Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 33 of 41 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #641
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    So the only legal guns would be single-action revolvers and single-shot/bolt-action rifiles and shotguns, and muzzle-loading firearms?

    All other weapons are classed as "Semi-Automatic", i.e. capable of firing one shot per trigger depression without other action being required.
    yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, I think that would make it far, far less likely that these events would result in a dozen+ deaths. No?

  2. #642
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, I think that would make it far, far less likely that these events would result in a dozen+ deaths. No?
    No it wouldn't. There are already so many assault weapons already on the streets banning them and enforcing the ban would take an insane amount of manpower, money and resources and it would still have a negligible effect if any. Gun Control is a waste of time.


    Plus the Founding Fathers' Intent was for American citizens to have access to firepower. Now I understand semi and fully auto did not exist in the 18th century but firearms in general were even more prevalent in this country back then they are now. The Revolutionary War was fought with privately owned firearms.

  3. #643
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    No it wouldn't. There are already so many assault weapons already on the streets banning them and enforcing the ban would take an insane amount of manpower, money and resources and it would still have a negligible effect if any. Gun Control is a waste of time.


    Plus the Founding Fathers' Intent was for American citizens to have access to firepower. Now I understand semi and fully auto did not exist in the 18th century but firearms in general were even more prevalent in this country back then they are now. The Revolutionary War was fought with privately owned firearms.
    my point is that those semi and fully auto weapons make a big difference in the death toll. i can't see an argument against that. your point about the revolutionary war is a good one, it's exactly the instance the right to bear arms was meant to protect, but something has to be done. and i get it, there are so many out there, but the sooner you stop putting more out there and gathering what is out there, the sooner there'll be less out there. how's that for logic?

  4. #644
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    my point is that those semi and fully auto weapons make a big difference in the death toll. i can't see an argument against that. your point about the revolutionary war is a good one, it's exactly the instance the right to bear arms was meant to protect, but something has to be done. and i get it, there are so many out there, but the sooner you stop putting more out there and gathering what is out there, the sooner there'll be less out there. how's that for logic?
    Again, it's a waste of time. There was an assault weapons ban enacted in the 90's and yet tens of millions of these types of weapons are still out there.

  5. #645
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like the idea of a dna or finger print scanner on guns, if my guns were outfitted like that then I would never have to worry about some kid accidentally firing one, would prevent some one from using them against me, possibly even make the gun useless if stolen.

    I have heard of people developing such things. One company came up with a system where you wore a ring on your gun hand, if you did not have the ring, you could not fire the gun. It was marketed originally to LE, it never caught on because it was not considered reliable, and those that use guns like cawps need complete reliability.

    In the late 90's gun manufacturers were under pressure to produce safer guns (I know Ha Ha) so they were putting locks on guns. Most worked by inserting a key in to the guns grip. Gun owners hated them because they had the potential to be locked when you needed them, ya know, fumbling with the key and seconds count and all that.

    Still as technology advances this could be a nice option.

  6. #646
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    my point is that those semi and fully auto weapons make a big difference in the death toll. i can't see an argument against that. your point about the revolutionary war is a good one, it's exactly the instance the right to bear arms was meant to protect, but something has to be done. and i get it, there are so many out there, but the sooner you stop putting more out there and gathering what is out there, the sooner there'll be less out there. how's that for logic?
    =================================================

    I can argue with that.

    Mass shootings are an insignificant amount of crime in the US, 11,000 gun murders (70% of those are thugs killing each other) a year and over the last 20 years only around 300 mass shooting deaths.

    Compare those numbers with 800,000 to 1,500,000 times a year guns are used to stop or prevent violent crime. Why in the world would we limit the good guy's ability to prevent/stop these acts of violence?

    All due respect Isred how do you argue with that.

  7. #647
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, sounds like our Leader is considering bypassing Congress again, and simply decreeing what the new Gun Laws will be:

    Vice President Biden suggested Wednesday that the White House could take unilateral action on gun control, as he kicked off a round of meetings aimed at finding ways to curb gun violence.

    The vice president met Wednesday with gun-safety and victims groups, saying he is "determined" to take "urgent action" to address gun violence.

    The White House has sought to avoid prejudging what Biden's recommendations would be. But the vice president hinted Wednesday that executive action -- action by the president in which Congress would not have a say -- would indeed be involved.

    "Executive action ... can be taken," Biden said, adding "we haven't decided what that is yet."
    So Illegal Immigration was de facto decriminalized. Now Guns (in some form) will be banned as well, purely on the Leaders's word.

