Gun death Thread

[eflatminor]

Can you offer some valid statistics for your claim?

Already did in posts 15 and 20. Stop with the trolling please.

And I already refuted your links. I do not accept them as valid.

You refuted nothing. But please, feel free to show us evidence that murder, violence and mass killing rates are on the increase in America.

The floor is yours...

 

[Snookie]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/272428-ban-or-censor-video-games-not-guns.html

Here is a great thread, lots of hard data that proves that

1) mass murder is not on the rise
2) murder is not on the rise
3) crime/violence is not on the rise

There are to many variables to offer a concise evaluation of this matter.

I think if you lived in my neighboorhood you would be afraid to go out after dark here.

Not too long ago a guy was killed at a Rallyburgers that is two blocks from my house with a clear view.

I could have been hit by a stray bullet.

I guess I will check some crime statistics of my own to try and get an accurate report of the matter.

Saying that the rates are going down makes no difference to the too many people killed each year, no matter where or what.

Some people here think or insinuate that I am for total gun control, which I am not.

I would like to take away granny's Ak-47, though.

Sure, if you wanted to focus on your individual neighborhood, its entirely possible crime is on the rise. However when you look at the United States as a whole, it's very obvious that we hit a peek in the mid 80's and have been on a pretty steady decline since.

OK, I'll get back to you after some research. Be patient, thank you.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Providing examples of more gun crime is not winning over and motivating the law abiding to surrender or otherwise diminish their chosen, lawfully owned form of protection.

 

[eflatminor]

You may FEEL that way, but that's not reality.

Even according to your LA Times article it is indeed reality: 2012 was off the scale for mass murdering. My point -- and correct public perception -- is that madmen have developed a copycat fashion for mass murders, especially mass murder with suicide. This is all too likely to continue increasing in frequency and kill rates, since that's what has been happening all year.

I don't think anyone is denying mass killings happen. And I don't think anyone is "fine" with it. However, we will NOT let you pass laws that put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed crazies that couldn't care less about regulations.

Yes, lots of gun nuts say nothing is happening; this denial is the most striking thing going on in this national debate. Nothing is happening, no problem here, let us keep our assault weapons because we so much luuvvve them.

I don't think any honest homeowner needs to defend his home with an assault rifle fitted with a high-capacity magazine like Adam Lanza used to make hamburger of those little children's heads. You don't need arms like that. The crazies do need them, to steal them from you and make a big publicity splash killing lots of children and getting in the record books.

Your perception is not reality. And I did not cite an LA Times article, I cited a National Review and Yahoo piece that spoke to Grant Duwe's study, which no one has refuted.

I really don't care what you think is likely to happen in the future. Let's stick with what we KNOW, okay?

Regarding what you think others need and what they don't, I could point to the fact that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs and that the SC has already affirmed we have an individual, inalienable right, but we can also discuss this with simple logic and reason.

We KNOW gun bans do not deter criminals and crazies from obtaining the firearms and accessories which you hope to regulate. It didn't work during the last ban in America, it didn't happen in other countries that virtually banned all civilian firearm ownership (remember Norway?).

So, I ask you again, why would you want to pass laws that only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that don't care about regulations?

Please answer that question before trying to tell others what they need. As I've posted previously, I once faced two armed intruders with high capacity magazines in their firearms. I used one of the rifles you would ban to ensure nobody, not even the bad guys, were hurt or killed. I could NOT have done that with a bolt action rifle.

 

[Snookie]

Providing examples of more gun crime is not winning over and motivating the law abiding to surrender or otherwise diminish their chosen, lawfully owned form of protection.

I called for no surrender of all peoples guns or all guns. Some types I would like to see eliminated.

I would use the word alter rather than diminish.

 

[Circe]

We KNOW gun bans do not deter criminals and crazies from obtaining the firearms and accessories which you hope to regulate. It didn't work during the last ban in America,

Sure it did: the last ban was 1994--2004. The Columbine kids started the current fashion for crazies to use AR-15 assault rifles during their killing sprees, and use of these weapons has increased and increased since till now they are plainly the weapons of choice for mass murder sprees. Now that there is no ban, they are easy to steal or buy and the crazy kids are having a great time using "cool" guns in their rampage killings, like the Batman shooter.

So, I ask you again, why would you want to pass laws that only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that don't care about regulations?

Please answer that question before trying to tell others what they need. As I've posted previously, I once faced two armed intruders with high capacity magazines in their firearms. I used one of the rifles you would ban to ensure nobody, not even the bad guys, were hurt or killed. I could NOT have done that with a bolt action rifle.

