 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 09 - 07:31 PM A heavily armed gunman opened fire yesterday at a[n]________________ leaving more than _______ dead and ________ wounded before taking his own life. Authorities have yet to cite a motive. Armed with a _______________ the gunman, __________________, opened fire on the ___________________ in a rampage that lasted less than ________ minutes. Police report that the shooter fired more than ______ rounds of ammunition and that the gun was ____________ (legally/illegally) owned. The shooter was described by neigbors as a ______________ man who kept to himself. "__________________________________", one said. One onlooker standing next to an impromptu memorial told reporters, "I can't believe it happened here in ____________". _____________________________________________________________________ The above is part of an editorial that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post... It was written by Josh Sugarmann who is the director of the Violence Policy Center... Isn't it time to have a real discussion about guns without the NRA chasing everyone down who doesn't walk their line... This is a sad commentray on our society and on just how powerful the NRA has become in *dictating* policy... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 08:36 PM No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 20 Apr 09 - 08:54 PM Why not??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:02 PM Fair question. Imagine, if all guns were illegal. Nobody was allowed to have them. If you got caught, you'd be in trouble...possible jail time. Right??? You'd think everyone would see the benefits of it. Well, do you think that would work?? Can sum it all up in one word. People would give it up...just like they'd give up(by the way, I don't have one)..just like they'd give up, and comply with honoring the laws about.....(here comes your one word).......... V V V VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV V POT Enough said??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:30 PM While we're at it, let's make stupidity illegal too, and see if anything changes... One thing about life. It's unpredictable. Another. Bad things can and will happen in life. When they do, the press will make sure you know all about it. The worse it is, the more they will tell you about it. Their enthusiastic telling and re-telling of it will probably inspire some more such incidents after awhile, not surprisingly. Good things, however, also can and do happen every day. MILLIONS of good things happen! How much do you hear about those in the news? No set of Draconian laws will make everything perfect from now on or prevent some a few more bad things from happening. Matter of fact, the draconian laws are usually a pretty bad thing in themselves, seems to me. They increase the stress load on the general public. Under accumulated stress, certain people crack...and bad things happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:30 PM How about if we outlawed murder? Surely that would work. I wonder why it's never been tried? Kent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Apr 09 - 09:47 PM Nothing "works" completely whether or not it is made law. Some things work to a pretty good extent, however. We outlawed murder because that works to a pretty good extent. Outlawing marijuana, however, has failed totally. Outlawing alcoholic beverages has failed totally. Outlawing theft and rape has worked to a pretty good extent. Now let's take a look at that. The reason it works to outlaw murder or theft or rape is because it is 100% obvious to 99.999 % of us that they should be outlawed, because virtually everyone thinks they are totally wrong. The same is not true of using marijuana, drinking an alcoholic beverage, or owning a gun. Have I made myself clear to your satisfaction, Kent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bill D Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:16 PM Neither GfS or LH has really addressed the basic point. I won't spend the time typing a long rebuttal, because as usual, I doubt I'd get thru. I, too, saw the editorial...and considered posting a scan of it: along with the FRONT PAGE article about another mass shooting that could not have been anticipated when the editorial was written. Bobert asks rightly if a discussion should begin again...without loaded commentary from the NRA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:22 PM The thing is, if you don't like one to have, don't get one..if you do,you can(legally that is)...in any event, discipline yourselves, in everything, in ways that will bring life, and light into this world. This consciousness is not only contagious, it IS the very thing, that the crazies, whether political, emotional, religious, agenda driven, manipulators, can NOT control..and threatens their very existence! Why would you want only a gun??..Wouldn't you rather have a ball-point sword?!! Warmest To You, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bill D Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:36 PM "...discipline yourselves, in everything, in ways that will bring life, and light into this world." Been at it for 50 years... Now I use my HTML based ball-point sword almost every day. There are more guns, used more irrationally every day, than there were 50 years ago. Perhaps *I* will be the last person on Earth to own a gun....so be it... *wry smile*. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:49 PM Writing, like shooting, takes practice. Speed, is a bi-product of accuracy! I guess you need to get higher thoughts....up to you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Kent Davis Date: 20 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM Little Hawk, You always make yourself clear. I'm guessing you thought I was disagreeing with your post. Check the times. Both are 9:30 p.m. We cross-posted. Also, even though I couldn't have read your post, mine is in agreement with it. My suggestion to outlaw murder was ironic, since murder is already outlawed. Outlawing guns to prevent murder won't work because murderers won't obey gun laws. We are in agreement on that. Kent P.S. Also, even if murders would obey gun laws, outlawing guns still wouldn't work. Lizzie Borden, Jack the Ripper, and the Boston Strangler managed quite well without guns. Timothy McVeigh didn't shoot those 168 people in Oklahoma City. The 9/11 hijackers didn't use guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Apr 09 - 11:11 PM Okay, Kent. ;-) What's the basic point you would like addressed, Bill? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:36 AM Normal NRA knee jerk reaction from GfS: Discussion on guns = outlawing guns??? This is the typical trick that the NRA has historically used to prevent the iscussion from even taking place... The NRA would have folks assume that the ***only*** byproduct from talking about guns is a ban on them... This cognitive disconnect is like an old hunting dog... One day people will find that that dog won't hunt... Face it, GfS, we have gun control now, don't we??? I mean, that;s why we don't let the baby play with a loaded gun in it's crib... That's why we don't assign guns to prisoners... No one here has advocated banning guns... To make the arguement that that is the goal is to be shilling for the NRA... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Donuel Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:28 PM If EVERYONE over 16 years old carried a loaded gun there would be a lot fewer intentional shootings. BAM oops sorry, that was an accident. BAM oops I thought you meant it. BAM BAM Oops, is there a bad guy here or not? BAM BAM BAM I'm just shooting because everyone else is. BAM thats no excuse Hello, is anyone still alive in here? BAM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Donuel Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:35 PM more dangerous than a loaded gun A loaded gnu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 04:38 PM Jeez..I thought 98% of accidents cause children' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 09 - 05:20 PM "What's the basic point you would like addressed, Bill? " As I said, I don't know if a can DO a brief synopsis.... 1)There are more & more mass shooting, and still many, many individual ones. 2)Guns are bigger, fire faster and more common than 20 years ago (I typed 'tears' I considered leaving it), or 50 years ago, or 200 years ago. 3)Claims are made that "laws are on the books...we just need to enforce them", but in a number of states, i.e., Virgina, one can go to a gun show and buy ANYTHING, with little or no I.D., and no waiting. Why would anyone want 5 AK-47s, if not to route them to illegal purposes? 4) The supposed 'right'(interpretation is subjective) in the 2nd Amendment doesn't deal with the situation today. The point is that this combination of factors is seldom addressed as a whole. Everyone wants to just point to whatever they think will support THEIR view. ...and that is still a short, simplistic version of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 05:31 PM So I heard this guy on a call-in show on NPR say that if Virginia required background checks at gun shows then folks would just set up in the parking lot and sell them outta the back of cars... I was thinking to myself, "Gee, don't ya' think the legislators would think of that and band sales of guns in parking lots adjacent to gun shows??? I mean, the NRAers are working overtime with their arguments... That one was a mighty stretch... And Bill is correct... It's been over 200 years since the 2nd ammendment was written... The founders knew little of handguns other than dueling pistols... Their perspective was rifles... Not handguns... And, no, by singling handguns I am not advocation a ban on handguns... We just need to occasionally put things in some historical perspective... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 05:34 PM BillD, You state : 1)There are more & more mass shooting, and still many, many individual ones. If this is your claim, have you adjusted for the increase in population? What is the number of shootings per capita, now and earlier? 2)Guns are bigger, fire faster and more common than 20 years ago (I typed 'tears' I considered leaving it), or 50 years ago, or 200 years ago. FOr 20 and 50 years ago, I will argue you are incorrect. Guns have been getting smaller and since 1933 fully automatic weapons have been ( effectively) prohibited. For 200 years, please adjust for the population I believe that the number of guns per capita was greater.. 