Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Phatscotty]

PS doesn't your post about the fact the guy broke several laws just to get the guns in the first place kinda go against your stance that gun owners are safer due to owning guns. His mother certainly wasnt protected by owning the guns she did...

I think that was Strikes post. However, you make a mistake in your comprehension. "The guy" was flagged when he tried to buy a gun, and was unable to buy a gun, because he is the definition of a person who we should keep guns away from. You mistake comes with assuming "this guy" is the prime example of how gun owners make people safer. Obviously, "this guy" does not qualify as one of those you would equate with "a responsible gun owner"

another mistake: Guns aren't a 100% answer. Just because you have a gun does not automatically make you safe. However, when a mass murderer comes into a work place and starts letting loose, if you have a gun, your chances of surviving the ordeal are MUCH higher than 0%. and 0% chance of survival is exactly what we have in this situation, and strict gun laws and the banning of guns in school is going to keep it at 0%.

With a gun, you have far better odds at survival and protecting other innocent people. Without a gun, you just close your eyes and put your hands over your head and hide. Which one would you choose?

[crispybits]

Point. Missed.

His mother wasn't a responsible gun owner made safer by her gun ownership?

If his mother wasn't allowed to own a gun, and gun shops and gun shows weren't allowed to sell guns, is there any evidence this guy would have had any way to get his hands on a gun? Did he have a criminal lifestyle and connections? Would he have had access to black market gun sellers anywhere even nearly as easily as he had access to his own mother's house?

[Phatscotty]

Point. Missed.

His mother wasn't a responsible gun owner made safer by her gun ownership?

If his mother wasn't allowed to own a gun, and gun shops and gun shows weren't allowed to sell guns, is there any evidence this guy would have had any way to get his hands on a gun? Did he have a criminal lifestyle and connections? Would he have had access to black market gun sellers anywhere even nearly as easily as he had access to his own mother's house?

Ahhh. I don't know the details (do you?), but sure it's pretty clear that the guns were obviously not "out of reach". On the surface, I have to agree, but there is another dimension here, since it's the woman's 20 year old son who got her guns.

However, your argument that if she wasn't allowed to own a gun.....is about as effective as...."if the murderer were aborted, the murderer would have never got his hands on a gun"

I don't think we know nearly enough about the shooter yet. If you do feel free to share whatever you find.

[Woodruff]

The shooter attempted to buy a gun earlier this week and was denied according to the Today Show. Sounds like gun laws worked as intended. So why do we need MORE gun laws?

Were you going to respond to my arguments regarding mental health care, or do you just see that as another liberal boondoggle?

[Woodruff]

It has nothing at all to do with hypocricy.
What are the potential negative consequences of voting?

The potential negative consequences of voting in the US are that the nation elects a President who destroys the economy, our liberties, and damages our foreign interests.

Then let me ask you this...isn't that also a potential negative consequence of NOT VOTING in the US? In other words, that is a potential consequence regardless of what you do.

On the individual level voting is essentially irrelevant. Rarely does a single vote sway an election and this only happens on the local level. On the state and federal levels, if a candidate truly did have a majority of only one vote, this single vote would be within the margin of error, but I digress...

Assuming that voting does bear some kind of social responsibility (I don't vote because of this, but rather because the government keeps track of voting attendance records which are made public knowledge and also because the government gives preferential treatment to voters...) the consequences of not voting would be similar to not carrying a gun. That's to say that in choosing to do or not do something, you've made a choice which will impact your surroundings, (by direct impact or lack thereof):

What you've essentially admitted, whether you realize it or not, is that there are no greater potentially negative consequences to not voting or not carrying a weapon. I agree with you on that.

I think it's sad that you believe the only reason people aren't interested in carrying weaponry around society is because they're cowardly and trying to impose weakness on themselves. Your perspective is showing to be worse rather than better. Is that intentional?

Primarily it's because they want to impose weakness on their neighbors because they see themselves as benefiting from a dis-empowered populace.

Your perspective just looks worse and worse. It's almost as if you're intentionally mischaracterizing those in opposition to you. But you wouldn't do that, would you? Surely not...

If not because they don't want fellow citizens to have the ability to project force, a means of empowerment, why do you think people oppose gun ownership?

That isn't what you said. Stop trying to move the goalposts. You're directly referring to people who aren't interested in carrying weaponry around society, not opposing gun ownership in general. There are a myriad of reasons why someone may not be interested in carrying weaponry around society, and very few of them have anything to do with being cowardly or trying to impose weakness on themselves. Such a suggestion on your part borders on the absurd. No, on further thought, it doesn't really border it.

What are the potential negative consequences of carrying weaponry around our society?

A couple people might get hurt if all of the adults present choose not to exercise their right of self defense.

