OT: Prayers to those in Charleston

[TheBeav815]

No, and it really isn't the same logic. At all.
Explain this logic: Obama and numerous senators want "gun control", but their children go to schools protected by numerous people with guns. Makes sense. I thought guns were bad.
But I suppose their kids are more important than ours and we don't know what's good for us, so we need others to tell us.

This is one of my favorite, terrible arguments against gun laws. It's an appeal to outrage that completely blows off the fact that those "people with guns" protecting the First Family are some of the best trained and most heavily regulated human beings on the face of the earth.

Which is it? You guys are always telling me it's not the guns, it's the people. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Okay, so now we're gonna cherry pick and ignore how well-trained those guys are, and focus on the guns? Sounds an awful lot like you're telling me the people don't matter, the guns do.

If you really think about it, the Secret Service is actually a case for strict regulation and requiring high levels of skill and knowledge from the owner. I don't have a problem with the idea of the "good guy with a gun," I have a problem with the fact that we hand out the "good guy" stickers like participation ribbons at a grade school track and field meet. The dumbest MFer in the country gets the SAME gun as the smartest one. We don't see a problem with that?


Don't buy the myth that anyone is gonna take away ALL the guns. Can't and won't happen. What we need to do is get serious about requiring some PROOF that everyone who claims to be a "responsible gun owner" actually is.

 

[B1G RED RULES]

Very few Anericans were killed in the 1950's by guns, yet guns were everywhere. What changed?

 

[TheBeav815]

Very few Anericans were killed in the 1950's by guns, yet guns were everywhere. What changed?

What DIDN'T change?

 

[B1G RED RULES]

This is one of my favorite, terrible arguments against gun laws. It's an appeal to outrage that completely blows off the fact that those "people with guns" protecting the First Family are some of the best trained and most heavily regulated human beings on the face of the earth.

Which is it? You guys are always telling me it's not the guns, it's the people. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Okay, so now we're gonna cherry pick and ignore how well-trained those guys are, and focus on the guns? Sounds an awful lot like you're telling me the people don't matter, the guns do.

If you really think about it, the Secret Service is actually a case for strict regulation and requiring high levels of skill and knowledge from the owner. I don't have a problem with the idea of the "good guy with a gun," I have a problem with the fact that we hand out the "good guy" stickers like participation ribbons at a grade school track and field meet. The dumbest MFer in the country gets the SAME gun as the smartest one. We don't see a problem with that?


Don't buy the myth that anyone is gonna take away ALL the guns. Can't and won't happen. What we need to do is get serious about requiring some PROOF that everyone who claims to be a "responsible gun owner" actually is.

I understand your point - but what I consider is even though criminal thugs are the lowest form of life, even their pea size brains seem to be smart enough to not go into areas where they can be shot at. Therefore, they would likely not even consider the school where Obama's kids attend. Out of the mass shootings that have occurred in the last couple decades, how many have occurred in NON Gun Free Zones?

 

[Tulsa Tom]

The ethnicity of the UK and AUS are similar, the U.S. is different. Lets call a spade a spade. We have two groups that hate each other - Black and White. Find a place where the white and black populations are 50/50 and where gun crime is not high? We have not figured out how to live with each other and taking guns out of people's hand will not solve a hate issue.

I agree there are societal issues (but blacks are nowhere close to 50% of the populations...but I get your point). Guns certainly are not the primary issue, and those who think so are missing the mark. The breakdown of the nuclear family is a far more important problem...a bigger problem even than race in my opinion. With all that said, I still think we need reasonable gun control laws like some that have been mentioned above.

 

[TheBeav815]

I understand your point - but what I consider is even though criminal thugs are the lowest form of life, even their pea size brains seem to be smart enough to not go into areas where they can be shot at. Therefore, they would likely not even consider the school where Obama's kids attend. Out of the mass shootings that have occurred in the last couple decades, how many have occurred in NON Gun Free Zones?

