NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

Reba said:
Really? I thought your theory was that an AR-15 in use always resulted in mass casualties.
Click to expand...
Thank God that the cops were already there so there was a shootout until he committed suicide. If the cops were not there, more firefighters would die as he was spraying bullets all over.
 
CrazyPaul said:
That's a good question. The charts shown in this thread are too general. I notice that most of homicides or multi-homicides (excluding mass murders) are done by handguns so that's why handgun murders are leading. What about suicides? Do they count as murder?
Click to expand...

What's most ridiculous question ever so you should check the dictionary.

diehardbiker said:
Suicide is not considered murder, Murder means one killed other human being.
Click to expand...

That's correct so THANKS, MAN!
 
Reba said:
Do you have a chart that shows specifically mass murder rates?

That is, a chart that includes the definition of mass murder, how many instances of mass murders, how many fatalities at each instance, and how many non-fatal casualties at each instance?

It would be interesting to compare but I think it would be difficult to quantify since there are so many variables involved. Each mass murder event, even copy cat ones, is an individual circumstance, so they are really hard to compare.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is an organization that collects data specifically related to mass murder. If I found one, I'll post it.
 
Reba said:
Murders by banned weapons only, or murders by all methods? Is there a proven direct cause and effect relationship?
Click to expand...

No but it's not the direct correlation I'm interested in. The point is that Assault Weapon Ban had a specific goal that anti-gunners had in mind and it failed to meet that goal. It produced a mixed result therefore it was a costly failure.
 
CrazyPaul said:
That's a good question. The charts shown in this thread are too general. I notice that most of homicides or multi-homicides (excluding mass murders) are done by handguns so that's why handgun murders are leading. What about suicides? Do they count as murder?
Click to expand...

Don't you ever do some digging on your own? FBI database has tons of information.

2010 Homicides - FBI — Expanded Homicide Data

Look at the right side. There are tons of very specific information that you're looking for.

"Murder Victims by Weapon, 2006–2010" - FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
2010 - "Murder Circumstances by Weapon, 2010" - FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 11
2010 - "Murder, by State, Types of Weapons, 2010" - FBI — Table 20

"Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2006–2010" - FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 15
"Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2006–2010" - FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 14

for suicides - that would be under CDC juridiction so it's at http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/index.html
 
CDC - Twenty Leading Causes of Death - Statistics - Suicide - Violence Prevention - Injury
National Suicide Statistics at a Glance
Twenty Leading Causes of Death Among Persons Ages 10 Years and Older, United States, 2009

f_one.gif


In 2009, suicide was ranked as the 10th leading cause of death among persons ages 10 years and older, accounting for 36,891 deaths.
Click to expand...

and you're wondering how they commit suicide.

CDC - Sex and Mechanism - Statistics - Suicide - Violence Prevention - Injury
National Suicide Statistics at a Glance
Percentage of Suicides Among Persons Ages 10 Years and Older, by Sex and Mechanism, United States, 2005–2009

f_fiftee_.gif


During 2005–2009, the greatest percentage of suicides among males occurred by firearms (56.3%) while the greatest percentage of suicides among females occurred by poisoning (39.3%).
Click to expand...
 
CrazyPaul said:
Thank God that the cops were already there so there was a shootout until he committed suicide. If the cops were not there, more firefighters would die as he was spraying bullets all over.
Click to expand...

spraying? his rifle is not equipped with "spraying" capability.
 
I think we are now dealing a very dangerous consequence of discussing about banning assault weapons or tighter control. As of right now majority of gun sellers is now out of stock with assault rifles, meaning they are now selling like crazy.

Scary! That is why the idea of banning or tighter control is a really really bad idea!

Assault rifles are selling out - Dec. 31, 2012
 
So, suggesting limits on gun sales:

  • is a threat to the American way
  • would leave citizens unprotected from threats foreign & domestic
  • endangers citizens by encouraging gun sales
We can't win for losing, eh?

There might really be something to that last idea. However, we can be assured that those who don't want more guns aren't the ones standing in line at the gun counters.

