So Very Sad....

[KoB2011]

2 hours ago, hoosierBGH said:

The largest death toll from a school attack in US history was caused by explosives.... which I posted a link to up thread. 

1.Those things you are proposing like they are some new, never before tried wonder solution have all been tried somewhere at some point and have failed. What we have not tried is hardening schools against attacks and eliminating areas where victims are prohibited from defending themselves. While no single thing can completely stop someone who is determined to commit mass murdered, hardening schools and arming teachers has had quite a bit of success in Israel where they have done a good job of stopping terrorists from attacking schools. 

2. The point that you ignore is that as long as defenseless victims are available someone determined to do harm will find a way to do so. The solution is not to create more defenseless victims, it is to allow the potential victims a chance to defend themselves. 

3. Very little in Hollywood is accurate most especially when it pertains to guns. By even the most conservative estimates, firearms are used to stop crimes by civilians half a million times per year, the majority of a time without a shot being fired. 

4. As I pointed out in some detail up thread, everything you've proposed has failed repeatedly both in the US and in other countries. Criminals do not obey laws, that is what makes them criminals. Someone determined to commit mass murder will find a way no matter what restrictions are placed on the law abiding. Depriving the law abiding of the tools to defend themselves only makes it easier for those bent on harm. 

Fouls, there are several false assumptions contained in your questions. First, semi-automatic firearms(fires one shot per trigger pull), which is what we are talking about, are not fully automatic(capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull) and are not capable of firing at a significantly higher rate than any other type of repeating firearm(revolvers, pump actions, lever actions, and bolt actions). Those other types may require a bit more skill and experience to operate quickly but the weapons themselves are capable of it. If you don't believe this, then do a search for Jerry Miculek shooting a revolver on youtube and watch a few videos. It is also important to realize that pulling the trigger fast is not the rate limiting step of firing a gun, aiming is. It takes longer to aim a shot accurately than it does to pull the trigger, regardless of action type. 

Second, even single shot firearms can be used to do great harm when the victims have no means of escape and are kept defenseless. A professor at Purdue created a model using FBI statistics that shows that the single most important factor in reducing the casualties at mass shooting is the amount of time it takes for the shooter to be confronted by an armed person. The average police response time in the US is about 10 minutes and that is a lot of time to do a lot of damage even with single shot weapons.

Third, criminals often do not act alone, making a weapon capable of firing multiple shots quickly(regardless of action type) more beneficial for the intended victims to be able to engage multiple criminals in order to defend themselves. Laws against repeating weapons (as you seem to be suggesting) harms the victims chance to defend themselves more than it does the criminals since the criminal gets to pick the time, location, and circumstance of the attack, not to mention that the criminal, by definition does not follow the law. 

 

Typing really long responses that people don't have the time to dig into doesn't make you smarter. It's demonstrably false to say that gun control hasn't worked in other countries. That fact undercuts everything else you've said. To your point about explosives, no one argues that should be legal. The fact that there are more deadly (already illegal) things out there than guns is completely irrelevant and does nothing to prove guns aren't a problem. It sounds like a cheating husband arguing he isn't a bad husband because he didn't beat his wife. 

Either way, as fun as this debate is the country is hitting a turning point. It may not be this year, but it will be this decade. A generation of school kids that will soon be voting has grown up having to do gun safety drills. No amount of propoganda that the only thing stopping guns is good guys with guns will change the reality that these kids have faced their entire lives. We will end up with laws that more closely resemble ever other developed nation on the planet. 

[mrflynn03]

On Monday, March 05, 2018 at 1:53 PM, KoB2011 said:

The sime respoinse is to look at per capita statistics and . see we are pathetic when it comes to gun violence in America. That takes the size difference out of the equation. 

 

What about overall violent crime? That has remained relatively unchanged to INcreasing In the places you mention.  

A simple response to a complex problem . Statistics can be and are manipulated  look up no crime reporting IN the UK.

 

You never answered my question.  What do you want to see as a final solution.  Debate will be more honest If the gun control advocates could state their ultimate goal.      

[KoB2011]

25 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

What about overall violent crime? That has remained relatively unchanged to INcreasing In the places you mention.  

A simple response to a complex problem . Statistics can be and are manipulated  look up no crime reporting IN the UK.

 

You never answered my question.  What do you want to see as a final solution.  Debate will be more honest If the gun control advocates could state their ultimate goal.      

I'd like to see more restrictions on who can purchase guns, what guns can be purchased and where those guns are allowed to be. 

To your point about violent crimes as a whole; fair point. Are you honestly advocating that you'd rather get shot than punched (in the UK for example violent crime only involves a weapon of any type 1/5 of the time)? I'd rather be twice as likely to be involved in a violent crime if it meant I was getting hit, shoved, etc. instead of being shot. 