That is patently not true. They are the ones spraying bullets at each other's houses and running around with a DE tucked into their pants.

People loooooove to bring up Chicago in all this. So let's take the Englewood neighborhood. Everyone knows it's crime-riddled and full of guns and gangs. So do they all run away from all the guns? Hell no. They go get one of their own and think EXACTLY what every other gun owner thinks: "I'm gonna shoot him first before he shoots me." We generate about 500 - 600 cases a year for the local funeral homes with that mentality.

And as I've said before, if they're bent on killing each other, I flat out DO NOT CARE. Let them. Hell, put them in a pit and sell tickets for all I care. They can stab each other all day long and I won't mind. But they shouldn't have the same privileges as a guy who comes home and has an honorable discharge from the USMC after 3 tours. That makes no sense.

 

[B1G RED RULES]

That is patently not true. They are the ones spraying bullets at each other's houses and running around with a DE tucked into their pants.

People loooooove to bring up Chicago in all this. So let's take the Englewood neighborhood. Everyone knows it's crime-riddled and full of guns and gangs. So do they all run away from all the guns? Hell no. They go get one of their own and think EXACTLY what every other gun owner thinks: "I'm gonna shoot him first before he shoots me." We generate about 500 - 600 cases a year for the local funeral homes with that mentality.

And as I've said before, if they're bent on killing each other, I flat out DO NOT CARE. Let them. Hell, put them in a pit and sell tickets for all I care. They can stab each other all day long and I won't mind. But they shouldn't have the same privileges as a guy who comes home and has an honorable discharge from the USMC after 3 tours. That makes no sense.

Okay, I guess I am talking about the politically publicized mass shootings - Charelston, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. Yes, if you consider mass shootings in war zones described above, then we might as well consider the deaths from the overseas wars we are in. Heaven help us if we have to conform to places like you described simply because they cannot function without violence.
If I remember correctly, doesn't Chicago have some stiff gun restrictions? If so, why all the guns? I believe people who have no morals do not follow laws, therefore added ones do little good.

 

[jeans15]

Why don't say what you mean to say!

I did.....you don't think people would smuggle weapons into the US? The market for it would be very lucrative.

People who are willing to kill everybody do not care about your legislation. ...to think otherwise is naive that you have to be living in fairy tale land to believe that.

Getting it illegally is actually the smart thing to do..less traceable. So if they aren't going through the proper channel, your laws can't even be enacted. And they get the gun they need regardless.

 

[sanuk]

I did.....you don't think people would smuggle weapons into the US? The market for it would be very lucrative.

People who are willing to kill everybody do not care about your legislation. ...to think otherwise is naive that you have to be living in fairy tale land to believe that.

Getting it illegally is actually the smart thing to do..less traceable. So if they aren't going through the proper channel, your laws can't even be enacted. And they get the gun they need regardless.

You are not wrong with your assertions about bad guys and illegal guns. So how
about no laws & regulations then. Fastest gun in the West wins! At least until
John Wayne shows up, eh!

Somehow by pure luck, I have been able to reach the age of 66 without ever having
to touch a gun. And I like to touch.

 

[sanuk]

Very few Anericans were killed in the 1950's by guns, yet guns were everywhere. What changed?

Technology, I used to play tennis with a wooden racquet.

But seriously, population was more homogenous, smaller. There was plenty to eat, gas was a nickel. People were generous, you could hitchhike across the country. And then?

 

[Tulsa Tom]

I did.....you don't think people would smuggle weapons into the US? The market for it would be very lucrative.

People who are willing to kill everybody do not care about your legislation. ...to think otherwise is naive that you have to be living in fairy tale land to believe that.

Getting it illegally is actually the smart thing to do..less traceable. So if they aren't going through the proper channel, your laws can't even be enacted. And they get the gun they need regardless.

Germany? Britain? Australia? Poland? How come we don't see tons of gun smuggling there but we know it would happen here?

 

[B1G RED RULES]

Technology, I used to play tennis with a wooden racquet.

