Gun possession. yes or no?

[fokus45]

Originally Posted by kmarei

The fact remains that in this particular shooting
The killer bought his guns legally
So maybe, just maybe, if he could not simply walk into a store and buy enough ammo to start a civil war in some African countries
This kind of rampage wouldn't have happened.

You're assuming that the average man on the street could get guns if he were not allowed to legally?
They can't in most developed countries
Which is why if you look at western Europe
This whole mad man shooting randomly at innocent people, doesn't happen every few months.
This shit only happens here, and you have free access to weapons
I'm sorry but I can't not make a link between the 2

Maybe he would have been able to get them. Who knows? If not, he may have found a different plan. There are messed up people in this world and I don't know how to stop them. I do know that things won't change so I will continue to enjoy my right to own guns. People start this gun control rant everytime something happens and they seem to be the minority. Perhaps you should get some guns so you can understand why people cherish them so much. It is truly sad that some crazies misuse them but there are far more responsible owners that really don't like people pissing on things they don't understand.

[Cdnrockies]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Graph one - relevant countries

Fixed for accuracy.

If you want to compare your country to the ones with higher gun fatality rates that are complete, chaotic messes, be my guest.

Graph two - has nothing to do with firearms.

You can't have it both ways. There have been mulitple posts in this thread (not necessarily your own) quoting "violence" statistics in other countries. Australia was brought up and stats were posted. If you actually read the so called "stats", it was a survey and not based in fact.

It has been suggested that guns help prevent violent crime, but there has been no mention of homicide rates or gun homicide rates like I've displayed here.

Your post doesn't make anything simpler, it's just simply less complete.

I'm not thrilled about stats but with the way some people in here are spouting off about the lunacy of the US i figured those people might be surprised by the statistics of the US as well as some other countries with on 10% of the guns but 12 times more firearm homicides.

The gun stats in the first graph I posted are based on population percentages and talk about intentional firearm homicides.

The US has greater than 400% more intentional gun homicides than every western, democratic country excluding Mexico.

This of course isn't relevant and doesn't point towards this being a problem unique to US society.

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by kmarei

I'm not sure it's fair to compare the US, a first world super power, richest country on the planet
To countries that are under developed, poor, and with drug violence brewing

I'm not sure that we are the richest country on the planet...the idea of USA exceptionalism is probably more myth than reality

http://thepoliticsofdebt.com/2008/04...ntry-on-earth/

And most of our violence revolves around the drug trade...the western European countries generally have permissive drug laws....

I would love to watch the homicide rate fall with the decriminalization of the drug trade....just one more reason to legal drug...less violence

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by BMWinNorthdakota

bump...

still waiting for an answer.

I still think increased gun control is the answer, I think most people here agree. I'm NOT saying guns should be illegal, but I'm not saying our system is perfect either.

IMO you'd have to be crazy to honestly think banning guns would solve any problems, and equally crazy to think that everything is fine the way it is now.

[smyles]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

I still think increased gun control is the answer, I think most people here agree. I'm NOT saying guns should be illegal, but I'm not saying our system is perfect either.

Well, what exactly do you mean by "increased gun control"? Devil is in the details. Ban high-capacity mags? But majority of the crimes are committed w/o them. "Assault weapons"? Well, if we ignore the sensationalism of the media, these are pretty much already controlled. Do not sell to crazy people? Well, you have to define 'crazy' with 100% accuracy (and it's not as easy as you think) and account for every such person, which is not doable since generally we do not force people into treatment. Control high-quantity purchases of the ammo? Well, people will start buying more often and for cash; and again, majority of the crimes do not involve long battles with thousands of rounds spent.

Not saying there're no opportunities for improvements, but I'd like to hear at least few realistic ones.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by kmarei

Funny how you chose countries with very bad crime rates
How come you didn't mention all of western Europe?
Or does that totally destroy your argument?

I'd rather stay in this country and try to educate people like you

Yes, let's look at really safe places that are not 3rd world shitholes. How about modern, 1st world places that are quite civilized, such as, oh, I dunno.... Norway?

Or, look at Timothy McVeigh. He killed 168 people, without a gun at all. He constucted an explosive using ingredients that are relatively easy to find and unregulated for the most part.

People are the problem. Guns, cars, fertilizer, none of that stuff harms anyone just sitting there.

Rather than focus on regulation of guns, let focus on regulation of PEOPLE.

The scariest thing I have heard about this whole episode is the reaction of the shooters mother. She wasn't like most mothers "oh, that cant be my Jimmy, he wouldnt hurt a fly".

Instead, it was "you have the right person". This was after being woke up in the middle of the night by a phone call, long before the event became common knowledge.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora...ry?id=16818889

The woman, contacted at her home in San Diego, spoke briefly with ABC News and immediately expressed concern her son may be involved in the shooting death of at least 12 people overnight. "You have the right person," she said, apparently speaking on gut instinct. "I need to call the police... I need to fly out to Colorado."

Holy shit ! She should be held accountable, and charged with something. That is where the system is failing. I mean, I get that a mother may not want to throw her kid under the bus, but shit, he shot 70 people here. The death count could have been a lot higher. The shooter himself could have been killed, you think if she didnt give a rats ass about those innocents, she'd at least care about her own kid and get him help before anything happened.

[smyles]

Ok, forget Norway, how about Germany? Just a couple month ago:

May 22, 2012
The German police have arrested an armed teenage schoolboy, who fired at least one shot at his school near Munich in the south of the country.

A police spokesman told the DPA on Tuesday that the 14-year-old, who was not immediately named, charged into the 280-pupil Linden public school in the town of Memmingen with two weapons, firing at least one shot before fleeing.

The police cornered the boy at a sports field in the town and captured him hours later after a tense confrontation, in which he fired several more times.
....

... or from the recent past:

In March 2009, a 17-year-old boy, named Tim Kretschmer, killed 15 people, mostly at his school in the town of Winnenden in southern Germany, before committing suicide.

The bloodshed marked Germany’s worst school shooting tragedy since April 2002 when 19-year-old Robert Steinhaeuser, an expelled student, went on shooting rampage at a school in the city of Erfurt in central Germany, killing 16 people.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by kmarei

Very interesting
However, glancing at it quickly on my iPad
Most countries in western Europe have less than 1 death per 100 residents.
So the US has at least 4 times as many homicides as most of western Europe.
The reason I always mention western Europe is that the majority of Americans are originally from there, so I think it's a valid comparison.
These very same people, with less guns, kill less.

The majority of western European countries have roughly 1/10 the number of guns as the US
And roughly 1/8th the number of murders

On a lighter note
They really get their money's worth of their guns in El Salvador
Every gun is responsible for almost 10 deaths

We may have discovered part of the problem here. You seem to have misinterpreted some of the data. My fault for not more clearly identifying what each column stands for. I wrote it in the body of the post but not on the chart.

The firearm homicide column is per 100,000 residents and the gun quantity is per 100 residents. That means that each gun is responsible for .009 homicides in El Salvador. Apply that to the US and each gun is responsible for .00005 homicides.

Also, my point is that the european countries don't have the lowest gun totals but have very low homicide rates. Where as many of the countries with very little guns totals have much higher firearm homicide rates.

If you add a "Homicides per gun" column and rank the countries based on that, the US falls in at number 41 on a list of 65 countries. I'll post that chart later. Gotta get back to work and make some moeney to pay for all that ammo.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Instead, it was "you have the right person". This was after being woke up in The woman, contacted at her home in San Diego, spoke briefly with ABC News and immediately expressed concern her son may be involved in the shooting death of at least 12 people overnight. "You have the right person," she said, apparently speaking on gut instinct. "I need to call the police... I need to fly out to Colorado."

I agree on people being the problem, however I do believe that this was taken extremely out of context by the media....they tend to do that. Have to be really careful what you say.

I believe she was woken up middle of the night...forget how the exact transcript goes, but they said are you XXXXX, and she said yes. And they asked for a statement, and she did not know what they were talking about, and the briefly said something about a shooting and then asked her "Do you have a son named XXXXX that lives in Colorado? To which she responded "yes you have the right person" referring to herself.

Think for a minute how confused you would be if woken up at 3 in the morning and questioned like that. This was twisted by the media for a story.

[Templar]

Perfect example was Timothy McVeigh as mentioned earlier. Not a single gun used.

I'll keep my guns for hunting and defending my family if need be.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by smyles

Well, what exactly do you mean by "increased gun control"? Devil is in the details. Ban high-capacity mags? But majority of the crimes are committed w/o them. "Assault weapons"? Well, if we ignore the sensationalism of the media, these are pretty much already controlled. Do not sell to crazy people? Well, you have to define 'crazy' with 100% accuracy (and it's not as easy as you think) and account for every such person, which is not doable since generally we do not force people into treatment. Control high-quantity purchases of the ammo? Well, people will start buying more often and for cash; and again, majority of the crimes do not involve long battles with thousands of rounds spent.

Not saying there're no opportunities for improvements, but I'd like to hear at least few realistic ones.

It's really hard to say. I do think there should be more restrictions on mags, as well as some waiting period even if it's short. I know that is extremely unpopular, but it's very rare that you need a gun RIGHT NOW. I've been browsing guns, and several times heard a customer say that they need a gun, and they need it that day. I don't think any of these people were soon to be criminals, but buying a gun should not be such an impulsive purchase that you can't wait a few days. That being said, I do think it's nice to be able to get up right now if I wanted, and go have a gun within an hour or so [mostly dependent on traffic]. Would I give up that privilege if it meant only saving the lives of a few people? Absolutely.

That's only meant to be an example. Also before anyone says it, [again] I know this wouldn't stop anything like Aurora or Columbine. It would however, have the potential to stop some crimes of passion. Anyone arguing that someone who wants to ie. kill his wife, would just go get a gun illegally, isn't thinking it out. The average person has no idea who to call to get an illegal firearm. Should mags be limited to a certain amount of ammunition? Probably, but I don't know what that number should be. There are tons of factors, and someone with access to more data than me should be making the decisions. Any numbers or specifics I give you are totally arbitrary, but I know there are changes that could be made that could help.

I'll just respond to the rest of your points. Your right, assault weapons are for the most part controlled now, and I'm not arguing that the govt ban any of the firearms currently available.

No need to diagnose crazy, just don't allow people with x,y,z mental disorder to buy guns. I honestly have no idea how this is currently handled so I can't really comment too much.

Control large ammo purchases? No, that seems rather pointless for the reasons you've already stated as well as very expensive.

I'm a huge gun enthusiast, and changes like this would be a bummer. However, I don't feel it's an infringement on my rights. I enjoy the right to bear arms, and am glad that right is regulated for my safety.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by .b0link

I agree on people being the problem, however I do believe that this was taken extremely out of context by the media....they tend to do that. Have to be really careful what you say.

I believe she was woken up middle of the night...forget how the exact transcript goes, but they said are you XXXXX, and she said yes. And they asked for a statement, and she did not know what they were talking about, and the briefly said something about a shooting and then asked her "Do you have a son named XXXXX that lives in Colorado? To which she responded "yes you have the right person" referring to herself.

Think for a minute how confused you would be if woken up at 3 in the morning and questioned like that. This was twisted by the media for a story.

If that is the more complete, accurate rendition of what really happened, then that is quite a different scenario.