[rico]

6 hours ago, Seeking6 said:

I was kidding to keep a volatile subject friendly....but if faced with this situation that probably wouldn't be the worst route. Diffuse situation and get them out of home. 

Ever had anybody break into your home?  'Cause I have.

[mrflynn03]

9 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I'd like to see more restrictions on who can purchase guns, what guns can be purchased and where those guns are allowed to be. 

To your point about violent crimes as a whole; fair point. Are you honestly advocating that you'd rather get shot than punched (in the UK for example violent crime only involves a weapon of any type 1/5 of the time)? I'd rather be twice as likely to be involved in a violent crime if it meant I was getting hit, shoved, etc. instead of being shot. 

First off you are describing simple assault. Second, fist and feet are respobsible for more deaths than rifles(which is where this debate always goes).  The vast majority of gun crime happens in populated areas with handguns and is mostly gang/drug related but nobody cares about these victims. 

Fact is mass murder is statistically rare and focusing on only these events ignores the underlying problems, such as the war on drugs, or domestic violence for example, which results in most gun homicides. 

Also, with the uk and austrailia since they are so often used as a model.  Look at their rape statistics,burglary,property crime, ect. Overall higher than the US and increased after gun control. 

This is a cultural/social issue and comparing different cultures with vastly different populations/demographics is disingenuous.  

What i think is overlooked in the debates is gun owners see gun control advocates as assuming we are all a danger to society and need to be controlled. Gun control = people control. Also, alot of people see society as a collective where the other side sees us as a country of individuals which i beleive polarizes most issues. 

[mrflynn03]

4 hours ago, rico said:

Ever had anybody break into your home?  'Cause I have.

Luckily I have not fired at anyone, but I have confronted someone while i was armed, trying to gain entry when I was 15 and home alone and living in the country.  They una**ed my front porch in record speed.  It was a nervewracking moment. 

[rico]

1 hour ago, mrflynn03 said:

Luckily I have not fired at anyone, but I have confronted someone while i was armed, trying to gain entry when I was 15 and home alone and living in the country.  They una**ed my front porch in record speed.  It was a nervewracking moment. 

Hmmmmm.  It is a very "humbling" experience.  One that I hope and pray that none of our members have to encounter.

[Seeking6]

9 hours ago, rico said:

Ever had anybody break into your home?  'Cause I have.

Yes. Few times in life.

[rico]

1 hour ago, Seeking6 said:

Yes. Few times in life.

Did you "pull" a gun?

[KoB2011]

7 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

 

What i think is overlooked in the debates is gun owners see gun control advocates as assuming we are all a danger to society and need to be controlled. Gun control = people control. Also, alot of people see society as a collective where the other side sees us as a country of individuals which i beleive polarizes most issues. 

The notion that those advocating gun control view all gun owners as dangerous is at best an extreme fringe position if not a complete strawman. The truth is most have no problem at all with responsible gun ownership and that shouldn't threaten you in the least if you're a responsible gun owner. 

I guess gun control could be considered people control, but that never seems to be an issue for that side of the aisle on other issues that don't involve keeping people alive so I don't see why it is now. 

[rico]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teen-drawn-isis-brought-homemade-bomb-utah-school-police-say-n854351

[KoB2011]

5 hours ago, rico said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teen-drawn-isis-brought-homemade-bomb-utah-school-police-say-n854351

No one got hurt and no one advocates for bombs being legal. A knife was brought to a school in another country and strangely no one was hurt. It's like guns, especially guns designed for harming people, are better at hurting people than other weapons. 

But, just this week another kid was shot dead at school in Alabama. 

What exactly is your point when you bring up other dangerous, already illegal things? You are very adamant that guns shouldn't have any further restrictions and since you keep bring up other situations the logical conclusion is you also don't think bombs should be illegal, but I'm fairly certain you don't think that. 

[KoB2011]

Also, props to Florida for passing some reasonable legislation. I'm thrilled the NRA is suing over it so the court can clearly explain to everyone the Second Amendment does not mean we can't have regulations on guns. 

[rico]

17 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

No one got hurt and no one advocates for bombs being legal. A knife was brought to a school in another country and strangely no one was hurt. It's like guns, especially guns designed for harming people, are better at hurting people than other weapons. 

But, just this week another kid was shot dead at school in Alabama. 

What exactly is your point when you bring up other dangerous, already illegal things? You are very adamant that guns shouldn't have any further restrictions and since you keep bring up other situations the logical conclusion is you also don't think bombs should be illegal, but I'm fairly certain you don't think that. 

My point is that people that want to do harm to others will "improvise".  We have already discussed this in previous posts.  Bombs illegal?  Wow.  I can make one.  How do you outlaw knowledge?  