But seriously, population was more homogenous, smaller. There was plenty to eat, gas was a nickel. People were generous, you could hitchhike across the country. And then?

So is it really a gun problem?

 

[TheBeav815]

Okay, I guess I am talking about the politically publicized mass shootings - Charelston, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. Yes, if you consider mass shootings in war zones described above, then we might as well consider the deaths from the overseas wars we are in. Heaven help us if we have to conform to places like you described simply because they cannot function without violence.
If I remember correctly, doesn't Chicago have some stiff gun restrictions? If so, why all the guns? I believe people who have no morals do not follow laws, therefore added ones do little good.

No, Chicago does not. It was attempted, but overturned.

Any policy would need to be national and diligently enforced. Trying to do it in one state or one city will fail, it's too easy now to go across the street outside Chicago and go buy a gun even though they don't really sell guns in the city. They don't sell spraypaint either, and yet we have plenty of graffiti.

Nothing will be a total ban. Yes, there will be smugglers. There will be people who still manage to get one, and there will be ones left over from before the laws.

BUT, over time, the number of gun deaths can be reduced.

Also, what evidence is there that any would-be mass shooter is deterred by people with guns? The only correlation I see between the ones that didn't happen in schools is they were public places with a relatively high number of potential targets. Often the guy kills himself before it's over, so why would he care if it's his bullet or somebody else's?

 

[sanuk]

So is it really a gun problem?

The availability of guns allow much more destruction than otherwise. In terms of
impact, guns is the primary problem. There will always be people who want to
end their lives, but they seldom go on a shooting spree.

I am not against you having a gun, just the type of gun.

 

[jay-cheese]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/27/honore-americas-denial-gun-culture/30764255/

Not trying to restart this debate, but thought this link was pretty spot on. As we know, we've seen more lives lost again on this issue this past week...

I think the retired GEN speaks well to the confusion/misleading that some of our population have shown on this issue. Worth reading (even if you agree or not) to get perspective

 

[huskerj12]

Interesting article jay-cheese. Our country has an addiction to guns

 

[Vandal75]

This country is a mess currently. We have drifted away from Christianity, the kids of today want instant gratification without putting in the work. So many of the problems come from lack of parenting in fatherless homes coupled with poor education. The entire country has a negative attitude as indicated by some recent surveys. These individuals committing these mass murders are a product of our society. They seek notoriety and mass killings definitely gets them the notoriety they seek.

I value the Constitution and don’t want to see a handful of judges writing laws and taking away my right to protect my family. The NRA is only protecting our Constitutional Rights not advocating anything else in the stance they take.

So is there a solution…I’m not sure but to ask us to give up our firearms hoping the problem will go away is not the answer. Look at the crime rate in Australia since they outlawed guns, it has gone up dramatically. Currently the State of Nebraska and the Federal Government have cut back funding for people with mental disabilities. This would be a good place to start. Change the laws regarding parents being able to get help for their children after the age of 21. Many times parents know they have a child with severe mental dysfunctions and there is nowhere for them to get help. Make sure no child is allowed to drop out of school, they need an education…no future. It’s time to look at the real unemployment numbers and make a concerted effort to get everyone working. Revoke NAFDA and CAFDA and bring our manufacturing jobs home. Do not sign the Pacific Trade Agreement as more jobs will be lost. If you don’t have a job you have no opportunity to get ahead and lose faith. Our government has failed our children miserably and we are reaping the sorrows we read in the papers every day. In a nutshell I guess more gun laws are putting the cart before the horse and still won’t solve the problems our country is facing. It’s time to instill a little pride and spend some money on the things that will reap this country some benefits. Our children are our future and we need to do a better job than we have.

 

[TheBeav815]

Citation for that claim about Australian crime rates? Because I already showed repeatedly how their gun deaths are waaaaaaay down. There is not conclusive evidence that guns reduce crime. If they did, there should be NO crime here, and yet...

