gun violence

L

lenny

Guest
In an attempt to beat this thread to death... let me share more of my thoughts from my feeble mind.
1)WE as parents let this happen
2)We stood by as the media, hollywood, and video game makers pumped their crap all over the TV' sets and didn't question the programming or content. In fact we supported this with our money. Making some filthy rich. In fact If I have to watch another erectile disfunction add.... I'm going to blow a gasket. I have never seen so much advertising with questionable content being pumped on prime time tv in all of my days. Not to mention the violence. They make taking human life insignificant... ***
3)WE as parents ( US culture ) didn't spend the time with our children guiding them around all this crapola... We sat there and let the powers to be influence them .
4) We need to stuff this crap right back at hollywood and make them pay by not financially supporting the junk. Not to mention the internet & the information there !!!!!

I hope we GROW from this event. It pains me to watch the childrens faces that have been burried.

5) As a country, we can't condone the breakdown of the family unit. That is where all direction & guidance should come from. WE have failed to raise our kids , why ??? maybe the world has consumed us , maybe a lot of reasons....

For clarification : WE is used in general terms. I do not direct this at anyone specifically. just as an advanced civilization ( United States ) we have been absent when raising our children. They should be the #1 priority of our efforts. ( At least as parents )
I still get back to protecting our schools, we should have started to tighten security after Columbine.

In a nut shell.... these are just some of my views.... OK let me have it should you disagree !

i'm with ya bro, behavior is a learned trait and it starts in the home but this will not be addresses because a divided country has fought to get where we are. half the population will say immorality is in the eyes of the beholder. The standard of truth is not relevant today and we worked hard to get here, there is no going back without a revolution and even i do not support that. Our society embraces immorality and what we see is a consequences of it.
 

russholio

Well-known member
Several of you fellas sound like fine candidates for public office. Let me know if you run, you got my vote! :)
 

88skier

New member
So apparently you are swayed by statistics! That's nice and very quantifying....but are you reasonable? How many statistics are kept by crimes that were deter'd by self defense of a crime? How about mixing in the vast number of illegal guns which NO legislation, or gun laws will affect? Does your statistical analysis include any ethnic or certain classes of peoples where it is unpopular to single out? How about the relationship of people living on top of other people in urban areas compared to the folks who live in wide open spaces? There is an endless list of ways to study this but most aren't even touched.

We can go on and on about this...and it really does not accomplish a thing other than you are at least 3 generations out of the need to own a gun (your great grandparents are rolling over right now because nearly everyone owned and used a firearm not that long ago....so your premises that approximation to legally owned weapons is the ONLY obvious reason for these mass killings).

Cause and effect is tough to measure here...and you can see the ink spot differently than I can or a hundred other descriptions. It is the nature of humanity.

Blaming guns for deaths is senseless and avoids the real truths.

Want to really make a difference rather than spouting out funded studies which point at too many guns?

The Kansas City bomber didn't bother with an assault weapon nor did the folks who were poisoned by gas in Toyko a few years back....there is always a means to accomplish the task to make a statement!

We need to take a proactive stance.....we need to spend MONEY to protect kids and people who gather at sport events, and churches and parks.

We need to pick up all the obvious signs of metal illness and work toward special needs to protect the very society that these folks enjoy living in, and protect all the others who live among those who "don't quite fit". So far we spend lots of money seeing about these things....after the fact....most of which exhibited signs of illness and being outright disturbed but HERE TO DATE simply ignored those signs and did absolutely nothing until the "big event".

We need to change the way we make all those things that can kill innocent people more difficult to come by....such as explosives, and fertilizer and diesel fuels which as of right now...you can get at the gas station and feed stores by simply walking in and getting them.

Are YOU ready for all this? Can you afford to pay for all those preventative actions? We are not lemmings that must simply run in whatever direction the rest of the crowd runs....and if we do, expect the very same problems to continue.

