Gun Control

[huskerfan2000]

"People, Not Guns":

To not allowing certain weapons of killing would be the enslavement of a free people to the shackles of tyranny.


Better instead to have the government install a surveillance net, control movies and video game content, and profile anyone who might be deemed "suspicious", to keep everyone docile and in line.

#Freedom?

What constitutional right do you have to extreme violence in movies, music, or any other media? Oh yeah, none!

but let me get this straight, you want to keep your violence, but b!^@h complain about violence when it comes to guns? They have a word for thinking like that..

 

[NM11046]

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/why-more-gun-control-wont-prevent-mass-shootings_122013

Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review Online, in his Gun Control Dishonesty article, cited a list of massacres that have occurred in recent years. Here are 12 that happened prior to 2013. Pay close attention to how the weapons used were attained:

• In December of last year, Jacob Tyler Roberts stole a Stag Arms AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and killed two people in Portland, Oregon.
• In September of 2012, Andrew John Engeldinger went on a shooting rampage in Minneapolis after he had been fired. Engeldinger used a Glock 19 handgun that he had bought legally from a licensed dealer. He passed the background check that is mandatory for all commercial sales.
• In August last year, Wade Michael Page killed six members of a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page was an Army veteran, and because his discharge was “general” not “dishonorable” he was legally allowed to buy firearms. This he did, buying the handgun that he used in the shooting at a gun shop in West Allis, Wisconsin, and passing the background checks without a hitch.
• In July, James Holmes killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Over a period of time, Holmes legally purchased two Glock 22 pistols, a Remington 870, and Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle. All the weapons were purchased from licensed dealers, and Holmes passed background checks on each occasion.
• In May of 2012, Ian Lee Stawicki murdered five people at the Café Racer Espresso in Seattle, Washington. Stawicki legally purchased two .45-caliber handguns for his spree, before which he had legally purchased four other firearms. Stawicki not only passed background checks on all six occasions, but he had a concealed-carry permit too.
• In April 2012, Jake England and Alvin Watts killed three black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in an apparently racially motivated attack. The guns they used were legally owned.
• In April of 2012, One L. Goh walked into Oikos University [in Oakland, Calfornia] and murdered seven people. Goh used a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and four 10-round magazines, all of which he had purchased legally from a licensed dealer. He passed a background check and abided by California’s ten-day waiting period.
• In February 2012, Thomas “TK” Lane used a .22 caliber handgun to shoot three people dead at Chardon High School in Ohio. Authorities reported that Lane had stolen the .22-caliber handgun from his uncle, who had purchased it legally.
• In October 2011, Scott Evans Dekraai killed eight people in Seal Beach, California. Dekraai used a 9mm Springfield pistol, a .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol, and a .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver. All the guns were legally purchased. Just over a year earlier, Dekraai had been under a restraining order that had barred him from possessing firearms. This had expired at the time of the shooting.
• In September of 2011, Eduardo Sencion shot 5 people dead in an International House of Pancakes in Nevada. The rifle Sencion used was not only banned in America, but the company that made it was prohibited from selling or moving its products into the United States. Indeed, nobody knows how Sencion got hold of the weapon. Reports are unclear, but some suggest that the perpetrator illegally converted the weapon from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
• In November of this year, Paul Ciancia murdered a TSA agent at LAX. Ciancia used a .223-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle that he had modified and which was therefore illegal in the state; he brought with him five 30-round magazines, which have been illegal in California since 2000; and he walked happily into an airport, which is by definition a gun-free zone. Authorities told the Huffington Post that Ciancia acquired his guns legally: “He didn’t buy them on the street. He didn’t buy them on the Internet. He bought them from a licensed gun dealer.
• In September, Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Alexis had patronized a licensed dealer in Virginia and bought a Remington 870 shotgun that is so common that it is even legal in England. He had passed a background check. To commit his crime, he went onto a locked-down, “gun-free” military base, in a city in which carrying firearms is flatly prohibited.

Cooke also referenced two pre-2011 shootings – and last year’s school massacre – that prompted people to “do something”:Jared Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Giffords and murdered six other people, bought his 9mm Glock pistol legally. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech student who was responsible for the most deadly shooting spree in American history, bought a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol and a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol from licensed dealers, and passed background checks on both occasions. And, of course, the guns used at Newtown were legally purchased by the perpetrator’s mother and then stolen by her son.

All of these shootings have something in common: none of the weapons used were purchased through an unregulated private sale or at a gun show. Yet, anti-gun activists and some legislators believe (or do they?) that more strict background checks will miraculously prevent additional gun-related tragedies.

Well, this must leave only about 4 options;

1) Background checks don't work well enough so weapon bans it is. I mean after all, there is a problem.

2) Background checks and methods need to be greatly improved. I mean after all, there is a problem.

3) Something has to change and it involves the people who acquire weapons and/or the weapons they do acquire. Even if there are other societal forces at the root cause of gun violence, everyone realizes those forces will never be sufficiently corrected. I mean after all, there is a problem and there is no way we as a country will actually fix television and video game violence and there really is no way that family unit problems will get fixed by our government.

