Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 13287 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2352


« Reply #80 on: December 17, 2012, 10:54:05 AM »
ReplyReply

A "suicide" suggests the act was consummated.

In the context of this discussion, Oregon assisted suicide has no relevance.

"An estimated 11 attempted suicides occur per every suicide death."

The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002

No, it is very easy to kill with only bare hands.

Obviously it is impossible to kill with only bare hands whatever is out of arms reach.

Guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill - at distance, through walls, many individuals,...

Taking away any single weapon won't change anything to the violent person bent on killing.

Obviously that violent person would not have that weapon with which to shoot someone dead.

...it appears many who don't see the advantages of having a  guns haven't yet become fully educated on the topic.

Do guns make us safer?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 11:05:17 AM by Isaac » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2352


« Reply #81 on: December 17, 2012, 11:03:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The law said ALL guns must be stored in an approved SAFE and they specified a combination device and not a simple key. ...And it would have prevented this last shooting, and the shootings before.. because it would have "effectively" done, with the cooperation of the gun lobby.. what is impossible to do without.

Did the law mandate inspections to ensure that guns were in fact stored "in an approved SAFE"?

Without mandatory inspections you go too far when you say what such a law would have prevented; and even with mandatory inspections, guns would be stored in an approved safe except when they were not stored in an approved safe.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 11:09:40 AM by Isaac » Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #82 on: December 17, 2012, 11:38:51 AM »
ReplyReply

It doesn’t matter whether you’re for or against gun control.  Any proposal for gun control that doesn’t specifically take the Second Amendment into account isn’t realistic.

Totally agree.  Amend the constitution and stop the insanity.

We don't need all these guns in private hands.
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #83 on: December 17, 2012, 11:50:57 AM »
ReplyReply

a feel good measure. 

Here's a feel good measure ...

... take a month off from arguing that people need 30 round magazines for their AR-15s.
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


« Reply #84 on: December 17, 2012, 12:02:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's a feel good measure ...

... take a month off from arguing that people need 30 round magazines for their AR-15s.

Quite. Seems the Constitution makes mention of a right to bear arms, but says nothing about a right to ammunition.

Personally, I'd make gun ownership limited to flint-lock pistols & muzzle-loading long-arms only. I doubt the Founding Fathers had anything different in mind.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5039



WWW
« Reply #85 on: December 17, 2012, 12:29:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Pro-gun senator says it's time to talk gun regulations

From the article (bold mine):

Quote
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a longtime gun rights advocate, said Monday that he would be open to a discussion on restricting assault rifles and high-capacity magazines following Friday's mass shooting that killed 20 first-graders and six adults at a Connecticut school.

"We've never been in these waters before – we've had horrific crimes throughout our country, but never have we seen so many of our babies put in harm's way and their life taken from them and the grief," Manchin told CNBC. "That's changed me, and it's changed most Americans I would think."

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #86 on: December 17, 2012, 01:37:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I think there's A LOT we can do to make real differences.. but I don't support any of the feel good measures which have been proven to not work in the past.

How about a simple ban on private ownership of all gas-operated and recoil-reloading weapons?  Everyone gets to have what we think of traditional firearms, that are perfectly adequate for their traditional purposes. 
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 01:41:17 PM by AFairley » Logged

AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #87 on: December 17, 2012, 01:43:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quite. Seems the Constitution makes mention of a right to bear arms, but says nothing about a right to ammunition.

Personally, I'd make gun ownership limited to flint-lock pistols & muzzle-loading long-arms only. I doubt the Founding Fathers had anything different in mind.

Actually, since at the time the Constitution was drafted, it effectively gave the cititzen the constitutional right to own military-grade weapons, the current restrictions on private ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers and the like is arguably unconstitutional.   Shocked
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #88 on: December 17, 2012, 03:34:50 PM »
ReplyReply

An amendment process could be introduced at any time on just about any subject.  Gay marriage, abortion, guns, any of hot topic areas.  The founding fathers in their wisdom when completing the constitution require a 2/3's majority to amend this document.  There simply are not the votes.. which is why amendments are so rare.

Steve,
In Australia, when we see the need to change the constitution, we hold a referendum which requires every person on the electoral roll to vote 'yes' or 'no' to the proposed amendment.

We also require every voter on the electoral roll to vote, or he/she gets fined.  If a majority of individual citizens, nation-wide, are in favour of the proposed amendment (ie. 50% plus 1 vote), and, if that majority also applies to the majority of the six states in Australia (a process known as a double majority), then the amendment gets passed.