3)Claims are made that "laws are on the books...we just need to enforce them", but in a number of states, i.e., Virgina, one can go to a gun show and buy ANYTHING, with little or no I.D., and no waiting. Why would anyone want 5 AK-47s, if not to route them to illegal purposes? ANYTHING is certainly NOT allowed. AK-47s are fully automatic, and prohibited. 4) The supposed 'right'(interpretation is subjective) in the 2nd Amendment doesn't deal with the situation today. As are the supposed 'rights' in the rest of the Bill of Rights- if you want to change the Bill of Rights, that is ok- but to ignore it invites the rest of those rights to be ignored in the same manner- freedom of speech or press certainly never included any idea of the internet, where a false statement can go around the world before it is even known to be posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:15 PM I'm fairly much inclined to agree with your various points, Bill, particulary numbers 3 & 4. Yes, the situation today is radically different from the 1770s when there was an unsettled frontier all along the western borders and almost constant warfare between Indians and Whites along it, plus a need for most people to hunt for food and defend themselves against bears, cougars, Indian raiding parties, even each other (given the lack of adequate police presence in frontier areas) etc... The 2nd Amendment was written in a radically different society from our present one and was totally suitable to the conditions of the time which required a standing militia and a country folk who used guns as a normal part of their survival from day to day. It is no longer nearly as suitable to our present overcrowded urban and suburban realities, and that needs to be legally addressed in some intelligent fashion. Tell you what....argue this one with Bearded Bruce instead. ;-) You and he have much more to disagree about than you or I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: gnu Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM Ahhhh... dunno why I am typing this.... ain't gonna do no good... Guns do not kill. People kill. Regulate people. Regulate guns. But, do not take away a person's right to defend oneself with a gun without cause. That's just fuckin stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:25 PM "Everyone wants to just point to whatever they think will support THEIR view." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:27 PM I think most of us would like to see a reality somewhere in the central ground between the lunatic extremes at either end, wouldn't we? If so, what are we arguing about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: gnu Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:32 PM That's the problem, LH. Nobody can accept a middle ground because nobody trusts the nuts on the other side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:45 PM Aha. So it's not "guns" themselves that are the problem at all. It's the mutual disrespect and gross intolerance of the extremists in the two camps for each other that is the problem!!! By golly, I might have known it! ;-) That, after all, is the essential problem in almost all intractable and lengthy disputes of this sort, and it is why no satisfactory solutions can seem to be found. A few bad apples at BOTH ends spoil the whole barrel. Sounds like a credo for our times, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:47 PM Well, the "guns do not kill" statement doesn't fit the laws of logic and experience. Guns are certainly one of the two major causes of gunshot deaths in the country. If you didn't have guns, you wouldn't have gunshot deaths - and if you didn't have anybody to pull the trigger, you'd also eliminate gunshot deaths.
It's not a question of one or the other - BOTH guns and gun operators are needed to cause the result. I would guess the NRA would get alarmed it we were to go around eliminating people who like guns, so maybe removing or strictly controlling the guns is the way to go. -Joe- P.S. I added "fill in the blanks" to the thread title so people don't get all worried... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting... From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:49 PM Well, geeze loiuse, who cares if the AK-47s and later built SKSs are automatic or semi automatic??? Either way they can spew out alot of fire power... Greater fire power, BTW, than most police departments have readilly on hand to combat... The AK-47 (SKS) will shoot as fast as one can pull the trigger... N delay at all If one can pull the trigger, say, twice a second then that's 120 bullets being fired in one minute... One pull per second is 60 bullets... Where's the sport in firing 120 bullets a minute??? There is none what so ever... These weapons, auto or semi, we designed for one purpose: killing people... They were not designed for sport shooting or hunting... Just killing people... The semi v. auto argument is a red herring and NRA propaganda... As for the 2nd ammendment??? It's the worst written ammendment in the Bill of Rights because it ties gun ownership to the right to have a militia... The NRA would rather just skip that little inconsistency... And their shill's gloss over that portion of the ammendment as if it doesn't even exist becuase it's inconvient to try to explain what gun ownership has to do with being in a militia... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: gnu Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:04 PM Joe.... c'mon? not you too? Catchy slogan? Not logical????? A gun is a hunk of metal. It CANNOT kill. IT CANNOT KILL... that is not catchy slogan. It is a fact. Which NOBODY can dispute. That is my problem with the anti-gun lobby. If you cannot even get beyond this basic logic, how can anybody have a reasonable discourse? Why would I give up my right to defend myself and my home and my family to anybody who cannot at least accept this basic logic and look beyond where we have been lacking in solving the gun problem? The gun problem can be solved, but not if the nuts on both sides keep being nuts. Sorry, Joe.... no go. I don't like guns on the street any more than anybody else, but until the is a REASONABLE discourse and some true solutions, I am staying with the NRA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:26 PM Bobert, When the Constitution was written, obviously verified in Jefferson's writings, one huge reason to allow the populous to be armed, was to protect themselves from a central government from being to big, and/or, to not allow a tyrannical government from forming, from this newly formed government. I'm sure, after freeing themselves from England's perception of being tyrannical, that this was certainly on their minds....not to allow the one formed, to go back into the one they just left. For that reason, it reads like it does, and was not stupidly written. I think you have to get out of the box that has been sold us, to understand the intentions of the framers. Agreeing with that, one way or the other, is entirely up to the reader and 'interpreter' of the document. Regardless, it was/is the law...just like freedom of speech..etc. etc....as for me, don't you get at least a little suspicious of people who break the law, or even try to change it, for their own purposes. I think the controversy, is about trusting the government, and/or why they feel it a threat...to whom?..them??..WHY??? It is from that viewpoint, that the arguments get so heated on this issue...neither side willing to see the other's, without a fight. On the gun owner's side, finding out would make it then too late to fix it..on the other side, they feel threatened. Now, I think I explained that, as impartially as I could. I think it is with understanding, that a fair 'checks and balance' can be found. It would be a great benefit, if we could, as Americans, start seeing SOME administrations, that would be TRUSTWORTHY in the eyes of the electorate, TO EFFECT A LESS THAN FORCEFUL(therefore, bloody) change. ...something the political machine, running BOTH sides have failed to produce. Regards To All, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:34 PM Well, gnu-zer... I usually agree with what you say but Joe's post above is very much a discussion... He looks at both factors in gun deaths: the gun and the gunner... The NRA just looks at the gunner... The folks who want stricter controls look at the gun... The discussion need look at both or it's not a discussion... It's someone's position paper... Hey, I am a gun owner... I am a former NRA member... I am a former shoot club member... I like my guns... That's all and well but really has nothing to do with a "discussion"... The NRA doesn't want a discussion... They have made that painfully clear... Those of us who believe that some gun law cahnges are overdue want to have a discussion... The NRA has the money and the power to keep that discussion from happening in places where the NRA might have to compromise... Our side has done all the compromising because we don't own Congressmen... All we are asking is for a discussion and not to be told that whatever the NRA says is the gospel... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: frogprince Date: 21 Apr 09 - 07:56 PM Guns left around the house don't kill little kids; Little kids who find guns lying around kill little kids. Lock the gun up secure enough to prevent that sort of thing, and your chance of getting to the gun in time to use it for home defense will probably be greatly reduced. Interesting choice of priorities? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:01 PM Well, thanks Joe & Bobert, for doing some of the needed replies. As usual, I barely know where to begin on the rest. Bruce said: "to ignore it invites the rest of those rights to be ignored in the same manner- " That is the 'slippery slope' argument, and just doesn't track. No one is advocating "ignoring" the issue... I advocate revisiting the issue in light of new data and different times. LOTS of ideas are re-thought in light of data...like tobacco... restricting that doesn't cause 'freedom' to be curtailed, unless the 'right to gasp & cough' is something basic. And I am so thoroughly tired of the "guns don't kill people, people do." argument! First, it isn't even true... many deaths are accidents, especially with kids. Second, the full sentence is "people kill MORE people if they have guns, than if they have to use knives or bats!