VA news reporter & cameraman killed on live TV

[greenminer]

There are laws in place already that do nothing to deter gun violence in many cities in the US.  Deranged people are not the majority of people killing others with guns.  The overwhelming majority of homicides with guns happen in the commission of another crime--by criminals--such as robbery, gang activity, or drug deals, not by a deranged individual.

Maybe I missed somewhere on the board where someone detailed their plan for repealing the 2nd amendment or what the law would be for "responsible" "acceptable" gun ownership? 

Maybe this is a better question, and it's rhetorical:  I own an antique Colt New Service .45 LC and an early 1930's S&W .38 Special.  What reason can you use to convince me you are justified in taking them away from me? 

 

 

 

I own a S&W 0.40.  If we as a country knew that giving up guns would significantly reduce gun-related homicides, I would gladly do so.  That's where I suspect things get hairy in the U.S.: we have a lot of people that feel (for a variety of reasons) that their guns should not be taken from them regardless of what it means for everyone else.

Edited August 27, 2015 by greenminer

[ColoradoEagle]

A gun is a tool. 

Which is why this weekend is the Fort Worth Gun Show, and next weekend is the Fort Worth Hammer Show... Owning a gun is nothing like owning a hammer, by gun owners' own admission. It's a subculture, and that's why they're so adamant about keeping their guns. It's a large part of who they are more than anything else. 

Until someone can make a better argument for the benefits of gun ownership vs. the obvious detriment than "b-b-b-but the founding fathers!" a lot of people won't be convinced. There's a huge difference between a wildly inaccurate musket with 30 seconds between shots and a semi-automatic handgun.

 

[greenminer]

I'm pretty sure this was already posted elsewhere, but it is funny enough to revisit.  Some of you won't bother being swayed, but let it at least keep this thread from being too intense.

https://youtu.be/w8PKrDrAPeQ

Edited September 3, 2015 by greenminer

[LongJim]

 

I own a S&W 0.40.  If we as a country knew that giving up guns would significantly reduce gun-related homicides, I would gladly do so.  

How would giving up your .40 significantly reduce gun-related homicides? 

[greenminer]

How would giving up your .40 significantly reduce gun-related homicides? 

The point here is national gun policy.  If there was a policy in place that meant I did not have a gun, it probably means a lot of other people don't have guns.  It would mean it's a lot harder for those people committing crimes to find a gun.  Colorado linked to an article that suggests it works in other countries.

Why are we narrowing this down to giving up current guns? I thought we were talking about the effect of law that would control who can/can't buy them moving forward?

[LongJim]

The point here is national gun policy.  
Why are we narrowing this down to giving up current guns? I thought we were talking about the effect of law that would control who can/can't buy them moving forward?

There are already laws in place that do this.  What would the new law look like that would accomplish the goal?

[greenminer]

There are already laws in place that do this.  What would the new law look like that would accomplish the goal?

Do you think everything is fine as-is?

[GM1998]

The right to bear arms protects the citizenry against tyrannical rule. That never changes. If you don't want to have a gun don't have one. Good luck changing the bill of rights. Sorry you don't like my historical points. The supreme court does...

 

[ColoradoEagle]

The right to bear arms protects the citizenry against tyrannical rule.

haha, right. Because the US Military can't take down a group of rednecks with guns.

 That never changes. If you don't want to have a gun don't have one. Good luck changing the bill of rights. Sorry you don't like my historical points. The supreme court does...

The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret existing law. There's nothing to stop Congress from modifying or repealing the second amendment. And your historical point isn't a point, because it assumes that the intent of the founding fathers lives within a vacuum. They could not foresee what would happen almost 250 years later with the advancements in gun technology and violence it causes. The argument that they would've kept the law as-is after the amount of gun deaths we've seen is pretty fantastical.

[GM1998]

2/3 of both houses or a constitutional convention which changes are ratified by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Good luck. You are sucked into the 24 hour news cycle. Yes these event are horrible but these killers would kill without guns. People like you are sheep. Thank god there are sheepdogs who are ready to do violence on your behalf. Terrorists took over planes with box cutters on 9/11 because they knew there weren't guns. Wake up dude. We live in a violent world.

 

[greenminer]

 

 I am not sure if you've read this thread? It does not appear you have paid attention to either side, and you're appealing to human fear rather than any attempt at logic.

Terrorist attacks account for a fraction of gun-related deaths; why in the world would either side let that dictate gun control?

