General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe latest murderer
http://myfox8.com/2012/12/12/jacob-tyler-roberts-oregon-mall-shooting-suspect-identified/
<snip>
Officials have identified the Oregon mall shooter as Jacob Tyler Roberts, born March 16, 1990.
According to police, Roberts shot himself as police converged on him, but not before fatally shooting Steve Forsyth, 45, of West Linn, Ore., and Cindy Ann Yule, 54, of Portland.
Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts says that Jacob Tyler Roberts had armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and had several fully loaded magazines.
Roberts says the rifle jammed during the 22-year-old’s attack, but he managed to get it working again.
-----------------
Yep he had the right to buy aan AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and several fully loaded magazines.
Bravo NRA!!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Could be that newly legalized stuff.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)
progressoid
(49,991 posts)
me b zola
(19,053 posts)a) Oregon did not legalize cannabis
b) Unlike alcohol or many presription drugs, cannabis does not make people violent, angry, or worked up.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)We came pretty close...but the referendum was pretty poorly written (instead of the legalization of what was more or less the status quo of the pot market in WA and CO, our Measure 80 would have set up state packaging and sales of pot, sort of like out annoying and expensive state-run liquor stores...it was a terrible idea). A better written measure would likely have passed, as I suspect will happen very soon.
And yeah...pot smokers aren't exactly known for violence.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)He would have hung out at home watching tv and eating Cheetos, not shooting up people at a mall.
Ohio Joe
(21,756 posts)I got home tonight and smoked a nice bowl of Purple Kush topped with Hash. I then had a simply amazing Torta... Eggs and chorizo, a slice of ham, cheese and onion grilled on flat bread... Cheetos... pffft 
Warren Religion
(70 posts)
rustydog
(9,186 posts)come to grips with and accept. someone lost the love of their life yesterday, someone's little girl, little boy someone's mother, father, sister or brother.
This is horrible that someone in a second can wreak so much havoc on innocent people.
My thoughts are for the victim's family and the law enforcement and emergency personnel who ran into this horror as others were running out.
malaise
(269,045 posts)This moron destroyed their families for no good reason.
And any other moron who wants to do the same can access weapons like these.
soleft
(18,537 posts)Some place where every day when you got on a public bus you never knew if you would be a victim of a mass act of violence.
Never mind, we're here.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)malaise
(269,045 posts)Saw two gunmen robbing a bank with two assault rifles. No one was shot because the frightened teller gave them the money.
Who will stop this shit????
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)seems i see more on the news lately.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)We can never have enough carnage in this country, you know! We're #1! USA! 
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)He would have likely passed any background check. I have thought about this some. We aren't going to stop people from shooting up a public place. If such a person does not use an assault weapon, they would use standard automatic pistols. A person walking into a public place with three standard automatic pistols would have 18 rounds, with any aiming ability at all by the shooter, a dozen plus people could end up seriously injured or dead.
Our focus should be on getting a robust system of gun registration and background checks. The majority of americans, including most legal gun owners don't appear to have a problem with background checks and registration. The right will use their standard scare tactics like registration will allow people to be tracked for other reasons and gun id numbers can be filed off. What the right won't focus on is that gun owners that own registered guns will protect them from being stolen, and if they are stolen, will be likely to immediately report the theft to police.
Background checks and gun registration will make it more difficult for people that are most likely to use them for crime and killing to get guns. Criminals will have to steal them or buy them on the black market. Background checks and registration will immediately shrink the size of the black market. If the government turns resources from chasing people smoking weed to tracking down and closing black market gun sites, the supply of illegal guns could be shut down completely.
hack89
(39,171 posts)malaise
(269,045 posts)legal and illegal.
hack89
(39,171 posts)we can talk about the legal ones.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Because our recent spate of mass shootings are the result of legally owned weapons.
Response to Chorophyll (Reply #56)
hack89 This message was self-deleted by its author.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)We should register all knives.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)each year?
In 2008, there were 9,484 deaths due to guns in the US and 1,897 due to stabbing.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
To kill someone from the distance with a knife takes practice and skill. To do the same thing with a gun takes very little practice or skill. That is especially true with guns that have a lot of firing capacity.
Gunlovers can apologize for guns, and I have no problem with responsible hunters. But, if I had my way, a person should have training, a license and a character examination in order to get a gun license.
I know that our Constitution does not permit that, but I think that would be the ideal.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)There will be approximately 16-17 million guns sold in 2012. Every year is another record year for the gun industry. Assault weapons are more common than they have ever been. why do you think that is?
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Explain that, please. Explain it to me right now, today, in the aftermath of a shooting in A KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF 27 DEAD.
I'm waiting. I'll wait hear all fuckin' year for you to get back to me on this.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)Keep blaming gun owners for this shit. keep threatening to take away guns. Keep panicking the firearms market. We'll see how much your all caps typing fixes things.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Explain it to me slowly, because I'm really really pissed today. Explain it.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)and create a market that would otherwise have not existed. You have been doing this since 1992. Assault weapons were fairly obscure until you tried to take them away. Now they're common as dirt. Same with high cap semi-auto pistols. Revolvers were the norm prior the ban on high cap magazines. The anti-gun movement has been the best thing to happen to the firearms industry since WW2. The all powerful NRA, the outright plague of guns, this is a result of losing a fight that was started in 1992. I hate seeing this shit but I'll be damned if you lay it all on my shoulders. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Well, here we are and there is no fixing it now. You can only exacerbate it.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Guns are regulated in Canada and in any decent country in Europe. Where are the mass shootings in those places? Few and far between if at all.
Don't you dare lay the blame for the shooting deaths of innocent people on the only people who are trying to do anything about it. You're ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If we controlled the whereabouts of all legal guns, it would be harder for someone to make those legal guns illegal.
People who are going to use their guns for legitimate purposes like hunting or defending themselves in their homes do not need to fear registering them.
It is people who want to do illegal things who need to hide the fact that they own their guns.
If you own a gun, you should register it and be responsible for knowing precisely where that gun is and who has access to it at all times. It should not be sticking out of your pocket in a mall where some gang member can reach in and grab it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not like it is mystery who the shooter is or what weapons he owns.
It won't stop criminals - they simply won't register their weapons. Lets not forget a simple fact: there is presently a huge pool of weapons completely invisible to the government. There will be a huge black market for guns.
Registration is a common gun control desire. It was a colossal and expensive failure in Canada.
In 2002, the auditor-general revealed that the Firearms Centre had grown out of control. Despite political promises that the program would not cost over $2-million, costs were expected to exceed $1-billion by 2005. By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion. The auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and corruption. Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003, Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall of the Liberal government in 2006.
To this day, it has been claimed that the registry is important in protecting women. But in fact, there is no convincing evidence that registering firearms has been effective in reducing either homicide rates overall, or spousal murders in particular. Even though homicide rates have been gradually falling since the 1970s, a wide variety of researchers have been unable to find solid evidence linking gun laws to this decline. Changing demographics, not firearms laws, better explain the decline in homicides involving long guns over the past 20 years. It is difficult to argue that Canadian gun laws are effective when homicide rates have dropped faster in the United States than in Canada since 1991.