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:11 PM Well, looks as if there is a 50/50 chance of this thread becoming a discusiion... Unless, of course, the NRA finds out about it and sends one of their shills in to kill it... Heck, it's a fight just to get folks off their appointed talking r points.... I'm all for gun onwership... But I don't want criminals and severely mentally ill people having unfettered access to guns... Why can't we just agree on that??? (Well, BObert, if we take the guns away from the nutballs and criminals then next they will come fir your guns???) They will??? Who says??? Where did this mythology begin??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:37 PM "But I don't want criminals and severely mentally ill people having unfettered access to guns" Criminals and the mentally ill are prohibited by the 1968 gun law from owning or posessing firearms of any kind. If they have them, it is already against the law. What do you want to do, pass another law against it???? If one law does not work, how can another one do what you seem to want? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 09:40 PM Well, it might not get off the ground, because most people on here, seem to be in agreement, on the most part. I don't own a gun, but at the same time, I don't see why other people can't, unless its for good reason....that being said, let's have those reasons be reasonable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:11 PM Yeah, bruce, I want another law... It closes the gun show loophole at gun shows where criminals and sickos can buy guns... No, make that buy AK-47's... I don't want criminals and sickos owning these guns... Do you, bruce??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:18 PM last was mine No. So maybe the present laws should be enforced before making more- including the ones against pot. If the law is not wanted, get rid of the law, don't just ignore it. Present laws prohibit killing, with or without guns. Since the criminals are already breaking the law, any additional laws serve ONLY ( yes, I am yelling since that is what it takes to get you to bother reading) to disarm the citizens from defending themselves. Should eveyone have guns? Again, NO. But those who wish to have them ( legally) should be able to, unlike the present situation, where minorities can be disarmed and made victims of both the police and the criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:24 PM One more time, and then it becomes Bobert Fact: AK-47s are fully automatic, and already prohibited (EXCEPT TO POLICE FORCES). The semi-automatic version (SKS) has a clip with limited capacity ( by previous law) and fires as fast as one can pull the trigger- just like many hunting rifles. If you keep saying that AK-47s can be bought ( WITHOUT a Class Three permit) I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU A DAMN LIAR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:26 PM Excuse me: If you keep saying that AK-47s can be bought ***legally*** ( WITHOUT a Class Three permit) I WILL HAVE TO CALL YOU A DAMN LIAR. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:56 PM Jeez..I hate to be the one who sets this straight. Both the SKS and the AK-47, which are both available to the public, comes in SEMI-automatic versions...the military version of the AK-47, has a selector switch on it, and can be made to fire FULLY automatic. Those are not available, to the public, without a special permit...Don't argue..I'm right! P.S. Some SKS's can be made to fire fully auto, as well, but not not the ones that are legally available. P.P.S. Who NEEDS them anyway??....Still, I don't feel threatened if other people own them, and if I knew of someone who did, (which I don't), I doubt strongly that they would be irresponsible....but then, my friends and acquaintances aren't crazies. We should pick our friends, at least as careful as we pick our noses! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 09 - 10:59 PM and Bruce... what does ".. the number of shootings per capita, now and earlier..." have to do with total number of shootings? If you are reminding me that, no matter how many they shoot, statistics prove some will survive!, I am not impressed. Do you think all those families in Colorado or southern Virgina are comforted by the knowledge that we are breeding faster than crazy people can shoot? then: "Criminals and the mentally ill are prohibited by the 1968 gun law from owning or posessing firearms of any kind" Yeah...and fully auto AK-47s are illegal...wow.. laws! And Bobert just made the point about how fast SEMI-autos could fire. (and, gee...didn't I read about how easy it is for 'criminals' to modify them?) Think about it... they are CRIMINALS. And some of the recent horror stories are ABOUT folks who we discovered were mentally ill after they killed a bunch of people! Being 'mentally ill' doesn't mean they are not clever enough to hide their intent until they are headlines....... **Mentally ill** is often a very subjective thing, and it can even just amount to 'temporary insanity', where a guy with a gun gets emotionally distraught - just long enough to discover he shouldn't have had a gun! As to "...my right to defend myself and my home and my family..." ... against what? Are you gonna answer the door with a loaded gun? Most criminal gun offenses are not telegraphed... they are surprises. That's how being a criminal usually works. Owning a gun, safely locked up and