[Wheatfield]

That isn't possible.

Interestingly, it seems possible in Canada, Great Britain, Australia and a bunch of other countries that don't have gun psychosis. I'll grant that it isn't possible in the USA, but that is because as a society, you have a gun psychosis.
I live a couple of dozen blocks from what one of our national news magazines called the worst neighborhood in Canada a few years ago, one would think that if there was going to be a hotbed of violent gun crime anywhere, it would be within a couple of miles of my back door, but the fact is, there isn't. Gun crimes here are rare enough that it is still a big deal when they happen.
What the NRA types seem to be advocating for everyone to be packing so that when a bad guy goes off, he'll be put down immediately. Probably a good theory, except how many of those well meaning bystanders will hit the target and not some lady with a baby carriage who happens to be close to the line of fire?
Personally, I'll take my chances with the police getting there after the crime has been committed rather than a bunch of wannabe SWAT types who figure they can shoot a gun and start randomly killing bystanders because they had an extra wobbly pop after work and can't hit the side of a barn, much less a person standing 30 feet from them.

[Wheatfield]

There is this debating tactic - take what someone says to the extreme case in order to deflate the point.

The point about gun control isn't just to deny the hardened criminal a gun - which clearly is impossible to do 100%. The point is to make it harder for them, and to keep gun availabilty lower for the non-criminals who may go psycho. Without assault weapons so freely available, maybe the nut shoots a couple of people instead of a couple of dozen, or someone momentarily upset doesn't have the means to do something irreversible. And if those hardened criminals we have to protect ourselves from have 5% fewer guns, say, just maybe there might be 5% fewer shootings by them?

If what's his name hadn't been able to get his hands on a Glock, do you suppose Gifford would have had her head staved in by a baseball bat, or would the guy have even bothered to try?

[boriscleto]

If what's his name hadn't been able to get his hands on a Glock, do you suppose Gifford would have had her head staved in by a baseball bat, or would the guy have even bothered to try?

He would have just driven an SUV through the crowd.

[MRRiley]

Interestingly, it seems possible in Canada, Great Britain, Australia and a bunch of other countries that don't have gun psychosis. I'll grant that it isn't possible in the USA, but that is because as a society, you have a gun psychosis.

Well lets see... just to list the 3 you identified... Queen, Queen, Queen... The U.S. fought a war, largely using citizen owned or supplied firearms, to get rid of a King. So maybe thats why we see a value in a right to ownership of firearms by the ordinary citizen. I'm not saying this to insult anyone who is nominally part of the British Empire, but our self initiated separation from said empire defines a lot of our character. Whether it is a "psychosis" or not is debatable.

I live a couple of dozen blocks from what one of our national news magazines called the worst neighborhood in Canada a few years ago, one would think that if there was going to be a hotbed of violent gun crime anywhere, it would be within a couple of miles of my back door, but the fact is, there isn't. Gun crimes here are rare enough that it is still a big deal when they happen.

Good for you... I have to live with the realities where I live, not the realities in Canada.

What the NRA types seem to be advocating for everyone to be packing so that when a bad guy goes off, he'll be put down immediately. Probably a good theory, except how many of those well meaning bystanders will hit the target and not some lady with a baby carriage who happens to be close to the line of fire?

Which is why I advise firearms training for anyone who wishes to carry a firearm in public.

Personally, I'll take my chances with the police getting there after the crime has been committed rather than a bunch of wannabe SWAT types who figure they can shoot a gun and start randomly killing bystanders because they had an extra wobbly pop after work and can't hit the side of a barn, much less a person standing 30 feet from them.

Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than drunk gun users, but that doesn't change the fact than alcohol and guns do not mix. I NEVER drink alcohol when I am carrying and if I have had ANY in the last 24 hours I will not carry!

Furthermore, you are welcome to wait for the police to show up rather than tryin to stop the shooter in some way. I hope you have lots of patience and the shooter runs out of ammo before he kills you unimpeded.

Mike

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 09-07-2011 at 04:48 PM.

[Wheatfield]

He would have just driven an SUV through the crowd.

Fair enough.