I get the impression that in America the individual citizens do not get the opportunity to vote directly on an amendment proposal and that the entire matter is handled by the existing elected politicians at a federal and state level. Is that correct?

If this is the case, then Australia would appear to be more democratic than America, at least in respect of constitutional amendments. But this is not my area of expertise.

Quote
Look at how easily gun control was enacted in Australia..akin to the proverbial knee jerk reaction without adequate representation and due process. Even now, years later, I'd bet if Australia or even the UK voted concerning gun control the numbers would be split pretty much down the middle.. This tells me the rights of right around half these citizens were severely infringed on. Sad.

Are you aware, Steve, that not even policemen carry guns in the U.K? I originate from the U.K. When arriving in Australia, I was surprised to see policemen with guns strapped around their waist.

It's true that whenever a policeman gets shot in the U.K, the issue of arming the police force with guns is raised. However, the majority of the police in the U.K. are against carrying guns, and I'm pretty sure the majority of U.K. citizens would be against it.

The problem with America is that you have a 'gun culture', and cultural influences tend to be deeply embedded at an early age. I recall as a very young kid being rather impressed by the typical American Western movies of the times when two adults, with guns strapped around their waist, would stand facing each other at a distance. The first to draw would kill the other, provided his shot was accurate. How exciting! I also recall re-enacting such scenes with my playmates, at the age of 5 or 6.

What I find difficult to understand, Steve, is your general line of reasoning that guns are okay and we shouldn't ban them, but rather we should address the social issues that cause people to go bonkers.

Surely we should be doing both. When people lose it, and go on a rampage of violence and killing, they will no doubt use whatever weapons are available. If only knives or baseball bats are available, they may decide it is too difficult. A gun really empowers a person. One could be a physical coward in terms of fighting with one's fists, or a knife, but a gun may overcome such reservations.

My own psychological interpretation of such events as the Connecticut massacre, is that here is an individual who feels disempowered and worthless, for whatever reasons, such as a domineering mother perhaps, a divorce, an existing mental abnormality, bullying at school, all sorts of discrimination that he may have experienced. They all add up and contribute to a certain state of mind that causes a flip, and a desire to end it all.

Now ask yourself, Steve, if this individual had lived in the U.K where guns are not nearly so readily available as in America, would this tragedy have occurred on the same scale?



Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #89 on: December 17, 2012, 03:39:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Most of the talk everywhere (including on this forum) about gun control is idealistic, misinformed, and simplistic. 

I regret my choice of words.  It sounds much more aggressive than I intended.  I should have written something like “well intentioned but unrealistic”.  I apologize for not being more careful in my wording.
Logged

Dean Erger
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5039



WWW
« Reply #90 on: December 17, 2012, 03:45:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I regret my choice of words.  It sounds much more aggressive than I intended.  I should have written something like “well intentioned but unrealistic”.  I apologize for not being more careful in my wording.

Tip of the hat to you, Sir!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #91 on: December 17, 2012, 03:53:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps. Just as it would help if we could stop patronizing those with different opinions:

If you feel patronized then tell me when and where and I'll correct it, or whoever it was.  And despite of others behaviour you would be well served to refrain from name calling in a thread with potentially volatile subject matter.  Throwing gas on the file is not helpful, you don't need to anything but caring to know this.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #92 on: December 17, 2012, 03:56:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps. Just as it would help if we could stop patronizing those with different opinions:
And as evidenced by your responses (and many others in this thread) it appears many who don't see the advantages of having a  guns haven't yet become fully educated on the topic.   

This is often the case.   We could say responses have shown the lack of education but we'd have to take them one by one.  But poor behaviour, in I think in this case perceived poor behaviour, does not make name calling helpful. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #93 on: December 17, 2012, 03:59:45 PM »
ReplyReply

This tread will only remain open if civility prevails.

Michael
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #94 on: December 17, 2012, 04:06:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, as a former police officer yourself, are you aware that the majority of police is in favor of a stricter gun control? Or is my information incorrect?
I'm in favour of stricter gun control.  This is nothing new and we need to use this fact in context.  I don't support bans.  I support stricter control in ways that really pisses of the NRA and I've been told is "not in keeping with an endowment member or someone who benefits from our instructor programs..", but in ways I think will work based on my experience.

Also, if you take most of those "most police officers believe" comments, they're either taken out of content, or taken by representation.  For instance, it doesn't take much research to see that police chiefs and commissions who serve at the pleasure of an elected official.. closely follows that elected officials politics.  This is most often what we're seeing when such things are quoted.