A third claim is that long guns are the weapon of choice in domestic homicides, and that registration can help to identify the perpetrator. (This is related to the aforementioned claim that guns promote violence against women.) In fact, the long-gun registry and licensing are rarely needed by police to solve spousal homicides for three reasons: (1) in almost all cases, spousal murderers are immediately identified; (2) firearms are not often used to kill female spouses; and (3) the firearms used by abusive spouses to kill their wives are almost all possessed illegally. Statistics Canada data show that just 4% of long guns involved in homicides were registered.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)at all times where their guns are stored, and if the registration, as I said, involved checking on the character of the gun-owner, we might be able to keep the numbers of guns in the hands of unstable people and/or criminals under control.
Remember. Guns were created for one purpose: to kill.
That doesn't mean they necessarily are only used to kill, but all of the other uses of guns are derived from the central purpose of killing (animals or humans).
We all know that guns in the wrong hands are extremely dangerous.
In an ideal world, I would place the responsibility for figuring out how to keep guns out of the wrong hands on those who advocate for guns. And if they could not execute that responsibility successfully, I would severely limit access to guns.
Of course, we don't live in an ideal world. So we can't do that. Gun owners (including sellers) still need to remember that when their gun ends up in the hands of a killer of humans, it is the gun owner's fault.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You don't address the issue of criminals getting guns. There are tens of millions of unregistered guns right now. And guns are easy to smuggle - gun trafficking is a profitable business for organized crime right now.
You just want to ban guns by setting up an impossible standard. Please be honest.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I have relatives who hunt regularly, and I happen to love venison. I used to live in an area of Europe in which we ate a lot of venison. My husband's uncle was the senior hunter in the area of Europe in which my husband's family is from.
My point is that criminals get guns that are stolen, lost or sold on a market that is irresponsible. If gun owners had to register their guns regularly, say every year, the fact that a registered gun was lost or illegally sold would be known to the police.
If guns were registered, the police would be able to stop suspicious people and check not only on their car registration but also their gun registration. In fact, police could look for unregistered guns in cars.
I don't think you can stop the deaths from shootings, but I think you could decrease them. Other countries do not have such high incidences of mass murders from guns. We could lower that number if we made it harder, more embarrassing and more difficult for fanatics and unstable people (and maybe their families) to get guns.
I am not opposed to guns for killing animals -- coyotes, deer, other animals that can be harmful to people or pests.
While we are at it, I like to garden. I live five miles from L.A. and have to put up with raccoons and squirrels eating up my garden. When I asked my very elderly mother who has gardened for many years what I should do about it, she advised me to shoot the squirrels and find someone who knows how to cook them. I treated that like a joke, but I suspect that is what her dad did when she was growing up.
No. I am not totally anti-gun. I just want the assurance that guns are used responsibly and accounted for. I live in a city and there have been a lot of horrible gang shootings in my area. That makes me feel very different about guns that I would feel if I lived in a rural area like some members of my family. It's not that I am opposed to gun ownership. It's that I don't want a lot of guns in my densely populated area of a big city. Other than squirrels and raccoons, there is no game here. People can have guns, but they should only take them out of the house to go elsewhere, say to a lake, to hunt. And I would prefer no one had guns in my immediate area. Because the fact is that mostly criminals have guns here. And if the very fact that have a gun was reason to arrest them, then criminals would still have guns -- until they were arrested and sent away. That would be fine with me. I think that it would be great if mere possession of a gun on the streets in my crowded area of the city was enough to permit a judge to sentence someone to prison.
hack89
(39,171 posts)your tone was greatly appreciated.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and tradition of hunting.
They have occasional killings with guns but not as many (in my subjective perception) as we do in the US.
Here is the information about their gun possession (about 30% of the, I assume adult, population) and their laws including restrictions on the kinds of guns people can own and licensing requirements.
They have plenty of guns for sport and hunting.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)since the murder rate in Jamaica exceeds the United States - according to the UK Guardian
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The NRA death toll is not limited to the US.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Did Fast and Furious guns go to Jamaica too? Or are they F&F guns sent thru Mexican drug dealers.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Sometimes I am surprised how clueless the NRA crowd is...
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/B-Occasional-papers/SAS-OP26-Jamaica-gangs.pdf
malaise
(269,045 posts)Not all of us are idiots 
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)ANother gun nut just outs himself...
Geez, where the fuck am I? Free Republic?
RL
malaise
(269,045 posts)but there is also the guns for drugs trade with Haiti
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)SOMEONE Bought it legally
hack89
(39,171 posts)no more legal guns? That might be one answer - it would be a long fight though. What lesser restraints do you think might work in the short term?
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)works for automobiles, and i understand that they're just as dangerous as firearms.
beyond that, proof of trigger lock/gun safe purchase. proof of safety course training. police interviews and approvals. pysch evals for a 2nd weapon purchase.
but all that's pie in the sky. the cat's out of the bag, and there's no hope of "controlling" firearms. there's just too many in circulation - as proved by this massacre with a stolen semi-auto rifle.
hack89
(39,171 posts)no license or registration needed if kept on private property. License required if carried in public (we can call it a concealed carry license.)
Police interviews? Because we know that the police are completely unbiased and always have our civil rights in mind? The country has moved to "shall issue" precisely because of a long history of abuse and bias.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)australia i believe. i'd rather trade some abuse of power in issuing weapon permits for some suicidal loners with arsenals. liberty, temporary safety, yeah yeah, i've heard it.
regardless, like i said, the cat's out the bag.
"it's WAY too late for gun control in America" -Steve Earle, Live at the BBC
hack89
(39,171 posts)don't lose track of one salient fact - you have never been safer and will be even safer next year. Gun violence peaked in 1992 with the crack epidemic and has been steadily falling since. We have cut deaths due to murder and manslaughter by nearly 50% over the past 30 years. Our murder rate is lower than it was in 1960. You may think the rate is still too high but there is no epidemic of gun violence.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)i will contend, however, that there has been no equivalent decline in the number of firearm suicides or in these amoklauf killings. i find this unacceptable.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the solution is single payer healthcare.
While it is unacceptable, giving police arbitrary power over civil rights is just as unacceptable. Find a better solution.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)that is too simplistic. firearms vastly increase the success rate of suicides:
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/534468/Guns-and-suicide.html?nav=5041
your solution, single payer, would not be likely to impact most impulsive suicides or spouse killings. less access to firearms would. i personally know of 2 people who have impulsively committed suicide with firearms.
my "solution" has zero chance of being enacted in america during my lifespan, so you can end your existential worries about theorectical arbitrary police powers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and next year you will be even safer yet.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)From a law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
This douche was a criminal, pure and simple, no law would have stopped him from being a murderous asshole.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)And I'm curious to see how the facts turn out whether he actually "stole" the weapon or was lent it, a la Columbine.
Which still raises a whole host of questions: How well are these "law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights" either ensuring that they do not lend out their weapons as if they were lending their lawnmower to a neighbor, or that they are securing their weapon in a location that they cannot be easily accessed or stolen by others.
Sorry, buddy, you gun enthusiasts aren't out of the woods yet. Not even close.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Thank you. 