Let's go back 100 years to when cities began installing traffic signs & signals (link). I mentioned this earlier - accidents actually increased. A study in Philadelphia showed a 40% increase in intersection accidents at newly installed traffic lights. San Francisco traffic engineers claimed that 70% of drivers ignored stop signs. Speed limits were also just being tried. One problem with traffic controls, the engineers said, was that drivers would race from one to another. Drive as fast as they could before they had to slow or stop!

Probably well over half the guns in this country are useful only in shooting pieces of paper and human beings. Vehicles are used for the transportation of people and products. Livelihoods depend on them. Can we say that traffic laws should be dropped? We'd all be safer and society would work better if there were none? There are no future changes in transportation where new controls would make sense?

There have been some things said on this thread that would offend the Canadians, Australians, Japanese, Koreans, English, probably all Europeans. A little more thin-skinned and I, an American, would have been offended. We may as well include the Iraqi. Want to move in this direction?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J77m2Hq4amk"]Traffic in Iraq[/ame]
 
Excellent POV. I am not saying that we should abandon gun control. I think we need to improve on supervision on these ex felony offenders. Just like we have laws that if one kept drinking and drive and gets busted until the point that their driving privileges becomes permanently revoked. We could make law that makes it easier for any police officers run premise inspection when they run into ex felony offender without going though search warrant first, police can not use anything else but firearms. For example cop ran into ex-felony offender, they would execute search only for firearms. If they find something else like a bag of marijuana, can not bring to the court because it has nothing to do with gun. I think we need that law to make sure that these scumbags's hands stay off from firearms and weapons. Perhaps minimum 10 years prison when ex-felony offenders gets their hands caught with firearms.

AdamFencepost said:
So, suggesting limits on gun sales:

  • is a threat to the American way
  • would leave citizens unprotected from threats foreign & domestic
  • endangers citizens by encouraging gun sales
We can't win for losing, eh?

There might really be something to that last idea. However, we can be assured that those who don't want more guns aren't the ones standing in line at the gun counters.

Let's go back 100 years to when cities began installing traffic signs & signals (link). I mentioned this earlier - accidents actually increased. A study in Philadelphia showed a 40% increase in intersection accidents at newly installed traffic lights. San Francisco traffic engineers claimed that 70% of drivers ignored stop signs. Speed limits were also just being tried. One problem with traffic controls, the engineers said, was that drivers would race from one to another. Drive as fast as they could before they had to slow or stop!

Probably well over half the guns in this country are useful only in shooting pieces of paper and human beings. Vehicles are used for the transportation of people and products. Livelihoods depend on them. Can we say that traffic laws should be dropped? We'd all be safer and society would work better if there were none? There are no future changes in transportation where new controls would make sense?

There have been some things said on this thread that would offend the Canadians, Australians, Japanese, Koreans, English, probably all Europeans. A little more thin-skinned and I, an American, would have been offended. We may as well include the Iraqi. Want to move in this direction?

Traffic in Iraq
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Excellent POV. I am not saying that we should abandon gun control. I think we need to improve on supervision on these ex felony offenders. Just like we have laws that if one kept drinking and drive and gets busted until the point that their driving privileges becomes permanently revoked. We could make law that makes it easier for any police officers run premise inspection when they run into ex felony offender without going though search warrant first, police can not use anything else but firearms. For example cop ran into ex-felony offender, they would execute search only for firearms. If they find something else like a bag of marijuana, can not bring to the court because it has nothing to do with gun. I think we need that law to make sure that these scumbags's hands stay off from firearms and weapons. Perhaps minimum 10 years prison when ex-felony offenders gets their hands caught with firearms.
Click to expand...
What's up with all that fucking shit talk? Columbine shooters were not ex-con. Aurora shooter was not ex-con. Sandy Hook killer was not ex-con.
 
Marine to senator: 'No ma'am,' I won't register my guns - CNN.com
(CNN) -- It started off as a letter, but for former Marine Joshua Boston it was more than that. It was about his freedom.

The Afghanistan veteran wrote an open letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, saying that he would not register his weapons with the government even if a ban on assault weapons is passed. The letter started on CNN iReport and gained mass attention online, obtaining a quarter-million views as of Friday evening and appearing on several other news outlets.

Boston said he was inspired to send in the iReport because he felt as though some gun owners were being unfairly targeted. He is angered by "the fact that I'm supposed to be punished for doing nothing more than owning a rifle that looks scary because its stock isn't made out of wood," he said.

Feinstein has said she plans to introduce a bill in January that would place a ban on assault weapons. Gun rights legislation gained renewed attention after an armed gunman killed 20 children and six adults in the Newtown school shooting.

The bill aims to revisit a 1994 ban that expired in 2004. The prohibition did not eliminate assault weapons, but restricted their features, limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and regulating pistol grips, bayonet attachments and flash suppressors.

Boston said he served in Afghanistan twice and Iraq twice between 2004 and 2011. Although no longer serving in the military, the 26-year-old said he still owns guns and believes the government does not need to know what guns he owns; he believes weapons registration would lead to confiscation.

Many of the people who posted the more than 1,400 passionate comments about the letter said they agreed with Boston. Both pro- and anti-gun supporters weighed in on the idea of registering weapons in the United States and the use of assault weapons.

"I, like you am a former Marine corporal and I support you 110%," wrote CNN iReport user TMuttDaddy. "It's nobody's business how many guns I own. I also support restoring the gun ownership right for felons. Provided the crime was nonviolent and not repeat offenders. I do think we need to address how firearms are stored and secured. We need to require owners to secure their weapons in such a way that makes them difficult to steal. I suggest gun safes and trigger locks. We need to do all we can to keep guns off the street."

Str8shot wrote, "This is absolutely the best response to the attack on civilian gun ownership that I've seen in some time." "I'd stand, proudly, with this man in preserving our rights. He clearly understood his pledge to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and sounds like he'll do it. I'm right there with him!"

Despite the number of mass shootings in the United States in 2012, Boston said he believes the laws already set in place for gun control are plenty. He adds that more laws will simply remove a means of defense for people.

"I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind's shortcomings instead of pretending like they don't exist," Boston wrote. "There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family."

But many commenters disagreed with Boston's take.

"I respect gun usage to a point when they are use (sic) with respect and with common sense," wrote iReporter RindaLynn.

"Guns do not save people. People choosing not to use guns save people," RindaLynn added.

YankCT highlighted the value of Boston's military contributions even while disagreeing with his views.

"Ms. Feinstein is an elected official who was selected by voters to represent their interests in a governing body," YankCT wrote. "She has the authority and responsibility to do just that until the people whom she represents decide otherwise through their votes. This gentleman believes that he is above the law. This is untrue; in fact, my guess is that he swore to defend the country and respect its laws when he entered the Marines."

At points in his letter, Boston addresses the senator directly:

"I am not your subject," he writes. "I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant."

In response to Boston's letter, Feinstein released this statement:

"Senator Feinstein respects Cpl. Boston's service. She has heard from thousands of people -- including many gun owners -- who support her plan to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds. As Senator Feinstein has said, the legislation will be carefully focused to protect the rights of existing gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes."

A reader called freddieman said he was inspired to send his own senators a message. He said he is a veteran and comes from a military family.

"I will not lose my rights because those who do not follow the laws and freedoms of this land choose not to follow," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Update from CNN about other Marine
Gun worshiping Marine veteran an embarrassment to those who've served - CNN iReport

My father told me, if any new law passes that require gun owners to register so they better to enforce the law, rather than getting felony on their record for not register, however if anyone don't agree with law so they can fight in the court, prior to effective date, if not put on hold so just continue to follow the law until the court strike it down.

Never ignore any laws, until the court order otherwise.
 
Foxrac said:
Update from CNN about other Marine
Gun worshiping Marine veteran an embarrassment to those who've served - CNN iReport

My father told me, if any new law passes that require gun owners to register so they better to enforce the law, rather than getting felony on their record for not register, however if anyone don't agree with law so they can fight in the court, prior to effective date, if not put on hold so just continue to follow the law until the court strike it down.

Never ignore any laws, until the court order otherwise.
Click to expand...

oh boy... he took it too literally and so seriously. he completely missed the point. :roll:
 
Back
Top