Primary Response

[artme]

Not one female amongst that lot Corbs.

[Grumpy John]

100 Shooting deaths since Sandy Hook

Unbelievable, the killing just goes on and on.


Who's going to win the argument?


Them




Or him

[Grumpy John]

A selection from the Huntington Post Article.


Drug deal gone wrong, thrill kill, gang initiation, doesn't matter another innocent child dead.
"WASHINGTON -- The night after Sandy Hook, a gunman pulled behind a car in Kansas City's east side and opened fire, striking 4-year-old Aydan Perea in the head. The boy had just gotten into his father's car."


Responsible gun ownership at work.
"On Saturday afternoon, a 3-year-old in Guthrie, Okla., died after accidentally shooting himself in the head with a gun he found inside his aunt and uncle's house. His uncle is an Oklahoma state trooper."


More guns - that's the answer.
"A 20-year-old man shot and killed Veronica Soto, a young mother of two, in an apparent road rage incident on Thursday. Soto and her husband had gone out to a nearby Jack in the Box in the Houston area when they became involved in a confrontation with drivers in two other cars. The accused killer Mark Trevino, and the victim's husband pulled guns."


Collateral damage.
"Ramona Foreman was found shot in the doorway of the Oakland, Calif., 92nd Avenue Head Start office. The 48-year-old and her sister were walking home from a store when shots rang out. Foreman had been the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting. The victim's stepdaughter told a reporter that her grandmother was the 13th person she knows killed this year."

[devnull]

The topic of gun control always ends up being an emotive one, for some reason...

People talk glibly about US gun laws, but nobody seems to consider that this is a myth - there is no one set of gun laws. They vary from state to state, with the most restrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes.
Why? Because only the criminals are armed. The innocent, law-abiding people are forbidden the means to defend themselves or their family.

What's been missing in many of the media reports has been the mental health issues of those that commit these crimes in schools.
In Connecticut, a mental health bill was squashed by the liberals at the beginning of the year, as they felt it would infringe personal freedoms.
Recently Defeated Connecticut Mental Health Bill May Have Stopped Friday's Shooter

In this shooting, the offender was not a licenced firearms owner, his mother was. The rifle he used, a sporting semi-automatic not an assault rifle), was banned in the state of Ct anyway.
He killed his mother & stole the firearms. Then went to a gun-free zone & committed multiple murders.

So with all these crimes, does anyone think that making guns illegal would have stopped such a person? One more law would make no difference whatsoever.

While the NRA may not be wording their stance nicely, they are pretty much correct in their stance.
Statistics show that the vast majority of these shooters will turn their weapon on themselves if they encounter resistance. Just recently, there was a shooting at a shopping mall there - a retired security guard drew his weapon and took aim at the shooter. The shooter saw him, and turned his weapon on himself. The retired guard didn't get a shot off, as there were people behind his target.

Gun control is a kneejerk reaction. Understandable, but ill considered.
Mental health is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed.

Millions carry concealed weapons every day. This does not make them become homicidal maniacs, any more than putting a seatbelt on makes a driver try to ram every other vehicle on the roads.
Criminals are criminals because they disregard laws. Adding another law will make no difference to them. They'll still ignore it.
A ban would make their occupation a lot safer though. They would be much less likely to be injured or killed.

[Grumpy John]

The topic of gun control always ends up being an emotive one, for some reason...
What, we're not allowed to get emotional when 20 children are murdered?

People talk glibly about US gun laws, but nobody seems to consider that this is a myth - there is no one set of gun laws. They vary from state to state, with the most restrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes.
Why? Because only the criminals are armed. The innocent, law-abiding people are forbidden the means to defend themselves or their family.
I thought that the second amendment guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves

What's been missing in many of the media reports has been the mental health issues of those that commit these crimes in schools.
In Connecticut, a mental health bill was squashed by the liberals at the beginning of the year, as they felt it would infringe personal freedoms.
Recently Defeated Connecticut Mental Health Bill May Have Stopped Friday's Shooter
That's right they're all nuts. As the line above states, MAY have stopped Friday's shooter.

In this shooting, the offender was not a licenced firearms owner, his mother was. The rifle he used, a sporting semi-automatic not an assault rifle), was banned in the state of Ct anyway.
He killed his mother & stole the firearms. Then went to a gun-free zone & committed multiple murders.


