Gun (Lack of) Control


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby JRM » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:32 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Come on man. You don't think the Colorado shooter was creative and willing to spend a lot of time planning his massacre?


I didn't mean to imply some of these murders weren't creative. I simply said that, at the end of the day, they chose the method that will accomplish the most for least.

McVeigh, he wasn't diligent in his planning?


McVeigh used a method that, once executed, was quickly regulated so that it would become very difficult to use for that purpose again.

Vince wrote:if guns somehow all disappear in the US under your mandate,


I don't recall advocating for the banning of guns. But severe controls on their availability and use would be a huge step.

You can ban fertilizer too,


Stop with the hyperbole. No one has banned fertilizer. See my statement above.
Last edited by JRM on Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby kuha » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:36 pm

Pego wrote:Ain't metaphysics grand? An intellectually elegant concept without any empirical support and if you have standing of authority, you attract wide following for ages to come.


Aristotle was a great empiricist, BUT he was also a philosopher and a rationalist. I think its safe to say that he followed the evidence as far as he could, but then used reason to fill in the gaps and to (try to) establish first causes. The details have changed radically, but science today is still trying to do that. The difference is the modern commitment to testing hypotheses rather than just "thinking them through" and asserting them.
kuha
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Vince » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:55 pm

JRM wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Come on man. You don't think the Colorado shooter was creative and willing to spend a lot of time planning his massacre?


I didn't mean to imply some of these murders weren't creative. I simply said that, at the end of the day, they chose the method that will accomplish the most for least.

McVeigh, he wasn't diligent in his planning?


McVeigh used a method that, once executed, was quickly regulated so that it would become very difficult to use for that purpose again.

Vince wrote:if guns somehow all disappear in the US under your mandate,


I don't recall advocating for the banning of guns. But severe controls on their availability and use would be a huge step.

You can ban fertilizer too,


Stop with the hyperbole. No one has banned fertilizer. See my statement above.


Stop avoiding the point that common items can cause mass murder even if you banned all guns.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Marlow » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:58 pm

kuha wrote:
Pego wrote:Ain't metaphysics grand? An intellectually elegant concept without any empirical support and if you have standing of authority, you attract wide following for ages to come.

Aristotle was a great empiricist, BUT he was also a philosopher and a rationalist. I think its safe to say that he followed the evidence as far as he could, but then used reason to fill in the gaps and to (try to) establish first causes. The details have changed radically, but science today is still trying to do that. The difference is the modern commitment to testing hypotheses rather than just "thinking them through" and asserting them.

What I find amazing is that Ari tried to deduce the answer with pure logic WITHOUT resorting to 'faith' of any kind. Ya gotta admire that!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:06 pm

Daisy wrote:
Vince wrote:if guns somehow all disappear in the US under your mandate

Are all guns semi or fully automatic? Isn't the idea to control access to specific kinds of guns, especially those designed to maim or kill a massive number of people in a very short time?

The ones that you can buy quickly in the non-restrictive states are semi-automatic weapons. As I said earlier, it's not easy to buy a fully-automatic weapon anywhere in the U.S. in 2012.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:21 pm

JRM wrote:I didn't mean to imply some of these murders weren't creative. I simply said that, at the end of the day, they chose the method that will accomplish the most for least.

Well, I never said that creativity was the endgame. It was just the means to the end. Why would they have schemes that were more elaborate than what was necessary to accomplish their goals?

JRM wrote:McVeigh used a method that, once executed, was quickly regulated so that it would become very difficult to use for that purpose again.

Neither will anyone ever be able to hijack planes with box cutters and use the planes as missiles? Why would they care about this as long as their plan succeeded?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Vince » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:14 pm

A little perspective, number of murders in the US in 2010 approx. 16000. and 60% to 70% caused by firearms. Deaths by Motor Vehicles in 2010 were approx 33000 in the US..... suicides in the US in 2009 were approx. 37000.

Finding accurate and current info is tough to do. Numbers vary widely.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jhc68 » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:50 pm

As already noted, we all have our perspectives and none of us is likely to change our views because of what someone posts here. But I'll add that In my personal universe the cliche that Guns Don't Kill People, People KIll People is silly beyond description.