[Workingdog]

Well lets see... just to list the 3 you identified... Queen, Queen, Queen... The U.S. fought a war, largely using citizen owned or supplied firearms, to get rid of a King. So maybe thats why we see a value in a right to ownership of firearms by the ordinary citizen. I'm not saying this to insult anyone who is nominally part of the British Empire, but our self initiated separation from said empire defines a lot of our character. Whether it is a "psychosis" or not is debatable.



Good for you... I have to live with the realities where I live, not the realities in Canada.



Which is why I advise firearms training for anyone who wishes to carry a firearm in public.



Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than drunk gun users, but that doesn't change the fact than alcohol and guns do not mix. I NEVER drink alcohol when I am carrying and if I have had ANY in the last 24 hours I will not carry!

Furthermore, you are welcome to wait for the police to show up rather than tryin to stop the shooter in some way. I hope you have lots of patience and the shooter runs out of ammo before he kills you unimpeded.

Mike

A big +1 for everything you've said here Mike

[normhead]

And yet, in the same country. people faced the Klan without guns, lots of people live their whole lives without guns. The fact that some Americans choose to live with guns doesn't change that. In the whole history of the debate, I have never seen one statisitic that says people living with guns are safer than people living without guns. I doubt if you take accidental shooting etc. into account or the number of incidents where people in burglaries are shot with their own guns... that living with a gun is safer than living without one. I know many pacifists that live without guns, and don't lock their doors either. They are all still alive or died of natural causes. Not one of them was shot.

Living with a gun is a personal choice, not a necessity, by any stretch of the imagination.

I have to ask though.. if you're safer with a gun than without, where are the stats to prove it?

[Workingdog]

And yet, in the same country. people faced the Klan without guns, lots of people live their whole lives without guns. The fact that some Americans choose to live with guns doesn't change that. In the whole history of the debate, I have never seen one statisitic that says people living with guns are safer than people living without guns. I doubt if you take accidental shooting etc. into account or the number of incidents where people in burglaries are shot with their own guns... that living with a gun is safer than living without one. I know many pacifists that live without guns, and don't lock their doors either. They are all still alive or died of natural causes. Not one of them was shot.

Living with a gun is a personal choice, not a necessity, by any stretch of the imagination.

I have to ask though.. if you're safer with a gun than without, where are the stats to prove it?

You're right, it is a personal choice. I would much rather have a gun and not need one than need one and not have one. At least here in America we have a choice and that, I believe is the whole point.

[TomK]

you should be mulling around that your Second Amendment was written when people had muzzle loaders and flintlocks, not machine guns,

Just a point of clarification.
Machine guns are outlawed by US Federal laws since the 1930's.
Illegal to own by ordinary citizens in all states.
That goes for machine pistols also.

These are obtained illegally and that is what has to be addressed
as well as any arms obtained illegally.

As far as the IHOP thing, I posted a reference in another thread about the
city of Newark, NJ.
There was a drive by shooting of an all night chicken shack in which two
patrons and one off-duty plainclothesman cop were shot. The cop died.
The victims, including the cop, were random.
The city then instituted a law that demands that any small fast food place that
is open after 9 PM MUST have on duty an armed guard for the protection of the
customers.
So it would seem that if this happened in Newark, they would demand that all
IHOPs in the city have armed guards there also.

You will note that Mike has stated that although he has a carry permit he rarely goes out armed.
That is what I hear from a number of my friends that also live in "right to carry" states.
They don't do it as a matter of course just because the can, They are selective.
(Except for a friend in sparsely populated Colorado who ALWAYS goes out armed. Go figure.)

-TomK-
Guns don't kill people pancakes kill people!

[MRRiley]

And yet, in the same country. people faced the Klan without guns, lots of people live their whole lives without guns. The fact that some Americans choose to live with guns doesn't change that.

And countless people (both black and white) who faced the Klan without guns died too. There has never been an accurate counting of all Klan related murders (largely because at the time most were not classified as murders). And while its true that few public protestors were killed in-mass that is likely more attributed to the fact that the Klan is composed mostly of cowards who prefer to do their thing under the cover of darkness or a hood.

