PDA

View Full Version : If we have a serious gun discussion



John Smith
02-19-2018, 07:39 AM
I would hope we'd remember a few basic facts:

The second Amendment does not say 'guns'; It says 'arms' In today's world, arms, covers a great deal more weaponry than it did when our constitution was ratified

Many, perhaps most, of the shootings that drive so much coverage are done by people using guns they don't own. Someone else bought these weapons.

There are 300 -400 million guns already sold and in the public's hands. Any serious discussion of gun control will lead to rapid purchase of more guns.

Whomever buys a gun or guns is mortal. The guns he's bought are not. They will be functioning weapons for many lifetimes. One may well pass a background check at age 24, but who guarantees he would pass that same background check at 34?

We need a serious discussion on guns and their impact on our society, as there is no pride in leading the world in killing each other.

We cannot have a serious discussion if we ignore the above, as if we don't consider these facts, the discussion is not serious.

Norman Bernstein
02-19-2018, 07:46 AM
It would be a pointless discussion.

If 26 dead children in CT didn't change the minds of gun enthusiasts.... if 56 dead and 500 injured in Las Vegas didn't do it in Las Vegas... if 17 dead high-schoolers in Florida didn't do it.....

....what can 'discussion' possibly do?

It's cultural. We Americans have a culture of guns, and no matter HOW many mass shooting there are, it won't change any minds.

Paul Pless
02-19-2018, 07:54 AM
The second Amendment does not say 'guns'; It says 'arms' In today's world, arms, covers a great deal more weaponry than it did when our constitution was ratified

yous can haves mah flame thrower when yous prise it from mah cold dead hands

LeeG
02-19-2018, 07:56 AM
Seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/18/rapid-fire-rifle-device-on-special-offer-in-salute-to-donald-trump?CMP=twt_gu

There is a Presidents’ Day sale on bump stocks, the device the Las Vegas shooter put on his rifles. Slide Fire Solutions, a bump stocks manufacturer, is offering 10% off with the coupon code MAGA.

That’s a salute to the campaign slogan of President Donald Trump, who promised to “Make America Great Again”, and who has responded to the deadly massacres in the past five months by continuing to oppose any new gun control laws.

“#HeresToFreedom,” the company wrote in a marketing email announcing the sale.

Before the Las Vegas shooting, which left 58 people dead and hundreds injured, bump stocks were an obscure range device popular with firearms enthusiasts.

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 08:21 AM
Guns violence doesn't rise to a level to even warrant a discussion about never mind stricter laws. Get over it!!!!!!

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 08:28 AM
Seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/18/rapid-fire-rifle-device-on-special-offer-in-salute-to-donald-trump?CMP=twt_gu

There is a Presidents’ Day sale on bump stocks, the device the Las Vegas shooter put on his rifles. Slide Fire Solutions, a bump stocks manufacturer, is offering 10% off with the coupon code MAGA.

That’s a salute to the campaign slogan of President Donald Trump, who promised to “Make America Great Again”, and who has responded to the deadly massacres in the past five months by continuing to oppose any new gun control laws.

“#HeresToFreedom,” the company wrote in a marketing email announcing the sale.

Before the Las Vegas shooting, which left 58 people dead and hundreds injured, bump stocks were an obscure range device popular with firearms enthusiasts.

Thanks for the link. Got mine. Don't forget to to click the link "support the guardian" and your donation will help secure our nation for future generations to enjoy.

Peerie Maa
02-19-2018, 08:31 AM
Don't feed the troll.

isla
02-19-2018, 08:33 AM
^ #6 That's your serious gun discussion right there John.
If the much feared 'Tyrannical government' just happens to be lead by Trump, then MacDonald, the NRA, the KKK and sundry right wing militias will be using their weapons to defend him, not oppose him.

Rich Jones
02-19-2018, 08:40 AM
Don't feed the troll.Sometimes, his nonsense is funny to read. Except when it's a deadly serious issue like this. Hopefully, he'll go overboard one of these days and earn a lifetime ban.

John Smith
02-19-2018, 09:06 AM
Perhaps I'm naive, but I think before anyone considers any law changes, there should be a serious discussion about the many aspects of the problem.

It worries me that so much of the little discussion there is seems to center around mental health and gun buying, when so many deaths are from guns owned by someone other than the shooter. What, for example, prevents Dad from giving his son one of these weapons as a gift?

Norman Bernstein
02-19-2018, 09:19 AM
Guns violence doesn't rise to a level to even warrant a discussion about never mind stricter laws. Get over it!!!!!!

Yup, like I said, on post #2. The slaughter of schoolchildren apparently doesn't deserve discussion. I get it.

Bob Adams
02-19-2018, 09:30 AM
And any serious discussion here must exclude any action short of the disarming of the USA. By way of example, vigorously enforcing existing laws, addressing mental health issues, and the biggie, the one with the most causalities, the "War on Drugs" that drives the gang related "youth" casualties. It is notable that in may statistics, a 19 year old gang banging dope dealer killed by a gun is considered a "child" for the purpose of spinning the statistics.,

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 09:30 AM
What are the chances of getting shot in a random mass shooting vs being struck by lightning? When you look at the reality of it, it's not worth talking about. Mass shootings are done by mentally ill people and society isn't going to spend the necessary money to correct that. That's just the way it is and it's not going to change.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 09:34 AM
Guns violence doesn't rise to a level to even warrant a discussion about never mind stricter laws. Get over it!!!!!!But, one killing of an illegal alien in a sanctuary warrants a Trump wall. This is the only incident that Trump supporters use as evidence for requiring a wall. Those school kids who are killed or wounded since Columbine don't warrant even a discussion about guns. Sad!

mdh
02-19-2018, 09:34 AM
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Statistics from 2013, but note who called for armed police guarding our schools.

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) — Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

The national debate on guns has grown more intense since Dec. 14, when Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and killed 20 children and six adults before committing suicide in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history.

Gun vendors told news outlets that the hottest items were such weapons as the AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed banning as part of a package of gun regulations. The AR-15 rifle is the same weapon used by Lanza during the elementary school shooting.

The law currently proposed by Sen. Feinstein would strengthen the expired 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban, outlaw certain rifles and handguns, and restrict “high capacity” imagazines, in addition to compulsory gun registration under the National Firearms Act, Reuters reports.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here,” Feinstein told MRC-TV in a 1995 interview.

On the other hand, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called on Congress to pass a law putting armed police officers in every school in America in a December press conference.

The number of FBI background checks required for Americans buying guns set a record in December. According to Reuters, the FBI recorded 2.78 million background checks during the month, surpassing the mark set in November of 2.01 million checks – about a 39 percent rise.

The latest monthly figure was up 49 percent over December 2011, when the FBI performed a then-record 1.86 million checks.

The FBI report concedes that some of the “murder by rifle” statistics should be increased slightly because some murders don’t take non-categorized types of guns into account. However, the data still shows that the amount of people killed by hammers, clubs and other blunt instruments still continues to rise each year.

Even as gun purchases rise, the share of U.S. households with a gun has been falling for decades, from 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010, according to the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey.

David G
02-19-2018, 09:38 AM
yous can haves mah flame thrower when yous prise it from mah cold dead hands

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/7guns-nukesdontkillpeopleatomskillpeople-130706014937-phpapp02/95/gunsnukes-dont-kill-peopleatoms-kill-people-1-638.jpg?cb=1431102211

Shang
02-19-2018, 09:40 AM
yous can haves mah flame thrower when yous prise it from mah cold dead hands

"26 dead children in CT didn't change the minds of gun enthusiasts.... if 56 dead and 500 injured in Las Vegas didn't do it in Las Vegas... if 17 dead high-schoolers in Florida didn't do it....." --Norm

Paul, you are making yourself sound stoopid.