4) Problem, what problem? Leave everything just as it is and continue enjoying the nightly news.

If it's not one of those 4, what is it?

Answer me this..

Has a gun ever killed someone else by itself (without any intervention)? Once we get that established we can then move to the next step, which is figuring out who is the problem.

EDIT: I love your option 3 by the way!

I seriously doubt a gun has ever killed anyone all on its own. Maybe if you count accidentally dropping one and it going off or if you count allowing young children to access them but, no, for the way you intended the question, a gun hasn't killed anyone on it's own. However, certain types of guns surely have accounted for elevated casualty numbers in many situations. For the sake of argument, let's say 8 dead instead of only 5, just to pull a couple numbers out of thin air.

I don't think you actually read my option #3 very closely. I'm not going to argue that societal problems don't greatly contribute to the problem. And I also won't argue that fixing those societal and family unit problems wouldn't greatly help. BUT, if you think solving those issues is the key and only option, then you really don't want the problem fixed because that is called living in an unrealistic and unachievable utopia. We can't simply sit back and do nothing and hope the problem gets better and blame some unsolvabe issues for the reasons the problem exists. Even you have to acknowledge that there is little to nothing a free country can do or implement that will solve those types of problems. So, assuming you realize there is a problem, what are your realistic and possible solutions? It's not realistic to just stop trying and simply blame other unsolvable issues.

I was not talking about accidental shootings/killings, because that is once again human intervention!

I read you option 3 and I understood what you were saying and I disagree. Fixing society it would make more of a difference than throwing out more gun control and hoping that works. The bold kinds of gives away the agenda... which you admit societal issues play a factor, but yet you are leading back to more gun control. One thing you don't say is if you think there should be a combination of changes, or just more gun control. I am reading this to mean you want just more gun control.. I could be wrong though

What you don't want to realize is you will never stop someone from killing another person, or multiple persons. You just won't, because this isn't a gun issue it is a human issue! and before another poster jumps in, no I am not advocating doing nothing. i advocate for reducing the level or violence in movies, music.. Oh and the biggest one, abortion.

The abortion commentary, which you continue to bring up has absolutely NO place in this discussion.

 

[JJ Husker]

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/why-more-gun-control-wont-prevent-mass-shootings_122013

Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review Online, in his Gun Control Dishonesty article, cited a list of massacres that have occurred in recent years. Here are 12 that happened prior to 2013. Pay close attention to how the weapons used were attained:

• In December of last year, Jacob Tyler Roberts stole a Stag Arms AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and killed two people in Portland, Oregon.
• In September of 2012, Andrew John Engeldinger went on a shooting rampage in Minneapolis after he had been fired. Engeldinger used a Glock 19 handgun that he had bought legally from a licensed dealer. He passed the background check that is mandatory for all commercial sales.
• In August last year, Wade Michael Page killed six members of a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page was an Army veteran, and because his discharge was “general” not “dishonorable” he was legally allowed to buy firearms. This he did, buying the handgun that he used in the shooting at a gun shop in West Allis, Wisconsin, and passing the background checks without a hitch.
• In July, James Holmes killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Over a period of time, Holmes legally purchased two Glock 22 pistols, a Remington 870, and Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle. All the weapons were purchased from licensed dealers, and Holmes passed background checks on each occasion.
• In May of 2012, Ian Lee Stawicki murdered five people at the Café Racer Espresso in Seattle, Washington. Stawicki legally purchased two .45-caliber handguns for his spree, before which he had legally purchased four other firearms. Stawicki not only passed background checks on all six occasions, but he had a concealed-carry permit too.
• In April 2012, Jake England and Alvin Watts killed three black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in an apparently racially motivated attack. The guns they used were legally owned.
• In April of 2012, One L. Goh walked into Oikos University [in Oakland, Calfornia] and murdered seven people. Goh used a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and four 10-round magazines, all of which he had purchased legally from a licensed dealer. He passed a background check and abided by California’s ten-day waiting period.
• In February 2012, Thomas “TK” Lane used a .22 caliber handgun to shoot three people dead at Chardon High School in Ohio. Authorities reported that Lane had stolen the .22-caliber handgun from his uncle, who had purchased it legally.
• In October 2011, Scott Evans Dekraai killed eight people in Seal Beach, California. Dekraai used a 9mm Springfield pistol, a .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol, and a .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver. All the guns were legally purchased. Just over a year earlier, Dekraai had been under a restraining order that had barred him from possessing firearms. This had expired at the time of the shooting.
• In September of 2011, Eduardo Sencion shot 5 people dead in an International House of Pancakes in Nevada. The rifle Sencion used was not only banned in America, but the company that made it was prohibited from selling or moving its products into the United States. Indeed, nobody knows how Sencion got hold of the weapon. Reports are unclear, but some suggest that the perpetrator illegally converted the weapon from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
• In November of this year, Paul Ciancia murdered a TSA agent at LAX. Ciancia used a .223-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle that he had modified and which was therefore illegal in the state; he brought with him five 30-round magazines, which have been illegal in California since 2000; and he walked happily into an airport, which is by definition a gun-free zone. Authorities told the Huffington Post that Ciancia acquired his guns legally: “He didn’t buy them on the street. He didn’t buy them on the Internet. He bought them from a licensed gun dealer.
• In September, Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Alexis had patronized a licensed dealer in Virginia and bought a Remington 870 shotgun that is so common that it is even legal in England. He had passed a background check. To commit his crime, he went onto a locked-down, “gun-free” military base, in a city in which carrying firearms is flatly prohibited.

