Moderators lazarus Posted July 23, 2012 Moderators Posted July 23, 2012 A Glock 17 is good enough for me. What sense does it make to allow people to buy assault rifles and magazines that hold 60+ rounds? Surely there must be limits or do we just accept that every couple of years someone will go crazy and kill a lot of people? Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
bonnie Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 A Glock 17 is good enough for me. What sense does it make to allow people to buy assault rifles and magazines that hold 60+ rounds? Surely there must be limits or do we just accept that every couple of years someone will go crazy and kill a lot of people? Someone that is prepared to kill a lot of people will hardly be stopped by a law. If killing someone,which is against the law isn't a problem,why would the purchase of illegal firearms cause someone concern? Law abiding citizens will not purchase. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
LifeHiscost Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 A Glock 17 is good enough for me. What sense does it make to allow people to buy assault rifles and magazines that hold 60+ rounds? Surely there must be limits or do we just accept that every couple of years someone will go crazy and kill a lot of people? As to the 1st question, for the specific purpose of assaulting in the name of freedom. A nation that does not believe the ten commandments are necessary to proscribe behavior of the masses, must by necessity pay the consequences of accepting that tenet of belief. As for the second, having done the crime, make yourself look as mentally deficient as possible for the trial so when convicted based on inability to know right or wrong, you can have free board and room for the remainder of your life at the expense of the taxpayers. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/colo...-111006043.html God blesses! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
LifeHiscost Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Quote: If killing someone,which is against the law isn't a problem,why would the purchase of illegal firearms cause someone concern? If the automatic firearm had not developed firing problems, it would have been used to its' fullest extent and the slaughter would have been 10 times worse in fatalities. Seems to me to be reason enough to curtail the easy access to weapons of mass destruction. God blesses! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
bonnie Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Quote: If killing someone,which is against the law isn't a problem,why would the purchase of illegal firearms cause someone concern? If the automatic firearm had not developed firing problems, it would have been used to its' fullest extent and the slaughter would have been 10 times worse in fatalities. Seems to me to be reason enough to curtail the easy access to weapons of mass destruction. God blesses! A law curtailing easy acess would certainly have been a stumbling block to the man that did this. That would be a serious law to break? Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
jasd Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 >>If the automatic firearm had not developed firing problems, it would have been used to its' fullest extent and the slaughter would have been 10 times worse in fatalities.<< Umm, yes it would have resulted in greater slaughter; however, let's 'what if' a good citizen response: What if there were just two responsible citizens 'carrying' in the theatre at the time? It may be then that Holmes may not have had opportunity to kill even a few... before being 'stopped'. The question obtains: are you a good citizen? Puts me to mind the song: "Everybody oughta car..., everybody oughta car..., everybody oughta caaarry! s'what everybody oughta do." (okay, so I mangled the song) >>Seems to me to be reason enough to curtail the easy access to weapons of mass destruction.<< Disregarding your obligation under both the Civil Code and the Constitution..., what do you have to say of Ted Kaczynski, unagunner? Or, Mcveigh v The Murrah Building? Deprived of guns, one intent on wreaking havoc resorts to 'basement assembled' bombs, which inevitably maim and kill larger numbers. Quote