You didn't answer the question at all. Would you like to try again, this time perhaps honestly instead of trying to just push your agenda?

I thought I did a good job of answering the question. What kind of answer would you have liked?

I would have liked an actual answer to the question rather than an answer to something you're trying to pretend I asked because you think you can twist it to your agenda. Do you think you could manage that, or should I just file you away as a Phatscotty-wannabe?

[Woodruff]

don't worry about these gun control people. Give them a couple days so they can start thinking about it with a clear mind. They are just panicking, and going through the motions of their preprogramming to knee jerk reaction demand larger government and more central authority while at the same time demanding our freedom be taken away.

So regarding mental health care...

[crispybits]

Come on PS, common sense?

A reclusive, painfully shy kid (well, 20 year old) with Aspergers and Autism, no friends that anyone knew of, and who spent most of his time at home with his mother.

Would he have had any access to guns if there were no gun shops and his mother did not own any? Would he have had black market connections?

(I also agree with Woodruff on the healthcare angle, but he's doing fine arguing that by himself.)

[Phatscotty]

Come on PS, common sense?

A reclusive, painfully shy kid with Aspergers and Autism, no friends that anyone knew of, and who spent most of his time at home with his mother.

Would he have had any access to guns if there were no gun shops and his mother did not own any? Would he have had black market connections?

(I also agree with Woodruff on the healthcare angle, but he's doing fine arguing that by himself.)

I understand what you are saying. I'm asking you to understand that is highly unrealistic, and doesn't make sense to punish 99.99% of the population based on what .01% does.

[Woodruff]

Come on PS, common sense?

A reclusive, painfully shy kid with Aspergers and Autism, no friends that anyone knew of, and who spent most of his time at home with his mother.

Would he have had any access to guns if there were no gun shops and his mother did not own any? Would he have had black market connections?

(I also agree with Woodruff on the healthcare angle, but he's doing fine arguing that by himself.)

I understand what you are saying. I'm asking you to understand that is highly unrealistic, and doesn't make sense to punish 99.99% of the population based on what .01% does.

You mean like drug-testing welfare recipients? Huh...your hypocricy is showing again.

[Woodruff]

(I also agree with Woodruff on the healthcare angle, but he's doing fine arguing that by himself.)

I might be, if anyone would actually discuss that particular part of the issue. But, as is the case in society at large, nobody seems to want to talk about it.

[Phatscotty]

Come on PS, common sense?

A reclusive, painfully shy kid with Aspergers and Autism, no friends that anyone knew of, and who spent most of his time at home with his mother.

Would he have had any access to guns if there were no gun shops and his mother did not own any? Would he have had black market connections?

(I also agree with Woodruff on the healthcare angle, but he's doing fine arguing that by himself.)

I understand what you are saying. I'm asking you to understand that is highly unrealistic, and doesn't make sense to punish 99.99% of the population based on what .01% does.

You mean like drug-testing welfare recipients? Huh...your hypocricy is showing again.

yeah, because .01% totally reflects the number of people who spend emergency government assistance money on drugs... not even close

At least be a good troll

[crispybits]

Punish people? It's a punishment not to be allowed to own a gun?

Is it also a punishment not to be allowed to own morphine? Should we allow everyone to own morphine (on the proviso that the majority of the time it's to be kept in a locked box under the bed and only used if you are in extreme pain because you fell and broke your leg or something) because a small minority are junkies?

[Phatscotty]

Punish people? It's a punishment not to be allowed to own a gun?

Is it also a punishment not to be allowed to own morphine? Should we allow everyone to own morphine (on the proviso that the majority of the time it's to be kept in a locked box under the bed and only used if you are in extreme pain because you fell and broke your leg or something) because a small minority are junkies?

We have a right to bear arms. Taking away that right....I think using the word "punishment" is accurate, and putting it gently at that.

I think you are running into that hurdle Symmetry always trips on. We don't have a right to morphine, we do have a right to bear arms. Not comparable. But now we are talking about the definition of a word, and off topic

[Phatscotty]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That doesn't say anything about the security of an individual, and I've never heard a police force being referred to as a militia....

Well, I'm not too sorry that a Brit does not understand my rights as an American.

and about an earlier conversation, when we were talking about responsible gun ownership, this is a good example of a responsible gun owner, who did have a chance to take out the guy from Oregon who shut up that mall last week, and just the fact that this guy was there pointing a gun at the shooter did indeed save more lives. This is exactly what I am talking about.

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-a ... 93571.html

[crispybits]

Saying I'm a Brit doesn't defeat my argument.

Also, that news story you posted - someone with a legal gun and ready to fire it if needed had absolutely no impact on the scale of a shooting, and if he had been more of a risk taker and shot and missed his target may have killed someone who wasn't a target of the shooter. Yep that's a strong case for more people carrying guns right there!

