another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Not sure why it starts to look that all the pro gun ownership people posting around here are a bit infantile?

---

Maybe you already have, but upon self-review, you may notice the damning hypocrisy in that stereotypical claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

How do you square with calling me a fascist the fact that you've called me a Communist in the past?

I hugely enjoy the fact that you expect me to be somehow offended by your comments, when in fact they are enormously hilarious.

---

I'd guess that it's because, when you take communism and fascism to their right and left wing extremes, they meet in the middle. (Please note, I'm not endorsing his sentiment, just commenting on how he may have gotten there.)

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.

I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I'd guess that it's because, when you take communism and fascism to their right and left wing extremes, they meet in the middle. (Please note, I'm not endorsing his sentiment, just commenting on how he may have gotten there.)

---

I think you're considering this in a bit too much depth, personally. My view as to how he got there is rather simpler, I must say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'.

---

What sort of statement does this make about the mentality of those stocking up? To me, they're no different to the sort of unhinged idiots who bought in food and created bunkers in preparation for the Millennium Bug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

---

I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Maybe you already have, but upon self-review, you may notice the damning hypocrisy in that stereotypical claim.

---

You don't want to read my answer to your provocation so I'll keep it civilized by not making it public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.

---

I think we can very safely assume these were in 99% of the cases people who already owned weapons, most probably also illegally most of them.
Why would someone who didn't bother having a weapon until now go out and buy one? Doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.

---

Maybe they like the idea of getting free sessions with the shrink instead of having to pay for those? You never know, stranger things have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You don't want to read my answer to your provocation so I'll keep it civilized by not making it public.

---

Hurl away... if that's all you're capable of. Tussling with me may not give you the satisfaction that you're expecting though. :)

But as I've already said, I would much prefer to have a dialog or debate with people who are capable of much more than that. But if you make a statement about the immaturity of others and then you act in an immature fashion, well, one should expect to be called out for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Hurl away... if that's all you're capable of. Tussling with me may not give you the satisfaction that you're expecting though. :)

---

Won't give you that satisfaction kid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

But as I've already said, I would much prefer to have a dialog or debate with people who are capable of much more than that. But if you make a statement about the immaturity of others and then you act in an immature fashion, well, one should expect to be called out for it.

---

Said mr. perfection. LOL

Back to the thread subject now, the death of 20 innocent children and their teachers, killed with guns that belong in the best case in the hands of policemen and military.

Most people from outside the USA can see the biggest common denominator in all these US shootings and point it out easily.
Those from the USA are trying to find scapegoats like mental issues, and the few who accept that guns might be the issue say it is impossible to control the ownership of guns in the USA while completely ignoring examples from other countries where this worked out just fine. It looks like people think that they will never be in the position of those kids, teachers or their families. I wish you all good luck and hope you will indeed not have to go through what those people had to go one week before Christmas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I think you're considering this in a bit too much depth, personally. My view as to how he got there is rather simpler, I must say.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.

---

Suddenly? Hardly, I've felt that way for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.

I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

---

Seems rather logical to me. But what do I know... I just get paid by Fortune 500 companies to solve systemic problems with a data driven approach. The "when in danger, when in doubt, run on circles... scream & shout" approach probably is more fun and entertaining. I'm switching employers shortly. Maybe the new outfit will let me run around and be a crazy-@ss bomb thrower. Just holler like a wild man and intimidate people to get my point across. Gotta have lots of name calling too. That's real important. Woo! Yeah, man! Git insane in the membrane! :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What sort of statement does this make about the mentality of those stocking up? To me, they're no different to the sort of unhinged idiots who bought in food and created bunkers in preparation for the Millennium Bug.

---

Again with generalizations and stereotypes. You're better than that, BDunnell. I mean that. I know that you are.

Quote:

---

I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.

---

A lot or some... but not all. I have argued for quiet some time that our failure to address mental health conditions is one of our biggest social failings. The system was never great, but it really began going downhill under Reagan back in the 80's and has gotten worse since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I think we can very safely assume these were in 99% of the cases people who already owned weapons, most probably also illegally most of them.
Why would someone who didn't bother having a weapon until now go out and buy one? Doesn't make any sense.