jasd Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 >>Surely there must be limits or do we just accept that every couple of years someone will go crazy and kill a lot of people?<< I would rather a hundred Holmes shoot to their heart's content than to have the populace disarmed and at the mercy of an adversarial Govt. Read the stats in history. Govts are by far the greater threat to your well-being. I mean, our 'benign' Govt has placed returning vets on the terrorist watchlist, for cryin' out loud! Sumfin is out of whack here, and soon the center cannot hold... Quote
OzarkWoman Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 >>Surely there must be limits or do we just accept that every couple of years someone will go crazy and kill a lot of people?<< I would rather a hundred Holmes shoot to their heart's content than to have the populace disarmed and at the mercy of an adversarial Govt. Read the stats in history. Govts are by far the greater threat to your well-being. I mean, our 'benign' Govt has placed returning vets on the terrorist watchlist, for cryin' out loud! Sumfin is out of whack here, and soon the center cannot hold... BTW, guns don't kill people, people do! Quote
LifeHiscost Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I would rather a hundred Holmes shoot to their heart's content than to have the populace disarmed and at the mercy of an adversarial Govt. Read the stats in history. Govts are by far the greater threat to your well-being. I mean, our 'benign' Govt has placed returning vets on the terrorist watchlist, for cryin' out loud! Sumfin is out of whack here, and soon the center cannot hold... Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence Homicide Homicide is defined as the intentional and illegal death caused by one individual on another and in this case with a firearm. In a recent study by the UN, it was found that firearms cause an average 60% of all homicides.[19] The homicide statistics listed below are for "intentional homicide", which is "death deliberately inflicted on a person by another person",[20] including justifiable homicide and criminal homicide. The statistics simply list the answers to a questionnaire. The web page advises great caution in interpreting the figures and says they "cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.[21][22][23][24] In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic[21] as is comparing data from different years among different countries." This table's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page. (January 2012) Intentional homicides by country Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000[8] Country % homicides with firearms Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop. Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop. Overall homicide rate per 100,000 Citizens may own guns Australia 20 0.31 1.26 1.57 Yes [25] Azerbaijan 8 0.22 2.59 2.81 No [26] Barbados 40 3.00 4.49 7.49 No [27] Belarus 33 3.31 6.82 10.13 No [28] Bulgaria 19 0.77 3.30 4.07 No [29] Canada[30] 34 0.54 1.04 1.58 Yes [29] Chile 12 0.18 1.37 1.55 Yes [31] Colombia 83 51.77 10.97 62.74 Yes [29] Costa Rica[30] 51 3.38 3.19 6.57 No [29] Denmark 24 0.26 0.83 1.09 Yes [32] England & Wales[30] 8 0.12 1.33 1.45 Yes [29] Estonia 15 1.53 8.92 10.45 No [29] Finland[33] 20 0.43 1.76 2.19 No [29] Germany 37 0.47 0.70 1.17 Yes [34] Guatemala 73 18.50 6.97 25.47 Yes [29] Hong Kong, China (SAR) 2 0.01 0.55 0.56 No [29] Hungary 21 0.44 1.61 2.05 Yes [35] India[30] 25 0.93 2.79 3.72 No [29] Ireland[30] 29 0.32 0.78 1.10 Yes [29] Latvia 13 1.26 8.77 10.03 No [29] Lithuania 22 2.25 7.76 10.01 Yes [29] Macedonia 27 0.64 1.02 2.31 No [29] Mexico 26 3.66 10.45 14.11 Yes [29] Moldova, Republic of 6 0.47 7.66 8.13 Yes [29] New Zealand 15 0.18 0.99 1.17 No [29] Paraguay 61 7.35 4.70 12.05 Yes [36] Poland 8 0.43 5.18 5.61 Yes [37] Portugal 34 0.84 1.63 2.47 Yes [38] Qatar[30] 34 0.18 0.35 0.53 Yes [39] Singapore 2 0.02 0.90 0.92 No [29] Slovakia 82 2.17 0.48 2.65 Yes [40] Slovenia 33 0.60 1.21 1.81 Yes [41] Spain 20 0.25 1.00 1.25 Yes [42] Switzerland 58 0.56 0.40 0.96 Yes [29] Ukraine 4 0.35 8.58 8.93 Yes [43] United States[30] 65 2.97 1.58 4.55 Yes [29] Uruguay 55 2.52 2.09 4.61 Yes [44] Zimbabwe 66 4.75 2.49 7.24 No [29] Interesting to note that the United States has only 4 0ther countries with a greater per capita percentage intentional homocide rate, Guatamala, Columbia, Zimbabwe and Slovakia. Quote Lift Jesus up!!
