Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHow Many Massacres Will It Take for Politicians to Stand Up To Gun Nuts?
Here are basic facts about the massacre that took place in Aurora, Colorado, early yesterday morning. A 24-year-old man, James Holmes, opened fire in a movie theater with an AR-15 assault rifle and other weapons that he had purchased legally. He killed 12 people and wounded 58 before being captured by police.
The killing spree has triggered the usual polarized reactions. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, according to The New York Times, Maybe its time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.
And here, again according to The Times, is the familiar counter-reaction, from Luke ODell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners: Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, its possible the death toll would have been less.
Because I dont know what else to do, Im going to reprint an edited version of a piece I wrote in January, 2011, after Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 14 others, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, in Tucson, Arizona. But I dont harbor any illusions that what I or anyone else says will make any difference:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/07/21/how-many-massacres-will-it-take-for-politicians-to-stand-up-to-gun-nuts/
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)It seems to me the gun nuts were stood up to since guns are illegal there. What new laws could we pass to prevent that?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)incidents through out the weekend. Not only was I not outraged, I didn't even know about it.
Comparably though the number injured and number dead are virtually identical to Aurora. So I agree that this does show that tight gun restrictions don't stop gun deaths, though it may stop the headline grabbing shootings.
And then back to the OPs premise, in this case of Aurora, seems to me if the guy couldn't have bought guns, he was well prepared to use bombs or explosives which could have been so much worse even than what the guns did. So it seems a massacre was going to happen regardless of gun accessibility.
A link to the Chicago reporting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/chicago-shootings-10-dead_n_1552297.html
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)usually black on black and it's old news. No one cares except those that scream for more restrictions. How can you have more restrictions when they're illegal in the first place?
I appreciate your civil response.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Bombs would have been far more difficult to use without endangering himself. Who needs a bomb when you have body armor, grenades and enough firepower to shoot 70 people?
Chicago had 10 deaths/45 shootings over an entire Memorial Day weekend, by gang members from 70 active gangs with tens of thousands of members.
Denver had 12 deaths/70 shot in a few minutes, by 1 guy.
"It won't be an easy fight. Police blame much of the violence on the city's more than 70 active gangs and their tens of thousands of members. Homicides nearly all of them shootings spiked by 60 percent during the first three months of this year to 120, despite an increase in police resources in some of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/chicago-shootings-10-dead_n_1552297.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)grenades?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I didn't say he'd be a suicide bomber. Clearly he had bombs and therefore the ability to have done that instead without being suicidal about it.
And I don't think those in Chicago who lost loved ones care whether is was multiple incidents or one. The only people that care about that aspect, imo, are those that don't care about our inner cities and the communities of color that these occur in.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm pointing out the differences. The reference to the Chicago shootings was meant to deflect from an entirely different phenomenon. It is disingenuous, at best, to suggest that an outcry over the shootings in Denver is a dismissal of those in Chicago.
The only common denominator is people killed by others with guns.
If you think guns belong on the streets of America, then you are part of the problem.
When minority kids shoot each other, it's brushed aside as an inner city problem.
When middle class white kids start shooting, they have "mental health" issues and overly protective mothers.
It is NEVER because of a gun culture that promotes carrying guns in public.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)why are those killed in the theater more worthy of outrage against guns than the clearly illegal guns running rampant elsewhere, causing just as much damage, more even when you consider that this is likely an individual event for Aurora, but in these others, they continue week after week after week. And the facts in those areas is that gun control only assures that only criminals have them. Would more be better? I'm a bit wishy washy on that idea, but clearly banning them isn't working either.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Banning them isn't working because there are no bans. Gun control doesn't work, because it is selective and unfair.
Most guns are purchased by white males. Most illegal guns used by gangs were originally purchased legally by white males.
I'm sure you can figure it out from there.
Many of these white males who purchase guns, do so with no more thought than buying a set of golf clubs. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Soon forgotten. Lose them, sell them on Ebay, leave them in the garage, get them stolen. Millions of them.