People who wield firearms (and some small percentage of people in every society are homicidal maniacs) are so much more efficient at murder and can kill so quickly and maim at such distance that it seems ludicrous to say that killers will find some other way to do their work.

In my longish and relatively dull life I have been in a few conflicts. In my youth I traded punches with other morons and came out both better and worse than the other guy. And I've been threatened at very close range by an idiot with a knife. In all those cases I got adrenalinized but I always figured (perhaps foolishly) that I had reasonable chance to defend myself or at least to run away!

But twice I have had handguns pointed at me - once in a hold-up and once in a nasty late night confusion with cops in Southeast Asia - and both times I was freaking terrified because some ***hole only had to move his finger a centimeter or so to end my life.

Here's the difference to me: on one occasion when I was teaching high school several of my colleagues and I saw a kid coming up behind another teacher with a knife in hand and we all immediately began yelling and running toward the aggressor. He ran away. If he had been carrying a gun instead of a knife we might have all been shot.

I also have seen enough of life to absolutely reject the notion that we'd all be safer if everyone had guns. Even more bizarre is the ideology that we need weapons to fight our own government... that, to me, is adolescent fantasy. If it came to that the armed forces would either mutiny and, God help us all, the government would fall, or the rebels would be decimated by weaponry so sophisticated and deadly that it is literally beyond the comprehension of most Americans.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby mump boy » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:32 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
no one—really no one—anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. . . . we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.

Exactly how I feel. One of the best friends of my life was gunned done by a lunatic with an AK-47 that he bought over the counter in the 30 minutes it took for him to fill out the paperwork. Coward that he was, there's no way he had the guts to do it with anything except a gun that he could easily buy.

I feel for your loss, but I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion. I don't know if your friend was the victim of a random shooter or someone he knew personally, but there are no gun laws that can stop a determined killer. When the government takes away our freedoms (eg. gun control, Patriot Act, NDAA, etc), we lose in the long run.


we have VERY strict gun laws in uk we also have VERY low murder rate 550 in a year

http://www.channel4.com/news/uk-murder- ... t-30-years

and a tiny amount of them are with guns (42 in 2008)

compared to 13,000 in USA of which 9000 !! were with guns

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... e-us-state
do the math

i know which 'freedom' i'd prefer and who's 'losing out in the long run'
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:02 am

jhc68 wrote:I also have seen enough of life to absolutely reject the notion that we'd all be safer if everyone had guns. Even more bizarre is the ideology that we need weapons to fight our own government... that, to me, is adolescent fantasy. If it came to that the armed forces would either mutiny and, God help us all, the government would fall.


We would have Somalia.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:03 am

mump boy wrote:i know which 'freedom' i'd prefer and who's 'losing out in the long run'


The U.K. and most other European countries also have hate speech laws which means that people can and have gone to prison for saying the wrong thing. And to be clear, I'm not talking about inciting riots, threatening to kill someone or yelling fire in a crowded theater because those acts are all crimes in the U.S.

A truly free country would have the U.S.'s free speech rights and religious freedoms, the southern U.S.'s gun rights, Holland's drug and prostitiution laws, Denmark's pornography laws and Germany's speed limit.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby mump boy » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:18 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:i know which 'freedom' i'd prefer and who's 'losing out in the long run'


The U.K. and most other European countries also have hate speech laws which means that people can and have gone to prison for saying the wrong thing. And to be clear, I'm not talking about inciting riots, threatening to kill someone or yelling fire in a crowded theater because those acts are all crimes in the U.S.

A truly free country would have the U.S.'s free speech rights and religious freedoms, the southern U.S.'s gun rights, Holland's drug and prostitiution laws, Denmark's pornography laws and Germany's speed limit.


this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:30 am

Pego wrote:
jhc68 wrote:I also have seen enough of life to absolutely reject the notion that we'd all be safer if everyone had guns. Even more bizarre is the ideology that we need weapons to fight our own government... that, to me, is adolescent fantasy. If it came to that the armed forces would either mutiny and, God help us all, the government would fall.


We would have Somalia.

I'm sure you're engaging in a little hyperbole, but let's consider the facts. We live in an era in which the U.S. has the strictist gun control laws in our nation's history. The federal governmenmt has gradually chipped away at the Second Amendment with the passage of the the Gun Control Act (1968), the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (1986) and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994). So my question to you is why weren't incidents like the Colorado shooting happening 50 years ago, when gun control laws were a lot more lax than they are today?

Some folks think its's because over the last several decades, American pop culture has come to sensationalize, and even romanticize violence in a way that it never did before. Others think that it's because it's become almost impossible to institutionize the mentally deranged without their consent and that nutjobs like the Colorado shooter would have been unable to hurt anyone 50 years ago because the would have already been commited to a mental institution. What's your theory Pego?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:33 am

mump boy wrote:this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on

I addressed the gun issue along with many other freedoms. There's no doubt that the U.S. is freer than the U.K. when it comes to guns and I pray that we never adopt your gun control laws.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby mump boy » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:18 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on

I addressed the gun issue along with many other freedoms. There's no doubt that the U.S. is freer than the U.K. when it comes to guns and I pray that we never adopt your gun control laws.


The freedom to get shot to death while watching Batman is one i will gladly do without !!
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:25 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Some folks think its's because over the last several decades, American pop culture has come to sensationalize, and even romanticize violence in a way that it never did before. Others think that it's because it's become almost impossible to institutionize the mentally deranged without their consent and that nutjobs like the Colorado shooter would have been unable to hurt anyone 50 years ago because the would have already been commited to a mental institution. What's your theory Pego?


I simply do not know. I do not buy any of the above. Nutjobs have been around forever, they don't need to be "desensitized". I hate violence in pop culture, but do not see the link to mass murders.

I hated what we did in the 70s emptying asylums, but neither Tucson, nor Aurora killers would have been institutionalized prior to committing their atrocities even then from what I know.

I simply do not know, just as I have not been able to find a common denominator to suicide bombers either.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:30 am

mump boy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on

I addressed the gun issue along with many other freedoms. There's no doubt that the U.S. is freer than the U.K. when it comes to guns and I pray that we never adopt your gun control laws.


The freedom to get shot to death while watching Batman is one i will gladly do without !!

Anyone can play the semantics game. For example, in the U.K. you are free to be defenseless victims without the right to defend yourself. You see how easy that is. For every Colorado nutjob we have in the U.S., we also have heroes like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby kuha » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:39 am

jhc68 wrote:I also have seen enough of life to absolutely reject the notion that we'd all be safer if everyone had guns. Even more bizarre is the ideology that we need weapons to fight our own government... that, to me, is adolescent fantasy.


You are exactly, precisely right: it is an adolescent fantasy. "Pure," high-minded, and very dangerously false.
kuha
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:45 am

Pego wrote:I simply do not know, just as I have not been able to find a common denominator to suicide bombers either.

Suicide bombers are pretty easy to understand IMO. They're really just politically-motivated perpetrators of violence, also know as terrorists, and as we both know that phenomenon has existed for centuries. I think the thing that Westerners can't understand is why someone would give their lives for a political cause. What difference does it make whether the IRA member detonates the car bomb by remote control and whether the Hamas member detonates the car bomb with him in it? I'm pretty sure it makes no difference to the victims. Dead is dead.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Flumpy » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:48 am

Conor Dary wrote:
Vince wrote:Look up mass killings in Norway, Australia, Great Britain, Finland, Germany, Russia, Japan etc......it's not just a US problem and not all of them used guns.


The saddest of all...why don't you read my earlier post, which looks at just that. Yes, there have been massacres in other countries. I was in England when the school shooting at Dunblane, Scotland happened in 1996. But the difference, as noted, is they did something about them.


"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

The reason we don't have lots of madmen shooting people in the UK is because we can't get hold of guns. It really is that simple.

We are not being deprived of any 'freedom' there is just no good reason for members of the general public to own guns of any kind.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:58 am

Flumpy wrote:The reason we don't have lots of madmen shooting people in the UK is because we can't get hold of guns. It really is that simple.