I'm not aware of a single survey asking rank and file police officers what they think about gun control.  Not one.  I'm sure they're out there, but if there were many we're probably have noticed more than a few when you consider how many departments are out there.

And it was rare I went through an entire shift without hearing a partner say "we can't protect you 100% of the time, you might want to get a gun" in cases where someone is being threatened.  I never did.. too many variables and I'm a huge proponent of proper training..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2012, 04:11:35 PM »
ReplyReply

STORAGE LAWS:  In Florida ... The law said ALL guns must be stored in an approved SAFE and they specified a combination device and not a simple key. 

Here is a quote from the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”  In that case the District required that all guns be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.  A gun safe or other similar storage requirement wasn’t before the court, but it appears that such a requirement would also violate the Second Amendment to the same extent as trigger locks.   
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #96 on: December 17, 2012, 04:18:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Seems the Constitution makes mention of a right to bear arms, but says nothing about a right to ammunition.

Chairman Bill, you're not the first one with this idea.  I posted this link before, but here it is again since it fits your idea so well. Besides, this is such a sad topic, maybe a little humor wouldn't hurt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II
Logged

Dean Erger
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #97 on: December 17, 2012, 04:26:00 PM »
ReplyReply

In the context of this discussion, Oregon assisted suicide has no relevance.

I think it does in that it shows people consider suicide long before they do it.  It's an example and there are more, but it is certainly relevant.

Your title says it all.. "attempted suicides.."  Those are the calls for help.  Most people are intelligent enough to get suicide right the first time.  When they don't it's a cry for help, for attention. Not all the time, but most of the time.  I've been on the response end of a few suicides and a lot more attempted suicides and remain convinced of this.

 
Obviously it is impossible to kill with only bare hands whatever is out of arms reach.

Assuming the person is incapable of movement you would be correct.  Most are capable of movement.

 
Guns, by design, are a quick and easy way to kill - at distance, through walls, many individuals,...

Some guns.  Some ammo is frangible, or designed to become inert when it hits a wall.  Other guns are designed for target shooting or competition, but as a by product can kill.  Like many other household items.

I don't disagree guns are dangerous and can kill.  I do disagree all are designed that way or that it's their primary purpose (for all of them).  I know better because I've been involved with the subject matter my entire life.

 
Obviously that violent person would not have that weapon with which to shoot someone dead.

You're an intelligent guy.  If you wanted to kill someone, or a group of someone's, could you not come up with an alternative within just a few hours by visiting your local hardware store?  No other training, no internet, nothing but your intelligence, products of a hardware store, and desire?

Not everyone can, and not everyone can as well as others, which is why SF training includes such methods.. but I think you could.  I don't think you would need a gun at all if you wanted to kill.

Is anyone on this thread going to try and tell me they also couldn't do this?  I think working a cameras controls, the theories, etc.. takes a certain intelligence level which is more/less the same required to kill using readily available supplies/tools/items..

[/quote]
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #98 on: December 17, 2012, 04:34:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Did the law mandate inspections to ensure that guns were in fact stored "in an approved SAFE"?

Without mandatory inspections you go too far when you say what such a law would have prevented; and even with mandatory inspections, guns would be stored in an approved safe except when they were not stored in an approved safe.

Like scheduled periodic inspections?  No.  But someone else saying they saw them out, a sighting by a police officer, etc.. would bring the charges.

Your' tying yourself up in knots trying to make a point that didn't need to be made Isaac.  It's obvious someone can choose to ignore the law.  But few people choose to risk their freedom and everything they've worked for simply to flaunt the law.  And the resulting drop in incidents showed the law to work.

A funny thing happened in Florida when this law passed and people learned they could sacrifice their freedom if their guns weren't locked up..  MANY decided it was too much responsibility for them and they got rid of their guns.  There were stories in the papers of people turning in collections of all sizes. 

The risk of going to jail.. it's the same deterrent that reduces drunk driving and other crimes "non-criminal" types sometimes commit. 

If there was such a law and you owned guns, would you lock yours up?  This answer for all of us here I'm sure is evident.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5039



WWW
« Reply #99 on: December 17, 2012, 04:41:27 PM »
ReplyReply

If you feel patronized then tell me when and where...

Well, I quoted you directly and even put in bold what I consider patronizing: you treat those disagree with you and "who don't see the advantages of having a gun" as simply ignorant (ok, "not fully educated").
 
Quote
you would be well served to refrain from name calling...

Sorry, but when exactly I resorted to calling anyone on this thread names? Yes, I used the term "gun nuts" in its generic meaning, not directed at anyone here in particular.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad