to society. Interesting little article on the effects of restricted access to handguns and gun related homicides... http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ever-predictable-march-of-the-gun-grabbers/ Interesting little article here as well: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-10/arizona-shootings-tell-the-victims-that/ Interesting little quotes from it: "By evading a sensible debate on controlling gun violence, by smearing everyone who dares to raise the issue as a liberal bent on subverting the Second Amendment, by gymnastic feats of illogic to explain away certain facts: • That all the comparable Western countries with reasonable gun-control laws have long had far fewer gun homicides. The murder rate per 100,000 for the U.S. is 5.28. For Canada, it is 0.47, for Australia it is 0.07, the U.K. 0.06, and Japan 0.05 • That the murder rate in the U.S. correlates very closely with the sale of firearms. More guns mean more deaths, and gun ownership has outpaced increases in population • That the states with the most porous gun laws and highest gun ownership—Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Nevada—have the nation’s highest per capita gun death rates, according to the 2007 data from federal studies released by the Violence Policy Center. Conversely, states with lower rates of gun ownership and stronger laws had far fewer gun deaths. Best states for staying alive: Hawaii, followed by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. If you live in Nevada, you are three times more likely to die from firearms than if you live in New York." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Sorry to make Craig fall off his chair again, but the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News, which has a different agenda) invariably react in the same simplistic way to these terrible tragedies. The mantra is: "how could HE have obtained a gun so easily?" As I understand it, Loughner had a clean record, and passed a background check. Yes, now there are kids coming out of the woodwork who reported he was "weird," "strange," etc., but it's kind of hard to legislate against eccentricity. He wasn't kicked out of college for any specific act, so that wouldn't have been on his "record" anyway. The media and public reaction to the shootings in Arizona interest me more than the crime itself. On the surface, Rep. Giffords was a middle of the roader, who was not controversial in the least. I don't see a good reason for a conspiracy here, but as always there are lingering questions. For instance, the older guy seen with Loughner; once questions were raised about him, the authorities claimed he'd been investigated and was the taxi driver who brought Loughner to the scene of the crime. When it was then pointed out, by intrepid souls on the internet, that taxi drivers don't normally remain with their fare after they've reached their destination, they quickly amended that to say that he was there to get change for a 20 dollar bill. The same inquisitive voices on the net followed up with- don't cabbies always carry plenty of change with them? No reply yet to that one from the authorities. Loughner was not referred to as a stereotypical "three namer" right away, but now all mainstream media reports refer to him as Jared Lee Loughner. How many people have you ever known who go by all three names? This goes back a long way- I recall reading about Richard Hauptman protesting in vain over the constant references to him as "Bruno Richard Hauptman," when he'd never gone by his first name in his life. What is it about this three name thing- do they think it makes the suspect sound more like a lone nut? Loughner's eccentric ideology and/or untreated psychotic nature don't appear to fit into any conventional "left" or "right" categories. He was also apparently strident about his homosexuality and his atheism. However, I don't expect anyone to try and connect that with his violent act. Instead, it will be his supposed interest in "conspiracy theories" and any other kind of anti-government ranting they can find that will make the headlines. However you look at it, these kinds of tragedies continue to be milked for whatever political value they have, by the mainstream media and politicians from both major parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 • That the states with the most porous gun laws and highest gun ownership—Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Nevada—have the nation’s highest per capita gun death rates, according to the 2007 data from federal studies released by the Violence Policy Center. Conversely, states with lower rates of gun ownership and stronger laws had far fewer gun deaths. Best states for staying alive: Hawaii, followed by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. If you live in Nevada, you are three times more likely to die from firearms than if you live in New York." So Myra has the overall murder rate in say New York been reduced by stricter gun laws or has the object of choice for violence just shifted to another? http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp We can play dueling stats until the cows come home. Guns are legal. Guns don't kill without a HUMAN attached to them. American likes the FREEDOM to own a gun. Thereis but a SCANT chance laws will be enacted that will change this fact. This is an argument that will devide many in America for years to come. I'm glad I own a firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite. Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer. Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE. Yet people with guns kill other people much much much faster. Assassin boy was able to kill 5 or 6 people, and injure 12, in a matter of seconds. Explain how he could have done that with another weapon like a knife or a sling shot. How about a mini van driven through the crowd? Would you then want more restrictions on mini vans? It's not the object, its the person. How about a Pipe bomb? Or how about a few sticks of explosives strapped to his body? Both can be obtained. Where do your "restrictions" on objects that by themself cause no harm stop? You're saying a few sticks of explosives can be obtained legally and easily by any member of the general public the way guns and ammo are obtained easily and legally by any member of the public in Arizona? Do you think that a person with a history of mental issues - who was kicked out of college because of the mental issues, who was rejected by the military likely 'cause of his mental issues - should have free access to guns and a few sticks of explosives? No, explosives cannot be obtained legally but they are obtained illegally all the time. DO you think its hard to find a handgun in Chicago where they are illegal for the most part? WHo failed on the part of this guy? Was it the gun control restrictions or was it the school, his parents, the police...all of whom knew this guy was a whackjob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Loughner was not referred to as a stereotypical "three namer" right away, but now all mainstream media reports refer to him as Jared Lee Loughner. How many people have you ever known who go by all three names? This goes back a long way- I recall reading about Richard Hauptman protesting in vain over the constant references to him as "Bruno Richard Hauptman," when he'd never gone by his first name in his life. What is it about this three name thing- do they think it makes the suspect sound more like a lone nut? I think the three name thing...IMO..is just the safest way for the media to avoid cases of mistaken identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well I wasn't making it a Dem vs Rep issue so it seems like your quibble is with the media and maybe you should invite 'the media' onto the forum for a discussion. As for your first link, it is an interesting one thanks for sharing it. I do think that a bulleseye, which was used on the maps in your link, could be from a game of darts and is far different from a map, like Palin's, with gun sight cross hairs. Especially when she accompanies it with rhetoric like "Don't Retreat…Reload." Darts eh? Thats a funny one. Of course the symbol used by Palin is also used in the graphic arts business as a registration mark, as it is in other mechanincal drawing applications. See we can all play this silly game. Linking Palin to this event is simply more political "hate speach" to use the very term being tossed about today. The irony is that is it being used by those who claim to hate hate speach.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 How about a mini van driven through the crowd? Would you then want more restrictions on mini vans? It's not the object, its the person. How about a Pipe bomb? Or how about a few sticks of explosives strapped to his body? Both can be obtained. Where do your "restrictions" on objects that by themself cause no harm stop? I agree totally, And Craig, thanks for pointing out that the glock semi-auto pistol is used for sport in target shooting. I live within a mile of Range Road at Fort Dix and hear them target shooting all the time. The top ranger's son, Matt Emmons, won an olympic gold and silver medals and married the women's gold medal shooter at Bejing. I used to shoot a pretty good target myself. It isn't the target shooters anybody is worring about though, it's the politician shooters. And it is most certainly illogical to target the weapons when it is the assassins who should be controlled. After Dealey Plaza, instead of identifying the true killers, and figuring out how the covert action was conducted, identifying those who were really responsible and bringing them to justice, and making sure that such crime never happens again, they introduced gun control legislation instead. BK The car automobile analogy doesn’t hold for a few reasons: 1) Guns are designed to be lethal (and normally as lethal as possible with in size, price and legal constraints); with the very limited exception of people who buy them for sport shooting at inanimate targets they purchased for their lethal capacity. Safety is a principle design feature of cars and I know of no cases of someone buying specifically to kill (or be able to kill) themselves or others and obviously no cars are designed to be lethal. 2) In the US and most other countries one needs a license to own or (legally) drive a car and cars themselves are registered. One has to pass numerous tests to get a driver’s license. In most states, with the possible exception of handguns and semi-automatic/automatics, guns are not registered and gun ownership is unregulated. The only common type of license is for carrying concealed weapons. Even were regulation exists it is not very restrictive. In Illinois for example you need to be registered to carry a loaded weapon but this does not apply to residents of other states and unregistered residents can carry an unloaded gun and ammo in the same case. Perhaps Craig or Bill can point to a state where one needs a license to own most types of guns AND where the licensing processes is as controlled as for drivers. http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm 3) Due to their size, the use of automobiles can reasonably be controlled, cars (and their drivers/owners) are frequently stopped and/or fined due to erratic driving, speeding, broken lights etc. It is not uncommon for bad drivers to lose their licenses. Guns are much smaller and thus can easily be concealed; unless police have “reasonable cause” they can not even check to see if someone is carrying a gun. AFAIK the only way to lose a gun owner’s permit is to be convicted of a felony or have an order of protection issued against them. Thus the only reasonable way to control them is at (or before) the point of purchase. 