In the whole history of the debate, I have never seen one statisitic that says people living with guns are safer than people living without guns. I doubt if you take accidental shooting etc. into account or the number of incidents where people in burglaries are shot with their own guns... that living with a gun is safer than living without one.

There is no such thing as an "accidental shooting." There are "careless shootings," all of which are attributable to careless or reckless handling of firearms. As for people being shot in their own homes by criminals who seized the homeowner's weapon... I suspect this is a gun control myth. I've never seen statistics to support it in any large or even significant numbers. Most violent criminals actually prefer homes where they know there are no weapons. This assures their safety. Homes where the criminal knows there are armed and trained inhabitants are rearely burgled while the owners are home. Sadly it is true that they can be burgled while the owners are away, but this is why all weapons should be secured in a safe while the owners aren't home.

I know many pacifists that live without guns, and don't lock their doors either. They are all still alive or died of natural causes. Not one of them was shot.

The vast majority of people in the United States and Canada will never be victims of violent crimes. It is also true that the vast majority of people will never have a fire burn down their home, yet most people have fire extinguishers and insurance.

Living with a gun is a personal choice, not a necessity, by any stretch of the imagination.

Very true! My choice, and my responsibility to use my weapons in a way that only threatens a criminal intent upon harming me or the people important to me. You are free to chose otherwise.

I have to ask though.. if you're safer with a gun than without, where are the stats to prove it?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

Introduction
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually.

Admittedly this is on a firearms site, but the numbers indicated by all of the studies except the NCVS one are significant. Dr. Kleck's study can be found here... Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Mike

[seacapt]

Somebody please tell me what an assault weapon is.
Every article on this shooting says a different weapon was used . Some say AK-47 this is highly unlikely as an Ak47 is a select fire/ full auto capable weapon and most of the late model milspec AKs were AKMs. Most civillians who actually have shot full autos will tell you that they ran out of ammo with very few on target hits real quick, that doesn't sound like this guy's story. Mike suggested a SKS which was a Gavrilovich design as opposed to the Kalashnikov AK47. Prior to the Clinton "Assault Weapon Ban" a semi auto version of the ak47 commonly reffered to as an AKS was readily available. I've owned several semi auto rifles chambered in 7.62x39 that weren't on the ban list . Were they assault weapons? I allways thought of them as a great deer rifle with similar balistics to a 30-30.
Why does the media speculate on things they don't know for fact?
Fact is some crazy MF apparently had 2 riflles and a pistol and killed a bunch of innocent people at an IHop. Why do the media broke dicks have to make rash assumptions about the weapon used and portray them as fact?
It's kinda like the headline " Man shot by Dick Cheney's rifle speaks out". Yeah that was a real headline on MSN.
People died needlessly media makes up unsupported crap to sell a story or an agenda . Does it matter if the shooter used an "assault weapon" , an AK47 , a model '92 Wincester , a 10-22 or a British Enfield?
So who's gonna tell me what the definition of an assault weapon is?
Is anybody going to tell me which BS reporter guessed right?
Damn shame these useless pinhead reporters and editors make a tradgedy into a sensationalized money maker based on uninformed BS.

[Wheatfield]

Well lets see... just to list the 3 you identified... Queen, Queen, Queen... The U.S. fought a war, largely using citizen owned or supplied firearms, to get rid of a King. So maybe thats why we see a value in a right to ownership of firearms by the ordinary citizen. I'm not saying this to insult anyone who is nominally part of the British Empire, but our self initiated separation from said empire defines a lot of our character. Whether it is a "psychosis" or not is debatable.

What it started out as vs what it has become are perhaps 2 separate things. Besides, you've given up royal rule for corporate rule, so where have you progressed since 1776?
The names have changed, but you still have rulers, it's just now they have names like Koch.

Good for you... I have to live with the realities where I live, not the realities in Canada.

Good for you. I was addressing what has been found possible in other countries. Your attempt at hijacking the point doesn't alter that.

Which is why I advise firearms training for anyone who wishes to carry a firearm in public.



Drunk drivers kill far more people every year than drunk gun users, but that doesn't change the fact than alcohol and guns do not mix. I NEVER drink alcohol when I am carrying and if I have had ANY in the last 24 hours I will not carry!

