(07-30-2012, 06:45 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Here we go again ^^^.

Am I missing evidence to support your theory that 'madmen will find some other way to kill people when guns are gone'??

Here we go again indeed.

I'll do you one better. I'll give you evidence of well armed madmen killing people. Did you know how the Nazi's came up with the idea for gas chambers and incinerators for killing? It's because even though they had plenty of guns and ammunition, they didn't want to waste millions of bullets. Those bullets were needed for the front lines, and were a valuable resource. Madmen kill in inventive ways, even when they have guns. A side note on the Germans... they largely disarmed the population so there could be no real resistance from those they intended to target.

Here's some other examples... Muslim extremists rarely use guns and bullets to kill scores of people. They use explosives with great effect, no? Timothy McVeigh killed without firing a shot. Hijackers took control of planes with razors and killed thousands. Sarin gas was used on the Tokyo subway and left as many dead and wounded as the scumbag in Aurora.

Madmen who want to kill are going to kill. You can't get rid of guns, fertilizer, razor blades, airplanes, and castor beans to prevent it all. You just can't.

For those adamant that gun control is so effective and works wonders I'll point out that fallacy for you again: WASHINGTON DC. Toughest gun laws around. Yet somehow, miraculously, it is one of the most gun violent cities in the US.

I understand the outrage when these things happen. It makes me sick too. But this is a people problem, not a gun problem.

(07-30-2012, 07:39 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: It's just sickening though, that innocent people have to wonder if they or their loved ones will one day be slaughtered by someone who has 'legally' procured his/her weapon.

If you're worried about a loved one being slaughtered by someone, I'd submit it's more likely an impaired driver will do it. Funny how we don't hear the cries for the banning of alcohol or cars though... and they aren't even constitutionally protected.

(07-30-2012, 06:45 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Until a 'gun-lover' sustains the horror of being a victim of a random gun crime, they'll never consider changing their stance.

Nice pejorative use of 'gun-lover'. A question though...are all supporters of the 2^nd amendment offensive 'gun-lovers' to you, or just those not in your family?

I've had some up close and personal experience with the horror of gun crime. It was a real bad one too... murder - suicide. Left two kids without parents, shattered a community... horrible enough, right?

I didn't consider changing my stance for one second. If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a knife. Or fists. Or a baseball bat.

But it still would have happened... because it was the person, not the gun. That's what is always left out of the equation.

You're adamant in your position but again neglect to acknowledge the reality that guns are the easiest, most preferred weapon of killers. And, I'm not talking about illegally obtained weapons. Those guns usually perpetrate black on black violence.

I'll give you McVeigh and the Twin Towers. Funny, though, beyond those two events, guns are still used when someone decides to shoot up a school, murder their co-workers or gun down innocents in a movie theatre.

You were skirting the point that some of these guns have unbelievable firepower and should be very, very difficult to get your hands on.

And, maybe you missed the part where I do have family members that own (and carry) guns. I consider them gun lovers too.

Sorry about your personal tragedy, but I don't count murder-suicide in what I'm talking about, though most of those involve a legally obtained firearm too.

So, we'll still not agree on this subject.

(07-30-2012, 09:07 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: You're adamant in your position but again neglect to acknowledge the reality that guns are the easiest, most preferred weapon of killers. And, I'm not talking about illegally obtained weapons. Those guns usually perpetrate black on black violence.

My position is that we have plenty of gun laws on the books. Events like Aurora are exceedingly rare against the backdrop of legally owned and procured firearms. Exceedingly rare. And if you're going to strip out the inner city gun violence it will weaken your argument tremendously. Better to keep them in, as that is where most of the gun crime comes from.

(07-30-2012, 09:07 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I'll give you McVeigh and the Twin Towers. Funny, though, beyond those two events, guns are still used when someone decides to shoot up a school, murder their co-workers or gun down innocents in a movie theatre.

I'm not disagreeing that guns aren't the commonly used weapon. I was pointing out that crazy people who want to kill find ways to kill. Mao and Stalin starved tens of millions, and most of the ethnic cleansing in Darfur and the Sudan is done by machete. Grizzly stuff. My point is the absence of guns will not stop the killing by those who want to kill. And you're not going to give me the guy in Tokyo who used sarin gas? Japan has very strict gun laws, so he had to be really creative to kill and injure so many people without firing a shot.

(07-30-2012, 09:07 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: You were skirting the point that some of these guns have unbelievable firepower and should be very, very difficult to get your hands on.

