Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;977990]One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I][/quote]

It's certainly one of the more obtuse. If only she had been a better mother.....

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;977996]Actually they are all descendents of crimmnals.[/quote]

Original Aussies, yes. There have been immigrants going there from the UK since the 1960's.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977995]There is no mention of Lee and/or Suardi or their work in the first link and the second makes some vague rebuttal that there may have been a lag between the implementation and the effect.

However it does make this comment you obviously overlooked:

[I]It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.[/I]

Once again you try to bluster or bluff your way through an argument you can't validate.[/quote]

Thank you for actually reading a link.

The first link I posted does not mention Lee and Suardi but it directly rebuts points made in the Lee and Suardi paper. The second article actually critiques Lee and Suardi more deeply than you indicate. The second article, in nice academic prose, essentially calls Lee and Suardi fools. Thus both articles I posted refute Lee and Suardi.

But you are right - the Harvard article I posted says that the Aussie experience is not fully replicable in the USA. I hinted at this in a post above. But the article does point to positive gains from the Aussie experience which we Americans can learn from and, if not "fully" replicate, still enact to our betterment.

I'm not trying to "bluff" through anything here. I have provided sound research and a logical argument which can be used to help us find our way out of our current gun regulations, which clearly are not working.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;977990]One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I][/quote]

Yeah, the whole situation in CT makes arguments of the type, "If only someone else had a gun...", even more ludicrous than they already were.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978004]Yeah, the whole situation in CT makes arguments of the type, "If only someone else had a gun...", even more ludicrous than they already were.[/quote]

Would it make the statement easier to comprehend, do you think, if it were more accurately stated as "I[I]f only someone had a gun and were able to use it[/I]" instead of couching it in an obviously loaded (no pun intended) way?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

And if we're going to throw out soundbite style quotes, I like this one from US News:

[I]With just one single exception, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the United States in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.[/I]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;977964]From the point of self defense, I am exceedingly self absorbed or as I prefer to look at it: Proactive.

I live in a remote, high crime area. There is no way that cops are getting to my location, should I need their help, in under 30 minutes [U][B]at best[/B][/U]. I choose to have a defensive solution to hand.

I could understand your stance if I was out brandishing my handgun and big pimpin'.

Tell me what you think the bigger picture is? Kumbayah around the firepit with marshmallows? Eff that![/quote]
and i never said gun control meant turning in all guns. the assault weapons are just that. there is absolutely no need for them. in the end, the people that do the right thing will be suffering. but i guarantee you will not suffer as much as those kids did

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;978008]Would it make the statement easier to comprehend, do you think, if it were more accurately stated as "I[I]f only someone had a gun and were able to use it[/I]" instead of couching it in an obviously loaded (no pun intended) way?[/quote]

No. Your revision does not make the statement easier to comprehend. It also does not make the statement any less ludicrous.

It is not difficult to see that if the problem is that there are too many guns, adding guns is not a solution, whether people know how to use those guns or not.

I live in the 21st century and thus am not swayed by this 18th century argument of the gun lobby.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978023]No. Your revision does not make the statement easier to comprehend. It also does not make the statement any less ludicrous.

It is not difficult to see that if the problem is that there are too many guns, adding guns is not a solution, whether people know how to use those guns or not.

I live in the 21st century and thus am not swayed by this 18th century argument of the gun lobby.[/quote]

You're thinking of the [U][I]musket[/I][/U] lobby. How are you defining 'too many guns'? I have one, it has always been exactly the right amount, I wouldn't presume to tell anyone how many they should have, and that amount includes zero.

Please do me the favor of reading [URL="http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html"]this[/URL] rehash of the data by John Lott.

