Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[LeVeL]

Millions? The study you quote there put the number of "self defence shootings" at twice the actual "total shooting" statistics. Bogus pseudo-science.

That's fine but it still doesn't change the fact that "in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents in which victims used guns for self-protection"

A fairly cursory examination of it reveals the fallacy. The prevalence of mental illness is pretty evenly distributed across countries and races (about 1% for schizophrenia). The United States spends 18% of GDP on health care (the highest in the world), of this it spends 7.5% on Mental Health (the fifth highest percentage in the world). That is to say that the United States spends as much (or more) on mental health care (per capita) than any other country on the planet.

I'm not sure if the amount is really relevant though. Keep in mind that it's actually extremely difficult to get mental help outside a prison in the US, and even more difficult to commit someone else (a child, for example).

The only reason that firearm homicides are so prevalent in the United States compared to other (similar) countries is the much higher rate of firearm ownership and the much less restrictive laws related to firearm acquisition that exist in the United States.

Evidence of this is highly inconclusive. Since you bring up laws though, let me ask you this: how am I supposed to defend myself when someone breaks into my house?

Since the firearm lobby wish to side track the discussion with irrelevant diversions (like the number of deaths caused by diabetes or the different muzzle velocities of guns used by the military and guns that look like they are used by the military etc.)

The muzzle velocity stuff comes into play only when discussing so-called "assault weapons," which is an absolutely arbitrary term made up out of thin air by gun control activists.

Takes a lot to make Piers Morgan look like a reasonable person. You gun-owners don't want/need this idiot talking on your behalf.

http://youtu.be/_XZvMwcluEg

/facepalm There are crazies on both sides, yes.

 

[Nocturnal]

He actually raises some valid points, and then completely disarms his argument by shouting and putting on an incredibly childish British accent. In fairness, his arguing style actually works because I now really want to buy a gun, so I can shoot him in the face.

 

[biggie]

Sad that he has to scream and talk over Morgan just to stay in a debate with him. If he doesn't talk that way, then Morgan just cuts him off, talks over him, and calls him an idiot (like he's done with every other pro 2A guest on his "show").

 

[prizrak]

I'm not sure if the amount is really relevant though. Keep in mind that it's actually extremely difficult to get mental help outside a prison in the US, and even more difficult to commit someone else (a child, for example).

Yep the problem is not necessarily the amount of money being spent, it's effectiveness and efficiency of the actual programs that matters. Also statistically speaking shootings by mentally ill people are actually very rare and fairly random. They are far from being a huge problem in this (or any other) country, even if we were able to completely eliminate those that would still end up being like 1% reduction in homicide rate (if that).

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I'm sure it has been mentioned before - but how about a limit on ammunition? Say...a clip (holding not more than 10 rounds) per month? That should be plenty for "self-defense purposes," since I seriously doubt people will try to invade your house every single night. If you like guns, then you can go to an official shooting range and buy extra ammunition that can only be used at the range. Why wouldn't this work?

My proposition is no more restrictive than traffic rules. I have a car that does 140mph, but I'm not allowed to take it over 65mph, unless I take it to a track. Why not treat guns the same way?

 

[prizrak]

I'm sure it has been mentioned before - but how about a limit on ammunition? Say...a clip (holding not more than 10 rounds) per month? That should be plenty for "self-defense purposes," since I seriously doubt people will try to invade your house every single night. If you like guns, then you can go to an official shooting range and buy extra ammunition that can only be used at the range. Why wouldn't this work?

My proposition is no more restrictive than traffic rules. I have a car that does 140mph, but I'm not allowed to take it over 65mph, unless I take it to a track. Why not treat guns the same way?

I think you equating what you suggest with the speed limit laws is very apt, insofar as both are useless and largely unenforceable laws that don't do anything to address the issue they are meant to address.
- No one is stopping someone crazy who is planning (and they do plan mind you, this was posted upthread) on going on a rampage from waiting a couple of months and collecting enough ammo to do what they set out to do.
- It's very easy to make your own ammunition to the point where many people do it for financial reasons.
- Criminals are not going to be deterred because they don't exactly go to a gunshop for their ammo (see above as well), so as with pretty much every single measure of gun control proposed only the law abiding citizens who do not commit crimes are affected.
- No way to really enforce the law, unless there is a central DB and you are required to present a photo ID every time you buy ammo it can't be tracked.

I think this is the point that most gun control advocates completely miss criminals will have access to guns no matter what the laws around those guns are you may enact all the laws you want and possibly deter a few crazies from going on rampages (tho they are likely to choose a different weapon) and maybe prevent a couple of domestic/heat of passion type murders. However as these are a tiny fraction of overall violent crime its just not the area to concentrate on.