Just like you skirted the point about impaired driving being more likely to kill you or your family than a crazy guy with a gun. And to be more accurate, it's the ammunition that provides the firepower and ballistic damage. Maybe that should be the focus of control efforts?

(07-30-2012, 09:07 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Sorry about your personal tragedy, but I don't count murder-suicide in what I'm talking about, though most of those involve a legally obtained firearm too.

So we're going to exclude these type of gun crimes AND the inner city gun crimes because they don't really count? Not sure I get this rationale...most gun deaths will fall into these two categories.

Not all dead bodies with bullets in them are equal?

Firearm spree killers are the rarest form of gun deaths, but they get the most attention.

(07-30-2012, 09:07 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: So, we'll still not agree on this subject.

Fair enough. So what is your solution? I've read your posts and you're an intelligent guy...

What is Chicago doing wrong that it's strict gun laws are still allowing scores of people to die by guns every single year?

@jimbone... I don't know what the answer is either. I also don't mean to minimize gang and familial gun crime. However, I'm talking about the random spree killers.

And sure, I probably do have a better chance of dying at the hands of a drunk driver. And yes, some dictators have killed millions without guns, but that's not what we're talking about.

Solutions? I heard someone throw out an ammo cap. Or that ammo become so ridiculously expensive that the average person would only be able to afford very few rounds.

I don't know what to do because it's horrific that hundreds of people's lives are now changed and no one wants to do anything about it.

This topic will disappear, though, until the next mass murderer appears.

Care to wager on whether he/she will choose to use a gun or not?

That's a fools bet I won't take. It will most likely be a gun for sure.

I'm actually in favor of doing away with high capacity magazines... this nonsense about whether a magazine was pre-ban or not is silly. As far as making ammo really expensive? Probably won't make a difference... the black market will provide inexpensive ammo if that happens.

I am not sure if people don't want to do anything about it, or that they realize they truly can't. I meant it when I said it is a people problem... it's an overall societal problem. Also a problem you and I won't be solving unfortunately...

Now if we had an EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle, we might be able to affect some change.

(07-30-2012, 12:26 AM)shitstorm Wrote:

(07-30-2012, 12:17 AM)username Wrote:

(07-29-2012, 11:48 PM)shitstorm Wrote:

(07-29-2012, 11:30 PM)username Wrote: Nobody needs assault style weapons. The Brady bill should have been renewed. I'm not sure it is THE answer but I don't think our founding fathers imagined weapons like that when they wrote the second amendment.

People who are strict constitusionalists fail to factor in technological progress and other things the founding fathers couldn't possibly foresee.

If they were alive, they would insist the People be armed as well as those who would oppress them. If the military and police have these weapons (and they have MUCH worse), We the People need to.

Ugh. So all the Occupy Wall Street protesters should be as well armed as the police?

Do they have less of a right to defend themselves against tyranny?

What is the purpose of law enforcement? Should they not be well armed to carry out our laws?

(07-29-2012, 11:16 PM)shitstorm Wrote: Here's the deal on Americans' right to bear arms: It's to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. It's not about hunting and sport, it's about not being a disarmed population when the maniacs in government go out of control and start killing people. History shows that ALL mass murder and genocide is carried out by government. Government is the danger. As long as 'authorities' have weapons, the People must. It's as simple as that.




http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

I couldn't agree more.

I'm not opposed to American's right to bear arms but to suggest the Aurora killer would have been able to kill 12 people and injure so many others without an assault rifle is ridiculous. Yeah, as if he could have beat twelve people to death with a baseball bat before getting taken out. *snort*

No but he could of taken out a lot more people by setting a fire or an explosive device....Criminals or psychopaths should not ruin it for law abiding citizens.

(07-30-2012, 11:46 PM)ttownclown Wrote: No but he could of taken out a lot more people by setting a fire or an explosive device....Criminals or psychopaths should not ruin it for law abiding citizens.

Ruin what? Having weapons for self defense or assault type weapons? Hell, you could use the same argument and say we all should have access to a nuclear button TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM TYRANNY.

Just as the police should have the most technologically advanced weapons available to defend themselves, (remember those whackos that had assault rifles, robbed the bank and then slaughtered police in the street who were armed with their standard issued revolvers?

But at the same time you have to have the (sane) citizenry have access to same technolgy as police (Syria, hello?)...

What would another gun law legislated have done to have prevented this movie theatre tragedy? The dude committed 57 felonies...he wouldn't have give a shit if it were 58.

we need more idiot control, not gun control.

(07-30-2012, 10:06 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: ammo become so ridiculously expensive that the average person would only be able to afford very few rounds.