I appreciate your thoughts, Lotus, even though I may not agree.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;977990]One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I][/quote]

Actually its pretty stupid because its his mother.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

and thats where he got his weapons^^^^

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;978058]Actually its pretty stupid because its his mother.[/quote]

No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; [B]SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS! [/B]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;978133]No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; [B]SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS! [/B][/quote]

I don't think people buy guns ever thinking they need to protect themself from their own child. So it is stupid. I don't think when you here your son coming up the steps you grab a gun just in case he has decided to kill you. Lets say I buy into that and she did not own and asult rifle. I guess he would have just went on his way and not used another type of gun.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

For the record. Personally I think everyone should have to go through a back ground check to purchase a gun even if its a private sale. The person selling the gun would have to ID the person then call in to make sure the person had passed the back ground check. I'd say you make the back ground check good for a period of 6mon, 1 yr, or maybe up to 5 yrs depending on how detailed the back ground check was. As for assult weapons I'd say stop the sale or limit the clips. Personally I don't think that will help but if it makes people sleep better then they can have the bann. I'd also add as part of the back ground check you have to pass a gun safty course. I also think the mentally ill need to go on the list as people ban from purchasing a gun. That's suppose to be done now but it did not happen in the VT shooting so it need to be revised.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;978133]No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; [B]SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS! [/B][/quote]

A crime was committed initially when he took her gun without her permission. She should have secured the weapon correctly, he shouldn't have taken it.

Who's to say he wouldn't have used another method to dispatch his mother if she had secured the weapons?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;978172]A crime was committed initially when he took her gun without her permission. She should have secured the weapon correctly, he shouldn't have taken it.

Who's to say he wouldn't have used another method to dispatch his mother if she had secured the weapons?[/quote]

He didn't steal the guns. He killed her and inherited them.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;978133]No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet [COLOR="Red"]his mom had guns and should could not stop him[/COLOR]; [B][COLOR="Purple"]SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS[/COLOR]! [/B][/quote]

[COLOR="Red"]She was asleep when he shot her. Please tell me about what heroic feats you perform while asleep.[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Purple"]That is the most idiotic thing I have read on the internet this year.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=mredskins;977990]One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

[I][B]If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.[/B][/I][/QUOTE]
They were her guns? If only she was more responsible with them it wouldnt have happened.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=punch it in;978244]They were her guns? If only she was more responsible with them it wouldnt have happened.[/quote]

He would have found other guns.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;978133]No it's quite ironic seeing that every gun argument out there is we need to arm ourselves against evil yet his mom had guns and should could not stop him; [B]SHE ACTUALLY HELPED HIM BY HAVING THE GUNS! [/B][/quote]

Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. [B]Zero percent chance.[/B] If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978268]Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. [B]Zero percent chance.[/B] If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.[/quote]

Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;978280]Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?[/quote]

Once you show me what 'well regulated militia' you're in.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978268]Yup.

So you gun fans, guarantee me that there is zero percent chance that a gun of yours will not be stolen and used to kill children. [B]Zero percent chance.[/B] If you cannot make me this guarantee, then you can appreciate the important point that mredskins is trying to make.[/quote]

I can.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;978285]Once you show me what 'well regulated militia' you're in.[/quote]

And you can show me where it says god name cannot be used in schools.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;978280]Always making demands.

There is zero % chance my Glock could ever be found, let alone stolen. Now what guarantees do we have from you that our rights under the Constitution will remain intact?[/quote]

The only way that there is a zero % chance that your Glock will be found is if you cannot find it yourself. If you can find it, then there is a % chance, however small, that someone else can, too.

And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.

As for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-examined. It may have worked in the 18th century, when people had flintlocks, but it is a disaster when it comes to 21st century weapons, as Newtown taught us all.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;978290]I can.[/quote]

So you can't get to your guns yourself? Why own guns that you can't get to?

Fact is, if you can get to your gun, so can someone else.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;978292]And you can show me where it says god name cannot be used in schools.[/quote]

I don't think this is the place to try to mix two decisive political battles. Let's focus this on the gun issue. We can discuss this in another thread, if you so desire.

The supreme court has yet to definitively rule on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I read it as the point to guns is to maintain a militia (army) and others think that means more of an ad-hoc fashion militia where if shit goes wrong you band together.

It was wrong of my to push my interpretation of the 2nd ammendment on others since it has not been sufficiently defined.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Daseal;978305]I don't think this is the place to try to mix two decisive political battles. Let's focus this on the gun issue. We can discuss this in another thread, if you so desire.