So with all these crimes, does anyone think that making guns illegal would have stopped such a person? One more law would make no difference whatsoever.
True, but having them legal isn't working out very well is it?

While the NRA may not be wording their stance nicely, they are pretty much correct in their stance.
Statistics show that the vast majority of these shooters will turn their weapon on themselves if they encounter resistance. Just recently, there was a shooting at a shopping mall there - a retired security guard drew his weapon and took aim at the shooter. The shooter saw him, and turned his weapon on himself. The retired guard didn't get a shot off, as there were people behind his target.
If he was a retired security guard why was he carrying a gun? See point two.

Gun control is a kneejerk reaction. Understandable, but ill considered.
Mental health is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed.
Where's the mental health issue when a 3 year old child kills itself with a gun left lying around the house?

Millions carry concealed weapons every day. This does not make them become homicidal maniacs, any more than putting a seatbelt on makes a driver try to ram every other vehicle on the roads.
Criminals are criminals because they disregard laws. Adding another law will make no difference to them. They'll still ignore it.
A ban would make their occupation a lot safer though. They would be much less likely to be injured or killed.
So what are you suggesting, give everyone guns? You're not Wayne LaPierre are you?

.

[jimbur]

John's put it far more calmly than I would.
So, according to the NRA, the parents of the children will be spending Christmas and the rest of their lives coming to terms with a statistical aberration.

[devnull]

What, we're not allowed to get emotional when 20 children are murdered?

Of course you can. I'm just suggesting that you also apply a bit of common sense. After all, where was the emotional outbursts over the Chinese man that entered a kindergarten and attacked children with a knife? There seems to be emphasis on the method, not the crime.


I thought that the second amendment guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves

Yes, and no. While their constitution says they have the right to bear arms, individual states impose their own restrictions. Most notable are Illinois & California.


That's right they're all nuts. As the line above states, MAY have stopped Friday's shooter.

That's a dangerous generalisation, that could be applied to any racial group.


True, but having them legal isn't working out very well is it?

If you do some digging, you'll find many instances of people protecting themselves or others from criminals with the use of lethal force. Unfortunately, these stories are often poorly reported by the media, presumably because they don't stir up the same level of hysteria in the public.


If he was a retired security guard why was he carrying a gun? See point two.

Being retired doesn't mean you can't hold a concealed carry permit.


Where's the mental health issue when a 3 year old child kills itself with a gun left lying around the house?

You can pass as many laws as you like, but you can't legislate common sense.


So what are you suggesting, give everyone guns? You're not Wayne LaPierre are you?

Just suggesting more common sense and less hysteria. A firearm is just a tool, like any other. It isn't inherently good or bad. That definition is dictated by the user of that tool.
When the majority of these shooters kill themselves when faced with resistance, giving them more unarmed victims makes no sense whatsoever.
Some areas have instituted programs in conjunction with local law enforcement, in which teachers are being trained in firearms use and issued concealed carry permits.
My opinion is better to be prepared and never have to use it, rather than to be unprepared & wish you were.

Do you run saws & planes without guards on them? Or wear a seatbelt? All things you will most likely never need, but if something does go wrong, these things act in your favour to reduce the likelihood of more serious injury....

.

[FenceFurniture]

devnull, are you suggesting maintain the status quo (with the amount of guns and laws), or an increase in guns (I'm pretty sure that you not advocating a gun reduction)?

The tool guards and seat belt analogy doesn't work because they are not weapons that can be used on somebody.

[Grumpy John]

I think you're missing the point Devnull, guns are designed to kill, if used correctly they will kill, or at least maim. Cars, planes tablesaws even knives are not designed to kill. Death or injury from these and other risky machinery is usually the result of an accident, it is rarely intentional.
Police are instructed not to pull their weapons unless they intend to use them and then they are expected to shoot to kill. I'm assuming that the security guard was an honest citizen carrying a legal weapon, this still didn't stop a killing. More guns IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!!

An insight to the gun mentality:
Several years ago I was driving through Houston TX. and pulled up behind a Ford F150 with a rifle rack in the rear window with several rifles in it. There was a sticker on the bumper which read "KEEP HONKING, I'M RELOADING". Maybe a joke, but it scared the carp out of me.

[Grumpy John]

Of course you can. I'm just suggesting that you also apply a bit of common sense. After all, where was the emotional outbursts over the Chinese man that entered a kindergarten and attacked children with a knife? There seems to be emphasis on the method, not the crime.
Were any of the children in the kindergarten killed, not that they won't suffer long term emotional issues. I don't know I'm just asking.

