patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

That's why I said you need to look at actual data. The facts are, that firearms have PREVENT many more crimes than have been committed. The problem is, we only hear about the committed ones from the MSM. We need to separate emotional responses and knee-jerk reactions from these instances and look at the facts.

Well show me the facts. Firearms encompass a very wide range, and I presume rather a lot of your examples don't relate to semi-automatic rifles.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Just as a general point, if people are using a weapon for target practice or hunting, why would they need a semi-automatic weapon?

In target practice, if you're looking to hone your skills, you need to be able to shoot in repetition without changing position. Stopping to reload single shells breaks your rhythm.

In hunting, you don't always kill your game on a single shot, so you need to be able to re-fire quickly to keep the game from escaping wounded.

Life is full of compromises. There are a vast number of restrictions on people's individual liberties that most people don't give a second thought to because they lead to the betterment of society as a whole.

Call it Crazy says

So, only 2/3rds of murders are caused by firearms... which means some other "weapon" was used for the other 1/3.

....."Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."

....."A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

Your 'only 2/3rds' comment is rather striking.
And I presume that most of the figures you mention below that relate to handguns...

How many murders will give up murdering if they have no guns?

If someone is premeditated and determined, he will follow through.

We have an angry-people problem.

Peter P says

How many murders will give up murdering if they have no guns?

I didn't notice a demand for all guns to be given up.

Bigsby says

Peter P says

How many murders will give up murdering if they have no guns?

I didn't notice a demand for all guns to be given up.

But criminals will still have all those weapons out there.

Call it Crazy says

That's been my point all along. You, like many others, are strictly focused on those "evil guns" and nothing else. The facts are, just like the stats I posted, that other "tools" can be used to kill people. Except, no one wants to use critical thinking skills and logic to accept that point.

The other 1/3 above could be anything... a knife, a axe, a baseball bat, a chain saw, a steel pipe, a rock or anything. Maybe even a car...

The only common denominator in all the murders? They had to be caused by a PERSON....

No, I'm not, but quite obviously guns are the single greatest weapon of choice for murders in the US. In the UK, I believe it is knives, but the number of murders in the UK is vastly lower than in the US. Ease of gun ownership is one of a multitude of issues. But it is one. You, however, seem to be strictly focused on denying the part that rampant gun ownership plays in the number of murders. It does have a role. It's not the be-all and end-all, but why are you so hell bent on denying that it plays any part?

Peter P says

Bigsby says

Peter P says

How many murders will give up murdering if they have no guns?

I didn't notice a demand for all guns to be given up.

But criminals will still have all those weapons out there.

You don't say.

Call it Crazy says

Both of these rifles operate on the same principle and the same type of firing mechanism. The difference being, for the uneducated, the 22 is portrayed as a nice little backyard target rifle, where the MSM makes out the AR15 as some scary military "killing machine" that should be banned.

Fear, emotion and false perceptions doesn't make for good law making....

I've already made my point on both of those weapons and that wasn't based on 'fear, emotion, and false perceptions.' I see little place in society for the need for (frequently) loosely regulated ownership of (multiple) semi-automatic rifles. It does not serve the greater good of society. That is my opinion. It obviously differs from yours.

Since the United States legalized abortion in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, approximately 40 million abortions have been conducted in this country.

That is 40 million of these little kids, just like the ones that got shot, only 5 years younger, and much more defenseless.

1/1/1973 to 1/1/2013 is 40 years, that is 1 million per year. and that is about 2,740 dead babies every day.

The advertized numbers are higher, like 3,700 per day, but I'll stick with the lower number to avoid silly arguements.

Now, will all of those calling for the removal of weapons from the hands of law-following Americans please explain why? If you say it is to save lives, you are a liar. If you were wanting to save innocent life you would end abortion. Murderers will use whatever it takes to do the job. Stop pretending that murdering freaks are all too lazy to try other options. After all, every day there are thousands of babies murdered with sharp medical tools and a vaccuum. Abortatoriums dont use guns, and they murder thousands more than gun violence. It is time for the liberal left to stop talking about lives. They want to have equal chances for all innocent folks to be victims, and not have to know that some bible clinger was able to protect his family, wife, treasure, neighbor, teacher, or self from being a victim. Note their view of Zimmerman, and compair that to how they reacted to Spike Lee. Spike Lee is guilty of conspiracy to commet murder on the same level as Charles Manson, but nobody says anything. How odd. Zimmerman's story has been proven, but all of the good people are afraid of the reactions from the bad people, so he must be treated like a criminal. Thanks to libtards.