    Ok.

  8. #648
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    11,000 gun murders a year and over the last 20 years only around 300 mass shooting deaths.
    One wonders how many of those gun murders were committed by:

    1. Illegal Immigrants

    2. Illegal Guns

    One also wonders how many of these Homicides were judged justifyable. 11,000 (rounded) is not the number of gun "murders". It's the number of gun-related homicides (one person killing another with a gun, no details other).

    Compare those numbers with 800,000 to 1,500,000 times a year guns are used to stop or prevent violent crime. Why in the world would we limit the good guy's ability to prevent/stop these acts of violence?
    Because Tyrany and despotism always begins with well meaning, well intended people who think they have the solution to all of societies problems, if only they had more power to force those solutions on everyone, against their will or over their rights or not.

  9. #649
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    =================================================

    I can argue with that.

    Mass shootings are an insignificant amount of crime in the US, 11,000 gun murders (70% of those are thugs killing each other) a year and over the last 20 years only around 300 mass shooting deaths.

    Compare those numbers with 800,000 to 1,500,000 times a year guns are used to stop or prevent violent crime. Why in the world would we limit the good guy's ability to prevent/stop these acts of violence?

    All due respect Isred how do you argue with that.
    That wasn't my point, I should have been clearer - I should have said "my point is that those semi and fully auto weapons make a big difference in the death toll in these mass shooting situations" - not death counts overall. Clearly you can argue whether trying to limit the death toll in a mass shooting situation is important, from a number-cruncher's perspective, because they don't happen every day, or even every month.

  10. #650
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Well, sounds like our Leader is considering bypassing Congress again, and simply decreeing what the new Gun Laws will be:



    So Illegal Immigration was de facto decriminalized. Now Guns (in some form) will be banned as well, purely on the Leaders's word.

    Ok.
    ================================================

    I kinda feel for Obama, he's in a tough spot here since he announced he was going to do something in regards to Sandy Hook and guns.

    If he does nothing he will get slammed, if he does something he will get slammed.

    I honestly hope he comes up with something that will actually work to lower/prevent violent crime.

  11. #651
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    That wasn't my point, I should have been clearer - I should have said "my point is that those semi and fully auto weapons make a big difference in the death toll in these mass shooting situations" - not death counts overall. Clearly you can argue whether trying to limit the death toll in a mass shooting situation is important, from a number-cruncher's perspective, because they don't happen every day, or even every month.
    ==================================================

    I will concede your point now that you have restated it.

    Semi auto firearms are with out a doubt faster to shoot and reload and typically capable of holding more rounds then, lever, bolt, pump, action, single shot rifles.

    A double action revolver can fire quite fast, and with the use of a speed loader can be loaded quicly. Single action revolvers are still around and can be fired quickly in the movies and by some experts. I think the record for 6 shots fired through a single action revolver is around 1 second.

    I have to add that the only case of a mass shooting that I can ever recall happening with a full auto firearm is the St Valentine's Day massacre. Full auto firearms are used in crimes maybe once in a blue moon, more likely once in every 20 blue moons.

  12. #652
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    That wasn't my point, I should have been clearer - I should have said "my point is that those semi and fully auto weapons make a big difference in the death toll in these mass shooting situations" - not death counts overall. Clearly you can argue whether trying to limit the death toll in a mass shooting situation is important, from a number-cruncher's perspective, because they don't happen every day, or even every month.
    See earlier posts in this thread. We have already established that rifles are rarely used in murders. Of all of the mass shooting events of the past 30 years 70% were committed by handguns. The concept of banning handguns is absurd and completely unrealistic. The one common thread with 90% of the mass murder events has been the perpetrators use of pshcyhtropic drugs like Prozak. Interestingly those drugs have labeling that claims, sociopathic or aggressive violent tendencies as a side effect. If you or Obama really actually cared about reducing mass murder tradgedies you would focus on the drugs that may be causing people to flip out and start killing.

  13. #653
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    One wonders how many of those gun murders were committed by:

    1. Illegal Immigrants

    2. Illegal Guns

    One also wonders how many of these Homicides were judged justifyable. 11,000 (rounded) is not the number of gun "murders". It's the number of gun-related homicides (one person killing another with a gun, no details other).



    Because Tyrany and despotism always begins with well meaning, well intended people who think they have the solution to all of societies problems, if only they had more power to force those solutions on everyone, against their will or over their rights or not.
    =================================================

    I don't recall all the break downs on these stats, I got them from the FBI and CDC web sites a while back.