Yes, and no. While their constitution says they have the right to bear arms, individual states impose their own restrictions. Most notable are Illinois & California.
Are you saying that citizens of Illinois and California are not allowed to bear arms?

That's a dangerous generalisation, that could be applied to any racial group.
I think it's you and the NRA that are generalising about the mental state of these murderers.

If you do some digging, you'll find many instances of people protecting themselves or others from criminals with the use of lethal force. Unfortunately, these stories are often poorly reported by the media, presumably because they don't stir up the same level of hysteria in the public.
True, the press do love a good negative story. That has been discussed elsewhere.

Being retired doesn't mean you can't hold a concealed carry permit.
Point is he was armed and still unable to stop a tragedy.

You can pass as many laws as you like, but you can't legislate common sense.
Are you saying that it's alright for irresponsible people to own lethal weapons?

Just suggesting more common sense and less hysteria. A firearm is just a tool, like any other. It isn't inherently good or bad. That definition is dictated by the user of that tool.
When the majority of these shooters kill themselves when faced with resistance, giving them more unarmed victims makes no sense whatsoever.
Some areas have instituted programs in conjunction with local law enforcement, in which teachers are being trained in firearms use and issued concealed carry permits.
My opinion is better to be prepared and never have to use it, rather than to be unprepared & wish you were.

Do you run saws & planes without guards on them? Or wear a seatbelt? All things you will most likely never need, but if something does go wrong, these things act in your favour to reduce the likelihood of more serious injury....
A firearm is not just a tool. It's a tool designed to inflict serious bodily harm, and does so very efficiently as we continue to witness.

[robbygard]

The topic of gun control always ends up being an emotive one, for some reason...
What, we're not allowed to get emotional when 20 children are murdered?

i don't and i suspect many australians don't understand the yank love affair with guns .. it seems to us (from an earlier quote) that once they love their kids more than their guns something may be done

People talk glibly about US gun laws, but nobody seems to consider that this is a myth - there is no one set of gun laws. They vary from state to state, with the most restrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes.
Why? Because only the criminals are armed. The innocent, law-abiding people are forbidden the means to defend themselves or their family.
I thought that the second amendment guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves

states can have different laws but state legislatures in teh us have NO authority to interpret or nullify us supreme courts' determinations on federal constitutional powers

i would be interested in facts to back up the assertion that the most resrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes

i have spent some time working through some confusing data which suggests a different view (not opposite view necessarily) where, based on gun homicide rates there is a correlation between more restrictive gun laws and LESS gun crime (based on admittedly a somewhat restricted view of gun crime) with some exceptions including one of the mroe restirctive at about 45 out of 50 and one of the least restritive at only 37 out of 50 ... mind you four of the most restrictive seem to be in the top 15 and 8 of the least restrictive in the last 15

(i found the data difficult to follow and subject to some subjective determinations as well but feel it is a fairly rigourous analysis)


What's been missing in many of the media reports has been the mental health issues of those that commit these crimes in schools.
In Connecticut, a mental health bill was squashed by the liberals at the beginning of the year, as they felt it would infringe personal freedoms.
Recently Defeated Connecticut Mental Health Bill May Have Stopped Friday's Shooter
That's right they're all nuts. As the line above states, MAY have stopped Friday's shooter.

i have to say here that this is a commonly used argument following this sort of tragic event ... a decoy argument (with perhaps some basis of fact but sometimes with no truth) which is used to distract debate from a particular solution (examples after this event are drunk driver fatalities, knife fatalities, abortion and one strange but totally untruthful claim about baseball bats) ... in this case the bill would have been highly unlikely to change the situation as the bill only would have allowed institutionalisation an individual where the state had evidence to believe him/her to be a risk .. in this case the offender had a personality disorder but no record

the bill also had some quite extensive changes to expand who could force medicate individuals without a court order which probably should have been struck out (a case of a law with some good parts and some unconscionable parts being voted down)

In this shooting, the offender was not a licenced firearms owner, his mother was. The rifle he used, a sporting semi-automatic not an assault rifle), was banned in the state of Ct anyway.
He killed his mother & stole the firearms. Then went to a gun-free zone & committed multiple murders.