 

[ScarFace88]

Here's what Glenn Beck has to say about the Penis Morgan/Alex Jones interview... I'm not much of a fan, but I think he's correct here.

 

[prizrak]

I've noticed an interesting cultural trend, among former Soviet immigrants gun rights are almost universally supported. Wonder if it has something to do with living under and opressive government...

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I think you equating what you suggest with the speed limit laws is very apt, insofar as both are useless and largely unenforceable laws that don't do anything to address the issue they are meant to address.
- No one is stopping someone crazy who is planning (and they do plan mind you, this was posted upthread) on going on a rampage from waiting a couple of months and collecting enough ammo to do what they set out to do.
- It's very easy to make your own ammunition to the point where many people do it for financial reasons.
- Criminals are not going to be deterred because they don't exactly go to a gunshop for their ammo (see above as well), so as with pretty much every single measure of gun control proposed only the law abiding citizens who do not commit crimes are affected.
- No way to really enforce the law, unless there is a central DB and you are required to present a photo ID every time you buy ammo it can't be tracked.

I think this is the point that most gun control advocates completely miss criminals will have access to guns no matter what the laws around those guns are you may enact all the laws you want and possibly deter a few crazies from going on rampages (tho they are likely to choose a different weapon) and maybe prevent a couple of domestic/heat of passion type murders. However as these are a tiny fraction of overall violent crime its just not the area to concentrate on.

Good point - it will still not stop criminals. But how about 23-year-old social outcasts, or mentally-ill people? A lot of them will not be capable of making their own ammo (it does require skill after all). A lot of them will not want to go into a store and buy ammo because they are socially awkward and shy. I'm just suggesting we make the process more difficult so that random people will not be able to get a gun as easy as it is now. Sure, there will still be violent criminals that will circumvent the entire system, but we can at least reduce the chance of non-criminals going out on rampages (neither the Sandy Hook guy, nor the Aurora shooter were technically criminals prior to their shootings)

I've noticed an interesting cultural trend, among former Soviet immigrants gun rights are almost universally supported. Wonder if it has something to do with living under and opressive government...

I guess I'm the minority then...

 

[Spectre]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Good point - it will still not stop criminals. But how about 23-year-old social outcasts, or mentally-ill people? A lot of them will not be capable of making their own ammo (it does require skill after all). A lot of them will not want to go into a store and buy ammo because they are socially awkward and shy. I'm just suggesting we make the process more difficult so that random people will not be able to get a gun as easy as it is now. Sure, there will still be violent criminals that will circumvent the entire system, but we can at least reduce the chance of non-criminals going out on rampages (neither the Sandy Hook guy, nor the Aurora shooter were technically criminals prior to their shootings).

In some states and areas it is easier to purchase or obtain ammo illegally than legally. Where do you think the people doing all the shooting in Chicago or Washington DC last year got their ammo? Hint: Not Walmart.

You might also want to take a look at history - where did Bonnie and Clyde get their weapons? They got their ammo in the same place. And yes, I am actually waiting for someone to claim that things would be different today because I've got concrete proof it isn't.

There's also a very illustrative example of why all of this would be useless, right in the wake of Sandy Hook. I'll post it when I get home in a little bit.

 

[Spectre]

And here we go. http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/08/sandy...at-shooter-kyle-bangayan-guns-arrest-threats/

1/8/2013 2:55 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF
Alleged Sandy Hook Copycat Threatens to Target L.A. Kindergarteners for Death

The 24-year-old man who threatened to commit Sandy Hook type crimes in L.A. claimed he was hell-bent on leaving "dead kindergartners" in his wake ... yet he will not be prosecuted.

Kyle Bangayan posted threats on Facebook the same day as the Newtown shooting ... and claimed he was targeting L.A. schools ... this according to a search warrant obtained by TMZ.

Kyle allegedly wrote, "No really America, if you post one more Facebook post about the shooting at that elementary school, I swear to whatever f**king god you believe in that I will do the same goddamn thing."

The rant continues, "I have the guns, I have the incentive, and I won't commit suicide at the end, I'll just go to the next f**king school and the next and the next ..."

And he goes on ... "So I woke up this morning and said to myself ... Dang you know [what] would be really awesome right now ... some dead kindergarteners ... and Christmas early."

Kyle was arrested in L.A. after a tipster told the LAPD about the online threats -- and when cops searched his bedroom (at his parents house) they found six semi-auto handguns, two rifles and one shotgun.