[KoB2011]

36 minutes ago, rico said:

My point is that people that want to do harm to others will "improvise".  We have already discussed this in previous posts.  Bombs illegal?  Wow.  I can make one.  How do you outlaw knowledge?  

Just because you can build one doens't make it legal. That's a concept my two year old can understand. 

Of course people can find ways to do harm, no one has said otherwise. The point is to make it harder for those people, not to just give up on it because they may be able to find another (less effective) way. 

[rico]

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

Just because you can build one doens't make it legal. That's a concept my two year old can understand. 

Of course people can find ways to do harm, no one has said otherwise. The point is to make it harder for those people, not to just give up on it because they may be able to find another (less effective) way. 

Less effective?  LOL

[Hoosierhoopster]

22 minutes ago, rico said:

My point is that people that want to do harm to others will "improvise".  We have already discussed this in previous posts.  Bombs illegal?  Wow.  I can make one.  How do you outlaw knowledge?  

Honestly Rico, you don't engage in discussion, you just look for a quick drive-by comment that doesn't address any point actually being made. All you've done in this thread is look for a comment you can make in your absolute, closed-minded way of looking at "gun rights" -- which, for you, appears to be that any regulation, any limitation whatsoever on your perceived "right" to carry a weapon that, obviously, was designed not for hunting groundhogs (seriously?) but for killing people, as in with high capacity magazines, etc., is something to be scared of. And isn't what all this boils down to? Fear? That's really what it is -- if they take away my "right" to carry a semi-automatic rifle (and that perceived "right" will, at some point, be recognized for what it is), then, oh my God, I'll be at risk. No you won't.

This discussion is so easily skewed with false stats that it's gotten comical. Of course our "society" is the one where people die at a ridiculously higher percentage than any other "developed" country in the world because of guns, the easy access to guns, because guns are everywhere and, golly, it's much easier to kill a person with a gun (than with a "kick", really??). There are so many studies on this basic, completely obvious point that it's not worth repeating or "backing" with stats. Just as our "society" and its "culture" on gun rights have created the environment in which no other developed country can compare to the mass shooting deaths we experience, now annually. The stat war is transparent.

What people who have an open mind on this topic are trying to discuss is what reasonable limitations might be placed on gun "rights" to protect against school shootings and mass shootings. No one is trying to limit that average gun owner's right to have a weapon in the house to protect against the (extremely rare) burglary when a gun might help (leaving alone the countless statistics on accidental shootings in the home because a gun was in the home). And arming teachers is just an NRA straw man. If you think that's a good idea, you have not studied the issue, period. Among the many obvious problems with that NRA - driven alternative, teachers are not officers, they have studied to teach kids, a few gun classes don't get you past that. There are countless incidents of teacher abuse across the country, sexual, and violent, and guess who -- statistically -- is most often at the wrong end of teacher discipline issues, young black males. Sure, give teachers guns, and say hello to a new serious issue in schools. "Hardening" schools can be part of the solution, for sure, but so you want to live in Israel? This is not Israel. We are not a country at constant war in a continuing religious and cultural battle with Palestinians, Jerusalem, the Gaza strip, etc. We're a country experiencing school shootings and mass shootings, repeatedly, largely because of the ridiculous ease of access to high capacity semi-automatic weapons. Age limitations absolutely should be part of this dialogue. Access restrictions, better background check enforcement, limiting the loop holes (gun shows, etc.) are part of the discussion. Taking away your right to have a handgun in the house, is not.

[KoB2011]

2 minutes ago, rico said:

Less effective?  LOL

You've linked to two stories with bombs that had no injuries.

In the past six months we have had Vegas and Parkland that both involved guns and many casualties. After OKC Bombing they made major changes to prevent that from happening again and it has largely worked. Why wouldn't we do that with a different weapon?

[rico]

3 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Honestly Rico, you don't engage in discussion, you just look for a quick drive-by comment that doesn't address any point actually being made. All you've done in this thread is look for a comment you can make in your absolute, closed-minded way of looking at "gun rights" -- which, for you, appears to be that any regulation, any limitation whatsoever on your perceived "right" to carry a weapon that, obviously, was designed not for hunting groundhogs (seriously?) but for killing people, as in with high capacity magazines, etc., is something to be scared of. And isn't what all this boils down to? Fear? That's really what it is -- if they take away my "right" to carry a semi-automatic rifle (and that perceived "right" will, at some point, be recognized for what it is), then, oh my God, I'll be at risk. No you won't.

This discussion is so easily skewed with false stats that it's gotten comical. Of course our "society" is the one where people die at a ridiculously higher percentage than any other "developed" country in the world because of guns, the easy access to guns, because guns are everywhere and, golly, it's much easier to kill a person with a gun (than with a "kick", really??). There are so many studies on this basic, completely obvious point that it's not worth repeating or "backing" with stats. Just as our "society" and its "culture" on gun rights have created the environment in which no other developed country can compare to the mass shooting deaths we experience, now annually. The stat war is transparent.