[Phatscotty]

Saying I'm a Brit doesn't defeat my argument.

Also, that news story you posted - someone with a legal gun and ready to fire it if needed had absolutely no impact on the scale of a shooting, and if he had been more of a risk taker and shot and missed his target may have killed someone who wasn't a target of the shooter. Yep that's a strong case for more people carrying guns right there!

But it does show a disconnect. Anyone who would argue the second amendment is not for individual protection, such as you are, has some kind of serious gap in comprehension. I'm not gonna bash you over it, because I don't expect you to be familiar with out history or our rights. If an American said what you said, I would be all over that like white on rice.

Actually, you are wrong. The conceal carry gun owner says (the part I bolded) that once the murderer saw him, the murderer turned his gun on himself. The murderer realized he would get caught, because there was someone there with the power to stop him (the permitted gun owner)

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

Your strong case is flawed on so many levels, but I'm not gonna trip out about it.

[crispybits]

OK I just googled and I was disconnected, it seems that in 2 cases in 2008 and 2010 the supreme court has ruled that individual self-defence is part of the second amendment right.

He said he thinks the next shot was the shot that the guy killed himself with. That's not definitive. And it can't be shown that the decision by the shooter to kill himself wasn't based on some other rationale, such as he was down to his last bullet and he didn't want to be arrested and spend years on death row before getting the needle (don't know if that's a state that does that, if not then just "years in prison"), or that the horror of what he was doing got through to his insane mind and he realised what he had done.

He does say that if he had taken a shot, there were other people who could easily have been caught be a stray bullet. That's a fact and I fail to see how it could be open for interpretation. In a high stress, high adrenaline situation would you trust minimally trained people all to make the good decision he did and not fire (potentially adding to the innocent body count if they missed)?

[Phatscotty]

OK I just googled and I was disconnected, it seems that in 2 cases in 2008 and 2010 the supreme court has ruled that individual self-defence is part of the second amendment right.

He said he thinks the next shot was the shot that the guy killed himself with. That's not definitive. And it can't be shown that the decision by the shooter to kill himself wasn't based on some other rationale, such as he was down to his last bullet and he didn't want to be arrested and spend years on death row before getting the needle (don't know if that's a state that does that, if not then just "years in prison"), or that the horror of what he was doing got through to his insane mind and he realised what he had done.

He does say that if he had taken a shot, there were other people who could easily have been caught be a stray bullet. That's a fact and I fail to see how it could be open for interpretation. In a high stress, high adrenaline situation would you trust minimally trained people all to make the good decision he did and not fire (potentially adding to the innocent body count if they missed)?

I wish everyone posted like you do. Nice style

It's not definitive. It can't be proven. But that's like me saying you can't prove he is lying, or that the murderer didn't kill himself once he realized he was about to be shot at/caught.

However, it makes sense. He only shot 2 people, so I doubt he was on his last bullet. I also doubt that he had any ends in mind besides suicide. Why would you suspect this to be the case? There is nothing the suggests that. Mass shooters normally take their own lives when they are done. What reason is there to believe that in the middle of his shooting rampage, he had a sudden vision of sanity? That seems highly unlikely. You really like to argue the exceptions don't ya? lol

I don't see what your point about other people possibly being shot by a stray bullet has to do with anything, other than to show the responsibility and awareness of the permitted gun holder?

This was a high stress, high adrenaline situation. The guy acted perfectly. For the world of me I don't how you are trying to use a situation where the permitted gun holder acted responsibly, to make an argument about how gun owners might act irresponsibly. All the evidence, and I mean all of it, is contrary to your "what if's"

[HapSmo19]

Ok, I'm back but only for this one topic. I knew there would probably be some really good conversation here about it, and I frankly didn't want to miss that.

First of all, gun banning is just a silly and useless idea. It goes against our Constitution and I don't believe it would stop these sorts of incidents anyway.

I do believe it is reasonable to have a discussion on gun control. In fact, I don't think you can legitimately discuss this issue WITHOUT having a discussion about gun control as well.

The idea of putting more guns into the schools is the sort of insanity I could only expect from a hero-wannabe like Phatscotty. That is an idiotic idea, truly. And I'm trained in handling weapons, remember.