If you want to figure out a problem start at the source.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Asking me to cite the obvious and then calling it a misguided opinion is like questioning the brightness of the sun compared to the moon.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)I think I did challenge it by asking you to prove your statement. You laughed. If you can't prove it, it's misguided opinion, in my opinion.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Take your pick and I'll respond accordingly.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and you are talking about a couple of federal laws being violated. BTW, what do you base the "most are bought by white guys"? Most of the drug buyers in my neighborhood I mentioned before were also white males from "nicer" neighborhoods. I base that on simply paying attention to my surroundings.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't think we really need stats on the white male thing, do we? I'll give you 4 clues on that one. Pick 3 random ranges and go count, pick 3 random gun shows and go count, pick 3 random penitentiaries and go count and lastly, check the US census.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If I pick three random ranges, one in Detroit, one in Wyoming, and another around here. I get one mostly black, one one mostly white, and another mostly old former New Yorkers and Canadian snowbirds.
Half women half men, mostly white.
Three random penitentiaries, I only visited one. The Wyoming state Pen in Rawlins is pretty white bread. There were a few Hispanics and a Native American. The only African American I saw was the warden. If I went to Utah or Idaho, I would see similar. Of course, if I went to Mississippi or South Carolina, it would be just the opposite. But then, I didn't see that many white cops in those states either. States with larger populations, it would probably depend on which one I went to.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But let's forget random. Let's look at the numbers. More men buy guns than women. There are more white guys than minorities. There are fewer whites incarcerated than minorities, percentage wise.
African American males have a higher felony conviction rate than white males, making it harder to legally own.
Hispanics have a higher rate of being undocumented, making it harder for them to own.
Now, if you are suggesting that most guns are bought by a different demographic, I'm all ears.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but you are over generalizing. Oh yeah, in the south west, Hispanics are just as likely, if not more so, to be native born with ancestors being there before it was was part of the US. If you go to New Mexico, Texas, and parts of Arizona, you will find a lot of Hispanics at gun shows and ranges.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm not over generalizing, I am generalizing. You are pointing out exceptions, which I acknowledge.
I think I have it right on this, but am open to being proven wrong.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)And if it wasn't guns it'd be something else. We just have a lot of angry and idle people. The answer is jobs, good paying, respectable jobs. Minimum wage rate for adults vs teens to solve that issue, which I understand. Healthcare, including eyes, teeth, body, and mind. Education, equal for all, not by the wealth of the district's property.
Want the source, start there. That anger is going to be expressed, the idleness will find the way to kill. Unfortunately society runs cycles throughout history of levels of violence, and no matter how many times the same theme is replayed, those in charge of our menial lives never learn, and never care to learn. They just get bigger armies, that are turned against protesters peaceful and otherwise. Oy, nevermind me. Sorry, your looking so much at a symptom, the disease is extreme inequality.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)every time I have a conversation about this, that is where I turn to. let's get to the root of the problem instead of coming up with solutions that even to a casual observer obviously don't work.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Thank you.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I've always told my kids when they would ask, "why?" That nothing could ever be understood by asking "why", and it just isn't "whys". There's virtually never one reason, and therefore singular focus on one "why" will assure failure. It is much better to consider the many "whys" to be truly wise. Here guns are the "why" that banning won't solve, and "whys" are all the reasons people feel so much rage and despair and fear.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Gun control doesn't work and neither does carrying guns around. Nothing good ever comes from carrying guns in public. Nothing. Ever. The best outcome of carrying a gun is "less bad", but never "good". Kinda like American Spirit lights.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Callisto32
(2,997 posts)You going anywhere with that "white males" shit, or are you just sexist and racist?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You going anywhere with your guns? Like church or the movies?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the gun culture promotes carrying guns in public. For one thing, the problem predates liberalized concealed carry. Also, most of the problems are in places where there is no real gun culture to speak of, at least not in the way most people think of it. Criminologist James Wright put it best during a congressional testimony in 1995.
world. As such, a gun often spells a life or death difference
to them. If you ask felons, whether adult or juvenile, why they
own guns, why they carry guns, themes of self protection, self-
defense, survival, and so on, dominate their responses. Very few
of the bad guys say they acquire or carry guns specifically for
offensive or crime committing purposes, although that is obviously
how many of them get used. These men live in an extraordinarily
hostile environment. Many of them come to believe, no doubt
correctly, that their ability to survive in that environment depends
critically on being adequately armed. "Adequately armed," in this
case, means being better armed than your most likely adversary,
namely the police. If sheer survival is indeed the issue, then a
gun is a bargain at practically any price.