I don't believe all this, sorry. Very colorful, sounds like a movie. I don't believe you need any assault weapons to defend yourself. I certainly don't. I think there are a lot of men who fantasize defending themselves against drug-crazed Hispanic youth gangs breaking into their house en masse, but that isn't actually something that is going to happen. Guys: these are fantasies.

Whereas men's schizophrenic teen-age sons steal these "cool" weapons constantly now to kill lots of people and suicide.

We are at a national crux: either we become like Brazil, or we make illegal these weapons purely designed to kill lots of people.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Providing examples of more gun crime is not winning over and motivating the law abiding to surrender or otherwise diminish their chosen, lawfully owned form of protection.

I called for no surrender of all peoples guns or all guns. Some types I would like to see eliminated.

I would use the word alter rather than diminish.

SEE: Otherwise diminish.

Applies for semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and high capacity magazines in and of themselves.

 

[eflatminor]

We KNOW gun bans do not deter criminals and crazies from obtaining the firearms and accessories which you hope to regulate. It didn't work during the last ban in America,

Sure it did: the last ban was 1994--2004. The Columbine kids started the current fashion for crazies to use AR-15 assault rifles during their killing sprees, and use of these weapons has increased and increased since till now they are plainly the weapons of choice for mass murder sprees. Now that there is no ban, they are easy to steal or buy and the crazy kids are having a great time using "cool" guns in their rampage killings, like the Batman shooter.

The actual figures do not support your position. You can call it a "fashion" but the fact remains, mass killings are on the decline, as the study I cited laid out very clearly.

And you do realize that Columbine happened during that ban. Just another of MANY examples of how criminals simply do not obey your laws, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

So, I ask you again, why would you want to pass laws that only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that don't care about regulations?

Please answer that question before trying to tell others what they need. As I've posted previously, I once faced two armed intruders with high capacity magazines in their firearms. I used one of the rifles you would ban to ensure nobody, not even the bad guys, were hurt or killed. I could NOT have done that with a bolt action rifle.

I don't believe all this, sorry.

True nevertheless.

I don't believe you need any assault weapons to defend yourself.

I did. The Korean store owners that defended their lives and property during the LA riots did. But the point remains, you don't get to determine what someone else needs and what they don't.

I think there are a lot of men who fantasize defending themselves against drug-crazed Hispanic youth gangs breaking into their house en masse, but that isn't actually something that is going to happen. Guys: these are fantasies.

Not sure why you brought up race.

Whereas men's schizophrenic teen-age sons steal these "cool" weapons constantly now to kill lots of people and suicide.

Let's keep suicide out of it, okay? You don't need any firearm for that, as Japan and their astronomical suicide rate proves.

While any incident of innocents being killed is a tragedy, the type of firearms you're seeking to ban have been around for over 100 years. There's nothing new or 'cool' about a semi automatic firearm.

Lastly, you are being dis-ingenious when you say "constantly". As the actual evidence shows, mass killings are on the decline in America. If that doesn't fit your agenda, sorry, but it's a fact.

We are at a national crux: either we become like Brazil, or we make illegal these weapons purely designed to kill lots of people.

Making anything illegal will not stop criminals from obtaining those items. It certainly won't stop violent crime as England and Australia proved after virtually banning firearms.

One last shot here...you still have not addressed my question:

Why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that simply do not obey your laws and regulations?

 

[1Templar]

Hello.

 

[sitarro]

another one

Shooting at Lone Star College in north Houston - latimes.com

That was a black thug that got pissed off that another black thug bumped into him one asshole got their gun out quicker while the other idiot shot himself in the crotch.......both should have been aborted a long time ago.

 

[Circe]

The actual figures do not support your position. You can call it a "fashion" but the fact remains, mass killings are on the decline, as the study I cited laid out very clearly.

Last year was the bloodiest since 1929, according to the LA Times story. The reason every forum is having many, many threads about gun control is because there IS a problem, not because mass killings are on the decline. I am amazed at the bare-faced denial that goes on: mass shootings and gun nut activities are continuing this very week after a year full of grossly horrific mass murders, and yet people simply say: It's not happening at all! You are imagining it!

I'm not arguing this point any longer. It's just silly to say there's no problem when the awful problem is exactly what we are trying to figure out how to cope with.

Let's keep suicide out of it, okay?

No, let's not "keep suicide out of it." The boys who are doing the rampage shootings mostly kill themselves afterward. Not all of them, but most of them and that's been a major factor for YEARS. It's part of the syndrome. They rack up a big kill, competing with previous shooters' records, and then they kill themselves when they hear the police pounding down the hallway, as Adam Lanza did. It is important to describe what is going on exactly so we know something about it, rather than to dive into denial as so many gun collectors are trying to get everyone to do.