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Guilt by association?
That cracks me up.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)...then one must be prepared to back one's positions up.
patrice
(47,992 posts)that assent with this kind of behavior if you all, who agree about it, would just go somewhere and get it over with one another, so that the rest of us can live in as much peace as possible without the CONSTANT oppression from this kind of behavior in our midst.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That makes as much sense as me telling you that "you males aren't out of the woods yet" over rape.
See how that works? Collective guilt is an idiotic notion.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)If it be your position that "law abiding citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights" are somehow blameless when it comes to gun violence, and there are facts that indicate otherwise, then you've got to be prepared to back that shit up.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And in any case, that's a straw man (in that I stated no such position).
As it happens, I have no objection to legislation that provides that gun owners bear (partial) responsibility for crimes committed with stolen weapons that were not adequately secured. While most any security measures can be overcome, I don't think it's an impossible task to legally define "reasonable security measures" for firearms. I consider it to be a gun owner's responsibility to lock up any firearm not in their immediate possession or observation. I was certainly taught to do so as a lass...
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Glad you have some common sense in that department, though.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Seems a matter of responsibility to me. If I'm going to keep deadly weapons, it's my responsibility to indeed keep those weapons.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)an accomplice to murder? Especially since they are required to maintain control of their vehicle?
Or just the people that wrote the second amendment?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)You do realize the difference between accidents and non-accidents, right? And the difference between objects that are designed to kill versus objects that may incidentially kill, right?
Do you?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)about 100 times per year.
Which is about as many as are killed in mass killings by guns each year.
Obviously some also happen via knife each year (like the nanny killing the two kids recently)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)How about that one?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)was about the mass murderers.
Otherwise the title is wrong because murders have certainly happened in the US since that one.
But, as someone pointed out, most gun homicides are gang related using illegal weapons.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Do you guys just make this stuff up as you go? It's funny how false statements and made-up statistics are so central to the NRA ideology.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
Sorry, I thought someone had mentioned it in this thread but is must have been another one.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That statistic says that most gang homicides are committed using a firearm, not that most firearm homicides are gang-related. I hope I don't need to explain the difference. For example, that's why those percentages don't add up to 100...
AlexSatan
(535 posts)But the chart was mainly eye candy for the link.
It is hard to find specific data on what percentages of gun homicides are gang-related. I've seen numbers from 40% to 75%. Clearly the data is out there, I just wasn't able to find the specific authoritative number in the time I searched.
Most of the specific data is location-dependent as opposed to being nation-wide. Example:
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/archive/x1216783395/86-percent-of-city-killings-gang-related-police-plead-for-help
"86 percent of city killings gang-related; police plead for help"
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Sorry, but "most homicides are gang vs gang" is one of a long line of false NRA talking points.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)It looks like it is a high percentage in cities, especially in the younger age groups but it is indeed lower nation-wide than I had heard.
Thanks
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess now is the time I apologize for being so snarky -- I'm used to the gungeon where people hold the line no matter what the statistics say. In my defense, I've heard "most homicides are gang vs gang" (along with "most murderers have prior felony convictions" and "defensive gun uses outnumber gun crimes" etc.) more times than I can count.
Yes, in urban areas with lots of gangs, and in younger age groups, the percentage will be higher.
malaise
(269,045 posts) Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Whether it results in the murder of 1 or 32 people. Or even a mere serious injury.
You gun enthusiasts are so about trying to control the conversation on your own terms.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Just trying to figure out exactly where your concern lies and why it is so focused on guns, which are used and kept safely 99.9999% of the time.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Supposedly there is a burgeoning knife lobby, but I haven't heard much about it, so I doubt it's really that big of a factor. And do they lobby for butter knives as well? 
There is no bombing lobby.
There is no "use your car as a weapon" lobby.
There is no "throwing stones" lobby.
There is no drowning lobby. No slitting wrists lobby. No electrocution lobby.
Just a gun lobby.
Hence, that's why I'm focused on guns here.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)It is also the only one where there is a big push to ban them. I've not seen the anti-knife activists, have you?
And yes there is a car lobby. And yes, there is a lobby for swimming pools. I'll bet there is a lobby for rock quarries.
And there is a huge lobby for bomb-makers.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Does the swimming pool lobby?
No?
Cars and swimming pools are not designed to be weapons. Guns are.
As for knives, deaths from guns far outweigh death from knives in this country. And guns are far more efficient weapons than knives. Yet less versitile in their overall use. That's why there is more of a focus on guns, and more of a lobby for guns.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)or even suicide.
That is the concern, right?
The fact that guns are used for those things are as relevant as the fact that knives are as well or that drunk drivers use their vehicles irresponsibly and kill many Americans.
Using your logic, since handguns are used for homicide the majority of the time and "other guns" have approximately the same homicide use rate as knives, there should be no restrictions on anything besides handguns, correct?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Homicide is the taking of a human being's life by another human being. Whether that is justified or not.
The NRA and other gun lobby groups are not going to advocate use of guns for murder. But they have defended use of guns in the taking of another's life presumably in the act of self-defense.....the problem is, what is and is not self-defense is not always cut and dry and one man's justifiable homicide is another man's unjustifiable homicide (see Zimmerman, George.) Moreover, the culture of "they're all out to get you so you better be armed" is way too prevelant amongst these groups.
I guess if the NRA advocated for the use of guns only in the context of competitive target shooting that would be one thing. But that's not the case at all.
As it relates to handguns versus other guns, the NRA and similar groups have taken it upon themselves to advocate for the use of all types of guns: handguns, rifles, gauge shotguns. Hence, guns are to be considered as a whole, and not as a subset. Not to mention that they all techinically do the same thing in the end: they shoot bullets into a target, either living nor non-living.
patrice
(47,992 posts)of itself, a single life, more valuable if, instead of 1, it's 2 or 2million?
What if 1 of those 100 per year were you or someone you love? Even if it weren't what about the families of those who are murdered?
If we can't value what we are to one another, we need to just go ahead and get this thing over with, because kill-or-be-killed is all we're really doing in the first place and to procrastinate is to reduce the likelihood that the so-called "fittest" will in fact survive and that's the WHOLE principle of that ideology.
Each of those killed die from someone doing the killing.
And the common thread is not the means but the fact that a human is doing it.
Man has been killing man for a long time--long before guns. The only way you are going to solve the killing problem is to solve the human problem.
patrice
(47,992 posts)the pro-gun ownership cohort has NO responsibility other than to defend gun-ownership is invalid, because of the nature of guns.
If guns are so valuable to them, you'd think they'd protect their ownership by addressing these INTRINSICALLY associated issues, but NO, all we ever get from pro-gun people is more guns, lots more guns, nothing else matters, there are NO problems associated with gun ownership.
And pathetic pro-forma "safety" classes just don't cut it. I'm talking about those other human problems, the addressing of which will not solve, but damn straight has a higher probability of reducing some of what is going on better than BLIND balkanization, TTE, "I have MY guns. I'm not a murderer. Fuck all of these other issues that add up to murder. It's not my fault."
