Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Phallic]

This is why the problem wont be solved. We are too busy fighting over the wrong thing. We're taking potshots at each other over stupid things...the only thing both sides should be discussing is how to prevent more gun tragedies. No one on either side wants to compromise and we'll never fix this issue.
Please do continue to argue about what the forefathers thought or how you are keeping the government in check or taking things from people....The shootings will get worst and worst until we get to a point where we can't ignore them. I thought it was Sandy Hook but I guess I was wrong.

Compromise to anti-gun position is hardly a compromise at all when their idea of compromise to them is us conceding to more gun regulation.

Compromise would be something like universal background checks for nationwide CCW.

 

[Kelly]

This is why the problem wont be solved. We are too busy fighting over the wrong thing. We're taking potshots at each other over stupid things...the only thing both sides should be discussing is how to prevent more gun tragedies. No one on either side wants to compromise and we'll never fix this issue.
Please do continue to argue about what the forefathers thought or how you are keeping the government in check or taking things from people....The shootings will get worst and worst until we get to a point where we can't ignore them. I thought it was Sandy Hook but I guess I was wrong.

Exactly who are the talking about. Because, people did talk, and the only thing that came out of those talks really has been "things that inhibit the sell of guns", nothing that I see will curtail the true problem of these mass shootings and that is the mental health issue. I'm actually all for most, if not all really of the 23 things the President wants to put in place....but IMO, none of them would have stopped or will stop another mass shooting like the one in Newtown...but we damn well better take a long, educated, serious look at our mental health situation in this country, because that has been a HUGE contributing factor in the mass shootings of this 2000's.....and will probably be the main contributing factor to the next...and there will be a next, as an FBI agent after Columbine stated in an interview..."right now, the next person is planning their attack, it will happen."

IMO, these people cry for help in many ways BEFORE the shootings/attacks...we need to take those seriously.

Secret Service report on school shootings

A United States Secret Service study concluded that schools were placing false hope in physical security, when they should be paying more attention to the pre-attack behaviors of students. Zero-tolerance policies and metal detectors "are unlikely to be helpful," the Secret Service researchers found. The researchers focused on questions concerning the reliance on SWAT teams when most attacks are over before police arrive, profiling of students who show warning signs in the absence of a definitive profile, expulsion of students for minor infractions when expulsion is the spark that push some to return to school with a gun, buying software not based on school shooting studies to evaluate threats although killers rarely make direct threats, and reliance on metal detectors and police officers in schools when the shooters often make no effort to conceal their weapons
In May 2002 the Secret Service published a report that examined 37 US school shootings. They had the following findings:

• Incidents of targeted violence at school were rarely sudden, impulsive acts.
• Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker's idea and/or plan to attack.
• Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.
• There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.
• Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.
• Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Moreover, many had considered or attempted suicide.
• Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack.
• Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.
• In many cases, other students were involved in some capacity.
• Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.

Resources:Vossekuil, B; Fein R, Reddy M, Borum R, Modzeleski W (2002) (PDF). The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. National Threat Assessment Center, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and U.S. Secret Service. Archived from the original on July 9, 2008. Retrieved May 14, 2011.

I think we can look to those things above, not just in "students" but in young adults as a whole. Aurora, Colorado shooting tells me this, as well as Newtown.

And most of your possible mass shootings were stopped ahead of time because someone was willing to tell the proper people of their concerns.

Now as far as shootings like those in Chicago...Chicago needs to look at what Guiliani did in NYC.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I am not ashamed to say that my view is jaded since I have tired of this nonsense of gun ownership in the United States. The truth of the matter is that we do not have responsible gun owners here and society is not being allowed to make them more responsible. We have an interest group in this country that is a lobby for firearms manufacturers and they have blinded people into thinking that it is their God given right to own something that was man made. Now that is ridiculous.

Can a mod please ban this person for his UTTERLY IGNORANT posts!???
He has said that police carry guns because they WANT to shoot people.
He has said that anyone that owns a gun is planning to shoot someone.
Now he says that there are NO responsible gun owners in the USA?!?!?!? (and more and more of the same ignorance and then some)
I am sick and tired of this.

I could come up with similar ignorant statements, and replace "gun owner" or "police officer" with some other group of people, like "gays" or "minorities" and I am quite sure that I would get an infraction at the very minimum and if I continued, I would fully expect to be banned.

 

[Kelly]

Can a mod please ban this person for his UTTERLY IGNORANT posts!???
He has said that police carry guns because they WANT to shoot people.
He has said that anyone that owns a gun is planning to shoot someone.
Now he says that there are NO responsible gun owners in the USA?!?!?!? (and more and more of the same ignorance and then some)
I am sick and tired of this.