    I think the overall death count by firearms was somewhere around 22,000 a year,,, maybe 9,000 were suicide, 1,000 accidental discharges, and over and above that were I think 348 deaths provided by cawps.

    The CDC is who broke down the homicide stats the best where as the FBI provides the overall crime stats.

    I might look into it and see about the illegal alien and justifiable stuff.

  14. #654
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have come around to the NRA's point of view, the best response to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    The following story is about action that will work to protect our schools.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Teachers In Ohio, Texas Flock To Free Gun Training Classes

    School teachers in Texas and Ohio are flocking to free firearms classes in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, some vowing to protect their students with guns even at the risk of losing their jobs.

    In Ohio, more than 900 teachers, administrators and school employees asked to take part in the Buckeye Firearms Association's newly created, three-day gun training program, the association said.

    In Texas, an $85 Concealed Handgun License (CHL) course offered at no cost to teachers filled 400 spots immediately, forcing the school to offer another class, one instructor said

    "Any teacher who is licensed and chooses to be armed should be able to be armed," said Gerald Valentino, co-founder of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "It should be every teacher's choice."


    Read more. http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,4582657.story

  15. #655
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    See earlier posts in this thread. We have already established that rifles are rarely used in murders. Of all of the mass shooting events of the past 30 years 70% were committed by handguns. The concept of banning handguns is absurd and completely unrealistic. The one common thread with 90% of the mass murder events has been the perpetrators use of pshcyhtropic drugs like Prozak. Interestingly those drugs have labeling that claims, sociopathic or aggressive violent tendencies as a side effect. If you or Obama really actually cared about reducing mass murder tradgedies you would focus on the drugs that may be causing people to flip out and start killing.
    LOL, you're a moron. How dare you tell me that I don't really care about reducing mass murder tragedies, or that it's as simple as eliminating psychotropic (if you're going to use big words, learn how to spell them, smart guy) drugs OR semi-auto weapons. BTW, I was talking about semi-auto handguns as well. And while I agree that psychotropics are overprescribed in general, the fact that 90% of mass murderer events have been perpetrated by those on psychotropic drugs (if true) doesn't prove causation. It would stand to reason that those with mental health issues would be on psychotropic drugs. Hell, half the housewives in the tri-state area are on xanax. 100% of fat people wear big pants, but it's not the pants' fault.

  16. #656
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Warfish, You might want to follow the link to read the full article (I'm still having trouble with copy and paste)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635

    Missing first part of article here
    However, if the question is “What percentage of crimes are committed with legally purchased guns” the answer is about six percent of murders – and very few other crimes. Amateurs buy guns at a dealers; which involves extensive paperwork, identification, FBI background checks, and so on. Pros buy guns on the street, where the only requirement is money – or other valuta.


    The overwhelming majority of gun related crimes are committed with guns that have been stolen, and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime.

    While two out of three homicides are “solved by arrest,” that leaves one third “committed by persons unknown.” And with the provenance of their weapon unknown as well.

    We do have a handle on the source of guns recovered from persons arrested and accused of a crime. Of guns recovered from persons arrested and charged with a crime:

    84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4 percent stolen from a relative or a friend.

    6 percent of those guns were confiscated and resold by a “law enforcement officer.” Legalized armed robbery, in other words.

    2 percent of those guns were stolen from the police or the military.

    2 percent of those guns were stolen from a parcel or delivery service.

    That leaves just six percent of guns taken from arrestees that could properly be considered possible “crime guns” that could also have been legally purchased. And most of those were never used in a crime. If they had been “crime guns” they would already have been ditched.

    Given that fact, it becomes obvious that no actual count of the number of crimes committed with “illegal guns” is possible. In fact, most gun related crimes are never solved, and are certainly never linked to an individual gun, legally purchased or not.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illegal Aliens
    I won't vouch for the accuracy of this cause the numbers are being provided by a politician, this is only part of the article.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/

    WASHINGTON – While the military “quagmire” in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

    Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

    Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

    Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

    But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

    While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

    While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.

    A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.

    Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.

    King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.

    Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/#HHVXGgScmMw9lwQy.99

    _-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Report cites killings blamed on non-deported illegals

    The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.
    All told, 16 percent of the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program have gone on to be charged with other crimes, the committee said.
    They were part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three-year period and who were later charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which looked at data the committee subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.
    The Secure Communities program was designed to identify immigrants who end up in state and local prisons and jails who the administration decides it wants to deport.
    While hundreds of thousands of aliens have been sent back home under the program, 159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under review, CRS said.