People who may want to respect gun-owners' rights are having a hard time, because all we get from gun owners is more of the same, even adding up to the possibility of secession, rather than being responsible and facing precisely *H*O*W* this shit happens and doing what we can.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Try to keep up, eh?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The NRA talking point rabbit hole is very deep and very loony!
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)I could shorten this by responding to your assertion about vehicle design by noting that Ralph Nader (and a lot of people dedicated to making automobiles more compatible with life) fairly well proved that cars WERE engineered to kill, and it took the power of the people, the U.S. Government, to effect change.
But, nahh...
It's gory, but that's why they paid people like me to attend to the scene...
So, to any dear, tender reader, you may not want to read it. But it's my experience, and it's all around us.
You've been warned.
Warned again...
It's an accident when a meteorite falls on your moving car, (and a hell of a coincidence).
It's not an accident that some idiot doesn't slow down and slams into a family of 6 killing them because she was thinking about what a bad day she at work and wasn't paying attention. It's no damn accident when a person drinks too much alcohol and then drives into and rips up a family of people that people you know are friends with. In the process of extricating them you find the brains of their two infant children on the windows of what's left of their VW.
Note: If you are at an intersection with 4 cars after midnight it's a damn good possibility that 2 of those drivers are chemically impaired, and a near dead certainty that one is. Be careful out there
It wasn't an accident when the cheap sob of a CEO didn't buy a set of tires to replace the balding ones on his Cadillac Esplanade, which skidded in the rain while he and his wife were on a way to a party and wiped out whatever might have been of a homeless woman on the side of the road, far away from that road. The driver that left only a tennis shoe on the road after he or she knocked the guy changing his tire about 300 yards down the road, and then left? No accident there either.
The lists of such calls is near endless. If we are complicit we must all accept that, when Jan 1 rolls around, we are signing the death warrants for 30-40,000 people (last year first time under 40K in a bit). Can't argue we didn't see it coming. It would border on irrational to argue that we destroy all the cars (that alone would kill millions). Yet by the standards in the above post everyone who has a license is complicit in continuing this little death march for our own convenience. But those good and innocent people are not less dead because they weren't shot with a pistol. (or an AR-15).
If drivers don't do it for you, how about the people organizing against their employers, who, when someone else threw a bomb (after women and children and men were beaten and shot by the police over 2 days, police working at the behest of the employers), were hung because they were part of the protest, were among those who gave speeches, and thus were "complicit" even though there was no evidence that they knew anything about a bomb or could have predicted it?
One would have been in good company in 1886:
The majority view was expressed by the owner of a Chicago clothing firm who declared, “No, I don’t consider these people to have been found guilty of any offense, but they must be hanged...the labor movement must be crushed!"
Here
One could substitute the second amendment in those last words quite nicely
It feels weird to me to read where someone wants to paint others hands with the guilt of a psychopath, though I understand the emotion. But if one wants stop the next one instead of just lambasting people who had nothing to do with it to assuage their own ego, it might be better to ask if he could have been stopped if we weren't so far apart as a culture, where we sometimes just don't even see each other any more, much less talk in civil manner, and if there is anything that can be done about that.
Or maybe we just all lack knowledge to identify those among us who are ready to take any and all of us out on their way across the Stygian River.
Or maybe we need to restore what Reagan did away with, iirc.
If there are issues such as those which can be addressed, we should do so, or accept that we can't keep track of the activities of mass murderers in our midst.
Which will come as little comfort to the family of the woman killed here a couple months ago when a complete stranger stepped out of the bushes and stabbed her several times in the chest, and then ran off. She died in her daughter's arms.
Please don't tell me I'm complicit because I bought the Ginsu knives on that infomercial. I won't be able to handle the guilt.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Is every recreational drug user complicit in the violence done by drug gangs?
Just wondering if it is just guns.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Items that don't just kill, but are designed to do so.
Greater responsibility than drivers. Greater responsiblity than drinkers. Greater responsibility than drug users.
hack89
(39,171 posts)or are you holding me responsible for every irresponsible gun owner?
And if so, why aren't I held responsible for every irresponsible drinker?
Bake
(21,977 posts)And I haven't killed anybody yet.
But I'm not responsible for what some idiot hundreds of miles away does with a gun just because I own one or two.
Bake
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)to death than the other things that you mention.
and If it were not for that high probability, there would be no such thing as guns, whereas death is not why we produce alcohol or recreational drugs, yet they are regulated and guns aren't. Users are complicit in regards to their substance abuse, but not as directly responsible as those who pull triggers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)tell me how someone can lose their privilege to buy alcohol. Do you need a background check to buy alcohol?
I agree that the person who pulls the trigger is responsible. But you seem to be holding me responsible for someone else pulling a trigger. So why can't I hold you responsible for that drunk driver?
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)gun enthusiasts. Very funny.
Your analogy is wrong. A correct analogy would be when rape apologists are told that rape apologists aren't out of the woods yet.
Or are you claiming that your gun enthusiasm is an immutable characteristic and that only a small portion of those born that way actually engage in gun apologia?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)enthusiast =/= apologist
But thanks for playing...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Then you are partly responsible for all intentional and accidental car deaths.
Own it.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)If my car gets stolen, it's unlikely that the person stealing it is stealing it for the purposes of commiting vehicular manslaughter.
For the 1 millionth time, cars are not guns.
Repeat after me.
Cars are not guns.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If a criminal steals your car, and somehow kills with it, intentional or not, by your own philosophy, you own that death.
Or are you going try to pin this attribute only on objects you don't personally like?
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Too many innocent people are killed by unnecessary gun violence.
Yes there is a 2nd amendment, and many of the mentally deficientNRA supporters and Repugnants like to claim rights to: "2nd amendment remedies...and gun control:holding with two hands.(ha, ha,ha so funny, I wonder if the shooter held with both hands as he killed two people, ha, ha, ha....
There needs to be a serious discussion about, yes, GUN CONTROL in this country. And as soon as some members of the NRA tell Wayne LaPierre to STFU already, maybe some headway can be made in a reasoned discussion.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)cars are meant for transportation! What are guns meant for?! Oh, and BTW, why are they called deadly weapons?!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)A car can be a weapon. One with about 4-6 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than a gun. If you own one of the tools, you own part of the problem. Consistancy is essential in logic, don't you think?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)That's the key point that you are refusing to let into your thick skull.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)I couldn't have replied better to such false equivalency. Some people, usually repukes and trolls, are willfully blind.
Mangoman
(100 posts)His friend needed an AR 15 because ....
Tell me again why his friend needed an AR 15 ?
justanidea
(291 posts)Even home defense if chambered in a weaker non-rifle caliber like 9mm.
AR-15s are not machine guns like they are portrayed in the media. They're just a regular rifle that shoots a low-medium power round.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Unless deer and Elk are shooting back, why do you need an AR15 to "HUNT"
I hunded ages ago. 30-30, 7mm remington magnum bolt-action- 30-06 and shotgun.
I never felt the urge to unload multiple rounds on the deer I wanted to take for food.
Home defense? Shotgun because in a crisis, when someone is about to kill you(you think) at 2am, unless you kill a person every other week, you will have to empty the semi-auto in the hopes of hitting the target once...
hack89
(39,171 posts)but for smaller game they are good hunting rifles - compact, light, weather resistant and accurate.
