General discussions - Guns, mass shootings, and related.

Print Page | Close Window

Guns, mass shootings, and related.

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=91113
Printed Date: February 22 2025 at 10:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Guns, mass shootings, and related.

Posted By: The T
Subject: Guns, mass shootings, and related.
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 07:48

As per Jim's request. Leave News of the Day for News.

-------------

Replies:

Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 09:10

Thanks - although I'd have thought the thread title should be something lilke "Gun Control Debate Thread" or some such... again, just a thought

I'll go away now...

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 09:25

Edit at will Jim. I know I wasn't too inspired in the title

-------------

Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 09:29

I been up since 4AM (EST) I've swallowed three large cups of coffee and my chest hurts. GOBGOBGOBGOBGOB!

Dark days are upon us!

Actually, I have related input:

I have cousins and relatives planning for December 21st. They've got vests strapped and packed with shotgun shells and are making homebrew weapons and setting hunting traps and planning on barricading their house from travelers in case electricity gets knocked out and sends us into chaos.

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 09:40

I'm worried about people going apesh*t that day. Clearly, nothing is going to happen. But people in a panic do crazy things.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 09:50

i once or twice shot with an air gun

-------------

Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 09:53

We survived the Crucifixion, Y2K and reality TV, we can survive this. Merc merc mercurial lightnin' McQueen daggerskin Alexander Graham Bale of Hey Tonight was a pretty good song offa CCR's England swing like a pendulum do bonnies on bicycles two by two westminster Abbey Road.. No more Hot Dogs.

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 09:57

I have serious doubts about the intelligence of anybody who actually fears anything will happen on the 21st.

-------------

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 10:04

krrrmt krrmt supervulcano krrmt krrmt Stern Smile

-------------

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 10:30

The T wrote:

I have serious doubts about the intelligence of anybody who actually fears anything will happen on the 21st.

Yes, let's mix Christmas shopping at the malls with mass hysteria. I personally will be staying at home, not because I believe something will happen but because online shopping works for me.

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 10:38

Mad sh*t is going down on the 21 beware! My old dad turns 70. I hope he manages to get a few snaps before the big showdown....

Guns? They shoot.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 11:57

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151290437687346&set=a.188100032345.127560.60447222345&type=1&relevant_count=1" rel="nofollow">

Photo: More funny pics: http://bit.ly/9AaK3U

https://www.facebook.com/ajax/sharer/?s=2&appid=2305272732&p%5B0%5D=60447222345&p%5B1%5D=11412281" rel="nofollow -

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 12:07

This is now the end of the world 2012 thread.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 12:35

Such a subject degradation. Basically we are the history channel of threads: grab a subject title and dumb it down to the maximum degree.

-------------

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 12:40

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

A question not often raised outside criminological circles is this: "How much crime (murders, burglaries, rapes, etc.) is prevented by responsible gun owners?"

Tough Targets, is an interesting and enlightening read thus far on defensive gun use. It offers a critical look at previous studies on the subject and the available data set. It compares and contrasts two universities in the same state, one that allowed concealed carry and one that prohibited firearms, and reported on their on-campus crime rates. In the appendix, it recounts numerous self-defense stories.

The question above is a question anyone serious about the gun debate in America should answer before pronouncing a broad judgment against firearms themselves. The report can be found here:

http://https//docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WTh0b6LQsbkJ:www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShAbeh-piF2onLALwrzN0vAyUU9ehcDoxPCgxd-3kWPnkH0rSyw59PUbaVsMlvSg894a23YNQD-8zj9P3qWVh3DLt0cigymAS9Z6X8nns9Fcx1REE0LJCsxyMytj0ahBYnSwfK3&sig=AHIEtbScBM6WNYroFsu6TikH6kbw5A52yg" rel="nofollow - Tough Targets

By the way, there is a http://politics.kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10648593" rel="nofollow - school district in Texas that has permitted faculty to carry weapons for going on five years.

Couple of questions Epi. If Teachers are armed will you force them to be armed? If someone refuses to carry a gun will they be unable to be a teacher? When they get a little old and their arm gets shakey? Will it be the teacher who gets the blame if they don't react as expected when confronted by a lunatic?

Also, you make yourself very clear about banning guns but what about only banning certain types of guns of the type being discussed.? I can't see the day when the states bans guns anyway. And I understand your argument.

I would not want to see a teacher required to carry a weapon, no. I'm not even in favor of saying "All districts must have armed teachers." I think that should be up to the districts themselves.

But if we entrust adults with our children, we should theoretically be able to entrust them with anything, including a gun, don't you think? The attitude that a "gun free zone" is best and the idea of armed teachers is "extreme" or a terrible proposition on its face is unreasonable.

As for specific guns, I don't think banning things keeps us any safer. People who really want something will find a way to get it. People who want to kill will try to kill.