---

If one qualifies to buy a firearm from an FFL dealer with a required background check, exactly how could their existing possession of a (any) weapon be considered "illegal"? Only in places where it is required to register a firearm (other than several large cities, that's not that many places) would unregistered ownership of a firearm be considered illegal... or possibly (though not likely) the individual owns some sort of unreported Title II weapon.

As for why someone would buy a firearm now when they didn't have one before, it seems to be a case of people rushing to buy guns now in fear (justified or not) that they may not be able to do so later. One of the biggest demographics in the U.S. now purchasing firearms is women under the age of 45. Why? I don't know. Grab one (not literally!) and ask her. But everyone who now owns a gun had to at some point buy (or be given) their first one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Won't give you that satisfaction kid.



Said mr. perfection. LOL

---

ioan, I must say, this is immature compared with the comments of the person to whom you were replying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Suddenly? Hardly, I've felt that way for a long time.

---

That's why I referred to people 'holding your views', rather than you personally, as I wasn't sure what your own view on the matter was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Won't give you that satisfaction kid.

---

I see that I've taught you well.

Quote:

---

Said mr. perfection. LOL

---

And don't you forget it. :)

Jokes aside, there's no problem with disagreeing with one another. But we can do better than acting like we're in a schoolyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I think we can very safely assume these were in 99% of the cases people who already owned weapons, most probably also illegally most of them.
Why would someone who didn't bother having a weapon until now go out and buy one? Doesn't make any sense.

---

Read the article and the quotes from people interviewed at the show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Again with generalizations and stereotypes. You're better than that, BDunnell. I mean that. I know that you are.

---

On this, I won't retract what I said. It's what I think. Such behaviour just seems utterly, utterly contrary to any definition of good sense to which I subscribe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

A lot or some... but not all. I have argued for quiet some time that our failure to address mental health conditions is one of our biggest social failings. The system was never great, but it really began going downhill under Reagan back in the 80's and has gotten worse since then.

---

You don't need to convince me of the sincerity of your view on this point, believe me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Seems rather logical to me. But what do I know... I just get paid by Fortune 500 companies to solve systemic problems with a data driven approach. ...

As for why someone would buy a firearm now when they didn't have one before, it seems to be a case of people rushing to buy guns now in fear (justified or not) that they may not be able to do so later.

---

Given your (genuine, I know) desire to adopt a data-driven approach, I'm surprised you don't immediately come to the view that such fears are unjustified, as is any practical basis for gun ownership. After all, the risk of being in a situation in which possession of a firearm is worthwhile in a practical sense, not to say proportionate, is very small indeed, is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Guns cost money, don't they?

---

The RIGHT to own Guns costs NOTHING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Guns cost money, don't they?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

So do guns, Tony. So does ammunition. Your definition is blatantly nonsensical, but what else would we expect?

---

Wow. You guys are either dense or willing to act stupid just to further your agenda.

The RIGHT to own Guns costs NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Back to the thread subject now, the death of 20 innocent children and their teachers, killed with guns that belong in the best case in the hands of policemen and military.

---

That just displays your ignorance of firearms and your total lack of tolerance for freedom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Most people from outside the USA can see the biggest common denominator in all these US shootings and point it out easily.
Those from the USA are trying to find scapegoats like mental issues, and the few who accept that guns might be the issue say it is impossible to control the ownership of guns in the USA while completely ignoring examples from other countries where this worked out just fine. It looks like people think that they will never be in the position of those kids, teachers or their families. I wish you all good luck and hope you will indeed not have to go through what those people had to go one week before Christmas.

---

I blame the parents of the killer. Even though they are wealthy they refused to get treatment for their obviously mentally unstable offspring and the Local Police who took over 20 minutes to arrive on the scene when called. Like most killers of this type he took his own life as soon as an armed resistance arrived. in this case even though he still had many rounds of ammo left and plenty of potential victims he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard the sirens.

Like most killers of this type he was a coward who attacked where it was most likely nobody would have offered armed resistance.

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Wow. You guys are either dense or willing to act stupid just to further your agenda.

The RIGHT to own Guns costs NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA!

---

No, Tony. By the same token, you may as well define anything as a 'right'. By your line of 'thought' (I use the term loosely), one could say that it's a right to have a flat-screen TV. After all, the right to have one costs nothing. Your point is meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

That just displays your ignorance of firearms and your total lack of tolerance for freedom

---

Unlike you, Tony, many of us don't solely define 'freedom' in terms of the right to firearm ownership. You may like to spout the term over and over again, but your manner of so doing is utterly, spectacularly trite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I blame the parents of the killer.

---

As a right-winger, you should, surely, believe in direct personal responsibility being taken. Therefore, you should be blaming the killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

On this, I won't retract what I said. It's what I think. Such behaviour just seems utterly, utterly contrary to any definition of good sense to which I subscribe.

---

I just see it as an error to believe that anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to my belief system is in some way defective.

Quote:

---

Given your (genuine, I know) desire to adopt a data-driven approach, I'm surprised you don't immediately come to the view that such fears are unjustified, as is any practical basis for gun ownership. After all, the risk of being in a situation in which possession of a firearm is worthwhile in a practical sense, not to say proportionate, is very small indeed, is it not?

---

Determining that what other people fear is justified or not seems more of a subjectively arrived at conclusion than an objective one. I'm 6'3" and about 225. My girlfriend is 5'5" and I guess about 120. What might be an unjustified fear for me could be a very justified fear for her - especially in say, a bear attack. See, I can't outrun a bear, but I can outrun her. She's got a lot to worry about, IMO. Sounds like she either needs to buy a gun or find herself a boyfriend who wouldn't sacrifice her to Yogi Bear in his bid for self-preservation. But oddly enough, considering my views and our relationship, she's very anti-gun. Go figure.

And yes, I agree that (statistically speaking) the chances of actually needing and using a gun in a violent confrontation are small indeed. As well, statistically speaking, most cops will never even draw their guns, much less ever shoot anyone over the course of their careers. Statistically speaking, most people will never file a fire insurance claim. Looking at stats tells me that if firearms are being bought solely for self-defense, they'll likely never be needed or drawn. Most people who own guns will probably never shoot anything more than a paper target. But I am unable to tell a woman living alone, a cop making a traffic stop or the guy who just put his life savings into building a house that their fears are unjustified just because I have stats that say so. I understand the point you're trying to make though. So with that said, do some people take it too far? Do some people take it to extremes, as if there are bandits behind every tree and boogeymen hiding under their beds? Do some people (like that paranoid schizo, "stand-your-ground", failed wannabe cop in Florida) start more trouble than would ever come their way if they just minded their own business? Absolutely! Some do. How much of the problem are these people... what percentage? How much of the problem are so called, falsely named "assault weapons"? Those people and those weapons tend to be the ones who make the funny papers, but they are statistical outliers. So in addressing the problem, by training, I would look at those items which would yield the biggest positive effect for the least amount of cost/effort. There's nothing so unique about this issue that the same methodology that I use on a daily basis wouldn't work here. And it's a damn sight better than everybody getting all red in the face and just screaming that their way is the only way.

Without wanting to sound too arrogant (yeah, I'm so perfect that I can't stand myself, Ioan... and you probably can't stand me either! :D ), I do fully believe that if people of my professional ilk were tasked with reducing gun violence by some initial, realistic, prescribed amount, it could be done in a way that very few Americans would object to one bit. At least you'd have something to start with... something meaningful and effective to build on. But that's not what is going to happen. Just like here, there's going to be a lot of hyperbole and emotional silliness (from both sides). And whatever we get will probably be very much like the health care law: some unworkable, clumsily written, piece of ineffective nothing. People will still die and be killed by firearms. They'll seize an AK from some old man and every TV station in town will turn out to take pictures of it. Exactly like our faux war on drugs... all ya gotta do is put dope on the table... bread & circuses keeps the masses happy. :dozey:

If I was a rich man, I don't guess I'd care. Like Teddy Kennedy used to, I'd likely call for a ban on all privately owned firearms in America... while I had a private team of men carrying fully automatic mini Uzis watching my back. Must be nice. Only I think he had an armor plated Mercedes. So ya know, I'd have to have an armor plated... (wait for it) Jaguar XJ long wheelbase! Yeah man! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

. . . . .So ya know, I'd have to have an armor plated... (wait for it) Jaguar XJ long wheelbase! Yeah man! :cool:

---

Yeah, but does it shoot missiles? Traffic jams can be a bitch!

On a serious note, there are places around the country where gun buy back programs are taking place.
Some citizens are being pro active by doing what they think is helpful.
I like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?

---

Plenty, when the government taxes it's citizens in order to provide that "free" healthcare to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Plenty, when the government taxes it's citizens in order to provide that "free" healthcare to others.

---

....and how much would you be taxed for this, and how would that compare to the amount you have to pay for medical insurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

....and how much would you be taxed for this, and how would that compare to the amount you have to pay for medical insurance?

---

The cost of gun injuries on medical insurance is infinitesimal. Auto injuries alone are orders of magnitude more costly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The cost of gun injuries on medical insurance is infinitesimal. Auto injuries alone are orders of magnitude more costly.

---

Sorry, I was expecting figures!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, Tony. By the same token, you may as well define anything as a 'right'. By your line of 'thought' (I use the term loosely), one could say that it's a right to have a flat-screen TV. After all, the right to have one costs nothing. Your point is meaningless.

---

Actually you do have a right to a Free Market. It is up to you to earn the money to be able to purchase it.

Sad that so many people seem to have an distinct inability to actually know what a right is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?

---

There is no right to free healthcare. Healthcare cost Money. Obamacare alone will cost Trillions.

http://www.atr.org/fiscal-cliffs-hid...tax-hike-a7375

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

....and how much would you be taxed for this, and how would that compare to the amount you have to pay for medical insurance?

---

That is not the point. I WILLINGLY pay for my health insurance. I decide what my Healthcare will be, Socialized medicine is funded by the Government taking money by force from the productive members of society to buy support from the unproductive.

Classic Curley Effect.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

---

Have you ever heard of the word "contextomy"? If not please do look it up. Here is an explanation of the true meaning of the quote.

"He was referring to the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (which was amended several times over the ensuing decades). This Act was, in practice, a total gun ban enacted to protect the British realm from an insurgency. By banning firearm possession for all but those authorized by the Realm they were able to all but do away with both military and private arms as almost no one was ever authorized.Mr. Gandhi, as you correctly state, was a lifelong pacifist. But, he understood that in the extreme a society needs to have the capability to defend itself from invasion and oppressive governance. This is not contradictory. It's merely an acknowledgement of the existence of extremes. I have in person heard the Dalai Lama (another life long pacifist) state the same thing. In short, pacifists are not entirely blind to the possibility of a need to defend oneself from extraordinary violence. However, they do believe that in most cases where one man would choose to take up arms passive resistance would be the superior choice. In India that proved to be true. In the Germany of the 1940's it wasn't. However, one of the first things that Hitler did was ban all the guns.
As far as the "Right to bear arms" crowd is concerned; this quote is far from mis-attributed"

The right to bear arms was in order for the Indian people to protect themselves against an invasion. This included the Indian Military being armed as well, not just the poeple, and it was certainly not against there own domestic people, as currently in america. This cannot be related to America as you already do have a military that is armed. So how in any way, shape or form can you relate this to personal gun ownership in America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

ioan, I must say, this is immature compared with the comments of the person to whom you were replying.

---

Sure I could call him a hypocrite in a nicer way, just don't feel like it given that his only interest in the thread was to call us all imbeciles who are flogging a dead horse. he also left this thread about a zillion times already just to come back again and again with lil' snappy comments from a self proclaimed high moral position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I see that I've taught you well.

And don't you forget it. :)

Jokes aside, there's no problem with disagreeing with one another. But we can do better than acting like we're in a schoolyard.

---

Yes we can. ;)
What bothered me most is how you dismissed this thread when you joined it first, then you left several times as it was 'going nowhere' just to come back and school us again and again.

Anyway, I hope we can put this to rest now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

That just displays your ignorance of firearms and your total lack of tolerance for freedom

---

:rotflmao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I blame the parents of the killer. Even though they are wealthy they refused to get treatment for their obviously mentally unstable offspring and the Local Police who took over 20 minutes to arrive on the scene when called. Like most killers of this type he took his own life as soon as an armed resistance arrived. in this case even though he still had many rounds of ammo left and plenty of potential victims he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard the sirens.

Like most killers of this type he was a coward who attacked where it was most likely nobody would have offered armed resistance.

---

Sure everyone else is at fault, but not those who want guns everywhere, like if guns can solve a gun problem anyway.
I say you and your like are at fault for all these shootings because you are against the changes which would in the long term put an end to them, and all this just for the pathetic egoistic reason that you want to feel stronger by owning fire arms cause otherwise you are afraid of the world around you.