The Mayans where right.

Believing a new, special law (that only limits the good guys from having weapons) will make any difference to the bad guys and how they rape, murder, and rob innocent people, is a sign of mental illness, and lots of dope smoking must take place to suffer that much from the cancer of liberalism.

Call it Crazy says

Where did I ever say it doesn't play any part?? I just showed you the data above. Sure, it's easier to kill someone with a gun then a baseball bat, but guns aren't the only cause of murders. They just make for a better "emotional" story because of the fear, ignorance and lack of gun education by so many people.

I also proved to you above that "rampant" gun ownership has proven to be more effective in stopping crimes versus causing crimes.

What don't you understand in those facts??

Er, post after post you've repeated the mantra of 'it's the person,' or should I say 'it's the PERSON.' That's what you've said in this thread over and over.

And as I replied before, if gun ownership wasn't rampant, then crime would be prevented in other ways just as it is in other countries. And even ignoring that point, your figures don't state what was used to prevent crime so even that argument is moot when addressing the issue of the appropriateness of ownership of certain types of weapons.

Bap33 says

Since the United States legalized abortion in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, approximately 40 million abortions have been conducted in this country.

That is 40 million of these little kids, just like the ones that got shot, only 5 years younger, and much more defenseless.

Fetuses aren't kids, so what was your point again?

Call it Crazy says

Wow, after everything I posted, I feel like I'm going round and round in circles, like a dog chasing it's tail.....

I'll just leave it at that, you just don't get it..... your mind is made up, facts and data don't matter, people behind the weapons don't matter, semi-auto rifles should be banned, period...

OK, I'm done trying to explain to you...

Er, I have entirely the same feeling towards what you have been posting. You see what you want to see in your 'facts and data' and you completely ignore any other take on that information that doesn't dovetail with your own preconceptions. And please point to where I said that the people behind the guns don't matter.

Bigsby says

Fetuses aren't kids, so what was your point again?

If they are human fetuses, they are human kids. Kids is a lazy slang term, and fetus is a dead lingo term, and that makes for a bad conversation. Lets just call all human offspring, human offspring. In the belly, on the floor, in the crib, on a bike, in school, at the malt shop, they are all just human offspring. That work better for you?

But, like I said, the liberal left focus is not human life, it is making sure everyone can be a victim.

I heard many proposals over the weekend, however I would say that arming the teachers is not a good idea. There are some teachers out there that are not the most stable personalities. They will shoot students for not turning in homework assignments or not completing lab writeups up to their satisfaction. I am sure we all ran into some eccentric ones in school. It would be a timebomb and a disaster waiting to happen if those guys were armed. Not to mention that the climate of fear that's not conducive to learning that would result in the classroom.

Call it Crazy says

Wow, after everything I posted, I feel like I'm going round and round in circles, like a dog chasing it's tail.....

That's the way I imagine you too.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

That's the way I imagine you too.

I have a easy solution for you!! Don't read my posts!!

Wing-nuts make me laugh.

Call it Crazy says

What if these particular teachers were armed?

Conn. law apparently already allowed concealed carry permit holders to bring on school property, so in theory one of those teachers COULD have been armed, but they weren't. This case doesn't seem a legal issue so much as a mental health issue to me.

Do you mean ENCOURAGE them to be armed? Like a subsidy for those that act as armed guards? This would go against the dominant paradigm that teachers should be minimum wage disposable people, with no pensions and no support.

I am a former IPSC competitor and I feel queasy about the idea. I don't really want a teacher whose focus is TEACHING to have loaded on their plate additional job as an armed guard and having to be paranoid every second about where their sidearm is and not having an accident or having it seized from them.

Pre-Reagan we locked up people in loony bins right and left. Maybe we were too indiscrimant back then, but the pendulum has swung too far and now we don't institutionalize people UNTIL they have murdered a bunch of people.

Vicente says

I am a former IPSC competitor and I feel queasy about the idea. I don't really want a teacher whose focus is TEACHING to have loaded on their plate additional job as an armed guard and having to be paranoid every second about where their sidearm is and not having an accident or having it seized from them.

I am a gun owner, and in the past have had a concealed carry permit and I don't think (mandatory)armed teachers is a good idea either.

A school full of armed teachers is not going to dissuade an attack from a mentally ill person bent on mayhem and murder followed by their own death.

leo707 says

A school full of armed teachers is not going to dissuade an attack from a mentally ill person bent on mayhem and murder followed by their own death.