I don't think it follows that if we trust a teacher with the education and care of our children that we would trust them to carry a gun around them and act as security. I'm really not sure the type of person that makes a good teacher of five year olds would also be the same person that would be able to shoot someone dead while that person is aiming a gun at them and the class. Especially as I am sure that they would be worried that they kill the very people they are asked to protect. How can you change from playing games with children to being able to kill in a second. I could also envisage a teacher losing it in the classroom and shooting the children after a hard day!

With the majority of the recent mass killings the arms have been obtained legally. With the most recent he got them from his mother. I don't think that with these types of senseless killings that the perpetrator would go out of his way into the criminal world to obtain this type of gun. Of course this is not always the case but why would you want to keep them legal? Why make it easy fo someone with mental issues to do this?

Why would anyone want them? I can only think that they want them for gangland murder or with this idea that American society is so fragile that they need them to protect themselves when it (society) breaks down. They surely can't be kept under the pillow in case of a burglar?

Your link doesn't work.

Oh well Just realised new thread so I moved it!

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 12:54

So, this new massacre is supposed to be big news in the USA? I thought the American were used to this kind of things now.

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 13:13

What a classy predictable joke.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 13:21

Yeah the coleslaw (I mean wholesale) slaughter of citizenry is old-hat. That's been done. Isn't LA due for another race riot? Ho-hum, what a bore. Child slayings are cheesy these days - outta style. If he'd really been smart he would've started a youtube video podcast cult. That seems reasonable. I bet it'd even fix that wily economy. Can't you just see it? Wile E. Conomy getting hammered AGAIN by a vicious deficit Acme anvil? When will he ever learn? Rascally fellow.

Whaddaya call a Lockheed-Martin LGB that can solve advanced calculus problems?

A smart bomb, haw!

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 15:53

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Your link doesn't work.

Oh well Just realised new thread so I moved it!

Guns should remain legally available so people can protect themselves from violence. I explained that in my first post in this quote pyramid. The assumption tossed around is that violent crime will decrease when guns are banned, but data from DC, Chicago, the universities in Colorado, and elsewhere in America tends to show that that assumption is greatly flawed.

And if your motivation for banning guns isn't lowering violent crime and saving innocent lives, then what is it?

Here is a link to http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf" rel="nofollow - Tough Targets .

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:04

How are guns ever going to get banned in a country like USA? I think never. The land was taken from its inhabitants by way of the gun, and it has a legal foundation found at its core - pedestalling arms as a way of protecting oneself and family from harm.

I don't think any of us Europeans have anything interesting to add to this debate, mostly because we, at least myself that is, feel somewhat sickened just by seeing policemen bearing arms. I do.

Frankly speaking, it's like when we try to immerse ourselves in the "peace talks" of the Middle east with all of our well meaning ideas and whatnot - not realising that we don't know the first thing about the quarrel. We haven't had our children killed in bombings and lost two thirds of the family to madmen with a different viewpoint to our own. Gross generalisation yes, but let me be the first to say that while I think the gun laws in the States are ridiculous, I also have no idea of just how it feels having been brought up in a country, where the wild west once was and reigned.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:11

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Your link doesn't work.

Oh well Just realised new thread so I moved it!

My questions all refer to the specific type of Semi-automatic guns this latest killer used. As I said I quite understand the argument for guns for self defense. I don't think guns will ever be banned in the USA and neither would I argue for it (none of my business in the end). My question was why make it easy for automatic assault type rifles to get into the hands of people with mental issues?

What is the harm in banning them or at least requiring them to be held at gun clubs?

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:21

Guldbamsen wrote:

How are guns ever going to get banned in a country like USA? I think never. The land was taken from its inhabitants by way of the gun, and it has a legal foundation found at its core - pedestalling arms as a way of protecting oneself and family from harm.

I don't think any of us Europeans have anything interesting to add to this debate, mostly because we, at least myself that is, feel somewhat sickened just by seeing policemen bearing arms. I do.

What land was taken from its inhabitants by use of force?

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:23

The native American's.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:38

I don't think any of us Europeans have anything interesting to add to this debate, mostly because we, at least myself that is, feel somewhat sickened just by seeing policemen bearing arms. I do.

I really appreciate this post.

It reflects why I don't insist that people in the UK and other European places should have guns. If your people are safe and happy, then let them be satisfied with their respective nations' domestic policies.

One thing though: It's a common misconception that the Old West was "wild." On the contrary, it was http://www.guerrillaexplorer.com/mysteries-of-history/how-wild-was-the-wild-west/" rel="nofollow - relatively peaceful .

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:42

as a country who is not a EU member who is downgrading its military, and its wellfare creates such high prices its will create a massive degree of desperation and mental issues i feel guns in Norway to every sitizan is a bad idea

considering Norwegians drinking habbits and fighting spirrit give thouse folks guns is like giving light sabers to children

-------------

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:43

Thanks for the link Rob. Just goes to show that far too much of what we know stems from old movies and sources we for some reason never seem to question.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:47

^ So say some libertarian authors who were not alive for the history they portray.

Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:50

This is an interesting turn of events:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/when-hate-collides-the-kkk-meets-the-westboro-baptist-church.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/when-hate-collides-the-kkk-meets-the-westboro-baptist-church.html

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:50

Guldbamsen wrote:

Thanks for the link Rob. Just goes to show that far too much of what we know stems from old movies and sources we for some reason never seem to question.

Like Anders And Tongue

-------------

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:51

Well I for one have parted ways with politics a little while back after reading Giorgio Agamben, so I wouldn't know too much about that(no more than what I occasionally stumble across on here). Politics are evil imo. They focus on fear and terror in order to help their own agendas.

Edit: Responding Monsieur Leary.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:52

It is usually not that great when people with absolutely no real knowledge and experience of a particular universe try to regulate or make it better with solutions that they come up with in their offices and social laboratories and not extracted from experience and common sense (real common sense, as in, commoner sense).

Wait, elites deciding from up high... That has a name.

-------------

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:53

aginor wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

Thanks for the link Rob. Just goes to show that far too much of what we know stems from old movies and sources we for some reason never seem to question.

Like Anders And Tongue

Yup

Though a lot of what I've learned over time has had it's roots in Donald Duck, albeit with a slightly ulterior cast...

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:54

^ Oligarchy?? Aristocreasy ?? Ermm

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:54

timothy leary wrote:

^ So say some libertarian authors who were not alive for the history they portray.

Neither were any of today's authors really. Or historians in general, with some exceptions.

-------------

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 16:55

Guldbamsen wrote:

aginor wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

Thanks for the link Rob. Just goes to show that far too much of what we know stems from old movies and sources we for some reason never seem to question.

Like Anders And Tongue

Yup

Though a lot of what I've learned over time has had it's roots in Donald Duck, albeit with a slightly ulterior cast...

Carl Barks and Don Rosa are true men of wisdom and vission Bowdown

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:01

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Your link doesn't work.

Oh well Just realised new thread so I moved it!

What is the harm in banning them or at least requiring them to be held at gun clubs?

Automatic "assault-type" rifles aren't easy to get (can you name an automatic "non-assault type" rifle by the way?). For instance, one may only possess one legally if it was registered before May 19, 1986. That means they are not manufactured for civilian use anymore. That's just one of the hurdles, and I haven't even touched the AFT regulations and local bureaucracy.

Automatic weapons already strictly regulated. Confused

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:03

The way it is portrayed, I could go tomorrow to any walmart and buy me a good M-16. In reality, for those who have more knowledge, is it that easy?

-------------

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:04

The T wrote:

timothy leary wrote:

^ So say some libertarian authors who were not alive for the history they portray.

Neither were any of today's authors really. Or historians in general, with some exceptions.

If you want to know what a gold rush town was like then read some Mark Twain who actually was there firsthand.

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:08

^As I said, with exceptions.

-------------

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:09

timothy leary wrote:

The T wrote:

timothy leary wrote:

^ So say some libertarian authors who were not alive for the history they portray.

Neither were any of today's authors really. Or historians in general, with some exceptions.

If you want to know what a gold rush town was like then read some Mark Twain who actually was there firsthand.

Seems pretty obvious to me. Just like I'd rather talk to an actual boxer to learn how the ring feels instead of starting up a pen-pal friendship with a guy who once washed Mike Tyson's jog strap.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:09

Guldbamsen wrote:

The native American's.

Oh yeah because tribes didn't go to war over hunting grounds and water sources.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:09

timothy leary wrote:

The T wrote:

timothy leary wrote:

^ So say some libertarian authors who were not alive for the history they portray.

Neither were any of today's authors really. Or historians in general, with some exceptions.

If you want to know what a gold rush town was like then read some Mark Twain who actually was there firsthand.

He also wrote about an engineer from Connecticut who hung out with King Arthur. Wink

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:16

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

The native American's.

Oh yeah because tribes didn't go to war over hunting grounds and water sources.

I am not saying that the Europeans invented war here. Of course native Americans went to war with each other before the arrival of the freakin Mayflower. They just didn't have guns, and yes I know it's possible to kill without them - but it's much easier and they bring a certain convenience into the picture - yet that isn't my point. I don't think they would have snuffed off the entire population of natives had they been left alone by the settlers, but that is just guessing.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:20

Guldbamsen wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

The native American's.

Oh yeah because tribes didn't go to war over hunting grounds and water sources.

So basically you're just speculating. As I said, all land ownership if you trace it back far enough came by force. We just happen to be a young country.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:21

Cattle barons with their own police departments.......how democratic. As for Twain I will put more store in his first hand views then your views.

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:23

You know, first hand accounts are often inaccurate and kind of lie filled.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:23

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Your link doesn't work.