Well, aren't you just Mr. Responsible. And how many dingbats are there in your country that don't share your sense of civic responsibility?

Furthermore, you are welcome to wait for the police to show up rather than tryin to stop the shooter in some way. I hope you have lots of patience and the shooter runs out of ammo before he kills you unimpeded.

Mike

Mike, don't try to put your screwed up reality onto me or anyone else. I don't have to worry overly much about people carrying guns with bad intent. That was the whole point of my getting involved in this discussion.
Here, in small words: In Canada, we don't have a gun culture and we rarely use guns the way they are routinely used in your country to kill each other.
I actually feel sorry for you, having to walk around as paranoid as you do about some whack job with a gun taking your life, even though you are apparently part of the problem.

[MRRiley]

Somebody please tell me what an assault weapon is.
Every article on this shooting says a different weapon was used . Some say AK-47 this is highly unlikely as an Ak47 is a select fire/ full auto capable weapon and most of the late model milspec AKs were AKMs. Most civillians who actually have shot full autos will tell you that they ran out of ammo with very few on target hits real quick, that doesn't sound like this guy's story. Mike suggested a SKS which was a Gavrilovich design as opposed to the Kalashnikov AK47. Prior to the Clinton "Assault Weapon Ban" a semi auto version of the ak47 commonly reffered to as an AKS was readily available. I've owned several semi auto rifles chambered in 7.62x39 that weren't on the ban list . Were they assault weapons? I allways thought of them as a great deer rifle with similar balistics to a 30-30.
Why does the media speculate on things they don't know for fact?
Fact is some crazy MF apparently had 2 riflles and a pistol and killed a bunch of innocent people at an IHop. Why do the media broke dicks have to make rash assumptions about the weapon used and portray them as fact?
It's kinda like the headline " Man shot by Dick Cheney's rifle speaks out". Yeah that was a real headline on MSN.
People died needlessly media makes up unsupported crap to sell a story or an agenda . Does it matter if the shooter used an "assault weapon" , an AK47 , a model '92 Wincester , a 10-22 or a British Enfield?
So who's gonna tell me what the definition of an assault weapon is?
Is anybody going to tell me which BS reporter guessed right?
Damn shame these useless pinhead reporters and editors make a tradgedy into a sensationalized money maker based on uninformed BS.

Lee,

AKS was what I meant actually. Thanks for the correction, though the SKS looks very similar... Part of the problem is these weapons are made by dozens of manufacturers and they often use their own designations to identify what is, essentially the same weapon.

As to what an "assault weapon" is... In military terms it is "a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position." (Wikipedia). In common usage, the term has been co-opted and misused by the anti-gun crowd to refer to any scary black rifle that has a short barrel, a pistol grip and a detachable magazine.

Btw, MSNBC is reporting that the weapon was a Norinco AK-47. While MSNBC does not state this, the vast majority of these versions were semi-auto only. And since the Feds have no info on the original purchaser & the dealer is out of business it is highly unlikely that it was a full-auto "select fire" weapon. Had it been, the FBI would already know who at least the original legal purchaser was since all Class 3 weapons have to be registered and a tax stamp acquired ($200 per transfer). An extensive background check of the buyer (above and beyond the NICS) is also performed.

[MRRiley]

What it started out as vs what it has become are perhaps 2 separate things. Besides, you've given up royal rule for corporate rule, so where have you progressed since 1776?
The names have changed, but you still have rulers, it's just now they have names like Koch.

And you don't think you have corporate rulers in Canada? Dream on.

Good for you. I was addressing what has been found possible in other countries. Your attempt at hijacking the point doesn't alter that.

I didn't hijack anything. You are the one who brought up your crime free paradise. I simply replied that I have to deal with my realities, not yours.

Well, aren't you just Mr. Responsible. And how many dingbats are there in your country that don't share your sense of civic responsibility?