I could come up with similar ignorant statements, and replace "gun owner" or "police officer" with some other group of people, like "gays" or "minorities" and I am quite sure that I would get an infraction at the very minimum and if I continued, I would fully expect to be banned.

If there was an infraction for "insulting one's intelligence" I can assure you I would use it....if there was a rule against "insulting one's intelligence" I would ban. Unfortunately for us, there is not.

Dnno, I think you have finally shown your full opinion on this subject, and honestly, I don't think you have much more to add to this discussion. Your general statement on gun owners is not only ignorant (ignorant as in lack of knowledge, not stupidity) in its premise, but rude as well. Probably is a good idea that you move on from this conversation...

Mrvlknight, there is an ignore button, and some truly deserve to be put in that room... : )

 

[Doctor Evo]

You're general statement on gun owners is not only ignorant (ignorant as in lack of knowledge, not stupidity) in its premise, but rude as well.

This is more offensive than any of dnno's posts.

 

[Kelly]

This is more offensive than any of dnno's posts.

The fact that his general statement is ignorant, is simply because there are no facts to back it up. You need to look up the difference between ignorance and stupidity. And don't let your agreement with him cloud your view here. I actually agree with him on quite a few things as well, but this statement was ignorant...not calling it that to be offensive at all....

Ignorant: a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>


a : slow of mind : obtuse

There is nothing stupid about Dnno....

But thank you for calling my mistake in spelling to my attention....I hate it when that happens. Pet peeve of mine...

 

[Fading]

*facepalm*

You do realize the shooter broke their no-gun policy, right? What did your little gun free zone accomplish again?

It's okay, you can go on thinking that your rules will create a force field, disallowing all firearms from entering. Just don't be surprised when more mass killings happen, virtually exclusively in gun free zones.

To be fair, what did guns being present add? No offense, but having read this thread since Newtown, you're posts have come across as being as single minded towards the solution as dnno1, again IMO. You can't honestly think if the innocent bystanders were armed that things would have turned out better? The people injured were injured by just being in proximity to the altercation. If you add 20 more guns, and everyone started shooing back you'd have had a lot more collateral damage. Considering this was just stray shots from 2 individuals.

That also doesn't dismiss guns simply because it was an anti-gun zone. That's faulty logic. It may show anti-gun zone signs, and warnings as being bad deterrents to some gun owners. However it also shows that everyone having guns isn't a good idea when an argument can boil over into a shoot out inbetween two armed people, and involve those around them. It also shows shootings in public aren't always started by people with mental health issues. Some simply can "go postal" and fire out of rage from the moment if packing in the same way that road rage can cause accidents.

If you're just looking at one solution because it supports the end goal you want, i.e "ban all gun as I want all guns gone", or "focus on mental health alone so my guns won't be touched", you'll never solve the problem. You don't have to trample rights to find a solution, but it's equally silly to see so much death and think, "just leave guns alone because I want to be able to own whatever I want".

 

[Thundercrack85]

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that most people are arguing that if other people have guns on site, that fact alone is likely to deter shooters. Not so much that everyone pulls out a gun and opens fire saloon style.

Although arguably that would still be better than a man going around murdering dozens of unarmed people. I'd rather take my chances with someone in the crowd having a pistol, than everyone being unarmed.

Yeah, someone might get shot in the crossfire. But it's still better than one guy just mowing people down.

 

[Fading]

Everyone having guns being a deterrent, IMO, is as idealistic as thinking hanging a gun free zone sign will prevent gun violence. Many mass shooters want to die, and some have worn body armor. I doubt worrying about if others have guns would have prevented many of these tragedies. Just look at Columbine, the shooters knew the school had armed guards, and it didn't deter them. (not arguing if armed guards saved lives or not in Columbine, just that the threat isn't a guaranteed deterrent). Toss on the shooters typically have planning, superior firepower, and sometimes Kehvlar, and IMO prevention will save more lives than impromptu shoot-outs.

As far as unarmed civilians being safer if armed in this incident. The injuries were because of stray shots. I'm not saying it would become a spaghetti western scene. I just think adding in panicked bystanders shooting wildly back at those 2 would have escalated the incident, and led to a higher body count. In a wide open space like that I'd rather run for cover and escape. People can do stupid things when afraid, angry, or panicking. A person with a pistol might decide to just pull it out, hunker down, and fire back blindly to get away leading to more than 3 bystanders being shot by stray bullets.