Oh well Just realised new thread so I moved it!

What is the harm in banning them or at least requiring them to be held at gun clubs?

No need for the

I am English and we know nothing about guns unless we hunt pheasants! Or shoot clay pigeons. Therefore I can't name an automatic 'non assault type rifle. I do know that the weapon this guy had was a semi automatic. In the end though this gun got into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it and with devastating results. And I say 'easy' because they are legal to own when they could be banned. There may be regulations etc but the question in my mind remains why would anyone want one in the first place?

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:25

Why does everyone think that a ban on guns would be effective?

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:28

Give it a try and found out?

Break the circle.

-------------
What?

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:28

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Why does everyone think that a ban on guns would be effective?

I'm not saying ban all guns

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 17:36

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Your link doesn't work.

Oh well Just realised new thread so I moved it!

What is the harm in banning them or at least requiring them to be held at gun clubs?

No need for the

No disrespect intended- I was unsure of what you meant.

"Semiautomatic" simply means "self-loading," that you don't have to reload after each shot, but that you cannot just hold the trigger down to empty the clip. If an intruder forces his way into my home, it would be most inconvenient to miss with the first shot, and have to stop and reload.

Most guns are semiautomatic. A ban on those would be no more effective than a ban on guns.

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:00

Dean wrote:

Give it a try and found out?

Break the circle.

Well before you ban a desirable good, in addition to having a good reason, you should be relatively sure that the ban will be effective and that the benefits will outweigh the cost of enforcing the ban.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:01

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Why does everyone think that a ban on guns would be effective?

I'm not saying ban all guns

Didn't say you did, and it's really irrelevant to my question.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:24

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

Give it a try and found out?

Break the circle.

You don't need to ban something to stop using it, and as many have pointed out, enforced prohibition never works, that's not to say regulations and controls cannot be effective. As I have said before during these debates, I doubt the population of the USA will ever change their attitude to guns and I do think it's more than just cultural, yet based on the reaction to this latest massacre I'm more than a little puzzled over how bad it has to get before you want to change.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:27

It depends on what you mean by effective in the context. If you mean keeping goods out of the hands of abusers, then I would say no.

I'm confused. What exactly do 'we' not want to change?

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:37

Killing

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:38

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

It depends on what you mean by effective in the context. If you mean keeping goods out of the hands of abusers, then I would say no.

I'm confused. What exactly do 'we' not want to change?

Off the top of my head I cannot think of a country that has a total ban on all firearms, yet most have far stricter controls than the USA (no one can accuse the Swiss of being "lax" on regulations) - what they do is make it harder for abusers to get their hands on them - and I don't mean using the black market to buy one, I just mean opportunistic thievery from regular household - the fewer legal guns in circulation the fewer will get stolen in common house burglaries for example and therefore the fewer untracable firearms get into the hands of abusers.

Why are you confused - just reading the pro-gun posts on this forum gives me the impression that all of those people will not even consider the possibility of the USA adopting low or zero gun ownership.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:40

Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms?

No. I wouldn't. Nor would I consider banning a drug or anything really until a very cogent argument is made for doing so.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:42

I don't much care for guns, mass shootings, and related.

-------------
http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:43

CPicard wrote:

So, this new massacre is supposed to be big news in the USA? I thought the American were used to this kind of things now.

Very sadly, we are indeed used to this. There are several every year. This one does seem to have a little extra resonance, maybe due to how young the victims were. Even the NRA, which usually only pauses for a day or two, fell completely silent for a few days. Like "oh hell, even we better just lay low for a bit after this one"

Needless to say, extremely tragic, every time it happens.

Guns? Oh boy oh boy, an amazingly sticky wicket here in the states.
This is all I can say:
Personally never owned a gun, fired a gun, I don't see the appeal (and I mean the fun, not protection aspect) I don't think anyone needs more than 2...a handgun and rifle (I guess I can see 4 or 5 if you want different styles, or own a small business and want to have one in multiple areas). I think people who "vote solely on guns" are loony, I hate rednecks who cry 2nd amendment but probably don't really care, just wanna make love to the barrel.

All that being said, I've never seen much need for gun control.
Sensible gun laws are fine and there does need to be more stringent psychological checks in place, but the huge majority of crimes are committed with illegal guns. So just, well gun laws can't really impact that.
As the Prez said, most people are sane, responsible people...they are not the target of gun laws. It's about trying to stop crime, but they will just use illegal guns. So barring some dystopian nightmare, I think sadly gun laws can't do a whole lot about crime.
Which is another point. Ideal as it may be the whole "I want a country with no guns" or "ban all guns" is just that...ideal. It physically can't be done unless some drastic moves are made. And in that case is it worth it?

It's all about environment anyway. More affluent = less crime. More people in an area = more crime. Statistically. So crime will naturally cluster in cities and poorer areas, and will be lesser in spacious/affluent areas.