Most states limit rifles to 5 round magazines.
But you miss the point - rifles and shotguns of all kinds are responsible for a little less than 3% of murders. Handguns are and will always be the big killers.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Sorry, your point fell on deaf ears
hack89
(39,171 posts)Is that your position?
justanidea
(291 posts)Get one with a longer barrel chambered in .308 and it makes a great deer rifle. Reliable, extremely accurate, endlessly customizable to build the perfect rifle. Sure you can dump the whole mag into the deer if you want to, but then you're just wasting meat. Semi-auto has its benefits though if you need a quick follow up shot.
Of course I dont hunt. This is just based on what I've been told and read.
Shotguns don't spread nearly as much as hollywood movies show. From across a room 00 Buck won't even have a 12" pattern. It would be no easier than using a rifle. Besides if you need to empty an entire rifle to hit a target 20 feet away, its time for a seeing eye dog. lol
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That OO Buck cartridge is going to throw the equivalent of 8 or 9 9mm rounds at that wall, if you miss your target. Much safer for your neighbors than a .308 round.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and all of them are available in semi-auto varients.
What was your point again?
Good ghod, how bad a shot are you? And where are you getting your information?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You can't hunt Deer or Elk with an AR-15 chambered in .223. The round is too weak. Every state I am aware of bans it. It's inhumane.
Are you thinking of the AR-10?
villager
(26,001 posts)See, the shooter's gun of choice really wasn't such a bad gun, after all! ... Why, it could have been piano wire, or lawn darts!
There there, don't cry....
justanidea
(291 posts)He asked why someone would have an AR-15. So I explained it.
Obviously someone dying is tragic no matter what kind of weapon was used.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Utter comfort to the gun banners.
We cry because common sense died.
villager
(26,001 posts)indeed.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)People seem hell bent on killing each other.
villager
(26,001 posts)
But yes -- we're a hell bent species in many ways.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)the availability of weapons. We're a clever and violent species.
villager
(26,001 posts)indeed, that is their existential purpose.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)to automate and simplify the killing of beings. Knives and bats are just as deadly, but more difficult to wield.
Either way, there has to be an underlying pathology that can explain why Americans are so violent. I wish we could address this, because the reality is that there are over 100m guns out there, and they're not going to go away.
villager
(26,001 posts)Those who have a stake in minimizing gun violence love these false equivalencies, but false they remain.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)I know, that's a false equivalency too, but even if every firearm magically disappeared, Americans (in particular) would still be extremely violent. Yes, the death toll would be much, much lower due to the reduced efficiency of more primitive weapons, but I believe there would be a much higher murder rate compared to other developed states.
I would suggest that our society is a pressure cooker. People, especially young people, are bombarded with violence from birth courtesy of the popular media. Add to that the isolation and lack of any connection to community, and top it off with relatively easy access to deadly weapons, and mass murder happens far too frequently.
There are other developed nations that have high rates of gun ownership, but extremely low murder rates.
What is different about them? Well, they're a lot smaller for one thing. They have better social structures including safety nets for those who are struggling. More homogeneous populations. More lax drug laws.
But then there are outliers like Venezuela, which has one of the highest murder rates in the world, despite very strong anti-poverty programs and a homogeneous population.
I wish there was a simple answer.
villager
(26,001 posts)N/T
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Mangoman
(100 posts)I think people that kill animals for fun are sick and disgusting
Do people actually go hunting with A.R. 15's ?
justanidea
(291 posts)I target shoot. Just for fun and have also done some competitions like that involve rifles. I don't hunt though.
Some do hunt with them though.. You can buy ARs with longer barrels. Some even finished in camouflage instead of black. The AR would also have to be a larger caliber since the basic round it shoots isn't powerful enough to take down deer humanely unless you make a perfect shot. They're semi-auto, so each time you squeeze the trigger, it only fires one round. (its not a machine gun)
They're popular guns nowadays due to the fact they're extremely accurate, reliable, and customizable. Every single part can be swapped out and replaced for something that suit's one's needs better. Thats the reason they are now the most popular rifle in America.
Anyway, I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion of gun specifications. Just pointing out that an AR isn't really something strange and unusual.
Mangoman
(100 posts)AR 15's have to be legal because some people like to go have fun shooting at targets with them
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rustydog
(9,186 posts)You belong to a well regulated militia?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)It's not a limiting condition by any rule of grammar, and it would probably just make you complain more.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)people would just go buy Ruger Mini-14s or other comparable rifle. They fire the same round and are equipped with a removable magazine. Functionally, there is no difference from an AR-15.
If we banned every semi-auto rifle, people would kill each other with muskets, and then swords if needed, and eventually mallets and rocks.
People hell bent on destruction like the AR-15 because it looks like a real machine gun, ie, scary. It makes them feel tougher/meaner/stronger than the people they want to terrorize. On that basis alone it may make sense to begin restricting them.
Full disclosure - I have an AR-15 and back in the day enjoyed target shooting with it. I haven't touched it in many years because they're a bitch to clean.
I could live with a ban, but I don't think it would accomplish the desired goal - less violence.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)It's mostly used as a varmint rifle or predator rifle.
Groundhogs , coyotes etc..
Some will also use them hog hunting .
AR15's also can be configured to different calibers for hunting larger game.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The AR as produced for the civilian market is NOT a military rifle for combat. No segment of the armed forces uses it.
Before 1986, you could swap components in the upper and lower with a M-16 and make a military weapon (an actual M-16, depending on what the upper was made out of and how, so it could take the stress of select fire) out of it, but it was not one on its own.
After 1986, manufacturers are no longer allowed to produce them in a manner that would allow them to be converted to full-auto simply by swapping out parts. So pre-86 AR-15's share some components with the M-16, post-86 AR's are a completely different animal.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)And most states allow those as well.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)This was beaten into my brain by a young South African policeman in the late 1980s, when violence against the white minority (self) was commonplace.
My husband purchased two guns, and we were required to pass a shooting course before we could be issued licenses.
The young police recruit could not have been more earnest with Silly White Lady and her revolver. Owning a gun is an awesome and terrifying responsibility. You need your faculties at all times. That means, no alcohol to dull perceptions and reflexes. Complete familiarity with your weapon. Confidence. Know the whereabouts of your weapon at all times, and know a clear path to it. We kept the combination lock on the bedroom safe turned to near the last digit. Other times, I drove with my weapon in the door pocket of my car, within easy reach of my right (shooting) hand, but out of sight.
He said, if a person is able to disarm you, that person will use your weapon on you.
That's your responsibility as a gun owner. That's what it's like to own a gun. If you can't wrap your head around that, you have no business owning a gun.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)lapislzi
(5,762 posts)Like everything else, weapons can and do get stolen. My point is that the gun owner needs to be aware of, and guard against this possibility. The same way you lock your car or house, and take precautions against theft. If your weapon is stolen, it could result in a calamity for you or someone else.
You could argue that this possibility exists with cars, and weed whackers, and other things that can be used for destructive purposes. But guns are the only things I know of that are produced specifically to kill living beings (OK, rat poison and weed killer, but I digress). If you are not fully comfortable with this idea, and the responsibility this entails, then you have no business owning a weapon.