Very few actually. You anti-gunners are always fond of crying that "blood will run in the streets" every time a law restricting the use of firearms by law abiding citizens is overturned. Hasn't happened yet. States with laws that allow law-abiding citizens generally have lower rates of crime perpetrated by criminals misusing guns. Why, because the criminals are scared of citizens with guns. But you won't admit that. An example though, the violent crime rate in DC has historically been far higher than neighboring northern Virginia. There are, I will admit several factors which contribute to this, but one factor is private firearms ownership. In DC up until very recently, citizens were severely restricted from owning firearms and those that did had to store them disassembled in their homes. God forbid they should carry them in public. In northern VA (in all of VA for that matter but lets keep the example more equatable) law abiding citizens are able to buy and own any legal firearm and keep it in their home in a fully operable condition. Additionally, open carry of handguns is legal in public. In VA, burglaries and home assaults are much much lower than in DC. Why? Could it be because the criminals prefer to commit their crimes in an environment where their level of risk is lower? Since DC's restrictions were overturned, rates of violent home invasions and burglaries have dropped measurably. Why? Because now there is a chance that the owner has a functional firearm. Bill, CRIMINALS ARE COWARDS! Like wolves, they prey on the weak and defenseless when given the slightest opportunity. I simply chose not to be a sheep.

You just cannot get away from your belief that guns are evil. Bill... guns are inanimate tools... PERIOD. They are only as "evil," or "good" for that matter, as the HUMAN wielding them. Do Canadians blame crowbars for the abundance of property crime in Canada (which is relatively high compared to the United States)? Didn't think so. You logically blame the criminal. Why can't you apply that same logic to criminals using guns?

Mike, don't try to put your screwed up reality onto me or anyone else. I don't have to worry overly much about people carrying guns with bad intent. That was the whole point of my getting involved in this discussion.
Here, in small words: In Canada, we don't have a gun culture and we rarely use guns the way they are routinely used in your country to kill each other.
I actually feel sorry for you, having to walk around as paranoid as you do about some whack job with a gun taking your life, even though you are apparently part of the problem.

Bill, I would love to see the day when law abiding citizens did not have a reasonable need to own firearms for self protection. I'd love to see the day when criminals did not prey on the weak. I'd love to see the day when people did not feel they had to steal because they have less of something than their neighbor. Until that day comes I chose to possess some manner of protection.

As for the gun culture point. It's true, Canada does not have a "gun culture" if by that you mean there is no tradition of private citizens having access to firearms in general and handguns in particular. Perfectly true, but I believe, as I explained earlier, that this has more to do with compliance with the erstwhile British Empire than a conscious choice of the citizenry. Firearms ownership is severely restricted throughout every country of the old empire except one... The United States! We had to arm ourselves to throw of your good King George and then to defend our fledgling country when you tried to take it back (and we won both times though didn't we?). I do suspect that the elite in your society are armed just like they are here though. If they don't own a firearm themselves they employ bodyguards who carry weapons. California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi reportedly owns and carries a 9mm semi-auto pistol in addition to employing several armed bodyguards (not to mention having access to the Secret Service). Yet, she is on the forefront in this country in attempts to disarm the common citizen.

As for me being "part of the problem," please explain. None of my firearms have ever been fired in anger or in self defense. None of my firearms have ever been stolen and misused by a criminal. None of my firearms has ever jumped out of it's storage place and shot up the house because it felt neglected. Where is the problem Bill?

Mike

p.s. you will also note that I have never said you should get a gun Bill. Your choice to live how you want. But your choices have no bearing on mine or anyone else's in this country.

[MRRiley]

Guns don't kill people.
Guns loaded with bullets and people with an agenda attached to them kill people.
So then, agendas MUST be banned.
Either that or bullets.
By this logic, germs don't kill people.
People with germs kill people.

Germs are animate creatures who can cause their damage with or without the cooperation of people. A gun cannot aim and fire itself. A human has to do that... Well I guess a monkey or some other sufficiently dexterous animal could too, but the point is, someone or something has to pull the trigger. Guns do not spontaneously fire.

What needs to be banned is CRIMINALS who misuse weapons. If we could ever guarantee that criminals were unable to use any deadly weapon to harm a law-abiding citizen then I would gladly give up my defensive weapons... Sadly though, that is totally unrealistic given human nature.

Mike