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 09:41 AM
OK, enough is enough! We gotta start requiring background checks to purchase clubs and hammers. They are killing our children at an alarming rate.

Rum_Pirate
02-19-2018, 09:48 AM
I would hope we'd remember a few basic facts:

The second Amendment does not say 'guns'; It says 'arms' In today's world, arms, covers a great deal more weaponry than it did when our constitution was ratified

Many, perhaps most, of the shootings that drive so much coverage are done by people using guns they don't own. Someone else bought these weapons.

There are 300 -400 million guns already sold and in the public's hands. Any serious discussion of gun control will lead to rapid purchase of more guns.

Whomever buys a gun or guns is mortal. The guns he's bought are not. They will be functioning weapons for many lifetimes. One may well pass a background check at age 24, but who guarantees he would pass that same background check at 34?

We need a serious discussion on guns and their impact on our society, as there is no pride in leading the world in killing each other.

We cannot have a serious discussion if we ignore the above, as if we don't consider these facts, the discussion is not serious.


The second Amendment does not say 'guns'; It says 'arms' In today's world, arms, covers a great deal more weaponry than it did when our constitution was ratified - A major problem in limiting 'arms' ownership in the USA The second Amendment relates to the Constitution which US Citizens appear to revere more than the Bible, although there have been 'Amendments' - The Original Constitution referred to a militia not individuals the USA Courts have ruled on that.?

Many, perhaps most, of the shootings that drive so much coverage are done by people using guns they don't own. Someone else bought these weapons. - The responsibility rests with those that own them and should secure them properly?

There are 300 -400 million guns already sold and in the public's hands. Any serious discussion of gun control will lead to rapid purchase of more guns. - True when under President Obama gun control was a topic of discussion, many went out to get a gun before they were banned.

Whomever buys a gun or guns is mortal. The guns he's bought are not. They will be functioning weapons for many lifetimes. One may well pass a background check at age 24, but who guarantees he would pass that same background check at 34?- An annual license (with background check/other test) would address that. We are required to have them here (St.Kitts & Nevis) and it is difficult to get permission to own one.

We need a serious discussion on guns and their impact on our society, as there is no pride in leading the world in killing each other. - Discussion? By whom? Implementation of stricter controls and licenses is what is needed. Let politicians on gun control as part of their agenda for election/reelection.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 09:49 AM
Maybe with guns like the AR15 true. BUT, if you take all deaths by guns of any type, the total number killed buries the number killed with blunt instruments. So, go ahead you gun toting, 2nd Amendment gun lovers.By the way, I'm sure you know handguns are more accessible and cheaper to buy as you folks probably own quite a few.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0c5290e3f99d63250017a709d52a22cd

Norman Bernstein
02-19-2018, 09:52 AM
When you look at the reality of it, it's not worth talking about.

The parents of a dead child will certainly be comforted by that, don't you think?

TomF
02-19-2018, 10:00 AM
yous can haves mah flame thrower when yous prise it from mah cold dead hands

Cold? What, the igniter's busted?

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 10:02 AM
The parents of a dead child will certainly be comforted by that, don't you think?
Norm, bleeding heart arguments don't interest me. Rational dialog does. Trying to justify an agenda based on an emotional out pouring doesn't hold water. You've shown once more that you will never let a tragedy go to waste.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 10:04 AM
Norm, bleeding heart arguments don't interest me. Rational dialog does. Trying to justify an agenda based on an emotional out pouring doesn't hold water. You've shown once more that you will never let a tragedy go to waste.Understand that, empathy is completely foreign to you!If someone in your family, a student at the school or a good friend is killed by a handgun, you would change your tune. You'd become a bleeding heart because you were personally effected. Only way it could work as you obviously don't care if it happens to someone else. THE ME,ME,ME,Me syndrome

birlinn
02-19-2018, 10:12 AM
Norm, bleeding heart arguments don't interest me. Rational dialog does. Trying to justify an agenda based on an emotional out pouring doesn't hold water. You've shown once more that you will never let a tragedy go to waste.

And you have shown you do not give a toss how many people are killed by guns, as long as you can keep your lethal toys.
But keep on with the thoughts and prayers, they really are the answer.
You seem to be trying your best to come over as a most unpleasant chap.

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 10:19 AM
And you have shown you do not give a toss how many people are killed by guns, as long as you can keep your lethal toys.
But keep on with the thoughts and prayers, they really are the answer.
You seem to be trying your best to come over as a most unpleasant chap.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Try not to shoot the messenger though, he didn't create the message, he only delivered it.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 10:21 AM
That's certainly one way of looking at it. Try not to shoot the messenger though, he didn't create the message, he only delivered it.I suspect many here agree with birlinn.

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 10:23 AM
Until the USA clears two necessary mental hurdles, it will never have meaningful and effective gun control. The first is the idea that gun ownership is a human right, and the second is the idea that it is acceptable for a non-state actor to shoot another human being, and to carry a gun for the express purpose of doing so.

Once you get past those ideas, though, you can have a reasonable conversation about permitted possession, safe storage and transportation, and restrictions on barrel length, magazine capacity, and action.

Art Haberland
02-19-2018, 10:29 AM
seems to me the djinn is already out of the bottle. There is no way we, as a country, could ever rid ourselves of enough guns to make the place safe again. Having said that, the only recourse I see is a heavy tax on the ammunition. Keep the raw parts cheap, they can make their own, but pre-made stuff gets hit with a heavy tax. This will make it a lot harder for somebody shoot a few hundred rounds into a concert or for a kid to mow down his classmates with a dozen magazines of ammo.

LeeG
02-19-2018, 10:33 AM
The parents of a dead child will certainly be comforted by that, don't you think?

you must realize the recently returned troll gets off on your reaction.

Peerie Maa
02-19-2018, 10:34 AM
I suspect many here agree with birlinn.

I think that he comes here so that he can behave like a total aerosol without any risk of a smack in the mouth.

Stop feeding the troll.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 10:47 AM
I think that he comes here so that he can behave like a total aerosol without any risk of a smack in the mouth.

Stop feeding the troll.I don't think any format has ever even met him, he just appeared and started throwing around his garbage. I guess he found the EBF a good place to rest his butt.

isla
02-19-2018, 11:03 AM
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) — Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.



If the author had just said rifles then this would be true, but if you include shotguns as he has done you only have to do the arithmetic Rifles 323 + Shotguns 356 = 679 versus 496 with hammers etc. Of course the big deceit is that he left out handguns (duh!)

From the linked FBI data (you do the math)..

12,664 murder victims - 8,583 Guns

6,220 Handguns
323 Rifles
356 Shotguns
Other guns type not stated 1,684

Knives etc. 1,694
Blunt objects 496
Hands, fists, feet 726

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 11:06 AM
If it weren't for lies, RWWs wouldn't have anything to say at all.

mdh
02-19-2018, 11:09 AM
The big push is to restrict AR15s, or other scary looking rifles. The opening sentence plainly states rifles or shotguns.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 11:26 AM
That was the last gun used, DUH! Look at the stats, I also posted the stats used by the FBI, You lose again. It must be hard that the facts you cite actually prove you wrong isn't it mdh?

Art Haberland
02-19-2018, 11:33 AM
Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice
.

Very interesting semantics there. More people were killed with Clubs AND Hammers than by Rifles OR shotguns.

496 murders by Clubs AND Hammers

323 Murders with a Rifle

356 Murders with a shotgun

Add them up and you get 679 Murders with Rifles AND shotguns

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 11:36 AM
Art, he just doesn't get it! A lot of posts have refuted his and he continues to believe his own hogwash. He can't change and doesn't even want to.

Peerie Maa
02-19-2018, 11:41 AM
Very interesting semantics there. More people were killed with Clubs AND Hammers than by Rifles OR shotguns.