The only starling statistics relating to this issue is the number of people who blame the wrong things, fight and continue to ignore the obvious. We are living with a ton of sick people who any one of which could have done the very same things if not even bigger next time.

What about the press in all this....reporting who where when, and interviewing childhood friends and teachers and counselors
and spending huge amounts of time reporting on a senseless crime....clearly and obviously contributes to the next nut case who is waiting for their 15 minutes of fame. If we agreed not to report and cover this sort of crime, maybe half of them would never have occurred at all....and just perhaps we would not plant the seeds for those who are looking to make a splash!

Trying passing legislation on that one!

You can take all the guns away from everyone and it won't prevent a sick society from bubbling up and over flowing death and destruction.

It is an age of awareness....where the sick and getting sicker are regularly ignored, and where someone who needs help and effectively is crying out...gets ignored almost completely. We need to get to the root of the problem and we need to spend money on changing it. Once you accomplish that task, if you can find a way to do it...you will see the senseless killings dwindle down...regardless of the bombs, poisons and weapons available to the public.

Yes, I suppose you could say I'm swayed by statistics. It's science. You are ignoring the fact that these studies use data from governmental organizations, not surveys or non-representative segments of the population as has been suggested. If the presence of guns deterred crime then it would be evident in the homicide rate. Illegal weapons are very common in every developed country yet they do not have gun violence issues as in the US. As for the comment regarding ethnic groups or other 'sensitive areas' I will modify the question I asked in an earlier post: do you believe that Americans or certain segments of the American population are predisposed to be more violent than their counterparts in other industrialized nations? This absolutely must be the case if you do not believe that the availability of guns is a large part of the cause. I also do not believe that moral decline (due to what?) is the reason for this.

I do not understand the implication of the generation gap. Only people at least three generations before me needed guns? Everyone agrees that society is not where it was generations ago. What is true now may not have been true then.

The cause and effect case here is very strong. These "funded studies" are from a broad variety of sources both inside and outside the United States. I am curious to know if such skepticism and outright rejection extends to results of other studies that developed ideas/products you accept without question.

I will agree that a large problem is ignoring mental health issues. I am not suggesting taking away everyone's guns. I'm merely pointing out that gun control tends to correlate well with a reduction in gun-related violence. The availability of fertilizer or other potentially lethal items is equal in other western nations so it is not reasonable to say that would-be criminals would use these methods instead of guns at an equal rate.

As someone said before, the status quo is not working. Something must change. Higher taxes to pay for the health issue? Gun control? I think the latter is a far more viable option but that is certainly up for debate.

I think we are teetering at the very edge of the John's rules for this thread. I hope it can continue as there have been some very thoughtful posts on this issue.
 
Last edited:

98panther

New member
Agreed on all points but one: to my understanding, he DID try to obtain a weapon legally but was denied. So, the system worked. Unfortunately, he decided then to steal his mother's, which is obviously against the law.

They have a waiting period like many States, So he was denied gettting it "when" we wanted.
So not sure how that is....the system working. Guess it worked for a moment.
And is taking something from the house you live in, and are usually allowed to use really stealing?

Course from then on... he can burn
 

anonomoose

New member
Yes, I suppose you could say I'm swayed by statistics. It's science. You are ignoring the fact that these studies use data from governmental organizations, not surveys or non-representative segments of the population as has been suggested. If the presence of guns deterred crime then it would be evident in the homicide rate. Illegal weapons are very common in every developed country yet they do not have gun violence issues as in the US. ....
I have never seen any real hard evidence that more "guns" result in more homicides. Statistical evidence is just that...like the weather, useful to a slight degree but rarely reliable enough to base make sweeping changes to human rights. To QUALIFY to be used in science, you need a rock solid control and then the results need to be far more than simply --suggestive-- to be duplicated over and over....this then would be science. It is merely a postulate and as any good professor will tell you making one and proving it is quite a quantum leap. Statistics can provide any outcome you WANT it to show simply by tweeking questions and moving variables....and if you do a hundred analytical studies, you will very likely get a hundred different results unless you want to filter thru and cherry pick. It matters not who's government does the study, where it was done,or when it was done...the results will be the same. Garbage in, means garbage out! You are young and easily swayed by arguments that use weak and suggestive data...get some gray up there on that noggin and watch how your whole world changes.
As far as this statement goes--> "If the presence of guns deterred crime then it would be evident in the homicide rate...." I am at a loss, does this mean that MORE "guns" created less homicide, or less created more homicide? Does this mean that the folks who fended off murder, because they were able to defend themselves, would have been better off by not having something to protect themselves, or visa versa?