End

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:43

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms?

Is this relevant? You said bans would not keep guns out of the hands of abusers, I gave an example of how they could - since you do not have strict gun controls the number of crimes committed using stolen firearms is irrelevant.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

No. I wouldn't. Nor would I consider banning a drug or anything really until a very cogent argument is made for doing so.

Then there is no confusion. "You" don't want to change.

-------------
What?

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:44

It is not guns it is killing. We need to stop sensationalizing it.

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:49

timothy leary wrote:

It is not guns it is killing. We need to stop sensationalizing it.

Indeed.
It always flares up after a huge tragedy, and I get that, but gun crimes happen every day.
Some random person being killed by a gun in Iowa is a tragedy, but it goes unnoticed and few at all would care.
These mass shootings almost always have some link to mental illness, I'd think that's the main factor

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:51

timothy leary wrote:

It is not guns it is killing. We need to stop sensationalizing it.

The first part is correct - we need to stop sanitising it.

Just like friendly fire and collateral damage - that's not sensationalising, that's sanitising. (or desensitising)

-------------
What?

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 18:53

Exactly my point, through sensationalizing killing we become desensitized and only bizzare mass murders and insanity will pique our interest. We are junkies.

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 19:16

Dean wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms?

Yes. Because regulations cost money to enforce. They cost time in the case of innocent people. From a philosophical standpoint, its antithetical to our conception of government. You can't look at an intended result without analyzing the costs compared to benefits.

Dean wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

No. I wouldn't. Nor would I consider banning a drug or anything really until a very cogent argument is made for doing so.

Then there is no confusion. "You" don't want to change.

Sure I do. I want to prevent things like this from happening again.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 19:23

Getting beyond the philosophy and such, how would someone like to see guns outlawed or kept out of the hands of criminals? Real life here...
A law simply won't do it, criminals already break the law....they're gunna obey a gun ban? There would have to be some hardcore crackdown, which (like prohibition) would be massively difficult. What if you can do it, what about people with guns already? They have em...would you go with the police to every single house and take them?

Again, no beef with sensible gun laws, but banning guns and things like that...I just don't see how it's physically possible

Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 19:31

Is ISN'T physically possible.

Also, did anyone else read about the KKK protesting the Westboro Baptist Church protesting the school where the children died?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 19:32

JJLehto wrote:

Getting beyond the philosophy and such, how would someone like to see guns outlawed or kept out of the hands of criminals? Real life here...
A law simply won't do it, criminals already break the law....they're gunna obey a gun ban? There would have to be some hardcore crackdown, which (like prohibition) would be massively difficult. What if you can do it, what about people with guns already? They have em...would you go with the police to every single house and take them?

Again, no beef with sensible gun laws, but banning guns and things like that...I just don't see how it's physically possible

It took 100 years to reduce gun ownership in the UK - there is no easy fix. There is no total ban on gun ownerhsip here, yet the rate of gun ownership is now incredibly low and the total number of death by firearms per 100,000 population is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate" rel="nofollow - 40 times lower than in the USA . Culturally there isn't a lot of difference between the USA and the UK - we're a nasty, violent race who has picked fights with more nations than currently exist on earth - if we can do it anyone can.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 19:37

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Exactly how many crimes are committed using stolen firearms?

Dean wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

No. I wouldn't. Nor would I consider banning a drug or anything really until a very cogent argument is made for doing so.

Then there is no confusion. "You" don't want to change.

Sure I do. I want to prevent things like this from happening again.

If your concern is the fiscal cost then there is little for me to discuss. This is why I asked if is it possible to support gun control without libertarian idealism crumbling at your fingertips?

-------------
What?

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 19:44

Dean wrote:

If your concern is the fiscal cost then there is little for me to discuss. This is why I asked if is it possible to support gun control without libertarian idealism crumbling at your fingertips?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Are we supposed to discuss any policy without regards to cost (I don't remember mentioning on fiscal)? I mean if we want to do that then by all means lets. I propose a plan to execute anyone suspected of the desire to own a gun. That will surely solve the issue.

Where is my libertarian idealism exactly? The only thing I find idealistic is the notion than governmental policy is going to change a prevailing social issue for the first time in history.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 19:52

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

If your concern is the fiscal cost then there is little for me to discuss. This is why I asked if is it possible to support gun control without libertarian idealism crumbling at your fingertips?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Are we supposed to discuss any policy without regards to cost (I don't remember mentioning on fiscal)?

Before you get into a four hour tirade, you did in fact mention the word "money."

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Yes. Because regulations cost money to enforce.

I learn from experience. Pig

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 20:04

hmm... time for bed I think.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 22:15

That "on" was supposed to an "only" Rob.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 22:56

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

The native American's.

Oh yeah because tribes didn't go to war over hunting grounds and water sources.