Moderators Bravus Posted July 24, 2012 Moderators Posted July 24, 2012 The US has 15 times Australia's population - and 200 times its gun death rate. The debate is not rational, at all, however. Here's something I posted elsewhere on the idea jasd expressed about audience members 'carrying': "It doesn't require all that much imagination: in a movie, in the dark, someone starts shooting. The 20-30 armed people in the audience pull out their guns and stand up - and suddenly see people with guns all around them. It's dark, there's smoke, maybe even gunfire from the movie as well, and they all open up on whoever they *think* is the 'bad guy'. I can absolutely *guarantee* you there'd be a lot more than 12 casualties..." Quote Truth is important
jasd Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 >>BTW, guns don't kill people, people do!<< Indeed!--never saw a gun jailed and prosecuted... Ya see, truth will always out. When it is all said and done, society prosecutes not the object but the perp. It's the perp, always is. Get rid of the perps and you get rid of the problem. So, one wonders about those who would wish another defenseless in the malaise of this cultural meltdown. Quote
jasd Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Oh dark one, the glass is half-full. 'For evil to triumph it is only necessary that the good sit on their thumbs.' --wha'shisname Quote
jasd Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 >>In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic[21] as is comparing data from different years among different countries." This table's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information.<< [ed.jasd] "Is highly problematic..." is a caveat suggesting that one ought not to be using the presented 'facts' in any meaningful way, yes? >>Interesting to note that the United States has only 4 0ther countries with a greater per capita percentage intentional homocide rate, Guatamala, Columbia, Zimbabwe and Slovakia.<< Okay, I don't see how the above has made what was "problematic" less so. Don't take me wrong, but I'd never argue that the US does not own a piece of the "homicide" pie; however, I wouldn't trade that 'fact' for the world - and definitely not for "Death by Govt", which stats will both gray and curl one's hair. Regrettable, but comes with the territory, which means that the good citizen must pick up his or her share of the burden placed upon him and her by the Civil Code and the Constitution, make the necessary purchases and stand ready to assemble in the town square when the enemy presents... It's the law and it's the duty of each citizen. It matters not the means by which one dies, but the manner of it. We are squandering the Gd-given inheritance of our progeny, as Esau did, but he was profane. Quote
olger Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 So because one person does something stupid with a gun, that means no one else can have them? Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Moderators Bravus Posted July 24, 2012 Moderators Posted July 24, 2012 US annual gun deaths exceed 11,000. Hardly 'one person' Quote Truth is important
Moderators Bravus Posted July 24, 2012 Moderators Posted July 24, 2012 http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht Quote Truth is important
jasd Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Re Jason Alexander and http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht >>Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence...<< Umm, Jason, 100,000 die every year due to domestic gun violence? "The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]" ---National Vital Statistics Reports (CDC): 2011-04-07. Mebbe, you might want to stay closer to the facts, yes? >>...these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.<< The kind that can give the "civilian" a chance when confronted by those who would turn this Nation into another Gulag, Jason. In other words: next to no control, mssr. >>So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia.<< Umm, which came first?--the chicken or the egg? No guns, no militia - organized or otherwise. One presupposes the other. Anyway, citing the Civil Codes: militia consists of all able-bodied males between certain ages (don't remember). Period. Full stop. Well, that is until the civil rights acts of '64/'65 awarded our distaff equal rights and responsibilities under law; whereupon, they are also militia. >>Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary: Definition of MILITIA 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service<< That is right, Jason. It is embedded in the Civil Codes - and now extends to able-bodied females. >>What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve?<< Are you for real? In the one breath you declaim constitutional issues and without a break you attempt to insert the issue of 'sporting uses' as the legitamizing factor for "Black Guns". It is about the Jeffersonian principle of insuring liberty in country - not duck, deer, coon, or bird hunting! OY! OY! OY! - and not about appearances. >>And any moron like me who doesn't see it should... a - b - c.<< [ed.jasd] Yes! "b"! - Jason! >>Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.<< Umm, Jason, remember "Transparency"?--and all the other campaign promises of '08 which promised "Hope and Change"? (from an Eddie Murphy movie) Wasn't the right who mouthed-off and refused to reach across the aisle - shutting out the Rebubs from anything to do with the Bill giving us the greatest tax hike in history. Yous getting things backa**wards, guy. >>Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem.<< Umm, Jason, "Hellooooo, are you there?" >>There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.<< Just the small arms and common ammo, Jason. The Cong did it with AK-47 clunkers. Sent the greatest nation in the world home in shame. Ah, Jason, you're too far out 'there' and your rant becomes tiresome... color me gone. (incidentally, Holmes was an unemployed medical student - who accumulated about $20,000 worth of militaria in the last short months... Hoo-ah! who paid?) For the education of the neophyte: Jason Alexander basically argues that any number of armed civilians would have proved useless, as Holmes had availed himself Kevlar protection from head to toes. Fact, any number of 'carried' guns would have had 4-500 foot-pounds of energy when smacking into Holmes - promptly knocking him on his fundament - whereupon any one of those 'carrying' civilians could have just walked up to him for the coup de grace. Kevlar is no more than what it is - simply preventing penetration of a round. Quote
Overaged Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht Quote "People [rarely] see...the bright light which is in the clouds..." (Job 37:21)"I cannot know why suddenly the stormshould rage so fiercely round me in it's wrathBut this I know: God watches all my pathAnd I can trust""God helps us to draw strength from the storm" - OveragedFaith makes things possible; it does not make them easy, Steps To Christ
LifeHiscost Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 The US has 15 times Australia's population - and 200 times its gun death rate. "It doesn't require all that much imagination: in a movie, in the dark, someone starts shooting. The 20-30 armed people in the audience pull out their guns and stand up - and suddenly see people with guns all around them. It's dark, there's smoke, maybe even gunfire from the movie as well, and they all open up on whoever they *think* is the 'bad guy'. I can absolutely *guarantee* you there'd be a lot more than 12 casualties..." Excellent rationale. Much to my sorrow for a dying world. And BTW that was 12 deaths and 58 wounded. ""“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:52 NLT God blesses! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
Kountzer Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 If only he had been black, wearing a hoodie, and carrying a pocket full of skittles. Then only he would of gotten shot, the NRA types would be happy, and America would be a safer place. Yeah right. Quote I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. Frederick Douglass
Moderators lazarus Posted July 24, 2012 Author Moderators Posted July 24, 2012 BTW, guns don't kill people, people do! Does that statement really help us? I suppose we could also say: Cruise missiles don't kill people, people do. Hand Grenades don't kill people, people do. IED's don't kill people, people do. Weaponized bird flue does not kill people, people do. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Moderators lazarus Posted July 24, 2012 Author Moderators Posted July 24, 2012 So because one person does something stupid with a gun, that means no one else can have them? I'm not sure that anyone here suggests that no one else can have them. I certainly did not. I do wonder, however, if its right to give people access to guns or accessories that would enable an individual to kill so many is such a short time. All of those involved in the most high profile killings in recent years had high capacity magazines. Of course we can shrug and move on or look at the practical and cultural solutions to the problem of gun violence. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Moderators lazarus Posted July 24, 2012 Author Moderators Posted July 24, 2012 I would rather a hundred Holmes shoot to their heart's content than to have the populace disarmed and at the mercy of an adversarial Govt. Read the stats in history. Govts are by far the greater threat to your well-being. I mean, IMHO. Despite the availability of guns Americans seem to be more afraid of their government than Europeans. Europeans seem to be much more willing to take to the streets and protest and resist authority. I find, living here that people are more deferential and even afraid of the police and consequently police are generally aggressive and arrogant. I agree that governments have the worst track record of all. governments have historically killed millions of their own people. I not sure that having a couple of AR-15 and a 100 round mag best and most effective answer. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
OzarkWoman Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Originally Posted By: OzarkWoman BTW, guns don't kill people, people do! Does that statement really help us? I suppose we could also say: Cruise missiles don't kill people, people do. Hand Grenades don't kill people, people do. IED's don't kill people, people do. Weaponized bird flue does not kill people, people do. Sure could and should!!! Quote
olger Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 I would rather a hundred Holmes shoot to their heart's content than to have the populace disarmed and at the mercy of an adversarial Govt. Read the stats in history. Govts are by far the greater threat to your well-being. `ole ! Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.