Now for the kicker. Kyle was released and the L.A. County D.A. said no charges would be filed, because the threats were not specific.

A little unsettling .... don't you think?

In an earlier, less 'enlightened/tolerant/diverse/whateverthefuckbuzzwordweareusingtoday' era, this guy would be in custody on a 48 hour hold pending a psych evaluation. His weapons would be held in custody by the police. He would not be released and let back out on the street right away.

Now? Sorry, you didn't name anyone in your published threats, so we'll let you go right away. And here's your guns back. This is not unusual at all; it's a story seen over and over and over across America, so it's not even an isolated incident.

The Aurora shooter was, per law and ethical reporting requirements, reported to the nearest police agency by his therapist as being a clear and present danger immediately prior to the incident there. The police did... nothing. Nothing at all.

But the problem, somehow, is the guns. Not the broken justice system. Not the fucked up mental health system. Not the politician DA who is more concerned about image and getting re-elected than doing their job and protecting the people. No, it's the guns.

 

[prizrak]

Good point - it will still not stop criminals. But how about 23-year-old social outcasts, or mentally-ill people? A lot of them will not be capable of making their own ammo (it does require skill after all). A lot of them will not want to go into a store and buy ammo because they are socially awkward and shy.

Thing is though, those people are usually planning their rampages and don't just get up one day and decide to do it right after they get that bagel. Once someone puts their mind to it they will go through the hassle of getting what they need for their "going out in a blaze of glory" and limits on ammo purchase is just not enough of a deterrent.

But again you are talking about something that is a tiny percentage of overall violent (or even gun) crime so you all that those kinds of regulations would do is negatively affect the law abiding citizens and do very little to make the country safer.

 

[Spectre]

Thing is though, those people are usually planning their rampages and don't just get up one day and decide to do it right after they get that bagel. Once someone puts their mind to it they will go through the hassle of getting what they need for their "going out in a blaze of glory" and limits on ammo purchase is just not enough of a deterrent.

To say nothing of stuff that 'fell off the back of a truck' at a nearby military base. There is blatantly stolen military gear being openly sold on eBay right this second that is FAR more tracked and restricted than military ammo. (Please, someone ask me for proof because you don't believe me. I'm itching to unload on you with evidence.) Ammo can be listed as 'expended' so easily; it's simple for a thief or someone just looking to cover it up so they don't look bad after they discovered a theft to cover their ass. You can even buy military ammo on eBay sometimes, thinly disguised as something else (eBay has a no-ammo-sales policy and they try to enforce it.)

Thefts from police are far from unknown, too. And that doesn't begin to get into the smuggling aspect - Mexican Army ammo has started showing up at Texas and Arizona crime scenes. It's not being sold via legal channels in the US, so three guesses where these people are getting it. Hint: Same place they're getting drugs, illegal immigrant sex slaves, etc., etc.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

John Stewart's take on the issue.

 

[prizrak]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

John Stewart's take on the issue.

He made some good arguments (I watch DS myself) on the general issue but as many people who don't actually know much about guns he was off on things pretaining to guns.

There were only about 8,600 gun murders last years (stats were posted upthread too lazy to look up) that's nowhere near 30,000 (kind of a big deal if you ask me). As was covered ad-naseum "assault" weapons available to the public are not meant to "shread enemies", they are "riced out" hunting (or sport) rifles. Clip sizes make little difference as they are very quick and easy to switch (kind of the main reason they were created in the first place).

One interesting thing I read in a Forbes article that was posted on these forums before is that one of the archaic (and no longer used) meanings of the word "regulated" was "trained" so his point about militia is not as sound as some would have you believe.

To me personally the main problem with gun control legislation is that people writing it know nothing of the subject they are trying to legislate. It's similar to the old "series of tubes" fail that happened a number of years ago when they were trying to regulate online gambling.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

A friend of mine (from WV nonetheless...) made the argument last night that we should have guns in order to be able to protect ourselves from the government in a potential conflict, or a potential governmental plot to take over the United States of America. How paranoid do you have to be, in order to think about this on a daily basis? What's more, in an age of cyber-attacks, bio-weapons, and all other kinds of WOMD - how exactly would rifles help protect your family? The argument for a government plot to take over the country might have worked 200 years ago, but just isn't feasible anymore.

