What exactly are you referring to because this bill is actually a step backward. And its going to have much greater implications then you can imagine if it is enacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
|
What exactly are you referring to because this bill is actually a step backward. And its going to have much greater implications then you can imagine if it is enacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What should be done about the psychos who want to kill as many as they can?
Treat them as such. This was an isolated incident in a gun restricted zone. There is no doubt the guy was a nutjob. Had more people had a clue earlier on the whole thing would have been avoided. The drawings they found "after" the shooting indicate this was a disturbed person. But the person that was in charge of looking at it didn't bother until after it happened. Had the system been proactive it may have been prevented.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
How many rounds of ammo do you really think it takes to kill someone? So its not really about that. Its about restricting the recreational shooter who participates in events or wants to target shoot to maintain a good site picture from doing what is best.
If you restrict owners from being able to practice at will then what your really doing is endangering innocent lives. To me that's a bad call anyday. A responsible gun owner knows and should be familier with the weapon they are going to shoot. A crisis is never a good time to learn something new.
But what about his rights? He had no priors. What could his therapist have done?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
There is a fine line when dealing with the rights of the mentally unstable. Had the therapist put him under watch for a 72 hr period then his name may have made it into the system and he wouldn't be buying guns (atleast in the usual legal manner) and that may have ended the cycle by getting him the help before he had done the deed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I thought he had been stockpiling guns and ammo for months before this, so the system wouldn't have caught him in a 72-hour watch (unless they would have searched his apartment). And the mentally ill are very convincing liars and very devious cons.
Heard Professor Richard Epstein of NYU law yesterday . He said that prohibitions on firearms will shift the ratio of guns held in lawful and unlawful hands to favor the latter. Potential criminals, knowing that they are less likely to meet armed resistance will, on average, be more willing to commit violent offenses.
Tom these arguments aren't borne out in reality. I live in a society where gun ownership is not the norm, yes there is a criminal element, not local but recent immigrant who display what we consider to be an extraordinary tendency to violence and gun usage, however they harm each other and rarely the ordinary citizen who go about their daily business without being confronted by criminals with guns. The reasons behind their crime is not the availability of guns in the community but the trauma of war and displacement and the result of gun violence. What is apparent from the american experience is that the higher level of gun availability has lead to a greater perpensity for violence which inevietably leads to greater usage of guns in crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A mature society doesn't need gun ownership to solve its problems
So your trying to say no one noticed this persons condition at any time and he never raised any red flags the whole time he was planning things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57480221/police-find-disturbing-mail-from-colo-suspect/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
.Quote:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
Laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
Where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
Data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
Appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
Deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
To identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
Not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates
http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/...un-buyback.pdf
: Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect - TIMEQuote:
under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) these were all but banned. At huge cost, the government bought from their owners some 650,000 of the newly prohibited guns, which police destroyed. It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996.
But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, you know what is going to happen when it comes to the end of this discussion?
It will go very badly for you.
Tut
Don't worry Tut some people like to trot out selective statistics, but I wonder has anyone corrolated gun crime in Australia with the arrival of certain ethnic groups from war torn countries, such as Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Vietnam. If you observe the detail of reports on violent crime and drugs you find a predominance of such peoples. I agree criminals will find and use weapons one way or another, but that is no reason why we should allow vigilantism in our society. For the vast majority of our population, violent crime is something that happens to someoneelse, I wonder if the americans can say the same and with more than 2% of their population incarcerated I think we could say their experiement has failedQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Oh I see... in this case using culture as a definer is perfectly acceptable. If that is the determining factor then I'd have to say there is no homgeniousness here .
I'm confronted with that all the time. Like when some try to prove that banning guns will prevent gun crimes .Quote:
Don't worry Tut some people like to trot out selective statistics,
You call it vigilantism .I call it the right to self defense. Law abiding people will of course register and or hand in gun when compelled by the state... the predatory criminal is a different story.Quote:
I agree criminals will find and use weapons one way or another, but that is no reason why we should allow vigilantism in our society.
Here is a stat. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the US .It also has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
All guns should be destroyed and plastic butter knives handed out to anyone who wants a weapon. And women should be in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The true nanny stateQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And the men will live longer and be healthier for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I doubt it, men do not flourish in a feminine bureaucracyQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Not to worry. We have a plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And a diabolical plan it is too, however we will not be slavesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again, Carol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
This plan?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 PM. |