It is not a nice way to live.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If that was not your intent, my apology.
My point was that even if you take reasonable, or beyond-reasonable, security precautions, there are no guarantees. People are amazingly adaptive and ingenius when they truely want to do something. As the old adage goes, build a better mouse-trap, breed a better mouse.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)...as a former gun owner, I can assure you that the weight of responsibility was very great. Greater than for other possessions (family silver and Mom's diamond ring included) because of the gun's potential to cause harm.
I think that if more people took this responsibility more seriously, there would be fewer guns and fewer gun thefts.
I don't have enough facts to comment on the gun theft in this situation, however. My comments were just a caution to owners and prospective owners of firearms.
Peace to you.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)I'd like to see someone get into my sister's gunsafe without using c-4.
I think if the owners of stolen weapons started getting prosecuted as an accesory to the crimes commited with those weapons, people would start making sure their guns were secured.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)The leap of logic to think that simply locking up (or taking away) every firearm in the country will prevent evil fuckers from committing heinous acts is simply naive.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)people want to spend , a good secure basic safe starts at around
$5000.00 and to get a large one to hold a lot of guns be prepared to spend over 10 grand
Most safes in the $1000.00 to $4000.00 are just lockers.
skip to 3 minutes
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)1. I would like to see the law-abiding NRA member prosecuted for the murder for not securing his gun
2. One of the big problems with so many "legal" guns around is that they can get stolen
3. Without a gun, shooting up a mall is very difficult
Seriously, the "reasoning" from you people gets stupider with every mass murder.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)People will still kill. They will use bombs or cars or knives.
Mentally unstable people who want to commit murder are not going to be stopped by the simple obstacle of the law.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I keep reading stories of the mass bombings in the USA!
Oh, wait, that's just another NRA Talking Point (AKA, Big Lie).
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and all of those mass shootings in the civilized countries where, magically, they actually DO control guns.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明
, 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010;[3] early reports were removed from the internet in China, for fear that mass coverage of such violence can provoke copycat attacks.[3][11] The attacker later committed suicide at his house; he was the landlord of the school,[12] Shengshui Temple private kindergarten, and had been involved in an ongoing dispute with the school administrator about when the school would move out of the building"
"On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生 [2] 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,[3] Fujian province;[4] The attack was widely reported in Chinese media (called 南平实验小学重大凶杀案 ,[2] sparking fears of copycat crimes.[4] Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28."
China is one of those countries where civilian access to firearms is EXTREMELY controlled.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34400715/ns/world_news-asiapacific/
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Anything can be stolen and used as a weapon. Kitchen knives, cars, cans of gas, sports equipment, hand-tools....
I don't see any reasoning in you statements.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)A high-powered weapon, like say, an AR-15.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)45 people enough to be "mass murderer"??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Very easy to use an assault weapon in the heat of the moment.
Making sense?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Did you see the AR-15 on the cover of Gun Lust this month?? Freaking HOT! 
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Pervert.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)They'd get all sticky, and they don't snuggle worth a damn. 
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You know, the whole "criminals don't obey laws" thing.
malaise
(269,045 posts)I haven't seen that yet.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)malaise
(269,045 posts)rustydog
(9,186 posts)This punk stole a firearm and apparently a few loaded magazines and intended to go on a killing spree until the gun jammed. Why we need AR15s in this country I do not know, unless deer have begun shooting back.
malaise
(269,045 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)Most gun owners are not hunters in this country.
Are you suggesting that only hunters should own guns?
rustydog
(9,186 posts)It is the lame old NRA stand by of "hunters rights" 2nd amendment remedies! Our defense against the black helicopters!!!!! .
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Sheeshee......... Read the memo.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Which of the following should be used for hunting or not, and why?
http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-700.aspx
http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/pump-action-model-7600.aspx
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx
P.S. Semi-auto rifles have been used in hunting for over 100 years.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They are too small and underpowered.
Thanks for furthering a misconception.
The AR-15 IS versatile, and can be re-chambered in a larger caliber for deer. (Or you can just buy an AR-10) But off the shelf, in the spec .223, almost every, or every state bans it because it cannot humanely and quickly kill a deer.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)Why do you keep referring to deer hunting?
Or just is it that everyone else in the thread is and you are responding to them?
The .223 round and AR 15 rifle is a perfectly acceptable caliber and rifle for many species of game.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)for deer hunting.
RC
(25,592 posts)Before or after the Mall murders?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
Journeyman
(15,036 posts)Moreover, wonder what, if anything, we can do to intercede and help before people get to the point this man crossed with deadly result.
My heart goes out to the victims' families and friends. I wish there were more we could do, but it can't be addressed until we at least start talking about it.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)A serious discussion on gun violence and gun "control" (not using two hands) is long overdue in this country.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)it is about this young American. Just 22 years old and he felt that he did not have anything to live for.
How many other young Americans feel that way? Why? and what can we do about it?
If we keep guns away from these people can we then safely ignore them? Heck, he could have easily killed more than two people with a car, which I feel is at least as deadly a weapon as a gun. This guy managed to kill nine, supposedly without even trying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Bicoastal
(12,645 posts)You know what the difference is between guns and things like cars and knives?
Cars can kill but their primary function is to get you from point A to point B
Knives can kill people but their other function is to cut through objects, especially objects that are not currently alive.
Guns have only one function and exist for only one purpose: to hurt things. Guns aren't tools. Guns are weapons.
I'm sensitive about this one because the Weller incident happened in my hometown. The old man had a minor stroke or some other age-related lapse and plowed into a farmers market at a crowded mall. I doubt Mr. Weller would have caused nearly as much mayhem if an automatic was in his hand and he didn't realize he was pressing on the trigger.
You can't accidentally kill multiple people with a gun; people who fire guns in shopping malls are people who want to be murderers. The issue is NOT "guns can kill but only if they're abused;" the issue is they're being correctly used, fulfilling their sole function, all too effectively upon the general population.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)First, that there are many young men like this young man. He sorta had his whole life in front of him, but did not see any point, did not have any desire to live it. Second, not only did he hate his own life, he also had a hatred for society - a desire to kill some of us before he killed himself.
That is the first part of the discussion.
Can we help these young people? How?
Do we even want to help these young people?
Or do we just want to keep them from deadly weapons so we can safely ignore them?
Well, that's kinda hard to do. Besides himself, this guy killed a mere two people with his rampage. Well, he could have easily killed more than two people if he had chosen to act out his anger with an automobile instead of a gun. There are many other tools, which, while not designed for the purpose of killing, neverthekless could easily be used to kill many more than two people.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)It's okay to discuss ways to help people with mental illness. Of that, I'm sure both you and I agree.
But you can't discuss people with mental illness getting access to guns. Apparently, that's verbotten.
Why is okay to discuss one problem but not the other? As if discussing the former absolves us from ever having to discuss the latter, which is a very real problem (See Holmes, Loughner, etc.)
The conversation is not governed that way. It doesn't have to follow your terms and conditions. We shouldn't have to stick our head in the sand regarding very real problems just because it offends some people's sensibilities about their prized possessions.