The supreme court has yet to definitively rule on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I read it as the point to guns is to maintain a militia (army) and [B]others think that means more of an ad-hoc fashion militia[/B] where if shit goes wrong you band together.

It was wrong of my to push my interpretation of the 2nd ammendment on others since it has not been sufficiently defined.[/quote]

To go with your flow, I'll raise these questions for the crowd: how is what is bolded "well-regulated," as the Constitution says? And isn't the bolded part what most people mean when they cite the 2nd Amendment?

One could argue that most people who cite their Constitutional right to arms are actually not within the Constitution at all because they are not engaging in a "well-regulated militia."

[QUOTE=firstdown;978265]He would have found other guns.[/QUOTE]

Um in Newtown CT it might have been difficult for someone in his mental state to do so. I think that due to his mental state this was maybe not premeditated as much as a knee jerk reaction to the fact that they wound up in his hands. Regardless i was just pointing out the fact that Mrs Lanza did own guns.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978294]The only way that there is a zero % chance that your Glock will be found is if you cannot find it yourself.[/quote]

I don't need to explain myself to you however I am ex-military, have a long history of firearms experience and have my shit locked down. Just because you feel that my processes can't possible be error free doesn't make it so.

[quote=Lotus;978294]If you can find it, then there is a % chance, however small, that someone else can, too.[/quote]

No, there is not. No chance they could gain access to it if it were found either.

[quote=Lotus;978294]And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.[QUOTE=Lotus;978294]

This person is committing a crime to get my firearm, how am I aiding and abetting?

[I]Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed.[/I]

Yet again you attempt to bluster through facts with hysterical rhetoric. Why is this child killer free? Isn't that a fault of the penal system?

[QUOTE=Lotus;978294]As for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-examined. It may have worked in the 18th century, when people had flintlocks, but it is a disaster when it comes to 21st century weapons, as Newtown taught us all.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Put it to a vote.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;978331]I don't need to explain myself to you however I am ex-military, have a long history of firearms experience and have my shit locked down. Just because you feel that my processes can't possible be error free doesn't make it so.



No, there is not. No chance they could gain access to it if it were found either.

[quote=Lotus;978294]And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.[QUOTE=Lotus;978294]

This person is committing a crime to get my firearm, how am I aiding and abetting?

[I]Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed.[/I]

Yet again you attempt to bluster through facts with hysterical rhetoric. Why is this child killer free? Isn't that a fault of the penal system?



Sure, why not. Put it to a vote.[/quote]

I have cited study after study and offered rational argument. I have not once offered "hysterical rhetoric."

1) You have glossed over the possibility that someone can steal your arms. If they are in a safe, they can be stolen. If they are in a silo 50 feet underground, they can be stolen. If you really think that your weapons are un-stealable, you need an education in both crime and physics.

This leads us to:
2) You are correct that when I used the phrase "aiding and abetting," I was not using it in the legal sense of knowing the criminal objective. I used it in the street sense. So let me rephrase: if you have a gun which is stolen by a killer, you have helped the killer get a gun. If you had no gun to steal, the killer cannot be armed by you. This is a simple point.

As for your question, "Why is the killer free?", there is a simple answer: first-time killer.

So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978341]So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?[/quote]How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978294]I have cited study after study and offered rational argument. I have not once offered "hysterical rhetoric."[/quote]

'Child killer' isn't hysterical rhetoric?

[quote=Lotus;978294]1) You have glossed over the possibility that someone can steal your arms. If they are in a safe, they can be stolen. If they are in a silo 50 feet underground, they can be stolen. If you really think that your weapons are un-stealable, you need an education in both crime and physics.[/quote]

You are giving this wannabe 'child killer' a lot of credit for being determined and resourceful. You need an education in reality and possibly a deprogramming on woowoo mindset. Not a child-killer, yet.

[quote=Lotus;978294]This leads us to:
2) You are correct that when I used the phrase "aiding and abetting," I was not using it in the legal sense of knowing the criminal objective. I used it in the street sense. So let me rephrase: if you have a gun which is stolen by a killer, you have helped the killer get a gun. If you had no gun to steal, the killer cannot be armed by you. This is a simple point.[/quote]

There is no 'street sense', it's either the legal term or you're wrong, and yet again, you're using deliberately incendiary rhetoric.