    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2HWHBLqWd
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Justifiable Homicides
    Not sure of the date of these articles.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FBI: Justifiable homicides at highest in more than a decade
    The number of justifiable homicides committed by police and private citizens has been rising in the past two years to their highest levels in more than a decade, reflecting a shoot-first philosophy in dealing with crime, say law enforcement analysts.
    The 391 killings by police that were ruled justifiable in 2007 were the most since 1994, FBI statistics show. The 254 killings by private individuals found to be self-defense were the most since 1997.

    The FBI says a homicide committed by a private citizen is justified when a person is slain during the commission of a felony, such as a burglary or robbery. Police are justified, the FBI says, when felons are killed while the officer is acting in the line of duty. Rulings on these deaths are usually made by the local police agencies involved.

    Some law enforcement analysts say the numbers represent changing attitudes on the streets, where police have felt more threatened by well-armed offenders, and citizens have taken greater responsibility for their own safety.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...tifiable_N.htm

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Homicide Trends In The U.S.

    Generally, the number of justifiable homicides committed by police exceeded the number committed by citizens.

    In the last 10 years, the number of justifiable homicides has declined 13%.

    Note: Justifiable homicides are defined as the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty or the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen.

    The circumstances surrounding justifiable homicides differ for those committed by police and those committed by citizens.
    Most justifiable homicides by police are the result of attacks on officers.

    The most frequent circumstances cited for justifiable homicides by citizens is to disrupt a crime while in progress or when a citizen was attacked.

    I can't paste the chart but it appears as of 2005 roughly 333 Justifiable homicides by cawp and 200 by citizens.

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/homicide/justify.cfm
    Last edited by gunnails; 01-09-2013 at 05:30 PM.

  17. #657
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    LOL, you're a moron. How dare you tell me that I don't really care about reducing mass murder tragedies, or that it's as simple as eliminating psychotropic (if you're going to use big words, learn how to spell them, smart guy) drugs OR semi-auto weapons. BTW, I was talking about semi-auto handguns as well. And while I agree that psychotropics are overprescribed in general, the fact that 90% of mass murderer events have been perpetrated by those on psychotropic drugs (if true) doesn't prove causation. It would stand to reason that those with mental health issues would be on psychotropic drugs. Hell, half the housewives in the tri-state area are on xanax. 100% of fat people wear big pants, but it's not the pants' fault.
    If you cared about reducing them you would look for the common threads within the events. Pushing for banning handguns is ridiculous and not viable politically or socially. It will never happen and is both a waste of time and energy. Assault rifles have been banned since the 1930's. Semi Automatic rifles are not going away. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country yet the Sandy Hook tragedy still occurred.

    I stand by what I said. The statistics show that approximately 300 people per year are murdered by long guns like rifles and shotguns. Thats 300 out of 11000 murders per year that occur. In a country of 400Million is it realistic to pass a bunch of laws and go through a ton of expense to reduce the 300 number to 280? I contend that those people pushing gun control laws as a way to reduce mass shooting events simply are pushing their political agenda. There is no statistical or empirical to suggest that any of your regulations would have any effect whatsoever in reducing these crimes.

    Why not consider things that will actually make a difference. I contend that these drugs cause people to go on murder sprees as a side effect of whatever it is that they do to peoples brains. What other drugs list suicide as a possible side effect.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 01-09-2013 at 05:17 PM.

  18. #658
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    In my opinion, the solution to reducing the number of mass shootings in this country does not lie in any one category. There are some systemic issues, but it's largely a cultural problem.

    The best place to start would be mental health care reform, examining media coverage of mass shooting tragedies, and more comprehensive background checks for purchasing firearms. Banning a subset of firearms doesn't solve many of the root problems.

  19. #659
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    If you cared about reducing them you would look for the common threads within the events. Pushing for banning handguns is ridiculous and not viable politically or socially.
    I'm not. Never said a word about banning handguns. I was wondering what might be done to reduce the death toll of these events. I don't think you can stop a nut job from doing these things. In Newtown, I find great fault with the mother, for bringing the son that she knew was mentally unstable to the range, for keeping these types of weapons in the house, etc. but that's one case, you don't build policy on that. A lot of people in the Pol forumn do what youi're doing, take someone that mentions something that kind of sounds like what others said and then throw the same argument against them that they've been using for (days/weeks/months/years), I guess I never looked closely enough to realize that you were one of those.
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    It will never happen and is both a waste of time and energy. Assault rifles have been banned since the 1930's. Semi Automatic rifles are not going away. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country yet the Sandy Hook tragedy still occurred.
    We agree that gun control laws won't stop crazy people from wanting to kill a lot of people. If the shooter's mother only had a couple of bolt action rifles and a single-action revolver, or for the sake of argument let's say she had a revolver (I know...), can you logically hazard a guess as to whether the death toll would have been (a) higher or (b) lower?
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I stand by what I said. The statistics show that approximately 300 people per year are murdered by long guns like rifles and shotguns. Thats 300 out of 11000 murders per year that occur. In a country of 400Million is it realistic to pass a bunch of laws and go through a ton of expense to reduce the 300 number to 280?
    I suppose that depends on what column you're in.
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I contend that those people pushing gun control laws as a way to reduce mass shooting events simply are pushing their political agenda. There is no statistical or empirical to suggest that any of your regulations would have any effect whatsoever in reducing these crimes.
    I'd need to know what you mean by "gun control" to know if I agree or disagree with you, or whether you're being logical or full of ****.
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Why not consider things that will actually make a difference. I contend that these drugs cause people to go on murder sprees as a side effect of whatever it is that they do to peoples brains. What other drugs list suicide as a possible side effect.
    I'm laughing as I type this question, exactly what line of work are you in where you're remotely qualified to contend what drugs cause people to go on murder sprees? It's estimated that as many as 1 in 10 Americans are on psychotropic drugs (and that 1 in 5 have tried them). So even if we half that, you've got about 15 million americans. Now how many mass murderers that were on psychotropics?

    I don't like the trend towards psychotropics, and I don't think a ban on all guns is what we need, but I have to ask: if we're going to play this game, based on percentages, do we ban guns or psychotropics?

    EDIT: BTW - from what I've heard, and I don't claim to be an expert, the drugs don't technically chemically do anything to directly "cause" suicidal or violent feelings - the thinking is that for people who are depressed and or mentally unstable, the drugs, as they start to lift the depression/etc., can allow the patient to become 'motivated' to act on thoughts that they have had.
    Last edited by isired; 01-09-2013 at 05:43 PM.

  20. #660
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    I'm not. Never said a word about banning handguns. I was wondering what might be done to reduce the death toll of these events. I don't think you can stop a nut job from doing these things. In Newtown, I find great fault with the mother, for bringing the son that she knew was mentally unstable to the range, for keeping these types of weapons in the house, etc. but that's one case, you don't build policy on that. A lot of people in the Pol forumn do what youi're doing, take someone that mentions something that kind of sounds like what others said and then throw the same argument against them that they've been using for (days/weeks/months/years), I guess I never looked closely enough to realize that you were one of those.
    We agree that gun control laws won't stop crazy people from wanting to kill a lot of people. If the shooter's mother only had a couple of bolt action rifles and a single-action revolver, or for the sake of argument let's say she had a revolver (I know...), can you logically hazard a guess as to whether the death toll would have been (a) higher or (b) lower?
    I suppose that depends on what column you're in.
    I'd need to know what you mean by "gun control" to know if I agree or disagree with you, or whether you're being logical or full of ****.
    I'm laughing as I type this question, exactly what line of work are you in where you're remotely qualified to contend what drugs cause people to go on murder sprees? It's estimated that as many as 1 in 10 Americans are on psychotropic drugs (and that 1 in 5 have tried them). So even if we half that, you've got about 15 million americans. Now how many mass murderers that were on psychotropics?

    I don't like the trend towards psychotropics, and I don't think a ban on all guns is what we need, but I have to ask: if we're going to play this game, based on percentages, do we ban guns or psychotropics?

    EDIT: BTW - from what I've heard, and I don't claim to be an expert, the drugs don't technically chemically do anything to directly "cause" suicidal or violent feelings - the thinking is that for people who are depressed and or mentally unstable, the drugs, as they start to lift the depression/etc., can allow the patient to become 'motivated' to act on thoughts that they have had.
    Tomorrow I will post the statistics/research on the drug interactions when I have the time to find some of the articles I've read on the subject. Your take on it in the edit is not on par with the research I've read. I believe the chemicals sometimes cause people to do things that they otherwise would not have been inclined to do.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us