unloaded, does little good against a home invasion, and carrying one in your coat while on the street does little good if the criminal surprises you. It is rare to read of Mr. Average Joe getting the best of a robber or mugger with his .38! It is more common to read of a shopkeeper being shot TRYING to stop a thief. Now, I make 'some' exception for rural dwellers who have special situations and little quick access to law enforcement. But even then, they have odds against them if someone really wants to rob or do harm. The real issue is: Guns are not 'needed' by most people. The argument is that "criminal have some, so we need some for defense" ...doesn't that sound a lot like "THEY have a big bomb, so WE need a big bomb"? Now we are worried that criminals or 'mentally I have SEEN all this play out for so many years. I KNOW people who carried guns, and I know of only a very few cases where owning anything other than a couple of hunting of sporting rifles was reasonable. I have said many times here that I do NOT expect or advocate banning firearms. It is, frankly, too late for that. But I saw the videos of a Virginia gun show and the statements of gun dealers that **almost anything goes**! They STATED they were selling multiple guns to Mexicans who were buying with no ID....and to others who were almost certainly going to re-sell them in another state....probably illegally. It was all about $$$$$.... So...chant "2nd amendment" all you like, and tell yourselves you need 'defense', and fly a flag that says "guns don't kill people"..... none of this shows me that you offer any solutions to the increasing spate of tragedies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the bla From: Janie Date: 22 Apr 09 - 01:53 AM I'm not gonna wade in here too deep, and probably would have not posted at all except for the number of references to guns and "mentally ill." First let me say that I have yet to hear an argument or read a statistic that suggests there is any real justification for handguns and semi-automatic weapons to be generally legal for most of us in the genral population to own. (Not that I have read a bunch of statistics about this issue.) Severely restrict the legal market for these types of guns, and the illegal availability will also be more restricted. I also am not aware of any information that suggests owning these types of guns makes most legal carriers of these guns safer. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest one is less likely to be assaulted or to have one's home broken into in the middle of the night because the aggressor believes the victim may be armed with a handgun or semi-automatic pistol or rifle. I think it likely that an armed burglar or assailant is much more likely to shoot if s/he thinks there is some chance the potential victim might be armed with a handgun. So, I have waded in long - but not deep at all:>) I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns. And if protection is obviously needed, they are adequate deterents. If the protection is not obviously needed, then chances are a handgun is not going to be of much protective value anyway to someone suddenly accosted. There are a very few people who are both obviously and chronically mentally ill and who also have a higher than normal potential to be dangerous to themselves or others if they have a gun of any type. That fact is, however, that the vast majority of deaths and injuries caused by gunshots, were not from guns, regardless of the kind of gun, in the hand of a person whose reality testing is so poor that they should not be held criminally accountable for their actions. Severely restrict legal access to handguns and semi-automatic rifles for everyone, and the "exceptional" restriction for that nebulous term "mental illness" that ought also be applied to single action hunting rifles can be much more clearly determined and defined. Four antecdotes that shape my views follow: 1. In my early 20's I was living in the upstairs of a 2 unit apartment when I heard some one on the porch roof of the lower apartment, obviously intent on breaking into my abode. I did not have a gun. However, I yelled out that I had a rifle and if they did not jump off the roof and run immediately, I would shoot them. They lept for ground and ran as I was calling 911. 2. One year at the Coconut Grove Art Festival in Miami, we had problems with a drunk or high man who was harrassing a young woman we had hired to help in the booth who lived on a boat in the marina, and was acquainted with him. At one point he flashed a knife and threatened to return later with his friends when we were tearing down the booth. We notified security but they weren't much interested. When the show ended that night, I stood with a thirty-thirty hunting rifle cradled in my arms while my husband took down the booth and packed us up. The fellow and some friends did approach from a distance, I moved under the streetlight where the rifle could clearly be seen and stared at them. They left. They would not have seen a handgun until they themselves were close enough to have probably shot me if they were carrying pistols, but the hunting rifle was fully sufficient. No semi-automatic weapon was needed. 