Why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that simply do not obey your laws and regulations?

You aren't at a disadvantage. You don't need assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to defend your home. No one does: these are fantasy weapons for fantasizing being a big macho fighter in the Revolution. The psycho kids then steal these guns and shoot up the schools and malls. It is completely nuts for any society to allow this craziness to be going on. It's wildly out of control, like in Brazil. This society direly needs to get control of its gun massacres, especially all these rampage murders of children and firefighters and movie-goers in which the weapons of choice are assault weapons with high-capacity magazines.

 

[Snookie]

go Gabby! http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50140068n

 

[eflatminor]

The actual figures do not support your position. You can call it a "fashion" but the fact remains, mass killings are on the decline, as the study I cited laid out very clearly.

Last year was the bloodiest since 1929, according to the LA Times story. The reason every forum is having many, many threads about gun control is because there IS a problem, not because mass killings are on the decline. I am amazed at the bare-faced denial that goes on: mass shootings and gun nut activities are continuing this very week after a year full of grossly horrific mass murders, and yet people simply say: It's not happening at all! You are imagining it!

Got it. Forget the actual numbers, it's about what FEELS right...

Oh an regarding people saying "It's not happening at all", do you have link for that?

Didn't think so...

I'm not arguing this point any longer.

Promise? Really, do you promise???

Let's keep suicide out of it, okay?

No, let's not "keep suicide out of it." The boys who are doing the rampage shootings mostly kill themselves afterward. Not all of them, but most of them and that's been a major factor for YEARS. It's part of the syndrome. They rack up a big kill, competing with previous shooters' records, and then they kill themselves when they hear the police pounding down the hallway, as Adam Lanza did. It is important to describe what is going on exactly so we know something about it, rather than to dive into denial as so many gun collectors are trying to get everyone to do.
Thanks for making my point. The ONLY way these nutters are stopped is either by suicide or by a good buy with a firearm. And you want to restrict the firearms in the hands of good guys!

It would appear you advocate suicides as the best way to stop the madness. Now that's MAD!

Why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that simply do not obey your laws and regulations?

You aren't at a disadvantage. You don't need assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to defend your home. No one does: these are fantasy weapons for fantasizing being a big macho fighter in the Revolution. The psycho kids then steal these guns and shoot up the schools and malls. It is completely nuts for any society to allow this craziness to be going on. It's wildly out of control, like in Brazil. This society direly needs to get control of its gun massacres, especially all these rampage murders of children and firefighters and movie-goers in which the weapons of choice are assault weapons with high-capacity magazines.

How in the heck do you know what someone else needs and what he doesn't? The arrogance is overwhelming.

In any case, you're free to cower in the corner of your gun free home and wait for someone else to save you. Good luck. The rest of us will be prepared to defend ourselves and your 'feel good' legislation won't stop us.

Until you understand that criminals are IN NO WAY DETERRED by your gun laws, you'll never see the futility of enacting laws that only put law abiding people at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, I must thank you for you have demonstrated in a crystal clear manner that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

 

[Circe]

Promise? Really, do you promise???

Not with you. You are into denial that there is any problem at all as a principle debating point. But if there weren't a problem, we wouldn't all be arguing about it.

Thanks for making my point. The ONLY way these nutters are stopped is either by suicide or by a good buy with a firearm. And you want to restrict the firearms in the hands of good guys!

Many of you are not the good guys: like the 62-year-old who shot all those firefighters, like the survivalist who is holding a five-year-old captive in a bunker right now. It's a real, real bad sign when someone has lots and lots of guns. I think everyone normal realizes that at this point, after all these mass killings.

It would appear you advocate suicides as the best way to stop the madness. Now that's MAD!

A lot of us probably wish they'd commit the suicide first, and then shoot all the kids later, if they can. That would be great.

In any case, you're free to cower in the corner of your gun free home and wait for someone else to save you. Good luck. The rest of us will be prepared to defend ourselves and your 'feel good' legislation won't stop us.

I don't have a gun-free home. That would be impractical. Our feel-good legislation may stop you from having quite so many assault weapons designed to kill lots of people, however, I hope.

Until you understand that criminals are IN NO WAY DETERRED by your gun laws, you'll never see the futility of enacting laws that only put law abiding people at a disadvantage.

I'm not trying to deter criminals; that's impossible. I'm trying to deter lots of gun nuts from buying anti-civilian assault weapons by the case that get stolen and used by crazies, or get used by the crazies who buy them as we are seeing this week, to kill lots of people, as is their function. It's a bad function.