As James Q. Wilson has recently argued, the largest share of the
gun violence problem results from the wrong people carrying guns at
the wrong time and place. The survival motive among the bad guys
means exactly that the wrong kinds of people will be carrying guns
pretty much all the time. The evident implication is that the bad
guys have to be disarmed on the streets if rates of gun violence are
to decline, and that, I think, implies a range of interventions
far removed from what gun control advocates have recently urged
on the American population.
Another thing you are missing, in the UK "gun culture" is synonymous with gang and criminality. In North America, not so much. You keep forgetting what this graphic explains quite well:
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Four teens - two 13-year-olds and two 16-year-olds - were shot within a half hour in the city's Englewood and Gresham neighborhoods on the South Side, according to police.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-gun-violence-shooting-july-21-july-22-south-side-west-side-north-side-crime-20120721,0,5529900.story
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)because Aurora is done with deaths from guns for a while, I expect, whereas in Povertyland, USA it is an ongoing problem adding up to way more death and destruction per annum or longer.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)Dont care about poor people. And I have heard more than a few bigots express their glee about black on black crime and shootings. Sickening.
But then we knew that. Drugs are only really a problem when middle class white kids do them, etc.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)They don't care about poor white and Hispanic people either.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There, fixed it for you.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Phew, that took a lot of figuring out. I feel quite exhausted.
Like it or not, we now live in a world of CCTV and every other hi-tech gadget imaginable. Lethal firearms are already obsolete as tools of self defense. But everyone doesn't realize that yet.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if your solution is metal detectors and armed guards at every public venue then you might have a point. Is that your solution?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)because after you have been mugged and shot to death, the police will be might able to catch the perpetrator? that helps a dead victim how?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This is where the problem lies, civilians do not need rapid fire weapons and armor piercing bullets in order to hunt. Also in the wrong hands bad decisions are made. We also have vehicles capable of high speeds but there are speed limits for a reason.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)one trigger pull, one shot. It was not full auto from what I've read. How is one trigger pull, one shot, rapid fire?
Just curious.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)Can be very rapid fire in the hands of a skilled marksman. Even with a bolt action rifle. any weapon that holds more than one round at a time can be emptied downrange and often accurately to boot in very short order.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)that holds five rounds
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)is a machine gun.
"OMG, he had a 100 round drum (which jammed)". They think he just held the trigger.
Yes, one trigger pull one shot can be rapid, but it's not the rapid they're thinking of.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)The record so far as I know, or maybe the gold standard at least, is the "mad minute." 60 full power rifle rounds fired on target at 100yds in 60 seconds. most people can't do that, but when a crazy guy has a room packed full of people, I'm pretty sure accurate targeting would be less than important.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)You do know that Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter got of 170 shots killing 32 and injuring 17 using 10 round magazines. He reloaded 17 times. There were no armor piercing bullets, just like this guy didn't use any armor piercing bullets. It wasn't a rapid fire weapon, just your normal SEMI-AUTOMATIC handgun.
"We also have vehicles capable of high speeds but there are speed limits for a reason. "
And no one EVER speeds and breaks the law, right?
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We love having to stand in line and having strangers grab our junk. Of course, they only do it to humiliate and embarrass and delay us. It has nothing to do with the fact there are loonies walking around with guns and bombs looking for a "target rich environment".
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)nt
petronius
(26,602 posts)from violence over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_%281998%29
Tejas
(4,759 posts)is ignored in this country, then expect no less. In the meantime, enjoy bitching about an inanimate object.
GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)The second amendment is here to stay and the guns will never go away.
Get used to it.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)please. god.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ter
(4,281 posts)I would hope you would at least be consistent.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)PDJane
(10,103 posts)The whole gun thing is touted as a 'basic freedom' as part of the right wing nonsense that spews over the air day after day, year in and year out.
Lack of universal health care is a 'freedom.'
Lack of pollution control is a 'freedom.'
Lack of banking regulation is a 'freedom.'.
Lack of food regulations are a 'freedom.'
Seems to me that the 'American people' could easily die of 'freedom.'
Tejas
(4,759 posts)The local Sheriff denied his application for concealed carry.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Batman shooting: Bloomberg urges gun control after Colorado attack
Published: July 20, 2012 9:42 AM