That's America's problem in a nutshell. "I don't care who else dies, they're not my responsibility. I want my guns so I can shoot a guy when he tries to commit a crime in front of me."

 

[mwulf]

 

[tpmcg]

Have you folks noticed the eyeballs and facial expressions on these massacre shooters?

Lastly, send any unwanted ammo & weapons to me, I'll keep them for you.

i have. its scary. if a few come your way, share one of those with me!

 

[puddinhead0404]

This country is a mess currently. We have drifted away from Christianity, the kids of today want instant gratification without putting in the work. So many of the problems come from lack of parenting in fatherless homes coupled with poor education. The entire country has a negative attitude as indicated by some recent surveys. These individuals committing these mass murders are a product of our society. They seek notoriety and mass killings definitely gets them the notoriety they seek.

I value the Constitution and don’t want to see a handful of judges writing laws and taking away my right to protect my family. The NRA is only protecting our Constitutional Rights not advocating anything else in the stance they take.

So is there a solution…I’m not sure but to ask us to give up our firearms hoping the problem will go away is not the answer. Look at the crime rate in Australia since they outlawed guns, it has gone up dramatically. Currently the State of Nebraska and the Federal Government have cut back funding for people with mental disabilities. This would be a good place to start. Change the laws regarding parents being able to get help for their children after the age of 21. Many times parents know they have a child with severe mental dysfunctions and there is nowhere for them to get help. Make sure no child is allowed to drop out of school, they need an education…no future. It’s time to look at the real unemployment numbers and make a concerted effort to get everyone working. Revoke NAFDA and CAFDA and bring our manufacturing jobs home. Do not sign the Pacific Trade Agreement as more jobs will be lost. If you don’t have a job you have no opportunity to get ahead and lose faith. Our government has failed our children miserably and we are reaping the sorrows we read in the papers every day. In a nutshell I guess more gun laws are putting the cart before the horse and still won’t solve the problems our country is facing. It’s time to instill a little pride and spend some money on the things that will reap this country some benefits. Our children are our future and we need to do a better job than we have.

First off I agree with a decent amount of what you say. It is part of a cultural problem, and thus the solution is extremely muddy. The system has in fact failed our children miserably. There are so many factors and scenarios each time that it's foolish to think that much changes simply by passing a piece of legislation.

Things I don't agree with...it's laughable to think that the NRA is only protecting Constitutional Rights...they are fear mongering the bejeezus out of people and laughing all the way to the bank. They've driven a false attitude that any gun control legislation means taking away everyones guns. Of course those laws aren't going to have a huge effect...but I believe that well thought out laws such as increasing background checks can take a few percentage points off of the gun violence. That may be a slim margin, but to people within that margin it is a loved ones life. Surely a little more time put in for all the legitimate gun owners is worth those lives.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

Look at the crime rate in Australia since they outlawed guns, it has gone up dramatically.

Citation for that claim about Australian crime rates? Because I already showed repeatedly how their gun deaths are waaaaaaay down. There is not conclusive evidence that guns reduce crime. If they did, there should be NO crime here, and yet...

That's America's problem in a nutshell. "I don't care who else dies, they're not my responsibility. I want my guns so I can shoot a guy when he tries to commit a crime in front of me."

I don't know where Vandal75 got his numbers on Australian crime rates, but I can guess. Several years ago the NRA put out drastically misleading numbers on the Australian crime rates for violent crimes for the period following the enactment of the gun control laws. For example, the NRA proclaimed that murders in Victoria had increased "over 300%" after the gun laws went into effect. It is true that in the year following the enactment of the national gun control laws, 1997, their were 19 murders in Victoria, and in 1996 there had been 7 (an increase of 175% or so, not "over 300%). But that is known as a statistical anomaly. Also, the implication of the NRA "facts" was that the 300% was ongoing. That was not true. In 1998 the murder numbers in Victoria dropped and have continued low since then, lower than before 1997.