Self defense is a right I encourage. It doesn't mean we all need to carry military hardware in public to achieve it. Carry guns with us into banks, Walmart, give them to every teacher. "More guns" isn't, IMO, the right solution. As unfair as it is to ask gun owners to give up their guns, it's equally unfair to demand every other citizen adopt guns to suit gun owners wishes.

There are more, and better solutions outside of extreme, absolute stances like no guns, or guns for everyone. They might require giving up a little, and compromising on both sides, but it's a hellova lot better than the right trampling, civil war, or do nothing talk.

 

[Doctor Evo]

The fact that his general statement is ignorant, is simply because there are no facts to back it up. You need to look up the difference between ignorance and stupidity. And don't let your agreement with him cloud your view here. I actually agree with him on quite a few things as well, but this statement was ignorant...not calling it that to be offensive at all....

There is nothing stupid about Dnno....

But thank you for calling my mistake in spelling to my attention....I hate it when that happens. Pet peeve of mine...

1) I know the difference between ignorance and stupidity.

2) I don't agree with him. His statement was most certainly ignorant, and you were right to call him out on it.

3) I was talking (exclusively) about your use of "you're" in place of "your." Note the underlined portion.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Everyone having guns being a deterrent, IMO, is as idealistic as thinking hanging a gun free zone sign will prevent gun violence. Many mass shooters want to die, and some have worn body armor. I doubt worrying about if others have guns would have prevented many of these tragedies. Just look at Columbine, the shooters knew the school had armed guards, and it didn't deter them. (not arguing if armed guards saved lives or not in Columbine, just that the threat isn't a guaranteed deterrent). Toss on the shooters typically have planning, superior firepower, and sometimes Kehvlar, and IMO prevention will save more lives than impromptu shoot-outs.

As far as unarmed civilians being safer if armed in this incident. The injuries were because of stray shots. I'm not saying it would become a spaghetti western scene. I just think adding in panicked bystanders shooting wildly back at those 2 would have escalated the incident, and led to a higher body count. In a wide open space like that I'd rather run for cover and escape. People can do stupid things when afraid, angry, or panicking. A person with a pistol might decide to just pull it out, hunker down, and fire back blindly to get away leading to more than 3 bystanders being shot by stray bullets.

Self defense is a right I encourage. It doesn't mean we all need to carry military hardware in public to achieve it. Carry guns with us into banks, Walmart, give them to every teacher. "More guns" isn't, IMO, the right solution. As unfair as it is to ask gun owners to give up their guns, it's equally unfair to demand every other citizen adopt guns to suit gun owners wishes.

There are more, and better solutions outside of extreme, absolute stances like no guns, or guns for everyone. They might require giving up a little, and compromising on both sides, but it's a hellova lot better than the right trampling, civil war, or do nothing talk.

Well I agree, to a point. I'm not advocating anything. But if some crazy man decides he's going to go kill a bunch of people with an AR-15, and you're in let's say, a mall. I'd still prefer someone else there to have a gun, than just the guy gunning us down like fish in a barrel.

Maybe someone gets hit by a stray bullet. Quite likely. But still better than nothing.

It really depends on the circumstances.

 

[Phallic]

To be fair, what did guns being present add? No offense, but having read this thread since Newtown, you're posts have come across as being as single minded towards the solution as dnno1, again IMO. You can't honestly think if the innocent bystanders were armed that things would have turned out better? The people injured were injured by just being in proximity to the altercation. If you add 20 more guns, and everyone started shooing back you'd have had a lot more collateral damage. Considering this was just stray shots from 2 individuals.

That also doesn't dismiss guns simply because it was an anti-gun zone. That's faulty logic. It may show anti-gun zone signs, and warnings as being bad deterrents to some gun owners. However it also shows that everyone having guns isn't a good idea when an argument can boil over into a shoot out inbetween two armed people, and involve those around them. It also shows shootings in public aren't always started by people with mental health issues. Some simply can "go postal" and fire out of rage from the moment if packing in the same way that road rage can cause accidents.

If you're just looking at one solution because it supports the end goal you want, i.e "ban all gun as I want all guns gone", or "focus on mental health alone so my guns won't be touched", you'll never solve the problem. You don't have to trample rights to find a solution, but it's equally silly to see so much death and think, "just leave guns alone because I want to be able to own whatever I want".

I've heard that argument so many times. Literally every time a new state goes shall issue, this argument is used. When has that ever happened?

You may think I'm being simple minded, but the fact remains that I've yet to hear of a single proposed gun control measure that has had any measurable success. Would more guns in the hands of law abiding CCW holders have helped? Probably.

I've read of far more instances of a CCW stopping a mass shooting than one making it worse. Far more. I understand that you're afraid of people possessing guns in public, but that fear is unfounded.

In almost every state where CCW laws were passed, crime either remained constant or decreased. There have been very few mass murders in areas that weren't gun free zones. The proof is in the pudding - you may find that single minded, but the history bears out what I'm saying.

I'm not open to strict gun control because it doesn't work. That's the bottom line. I understand you disagree, but I've yet to see solid evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[Hotwire]

Well I agree, to a point. I'm not advocating anything. But if some crazy man decides he's going to go kill a bunch of people with an AR-15, and you're in let's say, a mall. I'd still prefer someone else there to have a gun, than just the guy gunning us down like fish in a barrel.

Maybe someone gets hit by a stray bullet. Quite likely. But still better than nothing.

It really depends on the circumstances.

I wish there was a way to actually test this. Unfortunately, with anything other than an actual incident, you can't get an accurate test. The people in the test would know something was going to happen.

 

[Phallic]

Everyone having guns being a deterrent, IMO, is as idealistic as thinking hanging a gun free zone sign will prevent gun violence. Many mass shooters want to die, and some have worn body armor. I doubt worrying about if others have guns would have prevented many of these tragedies. Just look at Columbine, the shooters knew the school had armed guards, and it didn't deter them. (not arguing if armed guards saved lives or not in Columbine, just that the threat isn't a guaranteed deterrent). Toss on the shooters typically have planning, superior firepower, and sometimes Kehvlar, and IMO prevention will save more lives than impromptu shoot-outs.

As far as unarmed civilians being safer if armed in this incident. The injuries were because of stray shots. I'm not saying it would become a spaghetti western scene. I just think adding in panicked bystanders shooting wildly back at those 2 would have escalated the incident, and led to a higher body count. In a wide open space like that I'd rather run for cover and escape. People can do stupid things when afraid, angry, or panicking. A person with a pistol might decide to just pull it out, hunker down, and fire back blindly to get away leading to more than 3 bystanders being shot by stray bullets.

Self defense is a right I encourage. It doesn't mean we all need to carry military hardware in public to achieve it. Carry guns with us into banks, Walmart, give them to every teacher. "More guns" isn't, IMO, the right solution. As unfair as it is to ask gun owners to give up their guns, it's equally unfair to demand every other citizen adopt guns to suit gun owners wishes.

There are more, and better solutions outside of extreme, absolute stances like no guns, or guns for everyone. They might require giving up a little, and compromising on both sides, but it's a hellova lot better than the right trampling, civil war, or do nothing talk.

Nobody is saying guns for everyone, nor that everyone should carry. Once again, your scenarios do not play out. Hell, there was an incident here in Oregon that I'm sure you heard of - the mall shooting. It's little reported that the shooter stopped after spotting a man with a drawn gun sighted in on him.

Concealed carry has saved many more lives than it has taken. Gun free zones have never and never will work. Despite the myths out there, people don't just *snap* and start shooting. Virtually every shooting has been premeditated. I can't really even think of an exception to this.

Perhaps you'd just start wildly shooting at everything in the event of such a scenario. That seems to be more projection that reality, though, given that I've yet to read of this happening at all.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wish there was a way to actually test this. Unfortunately, with anything other than an actual incident, you can't get an accurate test. The people in the test would know something was going to happen.

I think part of the complication is that you're dealing with crazy people.

Let me clarify. Obviously normal people don't go on a killing spree. But when a soldier is in combat, they try to use their weapons as effectively as possible. A lot of these shooters are out of their minds. Some of them want to be killed. Others, apparently waste plenty of ammo, discard half-full clips... for no apparent reason. Or they just blow their brains out, even though they have hundreds of rounds left.

When they do get confronted with an armed response (by police), a lot of them cut and run. Hide, and then shoot themselves. Others want to be killed, so let themselves be shot. Others still just start a gunfight (from what I understand, this is rare).

You have no way of knowing what will happen.

Still I think when it's madman armed with a military rifle gunning people down, any gun you have on your otherwise unarmed "side" is an asset.

 

[Fading]

You may think I'm being simple minded

Just to clarify so you don't take it the wrong way, I said single minded. I can tell you're smart, and capable of handling yourself in a debate. It's just that for how much everyone gets onto dnno for being so strongly anti-gun, I'm finding the arm everyone, "not having a gun just means you're stupid" undertone just as off putting. It doesn't help that the media hyper inflates the issue. I just see all the civil war, wanting teachers to value fire arm proficiency over educational skills talk, and feel like beating my head against a wall. Gun control is a touchy issue. So I understand both sides staunchly defending their POV, but some of this is reaching cartoon levels of wackiness.