I just find it baffling how gun proponents are all up in arms about the issue and defend it so fervently. At the same time, ridiculous existing regulations on other issues remain unchallenged. We were just talking about one in the Idiot + Cars thread - the way burnouts are treated as "reckless driving" in the US. People get arrested, lose their license, and face potential jail time for something that probably kills 0 people every year. But we are okay with such strict regulations? We've also had discussions about speed limits - the 55/65MPH were devised back in an age when cars were a lot less safe. We drive a lot safer cars now, yet the speed limits are generally not increased, and no one is outraged about this fact.

And then we have potential gun regulation, when guns actually kill people (the number is irrelevant - the point is that it's a dangerous, deadly device) and nobody is willing to even consider new restrictions on them.

As a non-owner, I will never fully understand what's at stake for gun owners, but I just find it baffling how they defend this particular right of theirs so fervently, while other rights and liberties are being trampled on a daily basis.

 

[Cellos88GT]

A friend of mine (from WV nonetheless...) made the argument last night that we should have guns in order to be able to protect ourselves from the government in a potential conflict, or a potential governmental plot to take over the United States of America. How paranoid do you have to be, in order to think about this on a daily basis? What's more, in an age of cyber-attacks, bio-weapons, and all other kinds of WOMD - how exactly would rifles help protect your family? The argument for a government plot to take over the country might have worked 200 years ago, but just isn't feasible anymore.

So you're essentially saying that revolt against any 1st world country with a modern military is no longer possible? I agree that it's more difficult than before but I wouldn't say it isn't possible.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

It's an irrational fear - that's all I'm saying.

 

[prizrak]

A friend of mine (from WV nonetheless...) made the argument last night that we should have guns in order to be able to protect ourselves from the government in a potential conflict, or a potential governmental plot to take over the United States of America. How paranoid do you have to be, in order to think about this on a daily basis? What's more, in an age of cyber-attacks, bio-weapons, and all other kinds of WOMD - how exactly would rifles help protect your family? The argument for a government plot to take over the country might have worked 200 years ago, but just isn't feasible anymore.

You never know, look at the first Afghan war (the one with USSR in it) and how well they got their asses kicked by a much less well equipped "military", not saying that a revolution is likely in the US but it's definitely possible. Remember you just need enough time to take over some of the military supplies to get more serious weapons.

By the same token one could make an argument that under the spirit of the 2nd amendment private citizens should have access to all weapons that the military does.

I just find it baffling how gun proponents are all up in arms about the issue and defend it so fervently. At the same time, ridiculous existing regulations on other issues remain unchallenged. We were just talking about one in the Idiot + Cars thread - the way burnouts are treated as "reckless driving" in the US. People get arrested, lose their license, and face potential jail time for something that probably kills 0 people every year. But we are okay with such strict regulations? We've also had discussions about speed limits - the 55/65MPH were devised back in an age when cars were a lot less safe. We drive a lot safer cars now, yet the speed limits are generally not increased, and no one is outraged about this fact.

Plenty of people are against [speed limits] them but they are also not very strictly enforced and universally ignored. You can see how much controversy happens when they try to blidnly enforce it using speed cameras. Donuts in the street should not be happening, maybe in an empty parking lot but not in an actual street, no reason for it.

EDIT: Also last I checked there are VERY serious reprecussions for using firearms illegally, upto and including the death penalty in some states.

And then we have potential gun regulation, when guns actually kill people (the number is irrelevant - the point is that it's a dangerous, deadly device) and nobody is willing to even consider new restrictions on them.

Number is very relevant, less people die from being shot with rifles than killed with bare hands (strangling, pushing off/in front of things, beating to death, etc...). Also you keep glossing over the fact that availability of legal guns has nothing to do with illegal guns and those are the ones used in the vast majority of murders. So again you are only affecting law abiding citizens but not criminals so what's the point?

As a non-owner, I will never fully understand what's at stake for gun owners, but I just find it baffling how they defend this particular right of theirs so fervently, while other rights and liberties are being trampled on a daily basis.

You fight battles you can win, also last I checked driving (at any speed) was not considered a right.

 

[biggie]

With guns there is no fear of it. If they are gone being a sitting duck, from either criminals, the govt, or another country is a rational fear.

A gun is still just a tool, a useful and safe one in the correct hands. Keeping them out of the incorrect hands should be the focus. And until we can be sure that no bad person can get a hold of one, then none should be taken away from the law abiding citizens.

Everyone relies on stats in every arguement (except the anit-gun people in this one). The main stat, More guns in the hands of good people equals less crime. City in GA has a law that every house has to maintain a firearm and ammo (with some exceptions of course) and it isn't really enforced these days, but the threat of the citizens having a gun has kept their crime rate insanely low. A city in Utah is trying to pass this same law currently.