4) Though about four times more people die due to cars than guns the overwhelming majority of these cases are due accidents and this is due to the degree to which cars are integrated into American life. Though the numbers of guns and cars are comparable the amount of time people use the latter is far greater than the former. About two-thirds of those killed in crashes are drivers thus they die due their own (normally) reckless behavior. The amount of people murdered with guns a year (about 10,000) and non-drivers killed a year (about 16,000) are comparable and are much higher if we count the amount of time people use the former compared to the latter. Get back to us when cars are used for murder with anywhere near the frequency of guns. The FBI does not even include automobiles in the 12 types of weapons in its statistics, they would fit into “Other weapons or weapons not stated” about 7% of the total, firearms account for about 2/3 of the total. http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html 5) In most cases people talking about banning private gun ownership but reasonable restrictions such as prohibiting clips with more than 10 bullets, automatics or semi-automatics and hollow-point or Teflon coated bullets. As for explosives AFAIK normally you need a license to purchase them which is why terrorists use things like fertilizer and drag racing fuel (which are now restricted as well) and 2005 - 9 only 17 or approximately 73,000 murder victims killed with explosives. (see FBI stats above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We have examples of where restricting gun availability has little negative impact, and a measurable benefit to society. Interesting little article on the effects of restricted access to handguns and gun related homicides... http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ever-predictable-march-of-the-gun-grabbers/ Interesting little article here as well: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-10/arizona-shootings-tell-the-victims-that/ Interesting little quotes from it: "By evading a sensible debate on controlling gun violence, by smearing everyone who dares to raise the issue as a liberal bent on subverting the Second Amendment, by gymnastic feats of illogic to explain away certain facts: • That all the comparable Western countries with reasonable gun-control laws have long had far fewer gun homicides. The murder rate per 100,000 for the U.S. is 5.28. For Canada, it is 0.47, for Australia it is 0.07, the U.K. 0.06, and Japan 0.05 • That the murder rate in the U.S. correlates very closely with the sale of firearms. More guns mean more deaths, and gun ownership has outpaced increases in population • That the states with the most porous gun laws and highest gun ownership—Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Nevada—have the nation’s highest per capita gun death rates, according to the 2007 data from federal studies released by the Violence Policy Center. Conversely, states with lower rates of gun ownership and stronger laws had far fewer gun deaths. Best states for staying alive: Hawaii, followed by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. If you live in Nevada, you are three times more likely to die from firearms than if you live in New York." Additionally Craig's article cherry picks the data choosing best and worst cases (respectively) for uncontrolled and controlled jurisdictions. Washington DC is urban, poor and mostly African-American, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread Blacks are a disproportionately among the victims and perpetrators of homicides. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_02.html Even so the it seems to fudge numbers: "According to Tucson Police Department records, by December 2010, the city – which is located 60 miles north of the Mexican border – experienced 51 murders by the use of guns. Washington police records, meanwhile, recorded 131 homicides in 2010, nearly three times the Tucson rate." Note that it compared total murders in DC to gun murders in Tucson and did not account for the population difference. Nationally 2/3 of murders involve guns so lets assume about 87 people were killed with guns in DC whose population is 10% larger. 87 - 10% = 79, thus while DC is still proportionally ahead of Tucson this probably due to the demographic differences noted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 There are still a lot of outstanding questions about this case, despite the fact that there are hundreds of cops, local and federal and reporters on the case. Who are this guy's parent's? There has been mention of a synagog - are they Jewish, and if so, how come this has not been brought out by the hate mongers? How do they live a neighborhood for over 20 years and never get to know the names of their neighbors? What do the parents do for a living? And in reviewing JLL's web pages, there are repeated references to "dream conscious" - which is recognizing you are in a dream, and "dream conscience," which is something I never heard of. There is also a reference to the MIC - Military Induction Center - of which there are 65 throughout the USA, and where JLL must have gone to try to enlist in the US military, though the Army turned him down - rejected him - but for what reason? Did they give him a test and determined he was nuts? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now