Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Spectre said:
Didn't you yourself just note that the UK ban was a failure even though the UK, as you say, doesn't have a pervasive gun issue? How does that work out???
Click to expand...

What it means is that if you have more guns and more gun-related deaths it's easier to bring down that number versus a country that already has fewer guns/gun-related deaths.

Spectre said:
It's a nice theory, but in practice it doesn't seem to work out that way most of the time. I would further point out that *increasing* the number of firearms in the hands of the law abiding citizens seems to have the effect you desire, far more than a simple ban. See Yale and University of Chicago economist John R. Lott's seminal study on this factor in More Guns, Less Crime.
Click to expand...

I could see that having an impact on crime in general (decreasing it), not necessarily the murder rate. I will have to look into that study one of these days.
 
Firecat said:
What it means is that if you have more guns and more gun-related deaths it's easier to bring down that number versus a country that already has fewer guns/gun-related deaths.
Click to expand...

It's just as possible that the numbers would jump upwards due to the 'forbidden fruit' effect.

I could see that having an impact on crime in general (decreasing it), not necessarily the murder rate. I will have to look into that study one of these days.
Click to expand...

Introducing legal concealed carry in Texas chopped over a third off the homicide rate in just one year. See this post for the numbers: http://forums.finalgear.com/politic...-who-tied-up-family-41170/page-2/#post1211998 I'd say that's pretty darned effective, no?

Edit: Here is the Amazon entry for More Guns Less Crime - I believe there might be a new edition due out shortly.

Edit 2: It looks like the theatre shootings were meant to go on longer than they actually did; apparently he had a plan for distracting the police. The front door of his apartment was left ajar, loud music was left playing late at night (so as to invite neighbors to call the police)... and the front door was rigged to make the first of the bombs he'd built in his apartment explode if the door was opened further, killing the responding officer. The Aurora PD would have responded to that scene in force, leaving him to do whatever at the theatre, unmolested. Instead, nobody phoned it in until too late for him to get away with it; his downstairs neighbor went to go check on him and ask him to turn it down, didn't get a response but didn't actually open the door any wider and when she called it in, the police were already busy at the theatre.

Just what would have happened if she (or a responding officer) would have opened that door? This.

Denver shooting suspect's bomb could have "destroyed apartment complex": police
By Chris Francescani

AURORA, Colo. | Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:59pm EDT

(Reuters) - The sophisticated booby-trap devices Denver-area shooting suspect James Holmes set at his apartment could have killed first responders and destroyed the apartment complex in a massive inferno, an official involved in the probe said on Saturday.

Bomb experts entered the 800-square-foot apartment in the Denver suburb of Aurora after a controlled explosion on Saturday. Inside they found 30 aerial shells filled with gunpowder, two containers brimming with liquid accelerants and an unknown number of bullets left to explode in the resulting fire, according to a law enforcement official on the scene with expertise in improvised explosives.

"Given the amount of explosives that were there, if they detonated ideally, you would have had a very ample explosion with an ensuing thermal effect from the incendiary liquids that would have destroyed that apartment complex," the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

"It's safe to say that whole building would have burned. The explosion would have certainly removed the interior walls in the building and some of the exterior walls" of the brick-built apartment complex, the source added.

Graduate school dropout Holmes, 24, is in police custody and accused of killing 12 and injuring 58 people at a Denver-area movie theater.

Police suspect he left a stereo device on a timer in his apartment that blared loud music into the early hours, to lure first responders to the carefully rigged home.

The gunpowder filled aerial shells - compared in some accounts to mortars used at public firework displays - were spread throughout the living room area. The shells were wired to an improvised control box in the kitchen.

Designed to be triggered by entry to the apartment, the ensuing blast, conflagration and flying shrapnel from exploding bullets, was clearly designed to kill first responders at the scene.

"There's no doubt in our minds that the trap that was set was purposeful, to kill, murder and maim any first responders, be it through fire or explosion," the source said.

UNCOMMON SOPHISTICATION

Construction of the potentially lethal booby trap showed a rarely seen degree of sophistication for an improvised bomb made in the United States, where amateur efforts rarely move beyond simple pipe bombs - with explosive material packed into a piece of tubing and detonated with match heads.