I was gonna retract my suggestion that his mother should take some blame, but then I thought about it some more. Can anyone say she clearly raised a fine, well-adjusted young man ? Why aren't people crying out for more regulation to be allowed to become a parent? As it is today, anyone who is biologically capable of getting impregnated, and carrying the fetus to term gets to try and raise children. You literally have to jump thru more hoops (from a registration standpoint) to get a f*ing library card.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

It's really hard to say. I do think there should be more restrictions on mags, as well as some waiting period even if it's short.

I think this is pointless. Generally speaking, criminals don't follow any laws and thus would not be impacted by mag control. Somebody who is plotting an attack and buying supplies legally, is going to take their time and get what they want.



I think we should impose incredibly harsh penalties on those who use guns to commit crimes. Maybe give investigators up to, but not more than, one year to learn all that they can learn to prevent future crimes. Then put these animals in the ground, by firing squad.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

It's really hard to say. I do think there should be more restrictions on mags, as well as some waiting period even if it's short.


I'll just respond to the rest of your points. Your right, assault weapons are for the most part controlled now, and I'm not arguing that the govt ban any of the firearms currently available.

No need to diagnose crazy, just don't allow people with x,y,z mental disorder to buy guns. I honestly have no idea how this is currently handled so I can't really comment too much.

I know we have been back and forth in this thread, but I can agree with this. As much as I enjoy being able to impulsively buy guns, which is pretty much how I always do it...having a short waiting period would not be a huge deal. As long as its not like 15 days or something crazy.

Mag restrictions is sort of a wash. 10rnd cap magazines suck big time. At the same time I see no reason for those 50rnd glock magazines, even though I own one. However, I don't think magazine capacities will really do anything to curb violent crime. Its simply too easy to reload.

Mental illness. At least in VA this is pretty much just a question that you answer while filling out your paperwork, which you just check yes or no that you have never been treated for a mental illness. If you check yes, no gun. Check No, good to go. They don't, and AFAIK can't search for this information to confirm you aren't lying. I fully believe that there should be some sort of flagging, but how you do that without infringing on patient privacy, I have no clue.

I still believe the real problem today, is our culture and society. Kids are not being raised right, have no morals, are left to grow up watching TV and playing video games. BTW Im not saying video games caused this, simply that too many people let the TV become the babysitter and don't do their job as a parent. The same people that send their kid to school, expecting the public school system to babysit and raise their children. Whatever it is, there is something wrong with the upcoming generations (mine included). Just seems like there is less and less nice, honest, good people.

[samchoi604]

The argument that "guns are not the problem, it's the people" is 100% correct. So why would you help them further by supplying them with the tools to kill? Epic failure argument.

I believe that every psychotic killer needs a "trigger" to push them over the edge, and activate that psychotic tendency to actually go out and commit massacres. Having a gun helps act as that trigger.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I think this is pointless. Generally speaking, criminals don't follow any laws and thus would not be impacted by mag control. Somebody who is plotting an attack and buying supplies legally, is going to take their time and get what they want.



I think we should impose incredibly harsh penalties on those who use guns to commit crimes. Maybe give investigators up to, but not more than, one year to learn all that they can learn to prevent future crimes. Then put these animals in the ground, by firing squad.

Originally Posted by .b0link

I know we have been back and forth in this thread, but I can agree with this. As much as I enjoy being able to impulsively buy guns, which is pretty much how I always do it...having a short waiting period would not be a huge deal. As long as its not like 15 days or something crazy.

Mag restrictions is sort of a wash. 10rnd cap magazines suck big time. At the same time I see no reason for those 50rnd glock magazines, even though I own one. However, I don't think magazine capacities will really do anything to curb violent crime. Its simply too easy to reload.

Mental illness. At least in VA this is pretty much just a question that you answer while filling out your paperwork, which you just check yes or no that you have never been treated for a mental illness. If you check yes, no gun. Check No, good to go. They don't, and AFAIK can't search for this information to confirm you aren't lying. I fully believe that there should be some sort of flagging, but how you do that without infringing on patient privacy, I have no clue.