Guns are far and away the favored tools in most murders, including mass murders. They are efficient and can be used at a safe distance. It is easier to kill with a gun, a tool designed with the intent to kill/injure/simulate killing/injuring, than just about any other tool. They do not require close personal proximity, such as cars, knives or other blunt/sharp instruments. They do not require complex assembly, as do bombs. I'm not saying we need to outlaw guns in their entirety, I'm just saying that they need to be held up to higher scrutiny than objects that were not designed with the intent to be used as a lethal weapons, i.e. cars.
Repeat after me: Cars are not guns. Cars are not guns. Cars are not guns........
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the original post said
"...wonder what went wrong.
Moreover, wonder what, if anything, we can do to intercede and help before people get to the point this man crossed with deadly result.
My heart goes out to the victims' families and friends. I wish there were more we could do, but it can't be addressed until we at least start talking about it."
and the reply which I responded to, answered that question as if - the only thing that went wrong was that this angry young man got his hands on a gun. I disagree and think the original comment was a question about "How did he get so angry, so full of hatred and despair?" and not "How did he get a gun?"
Now you come out and say it is abouit "mental illness" and I also see that as a deflection. I don't think the problem is that this guy was insane. I am not sure if I would classify anger and despair as mental illnesses.
To me, it is our SOCIETY which is insane. Not just one guy. I would want to fix our society, not just give this guy some prescripton drug and call it a day - now he is adjuested to our insane society, problem solved.
And I never said that cars were guns.
What I said is that a car is a deadlier weapon than a gun, and I stand by that.
Guns killed 8,775 people in 2010 in homicides and 17,352 in suicides and perhaps 1,000 in accidents. Less than 28,000. Well, in 2009, cars killed 35,900 without even trying. Imagine how much deadlier they would be if people used them as weapons. Imagine if the batman guy, instead of using guns, had plowed his car into a line of people waiting for the batman screening. He could have killed twelve people that way.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)And yes, sure, a person can always use a good number of objects as a weapon, secondary to their intended use. Including cars.
But something being used as a weapon is not always the same as something being a weapon, and therein lies the difference.
And I believe 99%+ of those 35,900 car related deaths in 2010 were not as a result of something deciding to intentionally plow one's car into another person, hence those are not weapon related deaths. And sure, James Holmes could have chosen to use a car to kill people instead of shooting them, but he didn't. And most people who want to intentionally kill someone don't chose to use a car. It comes off bulky and inefficient, not to mention the fact that it could likely cause injury or death to the driver, and not everyone who wishes harm to another person wants to injure or kill him/herself in the process.
You compare the number of intentional homicides with guns with the number of intentional homicides with cars and it would be incredibly lopsided. And that goes to the whole intended purpose of the object at hand, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a person would use an actual weapon versus an object that could be used as a weapon.
It is always important to try to understand why someone is driven to kill. That was the big question after September 11th, if you remember: "Why do they hate us?"
But motive and means are two seperate and independent entities. And trying to determine underlying causes that may lead to someone killing should not preclude examining the means in which they are killing.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)which was a minor aside to my main point.
Although my other point was, yes, if they cannot get the favorite preferred weapon, there are always many other things, many of them quite deadly, which can be used as weapons.
And yes "to do, is to be". A knife has many other uses besides as a weapon, but nobody denies that it is a weapon if I strap one to my belt.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)And it is such a ridiculously flawed analogy, yet they think if they repeat it enough times, it will somehow become truer.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Huberty used a 9 mm Uzi semi-automatic (the primary weapon fired in the massacre), a Winchester pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and a 9 mm Browning HP in the restaurant, killing 21 people and wounding 19 others. His victims were predominantly Mexican and Mexican-American and ranged in age from 8 months to 74 years. The massacre began at 3:59 p.m. and lasted for 77 minutes. He had spent 257 rounds of ammunition before he was fatally shot by a SWAT team sniper, Chuck Foster, perched on the roof of the post office adjacent to the restaurant
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)go re-watch Taxi Driver.
He was suicidal and angry, and wanted to make the world hurt like he hurt, and to have made his mark on society, no matter what it was.
Not Me
(3,398 posts)and when his shotgun was not at his side, it was locked in a gun safe.
Pretty hard to steal when it's secured properly.
And that's part of the problem. Lazy ass (legal) gun owners and very lax registration and serial number tracking.
It is time for some serious laws regarding gun ownership in this country. And everytime I read about another one of these shootings I am going to let my elected officials know my feelings on it.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)Any gun sold through a FFL dealer can be tracked to the purchaser of the weapon
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Any dealer on site is required to be an FFL. So you're wrong (probably again.)
former-republican
(2,163 posts)I have never been to a gun show but the way I believe it happens is a private individual can also rent a table.
Why not make the NICS check available to all gun sales not just dealer sales?
Let a private citizen have access to it before he sells a firearm privately.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)Webster's Flea Market, in Tarrytown, FL., you could straight up buy guns from individuals who had rented a table, in the area behind the main flea market. No background check, no license check, no nothing. One of the people I was with bought one, so I know this for a fact.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)went to a gun show in Tampa. He bought an Uzi from some guy in the parking lot. $600 cash and that was it.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)What caliber? Was it full-auto or semi-only? Closed-bolt or open-bolt? What model Uzi (they make several) and manufacturer?
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)if he's not in jail. But since your such a curious cat, it was 9mm, semi-only (I think). Personally, I don't get a woody over fire arms.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)which was that if it was a full-auto, or fires from an open bolt, it was an illegal sale and you may be an accessory to a felony.
If only semi-auto/closed-bolt, it was presumably legal, unless he's a prohibited possesor, see accessory, above.
Other than that, I'm not seeing any problem.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)He bought an Uzi from a dude in the parking lot, no questions asked, no paperwork, no nothing but a cash transaction. There's a reason why my friend bought it on the down low. "...you may be an accessory to a felony". Get real. It was 20 years ago.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and that you were present at the commission of a felony and did not report it.
Is this correct?
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)That I didn't rat my friend out? The fact that semi-autos are readily available from the trunk of a car is ok to you? I also had friends who sold a lot of weed back then (felonious amounts)-I didn't rat them out, either.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)is a legally prohibited person.
I'm in full agreement with that law. The problem, of course, is that proving knowledge can be difficult and tedious.
Here, you have admitted to witnessing, possibly aiding/abbeting, a federal felony. Yes, it's a problem for me that you allowed a person (with a higher than average potential for endangering others) to purchase a firearm illegally.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)that you don't have a problem with firearms being sold out of the trunk of a car. I'm also amused that you think I "allowed" someone to purchase a firearm illegally-I was neither the buyer or seller. Maybe we should just make it hunky-dory for anyone to buy a gun (the NRA would love that)-that way we can get rid of your "difficult and tedious" problem of actually following the law.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I have no problems with private, lawful sales. I have problems with private, unlawful sales.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)Are you being purposely obtuse or is it a condition you can't help? That was my original point-private sales at gun shows don't need any paper work. No background check, no names exchanged, no questionnaire. The fact that any lunatic in the world can buy a firearm at a gun show from a private seller, while technically legal, is an invitation for trouble.