"I think maybe using the bullets maybe shows lack of knowledge, but there is a level of sophistication to everything else we saw in the apartment. Ninety-five percent of the stuff you see is really juvenile and experimental: PVC piping, match head, gun powder," the source said. "But this showed a level of sophistication."

Holmes had been a Ph.D. candidate in neuroscience at University of Colorado-Anshutz Medical Campus.

Rendering the apartment safe was a challenge to seasoned experts, who gained a close look at the devices before defusing them by peering into the apartment from a cherry picker.

After studying the devices, bomb disposal experts used a remote-controlled robot that deployed a 'water shot' that neutralized the control box in the kitchen. They then disposed of the explosives.

They were packed in sand and taken by dump truck to a site east of Denver, where they will be destroyed, the source said.
Click to expand...

He didn't need to use guns. He could have easily built a very powerful bomb and have used that instead, as he had attempted to use in destroying the apartment complex. He evidently had the skills and resources to build such devices and the willingness to kill people through methods that were not firearms.

Compared to the level of carnage he intended, the theatre was a half-rate side show.
 
Last edited:
Gun control won't help. Gun control continually since 1952 would have started working right now.
 
Gun control does nothing to stop the criminally inclined.
 
Here is all I will say about this topic.

When I was living in California I would hear full-auto gunfire all the time, everything from sub-machine guns, to machine pistols, all the way up to 7.62mm assault rifles. Also when I was there ICE made a big bust down at the Los Angeles port, they intercepted a shipping container full of Chinese AK-47s. I don't mean full, as in "stacked neatly in crates" I mean full as in "pile all this in with a front-loader". I remember distinctly the Customs agent saying, "We are very happy with this bust, it's about time we got one of these."

"One of these"
"One of these"
"One of these"

So yeah, by all means, try to ban firearms nationwide. Watch what happens when only the criminals have guns, watch what happens when someone can grab a kitchen knife and go out mugging, raping, and killing, knowing that no one can meet his force with equal or greater force for defense.

Guns are not the problem. Banning guns won't end gun crime any more than banning matches and lighters will end arson. People are the problem, and a person as methodical and organized as the shooter in Colorado would have gotten guns anyway, or found another way to cause destruction. A couple of bicycle locks on the doors and some easy-to-make incendiary devices would have been far more effective and easier to acquire.

Instead of going on another pointless circle-jerk about gun control, how about we talk about something that would make a difference - like increasing access to mental health services? A few weeks ago I had a client who was acutely suicidal. I escorted him to the state hospital's psychiatric wing, where he was left in a waiting room for 23 hours and never checked in. He was discharged without care.

But yeah, my AK-47, which has killed fewer people than the average minivan, is clearly the problem.
 
Well, if the weapons laws and the gun control are not the reason for all the shooting and so many deaths by bullets in the USA every year (not to mention the regular amok runs), what exactly is the problem then?

If the weapons are not the problem, it must be the humans who use those weapons, right? So is it simply that the American people are more aggressive and gunhappy, than their counterparts in other 1st-world countries?

Feels hard to accept to me, since the USA started with the intention of being a better place and that would kinda corrupt this intention. And I know that most Americans are very friendly, lovely people. But there has to be some explanation for this. How deep do we have to dig to find it? Because it obviously doesn't lie close to the surface.

Becoming a bit provocative now: Maybe Michael Moore was right in "Bowling for Columbine" and the main reason is fear? Are the Americans more afraid and therefore react more irrational at things? And if that was true: Where comes the fear from?
 
Last edited:
As much as I hate to agree with that fat fuck, I do thin Americans are afraid.
 
THis may happen more in the USA than other countries, but this is not limited to here. Wasn't there an attack on a school in Germany a few years ago? And a little incident in Sweden last year.

By the way, I think this ass was trying to out do that incident.

Why does it happen? I don't know about the fear factor, although it does play in too. I think it is the way we continually dump (shit) on each other over here.
 
MacGuffin said:
So what's there to talk about? Another amok run in the U.S. Again people will blame video games. Others will blame the dangerous gun laws. Others will defend them, because that was just one deranged psycho and it's always the fault of the psycho, not the gun and amunition he could obtain at next corner's grocery store or at www.gimmeguns.com.

In the end nothing changes. 30.000 people every year die in the USA of gun fire, only half of that being sucides. That's how many times Vietnam in one decade? But of course gun laws play no role in it at all. No way.