So basically you're just speculating. As I said, all land ownership if you trace it back far enough came by force. We just happen to be a young country.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation" rel="nofollow - THIS there are a whole 17 countries whose current sovereignty predates the US. So, no, not so much. I have not researched in depth, but I am positive that 235 years is on the extremely high end of time for countries to exist. The exception being the empires.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 04:57

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

That "on" was supposed to an "only" Rob.

and I didn't say "only" - if money is an obstacle (and not the only obstacle) then there is little for me to discuss as I do not know how anyone can evaluate the cost-benefits.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 05:15

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Where is my libertarian idealism exactly? The only thing I find idealistic is the notion than governmental policy is going to change a prevailing social issue for the first time in history.

Have I misunderstood the libertarian "no regulation" stance? If libertarianism isn't for deregulation and non-regulation then what is it for?

When you have an unregulated self-perpetuating closed loop system the way of changing that system is to change the conditions that will result in breaking the loop. You can change any point in that loop and produce the desired result, but to date no one has proposed a method for doing that other than by some form regulation. If regulation is unpalatable then what are the alternatives - where in the loop do you make a change that results in fewer gun related killings?

-------------
What?

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 05:16

Brazil has one of the strictest gun policies in the Americas and we still have alarming rates of gunfire crimes/murder. Just some kilometers north of where I live there are over 60 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants and where I live the figures are around 40 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, way above the US medium.

Are any of those crimes committed with legally acquired guns and ammunition? A mere fraction. Still, I do believe that selling some types of firearms to civilians a bit too much, like rifles and such.

-------------

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 05:47

CCVP wrote:

Brazil has one of the strictest gun policies in the Americas and we still have alarming rates of gunfire crimes/murder. Just some kilometers north of where I live there are over 60 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants and where I live the figures are around 40 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, way above the US medium.

That is a perfectly valid observation - treating the symptom does not cure the disease, it is necessary to do both to effect the desired result - regulation of the means of killing without addressing cause of killing is not a cure. If a kid is hitting other kids with a baseball bat the first course of action is to take away the bat, then you look to why he wants to hurt others - you don't enter that discourse while he is sat next to a pile of baseball bats. At some point in time all those illegally owned guns were legally produced and sold.

The question is, which club do you want to be a member of: one with >40 killings, >10 killings or <0.25 killings per 100,000 of population?

-------------
What?

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 06:36

Dean wrote:

Give it a try and found out?

Dean wrote:

It took 100 years to reduce gun ownership in the UK

This seems like an unreasonable approach. "Enact sweeping legislation and give it a hundred years to see if it benefits the nation."

Then again, we are nearing the centennial of the federal income tax and the federal reserve. Lamp

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 06:50

Epignosis wrote:

Dean wrote:

Give it a try and found out?

Dean wrote:

It took 100 years to reduce gun ownership in the UK

This seems like an unreasonable approach. "Enact sweeping legislation and give it a hundred years to see if it benefits the nation."

Deep seated problems do not have easy solutions, each journey starts with a single step (blah blah blah). There is nothing unreasonable about long term solutions, what is unreasonable is expecting a quick-fix. You seem happy to stand by 200 year old legislation that grants the right to own offensive weapons so we can all pick and chose examples that support or oppose any view, how effective those approaches are is not determined by how reasonable they are. Killing is not reasonable.

Epignosis wrote:

Then again, we are nearing the centennial of the federal income tax and the federal reserve. Lamp

I don't see this as being particularily relevant or germane - there is a 4000 year old law that says you should not kill and that's not relevant either. The question was does gun control work, the example given suggests it does. Reducing the supply and circulation of weapons reduces their availability over time, citing short term localised results is meaningless if they are long term solutions.

-------------
What?

Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 06:53

Any statistics and statistic-based reports, as bandied about here, should be summarily discarded. For both sides of the discussion.

Don't we all know how statistics-based propaganda works by now? Why is anyone here bothering with them at all?

Who is funding them? No, I mean REALLY funding them? We'll never find out.

If anyone really is convinced that there is no correlation between guns and violence, then I find them seriously misguided.

If you carry on believing in such statistics and their interpretation, you are being manipulated.

Perhaps you choose to be manipulated because it just makes thinking unnecessary?

Or it relieves you of the strain of having to consider things you might find uncomfortable?

Or it might not fit in with your convictions?

Or it goes against your upbringing, things you were told growing up?

Or you just like guns and don't like the thought of being without them?

Or perhaps you're afraid you might just not be THE MAN and your weenie might fall off.

Anyway, we're talking USA here, why should any other countries or societies have any bearing on the matter at all? It's just not relevant because different societies can't be compared in this way. Seems like a senseless academic waste of time while kids are dying.

Concerning the anti gun-control argument: If I believed in such a thing I would say this is the prime example of the Devil's work on earth.

But as I don't, I'll just see this as gun-control propaganda. Pretty much the same thing.

Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 06:56

Dean wrote:

That is a perfectly valid observation - treating the symptom does not cure the disease, it is necessary to do both to effect the desired result

This is a very good point, Dean. In my opinion, I think the disease happens to be the social paranoia running rampant in the USA right now - as evidenced by the fact that the ones who sell and profit off of pro-gun philosophy are quite possibly http://www.alternet.org/story/155043/guns,_paranoia_and_obama_assassination_jokes%3A_inside_the_nras_annual_convention" rel="nofollow - the most paranoid, schizophrenic, delusional organization in America . Yeah, let's get people all riled up and scared sh**less over delusional fantasies and then give them powerful weapons!

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List

Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:03

dtguitarfan: I completely agree. Additionally it is in the best interest of the gun lobby to keep the paranoia level up. Those guns are being sold on a mass market, regardless of the fact that somewhere along the line they get stolen.

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:06

Tapfret wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guldbamsen wrote:

The native American's.

Oh yeah because tribes didn't go to war over hunting grounds and water sources.

So basically you're just speculating. As I said, all land ownership if you trace it back far enough came by force. We just happen to be a young country.

Yeah and in which of those countries was there no blood shed to obtain the land rights? Did you even read what we were talking about or did you decide I said "young country" and only latch onto that?

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:14

npjnpj wrote:

dtguitarfan: I completely agree. Additionally it is in the best interest of the gun lobby to keep the paranoia level up. Those guns are being sold on a mass market, regardless of the fact that somewhere along the line they get stolen.

Exactly - after every mass shooting, the sale of guns has skyrocketed, and what's their answer to the problem? "More guns! That will make you safer!" To illustrate the insanity:
Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Iran is bad, and is working on nuclear weapons. But the answer is not to stop them - we should give EVERYONE a nuclear weapon! That will make us safe, right?

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:16

Dean wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

That "on" was supposed to an "only" Rob.

and I didn't say "only" - if money is an obstacle (and not the only obstacle) then there is little for me to discuss as I do not know how anyone can evaluate the cost-benefits.

I guess there isn't. I don't know how money can't be considered an obstacle. Only so many things can be funded so a choice has to be made between alternatives at some point. Ignoring this is fact is just a tacit choice of one alternative over another itself.

Of course though, I agree with the difficulty in measuring such things which is why I disagree with the notion of government in general.

Dean wrote:

Have I misunderstood the libertarian "no regulation" stance? If libertarianism isn't for deregulation and non-regulation then what is it for?

I didn't realize that me holding a belief that a libertarian also would hold causes me to drip with libertarian idealism.

I have suggested the elimination of gun free zones which create the ideal tactical situation for spree killers to operate. I propose boycotts of news sources which glorify the killers. I propose a change in an educational system which glorifies mass murderers as great leaders and war heroes while portraying the peaceful and soft-spoken as impotent and ineffective. I would see a change in a prison system which teaches us to arbitrarily punish others for behavior we disagree with rather than one which hopes to reimburse victims and prevent future wrongdoing.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:18

npjnpj wrote:

Any statistics and statistic-based reports, as bandied about here, should be summarily discarded. For both sides of the discussion.

Don't we all know how statistics-based propaganda works by now? Why is anyone here bothering with them at all?

Who is funding them? No, I mean REALLY funding them? We'll never find out.

If anyone really is convinced that there is no correlation between guns and violence, then I find them seriously misguided.

If you carry on believing in such statistics and their interpretation, you are being manipulated.

Perhaps you choose to be manipulated because it just makes thinking unnecessary?

Or it relieves you of the strain of having to consider things you might find uncomfortable?

Or it might not fit in with your convictions?

Or it goes against your upbringing, things you were told growing up?

Or you just like guns and don't like the thought of being without them?

Or perhaps you're afraid you might just not be THE MAN and your weenie might fall off.

Concerning the anti gun-control argument: If I believed in such a thing I would say this is the prime example of the Devil's work on earth.

But as I don't, I'll just see this as gun-control propaganda. Pretty much the same thing.

Makes sense. Statistics are flawed so discard the idea of them completely.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 07:43

Cheers, I'm glad you agree.

Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:27

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.
Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.
Other countries have strict bans on guns, but crimes related to guns are on the rise.
Lawberakers tend no to bother with the law.
There were shotings when the murderer used a stolen gun.
So ban stealing! Oh, wait...

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:31

It's definitely not more widespread in Switzerland, but they do have a lot of guns for its population.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:37

Norbert wrote:

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.
Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.

Switzerland is not America. Switzerland does not have an army, but opted for a people's militia. Lots of people there have guns because they are the country's defense.