This is an important fact that can't be overlooked. Even you seem to be implying that British criminals would have no problem using guns if they could get their hands on them. The problem is that in the U.S., there are already so many guns in circulation, that getting them off the street would be like trying to put tootpaste back in the tube. Furthermore, I've discussed with friends and co-workers what they would do with their guns if the Second Amendment was repealed and the government ordered them to turn in their guns, and not a single person said they would turn them in.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Flumpy » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:this has NOTHING to do with the point i was making !! which you have conveniently avoided commenting on

I addressed the gun issue along with many other freedoms. There's no doubt that the U.S. is freer than the U.K. when it comes to guns and I pray that we never adopt your gun control laws.


The freedom to get shot to death while watching Batman is one i will gladly do without !!

Anyone can play the semantics game. For example, in the U.K. you are free to be defenseless victims without the right to defend yourself. You see how easy that is. For every Colorado nutjob we have in the U.S., we also have heroes like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8


We don't need 'heroes' like that because we don't have people robbing places with guns on a daily basis.

In the UK he'd be in prison and rightfully so.

If people don't have guns, then they don't need guns to protect themselves against people with guns :?

Why is that so difficult to understand?
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby gh » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:17 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Flumpy wrote:The reason we don't have lots of madmen shooting people in the UK is because we can't get hold of guns. It really is that simple.

This is an important fact that can't be overlooked. Even you seem to be implying that British criminals would have no problem using guns if they could get their hands on them. The problem is that in the U.S., there are already so many guns in circulation, that getting them off the street would be like trying to put tootpaste back in the tube. Furthermore, I've discussed with friends and co-workers what they would do with their guns if the Second Amendment was repealed and the government ordered them to turn in their guns, and not a single person said they would turn them in.


I would turn in my handguns.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:19 am

Flumpy wrote:If people don't have guns, then they don't need guns to protect themselves against people with guns :?

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that with hundreds of millions of guns already circulation, there's no practical way to create a gun-free environment in the U.S.?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:21 am

gh wrote:I would turn in my handguns.

I wouldn't. By the way, would you turn in your long guns too, or do you not have any?

Edit: Joe Horn used a shotgun for his heroic act. Here's the audio from his 911 call:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Vince » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:51 am

Flumpy wrote:


"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

The reason we don't have lots of madmen shooting people in the UK is because we can't get hold of guns. It really is that simple.

We are not being deprived of any 'freedom' there is just no good reason for members of the general public to own guns of any kind.


Actually the murder rate is going down in the U.S. while the gun ownership rate is going up. It's been trending that way for years.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby gh » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:43 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
gh wrote:I would turn in my handguns.

I wouldn't. By the way, would you turn in your long guns too, or do you not have any?

Edit: Joe Horn used a shotgun for his heroic act. Here's the audio from his 911 call:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc



3
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:49 am

So between just the two of us, we have over a dozen guns, and we aren't what most Americans would consider gun nuts. When you consider that there are over 300 million people in the nation, it's easy to see how difficult and problematic it would be to take the guns out of circulation.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:14 am

No one is talking about confiscating 'all' guns. Or even handguns.

The problem are these guns that hold 30 or more rounds. Which no one needs.

But nothing is going happen....
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby gh » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:15 am

the latest wrinkle (unless somebody mentioned it higher up and I missed it): he had a 100-round drum magazine but it jammed early. Imagine the death toll if he had been able to squeeze off that many rounds.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:25 am

gh wrote:the latest wrinkle (unless somebody mentioned it higher up and I missed it): he had a 100-round drum magazine but it jammed early. Imagine the death toll if he had been able to squeeze off that many rounds.


It boggles the mind.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jeremyp » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:08 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
The discussion was about automatic weapons. The story that you linked has nothing to do with automatic weapons. Obviously, you don't know what an automatic weapon is.


One kills more people more quickly than the other one? Who shives a git! If the mexican cartels are happy to get our semi automatics and kill thousands of their people why are you nit picking the armaments of death.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jeremyp » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:21 am

jazzcyclist wrote: We live in an era in which the U.S. has the strictist gun control laws in our nation's history. The federal governmenmt has gradually chipped away at the Second Amendment with the passage of the the Gun Control Act (1968), the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (1986) and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994). So my question to you is why weren't incidents like the Colorado shooting happening 50 years ago, when gun control laws were a lot more lax than they are today?


