Colorado Movie Shooting

[jedweber]

There is almost a zero chance that we will get a constitutional change ratified that removes the 2nd amendment.  So rather than getting upset about it, the rational way of dealing with it is to focus on the crazy people.

Well, there's certainly a lot of room for policies that might check the rapid proliferation of handguns that would fall far short of revoking the Second Amendment! In fact, we could focus more on the words "well-regulated" which appear right in the Amendment itself!

[HAL]

Look what I found!!! Guns owned by civilians IN THE U.K.! WTF!!! 

But look at what dear Franky said -

I live in a free and open society also and we don't have to be armed to maintain it.

Gun ownership in England and Wales: get the figures in your police force

How many legally-held guns are out there? Around 1.8m, it turns out. Get the latest firearms and shotgun statistics for each police force

Police investigating the deaths of four people shot dead on new year's day in Horden, County Durham have found the killer to have held six gun licences. It is expected that police will question why a man with a history of self harm was allowed to hold the licenses. Helen Carter writes today:

    Michael Atherton, 42, had licences for the firearms despite police revealing they were told in 2008 he had threatened to harm himself during what they describe as a "minor" incident.

Gun ownership is always thought of as a rarity in the UK. We may like to think that this country has lower levels of gun crime than the US, and that we don't have the same problems of US gun control - especially after the Tucson shooting last year.

But there are still plenty of firearms around here, all held legally. These latest figures from the Home Office have released in March 2011 show that more guns have been licensed than ever before.

Shotguns are covered by one type of police certificate, while other firearms such as pistols or rifles, are covered by another. The figures (you can get the original statistical bulletin here) show that:

    • There were 141,775 firearm certificates on issue on 31 March 2010, an increase of 2% compared with the end of March 2009
    • 580,653 shotgun certificates were on issue on 31 March 2010, 1% up
    • Those certificates cover a total of 1.8m guns

The figures show that the highest number of guns are covered by certificates in Devon and Cornwall, where 97,954 guns are licensed. Most of those are shotguns (71,768), however, and that maybe reflects the rural nature of the area.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates

[Nick]

There is a political billboard in Idaho now showing the Colorado shooter and Obama next to each other trying to link them together.  The right is so messed up in the head.

[HAL]

Bwahahahaha! You're not going to believe what I just found on Google related to guns and the U.K.!

I'm putting together a post about it as we speak.

Oh Google is Great! 

[DumpsterFire]

I'm a whole lot less likely to die via a beating than I am via a gunshot wound.

Prove it.

I am fairly certain that if James Holmes' intent in that theater was to beat to death as many people as possible the death toll would have been, at worst, one.

The biggest issue with guns is that they give a madman the capability to easily kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time. The right says "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," which is technically a true statement, but when the statistics on gun violence between the USA and so many other non-gun countries are so shockingly, ridiculously dispirate, it seems clear that our system needs a major overhaul.

Unfortunately, MB is correct that guns are so absolutely pervasive in our society that, even if the 2nd amendment was changed to outlaw guns to the general public, rounding up all of the 300+ million guns and getting them out of circulation would be virtually impossible.

[nogodsforme]

Those stats on what actually happens with loaded guns in the home is what I am talking about. Parents accidentally shoot their kids who were sneaking in the window after curfew. People shoot friends and family during an argument. And of course, kids get ahold of the weapon and shoot their brothers and sisters.

We just had several of those cases here in this state this year. One little boy had his mother's gun in his backpack. It went off at school and shot a little girl. Many lives changed that day forever.

I know people think that a gun is for protection against a bad guy breaking into their home. Home invasions by armed gangs of bad guys with the family in the home is pretty rare. Most break-ins are when the family is out, for obvious reasons. (One of the main things bad guys are looking to steal, ironically, is the family gun.)

And if a bad guy is breaking in (and you are positive that it is not a visiting friend who got in late from the airport and forgot to call, or a foreign student who is at the wrong house) you would have to have the loaded gun in your hand already. The bad guys are not going to let you get to your gun in the other room under the bed.

There are specific circumstances where people might really need a gun for protection. But the average American family in their suburban home? More likely to shoot each other. Life is not a cop movie. There is not that much crime.

[Nam]

I was reading an article in The Economist a few minutes ago about how they should have stricter gun control laws, which any american knows never seems to work out--how about having stricter bullet laws? I mean a gun without a bullet is pretty useless.

-Nam

[Nam]

nogodsforme,

I think what you mean at the end of your comment is that there isn't that much crime in individual towns and cities (except highly populated ones). I mean, 9,000 people died in the U.S. by gunshot according to The Economist.

-Nam

[Azdgari]

I don't know if it's sarcasm or not, so if it is, my apology. If we didn't try improving things, theings would have been the same since colonial days i think.