496 murders by Clubs AND Hammers

323 Murders with a Rifle

356 Murders with a shotgun

Add them up and you get 679 Murders with Rifles AND shotguns

There are choices here:

mhd is a troll;
mdh is as thick as a brick;
mdh would rather maintain the status quo, including an ever growing tally of dead school kids, orphans, and grieving families.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 11:44 AM
There are choices here:

mhd is a troll;
mdh is as thick as a brick;
mdh would rather maintain the status quo, including an ever growing tally of dead school kids, orphans, and grieving families.All of the above!

mdh
02-19-2018, 12:03 PM
Someone is thick, alright. Devoid of literary comprehension, you make accusations of misguidance.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 12:15 PM
Someone is thick, alright. Devoid of literary comprehension, you make accusations of misguidance.You make a joke out of any education you've had! I'm guessing you ended up with a GED at best.

John Smith
02-19-2018, 12:26 PM
And any serious discussion here must exclude any action short of the disarming of the USA. By way of example, vigorously enforcing existing laws, addressing mental health issues, and the biggie, the one with the most causalities, the "War on Drugs" that drives the gang related "youth" casualties. It is notable that in may statistics, a 19 year old gang banging dope dealer killed by a gun is considered a "child" for the purpose of spinning the statistics.,

Good point!

John Smith
02-19-2018, 12:29 PM
The second Amendment does not say 'guns'; It says 'arms' In today's world, arms, covers a great deal more weaponry than it did when our constitution was ratified - A major problem in limiting 'arms' ownership in the USA The second Amendment relates to the Constitution which US Citizens appear to revere more than the Bible, although there have been 'Amendments' - The Original Constitution referred to a militia not individuals the USA Courts have ruled on that.?

Many, perhaps most, of the shootings that drive so much coverage are done by people using guns they don't own. Someone else bought these weapons. - The responsibility rests with those that own them and should secure them properly?

There are 300 -400 million guns already sold and in the public's hands. Any serious discussion of gun control will lead to rapid purchase of more guns. - True when under President Obama gun control was a topic of discussion, many went out to get a gun before they were banned.

Whomever buys a gun or guns is mortal. The guns he's bought are not. They will be functioning weapons for many lifetimes. One may well pass a background check at age 24, but who guarantees he would pass that same background check at 34?- An annual license (with background check/other test) would address that. We are required to have them here (St.Kitts & Nevis) and it is difficult to get permission to own one.

We need a serious discussion on guns and their impact on our society, as there is no pride in leading the world in killing each other. - Discussion? By whom? Implementation of stricter controls and licenses is what is needed. Let politicians on gun control as part of their agenda for election/reelection.


I don't think we get serious laws without first having a serious discussion. So far, all I hear are talking points.

isla
02-19-2018, 12:41 PM
Very interesting semantics there. More people were killed with Clubs AND Hammers than by Rifles OR shotguns.

496 murders by Clubs AND Hammers

323 Murders with a Rifle

356 Murders with a shotgun

Add them up and you get 679 Murders with Rifles AND shotguns


Someone is thick, alright. Devoid of literary comprehension, you make accusations of misguidance.

Perhaps mdh would like to check the arithmetic in the article he posted then get back to us :d

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 12:48 PM
I don't think we get serious laws without first having a serious discussion. So far, all I hear are talking points.

So, do you think the USA can collectively get past the ideas that gun ownership is a human right and that it's OK for non-state actors to shoot people? If so, you might get somewhere. But those two ideas, which are deeply and passionately held by many Americans and are not questioned even by many who support better gun controls, will get in the way of any meaningful restrictions you can put on gun possession, storage, transportation, and use.

Art Haberland
02-19-2018, 12:53 PM
So, do you think the USA can collectively get past the ideas that gun ownership is a human right.

Well, let's start with that. Somebody explain why gun ownership should be a human right?

LeeG
02-19-2018, 01:26 PM
So, do you think the USA can collectively get past the ideas that gun ownership is a human right and that it's OK for non-state actors to shoot people? If so, you might get somewhere. But those two ideas, which are deeply and passionately held by many Americans and are not questioned even by many who support better gun controls, will get in the way of any meaningful restrictions you can put on gun possession, storage, transportation, and use.

an American Right. Big difference.

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 01:57 PM
an American Right. Big difference.

Is it? I would suggest that many Americans view gun ownership as a human right, where the rest of the world does not, and that is part of the problem in a nutshell.

Art Haberland
02-19-2018, 02:11 PM
yes, this is sadly true, Orca. Most of the rest of the 1st world gets along wonderfully without guns on every street corner

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 02:13 PM
Isn't the right to be happy contingent on owning a gun?:D

Peerie Maa
02-19-2018, 02:15 PM
an American Right. Big difference.

It is only a right whilst society agrees it is a right. It is a moving feast.
In the past the USA denied people (women as well as blacks) the right to do stuff that they can now do.

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 02:20 PM
It is only a right whilst society agrees it is a right.

I think you'll find that there is hugely significant overlap between the people who think gun ownership is a human right and the people who think human rights are endowed by their deity (rather than something they have all agreed to support).

Peerie Maa
02-19-2018, 02:24 PM
I think you'll find that there is hugely significant overlap between the people who think gun ownership is a human right and the people who think human rights are endowed by their deity (rather than something they have all agreed to support).

Show me where guns are mentioned in the bible. It already says "thou shall not kill" but that don't work either.

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 02:32 PM
Show me where guns are mentioned in the bible. It already says "thou shall not kill" but that don't work either.

It doesn't have to be rational, it doesn't have to be biblical, it doesn't have to be good for society - it just has to be what they believe. And tragically, it is. It's like the conversation peb and I were having about morality. If you believe in things like "natural law" and "god-given rights", human opinions don't really matter.

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 02:52 PM
Show me where guns are mentioned in the bible. It already says "thou shall not kill" but that don't work either.
That argument doesn't hold water. You libs say guns kill, not people.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 02:53 PM
that argument doesn't hold water. You libs say guns kill, not people.fart!

David W Pratt
02-19-2018, 02:55 PM
First step: to have a discussion, you have to be willing to have your mind changed.
Yeah, I know it's a big step for some.
Second step: Stop using statistics like the drunk uses the lamp post. Deaths by firearm fall into several categories and thus meaningful reductions may require multiple approaches.
Most firearm fatalities are the result of suicide.
About half of all "mass shootings" are domestic violence situations.
Most gang related shootings are with illegally obtained weapons; and by people not lawfully allowed weapons.
Mental illness seems to be splashed around without any real idea of what it is.

LeeG
02-19-2018, 02:55 PM
Is it? I would suggest that many Americans view gun ownership as a human right, where the rest of the world does not, and that is part of the problem in a nutshell.

What I’m saying is that a lot of folks don’t even recognize universal human rights as much as they viscerally understand access to personal power through guns. Human rights is an intellectual concept, “I want it” , “I got it”, “Bang, Bang, you’re/it’s blown away” has immediate reward requiring little thought. It’s American in that personal wants are paramount. If I can afford it, I gets it. Mine.

We can’t even make bump stocks illegal. Insane massacre in Las Vegas with dozens of semi-autos, 1100 rounds in ten minutes and Congress cannot even pass a bill making automatic weapon fire less likely.

Peerie Maa
02-19-2018, 02:57 PM
That argument doesn't hold water. You libs say guns kill, not people.

You are confusing me with some one else.
I am a socialist.
And it is people who use guns to kill people by the dozen in the US.

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 03:01 PM
First step: to have a discussion, you have to be willing to have your mind changed.
Yeah, I know it's a big step for some.

Yep.


Second step: Stop using statistics like the drunk uses the lamp post. Deaths by firearm fall into several categories and thus meaningful reductions may require multiple approaches.