Meanwhile feel free to make those assertions...this board welcomes everyone whether they are right or mostly wrong!
 

russholio

Well-known member
They have a waiting period like many States, So he was denied gettting it "when" we wanted.
So not sure how that is....the system working. Guess it worked for a moment.

I guess I misunderstood on how he was denied. My bad, and my apologies.

And is taking something from the house you live in, and are usually allowed to use really stealing?

If it wasn't purchased by you or for you, or was used without the owner's permission, then yes.

Course from then on... he can burn

Amen.
 

88skier

New member
I have never seen any real hard evidence that more "guns" result in more homicides. Statistical evidence is just that...like the weather, useful to a slight degree but rarely reliable enough to base make sweeping changes to human rights. To QUALIFY to be used in science, you need a rock solid control and then the results need to be far more than simply --suggestive-- to be duplicated over and over....this then would be science. It is merely a postulate and as any good professor will tell you making one and proving it is quite a quantum leap. Statistics can provide any outcome you WANT it to show simply by tweeking questions and moving variables....and if you do a hundred analytical studies, you will very likely get a hundred different results unless you want to filter thru and cherry pick. It matters not who's government does the study, where it was done,or when it was done...the results will be the same. Garbage in, means garbage out!

You completely misunderstand a basic tenet of published, peer-reviewed literature in academic environments. It is not publishable by anyone. It is thoroughly reviewed by experts in the field multiple times before something is even considered for publication. This eliminates exactly the type of logically flawed information you want this to be. Not completely fool-proof but as sure as anything you'll find.

You are young and easily swayed by arguments that use weak and suggestive data...get some gray up there on that noggin and watch how your whole world changes.

This has no bearing on the discussion.

As far as this statement goes--> "If the presence of guns deterred crime then it would be evident in the homicide rate...." I am at a loss, does this mean that MORE "guns" created less homicide, or less created more homicide? Does this mean that the folks who fended off murder, because they were able to defend themselves, would have been better off by not having something to protect themselves, or visa versa?

Meanwhile feel free to make those assertions...this board welcomes everyone whether they are right or mostly wrong!

All I'm saying here is what logically follows from your statement. If firearms tended to deter crime then the homicide rate would be lower in the US, not higher. This is absolutely not the case. Of course those able to defend themselves would be better off by having something to protect themselves with. Overall, however, this deterrent clearly doesn't work.
 

olsmann

New member
All I have to say is NOTHING is better for gun sales than one of these tragic events or when a politician starts talking gun control. I'm not afraid to admit I'm a amateur collector and this event has now got me looking for AR-15. And I'll will say one more thing. Most anti gun people know almost nothing about guns which is why they react the way they do. They confuse semi autos with full autos they see in movies and tv. Fully autos are already illegal. These AR-15s are just scary looking to the uninformed. There is a more powerful and longer range rifle in nearly every gun cabinet of every deer hunter in this country. WHY does this country always govern out of reaction rather than pro action!
 

russholio

Well-known member
If firearms tended to deter crime then the homicide rate would be lower in the US, not higher. This is absolutely not the case. Of course those able to defend themselves would be better off by having something to protect themselves with. Overall, however, this deterrent clearly doesn't work.

I'm no scientist, or statistician, politician, or anything of the sort. BUT....I'm not so sure that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are meant so much as a DETERRENT to crime (although it would be nice if that were the case) as they are a means of STOPPING a crime that is in progress when there is no other alternative immediately available.

To most of us, the thought of going to the Big House is deterrent enough (not to mention the moral and ethical ramifications, but that's another matter). Obviously the idea of going to prison doesn't seem to bother most criminals. Why? Who knows....but I fail to see where passing MORE laws, regulations, and restrictions is going to set criminals on the straight and narrow when they largely ignore those already in place.
 

anonomoose

New member
"...peer-reviewed literature in academic environments" This and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee! To those who have a degree, and don't wear it on their lapel it means nothing that would dignify it enough to sway either opinion or premise.

"
All I'm saying here is what logically follows from your statement. If firearms tended to deter crime then the homicide rate would be lower in the US, not higher. This is absolutely not the case. Lower WHERE ....inner city where up to half the guns are not registered....rural small towns....college campuses...north south east or west? When you try to qualify the above statements, specifics are important, but there is no need to do that if you make broad generalizations as they are worth the ink to print them, or the government funding that sponsored their releases.

For the record, it is entirely plausible that a murder that was deterred never hits the news, or statistical records as nobody died and authorities very likely did little to record the event...how does that enter into your peer reviewed and published literature tossed about in academic environments?
 

anonomoose

New member
All I have to say is NOTHING is better for gun sales than one of these tragic events or when a politician starts talking gun control. I'm not afraid to admit I'm a amateur collector and this event has now got me looking for AR-15. And I'll will say one more thing. Most anti gun people know almost nothing about guns which is why they react the way they do. They confuse semi autos with full autos they see in movies and tv. Fully autos are already illegal. These AR-15s are just scary looking to the uninformed. There is a more powerful and longer range rifle in nearly every gun cabinet of every deer hunter in this country. WHY does this country always govern out of reaction rather than pro action!


Actually the increase in permits has dramatically increased since the last election. I presume it is because those who are rushing out to purchase them are very concerned that the ability to purchase one and the ammo will become extremely difficult in the very near future.

If I add a banana clip to my Remington 30-06 it will now be considered an assault weapon. Of course it doesn't look as menacing as an AR-15. We have knee-jerk reactions to a problem that has done more than just crept up on us.

Go to any major industrial building and try and walk thru the door never mind park on the parking lot. If you don't have I.D. tag you get no where...but we don't afford the same protections to our schools, which have been targeted far more than any industrial facility! It makes no sense to me....and it doesn't matter if you are in Spokane or Saskatoon. Security cams are super cheap, and volunteers could be enlisted to keep a close eye on them without a single dime of cost to the tax payers.

Pro-active response...means schools and college campuses should be ready for this and thereby removing them from the scores who want to "make their mark" on society and punish the innocent. Here to now we have been like ostriches....and "banned" all guns from school grounds.

We now know that doesn't work at all....again!
 

Chicago Boy

New member
This is crazy! Take my guns away? Maybe we should look at what really kills people in this country
Food,drugs ( and I'm not talking about pot ) you know the drugs our doctors give us ,cigarettes,cars
drinking ok you guys get it. So what's next ? No hospitals no car dealers no grocery store
And last but not least (RELIGION) the number one killer of all time !!!! So what's next!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
L

lenny

Guest
All I have to say is NOTHING is better for gun sales than one of these tragic events or when a politician starts talking gun control. I'm not afraid to admit I'm a amateur collector and this event has now got me looking for AR-15. And I'll will say one more thing. Most anti gun people know almost nothing about guns which is why they react the way they do. They confuse semi autos with full autos they see in movies and tv. Fully autos are already illegal. These AR-15s are just scary looking to the uninformed. There is a more powerful and longer range rifle in nearly every gun cabinet of every deer hunter in this country. WHY does this country always govern out of reaction rather than pro action!

because, just because
 

russholio

Well-known member
All I have to say is NOTHING is better for gun sales than one of these tragic events or when a politician starts talking gun control. I'm not afraid to admit I'm a amateur collector and this event has now got me looking for AR-15. And I'll will say one more thing. Most anti gun people know almost nothing about guns which is why they react the way they do. They confuse semi autos with full autos they see in movies and tv. Fully autos are already illegal. These AR-15s are just scary looking to the uninformed. There is a more powerful and longer range rifle in nearly every gun cabinet of every deer hunter in this country. WHY does this country always govern out of reaction rather than pro action!

I've been telling people that for years....glad to see I'm not the only one.
And, I would add, they believe all the sensationalism in the "fair and unbiased" {cough, cough} reporting of most of the media.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 10829

Guest
I haven't read every post, so I hope I'm not repeating this. Has anyone noticed where almost all of these terrible events happen? They happen in places that don't allow guns! The Aurora theatre shooter went to 2 or 3 other theatres first, but did not go in those as they did not post "No guns allowed". He found a theatre that did not allow guns and the rest is history. Schools, some theatres, malls etc. They are all the same, no guns allowed. Even the Fort Hood shooter did his carnage in a no gun area. You think he would have tried that anywhere else at Fort Hood?
 

russholio

Well-known member
I haven't read every post, so I hope I'm not repeating this. Has anyone noticed where almost all of these terrible events happen? They happen in places that don't allow guns! The Aurora theatre shooter went to 2 or 3 other theatres first, but did not go in those as they did not post "No guns allowed". He found a theatre that did not allow guns and the rest is history. Schools, some theatres, malls etc. They are all the same, no guns allowed. Even the Fort Hood shooter did his carnage in a no gun area. You think he would have tried that anywhere else at Fort Hood?

Careful there.....we're agreeing far too often lately! :D
 
D

Deleted member 10829

Guest
Worked out for the mom in this case didn't it?

What a crazy sarcastic statement! Not enough attention has been given to the HUGE mistake the mother made. What in the h e l l was she thinking having guns in her house, that were obviously not locked up, with a son living there that had such mental issues she was trying to institutionalize him? I mean come on! She made the biggest mistake in this whole story!
 

frnash

Active member
In my first post (post #8, on 12-16-2012) I said "… I will have nothing further to say on this subject."
Okay, I lied. A few items have been posted since that deserve some clarification/enhancement.

Maybe we should get rid of the news! They only like to promote the negative in the world!
Good luck with that, as they say, "If it bleeds, it leads." Their objective is not so much to report the facts, but to make a profit! And to beat the competition to the punch.

What about the press in all this....reporting who where when, and interviewing childhood friends and teachers and counselors and spending huge amounts of time reporting on a senseless crime....clearly and obviously contributes to the next nut case who is waiting for their 15 minutes of fame. If we agreed not to report and cover this sort of crime, maybe half of them would never have occurred at all....and just perhaps we would not plant the seeds for those who are looking to make a splash!
Also, they are so eager to "scoop" the competition, they'll snag any little bit of information and run with it, regardless of how inaccurate it might be, like the premature reporting that Adam Lanza's older brother Ryan was the perp. They just couldn't wait to discover the facts! And even when the perp's identity was established, they continued to loiter across the street from Ryan Lanza's home in Hoboken, New Jersey!

I wish everyone would quite calling them assault weapons.
Yes! The expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons", enumerated certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, plus other semi-automatic firearms solely because they possessed a minimum set of purely cosmetic features having no correlation to true "assault weapons" — which are fully automatic (i.e. "machine guns"), and thus already covered by The National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 — and many of those cosmetic features were incorporated in some rather common civilian firearms. The additional criteria:

Semi-automatic
rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally)
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount (not a bayonet, just the mount!)
Flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel (to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, hand-grip, or suppressor — just the threaded barrel!)
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm..