 

[Fading]

Nobody is saying guns for everyone, nor that everyone should carry. Once again, your scenarios do not play out. Hell, there was an incident here in Oregon that I'm sure you heard of - the mall shooting. It's little reported that the shooter stopped after spotting a man with a drawn gun sighted in on him.

Concealed carry has saved many more lives than it has taken. Gun free zones have never and never will work. Despite the myths out there, people don't just *snap* and start shooting. Virtually every shooting has been premeditated. I can't really even think of an exception to this.

Perhaps you'd just start wildly shooting at everything in the event of such a scenario. That seems to be more projection that reality, though, given that I've yet to read of this happening at all.

Not every as the story that started this conversation wasn't pre-meditated. It was 2 ppl arguing, one started to walk away, the turned around, pulled out a gun, and they started firing. I'm not arguing that pre-meditated doesn't hold the lion's share, but people snap all the time at strangers, and act violently. Whether it be a guy getting cut off in traffic, causing a wreck from road rage. Or a wife coming home to a cheating husband, and shooting him.

I'd also say that saying gun free zones never work is reaching. The incidents where shots are fired inside them compared to how many there are is staggeringly lop sided. It's not like everytime a place is made a gun free zone someone waltzes up, and starts shooting. Let alone in half these areas...or 75% of them...or 90% of them.

In fact, I'd say they probably have worked as a deterrent at times. I'm sure there have been atleast a few cases where someone saw the sign, connected that to them taking security seriously (think air port security, or banks no gun policies), realized they probably also have silent alarms, and opted to just rob some random gas station instead of risking it. Psychological effects can work in more ways than just brute force. Risking breaking the law while getting caught on camera, and tripping an alarm deters plenty without the threat of a gun.

 

[SuBe]

This is interesting and not part of the "common knowledge" of the events that transpired at Sandy Hook Elementary. With all of this talk about banned "assault" weapons, Adam Lanza did not use an AR-15 at all during the shooting. So why is this even part of the discussion?

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

 

[Spider-Who?]

This is interesting and not part of the "common knowledge" of the events that transpired at Sandy Hook Elementary. With all of this talk about banned "assault" weapons, Adam Lanza did not use an AR-15 at all during the shooting. So why is this even part of the discussion?

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

This actually isn't anything new (though it's nice to see reporters actually mention it). It's part of the discussion simply because gun-control people WANT that gun banned due to all of the ignorance and misinformation purposefully spread about that particular firearm.

 

[SuBe]

 

[Kelly]

1) I know the difference between ignorance and stupidity.

2) I don't agree with him. His statement was most certainly ignorant, and you were right to call him out on it.

3) I was talking (exclusively) about your use of "you're" in place of "your." Note the underlined portion.

LMAO.....ooops...

I did see the underlined portion, that is how I knew I made a mistake...

AND I STAND CORRECTED.....

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Compromise to anti-gun position is hardly a compromise at all when their idea of compromise to them is us conceding to more gun regulation.

Compromise would be something like universal background checks for nationwide CCW.

The notion of compromise would involving conceding to some of the other side's arguments.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I personally think what American's should worry about is the special interest groups that have alot of money to buy elections(and this goes both ways)

Well that's basically what tyranny of the majority is. I mean during segregation it wasn't as if every white person in the south was racist, most didn't care provided they were taken care of, which in many cases was true if you happened to be white. It's very hard for the majority to say no to a good situation. For the many white men who were rich, and frequently connected to the Klan's clandestine operations, if they weren't direct participants, benefited a lot from the money they had and used it to keep the Federal Government at bay

Also many politicians in the South actually detested segregation; one called it "a stench upon their souls". They were willing to go along with it though because the money and their constituents appeared happy with the arrangement. Money also provides a lot of leverage in court. Not just because of the Court system, but also because many defendants are willing to settle. Pressing forward is often times risky and not worth it.

I have very similar thoughts about the Founders in regards to slavery.

 

[Phallic]

The notion of compromise would involving conceding to some of the other side's arguments.

And what is the anti-gun side willing to compromise? It goes both ways.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

And what is the anti-gun side willing to compromise? It goes both ways.

I've seen many willing to compromise. I keep hearing "gun ban" from people, yet I think I've only seen maybe one poster suggest such a thing. The media loves to prop up nutbags, so don't bring that up either. Seems to me your just focusing on extremes of both sides.