Edited August 27, 2015 by greenminer

[ColoradoEagle]

2/3 of both houses or a constitutional convention which changes are ratified by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Good luck. You are sucked into the 24 hour news cycle. Yes these event are horrible but these killers would kill without guns. People like you are sheep. Thank god there are sheepdogs who are ready to do violence on your behalf. Terrorists took over planes with box cutters on 9/11 because they knew there weren't guns. Wake up dude. We live in a violent world.

haha, you're so full of yourself. Never once did I say more gun control or especially banning things is likely to happen. We decided as a country after Sandy Hook that not even that was enough to get rid of our beloved guns. If that didn't cause anything to happen, nothing ever will.

That said, the argument of, "someone will always find a way to kill!" is idiotic. You could literally kill someone with a spoon Alan Rickman style. The difference is that guns allow people to kill multiple, MANY people at once with very little opportunity for the people on the other end of the weapon to defend themselves. It allows for instant kills at a distance.

I can see a case for shotguns and hunting rifles. My dad loved to hunt pheasants with his shotgun. Any of the other types of guns, and the only actual excuse for having it is, like in the video above, "but I like guns!"

 

Edited August 27, 2015 by ColoradoEagle

[Army of Dad]

haha, you're so full of yourself. Never once did I say more gun control or especially banning things is likely to happen. We decided as a country after Sandy Hook that not even that was enough to get rid of our beloved guns. If that didn't cause anything to happen, nothing ever will.

That said, the argument of, "someone will always find a way to kill!" is idiotic. You could literally kill someone with a spoon Alan Rickman style. The difference is that guns allow people to kill multiple, MANY people at once with very little opportunity for the people on the other end of the weapon to defend themselves. It allows for instant kills at a distance.

I can see a case for shotguns and hunting rifles. My dad loved to hunt pheasants with his shotgun. Any of the other types of guns, and the only actual excuse for having it is, like in the video above, "but I like guns!"

 

The 2nd isn't about 'sporting purposes'. If you can't understand that very basic premise then this discussion will go nowhere.

As for being full of oneself, just check your inane postings on this issue.

[ColoradoEagle]

The 2nd isn't about 'sporting purposes'. If you can't understand that very basic premise then this discussion will go nowhere.

I never said it was, but the argument of guns being a necessary evil to protect us from a tyrannical government is pretty dumb in this day and age.

As for being full of oneself, just check your inane postings on this issue.

No, I've given my opinion on why guns being legal and easy to obtain is bad with numbers that reference how many gun deaths there are in this country versus other major countries. I don't fault someone for being on the other side of the issue, but the founding fathers' intent, "anything can be used to kill!" argument, and being able to fight off the government are all dumb. I mean, really dumb.

"I like guns!" is a far more intelligent argument than any of those three. 

[FirefightnRick]

 

I know this will be wasted on a couple of individuals but there is some interesting information here for those interested.

 

 

 

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak: Public Unaware".

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

 

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008. The rate appears to be higher in 2011 compared with 2008, but the increase is not statistically significant. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall also dropped in the 1990s before declining more slowly from 2000 to 2010, then ticked up in 2011.

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower...

....This report examines trends in firearm homicide, non-fatal violent gun crime victimization and non-fatal violent crime victimization overall since 1993. Its findings on firearm crime are based mainly on analysis of data from two federal agencies. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using information from death certificates, are the source of rates, counts and trends for all firearm deaths, homicide and suicide, unless otherwise specified. The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, a household survey conducted by the Census Bureau, supplies annual estimates of non-fatal crime victimization, including those where firearms are used, regardless of whether the crimes were reported to police. Where relevant, this report also quotes from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (see text box at the end of this chapter and the Methodology appendix for more discussion about data sources)....

 

 

Rick

 

 

Edited August 27, 2015 by FirefightnRick

[ColoradoEagle]

I know this will be wasted on a couple of individuals but there is some interesting information here for those interested.

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak: Public Unaware".

That's good, but two years old. Here's what's happening today.

We’re now averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/graphics-americas-guns?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/AmericasGuns

 

[forevereagle]

Has prohibition of owning or consuming things worked in the past?

[LongJim]

Do you think everything is fine as-is?

Statistics show that "gun-related deaths" are overwhelmingly committed while the killer is committing a crime or killing themselves.  That is, robbing, raping, invading, selling illicit substances, or engaged in gang or criminal activity, or committing suicide.  A MUCH smaller percentage of deaths occur simply due to outright murder with no other motive. 

I believe that the crime component has increased because of changes in our culture, our living arrangements, and other factors.  Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the early/mid 19th century.  And then, just as now, most gun deaths were caused during commission of a crime, not due to some waste of flesh deciding to take out innocents.  People don't die from guns because guns.  They get killed by guns because the killer wants something you have/Maslow's hierarchy of needs, because they want to off themselves quickly and efficiently, or because they are mentally disturbed--like the example of biological waste that is the subject of this thread.