Yep. And the goal is harm reduction, not the impossible dream of no harm at all. The perfect is the enemy of the good.


Most firearm fatalities are the result of suicide.

Yep. Safe storage and transportation laws appear to help reduce this, along with strict handgun controls.


About half of all "mass shootings" are domestic violence situations.

Yep. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who are going through domestic crises is one reason for background checks with referrals.


Most gang related shootings are with illegally obtained weapons; and by people not lawfully allowed weapons.

Yep. Buybacks and safe storage and transportation laws help here, too, along with a strong permitting system.


Mental illness seems to be splashed around without any real idea of what it is.

Yep. And without explaining why mental illness isn't responsible for anywhere near as many mass shootings in countries with effective gun controls, or by women.

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 03:03 PM
What I’m saying is that a lot of folks don’t even recognize universal human rights as much as they viscerally understand access to personal power through guns. Human rights is an intellectual concept, “I want it” , “I got it”, “Bang, Bang, you’re/it’s blown away” has immediate reward requiring little thought. It’s American in that personal wants are paramount.

Oh, I see. Well, that's depressing. Do you really think that many Americans don't think of guns in terms of rights? I see a lot of people talking rights on Facebork, but that's a self-selecting sample...

Peerie Maa
02-19-2018, 03:06 PM
First step: to have a discussion, you have to be willing to have your mind changed.
Yeah, I know it's a big step for some.
Second step: Stop using statistics like the drunk uses the lamp post. Deaths by firearm fall into several categories and thus meaningful reductions may require multiple approaches.
Most firearm fatalities are the result of suicide. in the US. Without a gun to do it right here right now the potential suicide has time for second thoughts and the death toll comes down.

About half of all "mass shootings" are domestic violence situations.mass shooting = 4 or more shot. Try doing that with a kitchen knife up close and personal

Most gang related shootings are with illegally obtained weapons; and by people not lawfully allowed weapons.
Mental illness seems to be splashed around without any real idea of what it is.

Which ever way you cut it there will be fewer dead US citizens if you can achieve sensible gun use.

KMacDonald
02-19-2018, 03:35 PM
A serious discussion? Really? All you guys want to do is join hands around the campfire and sing kumbaya.

S.V. Airlie
02-19-2018, 03:38 PM
A serious discussion? Really? All you guys want to do is join hands around the campfire and sing kumbaya.Gun nuts and NRA members don't understand what a serious discussion means!They are intellectually against anything regarding anything that could limit the sale of more guns.

skuthorp
02-19-2018, 03:41 PM
For an 'serious discussion' to occur you will have to ignore a deal of posts and posters here for it not to be derailed. And evidence says that the temptation provided by KMac, bobbys etc and their extreme provocations will be too much to resist.

Of course I doubt any number of 'serious discussions' will over ride the influence of the NRA and their bought politicians and lawyers anyhow.

Flying Orca
02-19-2018, 05:07 PM
Yes, well, it's not coincidence that KMac and bob bs are already on the ignore list.

Portland
02-19-2018, 05:13 PM
Gun control will be everyones responsibility.
The gun huggers are just going to have to wear it.
In time , they will grow up , and see that gun control was well worth the price(to them).
A reduction in gun deaths . Kids alive and free .
But also less of the "unknowns" , the wounded in body and mind , the crippled families , the first responders that will live with the horrors forever.
Gun control has to happen , get used to the idea.
Rob J.

John Smith
02-19-2018, 07:01 PM
So, do you think the USA can collectively get past the ideas that gun ownership is a human right and that it's OK for non-state actors to shoot people? If so, you might get somewhere. But those two ideas, which are deeply and passionately held by many Americans and are not questioned even by many who support better gun controls, will get in the way of any meaningful restrictions you can put on gun possession, storage, transportation, and use.

I guess one can hold one of only two basic positions. The status quo is acceptable or it is not acceptable. If one finds it acceptable, one has no reason to do anything. If one finds it not acceptable, one should seek ways to improve it.

Kevin T
02-19-2018, 07:07 PM
yous can haves mah flame thrower when yous prise it from mah cold dead hands

Presumably your hands might actually be somewhat warm if it was pried from your hands shortly after you deployed the weapon and were summarily dispatched by someone slightly beyond the reach of your "Lord of Hellfire, I give you FIRE" hose down.:rolleyes:;)

John Smith
02-19-2018, 07:08 PM
Well, let's start with that. Somebody explain why gun ownership should be a human right?

Because we've misinterpreted the constitution so some people can make money.

I think the document is pretty clear. First, in the body, it tells us the Militia is to armed, trained, and called up by the government. It was to protect us from invasion and enforce our laws.

Then they wrote that because of the need for that milita, the people have the right to KEEP and bear ARMS


My grandfather and his friends used "keep" as we use 'borrow" No where in the constitution does it say anyone has the right to own a gun, or any arms. NOR DOES ANYTHING IN THE DOCUMENT PROHIBIT THE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS

Put in context, there is no reason why the ownership of arms cannot be regulated. at least no reason to be found in the consitution.

There is a Supreme Court decision where the court had to do some stretching of language to interpret keep as own.

but, it says what they say it says.

The response I would have would be to require a license to buy ammunition. Maybe tax it to cover medical expenses of the people who are vicitms

Making bullets more costly wouldn't be a major hit the few hunters I've known, as they really don't use all that many. It might lessen the demande for automatic weapons Also, guns have a shelf life of 'forever' Ammo, I believe does go bad at some point.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 03:27 AM
I'm very much opposed to widespread gun ownership. But have to ask, how many people in the US are killed by cars every year? We could stop that just by a simple rule that all cars must be preceded by a man walking and carrying a red flag. Or just limit top speeds to say 20 mph. Heck there's not even a constitutional right to own a vehicle that can do 150mph. Are we really all in that much of a hurry that it's worth killing thousands of innocent people every year?

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 03:40 AM
I'm very much opposed to widespread gun ownership. But have to ask, how many people in the US are killed by cars every year? We could stop that just by a simple rule that all cars must be preceded by a man walking and carrying a red flag. Or just limit top speeds to say 20 mph. Heck there's not even a constitutional right to own a vehicle that can do 150mph. Are we really all in that much of a hurry that it's worth killing thousands of innocent people every year?

Stupid straw man argument. Wrong at a couple of levels.
The design of cars has been continually refined to make them less lethal and safer.
Road vehicles are regulated to make their operation as safe as possible.
With the state of public transport infrastructure in the US and over here you could not function without cars and trucks.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 04:03 AM
Stupid seems unnecessarily rude. Safer yes, but the reality is, not as safe as possible, and as a community we just accept that thousands of people will get killed by cars every year. It's a price we seem prepared to pay. And I do believe we could function at a slower pace, indeed it's pretty stupid just to dismiss the possibility out of hand. I can be gratuitously rude too:) In fact we might all be a lot happier if we slowed down a bit.

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 04:12 AM
Stupid seems unnecessarily rude. Safer yes, but the reality is, not as safe as possible, and as a community we just accept that thousands of people will get killed by cars every year. It's a price we seem prepared to pay. And I do believe we could function at a slower pace, indeed it's pretty stupid just to dismiss the possibility out of hand. I can be gratuitously rude too:) In fact we might all be a lot happier if we slowed down a bit.

Slow down from 150mph? Can you legally drive at 150 in the States? We cannot as we do have national speed limits set at what is considered a reasonable trade off for safety.
Still a non sequitur, still deflection. You do not need guns to live your life, with the rare exception (rare when you consider the proportion of US citizens it applies to) of those who work in wild life management or could not put food on the table without a rifle or shot gun. Try living without road transport.

birlinn
02-20-2018, 04:33 AM
Back to schools, and the RWW fix of having an armed cop for every school.
Ain't gonna work.
The school shootings are almost invariably the work of a pupil or ex-pupil, who would know the guard and his routine.
Anyone with a gun and half a plan would take him out first, before moving on to the kids.