What is also true is that violent crimes, with one exception, went down dramatically, not up dramatically, beginning in 1997 and remain way down. Also, suicide by gun went down dramatically, and suicide overall decreased slightly. The only crime number that is arguably up is violent crime against the elderly. There is some disagreement as to whether it is actually "up", because while the raw numbers show an increase, some argue that, like most western nations, the population of the elderly in Australia has skyrocketed in the last couple of decades. So while the raw numbers are up, the real measure, X number of crimes per 100,000 population, has actually gone down very slightly. However, the bottom line is that with the possible exception of violent crime against the elderly, violent crime in Australia had decreased dramatically since the gun control laws went into effect

The NRA lies were parroted by many conservative websites and individuals, which lead to the Australian government to make the almost unprecedented move of officially requesting a private organization in another country "cease and desist". The government contacted the NRA and said, in essence, "you are giving out significantly erroneous information about crime rates in Australia and we are asking you to stop immediately. Here are the real numbers." In what I think of as a uniquely Australian move, the government followed up with "if you think we have the numbers wrong, we'll pay your way over here and we can chat about why you think we're wrong."

To the best of my knowledge, the NRA never responded to the Australian government's request. They definitely did not stop trumpeting their misleading stats.

 

[TheBeav815]

I don't know where Vandal75 got his numbers on Australian crime rates, but I can guess. Several years ago the NRA put out drastically misleading numbers on the Australian crime rates for violent crimes for the period following the enactment of the gun control laws. For example, the NRA proclaimed that murders in Victoria had increased "over 300%" after the gun laws went into effect. It is true that in the year following the enactment of the national gun control laws, 1997, their were 19 murders in Victoria, and in 1996 there had been 7 (an increase of 175% or so, not "over 300%). But that is known as a statistical anomaly. Also, the implication of the NRA "facts" was that the 300% was ongoing. That was not true. In 1998 the murder numbers in Victoria dropped and have continued low since then, lower than before 1997.

What is also true is that violent crimes, with one exception, went down dramatically, not up dramatically, beginning in 1997 and remain way down. Also, suicide by gun went down dramatically, and suicide overall decreased slightly. The only crime number that is arguably up is violent crime against the elderly. There is some disagreement as to whether it is actually "up", because while the raw numbers show an increase, some argue that, like most western nations, the population of the elderly in Australia has skyrocketed in the last couple of decades. So while the raw numbers are up, the real measure, X number of crimes per 100,000 population, has actually gone down very slightly. However, the bottom line is that with the possible exception of violent crime against the elderly, violent crime in Australia had decreased dramatically since the gun control laws went into effect

The NRA lies were parroted by many conservative websites and individuals, which lead to the Australian government to make the almost unprecedented move of officially requesting a private organization in another country "cease and desist". The government contacted the NRA and said, in essence, "you are giving out significantly erroneous information about crime rates in Australia and we are asking you to stop immediately. Here are the real numbers." In what I think of as a uniquely Australian move, the government followed up with "if you think we have the numbers wrong, we'll pay your way over here and we can chat about why you think we're wrong."

To the best of my knowledge, the NRA never responded to the Australian government's request. They definitely did not stop trumpeting their misleading stats.

That's the part that's sad to me. It's oddly impressive, in a way, but mostly it's sad. The NRA is stealing people's money by convincing them that the world is loaded with horrors and they're coming SOON to your house. They do a hell of a job of manipulating the statistics in a very deceptive way so that they can scare the crap out of people. Which lets them say, "I know you're scared! You should be! And nobody is going to protect you! Except for Jack and Todd down at booth 156, go and see them and hear about the wonderful ways that Desert Eagle can let you sleep at night again, surrounded by Desert Eagles."

Now, most of us on the board are grown adults (at least in terms of chronological age). So we're generally sitting on a sample size of at least about 30 years. In some cases much more than that. So...how many of us in that time have been in a scenario just out here in civilian life where we look back at it now and think, "What I really needed there was to be able to kill that guy, but I couldn't, because I didn't have a gun."

I'm betting it's zero.