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List

Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:38

And now it's time to play "Fear and Paranoia"! Let's remind our contestants how to play: just blame some random person or group you don't like for all the problems in our world! For example, you might use the following structure: I blame (group or person you hate here) because they (action you don't like) so we should (your political goal here)! The political action part is really just for bonus points, though - you don't even need to provide a solution, just get people scared. Today's subject is the Newtown Shootings. Ok, who's first? National Review? Ok, go.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/national_review_writer_shooting_was_result_of_a_feminized_setting/" rel="nofollow - http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/national_review_writer_shooting_was_result_of_a_feminized_setting/
Oooooh! Good one! 1,000 points! Who's next? Rosenberg?
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/right_wing_author_jon_stewart_part_of_the_culture_that_led_to_shootings/" rel="nofollow - http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/right_wing_author_jon_stewart_part_of_the_culture_that_led_to_shootings/
Oh my, this is complete genius - Stewart has made fun of the mythical war on Christmas we made up in one of our earilier rounds, so what did Rosenberg do? He blamed Stewart for the Newtown shootings because he's waging a war on Christmas! Bonus points for tying in a previous myth! 5,000 points on the board for Rosenberg! Next up? Oh, we have a teamup of the Daily Caller, Fox News, Breitbart, and Glenn Beck. This is going to be good. What's your play?
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/would_the_u_s_government_profile_white_men/" rel="nofollow - http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/would_the_u_s_government_profile_white_men/
OH MY GOODNESS!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! They have ingeniously turned around a statement that pointed out the imbalance and ineffectiveness of racial profiling into racism against white people! 10,000 points!!!!!
Thank you for tuning in this week for "Fear and Paranoia", and remember - be afraid! Be very, very afraid!

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List

Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:41

^ Anyone object to me reposting that in the Political discussion thread?

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:46

dtguitarfan wrote:

Norbert wrote:

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.
Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.

Switzerland is not America. Switzerland does not have an army, but opted for a people's militia. Lots of people there have guns because they are the country's defense.

Is that really relevant?

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:48

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

dtguitarfan wrote:

Norbert wrote:

I don't think that banning guns would help a lot.Schwizerland has probably more widespread gun ownership, and less shhoting.

Switzerland is not America. Switzerland does not have an army, but opted for a people's militia. Lots of people there have guns because they are the country's defense.

Is that really relevant?

Really? Do I really need to answer that?

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 08:49

You do not. However, I would prefer if you did so I can see how it is relevant.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 09:00

Dean wrote:

The question is, which club do you want to be a member of: one with >40 killings, >10 killings or <0.25 killings per 100,000 of population?

Just as an example, my country of origin, peaceful and calm about 20 years ago, is now violent as hell and the main cities are full of crime. Guns aren't legal. But lots of citizens are requesting some right to own arms for self-defense at home.

-------------

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 09:05

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Dean wrote:

Have I misunderstood the libertarian "no regulation" stance? If libertarianism isn't for deregulation and non-regulation then what is it for?

I didn't realize that me holding a belief that a libertarian also would hold causes me to drip with libertarian idealism.

drip? Okay, perhaps you've stated your libertarian views so resolutely that I've misinterpreted them. Maybe we just haven't broached a subject where your view would run counter to libertarianism, but if there ever was one I would have hoped that this was it. It's not, so you've answered my question and it's time to move on.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I have suggested the elimination of gun free zones which create the ideal tactical situation for spree killers to operate. I propose boycotts of news sources which glorify the killers. I propose a change in an educational system which glorifies mass murderers as great leaders and war heroes while portraying the peaceful and soft-spoken as impotent and ineffective. I would see a change in a prison system which teaches us to arbitrarily punish others for behavior we disagree with rather than one which hopes to reimburse victims and prevent future wrongdoing.

Some of those proposals would indeed have an effect though I do not know that the abolishion of gun-free zones will prevent killing sprees, then killing sprees account for a small fraction of all the gun-killings in the USA proposals to prevent those are not going to make a huge difference, whether they occured in gun-free zones or not.

Since I do not live in the USA I do not know by what criteria you designate an area as being a gun-free zone - our company's Austin, TX premises is a gun-free zone, yet during one of my visits I was a little surprised to discover that a significant number (ie most) of the people I spoke to who worked there kept guns in their cars and trucks parked in the work's carpark. If you're going to have exclusion zones then you need to pay a little more than lip-service to the idea before deciding that it is flawed. However, if you are going to have zoning, then it should be the other way around - designated gun-happy zones (shooting ranges, hunting areas, theme parks for drive-bys and gangland slayings etc.).

Sure you need to change perceptions and mindsets, that is ultimately the cure, but you still need to treat the symptoms because the mindset will not change while the symptoms persist.

-------------
What?

Posted By: dtguitarfan
Date Posted: December 20 2012 at 09:06

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

You do not. However, I would prefer if you did so I can see how it is relevant.

I'll keep it simple: using Switzerland as an example for why we actually need more guns is an over-simplified example used to "prove" the validity of a naive and simplistic solution to a complex problem.

-------------
http://tinyurl.com/cy43zzh" rel="nofollow - My 2012 List