I still believe the real problem today, is our culture and society. Kids are not being raised right, have no morals, are left to grow up watching TV and playing video games. BTW Im not saying video games caused this, simply that too many people let the TV become the babysitter and don't do their job as a parent. The same people that send their kid to school, expecting the public school system to babysit and raise their children. Whatever it is, there is something wrong with the upcoming generations (mine included). Just seems like there is less and less nice, honest, good people.

I agree with you both in respect to restrictions on magazines, it would serve very little purpose. However, a 100rnd mag serves very little purpose.

The bold really hit the nail on the head, and unfortunately I see no reason to believe anything is about to change. In fact it seems like it is only getting worse. No amount of gun laws will have a big effect, until the mentality of our people changes.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by samchoi604

The argument that "guns are not the problem, it's the people" is 100% correct. So why would you help them further by supplying them with the tools to kill? Epic failure argument.

I believe that every psychotic killer needs a "trigger" to push them over the edge, and activate that psychotic tendency to actually go out and commit massacres. Having a gun helps act as that trigger.

Every psychotic killer? So in Timothy McVeigh's case, we should have a 10 day waiting period to buy a bag of fertilizer, and if you someone wants to buy too much fertilizer at once, that should be tightly controlled? If you want to carry that bag of shit around with you, then another permit is needed for that?


The world is a big, complex, dangerous place. You can try and remove all the sharp edges so that people can continue to indiscriminately behave as though there are no consequences and still be safe from hurting themselves and others, or you can try and work on the people themselves.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Every psychotic killer? So in Timothy McVeigh's case, we should have a 10 day waiting period to buy a bag of fertilizer, and if you someone wants to buy too much fertilizer at once, that should be tightly controlled? If you want to carry that bag of shit around with you, then another permit is needed for that?


The world is a big, complex, dangerous place. You can try and remove all the sharp edges so that people can continue to indiscriminately behave as though there are no consequences and still be safe from hurting themselves and others, or you can try and work on the people themselves.

I'm really tired of people comparing extreme cases like Timothy McVeigh, to the average firearm homicide that takes place day to day in this country. Of course there is no gun control law to stop these types of planned and extreme events. Hasn't that angle been beat to death?

[samchoi604]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Every psychotic killer? So in Timothy McVeigh's case, we should have a 10 day waiting period to buy a bag of fertilizer, and if you someone wants to buy too much fertilizer at once, that should be tightly controlled? If you want to carry that bag of shit around with you, then another permit is needed for that?


The world is a big, complex, dangerous place. You can try and remove all the sharp edges so that people can continue to indiscriminately behave as though there are no consequences and still be safe from hurting themselves and others, or you can try and work on the people themselves.

Let's not talk about another parallel universe here. Last time I checked, most massacres in the US were carried out with firearms, not fertilizers.

Work on people? Isn't that something humanity has been trying to do for centuries? It sounds so nice and easy on paper, but potentially psychotic killers don't check themselves in for counseling. Supplying them with guns certainly don't help the situation. I acknowledge that prohibiting them doesn't solve the problem entirely, but it certainly does help.

If Jimmy next door goes crazy one day, would you rather he come at you with a baseball bat or an assault rifle?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by samchoi604

but potentially psychotic killers don't check themselves in for counseling.

Sometimes they do:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

but the system is so broken, that the warning signs go un-heeded, and then horrible things happen.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by samchoi604

Let's not talk about another parallel universe here. Last time I checked, most massacres in the US were carried out with firearms, not fertilizers.

Work on people? Isn't that something humanity has been trying to do for centuries? It sounds so nice and easy on paper, but potentially psychotic killers don't check themselves in for counseling. Supplying them with guns certainly don't help the situation. I acknowledge that prohibiting them doesn't solve the problem entirely, but it certainly does help.

If Jimmy next door goes crazy one day, would you rather he come at you with a baseball bat or an assault rifle?

I guess I have no idea what point your trying to make. You clearly haven't been reading this thread very closely.

[MP0WER]