Anyway... Bottom line: If you live in the USA, it's more likely being shot than anywhere else, except maybe in Syria at the moment.

In the end nothing changes. End of story.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I have to agree with you.

Cellos88GT said:
I don't think any gun control could have prevented this. The guy wanted to cause harm and he was going to find the means to do that regardless of whether he could easily acquire a gun or not. On the other side of the spectrum, even the least stringent of CCW laws couldn't have stopped or slowed this.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree. If someone wants to kill you, they don't exactly follow the law.

jetsetter said:
Tad lax.........no. If anything even the laws of the most lax state are too restrictive. The government has no business knowing what firearms I do or do not have. It is not their business to decide what types of firearms I can and cannot own.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. But I'd sure like to know what kinds of guns are next door to me, at school with me and in my neighborhood stores where I take my kids. You want to own a gun for whatever reason. Okay. But for Gods sake...if you feel the need to arm yourself like the fucking Taliban because you're scared of your own shadow, hire Jackie Chan. Just my opinion.



captain_70s said:
Can't we just agree that some people own guns and some people shoot other people with them and that THERE IS FUCK ALL WE CAN DO ABOUT IT?

Seriously, if he REALLY wanted to kill people and didn't have access to guns (even on the black market) he'd just use something else. He'd make a fucking bomb out of household shit and dump it under a seat.
Click to expand...

True which is why he also had his apartment booby trapped like that. Which goes to show that if someone is set on killing, they will do it in whatever way they can.




My understanding is that he owned all of his guns legally, and bought all of his ammo legally. He was also in school in the neuroscience field, and had no priors which meant he would pass all the background checks we use if I read the info correctly. Up until he pulled the trigger, he was almost the poster boy for the NRA.

But even with the best laws out there, lunatics like him will STILL get guns, so I'm not sure that more laws would really help at this point.

The big issue I have with the gun laws is that we don't have a dipshit/dumbass test. And until we do, I'm rather uneasy about how loose we are with guns here.

I know lots of people who are legally allowed to own guns, but lets face it, they're dipshits. I know quite a few co-workers I used to work with who are working on their doctorates in engineering and chemistry and who are intelligent as hell...but out in the real world are idiots. Some of them are so socially inept it boggles your mind as to how they function. And knowing that they are legally entitled to own all the guns and ammo this guy had scares the shit out of me.

And I'm sorry if I offend anyone here who is a gun owner because I DO know a lot of folks who I have no issue with them owning guns. Many people who own guns do so responsibly. They get the training they need, and keep them locked away properly. Maybe use them for sport or hunting. These folks, I have no issue with. But these aren't the people we need to worry about.

So, dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't. Again, just my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Blind_Io said:
*snip*
People are the problem, and a person as methodical and organized as the shooter in Colorado would have gotten guns anyway, or found another way to cause destruction. A couple of bicycle locks on the doors and some easy-to-make incendiary devices would have been far more effective and easier to acquire.

Instead of going on another pointless circle-jerk about gun control, how about we talk about something that would make a difference - like increasing access to mental health services? A few weeks ago I had a client who was acutely suicidal. I escorted him to the state hospital's psychiatric wing, where he was left in a waiting room for 23 hours and never checked in. He was discharged without care.
Click to expand...

And this part I agree with 100%. And it also scares me and pisses me off. Both sides of the gun issue will be more than happy to dump millions into promoting their side of the issue, yet places like NetCare here in Columbus are about to shut their doors due to funding... Because we 'don't have the money' to keep them open.
 
Last edited:
GRtak said:
Wasn't there an attack on a school in Germany a few years ago?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it does happen here too, sadly. But it's much rarer. From the top of my head, Erfurt about ten years ago and Winnenden three or so years ago come to mind. Both with about 15 people dead, I think.
The "typical" amok-running pupil in "our" school shootings comes from a family that's involved in sport shooting, where the parents possess several guns legally. In the cases I mentioned, they somehow failed to secure them from their children...
 
MacGuffin said:
Well, if the weapons laws and the gun control are not the reason for all the shooting and so many deaths by bullets in the USA every year (not to mention the regular amok runs), what exactly is the problem then?

If the weapons are not the problem, it must be the humans who use those weapons, right?
Click to expand...