Cooke also referenced two pre-2011 shootings – and last year’s school massacre – that prompted people to “do something”:Jared Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Giffords and murdered six other people, bought his 9mm Glock pistol legally. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech student who was responsible for the most deadly shooting spree in American history, bought a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol and a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol from licensed dealers, and passed background checks on both occasions. And, of course, the guns used at Newtown were legally purchased by the perpetrator’s mother and then stolen by her son.

All of these shootings have something in common: none of the weapons used were purchased through an unregulated private sale or at a gun show. Yet, anti-gun activists and some legislators believe (or do they?) that more strict background checks will miraculously prevent additional gun-related tragedies.

Well, this must leave only about 4 options;

1) Background checks don't work well enough so weapon bans it is. I mean after all, there is a problem.

2) Background checks and methods need to be greatly improved. I mean after all, there is a problem.

3) Something has to change and it involves the people who acquire weapons and/or the weapons they do acquire. Even if there are other societal forces at the root cause of gun violence, everyone realizes those forces will never be sufficiently corrected. I mean after all, there is a problem and there is no way we as a country will actually fix television and video game violence and there really is no way that family unit problems will get fixed by our government.

4) Problem, what problem? Leave everything just as it is and continue enjoying the nightly news.

If it's not one of those 4, what is it?

Answer me this..

Has a gun ever killed someone else by itself (without any intervention)? Once we get that established we can then move to the next step, which is figuring out who is the problem.

EDIT: I love your option 3 by the way!

I seriously doubt a gun has ever killed anyone all on its own. Maybe if you count accidentally dropping one and it going off or if you count allowing young children to access them but, no, for the way you intended the question, a gun hasn't killed anyone on it's own. However, certain types of guns surely have accounted for elevated casualty numbers in many situations. For the sake of argument, let's say 8 dead instead of only 5, just to pull a couple numbers out of thin air.

I don't think you actually read my option #3 very closely. I'm not going to argue that societal problems don't greatly contribute to the problem. And I also won't argue that fixing those societal and family unit problems wouldn't greatly help. BUT, if you think solving those issues is the key and only option, then you really don't want the problem fixed because that is called living in an unrealistic and unachievable utopia. We can't simply sit back and do nothing and hope the problem gets better and blame some unsolvabe issues for the reasons the problem exists. Even you have to acknowledge that there is little to nothing a free country can do or implement that will solve those types of problems. So, assuming you realize there is a problem, what are your realistic and possible solutions? It's not realistic to just stop trying and simply blame other unsolvable issues.

I was not talking about accidental shootings/killings, because that is once again human intervention!

I read you option 3 and I understood what you were saying and I disagree. Fixing society it would make more of a difference than throwing out more gun control and hoping that works. The bold kinds of gives away the agenda... which you admit societal issues play a factor, but yet you are leading back to more gun control. One thing you don't say is if you think there should be a combination of changes, or just more gun control. I am reading this to mean you want just more gun control.. I could be wrong though

What you don't want to realize is you will never stop someone from killing another person, or multiple persons. You just won't, because this isn't a gun issue it is a human issue! and before another poster jumps in, no I am not advocating doing nothing. i advocate for reducing the level or violence in movies, music.. Oh and the biggest one, abortion.

Personally, I have my doubts how much good gun control measures will do. I sure do think we could do a much better job of screening potential gun owners and trying to prevent the wrong persons from acquiring them. Motivated people will still manage to get the weapons they want but we don't have to allow it to be any easier and I believe some effort in this area is better than none. I am on the fence about banning certain weapons or mag size. Once again, a properly motivated person could easily plan ahead with more weapons, more clips, etc. to where a ban on the hardware would really only inhibit legal and lawful persons but making it tougher on them surely wouldn't hurt.

And I am not opposed to efforts to fix the societal issues that contribute but IMO, if that is the only solution you're willing to entertain, then there is no real desire to change anything. You asked the question, how many guns on their own have killed people? I have a question; how many or which abortions have caused a single gun related death? Of course the honest answer is none. IMO, this is a ridiculous Avenue to take any meaningful discussion about gun violence. It may well reduce deaths by eliminating or reducing abortions but that is another issue that has absolutely nothing to do with curbing gun deaths. And please don't attempt to tell us all how it does, that unrelated issue has already wasted enough room in the wrong topic. If that is your best solution, please by all means, start another thread where it can be discussed by those who want to.

