Colorado Shooting

[Arshad]

Invoking Tokyo as an example only proves a superficial understanding as to how laws and culture work.

Fair enough. How about Canada? Pretty similar to the US in all respects. If anything, we have more rights here than the citizens of the US.

So, a remote village in the Himalayas has very few cars, therefore, they have few car-related injuries and deaths. See how it's a pointless statement?

Yes, that's a good point, I didn't think of it that way. But the stats hold true for crime and homicides in general -- not just gun-related. It's pretty difficult to prove causation, but correlation is certainly there. As others have pointed out, perhaps its the culture, but then what about countries like Canada?

I will go back and read the whole thread.. sorry for retreading on issues that were already hashed out.

 

[steveny]

How are you going to enforce 100% gun control now? If you want an example of whether it works, look at a place like Japan where pretty much outside of the police and military, nobody has a gun.

That's not 100%. 100% means no one has a gun.

Wasn't there a 100% no gun policy at fort hood?

 

[scorp965]

I'm bummed nobody got my 'Treehouse of Horror' reference, It's actually quite relevant :frown:

 

[Arshad]

That's not 100%. 100% means no one has a gun.

Wasn't there a 100% no gun policy at fort hood?

Well base police obviously had guns, so I guess we're using the same definition of 100%.

Crazy people are crazy. They're going to kill people no matter what. As Vega$ pointed out, it's a matter of how much damage they can do, and obviously you can kill a whole lot more people with a gun than a baseball bat.

In the Fort Hood case, the guy just went into a store and purchased the gun and ammo with pretty much no questions asked. If it had been hard for him to get access to a gun, maybe he would have had to resort to a different weapon or maybe he wouldn't have committed the massacre at all.

 

[scorp965]

In the Fort Hood case, the guy just went into a store and purchased the gun and ammo with pretty much no questions asked. If it had been hard for him to get access to a gun, maybe he would have had to resort to a different weapon or maybe he wouldn't have committed the massacre at all.

US Army Major Hasan is going to be a difficult target for civilian gun control.

 

[steveny]

US Army Major Hasan is going to be a difficult target for civilian gun control.

BINGO, and that's why it would need to be 100% or nothing.

Guns are the equilizer between a 300 pound 6'4" guy that wants to beat the crap out of a 5'10 175 pound guy because usually no one steps in to help.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?client...be.com/?reload=2&rdm=m84j1o7hz&has_verified=1

 

[Arshad]

US Army Major Hasan is going to be a difficult target for civilian gun control.

Well clearly the US Major did not have easy access to more destructive weapons on the base, which is why he went to a civilian store to purchase his gun:

---

Hasan entered the store and abruptly asked for "the most technologically advanced weapon on the market and the one with the highest magazine capacity." Hasan was allegedly asked how he intended to use the weapon, but did not give a straight answer, insisting that he simply wanted the most advanced handgun with the largest magazine capacity.
:
He returned to purchase the gun the next day, and visited the store on a weekly basis to buy extra magazines, along with hundreds of rounds of 5.7×28mm SS192 and SS197SR ammunition.

 

[enkrypt3d]

/unsubscribe....

 

[steveny]

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted here in a long, long time. First of all I'm pretty sure it did not jam. Do the math. He hit 71 people, some of them multiple time so it's very likely that the remaining bullets thankfully hit no one else. If he had been using magazines of lower capacity it would have taken him at least 2 to 3 seconds to change mags (longer if he was untrained), time that would have certainly spared more lives.

Most of the pictures I have seen of the survivors showed wounds that appeared to be from shotgun shot. I think he only got a few rounds out of the rifle and then switched to the shotgun after the rifle jammed.

 

[Hugh]

Most of the pictures I have seen of the survivors showed wounds that appeared to be from shotgun shot.

Yeah, I haven't really been reading much about this after the first couple of days but apparently you are correct.