P.S.
I never said my friend was a felon or what he did was illegal, but he is odd and paranoid. That seems to be a common trait among gun fanatics, though.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)We do NOT need people owning guns in any capacity except for law enforcement anyway.
Once we have one more Obama-appointee, gun ownership is dead anyway.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The language of the amendment, when subjected to rigorous linguistic analysis, simply doesn't limit the RKBA to militia members. I won't add yet another lengthy explanation of that (they're easily found), but the upthrust is that the language of the Second Amendment would have to change to introduce that requirement. I suspect such an effort at amendment would be a complete non-starter.
"Once we have one more Obama-appointee, gun ownership is dead anyway."
Um...no. If that somehow occurred, all it would do is create an unnecessary adversarial relationship between law enforcement and literally millions and millions of previously law-abiding citizens. That would have the horrible effect of inhibiting investigations of real crimes...just for a start. Any pro-active attempt to enforce such a restriction would end in widespread violence. The police (even those who obeyed orders to carry out enforcement of such a provision...and many, many would not) are not remotely adequate to the task.
It's just not going to happen.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)You get the prize for the correct response. It is NOT the Constitution that dictates the laws; it is the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court that dictates constitutional decree. To that end, we need at least one more progressive on the court (replacing one of the 'bagger robes) to be able to interpret the constitution in a more inclusive, progressive manner, which would most likely render the 2nd Amendment to allow us to restrict (or preferably ban) gun usage.
Frankly, we need a complete rewrite of our constitution; indeed we don't really need one, we can just use the UN's. That is as progressive as we can get, and a successful Obama administration that transfers to a new progressive president in 2016, coupled with a super majority in the Senate and huge majority in the House, will allow that to happen.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)the United States is going to jettison its constitution and adapt the UN's...?
Funnily enough, that's the same argument that many crazy people have used in their unfair characterization of Mr. Obama as a one-world commie.
Really, my friend, come back to reality.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)US CONSTITUTION: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
UN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Which one would YOU rather have as our constitution? Yes, I realize the "Declaration of Human Rights" is not specifically a "Constitution," but then the process of guaranteeing those rights are at odds with much of the US Constitution, specifically the republicanist ambiguity on "freedom," which nowadays means "free for white rich assholes to screw the poor/minorities/women/children/etc."
THAT is reality. Pure, unadulterated reality.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So people have an inherent human right to a certain standard of living that guarantees food and shelter and medical care?
If half the world's population decides that their life's calling is to smear their feces on a wall and admire the aesthetic, then I guess the other half will just have to work twice as hard to support them, eh? Sorry, no sale. Able bodied and able minded adults should be required to toil in some way to earn the standard of living described.
I cannot imagine a more undignified existence than to be supported by the efforts of others. Disability and unemployment and economic dislocation excluded, of course.
Then again, someone with the username 'BanTheGop' seems likely to have no compunction against using brutal force to get their way.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)which is the bedrock foundation of Capitalism. So your egalitarian utopia would remain elusive, as some people are going to be naturally better at acquiring wealth the others.
The only mechanism we have at our disposal to prevent ridiculous piles of money accumulating in the hands of the few is the tax code. I suggest that if we wielded it properly, America would not have the widest disparity in wealth in the world.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)What are we gonna do, ban rocks now?
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Seriously, I read that in another thread. 
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)There's no legit reason to be packing quartz.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Thats why the gun industry has a lobby, the NRA. So they can keep demand as high as possible and keep the assembly line going full speed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's in Newtown, CT.
http://www.nssf.org/industry/aboutnssf.cfm
They still use ColdFusion, the poor bastards...
The NRA is the gun owners' lobby, and disagrees with the NSSF on several issues.
raccoon
(31,111 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Now what?
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)They could have killed him before he got going
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)malaise
(269,045 posts)but the people he killed and the one he seriously injured are young too
George II
(67,782 posts).....would it be fair to say that the "Founding Fathers" meant that the people had the right to bear ONLY arms that were used at that time, i.e., knives, muskets, etc.?
Did the Founding Fathers intend to permit AR-15s and all the other high-powered guns to be "borne" by the people?
I wonder what they'd think about that amendment in today's day and age!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Girandoni Repeating Rifle.
You can read all about it in the Lewis and Clark expedition.
The Austrians used it against the French too. Seems the French were pretty annoyed.
George II
(67,782 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do you have a reason?
Logic that couldn't be used to limit freedom of the press to archaic technology?
George II
(67,782 posts)Where does freedom of the press fall into this? You pointed out that a particular type of gun existed when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, so...................
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Since the second amendment was adopted in 1791............."
".....would it be fair to say that the "Founding Fathers" meant that the people had the right to bear ONLY arms that were used at that time, i.e., knives, muskets, etc.?"
No it would not be fair to state that. First of all, the founders left the statement open-ended with 'arms', and knowingly so with wildly advanced (for the time) technology appearing all the time. Some of it high-capacity, repeating action.
The parallel to the first amendment is strong. It doesn't protect movable type block presses, it protects expression, speech, and the press. Like the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect muskets, and some early rifles, it protects 'arms'.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)What other rights should we freeze to 18th C limits? The vote?
George II
(67,782 posts)...the right to assault rifles. Telepones don't infringe on the rights of others nor do are they used to shoot people!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)in the Constitution.
There were specific restrictions on voting. So we fixed that, after a long struggle, both in the courts and (literally) on the battlefield.
Article 5 of the Constitution awaits you. Go hog wild.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)another day, another NRA wet dream
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)Just like they do Zimmerman. He is their kind of hero. Poster boy for the postal. Any instance that uses more guns and bullets, creates sales and more money for the industry.
Just watch they will come out and push concealed carry as the answer to mass murder/violent gun crime. Yes, buy MORE guns.
onethatcares
(16,171 posts)I'm not up on Oregons concealed law, but I'm sure I'll be reading "if only a citizen could have drawn and shot him it would have been over far earlier" on a different forum or two.
Gauddammmint, this isn't Kabul or Beruit, I don't want to have to worry about some nutcase opening up like the first day of deer season while I'm buying my s.o. something at Spencer gifts/
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)carry.
Most people with a permit do not carry 100% of the time. For instance, I don't carry to the mall, because my local mall has clear 'no firearms' signs, and can have me cited for trespassing if I am on their property armed.
Law abiding tends to mean... yanno... law abiding. The mall in which this shooting occurred is a 'gun free zone' just like the local mall here.
You also have localized populations. Where I live, our district has only 2% of the population possessing CPL's. Other districts score as high as 80%. These things are not distributed uniformly.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)That's what Repubs do.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You think this killing and others like it won't be used by the NRA to push for more concealed carry?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Regardless, lawful CC played no part in this, unless one wants to speculate that the practice of it is currently too rare to be sufficiently effective in preventing crimes.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Nevertheless we are discussing this incident.
Hopefully when everyone is armed all the time these sorts of incidents will taper off.
I await the day.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Response to malaise (Original post)
Post removed
mercuryblues
(14,532 posts)malaise
(269,045 posts)And the latest one has slaughtered 20 innocent children just in time for Christmas.
I give up!!