I do not, however, want to be deprived of the right to protect myself from these vermin that prey on others with at least semi-equal firepower--since they have no problem obtaining guns quickly, see Chicago and California--nor do I agree with those wishing to deprive me of my liberties because it's "for the greater good".  I believe doing that does not address the issues causing the majority of "gun-related deaths" in the first place.  The first thing that will happen with these types of prohibitive laws will be illegal smuggling, and more crime.

But, I will--still--certainly listen to those that want to spell out specifics of their plan to make all of those issues go away with stricter gun laws. 

[Coffee and TV]

Has prohibition of owning or consuming things worked in the past?

Not quite sure if that's the best analogy. It really depends on what the demand of the product is and how much effort is put into enforcement. 

[FirefightnRick]

That's good, but two years old. Here's what's happening today.

We’re now averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/graphics-americas-guns?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/AmericasGuns

 

The numbrs are compiled by the moderators of the GunsAreCool subreddit, a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in America. They define "mass shooting" as any single incident in which at least four people are shot, including the gunman. The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people

 

Wow, I should have simply linked to Guns Are Cool instead of the FBI and CDC.  What was I thinking?

 

Rick

[ColoradoEagle]

 

Wow, I should have simply linked to Guns Are Cool instead of the FBI and CDC.  What was I thinking?

Well, the FBI doesn't release statistics like this until the end of the year, so that subreddit is as good as any for information unless you think they're straight up lying.

The irony is not lost on me, though, that you're the one questioning the legitimacy of something on the internet. It's not a bit, is it?

[KRAM1]

These gun arguments are fun and all that, and we all know that no one is going to change their position.  We also know that both sides can come up with stats to support their views.  No news there at all, but what I see missing in most of these narratives is the role that our mental health systems, or lack thereof, play in these situations.  This guy in VA clearly has a mental problem...he looked for reasons to be mad and upset over any little thing...was fired for the same thing from at least two other jobs...the guy had a problem.  However, our mental health system in this nation is extremely lacking to care for folks with any sort of issues and they, even if recognized, cannot be compelled to treatment.  Long ago the "do-gooders" worked to end most institutionalizations of mentally ill patients.  Rather they were to be treated "within society".  Now, even if a person is identified by mental health professionals as having a serious mental health issue, unless they are deemed a threat to themselves or others, they cannot be compelled to agree to any sort of treatment.  While this VA shooter clearly had mental issues, it pales in the face of the Colorado movie shooter, the kid who shot up the school and on and on.

The "more gun control/less gun control, "guns don't kill people, people do", if he couldn't have gotten a gun" arguments go on and on, but none will amount to squat unless we touch this very real issue.  My family has personal experience with a relative having serious mental health issues, and I once had a brother-in-law with very serious mental health issues.  I can tell you from experience that, if they had wanted, both could have purchased a gun any time they wished even though we were incapable, legally, of getting them the treatment they could have used to find help because neither agreed to treatment.

Thankfully, neither ever bought a gun, but one did threaten an individual with a kitchen knife.  You guessed it, even then we could not require...nor could the authorities....that he attend treatment because he was not ruled an on-going threat.  Really?  The "good news" to this story is that both finally agreed to treatment and both responded beautifully.  But, point is THEY had to agree to it...of course a family "bribe or two" helped.  Hey...any port in a storm.

today's mental health professionals, for the most part, are very good at what they do, and could help many of these people BEFORE they become killers IF we were to change a few current rules, regs and laws regarding mental health issues.

so, argue about gun control all you want, but it gets no where until and unless we find a better way to identify and treat the mentally ill.

[FirefightnRick]

Well, the FBI doesn't release statistics like this until the end of the year, so that subreddit is as good as any for information unless you think they're straight up lying.

The irony is not lost on me, though, that you're the one questioning the legitimacy of something on the internet. It's not a bit, is it?

 

At least you never dissapointment, staying the hardcore leftist course that when you lose an arguement to always go the snark route.

 

Rick

[LongJim]

...what I see missing in most of these narratives is the role that our mental health systems, or lack thereof, play in these situations.  This guy in VA clearly has a mental problem...so, argue about gun control all you want, but it gets no where until and unless we find a better way to identify and treat the mentally ill.

Good post, and I agree.  Vast majority of these mass shootings happened because of disturbed individuals, which I alluded to earlier. 

Again--to me--it's addressing the root cause of the violence--not the instrument delivering violence.

[ColoradoEagle]

 

At least you never dissapointment, staying the hardcore leftist course that when you lose an arguement to always go the snark route.

Lost what argument?