That's not a solution. You're infringing on our rights when comments like that are made. Your solution needs to deal with people not the weapons/ammo.

...and besides, it's possible for one to make their own ammo, I've seen it done.

The ammo idea was something that I heard thrown out there.

Look, we all know nothing will be done in limiting gun sales. I'd only like to see a more rigorous psychiatric background check done on those looking to buy multiple weapons or assault type weapons. It has to be more thorough.

(07-29-2012, 11:16 PM)shitstorm Wrote: Here's the deal on Americans' right to bear arms: It's to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. It's not about hunting and sport, it's about not being a disarmed population when the maniacs in government go out of control and start killing people. History shows that ALL mass murder and genocide is carried out by government. Government is the danger. As long as 'authorities' have weapons, the People must. It's as simple as that.




http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Interesting approach. So do I understand it correctly that when a population has the right to bear arms, it is able to shake off a tyrannic government? If that is the argument, is there a case where that has happened, or is that just a theory? That as in the right of the population to bear firearms + a tyrant-to-be being stopped on his/her way to power / a tyrant successfully being overthrown by said population? (FTR, I am honestly asking this, not trying to make a point)

Quote:You're infringing on our rights when comments like that are made.

How so? (again, honest question)

(07-31-2012, 09:27 AM)Ilyanna Wrote: How so? (again, honest question)

That was said in response to MS stating that ammo should be so ridiculously expensive that people could only afford a few rounds. While there are guns in my home I'm not a hunter or even one that likes to target practice but he is, why should his rights as a responsible gun owner be infringed upon when it's a person with "issues" that shoots up a school or movie theater, etc? Why should someone dictate to him the amount of ammo he's allowed to buy or even dictate what weapon he is allowed to purchase?

The problem with guns are not the weapon themselves, it's the people who are allowed to purchase them. I have no problem with extensive background checks or even an extended waiting period, the average responsible person won't either.

If a responsible gun owner with a ccw had a gun on them at the theater they could have protected themselves. Possibly taken the shooter out before he killed as many.

@Duchess
Ah, thanks for explaining. What I kinda stumbled over was the seeming connection drawn between 'making a comment' and 'rights being infringed', that's why I asked.

(07-31-2012, 09:40 AM)Duchess Wrote:

Why should someone dictate to him the amount of ammo he's allowed to buy or even dictate what weapon he is allowed to purchase?

But isn't there already a line being drawn? There are states that already limit the kind of weapons one can legally own, aren't there (California for example, iirc)? And rightly so, imo. While I can fully understand the appeal to own, for example, a Browning M2, the question should be allowed if it is sensible to allow everyone to do so. One can hunt, practise, or defend oneself with less efficient weapons, as well.
(I ALSO would like to own a Leopard 2 tank, btw, but somehow, I doubt anyone in their right mind would argue in favor of my right to own one. Well, except for maybe three people, but that's just because they know they'd be the ones riding shotgun.)
So, basically, I think that while limiting the access to certain weapons might be an infringement of your right to bear arms, there is also the duty of the government to protect the safety of their people. Letting those who can afford it buy an arsenal of weapons just because some people like to play with things that go "boom" is not really helping with that, is it? Besides, you'd still be able to bear arms, just not all of them.
As for limiting the amout of ammo - I see no point in that.

(07-31-2012, 09:40 AM)Duchess Wrote: The problem with guns are not the weapon themselves, it's the people who are allowed to purchase them. I have no problem with extensive background checks or even an extended waiting period, the average responsible person won't either.

I fully agree with where the problem lies. Can't comment on the extensive background checks, since the firearms laws over here are so much different than in the US. I might argue, though, that an extended waiting period wouldn't really keep a psycho from going on a rampage, he'd just need more time for preparation.

I don't even like guns.

(07-31-2012, 10:25 AM)ttownclown Wrote: If a responsible gun owner with a ccw had a gun on them at the theater they could have protected themselves. Possibly taken the shooter out before he killed as many.

Looks like there are A LOT of instances where it would've been nice if someone with a CCW were around:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/191510...threatened

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbe...l-act.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/us/rep...rsity.html

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/12/arizon...e-victims/

Obviously, there are many, many more, too many to list actually.

Two points: #1) Guess what, all these killers chose the GUN as their weapon of choice to take out their victims. They didn't select a machete, baseball bat, bomb, poison, harsh language, or just good old fashioned choking. Why, you ask? The ease in which the gun is used to kill would be my guess.

#2) I've never heard of one instance where someone with a CCW was nearby and thwarted one of these crimes. Too bad. In theory it sounds wonderful.