MoonHowler

guns.cars

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

guns.perps

Response?

87 Thoughts to “Are guns part of the discussion?”

  1. Cargosquid
    December 17, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    @Lyssa
    I don’t know.

    England’s gun crime rate was lower than ours BEFORE their control, when anyone could own or carry a gun.
    Canada…always has been peaceful
    Australia…when it did have guns…still more peaceful..
    In all cases, they don’t have a drug war, a border with a drug supplier, or the inner city racial and drug problems that we have. If black on black crime and drug crime was removed from the picture…… our gun crime would be lower than Europe’s.

  2. Lyssa
    December 17, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

    Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

    Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
    (Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

    Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
    (equivalent to 290 US murders)

    Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2 (equivalent to 10 US murders).

    The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita.

    So whats the difference? Several have said access or type doesn’t make a difference? So what is it?

  3. Cato the Elder
    December 17, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    Starryflights :
    @Cargosquid
    1) the assault weapons ban was effective during he years it was law;

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the “assault weapon” ban and other gun control attempts, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[6] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….”[7]

    The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.[8]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4bftQ4xxFc

  4. Lyssa
    December 17, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    In England their studies showed that after a decade or more, it did have an impact. That makes sense – it’s a culture change.

  5. Cargosquid
    December 18, 2012 at 1:36 am

    English gun crime is up.
    English violent crime is higher than ours.

    By your numbers… base on 300,000, 000 privately owned guns, that means that .0029 % of the guns were used.

    But, again, your numbers are not a surprise. That country had lower crime than did America at the height of their gun ownership.

  6. Scout
    December 18, 2012 at 8:01 am

    The discussion shows that the President is correct that there is no one solution and that the problem is complex. It may be that the more immediate payoff for society, given that there are hundreds of millions of guns of all types already in general circulation in America, is to focus on the mental illness side of the equation and turning our elementary schools into fortresses. Having said that, however, there is no constitutional prohibition on reasonable regulation of gun ownership and use.

    Going way back up the thread to a comment of CS about the notion of fighting this by arming even more amateurs, I am unfamiliar with what happened in Oregon and can’t comment. I do recall, however, that the shooting at the Empire State Building several months ago included a lot of friendly fire casualties in front of the building from police officers, presuambly people well trained in the use of firearms. I am not happy with the idea of kindergarten teachers packing heat as the way my country deals with thousands of gun deaths (including the periodic massacre) each year.

  7. Cargosquid
    December 18, 2012 at 8:09 am

    @Scout
    reasonable regulation

    And thus the conversation.

    One man’s “reasonableness” is another man’s extremism.

    As for the cops shooting…you would think that the cops are well trained.

    Perhaps..not so much. Cops don’t have the time to train nor the money. They have to qualify to a basic level. Many do not shoot more than is needed for that.

    Many “amateurs” shoot and train at higher levels. I’m not saying that all CCWs are better than cops. I’m saying that a uniform does not make them “well trained.”

    Some shooters set up the California qualifying course for the LA cops. EVERYONE passed it.

    If a law is passed allowing teachers to carry…. nothing prevents a requirement for training to be necessary to do so above standard CCW because the teachers/admin will act as defacto security.

    I’d do it on my own dime.

    1. Moon-howler
      December 18, 2012 at 9:33 am

      You are assuming that being a good shot is all that is involved in one of these situations. Every day well trained law enforce diffuses some volatile situation.

      That is part of training. Hopefully in most cases a situation can be diffused before the shooting starts.

      Not all cops are well trained. I certainly think our cops are well trained here and aren’t just crack marksmen.

  8. Cargosquid
    December 18, 2012 at 11:30 am

    I understand that the cops have other skills than shooting…at least I hope that they do.

    But in the context of purely shooting…. many cops don’t need to have more than a basic understanding of shooting.
    I found a link that purports to have VA firearm quals…
    http://vagunforum.net/question-and-answer/state-police-weapons-qualification-t4323.html#p39591

    It may look like alot..but that is actually an easy course of fire for anyone familiar with firearm basics.

  9. Bruce Roemmelt
    December 18, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Repeal the 2nd Amendment. Times have changed. Turns out we don’t like slavery and we also think it is ok for women to vote.