It was sarcasm.  But I tried to make it ambiguous - to show that the obviously-nuts sarcastic response isn't all that far off of what someone might actually say.  When Americans point out problems with their country, they sometimes are labelled "un-American" for it.  And pointing out problems is a necessary component of any improvement.

Of course not, but in *this one* the price we pay for being able to have guns is that occasionally somebody will do something stupid with them. 
As with my example re: the justice system.

I'm pretty sure you can find an analogy in your own country, that works the same way.

Now "being able to hold guns" is equated to "having an open and free society".  I think it's possible to have the latter without the former.  Easier, actually, because there's less legitimate fear of being shot.

There is almost a zero chance that we will get a constitutional change ratified that removes the 2nd amendment.  So rather than getting upset about it, the rational way of dealing with it is to focus on the crazy people.

Part and parcel of the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is making sure that there are no limitations on what a crazy person can get his or her hands on, in terms of weaponry.  Is that something that's subject to change, or is it too late for that as well?

I don't agree with this.

I don't agree with it either.  It was sarcastic.  See above.

Not thinking that we need to get rid of every dangerous and potentially dangerous weapon does not imply that I think we should hand them out at H.S. Graduation instead of diplomas either.

Handing them out at graduation is costly.  Much better to have absolutely no restrictions on the kid's ability to buy one in celebration.

[HAL]

Ha! Look what I just found!

National Rifle Association of United Kingdom

I can't believe it! This has got the be one of the most satisfying Google search result I've ever had!

The fucking National Rifle Association of United Kingdom!

BWahahahaha! I was laughing so hard when I found it I almost spit up my iced tea!

http://www.nra.org.uk/

It looks like a god damn militia!

Just look at this dude! Jeezus Krist! They love guns as much as Americans do!

[Frank]

America pays a far higher price than that. I live in a free and open society also and we don't have to be armed to maintain it. This is my last post on this particular thread since plainly I'm not getting through to quite a few of you. One last link for you.

Yeah, I get it Frank, you think America is the worst and your country is the bee's knees.

My country is not the "bees knees", Far from it. Thanks to the bankers our economy is in the toilet, unemployment is high, poverty is rising, and times are hard. We just don't see the point in adding to our problems by letting civilians have guns so we can start shooting each other.

[Mr. Blackwell]

I'm not going to answer that question until my original point is out of the way.  Until then, it's a dodge.

No...they do not legally have that "right".

Criminals have the legal right to obtain firearms, per your 2nd Amendment.
Firearms allow people to kill others more easily than if they did not have firearms.
Ergo, criminals have the legal right to obtain the ability to kill others more easily.  Which is exactly what I said.  Saying "nuh-uh" doesn't negate this logic, outside of conservative circles.

What type of criminals are you talking about and what do you mean by obtain? I simply can't make any sense of what you are saying.


Edit


Read the information in this link to gain a better understanding of where I am coming from when I say that criminals have no right to legally obtain guns.

http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press-Room/Top-10-Things-Know-About-Federal-Gun-Law.shtml

It's old information so if anything has changed please let me know.

[Mr. Blackwell]

I know people think that a gun is for protection against a bad guy breaking into their home.

Yes, that is one possible use for wanting to own a firearm.

You want to know why I bought my first gun? Because I could. I had no fear, no need...I simply wanted to exorcise my rights.

As for the rest of your argument it boils down to personal responsibility. You are attempting to appeal to peoples emotion in an attempt to curtail our constitutional rights.

I know people think cars are for personal transportation to make it easier to travel but parents also put their kids into cars. Owning and operating an automobile is not a constitutional right, yet far more people are harmed by them than they are by guns.

Parents drive drunk with their children in tow or even get their 9, 10 or 11 year olds to drive the car home from the bar. Sometimes they leave their babies in the car in 80+ degree weather or leave the car seat on top of the car.

We should ban the use of automobiles because people do not use them responsibly. More people are killed or seriously injured every year by automobiles than by guns.

The roads should only be used by licensed professionals for commercial purposes. Not the general public.

[Mr. Blackwell]

The biggest issue with guns is that they give a madman the capability to easily kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time. The right says "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," which is technically a true statement, but when the statistics on gun violence between the USA and so many other non-gun countries are so shockingly, ridiculously dispirate, it seems clear that our system needs a major overhaul.

It's not that simple, we must also compare overall crime rates and murder rates and look at the overall economic position of the countries.

No guns where you live? Great! That means less gun related violence but does that mean there is NO violence at all?

Violence is directly proportionate to average quality of life and population. We have guns, and we have a lot of people so we have more gun violence. If we had no guns we would have more knife or bludgeon or other types of violence. I don't think that overall crime would drop.

The problem is not that guns are used to commit crimes. The problem is that there are people willing to commit crimes.

What can we do to suppress the urge to commit crimes? I don't have an effective means to verify this but I suspect that poverty has something to do with it. 

[Mr. Blackwell]

An open question

How do you want to die? Why would one method be preferential to another?

Why is being killed by a bullet worse than being killed by a drunk driver? Or having your throat slit? Or being poisoned?

In 2009 there were 9,259 people killed by guns.[1]

In 2009 there were 10,839 people killed by drunk drivers[2]

In 2009 there were a total of 33,963 highway fatalities[3] and that was a cause for celebration because the number was so low.

In 2009 the number of US soldiers killed in Afghanistan DOUBLED the previous year with a total of 318...yes, that's not a typo...three hundred and eighteen.

In 2009 the number of Afghanistan civilians killed also increased by 14% over 2008 for a total of 2,412

Therefor it is safer to be in a combat zone than it is to drive on American roads.[4]

Blood on the highways...when will we stop this madness?

1.	In America
2.	In America
3.	In America
4.	Which is why I was more concerned for my wife and kids while I was in Iraq than I was about my personal safety

[Nick]

How many were killed by drunk drivers with guns?

[Mr. Blackwell]

How many were killed by drunk drivers with guns?

 

I...I...uhhhh...I have no idea.

[LoriPinkAngel]

How many were killed by drunk drivers with guns?

 

I...I...uhhhh...I have no idea.

What about the drunk driver who accidently fired his gun because he was texting???

[Azdgari]

What type of criminals are you talking about and what do you mean by obtain? I simply can't make any sense of what you are saying.

The ones that have guns, clearly.  You have places with names like Gun-Mart; by obtain, I mean purchase.  Obviously they don't have the legal right to steal guns, but they do have the right to buy them.  This is ridiculously simple, and I'm having trouble believing that you are honestly having problems understanding what I meant.

Read the information in this link to gain a better understanding of where I am coming from when I say that criminals have no right to legally obtain guns.

http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press-Room/Top-10-Things-Know-About-Federal-Gun-Law.shtml

It's old information so if anything has changed please let me know.

Oh, that.  How's that to prevent a criminal from purchasing a gun, again?  Your laws are in conflict, because checking on their background is illegal.  Actually getting to apply the federal law you cite is against the 2nd Amendment (except in cases where the criminal has already been arrested).

The confusion seems to do with what we consider "legally obtain" eh?  I consider going to the store and buying a gun to be "legally obtaining" one.  It doesn't matter if a completely impotent federal law says that it's not allowed.  The overall legal set-up is such that even buying several assault rifles along with thousands of rounds of ammo, can't be acted on by law enforcement.

I guess it means a longer sentence for the criminal if he's caught for whatever crime he commits with the guns.  That's helpful, surely.


EDIT:  Any comment on the parallel thread going about fists vs knives?  Apparently, people consider knives to be more dangerous and deadly than fists.  Are they equally more dangerous and deadly than guns?  Offer your opinion there, and clarify!

[Azdgari]

It also occurs to me, based on your link, that we may be using different definitions of "criminal".  When I use the word, I mean someon who has committed a crime.  You are using it to mean someone who has been convicted of a crime.  There are a lot more of the former than the latter.

[jedweber]

In 2009 there were 9,259 people killed by guns.

In 2009 there were 10,839 people killed by drunk drivers.

In 2009 there were a total of 33,963 highway fatalities[1] and that was a cause for celebration because the number was so low.
...
Blood on the highways...when will we stop this madness?

1.	In America

I don't think this is a very apt comparison.

Cars are more prevalent in our society than guns and on average are used far more frequently and for much longer periods of time.

Also, cars have a primary purpose which is unrelated to the deaths they cause, while a primary purpose of a handgun is to shoot other human beings. Cars also fill a very real need for transportation, while for many owners, guns appear to fill a psychological need to feel protected. And this need is based on a false assumption, since handgun ownership in fact makes you and those around you statistically far less safe.

[Nam]

Cancer is the worst bullet. I beat you all.



-Nam

[Brakeman]

While we wish that everyone should just "get along," the sobering fact of life in the United States is that there are many thugs that walk our streets that  have little to no empathy for their fellow man. They either have so much angst against the world or perhaps were never taught as a child to respect other's property or being. I am sad and sympathetic that these people exist in such large numbers, but I feel no compulsion whatsoever to be a victim. I don't owe anyone a chance to stab me, rob me, beat me senseless, or force me to watch as someone attacks a loved one.

At 5'7" I am not an imposing figure to most n'er-do-well thugs. I was once quite skilled with a knife, but now I am older, stiff, and overweight. That isn't really an option now anymore, so the only way that I could prevent a thug from imposing their will over mine is with a firearm.

I am in the family of gunshot victims as can be attested to by my scar on my right shin, and although it was not in my hands, it was self inflicted, so I know first hand the seriousness of responsible handling. (I was 16 at the time).

So why should we balance the need to get interventative help for the mentally ill less than the need for the ability to defend ourselves from thugs?
While it's true that if the Co. shooter didn't have access to guns that this wouldn't have happened, it is equally true that if we had universal mental health care with enough professionals to adequately become involved in and support the lives of the mentally ill that this event would not have occurred as well.

[Nam]

I'm 6'4", 230 pounds. No one has picked a fight with me, fist or gun, since I was a teenager.

Don't know why?

-Nam

[DumpsterFire]

It's not that simple, we must also compare overall crime rates and murder rates and look at the overall economic position of the countries.

I completely agree. All this talk against guns is just posturing if the murder rates in non-gun countries is comparable. But a look at lists of per-capita intentional homicide rates by country doesn't support this conclusion. What we find on such lists is the top (worst murder rate) countries are largely impoverished, many in Africa with raging civil wars, many in South America with raging drug wars, and quite a few former Soviet republics which are still in flux and re-establishing themselves. None of these are very surprising, IMO. But again, the common element present in all of these countries is rampant poverty.

But of the "wealthy" countries previously mentioned (USA, Canada, and western Europe), the first on the list is, you guessed it, the USA. By a wide margin. We have more than twice as many murders (of all types) than any of those countries. Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

[HAL]

We just don't see the point in adding to our problems by letting civilians have guns so we can start shooting each other.

This is just patently false. I have no idea why Frank said that. Lots of civilians have guns in the U.K., plus he even knows that. Isn't that a lie Frank?

[Mr. Blackwell]

I don't think this is a very apt comparison.

Cars are more prevalent in our society than guns and on average are used far more frequently and for much longer periods of time.

Also, cars have a primary purpose which is unrelated to the deaths they cause, while a primary purpose of a handgun is to shoot other human beings. Cars also fill a very real need for transportation, while for many owners, guns appear to fill a psychological need to feel protected. And this need is based on a false assumption, since handgun ownership in fact makes you and those around you statistically far less safe.

Well, for the purposes of this conversation it has been established that basically we are dealing with raw numbers as concerns causes of death.

Azdgari established this in reply #158

X = Murders that would occur if law-abiding citizens did not have firearms.
Y = Murders prevented by the fact that law-abiding citizens carry firearms.
Z = X - Y.

We don't need to have X and Y, because we have Z, and Z is what happens in the real world.

For the purpose of this discussion of constitutional rights,  primary purpose is irrelevant. The purpose of a gun is determined by the person who wields it.

The problem is what should be done to reduce gun violence. How can we bring down Z?

Some people think the best plan is to ban private ownership.
Some people think the best plan is to impose stricter regulations.
It has been suggested we could make buying ammunition more burdensome.

MB and Brakeman choose to address what I agree is the root of the problem.

I am still trying to determine what Azdgari's point is.

My use of the Car analogy is apt when discussing public safety and individual responsibility. It is not equivalent in terms of constitutional rights however.

I have to get back to driving now. Just took a quicky lunch break. I'll be back laterz. When next we speak I will be in Decorah, IA...anyone know anything fun to do in that part of the country? It's going to be a short day for me.

[Nam]

In the United Stated, guns will always be in the hands of civilians. They will cite the constitution, and the courts will side with them.

Regulation may be more realistic in more Urban areas but I doubt they'd be too realistic in Rural ones. Especially if politians who believe that everyone should own a gun, and they exist.

In the end, regulating guns seems nonsensical. One should regulate gun powder and the bullets. I think, at least in the beginning, would probably be more effective.

However, sadly, I think our progression concerning guns will go by way of 3rd world societies. Kids will be carrying them in the streets.

-Nam

[Azdgari]

Totally disingenous, Jay.  Whether we should "pay attention only to raw numbers"[1] depends on the context of the discussion.

You were defending guns as a means to protect people, saying that it's important to note how many unspecified lives might have been saved by the prevalence of guns, rather than just looking at how many deaths they cause.  In this context, guns are both the cause of death and a mitigating factor, supposedly reducing the number of other guns that are causes of death.

This is not true of cars.  The analogy fails.  But you knew that, of course.

Cars are not cited as a means of defending against the deaths caused by cars.  People do not acquire cars to protect themselves from attacks from others who have cars.  This is really obvious, and clear evidence that Jay has no intention of discussing this topic honestly.

1.	Which is itself a misrepresentation of what I said, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see from my post.