[quote=Lotus;978294]As for your question, "Why is the killer free?", there is a simple answer: first-time killer.[/quote]

To clarify, you're suggesting that this future child killer has selected me to be a partner in crime? Complete scaremongering fantasy. Maybe it works with your classroom, not with adults.

[quote=Lotus;978294]
So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?[/quote]

You're giving yourself WAAAAAAAAAY too much credit for your argument that clearly isn't there when you read my counter.

If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so.

Maybe you should stick to arguing the adoption of Unicorn Leash Laws in that fantasy land you live in?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;978346]How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.[/quote]

Ah, the old "anything can be a weapon" argument.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;978347]'Child killer' isn't hysterical rhetoric?



You are giving this wannabe 'child killer' a lot of credit for being determined and resourceful. You need an education in reality and possibly a deprogramming on woowoo mindset. Not a child-killer, yet.



There is no 'street sense', it's either the legal term or you're wrong, and yet again, you're using deliberately incendiary rhetoric.




To clarify, you're suggesting that this future child killer has selected me to be a partner in crime? Complete scaremongering fantasy. Maybe it works with your classroom, not with adults.



You're giving yourself WAAAAAAAAAY too much credit for your argument that clearly isn't there when you read my counter.

If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so.

Maybe you should stick to arguing the adoption of Unicorn Leash Laws in that fantasy land you live in?[/quote]

1) If you think that "child killer" is "hysterical rhetoric," please consult a news source and find out what happened in Newtown, CT. "Child killer" references real, current events, not anything hysterical. Unless of course that you think it is hysterical to consider the murders of many young kids to be wrong.

2) I am not giving any killer too much credit. Once again, scan the newspaper. There you will read about weapons, stolen in Newtown and other places, which are then used to kill people.

3) As for your statement, "If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so," the laws of physics say that you cannot guarantee that. The brute fact is that your weapon may be stolen and then used to kill people, no matter how safely you think you have squirreled your weapon away.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;978346]How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.[/quote]

The Liberal, woowoo mindset....it's hilarious!

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978350]Ah, the old "anything can be a weapon" argument.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, [COLOR="Red"]not a car problem[/COLOR].[/quote]


32k+ deaths from autos this year.
Now where is the problem again?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978350]Ah, the old "anything can be a weapon" argument.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.[/quote]More people killed by cars. And in case you genuinely missed it, the main point I've refuted is the "zero percent" argument.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978352]1) If you think that "child killer" is "hysterical rhetoric," please consult a news source and find out what happened in Newtown, CT. "Child killer" references real, current events, not anything hysterical. Unless of course that you think it is hysterical to consider the murders of many young kids to be wrong.[/quote]

You are the one using the phrase to frame a strawman argument. So, [B][U]just to be crystal clear[/U][/B], [B]YOUR[/B] use of the phrase [B]CHILD KILLER[/B] is hysterical rhetoric.

[quote=Lotus;978352]2) I am not giving any killer too much credit. Once again, scan the newspaper. There you will read about weapons, stolen in Newtown and other places, which are then used to kill people. [/quote]

I would prefer you prove your premise that a POTENTIAL child killer is going to get my weapon. They are not. There aren't bands of roving child killers wandering the U.S. finding and stealing firearms. That's just scaremongering boogie man talk.

[quote=Lotus;978352]3) As for your statement, "If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so," the laws of physics say that you cannot guarantee that. The brute fact is that your weapon may be stolen and then used to kill people, no matter how safely you think you have squirreled your weapon away.[/quote]

Which particular Law of Physics are you citing? I think you are possibly thinking of the Law of Averages. Even then you're way off. In the same way that the world could end tomorrow or that you could get a whale caught up your ass next time you swim in the sea. Is it likely? Absolutely not. Your scenario is flawed and you can't see it or can't admit it.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Lotus;978350]The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.[/quote]

Correct. Firearms were used, we can all agree on that. Who USED them?

Same kind of ****ing idiots that misuse a vehicle and kill.