Again, I think you hit the real issue right on the head. And it's something that both sides really need to talk about.

Why do we feel the need to arm ourself to the teeth? My neighbor has a gun, so I buy a bigger one? I own a bigger one so he buys 2. He buys 2, so I buy 3?

Maybe we should focus on why we feel we need to do this? Is it fear? Am I really that scared of my neighbor? If so, then why? Or is it the need to react to the "I don't want the government telling me what to do" syndrome. Like telling a kid they can't do something. Which any parent knows it means that the first thing the kid will do is exactly what you told them not to do.

And to open a whole 'nother can of worms...maybe we should start focusing on raising our kids not to be homicidal maniacs? Stop relying on the schools, the government and society to raise our kids instead of taking that responsibility ourselves. And if we see that our kid may have an issue growing up, lets address it then...not in 10 years when your kid makes national news for doing something like this.

I don't know. But again, my opinion is that throwing more guns at the issue isn't helping. Nor will the idea that 'stricter' laws will cure the problem either.

I just don't know.
 
Last edited:
All the violent cop shows on the telly where it is cool to go around shooting people and there are no consequences does not help, IMHO.
 
MacGuffin said:
Well, if the weapons laws and the gun control are not the reason for all the shooting and so many deaths by bullets in the USA every year (not to mention the regular amok runs), what exactly is the problem then?

If the weapons are not the problem, it must be the humans who use those weapons, right? So is it simply that the American people are more aggressive and gunhappy, than their counterparts in other 1st-world countries?

Feels hard to accept to me, since the USA started with the intention of being a better place and that would kinda corrupt this intention. And I know that most Americans are very friendly, lovely people. But there has to be some explanation for this. How deep do we have to dig to find it? Because it obviously doesn't lie close to the surface.

Becoming a bit provocative now: Maybe Michael Moore was right in "Bowling for Columbine" and the main reason is fear? Are the Americans more afraid and therefore react more irrational at things? And if that was true: Where comes the fear from?
Click to expand...

I think it has something to do with the fact that America hasn't had any large-scale war on it's home turf and the fact that our country has a tendency to stick its nose into everything. If our gov't is so eager to take violent action, how are its people supposed to interpret that?

Europe has seen it's fair share of death and destruction right at its doorstep, how many American's can say the same?
 
It is not about fear, it is about independence. It is about not having to depend on the government, the police, the authorities to come to your aid. If someone breaks into your home you should not have to call the police and wait until they arrive. With the tools at hand you can deal with the problem yourself and call the police after. It is about not being coddled like children, it is about being trusted with instruments of death. A land in which firearms are trusted only to the police and military is a land in which I could not stand to live in. It is that land that lives in fear, that does not trust. They do not trust themselves to own firearms.
 
While that is true, I still think that the driving motivation in this country is fear. Fear that the terrorists will attack, fear that you will be on a plane when they do, fear about the economy, fear of the banks, fear of the other political party, fear of the gays, fear of the other religion, fear of the police, on, and on, and on. That fear is easily directed into predictable patterns, and as long as everyone is running around in fear no one is taking a look at what is really going on.

The US used to be a country that confronted their fears, now we give into them and we are less of a nation, and less of a culture because of it.
 
jetsetter said:
It is not about fear, it is about independence.
[...]
If someone breaks into your home you should not have to call the police and wait until they arrive. With the tools at hand you can deal with the problem yourself and call the police after.
Click to expand...
To be honest: it never occured to me that someone would break into my home, that's why it never occured to me that I would need a "tool to deal with the problem myself". :) If it did occur to you and you have a gun (partly) because of that, it is about fear, namely the fear that someone would break in and the police doesn't come to help you.

You see, there is always more than one perception. I don't claim to be in a perfect society/country/whatever or know everything, but from the perception from outside of the US it seems to be fear, only that you perceive it differently (which isn't "wrong" per se - there is no black and white regarding that topic, so no need to bash my opinion with a hammer).

[edit]
Oh, and as I just see an article about Aurora - the assault began at about 12:37am, the first 911 call came in at 12:39am, police arrived within 90 seconds and Holmes has been arrested at about 12:45am which is 8 minutes after everything began. I think that's as short as possible, I don't see any reason to not trust that the police arrives in a (very) short time after a 911 call.
[/edit]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top