The US really does have to change it's mindset and culture from the late 18th century 2nd amendment.

Portland
02-20-2018, 05:00 AM
Slow down from 150mph? Can you legally drive at 150 in the States? We cannot as we do have national speed limits set at what is considered a reasonable trade off for safety.
Still a non sequitur, still deflection. You do not need guns to live your life, with the rare exception (rare when you consider the proportion of US citizens it applies to) of those who work in wild life management or could not put food on the table without a rifle or shot gun. Try living without road transport.

I will be living without motor transport , in about a week.
Getting back to a horse and jinker , to get the little we need , from the local shop.
I did it for 12 years , training horses and bullocks to work , and as a hobby for 30 years before that.
We will still have a motor vehicle for long distance travel , but we certainly don't need it to live.
And although I have rifles , they are locked away , to be used for the occasional hunting.
Rob J.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 05:08 AM
Slow down from 150mph? Can you legally drive at 150 in the States? We cannot as we do have national speed limits set at what is considered a reasonable trade off for safety.
Still a non sequitur, still deflection. You do not need guns to live your life, with the rare exception (rare when you consider the proportion of US citizens it applies to) of those who work in wild life management or could not put food on the table without a rifle or shot gun. Try living without road transport.
Speaking of deflection, not really even a good effort there. Without going back and rereading my post, I think I said we could limit the top speed of cars to 20 mph or so. A lot less people would die. A hell of a lot less. Never suggested we do without them. I note in passing though that in some countries, say Denmark for example, an awful lot of people get by with bicycles.

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 05:32 AM
I will be living without motor transport , in about a week.
Getting back to a horse and jinker , to get the little we need , from the local shop.
I did it for 12 years , training horses and bullocks to work , and as a hobby for 30 years before that.
We will still have a motor vehicle for long distance travel , but we certainly don't need it to live.
And although I have rifles , they are locked away , to be used for the occasional hunting.
Rob J.

You are fortunate to have the skills and abilities to be able to make those life choices. But you are an outlier out of the population of the US one of a tiny minority, one who is lucky to still have a local shop.

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 05:41 AM
Speaking of deflection, not really even a good effort there. Without going back and rereading my post, I think I said we could limit the top speed of cars to 20 mph or so. A lot less people would die. A hell of a lot less. Never suggested we do without them. I note in passing though that in some countries, say Denmark for example, an awful lot of people get by with bicycles.

Well that will go down well, wont it? Less likely than your RWW's starting to think.;)
Set speed limits at sensible levels. Ours are 70mph on dual carriage ways, 60 on single, with some gnarly roads limited to 50, 30 in towns with some at 20. It works OK and is reasonable enough that most abide by them.
P.S. both Denmark and the Netherlands are small and flat, so cycling is no hardship.
Denmark
https://www.classicdriver.com/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox/public/article_images/dji_0015.jpg?itok=GllgwEGl

skuthorp
02-20-2018, 05:49 AM
Warning!
Thread hijacking in progress!

Of course the thread title is a diversion in itself……...

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 05:49 AM
It's not so much about the cycle as the speed. I imagine that even on their flat roads the Danes mostly don't do much better than about 20mph as they get about on their bikes. And yet they seem to be able to get to work, school, visit friends, go shopping etc. A car will do a lot less damage to its occupants, people in other cars, pedestrians or cyclists, if the car is doing 20 mph than 50, 60 or 70. My point, which you are unable to deflect, is that fast travel is largely unnecessary, as are the deaths we cause by insisting on it. Probably a far greater number of deaths than are caused by guns in the crazy gun addicted US.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 05:53 AM
Warning!
Thread hijacking in progress!
Not at all. Just pointing out that it seems a bit odd that we all get so wound up about the avoidable deaths caused by the American gun fetish, and yet happily hop into our cars and drive at great speed on crowded mixed use roads, knowing perfectly well that collectively we will kill far more people than the gun freaks every year. I just find it odd.

mdh
02-20-2018, 06:06 AM
Back to schools, and the RWW fix of having an armed cop for every school.
Ain't gonna work.
The school shootings are almost invariably the work of a pupil or ex-pupil, who would know the guard and his routine.
Anyone with a gun and half a plan would take him out first, before moving on to the kids.

The US really does have to change it's mindset and culture from the late 18th century 2nd amendment.


If you’d vigorously investigate the subject, you’d find that some schools here employ metal detectors, some have armed guards or police, and some have teachers that concealed carry on campus. Some locales actively try to protect their children: some don’t.

skuthorp
02-20-2018, 06:08 AM
Have the advantages of the internal combustion engine outweighed the disadvantages? Given man's effect on the planet's climate maybe not so, but it was not clear way back in 1890.
Have the advantages of guns in US civilian hands outweighed 1.5 million shooting deaths, more than all the wars?

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 06:09 AM
If you’d vigorously investigate the subject, you’d find that some schools here employ metal detectors, some have armed guards or police, and some have teachers that concealed carry on campus. Some locales actively try to protect their children: some don’t.
What an absolutely horrific scenario.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 06:12 AM
Have the advantages of the internal combustion engine outweighed the disadvantages? Given man's effect on the planet's climate maybe not so, but it was not clear way back in 1890.
Have the advantages of guns in US civilian hands outweighed 1.5 million shooting deaths, more than all the wars?

The simple answer is maybe no, so maybe we should have less guns and slower cars. The more complex answer might be yes, but things have changed. Guns and cars have become faster, and more numerous. Maybe rules that worked back then are not right for now or for the future.

downthecreek
02-20-2018, 06:18 AM
Not at all. Just pointing out that it seems a bit odd that we all get so wound up about the avoidable deaths caused by the American gun fetish, and yet happily hop into our cars and drive at great speed on crowded mixed use roads, knowing perfectly well that collectively we will kill far more people than the gun freaks every year. I just find it odd.

I think there is a significant categorical difference. A huge variety of objects used in daily life are capable of being used as weapons to kill. But that is not their primary function. As far as I can see, killing is the primary and only function of guns, possibly excepting the tiny proportion used for target shooting. There are some legitimate uses and gun control allows for that.

Minimising road deaths is a pressing, but separate, issue and maybe we don't do too well on that. But I think we should make a distinction between objects designed to kill and objects capable of killing but designed for other purposes (such as the booms on our boats - should we all go loose footed?)

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 06:22 AM
No no no. Guns make you handsome, powerful and extremely sexually attractive. That is their primary purpose. The killing is purely incidental.

mdh
02-20-2018, 06:22 AM
What an absolutely horrific scenario.

That’s the same thing they said about Newtown, and Parkland, and Columbine.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 06:35 AM
That’s the same thing they said about Newtown, and Parkland, and Columbine.
Now imagine living in a place where your kids go to a school with no real fences around them. No locks on the doors during the school day. No security guards. No police. No guns. A place where kids feel safe, and can get on with learning, growing, making friends, playing sport, hanging out. That's how most of the civilised world is. Really.

Portland
02-20-2018, 06:37 AM
.
If you’d vigorously investigate the subject, you’d find that some schools here employ metal detectors, some have armed guards or police, and some have teachers that concealed carry on campus. Some locales actively try to protect their children: some don’t.

What a sick sick place to bring up children.
Even the survivors of this slaughter told how they had been preparing for this sort of event for years.
Hang your head in shame Americans , all of you , for the environment you drag your children up in.
Rob J.

mdh
02-20-2018, 06:45 AM
If you see something: say something.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 06:52 AM
What is that?

birlinn
02-20-2018, 07:03 AM
I don't know exactly where mdh lives, but it must be scary.
I'm glad I live somewhere civilised; my door is never locked unless I go away on holiday.