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.


In short, "if it merely looks like a mean, nasty 'assault weapon'" — a purely "political" definition!
Enough to really instill confidence in our legislators, eh?

ever since I can remember, my dad had guns in the house. The long guns (two of which were to be mine when I was old enough to hunt) were kept in a locked cabinet; his loaded .38 was kept in a dresser drawer.

I can relate to that!

As a youngster born and "brung up" in Detroit, I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciated the many summer vacations I spent at the family farm — my maternal grandparents' dairy farm in da "Nort' Woods" (Bruce Crossing, MI) — that and quite a number of trips up there with my dad for that annual "Yooper" event called "Deer Season".

The "guest bedroom(s)" were on the second floor of the old farmhouse, and hanging on an open rack (just pegs on a backboard, really) on one wall along the stairway was a substantial collection of long arms, from a single-shot .22 rifle to various shotguns, and a variety of deer rifles. No locked gun cabinet, just hanging there on the wall.

It was made quite clear to me that I was to keep my paws off the guns, and I did. I later came to learn of the handguns that were stashed in a dresser drawer as well, not much more "security", but at least out of sight. And you know what? I didn't touch any of 'em.

I too was told that if I ever wanted to see any of the guns to just ask, and we'd do so. I too was taught how to check them to see if they were loaded (none were) but to treat them as if they were loaded, how to handle them safely and properly, and to always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

In my early teens I was introduced to the ol' single shot .22 rifle, and with careful supervision did a bit of target shooting and "varmint hunting". A bit later, I accompanied the uncles and some neighbors on a deer hunt, spending the night at quite a neat log cabin hunting shack in da bush, hard by the Middle Branch of the Ontonagon River.

(A pretty neat 'camp" it was: A log cabin building, with a bunkhouse on one side and a kitchen/dining area on the other side. The kitchen was complete with "rustic" kitchen cabinets, a wood fired cook stove and even a sink, but no running water, just a couple of 10 gal. milk cans for water, which were filled at an artesian well just a few steps away. The two sections were separated by a three-sided alcove that held a stack of firewood, but was open to the world on the front. Someone obviously put a lot of effort into building that "camp". But I digress.)

I was not carrying a rifle, but I did get to experience the hunt — No "tree stand", but moving carefully, silently through "da bush", following deer track, and stalking 'em. — I also got to experience the joys of "field dressing" my uncle's deer.

On one occasion we awoke in the morning to what sounded like a very low level flight of B-52s — which turned out to be the nastiest blizzard that I ever experienced in "da Nort' Woods". We were so deep in "da bush" that we didn't realize it then, but later that afternoon we got to experience the slog up the steep clay slide near the river, then the mile long slog back to the farm, through waist deep new snow with our equipment and the deer! (That experience pretty well killed my interest in hunting — the fun was over when you dropped the deer, then the work began!)

In short, I learned pretty early on about respect for, and the proper handling of a firearm!

Incidentally, other than the early "varmint hunting" experience, I never fired a weapon at any living thing, never mind a 'nuther human being. I never owned a firearm that was intended for either hunting, or for "protection", but as a "remote control paper punch", used strictly for punching holes in a paper targets at distances from 50 ft. to 300 yards (the latter at the National Rifle Matches, Camp Perry, OH, as an Army ROTC Rifle Team member). For protection? For me, not a chance, far too great a risk of some knuckle dragging nut case getting it away from me and using it on me!

The Civilian Marksmanship programs of the day were also intended to cultivate a skill set that might be employed at a future time in the armed forces without extensive ground-up training. Remember, during the WW-II era, we donated arms to the Brits, who had faint little stock of civilian arms, and didn't we have to help train them too?

Although Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto has often been misquoted as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.", I have to believe that fact would certainly be a serious disincentive for any such planned invasion!
 
Top