 

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/why-more-gun-control-wont-prevent-mass-shootings_122013

Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review Online, in his Gun Control Dishonesty article, cited a list of massacres that have occurred in recent years. Here are 12 that happened prior to 2013. Pay close attention to how the weapons used were attained:

• In December of last year, Jacob Tyler Roberts stole a Stag Arms AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and killed two people in Portland, Oregon.
• In September of 2012, Andrew John Engeldinger went on a shooting rampage in Minneapolis after he had been fired. Engeldinger used a Glock 19 handgun that he had bought legally from a licensed dealer. He passed the background check that is mandatory for all commercial sales.
• In August last year, Wade Michael Page killed six members of a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page was an Army veteran, and because his discharge was “general” not “dishonorable” he was legally allowed to buy firearms. This he did, buying the handgun that he used in the shooting at a gun shop in West Allis, Wisconsin, and passing the background checks without a hitch.
• In July, James Holmes killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Over a period of time, Holmes legally purchased two Glock 22 pistols, a Remington 870, and Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle. All the weapons were purchased from licensed dealers, and Holmes passed background checks on each occasion.
• In May of 2012, Ian Lee Stawicki murdered five people at the Café Racer Espresso in Seattle, Washington. Stawicki legally purchased two .45-caliber handguns for his spree, before which he had legally purchased four other firearms. Stawicki not only passed background checks on all six occasions, but he had a concealed-carry permit too.
• In April 2012, Jake England and Alvin Watts killed three black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in an apparently racially motivated attack. The guns they used were legally owned.
• In April of 2012, One L. Goh walked into Oikos University [in Oakland, Calfornia] and murdered seven people. Goh used a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and four 10-round magazines, all of which he had purchased legally from a licensed dealer. He passed a background check and abided by California’s ten-day waiting period.
• In February 2012, Thomas “TK” Lane used a .22 caliber handgun to shoot three people dead at Chardon High School in Ohio. Authorities reported that Lane had stolen the .22-caliber handgun from his uncle, who had purchased it legally.
• In October 2011, Scott Evans Dekraai killed eight people in Seal Beach, California. Dekraai used a 9mm Springfield pistol, a .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol, and a .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver. All the guns were legally purchased. Just over a year earlier, Dekraai had been under a restraining order that had barred him from possessing firearms. This had expired at the time of the shooting.
• In September of 2011, Eduardo Sencion shot 5 people dead in an International House of Pancakes in Nevada. The rifle Sencion used was not only banned in America, but the company that made it was prohibited from selling or moving its products into the United States. Indeed, nobody knows how Sencion got hold of the weapon. Reports are unclear, but some suggest that the perpetrator illegally converted the weapon from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
• In November of this year, Paul Ciancia murdered a TSA agent at LAX. Ciancia used a .223-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle that he had modified and which was therefore illegal in the state; he brought with him five 30-round magazines, which have been illegal in California since 2000; and he walked happily into an airport, which is by definition a gun-free zone. Authorities told the Huffington Post that Ciancia acquired his guns legally: “He didn’t buy them on the street. He didn’t buy them on the Internet. He bought them from a licensed gun dealer.
• In September, Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Alexis had patronized a licensed dealer in Virginia and bought a Remington 870 shotgun that is so common that it is even legal in England. He had passed a background check. To commit his crime, he went onto a locked-down, “gun-free” military base, in a city in which carrying firearms is flatly prohibited.

Cooke also referenced two pre-2011 shootings – and last year’s school massacre – that prompted people to “do something”:Jared Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Giffords and murdered six other people, bought his 9mm Glock pistol legally. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech student who was responsible for the most deadly shooting spree in American history, bought a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol and a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol from licensed dealers, and passed background checks on both occasions. And, of course, the guns used at Newtown were legally purchased by the perpetrator’s mother and then stolen by her son.

All of these shootings have something in common: none of the weapons used were purchased through an unregulated private sale or at a gun show. Yet, anti-gun activists and some legislators believe (or do they?) that more strict background checks will miraculously prevent additional gun-related tragedies.

Well, this must leave only about 4 options;

1) Background checks don't work well enough so weapon bans it is. I mean after all, there is a problem.

2) Background checks and methods need to be greatly improved. I mean after all, there is a problem.

3) Something has to change and it involves the people who acquire weapons and/or the weapons they do acquire. Even if there are other societal forces at the root cause of gun violence, everyone realizes those forces will never be sufficiently corrected. I mean after all, there is a problem and there is no way we as a country will actually fix television and video game violence and there really is no way that family unit problems will get fixed by our government.

4) Problem, what problem? Leave everything just as it is and continue enjoying the nightly news.

If it's not one of those 4, what is it?

Answer me this..

Has a gun ever killed someone else by itself (without any intervention)? Once we get that established we can then move to the next step, which is figuring out who is the problem.

EDIT: I love your option 3 by the way!

I seriously doubt a gun has ever killed anyone all on its own. Maybe if you count accidentally dropping one and it going off or if you count allowing young children to access them but, no, for the way you intended the question, a gun hasn't killed anyone on it's own. However, certain types of guns surely have accounted for elevated casualty numbers in many situations. For the sake of argument, let's say 8 dead instead of only 5, just to pull a couple numbers out of thin air.

I don't think you actually read my option #3 very closely. I'm not going to argue that societal problems don't greatly contribute to the problem. And I also won't argue that fixing those societal and family unit problems wouldn't greatly help. BUT, if you think solving those issues is the key and only option, then you really don't want the problem fixed because that is called living in an unrealistic and unachievable utopia. We can't simply sit back and do nothing and hope the problem gets better and blame some unsolvabe issues for the reasons the problem exists. Even you have to acknowledge that there is little to nothing a free country can do or implement that will solve those types of problems. So, assuming you realize there is a problem, what are your realistic and possible solutions? It's not realistic to just stop trying and simply blame other unsolvable issues.

I was not talking about accidental shootings/killings, because that is once again human intervention!

I read you option 3 and I understood what you were saying and I disagree. Fixing society it would make more of a difference than throwing out more gun control and hoping that works. The bold kinds of gives away the agenda... which you admit societal issues play a factor, but yet you are leading back to more gun control. One thing you don't say is if you think there should be a combination of changes, or just more gun control. I am reading this to mean you want just more gun control.. I could be wrong though

What you don't want to realize is you will never stop someone from killing another person, or multiple persons. You just won't, because this isn't a gun issue it is a human issue! and before another poster jumps in, no I am not advocating doing nothing. i advocate for reducing the level or violence in movies, music..

The abortion commentary, which you continue to bring up has absolutely NO place in this discussion.

I think it plays a big part of the mental health of society, but I get you don't like that thrown in your face!

EDIT: Don't worry, I won't throw it in your face anymore. I should not have brought it up again after being told to stop the first time. I will remove it, so I don't offend those seeking to end violence with guns only.

 

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/why-more-gun-control-wont-prevent-mass-shootings_122013

Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review Online, in his Gun Control Dishonesty article, cited a list of massacres that have occurred in recent years. Here are 12 that happened prior to 2013. Pay close attention to how the weapons used were attained:

• In December of last year, Jacob Tyler Roberts stole a Stag Arms AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and killed two people in Portland, Oregon.
• In September of 2012, Andrew John Engeldinger went on a shooting rampage in Minneapolis after he had been fired. Engeldinger used a Glock 19 handgun that he had bought legally from a licensed dealer. He passed the background check that is mandatory for all commercial sales.
• In August last year, Wade Michael Page killed six members of a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page was an Army veteran, and because his discharge was “general” not “dishonorable” he was legally allowed to buy firearms. This he did, buying the handgun that he used in the shooting at a gun shop in West Allis, Wisconsin, and passing the background checks without a hitch.
• In July, James Holmes killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Over a period of time, Holmes legally purchased two Glock 22 pistols, a Remington 870, and Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle. All the weapons were purchased from licensed dealers, and Holmes passed background checks on each occasion.
• In May of 2012, Ian Lee Stawicki murdered five people at the Café Racer Espresso in Seattle, Washington. Stawicki legally purchased two .45-caliber handguns for his spree, before which he had legally purchased four other firearms. Stawicki not only passed background checks on all six occasions, but he had a concealed-carry permit too.
• In April 2012, Jake England and Alvin Watts killed three black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in an apparently racially motivated attack. The guns they used were legally owned.
• In April of 2012, One L. Goh walked into Oikos University [in Oakland, Calfornia] and murdered seven people. Goh used a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and four 10-round magazines, all of which he had purchased legally from a licensed dealer. He passed a background check and abided by California’s ten-day waiting period.
• In February 2012, Thomas “TK” Lane used a .22 caliber handgun to shoot three people dead at Chardon High School in Ohio. Authorities reported that Lane had stolen the .22-caliber handgun from his uncle, who had purchased it legally.
• In October 2011, Scott Evans Dekraai killed eight people in Seal Beach, California. Dekraai used a 9mm Springfield pistol, a .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol, and a .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver. All the guns were legally purchased. Just over a year earlier, Dekraai had been under a restraining order that had barred him from possessing firearms. This had expired at the time of the shooting.
• In September of 2011, Eduardo Sencion shot 5 people dead in an International House of Pancakes in Nevada. The rifle Sencion used was not only banned in America, but the company that made it was prohibited from selling or moving its products into the United States. Indeed, nobody knows how Sencion got hold of the weapon. Reports are unclear, but some suggest that the perpetrator illegally converted the weapon from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
• In November of this year, Paul Ciancia murdered a TSA agent at LAX. Ciancia used a .223-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle that he had modified and which was therefore illegal in the state; he brought with him five 30-round magazines, which have been illegal in California since 2000; and he walked happily into an airport, which is by definition a gun-free zone. Authorities told the Huffington Post that Ciancia acquired his guns legally: “He didn’t buy them on the street. He didn’t buy them on the Internet. He bought them from a licensed gun dealer.
• In September, Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Alexis had patronized a licensed dealer in Virginia and bought a Remington 870 shotgun that is so common that it is even legal in England. He had passed a background check. To commit his crime, he went onto a locked-down, “gun-free” military base, in a city in which carrying firearms is flatly prohibited.

Cooke also referenced two pre-2011 shootings – and last year’s school massacre – that prompted people to “do something”:Jared Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Giffords and murdered six other people, bought his 9mm Glock pistol legally. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech student who was responsible for the most deadly shooting spree in American history, bought a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol and a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol from licensed dealers, and passed background checks on both occasions. And, of course, the guns used at Newtown were legally purchased by the perpetrator’s mother and then stolen by her son.

All of these shootings have something in common: none of the weapons used were purchased through an unregulated private sale or at a gun show. Yet, anti-gun activists and some legislators believe (or do they?) that more strict background checks will miraculously prevent additional gun-related tragedies.

Well, this must leave only about 4 options;

1) Background checks don't work well enough so weapon bans it is. I mean after all, there is a problem.

2) Background checks and methods need to be greatly improved. I mean after all, there is a problem.

3) Something has to change and it involves the people who acquire weapons and/or the weapons they do acquire. Even if there are other societal forces at the root cause of gun violence, everyone realizes those forces will never be sufficiently corrected. I mean after all, there is a problem and there is no way we as a country will actually fix television and video game violence and there really is no way that family unit problems will get fixed by our government.

4) Problem, what problem? Leave everything just as it is and continue enjoying the nightly news.

If it's not one of those 4, what is it?

Answer me this..

Has a gun ever killed someone else by itself (without any intervention)? Once we get that established we can then move to the next step, which is figuring out who is the problem.

EDIT: I love your option 3 by the way!

I seriously doubt a gun has ever killed anyone all on its own. Maybe if you count accidentally dropping one and it going off or if you count allowing young children to access them but, no, for the way you intended the question, a gun hasn't killed anyone on it's own. However, certain types of guns surely have accounted for elevated casualty numbers in many situations. For the sake of argument, let's say 8 dead instead of only 5, just to pull a couple numbers out of thin air.

I don't think you actually read my option #3 very closely. I'm not going to argue that societal problems don't greatly contribute to the problem. And I also won't argue that fixing those societal and family unit problems wouldn't greatly help. BUT, if you think solving those issues is the key and only option, then you really don't want the problem fixed because that is called living in an unrealistic and unachievable utopia. We can't simply sit back and do nothing and hope the problem gets better and blame some unsolvabe issues for the reasons the problem exists. Even you have to acknowledge that there is little to nothing a free country can do or implement that will solve those types of problems. So, assuming you realize there is a problem, what are your realistic and possible solutions? It's not realistic to just stop trying and simply blame other unsolvable issues.

I was not talking about accidental shootings/killings, because that is once again human intervention!

I read you option 3 and I understood what you were saying and I disagree. Fixing society it would make more of a difference than throwing out more gun control and hoping that works. The bold kinds of gives away the agenda... which you admit societal issues play a factor, but yet you are leading back to more gun control. One thing you don't say is if you think there should be a combination of changes, or just more gun control. I am reading this to mean you want just more gun control.. I could be wrong though

What you don't want to realize is you will never stop someone from killing another person, or multiple persons. You just won't, because this isn't a gun issue it is a human issue! and before another poster jumps in, no I am not advocating doing nothing. i advocate for reducing the level or violence in movies, music.. Oh and the biggest one, abortion.

Personally, I have my doubts how much good gun control measures will do. I sure do think we could do a much better job of screening potential gun owners and trying to prevent the wrong persons from acquiring them. Motivated people will still manage to get the weapons they want but we don't have to allow it to be any easier and I believe some effort in this area is better than none. I am on the fence about banning certain weapons or mag size. Once again, a properly motivated person could easily plan ahead with more weapons, more clips, etc. to where a ban on the hardware would really only inhibit legal and lawful persons but making it tougher on them surely wouldn't hurt.

And I am not opposed to efforts to fix the societal issues that contribute but IMO, if that is the only solution you're willing to entertain, then there is no real desire to change anything. You asked the question, how many guns on their own have killed people? I have a question; how many or which abortions have caused a single gun related death? Of course the honest answer is none. IMO, this is a ridiculous Avenue to take any meaningful discussion about gun violence. It may well reduce deaths by eliminating or reducing abortions but that is another issue that has absolutely nothing to do with curbing gun deaths. And please don't attempt to tell us all how it does, that unrelated issue has already wasted enough room in the wrong topic. If that is your best solution, please by all means, start another thread where it can be discussed by those who want to.

How can you say there is no real desire to change anything when I won't entertain more gun control? That doesn't even make sense when you yourself think that can make a difference (who said, if it stops just one mass shooting?). If you think the two together is the only option then that is just plain silly and contradictory to your very own statements.

About your question.. You sure as hell won't find any studies suggesting that plays a role in the degradation of society.. That is what I believe, but you can find studies that show violence leads to more violence, and that right there proves there is a link.

Don't worry I won't bring it up again.. That said, I love the dismissive attitude of people that claim to want to find answers, but in reality only want to blame an inanimate object.

 

[huskerfan2000]

I put a strike through the word, i won't bring it up again. I know it offends some of you, too much.

 

[ZRod]

"People, Not Guns":

To not allowing certain weapons of killing would be the enslavement of a free people to the shackles of tyranny.

Better instead to have the government install a surveillance net, control movies and video game content, and profile anyone who might be deemed "suspicious", to keep everyone docile and in line.

#Freedom?

What constitutional right do you have to extreme violence in movies, music, or any other media? Oh yeah, none!

but let me get this straight, you want to keep your violence, but b!^@h complain about violence when it comes to guns? They have a word for thinking like that..

What constitutional right? I believe it's the first amendment. Where has there ever been a link between media/entertainment violence and societal violence?

 

[huskerfan2000]

"People, Not Guns":

To not allowing certain weapons of killing would be the enslavement of a free people to the shackles of tyranny.

Better instead to have the government install a surveillance net, control movies and video game content, and profile anyone who might be deemed "suspicious", to keep everyone docile and in line.

#Freedom?

What constitutional right do you have to extreme violence in movies, music, or any other media? Oh yeah, none!

but let me get this straight, you want to keep your violence, but b!^@h complain about violence when it comes to guns? They have a word for thinking like that..

What constitutional right? I believe it's the first amendment. Where has there ever been a link between media/entertainment violence and societal violence?

I gave a link a while back that showed this.. Anyway, the first amendment includes free speech, last I knew. Can you yell fire in a crowded theater, in the name of free speech? point being, because I knew you would go there, not everything is covered under free speech.

EDIT: how old are you? I ask for a very specific reason, not as an insult or anything.

 

[ZRod]

"People, Not Guns":

To not allowing certain weapons of killing would be the enslavement of a free people to the shackles of tyranny.

Better instead to have the government install a surveillance net, control movies and video game content, and profile anyone who might be deemed "suspicious", to keep everyone docile and in line.

#Freedom?

What constitutional right do you have to extreme violence in movies, music, or any other media? Oh yeah, none!

but let me get this straight, you want to keep your violence, but b!^@h complain about violence when it comes to guns? They have a word for thinking like that..

What constitutional right? I believe it's the first amendment. Where has there ever been a link between media/entertainment violence and societal violence?

I gave a link a while back that showed this.. Anyway, the first amendment includes free speech, last I knew. Can you yell fire in a crowded theater, in the name of free speech? point being, because I knew you would go there, not everything is covered under free speech.

EDIT: how old are you? I ask for a very specific reason, not as an insult or anything.

If you want to link back to it again than I'll read through it, but I missed it in this 14 page long discussion the first time.
I'm 28. What is your very specific reason?

 

[huskerfan2000]

"People, Not Guns":

To not allowing certain weapons of killing would be the enslavement of a free people to the shackles of tyranny.

Better instead to have the government install a surveillance net, control movies and video game content, and profile anyone who might be deemed "suspicious", to keep everyone docile and in line.

#Freedom?

What constitutional right do you have to extreme violence in movies, music, or any other media? Oh yeah, none!

but let me get this straight, you want to keep your violence, but b!^@h complain about violence when it comes to guns? They have a word for thinking like that..

What constitutional right? I believe it's the first amendment. Where has there ever been a link between media/entertainment violence and societal violence?

I gave a link a while back that showed this.. Anyway, the first amendment includes free speech, last I knew. Can you yell fire in a crowded theater, in the name of free speech? point being, because I knew you would go there, not everything is covered under free speech.

EDIT: how old are you? I ask for a very specific reason, not as an insult or anything.

If you want to link back to it again than I'll read through it, but I missed it in this 14 page long discussion the first time.
I'm 28. What is your very specific reason?

The reason i asked was because.. I am 46 and when I was younger TV, music, etc.. all of those were very limited on what was shown violence wise. There was a lot they couldn't say.. not any more, today anything goes.

 

[ZRod]

"People, Not Guns":

To not allowing certain weapons of killing would be the enslavement of a free people to the shackles of tyranny.

Better instead to have the government install a surveillance net, control movies and video game content, and profile anyone who might be deemed "suspicious", to keep everyone docile and in line.

#Freedom?

What constitutional right do you have to extreme violence in movies, music, or any other media? Oh yeah, none!

but let me get this straight, you want to keep your violence, but b!^@h complain about violence when it comes to guns? They have a word for thinking like that..

What constitutional right? I believe it's the first amendment. Where has there ever been a link between media/entertainment violence and societal violence?

I gave a link a while back that showed this.. Anyway, the first amendment includes free speech, last I knew. Can you yell fire in a crowded theater, in the name of free speech? point being, because I knew you would go there, not everything is covered under free speech.

EDIT: how old are you? I ask for a very specific reason, not as an insult or anything.

If you want to link back to it again than I'll read through it, but I missed it in this 14 page long discussion the first time.I'm 28. What is your very specific reason?

The reason i asked was because.. I am 46 and when I was younger TV, music, etc.. all of those were very limited on what was shown violence wise. There was a lot they couldn't say.. not any more, today anything goes.

Gun smoke never showed people being shot. Johnny cash never sung about shooting a man just to watch him die. Clint didn't shoot em up in his movies... violence in the media has been around since before both you and I were born. It's not new. It predates the Greeks for godsake. The Iliad is full of graphic violence... so is the bible.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Violence in movies and on TV is much more graphic now simply because filming technology has advanced so much they can make it look very real.

Interesting thing though....as that has happened, violent crime has decreased.

 

[Enhance]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So your beef is despite the fact that she was able to purchase a pretty incredible amount of potentially lethal firepower with relative ease, you're more upset that she transferred the weapon and was untruthful about her intent? If she hadn't transferred the weapon then you'd have nothing to whine about.

I assume you must be more upset that Omar Mateen lied about his weapon purchase intent instead of the dozens of people he murdered.

'Murica.... am I right?

Why should she be restricted her background was clean. The problem was in her quest to try and create a story she committed a felony. She broke a current federal law by lying. Why do you feel compelled to sweep that under the rug when you, at least from what I have seen via your posts, think we need more gun control laws? A little ironic in my opinion!

Ok, done for today.. I have some celebrating to do

Oh and your last line is so far over line it isn't even funny! not sure if you said that to try and get me to attack, but it won't work.

I'm not sweeping anything under the rug, despite your flippant attempts to suggest otherwise. You and I have fundamental disagreements about what matters in this story.

If she did in fact break a law, then I have a huge problem with that. But, I have a bigger problem with her initial purchase in general. I don't think anybody should be able to purchase that amount of firepower in less than an hour.

Once again, you're acting as if Omar Mateen lying about his intent during his gun application process is a bigger deal than the fact that he murdered dozens of people. You're acting as if everybody should get a gun based on very minimal parameters and that whatever they do with it is their will. I think that's a flawed ideology.

And my last line wasn't meant to insult you, but to insult the general nature of the gun mentality in this country. Besides, I don't think you need me to provoke you - you've come pretty close to a ban on this board already without my help.

To the first bold - that was a clear attack at me, you can try to backtrack now, but the statement is there for everyone to see. if it wasn't meant at me then why point it at me?

To the last bold - that would be funny because I have not attacked anyone but defended myself against pretty pathetic attempts by you and a couple others. I have at worst called POSTS stupid and pathetic (I even apologized for being rude), not once did I say anything about the person. Everyone will make a stupid post now and then and there should be no problem calling it that.

Also, how would you know I came pretty close to being banned, I don't see MOD next to you name. Are you talking to mods about me?

The fact that you can assign a position to me like that should not be allowed and you are the one that should be banned for doing so. I have made it very clear how I feel about this situation, so for you to make this claim as asinine!

The fact that because I brought up this CBS producer breaking the law in order to create a story somehow draws a parallel for you with Omar is unreal, and it shows your agenda.

EDIT: I will make my position very clear one more time for you, so you can stop assigning BS positions to me that are not even remotely true and that should not be allowed.

I am against more gun control laws because they will not stop mass shootings, it will only infringe on my rights. It is not a gun problem it is a humanity problem. not once has a gun killed anyone, it is a person picking up a gun to kill. it is societies lack of morality, among other things.

Edit - I had a response drawn up, but I'm going to take a different road. For the final time - I was not trying to insult you and that was not my intent. And please - don't flatter yourself by thinking I talk about you to Mods or Admins.

I'm done debating with you if it can't be about the topic. Any and all further comments about perceived insults, including in a response to this post, will not garner a response from me. All it does is muddy up the discussion and create pointless dialogue. So, if you have realistic solutions to gun violence that could actually be weighed and addressed, I'm all ears.

 

[Enhance]

"People, Not Guns":

To not allowing certain weapons of killing would be the enslavement of a free people to the shackles of tyranny.

Better instead to have the government install a surveillance net, control movies and video game content, and profile anyone who might be deemed "suspicious", to keep everyone docile and in line.

#Freedom?

What constitutional right do you have to extreme violence in movies, music, or any other media? Oh yeah, none!

but let me get this straight, you want to keep your violence, but b!^@h complain about violence when it comes to guns? They have a word for thinking like that..

What constitutional right? I believe it's the first amendment. Where has there ever been a link between media/entertainment violence and societal violence?

No causal link has ever been effectively established between media/entertainment and gun violence. The research has been inconclusive, spotty and biased. It is a scare tactic - a smoke and mirrors ploy.

That said, there are specific examples contrary to this where entertainment violence was linked to having been associated with criminal violence. However, these pale in comparison to other contributing factors like social class, income, family life, etc., that have contributed to gun violence for decades.

Besides, in the same time "media/entertainment violence" has gone up, so have the amount of weapons in this country. U.S. gun makers produced nearly 11 million guns in 2013, about double what they made in 2010.

 

[BigRedBuster]

[No message]