As to tighter gun control laws you're being misleading. We have the loosest laws of any developed nation, and that is the issue. As to why more violence today than earlier? Numerous guesses: 1. Move to urban areas creates more violence. 2. Media has become more violence accepting. 3. Weapons have become deadlier. 4. NRA has amped up the paranoia of fear.

Others think that it's because it's become almost impossible to institutionize the mentally deranged without their consent and that nutjobs like the Colorado shooter would have been unable to hurt anyone 50 years ago because the would have already been commited to a mental institution. What's your theory Pego?


There has been no evidence that Holmes was insane and dangerous before Aurora. Quiet loners like him are everywhere.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:36 am

gh wrote:the latest wrinkle (unless somebody mentioned it higher up and I missed it): he had a 100-round drum magazine but it jammed early. Imagine the death toll if he had been able to squeeze off that many rounds.

I think drum magazines should be banned because they're unreliable bulky. Furthermore, you can get 60 rounds with two 30-round banana clips tapes together and they're much more reliable, so why would anyone want to use one of those bulky things?
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:43 am

jeremyp wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
The discussion was about automatic weapons. The story that you linked has nothing to do with automatic weapons. Obviously, you don't know what an automatic weapon is.


One kills more people more quickly than the other one? Who shives a git! If the mexican cartels are happy to get our semi automatics and kill thousands of their people why are you nit picking the armaments of death.

Because unless you're going to ban semi-automatic weapons, which many people that I know have hunted with for years, what's the point? The only difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and so-called "assault rifles" that can be purchased at gun shops throughout the South is the physical appearance.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jhc68 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:56 am

The argument that 100-round magazines ought to be legal because they are inherently unreliable doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
And the argument that current gun laws are too strict put forth by a person who says he and his friends would flaunt laws they don't like anyway also seems like moot point.
But, as stated previously, neither side of this issue will make sense to the other...
jhc68
 
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:01 am

jeremyp wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: We live in an era in which the U.S. has the strictist gun control laws in our nation's history. The federal governmenmt has gradually chipped away at the Second Amendment with the passage of the the Gun Control Act (1968), the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (1986) and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994). So my question to you is why weren't incidents like the Colorado shooting happening 50 years ago, when gun control laws were a lot more lax than they are today?


As to tighter gun control laws you're being misleading. We have the loosest laws of any developed nation, and that is the issue. As to why more violence today than earlier? Numerous guesses: 1. Move to urban areas creates more violence. 2. Media has become more violence accepting. 3. Weapons have become deadlier. 4. NRA has amped up the paranoia of fear.


When comparing the gun violence in the U.S. today to gun violence in the U.S. 50 years ago, other nation's laws are irrelevant. What matters is our laws today vs our laws 50 years ago.

As for your theories, #3 is false. There are many things that I could have bought 25 years ago that I can't buy today, and the reason I know this is because I bought some of them before the stricter laws went into effect. On the other hand, there's nothing significant that's available today that wasn't available 25 years ago. #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:04 am

jhc68 wrote:The argument that 100-round magazines ought to be legal because they are inherently unreliable doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm sorry, I made a typo in my earlier post. I think drum magazines should be banned, not allowed. We're in agreement on this issue.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby jeremyp » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:45 am

jazzcyclist wrote: #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.

The NRA went on a "drum up the paranoia" campaign when Obama was elected. There was a huge spike on gun buys after it. The message was clear: "He'll ban guns so buy more." The NRA has done more to encourage the growth of gun buying than any other group and done more to quash sensible weapons bans and restrictions. Whether you like it or not more available guns makes for more violence. States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence, it's a fact. And Alaska is #1. Why? My guess is they hunt a lot so when violence occurs they have ready access.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: The Dark Knight Rises

Postby Vince » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:17 am

jeremyp wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.

The NRA went on a "drum up the paranoia" campaign when Obama was elected. There was a huge spike on gun buys after it. The message was clear: "He'll ban guns so buy more." The NRA has done more to encourage the growth of gun buying than any other group and done more to quash sensible weapons bans and restrictions. Whether you like it or not more available guns makes for more violence. States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence, it's a fact. And Alaska is #1. Why? My guess is they hunt a lot so when violence occurs they have ready access.

What??? California has stricter gun laws and is in no way less violent.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests