|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control III | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Here's a little information about the gun used in the mass shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill. It was a .45 caliber Glock 21 semi-automatic fitted with an extended 30 round magazine, purchased legally. I don't know what type of bullets were used. See Thousand Oaks shooting: What we know about the massacre at Borderline Bar and Grill for a lot more information.
This is more evidence (as if more were needed) that guns shouldn't be available to the general population. They are too dangerous. Single-shot hunting rifles, that's it, and I'm not enthusiastic about them either. I saw the statistical discussion above about the overall versus the individual. I'll just add that when you talk to gun nuts they'll all tell you they're way above average in safety, gun maintenance and accuracy, and that the statistics don't apply to them. But even if a gun enthusiast were the most sure-handed, mentally acute and determinedly careful person in the world, that doesn't mean they could never suffer a mental breakdown, a decline in nervous function, an anger attack, a mistake in judgment, a finger flinch, a brain illness, a high fever causing hallucinations, a senior moment, a slow general decline that goes unnoticed because it is so slow (true of all us), etc. Those last couple examples were age-related. I believe keeping your guns as you age should be the hardest thing in the world, certainly much more difficult than retaining your driver's license. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add "purchased legally," info from a NYT article. Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
As mass shootings pile up we keep hearing the common argument from the gun nut lobby about a good guy with a gun. But events show that confronting a gunman is highly risky and dangerous, for law enforcement and armed civilians alike. The shooter has a huge advantage. He can shoot at anything that moves, and often times his goal is suicide, either at his own hands or through armed confrontation.
Responders, on the other hand, must take great care to shoot only the shooter while insuring their own safety as much as possible and being careful not to hit bystanders. Officers are shot in one third of encounters with an active gunman. The other conclusion is that the open carry idiots out there are just asking to get shot if by chance they should happen upon a mass shooting. How many have a filled 30-round clip in their gun like the Thousand Oaks shooter - kind of makes the gun hard to fit in a holster, and I'll bet their pants would end up down around their ankles a lot. Here are some comments and excerpts from today's Washington Post article, Guard, officer killed in the nation’s latest mass shooting, stoking debate about active-shooter defenses: The unarmed guard outside the Borderline Bar and Grill was the first to be killed. A policeman who charged in while the firing was ongoing was killed. At the recent Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh four policemen were shot. When politicians respond to mass shootings by saying things like, "It's important to find a way to remove the politics" (Jason Villabla, R-TX), what they really mean is, "Let's not mention gun control." In response to claims by people like Trump and the NRA and placing armed guards all over, experts say there is little evidence that armed guards have much effect. "The Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University found that just 4 percent of 106 mass shootings it analyzed between 2000 and 2015 ended with the shooter being shot before police arrived on the scene."
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Today on NPR radio Melissa Block had a story on firearms and dementia:
There's also a written version: Firearms And Dementia: How Do You Convince A Loved One To Give Up Their Guns? One scary incident related in the story is when one night Ed didn't recognize his wife, Kathy, became frightened, and locked himself in their bedroom, at one point saying, "I have a gun." There *was* a gun in the room.Kathy spent the night in the hallway outside the bedroom afraid to call the police because it might escalate the situation. By morning Ed calmed down. Kathy took the gun, removed the ammunition, then locked the gun away in the basement. This thread isn't about dementia, but dementia is just one of things that can happen to us. As the story relates, many people keep loaded firearms in nightstands for self defense, violating one of the primary rules of gun safety: guns and ammunition should be locked away separately. Most people who are concerned about self defense or home defense do not follow this rule. This only makes bad situations worse. Should someone in the household become angry or suicidal or delusional or confused, a loaded and available gun in the house can only make a bad situation worse, potentially turning it into a tragedy where someone is injured or killed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Emergency room doctors have reached the point where they've had to deal with the aftermath of gun violence for too long and are taking a stand, as reported here: Doctors Revolt After N.R.A. Tells Them to ‘Stay in Their Lane’ on Gun Policy
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
2-year-old found handgun under father’s pillow, fatally shot himself
What more need be said? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
A couple weeks ago ICANT stupidly commented that he didn't think gun registries would help in crime solving. This goes counter to common sense, so I replied by supplying a couple of ways that gun registries might help capture the perpetrators of gun crimes. Today's New York Times has run an article (Catching Killers by Matching Tiny Marks on Bullets) that mentions The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, something I didn't know existed. It describes an example of how the network helps catch criminals:
quote: All guns of all types everywhere should be registered in a database that includes ballistics and shell markings information. Here's more:
quote: Those against effective gun registration and strict licensing are just giving free rein to thugs and murderers. Sure criminals will skirt these laws, but the more that law abiding people follow them the harder it will become for criminals to hide. AbE: A short excerpt from another NYT article (My Father, a Judge, Said a Gun Control Case Was One of His Hardest. Now I See Why.):
quote: "Gun nut America" claims no efforts would keep criminals from hiding their use of guns, but that just doesn't compute. The truth is that gun advocates don't care about crime, they don't care about the carnage they're inflicting on themselves, friends and family, and they give the most credence to the fantasy in their own mind that if everyone carried a gun there would be less crime and fewer murders. One of the gun laws struck down in Washington DC required that rifles and shotguns be stored either locked or disassembled. --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
On iPad, keeping short: Gunman, 3 others dead after shooting several others at Chicago hospital
You damn gun nuts. You damn gun nuts. Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Percy writes: You still have it backwards. If you claim that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, YOU are the one who needs a reason. If you claim that there was a "change in nature", YOU are the one who needs a reason. The same place he/she would go to buy a gun if all guns were banned. The black market. Incompetent as ever, I see. That quote isn't anything I said. You're actually quoting Ringo from Message 1233 in the Creation thread. Do you ever proofread what you write? I started my last message with, "Congratulation on avoiding the question," but given these new miscues I guess further congratulations are in order. You're actually responding to this part of my message:
Percy writes: So you live in Florida, which has no law requiring background checks. Of course any federally licensed gun seller must conduct a background check whether it's at a Florida gun show or not, but no background check is required for private sales in Florida. Gee, I wonder from whom a gun buyer who knew he wouldn't pass a background check would buy a firearm? Your answer of "the black market" is wrong. He would simply purchase his weapon from any seller who was not a federally licensed gun seller, in other words, private parties.
Gun shows only allow licensed gun dealers to have booths at gun shows. You've been wrong so many times that I doubt this very much, but it's beside the point. How many private sellers are selling so many guns that they would need a booth? Private sales happen at gun shows all the time, and private sellers have no need for a booth if they're only selling one or a few weapons:
So private sellers do it like this: One would presume that in what follows you would describe how private sellers do it, but you don't. You instead ask questions:
How would you propose to get individuals to do a background check before they delivered a gun to someone? Uh, use the services often provided at gun shows, and that should be a required part of all gun shows, like this:
Have you ever been to a gun show? Have you ever proofread your messages before clicking send so that you can see how poorly organized they are? You asked this question once before, and the answer is still no. Why would I go to a show full of people whose brains have become addled by the dopamine jolt provided with every squeeze of the trigger?
Probably not because people who go to gun shows go to buy a gun or to sell an antique gun to one of the antique dealers. I don't know what weird point you're trying to make, but obviously both businesses and people go to gun shows to buy and/or sell guns. The guns could be new, old or antique.
An individual just wanting to sell a gun just runs a ad in the little shopper paper and usually the gun is sold before the paper hits the streets. As the gun dealers get advance notice of guns for sale. All guns should be registered, and the background check would be carried out as part of any transfer of title.
Percy writes: x`One of the lies that Trump likes to tell the most at his campaign rallies is that Democrats want open borders. Even the most rabid Trumpublican, assuming he's informed, would know that's not true. Then why did Senator Schumer kill the $20 billion bill to fund the border wall for 1 3/4 million dreamers when the democrats had only asked for 800,000? Sounds like the democrats want open borders to me. Sounds like the Democrats understand that a wall is not the best way to insure border security. Which I already explained to you once. You seem to forget a lot of stuff. Short term memory problems?
Percy writes: You're misremembering. It looks like you're talking about the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, signed into law by Reagan in November of 1986. No one ever wanted the border closed or would want the border closed, not the Republicans or the Democrats. When I mention closing the border I am talking about everything between the legal entry points of entry. And that was what they promised Reagan they would do for the amnesty. That's not the definition of closing the border. That's just border security.
Had that happened we would not have 12 million at the present. 12 million what? Illegal immigrants? Since a border wall would do little to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, that is false.
Percy writes: But Trump *is* lying when he says Democrats are for open borders. They are not. No one is for open borders, and no one is for closed borders. Then they should put up the money to build the wall. Again, a border wall would do little to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. But do you now understand that you're misusing the terms "open borders" and "closed borders". No one is for either one. That's why Trump is lying when he says Democrats want open borders. Both Democrats and Republicans are for border security, but Democrats believe a border wall won't provide that security, while Trumpublicans believe without any evidence that it will. True Republicans, if they dared speak, would probably agree with the Democrats. Have you read Jar's post about what damage a border wall would do to property owners along our southern border? Look up the Maginot Line some time. Building a wall only means people have to find a way to circumvent it. They'll go over, around and through it. At the end of Message 591 I described meaningful approaches to stemming the flow of illegal immigrants - you ignored it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Percy writes: I described meaningful approaches to stemming the flow of illegal immigrants - you ignored it. I worked in a foreign country where I had to have a work permit that had to be renewed every year for a $1250 fee my employer had to pay. My employer was responsible for a place to stay, all medical expenses, all educational expenses and a living wage. Anyone caught using help that did not have a work permit was fined $50,000 per person for first offense. The fine doubled for every offense after that. Guess what, they did not have a second offense. Put the lid on the cookie jar and they will either stay home or go somewhere else. It's like you have no memory at all of prior discussion, even what is quoted for you. So you're giving up on the wall and are now advocating for exorbitant fines for anyone caught employing illegal immigrants? Points you ignored:
You can barely make it through a sentence without saying something wrong or idiotic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Pressie writes: That way it would be much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Criminals do not obey laws so explain to me how gun control laws would make it more difficult for the criminals to get guns. You just can't help yourself, can you. If there's a stupid position to be taken, even one that's already been clearly explained, you'll take it. In essence you're arguing that we should have no laws because criminals don't obey laws.
Laws are obeyed only by law abiding citizens. Further on you say you don't believe you have to obey the law when you're in your own house. This is, of course, not true. I don't know what's more amazing, the volume of your false statements, or how obviously dumb and wrong they are. If you're not obeying the law when you're at home then you're not a law abiding citizen. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
ICANT writes: My house is my castle. I make the rules that apply inside my house. Good grief, the idiocy continues unabated. Try committing assault, murder, rape, possessing an automatic firearm, running a still, running a dog fighting ring, killing protected species, holding a party where you serve minors alcohol, running a poker game where the pot exceeds $10 (Florida law), stealing videos off the web, etc., etc., etc. Your home may be your castle, but it is not your own legal jurisdiction. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Pressie writes: Thoroughly investigate anyone trying to buy a gun of any kind. Make sure the guns are kept in safes where criminals can't steal them. Ban any civilian from owning assault weapons and/or machine guns. You need more? That sounds simple doesn't it? But how would you propose to investigate anyone trying to buy a gun of any kind? They already do that if they are going through a licensed dealer. You can't even be self-consistent from one sentence to the next. First you ask Pressie how he would thoroughly investigate anyone, as if that were a really difficult problem, then you say this is already done when guns are purchased through a federally licensed dealer, which just means a background check. And background checks are already available to anyone, as this image you've seen before shows:
Pressie might have meant something more intense than a simple background check when he said "thoroughly investigate," I don't know. Garbage must have been flowing into your brain for a very long time, because we're only getting garbage out.
But if someone is buying from a gun runner there are no questions asked only cash exchanged for the weapon. We have borders where guns can go back and forth across them like the wind blowing. You're again arguing that because criminals break the law that we should have no laws. It was dumb the first time you said it and it's still dumb.
Pressie writes: Make sure the guns are kept in safes where criminals can't steal them. Thieves steal gold out of fort Knox. My God, it just doesn't stop. Not only has no one has ever stolen gold from Fort Knox, it's never even been attempted.
So how do you propose to put a safe in a house that a thief can't steal them from? Would you propose that cars not have locks because they can be broken into anyway? Of course not. So why would you propose that firearms not be safely locked away? Why do you not understand that a gun in the house increases the danger to those inside?
Pressie writes: Ban any civilian from owning assault weapons and/or machine guns. It has been illegal for civilians to own weapons that fire automatic all of my life. Wrong again. Licenses are difficult to obtain, but civilians can obtain fully automatic weapons.
A machine gun is a weapon that fires automatic just pull the trigger and it will fire as long as you hold the trigger down. But if it is a belt fed and the belt is long enough you can melt the barrel. What is the point of this irrelevant information?
I would not want to go to war with the AR15 or Ak47 semi-automatic that most want to classify as an assault weapon. It doesn't matter what you call it. AR-15 style weapons are too dangerous for possession by the general public.
In fact I don't own but one semi-automatic weapon. A 1955 10 shot magazine in grip 22 cal. pistol. The sweetest thing I have ever shot. I'll bet you can feel the dopamine and adrenaline just pumping into your brain just thinking about it.
I prefer pump action rifles and shotguns for long guns and revolvers for pistols. The rest of us would prefer that you not be allowed anywhere near firearms. You're a menace.
Full automatic and semi-automatic weapons can jam and cost you, your life. I have never had a pump action fail to load and fire. Neither a revolver that refused to turn and fire the next bullet. You do have to maintain your tools for them to work properly. Thank you for this additional irrelevant information.
Pressie writes: You need more? You haven't proposed anything yet to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Laws of any kind only affect what law abiding people do. Lawless people don't care what the law is. I couldn't find precise numbers, but probably less than around 20% of people are killed by firearms wielded by criminals. Let's tackle the biggest problem first by passing strong gun control measures. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: I would be abiding by the law in my house. As I said I make the rules that apply in my house. Not satisfied with making this dumb statement once, you make it again, inconsistently this time, saying "law" in the first sentence and "rules" in the second. You can have whatever rules of the house you like as long as you do not break any laws. You do not make the laws in your own house. You are not your own legal jurisdiction.
The government says we can't control what a person does in their bedroom... You cannot assault or rape or break any other law, even if you're in your own bedroom. Michael Avenatti was just arrested a couple weeks ago on suspicion of domestic abuse while he was in his own apartment.
...and neither will they control what goes on in my house. Do you really believe this crap that you write? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
ICANT writes: I have trained on courses where targets appear out of nowhere and you have to choose whether to fire or not as some are friendly and others are enemies. Lots of fun. Never shot the wrong target yet. You must be great at Whack-a-Mole. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NBC News report: South Carolina woman fatally shoots escaped inmate who broke into her home
Reports vary, but the consensus seems to be that she was sleeping in her bedroom when an escaped convict still wearing jailhouse orange broke down her back door, grabbed a knife sharpener out of the kitchen, then went upstairs to the bedroom. By that time she had her gun out and ready. She fired one shot, hitting the inmate in the head. He died en route to the hospital. The woman is an example of a good guy, er, gal with a gun. What would have happened if she hadn't had a gun? Would he have killed her with the knife sharpener? Or would he have told her he needed men's clothes and to get some out? We'll never know. Of course for the woman to have armed herself so quickly means the gun wasn't in one safe and the ammo in another. The gun was already loaded and sitting in a nightstand or a bureau drawer or someplace like that, just waiting for some child or relative or friend or burglar or even herself in a depressed or unbalanced state to find it and use it. The local police chief praised the woman profusely, saying people should emulate her. That is, of course, nonsense. The woman violated one of the primary rules of gun safety by not keeping her guns and ammo locked up separately. See the Washington Post article for a more rational stance: An escaped inmate kicked down a sleeping woman’s door. But she had a gun. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024