So with all these crimes, does anyone think that making guns illegal would have stopped such a person? One more law would make no difference whatsoever.
True, but having them legal isn't working out very well is it?

and also owning the gun didn't do his mother much good either

While the NRA may not be wording their stance nicely, they are pretty much correct in their stance.
Statistics show that the vast majority of these shooters will turn their weapon on themselves if they encounter resistance. Just recently, there was a shooting at a shopping mall there - a retired security guard drew his weapon and took aim at the shooter. The shooter saw him, and turned his weapon on himself. The retired guard didn't get a shot off, as there were people behind his target.
If he was a retired security guard why was he carrying a gun? See point two.



Gun control is a kneejerk reaction. Understandable, but ill considered.
Mental health is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed.
Where's the mental health issue when a 3 year old child kills itself with a gun left lying around the house?

i don't see it as a kneejerk reaction ... it is one part of a solution to a multifaceted problem ... it is probably disingenuous to suggest that the problem is purely mental health care and indeed the ready availability of guns HAS to be a major part of teh problem ... remember that whilst it is a federal law in the us to restrict sales to mentally ill only 40% of sales actually come under conditions that require vetting of teh purchaser (only six states have laws closing this loophole) and 27 states do not require reporting of mental illness to the nics (national instant background check system)

Millions carry concealed weapons every day. This does not make them become homicidal maniacs, any more than putting a seatbelt on makes a driver try to ram every other vehicle on the roads.
Criminals are criminals because they disregard laws. Adding another law will make no difference to them. They'll still ignore it.
A ban would make their occupation a lot safer though. They would be much less likely to be injured or killed.
So what are you suggesting, give everyone guns? You're not Wayne LaPierreare you?



QUALIFICATIONS:

i have done my best when trawling through statistics to evaluate them without prejudice, however, i don't believe people should own firearms without a valid reason to do so ... i also believe weapons of war should be restricted to civilians
whilst i am sure that i have not been dishonest in my presentation of information, i have not spent too much time on it (nor do i intend to ... i have some shed time coming up) and there may be other information that i did not come across


regards david

edit by restricted to i don't actually mean that they should have them (hope that is obvious enough)

[Master Splinter]

No, the US is cracking down on weapons in school!

Errr, drawn weapons, that is....

Not the drawn as in pulled out of your pocket or holster, but drawn as in pencil on paper drawing in a high school student's notebook.

"A teacher noticed drawings of what appeared to be weapons in his notebook. School officials made the decision to contact authorities."
Superintendent: Drawings Of Weapons Led To New Jersey Student

They also searched his house and found "several types of chemicals that when mixed together, could cause an explosion"

I don't think it would take long to find "several chemicals" that "could cause an explosion" in the average household.

Yep, they're all nuts!!

[devnull]

John - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
While I don't think a free-for-all approach is the answer, neither are total bans (unless you can somehow convince all criminals to disarm, and I doubt that'll ever happen). Both extremes present their own problems I think

David - the handgun ban in Chicago is probably a good example.
Read this article some time ago, comparing NZ to the US. Having spent some years in an emergency service, I had illusions about the violent crime in NZ, but the FBI stats the reporter quoted was surprising, to say the least

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV: The Gun Debate

[Grumpy John]

Adam, you seem to be a responsible and intelligent gun owner, and, as such I'd like to ask you some questions re gun ownership in Australia. We can't seem to get any of the boys in the U.S. to enter this debate.

1. I'm assuming that a police check is mandatory, how thorough is this check?
2. What method of storage are you required for your guns/rifles, do the guns have to be broken down for storage, do you have to keep the ammunition separate? Are there inspections to ensure that the guns are being kept in accordance to regulations, if so, how often?
3. Are there any controls of how the guns are to be transported to workplace, shooting range or wherever?
4. Lastly, and please don't take this the wrong way, assuming all controls are in place, could someone get one of your guns kill you with it and go on a rampage?

I understand that you live in NSW and can only comment on regulations in your state.

[Grumpy John]

John - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
While I don't think a free-for-all approach is the answer, neither are total bans (unless you can somehow convince all criminals to disarm, and I doubt that'll ever happen). Both extremes present their own problems I think

David - the handgun ban in Chicago is probably a good example.
Read this article some time ago, comparing NZ to the US. Having spent some years in an emergency service, I had illusions about the violent crime in NZ, but the FBI stats the reporter quoted was surprising, to say the least

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV: The Gun Debate

No problems mate, healthy debate is always good .