What people who have an open mind on this topic are trying to discuss is what reasonable limitations might be placed on gun "rights" to protect against school shootings and mass shootings. No one is trying to limit that average gun owner's right to have a weapon in the house to protect against the (extremely rare) burglary when a gun might help (leaving alone the countless statistics on accidental shootings in the home because a gun was in the home). And arming teachers is just an NRA straw man. If you think that's a good idea, you have not studied the issue, period. Among the many obvious problems with that NRA - driven alternative, teachers are not officers, they have studied to teach kids, a few gun classes don't get you past that. There are countless incidents of teacher abuse across the country, sexual, and violent, and guess who -- statistically -- is most often at the wrong end of teacher discipline issues, young black males. Sure, give teachers guns, and say hello to a new serious issue in schools. "Hardening" schools can be part of the solution, for sure, but so you want to live in Israel? This is not Israel. We are not a country at constant war in a continuing religious and cultural battle with Palestinians, Jerusalem, the Gaza strip, etc. We're a country experiencing school shootings and mass shootings, repeatedly, largely because of the ridiculous ease of access to high capacity semi-automatic weapons. Age limitations absolutely should be part of this dialogue. Access restrictions, better background check enforcement, limiting the loop holes (gun shows, etc.) are part of the discussion. Taking away your right to have a handgun in the house, is not.

Let's be clear about this.  I do use the gun for groundhogs.  You might find it comical, but I don't.  That is what I have one for as well as my Dad.  I am not a member of the NRA, not have I ever been.  Too much politics for me.  I know we have a problem, and I don't know what the hell the solution is.  I have no problem with raising the age...but does that really cure the problem.  I don't know, could it help?  I don't know on that one either.  

[rico]

5 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

You've linked to two stories with bombs that had no injuries.

In the past six months we have had Vegas and Parkland that both involved guns and many casualties. After OKC Bombing they made major changes to prevent that from happening again and it has largely worked. Why wouldn't we do that with a different weapon?

You can outlaw guns.......can you outlaw bombs?  Serious question.

[Hoosierhoopster]

Just now, rico said:

Let's be clear about this.  I do use the gun for groundhogs.  You might find it comical, but I don't.  That is what I have one for as well as my Dad.  I am not a member of the NRA, not have I ever been.  Too much politics for me.  I know we have a problem, and I don't know what the hell the solution is.  I have no problem with raising the age...but does that really cure the problem.  I don't know, could it help?  I don't know on that one either.  

My post above reflects my growing frustration with the lack of actual dialogue -- like this -- and the silly stat posting around the margins of what the actual discussion is about. Thanks for coming back with a thoughtful response.

I don't know how much of an impact raising the age might have, but considering how age restrictions are applied (e.g., alcohol, driving), I do believe that the maturity of the average 18-year old (not someone in the military who is being specially trained, for war) is not at the level where buying a semi-automatic rifle makes sense.  I don't know what the solution is either. But real dialogue over possible solutions is a good thing. 

[KoB2011]

24 minutes ago, rico said:

You can outlaw guns.......can you outlaw bombs?  Serious question.

Not only are bombs illegal but we have restrictions on being able to buy the materials used to make bombs. 

[rico]

12 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

My post above reflects my growing frustration with the lack of actual dialogue -- like this -- and the silly stat posting around the margins of what the actual discussion is about. Thanks for coming back with a thoughtful response.

I don't know how much of an impact raising the age might have, but considering how age restrictions are applied (e.g., alcohol, driving), I do believe that the maturity of the average 18-year old (not someone in the military who is being specially trained, for war) is not at the level where buying a semi-automatic rifle makes sense.  I don't know what the solution is either. But real dialogue over possible solutions is a good thing. 

I try to always have a thoughtful response on a serious issue.

This what I see(and this is just me).  I was brought up around guns.  My point being, that I had access to them at a young age.  My Grandpa, Dad, and my Uncles taught me well.  We didn't hunt for the kill.  We hunt for food or killing something that was causing harm to our livelihood(groundhogs).  So with all those thoughts in mind.....I will say this.  We got adults out there that shouldn't have a firearm.  Those same adults have kids that have access to them.  There, IMO, is where some of the problem lies.

[rico]

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

Not only are bombs illegal but we have restrictions on being able to buy the materials used to make bombs. 

I can skirt it.  I only need one to cause devastation.

[KoB2011]

52 minutes ago, rico said:

I can skirt it.  I only need one to cause devastation.

I understand that. The logical conclusion conclusion from your posts would be that you think we should get rid of the laws we have in place that make it harder to obtain a bomb because it still can be done. Is that what you are advocating?