No, but it would increase gun sales!

FortWayne says

Way more people die in car accidents, ban cars too. And if you own an SUV stronger rules should apply.

Way more people die in car accidents than terrorist attacks. So let's start by banning the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. These are organizations that material harm the U.S. population and provide no real safety.

Call it Crazy says

Why didn't these attackers go after a police station, gun show or shooting range??

Gosh, wouldn't it be great if there we MORE gun shows and MORE shooting ranges? Certainly, MORE guns is the answer.

Of course, your logic for more guns will be disputed by the families of the two cops who got killed today in Kansas.

Back to chasing your tail!

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Way more people die in car accidents, ban cars too. And if you own an SUV stronger rules should apply.

Way more people die in car accidents than terrorist attacks. So let's start by banning the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. These are organizations that material harm the U.S. population and provide no real safety.

Well, I do agree that driver's license are given too liberally. So if someone suggested that we make it more difficult to get a driver's license, I would agree. Of course, the auto industry might have a problem with that.

Call it Crazy says

Right, show me anywhere, anywhere, in my posts that I said we need "more guns".... anywhere..... maybe in your fucked up mind!!!

Call it Crazy says

How about arming some of them? Let it be their choice. Send them to specific training on how to deal with these incidents.

How about arming the principal or V. principal? I would think they would be stable enough to handle it. After all, they didn't get into the management position because they were unstable.

Arming the principal or V. principal? Where do those guns come from? Or did I misread that and you meant we should hire amputees as school administrators and give them prosthetic arms?

Call it Crazy says

How about arming the principal or V. principal?

REQUIRE THEM? What if it's against their beliefs? Oh right, we can make that another job requirement. They can wedge it in among their other unpaid duties. Attend PTA meeting on Tuesday, then firearms qual on Wednesday night. We'll also have to make them immune from prosecution should their actions ever result in a mishap.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

Arming the principal or V. principal? Where do those guns come from?

So nice you can selectively cut and paste. Here's the the other part I posted:

Call it Crazy says

How about arming some of them? Let it be their choice.

See, let it be THEIR choice... if they chose to be armed, they most likely own their own firearm..... or..

Would you rather pay a few hundred dollars to purchase the gun for the teacher or allow many other kids to be killed? Your choice??

Ok, I went back and added the part where you say they can choose to be armed.

Your point though, loud and clear, is that we need MORE people with MORE guns to fight the bad guys/crazies.

Most rational people would say your idea is insane.

Or we privatize the school system using vouchers. Parents and the schools can choose to hire armed security guards.

Call it Crazy says

Can you see the word CHOICE there???

Apparently it already was a choice in Connecticut. So your suggestion has no value.

Vicente says

Call it Crazy says

Can you see the word CHOICE there???

Apparently it already was a choice in Connecticut. So your suggestion has no value.

And that is the problem, most people are just not suited to be "guards." There will never be enough people that voluntary arm to "harden" all public "targets."

And, yes, shooters will go for "soft" targets in order to maximize the damage they do before they die.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

Your point though, loud and clear, is that we need MORE people with MORE guns to fight the bad guys/crazies.

Most rational people would say your idea is insane.

Fine, then give me YOUR solution on how YOU would stop the bad guys/crazies?? I already gave the stats on how more crime has been prevented by the population being armed, show me yours!!

We have much more crime than any other industrialized nation. So, yeah if the whole country is armed, then there will be incidents where a bad guy is stopped by an armed citizen. Of course, statistically speaking, that citizens gun is more likely to be used in an accidental death than it is in preventing a crime.

The weapon's industry is huge and they will go to great lengths and spend boatloads of money to twist perceptions.

My solution is we need a much tougher and more regulated gun industry. That we need to outlaw sales of automatic and semi-automatic assault type weapons with large, easily reloaded clips. We need to find as many of them that are out there and force the owners to tough and regular testing and licensing if they want to keep their "grandfathered" weapons.

We need to aggressively assist, educate, medicate and track anyone with personality disorders. We have to reach out to their families and make sure that have what they need to keep their children on their meds and report any lapses. Although the ACLU will scream, people diagnosed with these disorders will need to be tracked. It is unfair as the great majority pose no threat, but until effective treatments/cures are available, we really have no choice.

BTW, These disorders are completely different from the Autism spectrum disorders that the shooter in this case has been said to have had. Anyone who has first hand knowledge of those on the autism spectrum understands that these citizens pose no threat. The threat comes from the much rarer (thankfully) personality disorder syndrome. In fact, many therapists are known to refuse treating people with personality disorders because of potential litigation. That needs to change too.

This will be very expensive. Both the ACLU and the NRA will scream. The costs can be mitigated by gun taxes in the same way that the cigarette industry pays for education and health costs.

You have the easy answer - more guns for the good guys. I have the more complex and more expensive answer.

Okay, I've had my (long) say. Now you may start screaming (!!) at me again.

Call it Crazy says

The other 1/3 above could be anything... a knife, a axe, a baseball bat, a chain saw, a steel pipe, a rock or anything. Maybe even a car...

Go enter a large MOB of people with ANY of the weapons you listed above. see how long you last before you are crushed and have your eyes gouged out by the angry mob.

Meanwhile a machine gun could mow them down if you had unlimited ammo. That's where-in the problem lies... Automatic weapons make it too easy to kill on a massive scale.

Call it Crazy says

Do you have a link to that.... From what I have seen, all school zones now are federally specified "no gun zones".

http://cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-217b.htm

".....this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education."

The various iterations of Gun Free School Zone Acts exempt holders of state-issued carry pemits. I had a Georgia concealed carry permit for over 20 years and I'm moderately familiar with relevant laws.

Had you stopped to do 60 seconds of research, you wouldn't have wasted multiple posts suggesting that the Principal be legally allowed to have a firearm. Clearly that was already the case had she wished to do so.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Automatic weapons make it too easy to kill on a massive scale.

Automatic weapons are rarely used in mass shootings.

Call it Crazy says

How about arming the principal or V. principal? I would think they would be stable enough to handle it. After all, they didn't get into the management position because they were unstable.

The risk is just too great that unstable teachers/principals would snap and cause their own massacres if they felt dissed/slighted/disrespected by student body. It would be much better to have cops in civilian clothing monitor schools. If those guys are armed on campus, I have no problems with that. But to have armed teachers/principls many of whom already have authoritarianism issues and don't take kindly when students disobey them would be the equivalent of placing a bomb in school setting.

It is simply disappoining that in a country with so much abundance compared with vast majority of the world that people don't realize how good they have it. It's almost as if that frame of reference does not exist for them whether these folks are "mentally ill" or who resort to a gun to avenge past slights.

Bellingham Bill says

The issue is the toxic mix of insane people, glorification of "tactical" firearms, and the ready availability of assault weapons.

Removing the assault weapons breaks the chain to a significant degree.

No it doesn't. You can't remove millions of weapons that are everywhere. All you'll accomplish with a gun ban is innocent law abiding civilians being disarmed, while insane and criminals will have no problem being armed.

Millions of gun owners every day do not commit crimes. Why would you want to punish everyone for mistakes of the few crazies who should be locked up in the hospitals to begin with.

And if you noticed, or paid a little bit more attention, you'd notice that in majority of these crimes, assault weapons weren't used.

Call it Crazy says

You think it's acceptable to have teachers with "authoritarianism" issues free access to your kids??? Really??

Parents don't have a choice in this matter - they don't hire teachers. However, many people with "authoritarianism" issues do self select themselves into certain professions such as being a cop, teacher, military career etc. Giving teachers access to guns brings up too much uncertainty into the mix. Off the top of my head, I can think of my high school physics and chemistry teachers who should have been profiled as "red flags" if they were allowed to carry guns. Actually, I take it a step further. I am sure that my physics teacher would bust a cap into someone's ass.

Bellingham Bill says

leo707 says

Automatic weapons are rarely used in mass shootings.

That did not refute what you were replying to.

I was responding to pointless rhetoric.

OK, sure...let's ban all machine guns and automatic weapons.

This would be a great help, except they are never used in these mass shootings.

The "assault weapons" used in these types of shootings are not even "real" assault weapons, traditionally to be considered an assault weapon the gun had to be capable of automatic fire. The assault weapons used are primarily aesthetic third-cousins to real assault weapons minus the more lethal feature of being an actual automatic weapon.

Bellingham Bill says

The issue is the toxic mix of insane people, glorification of "tactical" firearms

It is a toxic mix of insane people and firearms. I doubt changing the aesthetics of the available weapons would prevent any shootings.

FortWayne says

It is a toxic mix of insane people and firearms.

It was a toxic mix of insanity and people.