Scotland has the tightest gun controls in the UK; permits are now needed even for air rifles and pistols after a baby was killed by an air rifle a few years ago.
Thankfully, any sort of pistol is totally banned, as is anything like an AR15.
But if you show a need for a shotgun or hunting rifle, keep it in a secure locked cabinet, and are sane, after checks you can get a licence.

downthecreek
02-20-2018, 07:35 AM
No no no. Guns make you handsome, powerful and extremely sexually attractive. That is their primary purpose. The killing is purely incidental.

They do? Who knew.........?

On a more serious note - I have travelled to most of the countries of western Europe and also visited America many times. Machismo is universal, but it has often struck me that western European machismo is focuses on sex and American on violence. It is woven into the warp and weft of the culture (as it appears to a foreigner)

Flying Orca
02-20-2018, 07:49 AM
The simple answer is maybe no, so maybe we should have less guns and slower cars. The more complex answer might be yes, but things have changed. Guns and cars have become faster, and more numerous. Maybe rules that worked back then are not right for now or for the future.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the car example is actually an excellent argument for better regulation of guns. Due to improved regulation and safety measures, vehicle-related fatalities per mile traveled have plummeted even while population has grown and miles traveled have soared.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_ and_total_annual_deaths.png/1280px-US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_ and_total_annual_deaths.png

skuthorp
02-20-2018, 07:54 AM
Suicide, even slow suicide is a personal choice though the public purse often has to pay for the interregnum.
Being mowed down by someone wielding a gun is not a personal choice.

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 07:54 AM
Lets focus on something a little more productive. If we haven't banned smoking, how do you think we are going to ban guns? Sure, we have smoking control laws, but are they working?

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smokeexposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.

Show me a cigarette that can kill 17 people in a school at one go.
Do you get a buzz out of reading reports about murdered school kids KMack?

skuthorp
02-20-2018, 08:08 AM
On the contrary, I think it was and is totally called for.

Flying Orca
02-20-2018, 08:23 AM
Remember, folks - do not feed the trolls.

John Smith
02-20-2018, 08:33 AM
Well that will go down well, wont it? Less likely than your RWW's starting to think.;)
Set speed limits at sensible levels. Ours are 70mph on dual carriage ways, 60 on single, with some gnarly roads limited to 50, 30 in towns with some at 20. It works OK and is reasonable enough that most abide by them.
P.S. both Denmark and the Netherlands are small and flat, so cycling is no hardship.
Denmark
https://www.classicdriver.com/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox/public/article_images/dji_0015.jpg?itok=GllgwEGl

First, let us remember cars are made to transport us. Roads are made for us to drive on. Speed limits are based on what is considered safe for the road we are on.

John Smith
02-20-2018, 08:35 AM
Not at all. Just pointing out that it seems a bit odd that we all get so wound up about the avoidable deaths caused by the American gun fetish, and yet happily hop into our cars and drive at great speed on crowded mixed use roads, knowing perfectly well that collectively we will kill far more people than the gun freaks every year. I just find it odd.

Again, the car, the plane, the train, etc. are designed for the purpose of transporting people or goods. The gun is designed to kill people or animals.

John Smith
02-20-2018, 08:38 AM
Lets focus on something a little more productive. If we haven't banned smoking, how do you think we are going to ban guns? Sure, we have smoking control laws, but are they working?

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smokeexposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers.

And we have regulated where you can smoke. Basically we don't care if YOU smoke, but you cannot smoke in public places as the 2nd hand smoke is harmful to others.

John Smith
02-20-2018, 08:40 AM
I'm at a bit of a loss. To me it seems one is either fine with the status quo or one is not. If not, one would, I think, consider what can be done that would improve things.

S.V. Airlie
02-20-2018, 08:58 AM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOmLV-MB_C0xOrgXOslPqNdookA5vY1d9ltIgFkmIwIM8VG5vapQIs that you on the left? Oh wait, maybe on the right, hard to tell a republican from an ostrich with it's head buried in the sand.

Art Haberland
02-20-2018, 09:55 AM
If you’d vigorously investigate the subject, you’d find that some schools here employ metal detectors, some have armed guards or police, and some have teachers that concealed carry on campus. Some locales actively try to protect their children: some don’t.

This was a discussion I was having. As a general rule, you need to be a pretty caring person to be a teacher. Maybe not college, but in the much younger grades. Empathy being one of the stronger mental prerequisites, why else would anybody put up with a room full of snot nosed disease carrying brats? Take this same teacher who, in general, cares too much, and give them a gun. I am not saying they will be unable to use it, but I am willing to bet they will suffer a case of second doubts before pulling the trigger, giving the gunman a chance to shoot first.

In the case of Florida, the gunman was an ex-student. Not only did he wear the school uniform, but he was young enough to pass among kids that were almost his own age. Could a teacher shoot somebody who looked like one of their students without a second thought?

ccmanuals
02-20-2018, 11:04 AM
Jim Wright had some interesting thoughts on having "specially trained people with guns" in our schools to stop the bad guys. Worth a read.


Sheriff Grady Judd: “We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”

"specially trained"

By ... who?

Who designs the training. On what criteria? To what standards? No, don't just say, "the local police department" or something similar. This training would have to specially designed because you're talking about non-professionals with guns in a building full of panicked children AND those "specially trained people" will be very likely facing a CHILD with a gun who is killing other children. We don't train soldiers for that. We don't train cops for that. So we're going to need special training, including not just the mechanics and theory of combat arms, but the psychology of killing a CHILD in an active shooter situation. If you don't understand why this is a problem, then you're very likely unqualified to be in this conversation in the first place. It takes years of training to condition a soldier to kill another human being on command, let alone a child. And when that killing occurs, it's usually in a warzone, alongside your squadmates, and while that engagement is very, very often chaotic, it can't be compared to the confusion and chaos of a building packed with screaming running children that you are supposed to be protecting. In a warzone, if your bullets hit a civilian, even a child, well, that's collateral damage. It happens. It can't NOT happen. That's war. But a school? Full of American kids? You starting to see why you'd need some VERY, VERY specific training?

Who pays for it? Combat arms is a perishable skill, so how often is refresher training and re-qualification mandated?

Who do these "specially trained people" answer to? Are they trained to work together? Or are they Lone Wolf McQuade?

How do you insure the school in this situation?

Because you going to HAVE to insure the school.

Are the specially trained people personally liable for their fire? If they hit an innocent kid, if they kill an innocent kid or cripple him or her for life? Who's responsible for that?

Moreover, is the "specially trained person" responsible for failure to stop an active shooter?

Well?

No. No. Don't roll your eyes. You live in America (most of you). We are a litigious society. Somebody has to be responsible. You were trained. You had a gun. You failed to stop the shooter, when the grieving parents sue you, will the school board pay your legal fees? Or will the the school, school board, state take responsibility?

SOMEBODY has to be legally responsible.

What weapons?

It makes a difference, you know. Larger, high velocity rounds can penetrate body armor, but also walls, doors, etc, meaning increased chance of collateral damage in a building full of children. We made the cockpit doors on commercial aircraft bullet proof, are we going to do that with classrooms? If not, well, we're back to that question of who's responsible when the school gets sued for not protecting the students from stray bullets fired by their own teachers.

So, do you mandate acceptable weapons? Ammunition? Fields of Fire? Zones of responsibility. Or is it the Wild West?

How do the cops know who the licensed and qualified "specially trained people" are?

This hole is bottomless.

You are essentially talking about turning teachers into soldiers and schools into warzones. You would do everything, EXCEPT address the actual problem. Easy availability of high powered weapons of war.