On the other hand, I must thank you for you have demonstrated in a crystal clear manner that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

You are welcome. People who buy lots of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines made to kill many people seriously need to be controlled in any rational society.

 

[eflatminor]

Promise? Really, do you promise???

Not with you. You are into denial that there is any problem at all as a principle debating point. But if there weren't a problem, we wouldn't all be arguing about it.

Thanks for making my point. The ONLY way these nutters are stopped is either by suicide or by a good buy with a firearm. And you want to restrict the firearms in the hands of good guys!

Many of you are not the good guys: like the 62-year-old who shot all those firefighters, like the survivalist who is holding a five-year-old captive in a bunker right now. It's a real, real bad sign when someone has lots and lots of guns. I think everyone normal realizes that at this point, after all these mass killings.



A lot of us probably wish they'd commit the suicide first, and then shoot all the kids later, if they can. That would be great.





I don't have a gun-free home. That would be impractical. Our feel-good legislation may stop you from having quite so many assault weapons designed to kill lots of people, however, I hope.

Until you understand that criminals are IN NO WAY DETERRED by your gun laws, you'll never see the futility of enacting laws that only put law abiding people at a disadvantage.

I'm not trying to deter criminals; that's impossible. I'm trying to deter lots of gun nuts from buying anti-civilian assault weapons by the case that get stolen and used by crazies, or get used by the crazies who buy them as we are seeing this week, to kill lots of people, as is their function. It's a bad function.

On the other hand, I must thank you for you have demonstrated in a crystal clear manner that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

You are welcome. People who buy lots of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines made to kill many people seriously need to be controlled in any rational society.

Again, you're offering nothing that would actually keep these firearms out of the hands of criminals. Whether you want to admit it or not, that puts good people at a disadvantage. That's immoral and unconstitutional.

I'll leave you with one story about how firearms "get stolen and used by crazies". From this morning's paper regarding an ATF sting operation in Milwaukee:

Instead, it resulted in a string of mistakes and failures, including an ATF military-style machine gun landing on the streets of Milwaukee and the agency having $35,000 in merchandise stolen

A Journal Sentinel Watchdog Report - ATF's Milwaukee sting operation marred by mistakes, failures

Now THAT'S an assault weapon! Fully automatic, owned by the government, now in the hands of criminals. But according to you, we can defend ourselves with bolt action rifles.

 

[Snookie]

Do oulove New York?

Year of the gun: 9 shot in NYC just hours into 2013 - NYPOST.com

 

[sitarro]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/272428-ban-or-censor-video-games-not-guns.html

Here is a great thread, lots of hard data that proves that

1) mass murder is not on the rise
2) murder is not on the rise
3) crime/violence is not on the rise

There are to many variables to offer a concise evaluation of this matter.

I think if you lived in my neighboorhood you would be afraid to go out after dark here.

Not too long ago a guy was killed at a Rallyburgers that is two blocks from my house with a clear view.

I could have been hit by a stray bullet.

I guess I will check some crime statistics of my own to try and get an accurate report of the matter.

Saying that the rates are going down makes no difference to the too many people killed each year, no matter where or what.

Some people here think or insinuate that I am for total gun control, which I am not.

I would like to take away granny's Ak-47, though.

You could be standing around in your mother's back yard and be hit by a block of blue ice that has fallen from an airliner cruising at 35,000 ft. Should we ban airliners or restrooms in airliners?

 

[sitarro]

Do oulove New York?

Year of the gun: 9 shot in NYC just hours into 2013 - NYPOST.com

I don't, I'll never go there or Chicago again. I'm not a fan of ant farms.

 

[Snookie]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/272428-ban-or-censor-video-games-not-guns.html

Here is a great thread, lots of hard data that proves that

1) mass murder is not on the rise
2) murder is not on the rise
3) crime/violence is not on the rise

There are to many variables to offer a concise evaluation of this matter.

I think if you lived in my neighboorhood you would be afraid to go out after dark here.

Not too long ago a guy was killed at a Rallyburgers that is two blocks from my house with a clear view.

I could have been hit by a stray bullet.

I guess I will check some crime statistics of my own to try and get an accurate report of the matter.

Saying that the rates are going down makes no difference to the too many people killed each year, no matter where or what.

Some people here think or insinuate that I am for total gun control, which I am not.

I would like to take away granny's Ak-47, though.

You could be standing around in your mother's back yard and be hit by a block of blue ice that has fallen from an airliner cruising at 35,000 ft. Should we ban airliners or restrooms in airliners?

Straw man.

 

[Snookie]

My kind of town, Chicago is my kind of town.

17 Shot, 2 Killed Over Weekend In Chicago « CBS Chicago