    If you want to have a gun – any guy, state your reason and register it. Period.

    1. Moon-howler
      December 19, 2012 at 1:49 am

      Hi Bruce. Glad to see you .

  10. Cargosquid
    December 19, 2012 at 12:10 am

    @Bruce Roemmelt

    Go ahead. Get the repeal started. Its a free country.

    My reason…. I’m a free man. I have a right to keep and bear arms.

    Register it? No.

    For one thing…it does nothing and solves no crimes.

    Don’t want a gun? Don’t buy one.

    1. Moon-howler
      December 19, 2012 at 1:57 am

      Some arms but not all arms.

  11. Scout
    December 19, 2012 at 4:34 am

    If people want to open carry cavalry sabres, I think we could live with that. It certainly would create a new fashion craze and satisfy the right to keep an bear arms. Guns, especially multiple round, non-muzzle loading weapons, well, that maybe should be given a hard second look. If these nuts in Aurora, Columbine and Newtown had to bite off a paper cartridge, ram down the ball wadding and charge, and put a percussion cap on after each shot, they still would be able to use the weapon for target shooting and hunting, but probably wouldn’t have been able to kill more than one or two innocents.

    1. Moon-howler
      December 19, 2012 at 7:32 am

      Standing ovation @ Scout!

      Everyone still has the right to bear arms, according to the Scout plan.

      Maybe those who want multiple round guns could just go to countries where that sort of gun is found on the street corners to use them. I think that is fair. We just don’t want that crap here.

  12. Cargosquid
    December 19, 2012 at 9:46 am

    YOU may not want it. Don’t get one. I’m sure that everyone that agrees with you will now turn in all non-muzzle loaders.

    What restrictions of your other rights have you decided to accept for false security?
    Want a “safe” country…..it can be done. Just turn it into a police state.

    This isn’t about what is “allowed.” Free citizens don’t need permission to exercise rights using modern technology.

    But…let’s take a look at your demands to restrict my rights. Let’s extend your logic. From BlackFive:
    The time for action is now. The recent spate of mass shootings must finally spur us to do what must be done. We need press control. That’s right, the media is out of control and they are enabling and certainly promoting the sick bastards who are slaughtering innocents. The Founders could not have envisioned a 24/7 news cycle with blaring soundtracks, garish headlines, and a relentless, almost pornographic sensationalism. There is no doubt the sad souls who plot these horrors can picture their faces beaming from screens around the world. They gain a notoriety they could never achieve otherwise and the ghouls who give them a stage must bear their responsibility.

    Back in the day, you had to take quill to parchment, or if you were doing mass media you could run off a couple of hundred pamphlets. The high capacity, assault weapons of cable news and the internet were as unimagined in colonal times as nuclear weapons. The Bill of Rights is not suicide pact and an unabridged press does not mean very channel should be as well-armed as the New York Times. Semi-automatic handguns have been around since the 1890s but school shootings are a much more recent development. What has changed since then? Instant fame, or more properly infamy, that’s what and it is time to put some common sense controls on the folks who give these losers a chance to live forever.

  13. Cargosquid
    December 19, 2012 at 9:55 am

    @Moon-howler
    And who decides what arms? You? The government? Me?

    There is no limiting description in the 2nd Amendment.

    There is no “….. right of the people to keep and bear (some, type to be decided later) arms (for hunting, sport, or “needs” to be determined later) shall not be infringed.”

    The language is quite clear.

    But, if you wish to change it…there are procedures to amend the Constitution. And then the procedure goes to the states. And then, try and convince millions of people to give up their rights.

    1. Moon-howler
      December 19, 2012 at 10:51 am

      Who decides? Obviously if the government can decide who gets an abortion then they are certainly equipped to handle gun use. It certainly seems more clear cut than abortion.

      i would start with the notion that private citizens don’t need nuclear warheads and work backwards.

  14. Cargosquid
    December 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    @Moon-howler
    Heh.

    Nukes aren’t considered “arms” unless the spy books are right and there are backpack nukes. And even then…no.

Comments are closed.