3. I was robbed at gunpoint in Durham, NC. If I had been carrying a pistol, or had made any move that would have given the robber reason to think I was reaching for a gun, I have no doubt I would have been shot. 4. In my very early 20's, I was on a camping trip with a fairly new boyfriend. He became extremely and irrationally angry, extremely verbally aggressive, and I greatly feared I was about to be assaulted. We were way up an isolated hollow, miles from human habitation. When he started running at me, I turned and ran for the truck, scrambling for the rifle he kept there. I was very frightened, but was headed for the gun thinking it would give me an element of control and power. I was not thinking my life was in danger. He was right behind me. He wrested the rifle from me, hit me, shoved me into the cab of the truck, and then drove around on dirt roads for hours, the gun pointed at my head, screaming at me. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way accountable for his behavior, but if I had not gone for the gun, the situation would not have esculated to the point it did. I was unprepared to handle or to use the gun, and made a very foolish decision in the midst of the drama. 5. Late one night, I was awakened when the light in my bedroom flashed on, and then off. From the night-light in the hall, I could see the outline of a male standing right beside my bed. He turned the light on again and I could see it was a teenager, and he looked somewhat shocked to see me. I yelled at him to get out and he turned and ran. I did not have a gun, but it would have done no good if I had. If he had come at me, there would have been no time to reach for it. He was literally inches from my head. 6. Ex-hubby always carried an unregistered handgun. It drove me nuts and was the cause of many arguments. He was adamant that he needed it as "insurance" if we were threatened. What it did, however, was cause a mad scramble anytime he got pulled over for a traffic violation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:13 AM There is no one simple solution to mass shootings, Bill, that is also a workable and feasible solution. That may be hard to accept, but I think it is so. There are (theoretical) unworkable and unfeasible solutions which can occur to a purely logical mind, a mind that is, however, totally devoid of common sense, such as: confiscating all the guns everywhere: both practically and culturally impossible to do. killing all the people who want guns or have them and starting over at square 1: ditto outlawing all guns: ditto There is, I repeat, no one single feasible solution that is going to stop mass killings with guns in America (or elsewhere). Mass killings arise when a single person loses it, and people can do that for a great variety of reasons. You would have to address ALL those reasons and ALL those unstable people prior to the violent act to stop mass killings with guns. Now, how would you do that? There are, however, any number of more subtle things that can be done to lessen the number of such incidents, and I think a more useful discussion might be to focus on what those things are that can be done, rather than adopting a zealous attitude which implies that "anyone who doesn't agree with my viewpoint of it is an idiot and out of touch with reality". I can think of any number of things which could be done to lessen the frequency of such violent incidents, but I don't want to get carpal tunnel typing them all out tonight. I bet you can think of some too. Instead of people here accusing each other and going into emotionally overwrought attacks on one another over points of inflexible personal doctrine, why not focus on something reasonable like that? Society is very complex, and a complex situation requires a number and variety of smaller responses (legal and otherwise) on many different levels, NOT a dogmatic assertion of some absolutist philosophy. You say that guns are not "needed" by most people. True. Neither are TVs, pizzas, jetskis, model airplanes, weedless lawns, bras, baseball caps, or any number of other things that people happen to like for one reason or another. We could do without ALL of those things...if we were being run by a fanatical, dictatorial order that decided we couldn't have them. But.....wouldn't that defeat the entire notion of having a "free" society and a free exchange of goods and services? It would. So why are you suggesting that just because most people don't "need" guns, they therefore should not be allowed to have them? Guns have come to us out of a very long tradition, and that's one of the reasons people like them. My uncle had guns. Several of them. He loved guns, and he used them to hunt and to target shoot. He didn't NEED to do that, but he enjoyed it for its own sake and he enjoyed guns for their own sake. He never shot at anyone (human) in his life, he lived a peaceful and productive existence, he was a kindly and excellent man, and did no harm to society. He didn't NEED guns, Bill, but he lived in a free society, and in a free society people can have not just what they NEED, but also many other things that they simply happen to like for some reason. That is what "pursuit of happiness" implies: you can have not just what you need, but also some other things that you simply want for their own sake even if you don't necessarily need them. Do you follow me on that? Guns have been a part of human history for a very long time. So have knives, swords, bows and arrows, ropes, and other such things which CAN very easily be used to kill people. That doesn't mean that all those things should be totally done away with, does it? Or does it? Well, you will never run out of things to ban in this world if you want to make people's lives totally safe. Never. You would have to finally ban life itself...it would be the only way to completely eliminate all the existing risks it entails, seems to me. Am I in favor of restricting the ownership of assault weapons? Yes. Am I in favor of people having to pass a firearms safety course before being allowed to purchase a gun? Yes. Am I in favor of improving some people's economic lot so they don't fall into despair and go out one day and kill a bunch of strangers? Yes. Am I in favor of providing some help to lonely and unstable people or people in failed marriages who may need psychiatric aid or counseling? Yes. As I say, Bill, there are a great many useful things that can be done to improve the situation and to lessen these violent incidents we've been seeing in the news. That's where we might better focus...on many partial solutions. There is no one "magic bullet" overwhelming solution or law that is going to solve the problem, and there is NO solution at all that can completely solve the problem. There are simply a great many things that can be done to partially correct the problem. So let's be reasonable and find reasonable things that can be done. It works far better than adherence to some dogmatic form of absolutism. As in Buddhism: find the middle path (between the extremes). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 09 - 02:27 AM I might better add that I am not accusing you yourself, Bill, of being dogmatic, absolutist, or any other stuff like that. I know you are a reasonable and thoughtful person. I am simply talking about the gun debate in general because it so frequently veers toward absolutist rhetoric, and on both sides. The only thing you said that I truly disagree with...or you implied it...is that just because something is not needed it is therefore okay to legally deny it to people. Not in a free society it isn't! No sir. Hell, we don't need about 95% of the things we have in this affluent society, but that doesn't provide any justification for someone making them illegal, because life is not just about what a person needs. It's about many other things as well. It's also about what we like, love, have fun with, enjoy, and find interesting. My uncle liked, loved, had fun with, and enjoyed his guns. He found them interesting. He was not a criminal or a dangerous person in any way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Apr 09 - 04:12 AM Little Hawks's last paragraph is quite accurate to how I feel, and not only that, I live in an area that there is reasonable 'good will' between the people here, and law enforcement. There is also a "Make my Day' law, which has it, that you can use lethal force, if some one is your home, that is an intruder. Burglaries are not a problem here...and not everybody is armed...but, in the past, people have helped law enforcement hold someone, till they arrived, so on and so forth...all without much incident at all...because of that co-operation. As I said, in another post, about trusting, and the government, the people could and would be more co-operative, with someone they trust, than not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: gnu Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:08 AM Sorry for that rant. Uncalled for. Goodbye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Bobert Date: 22 Apr 09 - 08:20 AM Once again bruce thnks that if he SCREAMs loud enough that will make make his opinions more correct than others... Bruce's SCREAMING is indicative of the NRA's meathod of SHOUTING DOWN any meaningfull discussion... I underatnd it with the NRA because of the mega-bucks they collect from arms dealers and their members for the purpode og browbeating Congress with lobbiests but I don't undertand why someone here in Mudville continually gets a pass for trying to SCREAM down folks wgho do not agree with him... People with those kinds of anger management issues are exactly the kinds of people that reasonable people don't want having guns... I mean, if bb is this quick to SCREAM and threaten, I wonder how he woul.d do in a road rage situation with a loaded gun in the glove box... That's part of what we are talking about here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:22 AM I agree that "not needed" is, in general, a poor criterion on which to base prohibition. However, even forgetting criminal behaviour, in all of this Americans need to consider the balance between enjoyment of the thing (gun onwership), and the danger of the thing. Surely nobody "needs" a backyard swimming pool with a built-in life-size blender mechanism, and maybe someone would actually enjoy having one. But we do need to consider the danger that this attractive nusiance might pose to the neighborhood kiddies. When life-size blenders are outlawed, only outlaws will have life-size blenders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks) From: Midchuck Date: 22 Apr 09 - 10:47 AM IMO: A rational society would look something like this. Peter. |