"According to the latest info on the midnight movie massacre in Aurora, CO, spree killer James Holmes opened-up on the crowd with a Remington 870. After emptying the shotgun, he switched to a Smith & Wesson AR-15 equipped with a “double-drum” 100-round magazine. At some point during his heinous crime, the mag jammed. Holmes didn’t know how to clear his weapon. So he abandoned the rifle and switched to a Glock .40 caliber pistol. Police aren’t providing a total round count for the entire attack, but there’s no getting around it: the 100-round drum magazine’s failure saved lives. No surprise there. Double-drum magazines suck. Here’s why . . ."

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ound-ar-15-double-drum-magazines-for-dummies/

 

[Russ]

Fair enough, let's assume that's correct. You talk about intellectual honesty. Do you honestly believe there is a higher incidence of people who use their gun for self-defense than people who use it for crime and murder? Seriously?

Please don't put words in my mouth, and this makes no sense anyway. How could more people use a gun for self-defense than people who use it to commit a crime in the first place? At best, it would be equal.

Yes, this is absolutely true. Just as MOST crimes with a firearm do not involve firing a single round either. It's the THREAT in both cases.

I don't know if this is true or not, but assume it is, in these situations it makes no difference if a gun can hold 6 rounds or 100, if none are actually being fired.

Clearly you've never been to any of these places. This was an incident back in 1996 in Karachi, Pakistan. There were private armed guards stationed EVERYWHERE. At every store, at every neighborhood... and yes, two big guys with AK-47's at the door of the ice cream store where I went with my cousins. The value of life there is literally less than an ant -- people will shoot you without hesitation.

I haven't been to Pakistan but so what? I submit the reason folks there value human life less than ant life is not their guns, but their culture.

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Are the citizens of Japan being terrorized by their government? How about Canada? Or any number of other countries with strict gun laws?

For every Japan there are dozens of Ottoman Turkeys, Soviet Unions, Nazi Germanys, Occupied Europes, Chinas, Gualtemalas, Ugandas, Cambodias, Mexicos, Libyas, Bahrains, Irans, Yemens, Somalias, Nigerias, and Syrias where gun confiscation led to oppression and mass murder.

Does gun confiscation always lead to genocide, oppression, and loss of liberty? In some cases no, but in a historical context, it never ends well.

 

[Hugh]

How could more people use a gun for self-defense than people who use it to commit a crime in the first place? At best, it would be equal.

Not exactly.................

"According to the authors of Cato Institute’s recently released study on how often guns are used by citizens to prevent crime, “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.” In a study of more than 5,000 news reports over an eight-year period, Clayton Cramer and David Burnett showed that the mere presence of an armed citizen thwarts many crimes, even beyond those that are reported by the police and subsequently printed in the newspaper."

More here: http://lightfromtheright.com/2012/02/27/guns-self-defense/

 

[Arshad]

Does gun confiscation always lead to genocide, oppression, and loss of liberty? In some cases no, but in a historical context, it never ends well.

Ok so that's why everyone in the US should have a gun -- because the second amendment "protects us from tyranny". Because you're afraid the US government is more likely than not to oppress its citizens and start committing mass murder. You think what happened in Nazi Germany, and Uganda, and Somalia and everywhere you listed could happen in the US. It may not happen, but if we look at history "it never ends well".

I could provide an even longer list of countries with some form of gun control where the regimes are not committing genocide. In fact, I think it's fair to say that describes the vast majority of countries on this planet.

But I suppose if that's what you believe, then sure it makes complete sense to be armed just in case the government turns on you. Personally I don't see that happening in places like Canada or the US -- and if it did, the citizens would find ways to arm themselves just as the criminals do.

 

[steveny]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/05/breaking-reports-of-shooting-at-sikh-temple/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[H-carWizKid]

Interesting conversation fellas. This happened just up the road from us. The last movie I saw in that theater was Inglorious Basterds a few years back. This whole thing has had a profound effect on me.


P

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Guns can be good, guns can be bad. Here is one case where it was good. Chalk one up for the good guys.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13526604-armed-customer-shoots-dollar-store-robber-killing-him?lite