The discussion that NEEDS to happen, and sadly ISN'T happening, is the discussion regarding how mental disorders are viewed in this nation. I have no idea how it is in other countries, as I have never dealt with it even while living overseas. But here in the United States, mental disorders are viewed in such a way that there is a very serious stigma associated with them. It's very counterproductive when someone can potentially lose their job for seeking help on their own from a mental health professional (and yes, this is in fact a quite common situation). It's ludicrous. THIS discussion is the one that absolutely CAN make a difference in preventing these sorts of events. Here are some important links I gleaned from another website:

http://placer.networkofcare.org/mh/library/article.aspx?id=333
http://placer.networkofcare.org/mh/library/article.aspx?id=336
http://placer.networkofcare.org/mh/library/article.aspx?id=337

It is crazy to me that it's perfectly ok for someone with back problems to go in to a doctor and ask for (for instance) Codeine or SOMA or Flexeril yet if you are seriously depressed and have thoughts of suicide, the last thing you want to do is go in to a psychiatrist and ask for a prescription for anti-depressants. Asking for help of this nature is routinely viewed as a bad thing. That's fucked up.

Just go get the help you need, dude. Losing your job is a small price to pay when it comes to the safety of the rest of us. God speed.

Yeah, I didn't think you actually gave a f*ck about those children either.

Interesting. When did you start caring about them cuz, if I remember correctly, you would be all for drilling holes in their heads and scrambling their brains if they were a few years younger?

[crispybits]

One more question about the second amendment (from a standpoint of disconnect remember) - it says "a well regulated militia". To my mind, a well regulated militia is a bit like an army platoon or something. A chain of command, comprehensive training, policies about when to engage and when not to, things like that. How did that end up morphing into "hey Joe, you're a normal guy not heavily politicised or part of any organised policing/paramilitary group, here have a gun - it's your right"? (just looking for an opinion here rather than trying to make a point)

It said he only shot two people, it doesn't say he only fired 2 shots. How many times did he miss? One person was also seriously injured, so that's three, and witness statements said he fired several times.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justi ... index.html

This article says that he ran off down a corridor, and it was when the police sirens became audible that he shot himself, and cited a Sheriff that this is likely to have been a big factor.

If the civilian was the big factor then why didn't the guy put the gun to his head as soon as he saw him, and instead ran off down a corridor before doing it?

[stahrgazer]

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun

No guns = No bad guys with guns...period.

Wrong. Phatscotty had it right.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

After all, the guy who recently massacred a classroom of little bitty boys and girls did not, himself, legally possess the guns he used: he stole them, before proceeding to commit several acts of murder in different locations within the town.

Someone who'd steal, someone who'd commit murder - especially the types of murder he committed - would have no problem finding another means to either get guns or commit those atrocities in a different way.

But. If teachers in that school carried guns, the outlaw probably wouldn't have been able to commit the numbers of murders he did.

[crispybits]

"Someone who'd steal, someone who'd commit murder - especially the types of murder he committed - would have no problem finding another means to either get guns or commit those atrocities in a different way."

So in other words people will find a way to commit these crimes regardless of the barriers put in their way.

"But. If teachers in that school carried guns, the outlaw probably wouldn't have been able to commit the numbers of murders he did."

But hang on, I thought we just established that people will find a way to commit these crimes regardless of the barriers put in their way?

[stahrgazer]

Punish people? It's a punishment not to be allowed to own a gun?

Is it also a punishment not to be allowed to own morphine? Should we allow everyone to own morphine (on the proviso that the majority of the time it's to be kept in a locked box under the bed and only used if you are in extreme pain because you fell and broke your leg or something) because a small minority are junkies?

Actually, yes, it's a punishment to not be allowed to own morphine.

I could give a crap if some ijit wants to inject himself to death. Now, if he commits a crime against someone else in order to get his morphine, or in order to do anything else he thinks he wants to do, then he should be punished for committing those crimes against someone else.

I also don't believe seatbelts or helmets should be mandatory/against the law. If fools want to be fools, let them. Some dude not wearing a helmet or not wearing his seatbelt isn't going to hurt me. Even if he causes an accident, his seatbelt or lack thereof isn't going to harm anyone in the car he hit.

In the case of a guy who stole guns to do worse crimes, if those guns weren't available to STEAL he could've made homemade molotov cocktails which are illegal but also pretty deadly - and don't require the crime of theft before perpetrating the worse crimes.

See, it wasn't "guns" that killed those kiddies, it was a lunatic.

Kitchen knives can be deadly, too, should we make those illegal?

[stahrgazer]

"Someone who'd steal, someone who'd commit murder - especially the types of murder he committed - would have no problem finding another means to either get guns or commit those atrocities in a different way."

So in other words people will find a way to commit these crimes regardless of the barriers put in their way.

"But. If teachers in that school carried guns, the outlaw probably wouldn't have been able to commit the numbers of murders he did."

But hang on, I thought we just established that people will find a way to commit these crimes regardless of the barriers put in their way?

If they'd shot his ass after the first whatever with whatever method, it would've been pretty difficult for him to do more, now, wouldn't it? jeesh!

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... feman.html

22 stabbed, no deaths.