Now look, I did not say there shouldn't be armed guards in schools. I didn't say there should.

Likewise, I didn't say teachers shouldn't be armed. Or that they should.

Instead, I asked some VERY basic questions regarding the proposed idea of allowing or even mandating armed teachers and school personnel.

I used to do this for a living. I've had advanced training and extensive experience in this area. I was trained by both military and civilian schools. I taught combat arms. I'm a gun owner. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm hardly anti-gun. I didn't suggest anything, one way or the other. Instead, I'm asking BASIC questions about this idea of arming up teachers and putting amateurs with guns in schools. Questions that any competent gun operator should ask.

You want to put more guns, carried by amateurs, into a building packed full of children. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.

S.V. Airlie
02-20-2018, 11:10 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mdh http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=5484136#post5484136)
If you’d vigorously investigate the subject, you’d find that some schools here employ metal detectors, some have armed guards or police, and some have teachers that concealed carry on campus. Some locales actively try to protect their children: some don’t.


And obviously, they don't work do they? I suppose you want even more then. Yup, arm everyone mdh. That sounds like something you'd recommend.

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 11:26 AM
Remember, folks - do not feed the trolls.

Not feeding so much. More a well deserved poke in the eye.

Flying Orca
02-20-2018, 11:33 AM
Not feeding so much. More a well deserved poke in the eye.

Oh, well, I'm always down for that. Carry on. ;)

Osborne Russell
02-20-2018, 12:06 PM
It's cultural. We Americans have a culture of guns . . .

Or so interested persons would have us believe. I call BS. And of course, even to the extent it's true, culture be damned.

Osborne Russell
02-20-2018, 12:09 PM
Jim Wright had some interesting thoughts on having "specially trained people with guns" in our schools to stop the bad guys. Worth a read.


Sheriff Grady Judd: “We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”




1. Why concealed?

2. Let me guess, another privatized enterprise, private militias in public schools.

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 12:11 PM
Or so interested persons would have us believe. I call BS. And of course, even to the extent it's true, culture be damned.

Well if it is not cultural, how do you explain the infatuation with them?

LeeG
02-20-2018, 12:13 PM
Well that will go down well, wont it? Less likely than your RWW's starting to think.;)
Set speed limits at sensible levels. Ours are 70mph on dual carriage ways, 60 on single, with some gnarly roads limited to 50, 30 in towns with some at 20. It works OK and is reasonable enough that most abide by them.
P.S. both Denmark and the Netherlands are small and flat, so cycling is no hardship.
Denmark
https://www.classicdriver.com/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox/public/article_images/dji_0015.jpg?itok=GllgwEGl

a separate road from cars, perfect.

SKIP KILPATRICK
02-20-2018, 12:14 PM
"Depressed teen's guns didn't raise red flags for host family of Florida shooter" - CNN

That kind of sums up the problem in America. Guns are as ubiquitous as dandelions!

S.V. Airlie
02-20-2018, 12:17 PM
Actually, I found biking on flat ground worse than biking in hills. It's constant pedaling, no easing up at all. Isla and roads in Scotland of the A1 were few and far between. <ost of the roads I biked on were literally one lane with places to pull over to let people pass from either direction. Of course sheep appear to breed like rabbits and aren't often fenced.

Peerie Maa
02-20-2018, 12:20 PM
Meanwhile counter thread drift courtesy FB
https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28167259_1626878350714392_5512419105491307264_n.jp g?oh=50c5c88eacaf55dda02afa03cb31e03d&oe=5B00780D

S.V. Airlie
02-20-2018, 12:26 PM
Republicans would call this a "nothing Burger"!:D

John Smith
02-20-2018, 01:17 PM
Actually, I found biking on flat ground worse than biking in hills. It's constant pedaling, no easing up at all. Isla and roads in Scotland of the A1 were few and far between. <ost of the roads I biked on were literally one lane with places to pull over to let people pass from either direction. Of course sheep appear to breed like rabbits and aren't often fenced.

My friends and I, when we were boys, loved to ride bikes in our local cemetery. It had a fairly steep hill in one corner that wan't very long, then the paved path wound around the cemetery and back to the bottom of the hill. It was one loan coast.

John Smith
02-20-2018, 01:18 PM
Meanwhile counter thread drift courtesy FB
https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28167259_1626878350714392_5512419105491307264_n.jp g?oh=50c5c88eacaf55dda02afa03cb31e03d&oe=5B00780D

I agree

Osborne Russell
02-20-2018, 02:04 PM
Utterly amazing to think that the WBF is going to take on the challenges of arguing constitutional law.

We, the people. First three words.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 04:18 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, but the car example is actually an excellent argument for better regulation of guns. Due to improved regulation and safety measures, vehicle-related fatalities per mile traveled have plummeted even while population has grown and miles traveled have soared.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_ and_total_annual_deaths.png/1280px-US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_ and_total_annual_deaths.png

Not bursting my bubble at all. I am all for tight gun regulation. We have it in Australia, I think it works. I applaud it. But given the high number of people still killed on roads every year I'm making a similar case for the tighter regulation of cars. Make them slower.

Flying Orca
02-20-2018, 06:11 PM
Not bursting my bubble at all. I am all for tight gun regulation. We have it in Australia, I think it works. I applaud it. But given the high number of people still killed on roads every year I'm making a similar case for the tighter regulation of cars. Make them slower.

Ah,I see - my apologies. You might have an uphill battle on your hands, though; I get slagged for pointing out that speeding is dangerous, illegal, and stupid, let alone recommending lower speed limits.

WX
02-20-2018, 07:01 PM
Not bursting my bubble at all. I am all for tight gun regulation. We have it in Australia, I think it works. I applaud it. But given the high number of people still killed on roads every year I'm making a similar case for the tighter regulation of cars. Make them slower.
Place greater restrictions on the type of vehicle new drivers can drive. I like the idea of crushing hoon cars.:)
unmarked speed cameras are something I would be happy with.

Dave Gray
02-20-2018, 07:29 PM
Russian bots debating gun control:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43127529

skuthorp
02-20-2018, 07:38 PM
Well, I presumed that we all hve assumed that such interference was a permanent feature by now. Even likely on the WBF.

Phil Y
02-20-2018, 08:16 PM
Ah,I see - my apologies. You might have an uphill battle on your hands, though; I get slagged for pointing out that speeding is dangerous, illegal, and stupid, let alone recommending lower speed limits.
Ah yes, I don't see it happening. Although locally there are many roads where speed limits have been reduced, not to the extremes I'm suggesting we would reduce them if we really cared about thousands of unnecessary deaths, rather than just about gun deaths, but every bit helps. Maybe my point is really just that it's easy for those of us who don't care for guns to demand that they be restricted. But a little hypocritical that we would not accept the inconvenience of seriously low speed limits to save those same lives. I'm actually no better. I live in a near city rural area, and in the last few years the speed limit has been reduced on many roads from 80kph to 60 kph. I do find it annoying. It adds a few minutes to my occasional drive to the city.

S.V. Airlie
02-20-2018, 10:09 PM
I see Donnie, Jr. got caught up with a Russian bot over the killings at the school. He responded some complete garbage agreeing with everything the Russian troll said about some of the student protesters. Made an absolute idiot out of himself! That's not hard for him to do but, he really dug a huge hole

John Smith
02-21-2018, 02:24 PM
Ah yes, I don't see it happening. Although locally there are many roads where speed limits have been reduced, not to the extremes I'm suggesting we would reduce them if we really cared about thousands of unnecessary deaths, rather than just about gun deaths, but every bit helps. Maybe my point is really just that it's easy for those of us who don't care for guns to demand that they be restricted. But a little hypocritical that we would not accept the inconvenience of seriously low speed limits to save those same lives. I'm actually no better. I live in a near city rural area, and in the last few years the speed limit has been reduced on many roads from 80kph to 60 kph. I do find it annoying. It adds a few minutes to my occasional drive to the city.

What are you talking about. Roads with higher speed limits are designed for cars to drive faster. The purpose of a car is to transport people. Speed limits, and other laws pertaining to cars and drivers, are there to make transporting via car safer.

The gun is designed for the singular purpose of killing. Do you really see no reason to have regulations to make for less killing via guns?

John Smith
02-21-2018, 02:25 PM
I'd like to ask again, that we look at the word that actually appears the the second amendment: ARMS. Is it really the belief of anyone reading this that there can be no restrictions or regulations placed on what arms an individual has the right to have?

Chip-skiff
02-21-2018, 02:44 PM
As a gun owner who keeps rifles for hunting and a .22 revolver for giving the coup de grace to deer hit by speeders on the road by our place, I obviously have got no problem with guns as tools.

But I think of the obscene lust for military-style assault rifles and high-cap pistols as a personality disorder, the effect of which is a public health problem, leading to a disproportionate number of deaths by shooting of young people, whether by accidents, gang murders, or mass shootings at schools and events.

The benchmarks for a discussion might be drawn from that about opioid addiction and overdose deaths, as follows:

1) There are too many dangerous drugs/guns in the hands of the public.

2) Based on reliable data, the sheer number of guns/drugs increases the likelihood of overdoses/gun murders.

3) Therefore, the first priority is to decrease the number of dangerous guns/drugs circulating in the population.

4) This requires going after those who manufacture and/or distribute the dangerous drugs/weapons in question, to lessen the supply. One approach is to prohibit the manufacture and/or distribution, increasing the legal hazard. Another is to realistically assign liability to those who profit from making and selling drugs/guns.

5) Taking such fundamental steps makes it more possible to address related problems (e.g. mental health) on an individual basis.

Several nations (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) have taken such measures and now have a large reduction in murders and gun-related crimes as a result.

Peerie Maa
02-21-2018, 02:49 PM
As a gun owner who keeps rifles for hunting and a .22 revolver for giving the coup de grace to deer hit by speeders on the road by our place, I obviously have got no problem with guns as tools.

But I think of the obscene lust for military-style assault rifles and high-cap pistols as a personality disorder, the effect of which is a public health problem, leading to a disproportionate number of deaths by shooting of young people, whether by accidents, gang murders, or mass shootings at schools and events.

The benchmarks for a discussion might be drawn from that about opioid addiction and overdose deaths, as follows:

1) There are too many dangerous drugs/guns in the hands of the public.

2) Based on reliable data, the sheer number of guns/drugs increases the likelihood of overdoses/gun murders.

3) Therefore, the first priority is to decrease the number of dangerous guns/drugs circulating in the population.

4) This requires going after those who manufacture and/or distribute the dangerous drugs/weapons in question, to lessen the supply. One approach is to prohibit the manufacture and/or distribution, increasing the legal hazard. Another is to realistically assign liability to those who profit from making and selling drugs/guns.

5) Taking such fundamental steps makes it more possible to address related problems (e.g. mental health) on an individual basis.

Several nations (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) have taken such measures and now have a large reduction in murders and gun-related crimes as a result.
Just so, but you forgot us.
We do not have such a big problem with deer on the roads, so do not need the hand gun to dispatch road kill. A tyre lever is good enough for the occasional bunny. However we do allow long guns (not repeaters and with magazine capacity severely limited) for hunting.

S.V. Airlie
02-21-2018, 03:07 PM
Nick, I hit a deer one night! Winter, snow! Didn't kill it, broke 3/4 legs, thrown in the ditch. Managed to crawl almost 80 yds in the dark. No gun, had to call the statues, showed up 45 min. later, deer not in sight but, gave him directions as to where it went. Took him more than 15 minutes to find it and he shot it from 15 feet away from the deer! I wished that I had had a gun when I hit it. Hard to imagine the suffering it went through for more than an hour and a half.

Chip-skiff
02-21-2018, 03:07 PM
Just so, but you forgot us.
We do not have such a big problem with deer on the roads, so do not need the hand gun to dispatch road kill. A tyre lever is good enough for the occasional bunny. However we do allow long guns (not repeaters and with magazine capacity severely limited) for hunting.

I mentioned Australia and New Zealand because both nations reformed their gun laws after mass shootings that horrified the public. Hasn't Great Britain had an aversion to guns for a very long time (e.g. unarmed police)?

I didn't buy the revolver, but married into it. I've had to use it twice in 17 years. Not sure I could beat a deer to death with a jackhandle. Let alone an antelope, elk or moose. A large animal thrashing in agony can be dangerous to approach.

As an afterthought, the problem is not deer, but the arsebite aggro drivers in big trucks (archetypical gun nuts) who speed on rural roads at night. Also commercial haulers, especially cattle trucks.

Peerie Maa
02-21-2018, 03:51 PM
I mentioned Australia and New Zealand because both nations reformed their gun laws after mass shootings that horrified the public. Hasn't Great Britain had an aversion to guns for a very long time (e.g. unarmed police)?

I didn't buy the revolver, but married into it. I've had to use it twice in 17 years. Not sure I could beat a deer to death with a jackhandle. Let alone an antelope, elk or moose. A large animal thrashing in agony can be dangerous to approach.

As an afterthought, the problem is not deer, but the arsebite aggro drivers in big trucks (archetypical gun nuts) who speed on rural roads at night. Also commercial haulers, especially cattle trucks.

We have not had an aversion to guns, nor do we. We just agree with this:
The same year (1937), the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger".[78] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-78)
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre triggered a seed change in gun laws
Tightening up on the changes made after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
There is still an active target shooting movement, wild fouling organisations, game shooting (both rough and on Scottish estates) and deer stalking. Both we and the police themselves do not want to trigger an arms race with the criminal fraternity by routinely arming the bobby on the beat, though we do have specialist armed police teams in every constabulary to be called out at need.

Chip-skiff
02-21-2018, 08:19 PM
. Both we and the police themselves do not want to trigger an arms race with the criminal fraternity by routinely arming the bobby on the beat, though we do have specialist armed police teams in every constabulary to be called out at need.

I wish we in the 'States could do the same. Instead of this 'warrior cop' madness:

https://media.salon.com/2014/08/ferguson4.jpg

John Smith
02-22-2018, 10:57 AM
Neither major American political party can take the high ground.
Trump and the Republicans are singing for their master , the NRA.
That will have to chance.
The Democrats had their chance to do something , and did SFA.
Except shed a few "we are sorry for your loss" , and nothing else.
Time for Americans to show some resolve , and sort this debacle out once and for all.
ALL Americans.
The Democrats can't do it , the Republics won't do it (unless the people make them) , but together , all of you , you can.
Rob J.

I believe someone, I used to suggest Nader, establish a group of voters. Perhaps 25% strong. With each election, they pick ONE issue. Let's say for this election gun control is the issue. This group makes it clear if you are in congress and do not vote for some reasonable gun control, we will vote as a block for your opponent in the coming election, regardless of party.

I believe a solid 25% block of voters can sway most congressional elections, and the presidential election.

If the people in office take this group seriously, they'll respond positively.

David G
02-22-2018, 12:11 PM
Serious? How about some numbers from the CDC? A graph showing the relation of gun deaths per capita... and the stringency of a state's gun laws --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28279252_10204239215256183_4948235127602825387_n.j pg?oh=dc44a56f61710c63de14b9f2fba0731a&oe=5B1D3253

Andrew Craig-Bennett
02-22-2018, 12:19 PM
There is not the slightest point in discussing gun control in the United States.

They elected Donald Trump.

Look on the bright side - once they have finished killing each other, other people can live there.