Another mass murder shooting, this time in DC

[Eric_8]

All gun violence is planned? Ah bon?

What's the proof that 95% of gun owners are law-abiding? How do you arrive so swiftly and elegantly at a such a statistic? Yes, every gun owner's character is checked out by the government, or some moral authority per annum?

There is none that I know of, thus why I said O'Reilly is NOT necessarily correct with that number. He might be, but I have no reason to believe it to be the case.

What I found distasteful about your post was not critiquing O'Reilly's stat, but your "proof" that it's incorrect because of the "white trash rednecks threaten[ing] people with their big ole' guns every day."

If you find nothing wrong and/or ignorant (I can't say bigoted, you being a fat white man and al l) with that statement, you only confirm my initial response.

 

[Drifterwood]

I believe every citizen is required to own and is trained with a firearm in Switzerland. What is their murder rate? Awfully low isn't it? Gun violence is a cultural problem.

You must have missed this. Swiss Killings Raise Pressure for Stricter Gun-Control Laws - Bloomberg

But yes, there is also a cultural difference and it is not all citizens who have guns.

 

[vince]

With you living in the UK, surely you must know that it is a bit more complicated... in 1997 Britain forced civilians to surrender their weapons and by February of 1998 all but 8 of the legally owned handguns in Britain were accounted for. With only eight guns in the country, gun crime must have gone down, right? In the decade following this surrender of guns, gun crime actually rose 89%. Much like the days of prohibition in the US, gangs or organized crime is on the rise in Britain.

You should provide some research to backup your claims.

This site, Gun Policy Facts and News, lets the user compare statistics regarding gun ownership, regulations, and usage. For the UK, in the period 1996-2011, they show a 50% drop in total gun deaths, 45% drop in gun homicides, 50% drop in gun suicides, and so on.

The corresponding time period in the USA all show increasing rates in the same categories.

In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population in 2011- 0.237

In the USA the annual gun deaths per 100,000 people was 10.3. That is 434 times higher than the UK rate.

 

[Klingsor]

Did I say that? I asked him questions regarding the content of his posts, the logic of which I strongly disagree with.

Perhaps it wasn't fair to direct my remark at you. I just grow disheartened by Americans' general unwillingness to learn from other nations. We're much more apt to point to their failures than to profit from their successes.

 

[NCGUY1972]

Im sorry but the NRA has absolutely nothing to do with a nutcase that goes out and shoots people. This is yet another example of system failure. The guy had a police record and was currently undergoing phyciatric treatment. He should not have had access to the guns or the base. On a side not this is another shooting in a location where people like me cannot carry guns. I will not go anywhere I cannot carry my gun legally otherwise I am giving up the ability to protect my family.

I shoot competitively and LOVE my guns. All my kids and my wife shoot as well. I am all for stricter laws if they actually help. I do not condone anyone that illegally owns, sells or otherwise a firearm.

 

[Klingsor]

I will not go anywhere I cannot carry my gun legally otherwise I am giving up the ability to protect my family.

You take your family with you everywhere you go?

 

[Eric_8]

Criminals obtain their firearms through illegal ways,which any idiot knows is nigh-on impossoible to illiminate.Anyone caught owning an illegal firearm can expect a prison sentence.
I've lived in London most of my life and never met ANYONE who owns a gun,because 95% of us don't own guns....in other words we don't have the 'culture' of guns you have in the US.Even our police aren't armed.That's how we like it.

Again, I ask why is the answer entirely disarming law abiding citizens? You yourself are saying that people who wish to obtain weapons will obtain weapons.

In regards to police being disarmed, I would ask you to google "North Hollywood shootout" to see the genius of that idea. While not disarmed, they were entirely outgunned.

What I'm trying to understand is how taking guns away from the law abiding citizens would help to prevent this? Using your logic, this guy was entirely likely to obtain a weapon. Yes, he would have eventually received a prison sentence had he survived yesterday's events, but he didn't. He committed his violence, and then he died. The looming specter of prison meant nothing.

Like many places in the world, we have a culture of violence, not a culture of guns. Let's say that guns simply disappeared and the attacker used other weapons and only killed 6...do we consider that a victory or proof that gun bans work?

How about instead of trying to minimize damage, we try to address and combat the underlying problems? Crazy notion, I know, but that's what I'm thinking is the proper course of action...in addition to truly common sense gun control legislation. In other words, not the stuff Diane Feinstein and Joey B are throwing out there.

 

[Drifterwood]

Are you asking if I believe it should be legal?

For the record, I'm not opposed to certain background checks. While it would technically be infringing upon our privacy, I think it would be in the best overall interest of the country and its citizens.

If I sell you dangerous drugs you probably only kill yourself, but if I sell you a gun the death's are murder victims. It is therefore logical that selling guns is less moral than selling drugs.

Just a thought.

 

[Eric_8]

Perhaps it wasn't fair to direct my remark at you. I just grow disheartened by Americans' general unwillingness to learn from other nations. We're much more apt to point to their failures than to profit from their successes.

Of course it was unfair, rather rash too, but that's fine. I was not attempting to shut down discussion of other ideas, but I cannot accept the idea that gun bans work because only criminals and drug dealers obtain them.

For me, that's a ringing endorsement to not ban guns.

 

[Eric_8]

If I sell you dangerous drugs you probably only kill yourself, but if I sell you a gun the death's are murder victims. It is therefore logical that selling guns is less moral than selling drugs.

Just a thought.

Only if I abide your morbid comparison and purchase a gun with the intent of killing people. Barring a truly fantastic (please don't misinterpret the word) change of heart and mind, that's not going to happen.

I will grant you that you raise a reasonable point for gun reform (background checks, safety classes, or what have you), but banning particular guns? I think not.

 

[superbot]

Again, I ask why is the answer entirely disarming law abiding citizens? You yourself are saying that people who wish to obtain weapons will obtain weapons.

In regards to police being disarmed, I would ask you to google "North Hollywood shootout" to see the genius of that idea. While not disarmed, they were entirely outgunned.

What I'm trying to understand is how taking guns away from the law abiding citizens would help to prevent this? Using your logic, this guy was entirely likely to obtain a weapon. Yes, he would have eventually received a prison sentence had he survived yesterday's events, but he didn't. He committed his violence, and then he died. The looming specter of prison meant nothing.

Like many places in the world, we have a culture of violence, not a culture of guns. Let's say that guns simply disappeared and the attacker used other weapons and only killed 6...do we consider that a victory or proof that gun bans work?

How about instead of trying to minimize damage, we try to address and combat the underlying problems? Crazy notion, I know, but that's what I'm thinking is the proper course of action...in addition to truly common sense gun control legislation. In other words, not the stuff Diane Feinstein and Joey B are throwing out there.

In other words you say do nothing and keep the status quo??
Why would "..law abiding citizens" even want to own guns if you had laws that could be brought in that would severely limit the numbers of guns in circulation? The one would cancel the other out.
You cannot have a country awash with with guns and 'hope' that these crazies don't get their hands on these weapons,you've got to have legislation that PHYSICALLY limits them having access to them in the first place....it's not rocket science.

 

[Drifterwood]

Again, I ask why is the answer entirely disarming law abiding citizens? You yourself are saying that people who wish to obtain weapons will obtain weapons.

This is where the gun lobby is disingenuous. I have quite a lot of guns here in the UK. I just have to jump through a lot of hoops and convince our senior police that I pose a minimal risk to other people.

Of course, we can still get it wrong. But given that your gun owners both legal and illegal kill nearly forty times as many as ours, would suggest that our checks and rules work quite well. Of course, the gun industry doesn't make $Billions here, but hey... What's a life worth?

 

[Eric_8]

In other words you say do nothing and keep the status quo??
Why would "..law abiding citizens" even want to own guns if you had laws that could be brought in that would severely limit the numbers of guns in circulation? The one would cancel the other out.
You cannot have a country awash with with guns and 'hope' that these crazies don't get their hands on these weapons,you've got to have legislation that PHYSICALLY limits them having access to them in the first place....it's not rocket science.

To steal a line Hillary, what difference does it make? You're right, law abiding citizens would not want to own guns if we had laws that would severely limit the number in circulation. The problem is that they are not the problem.

You've admitted yourself that criminals, drug dealers, and (my addition) people wishing to commit violence will find a way to obtain weapons.

So, what your proposal has left us with is this: people that want guns for pleasure, leisure, and/or self-defense will not have guns. However, drug dealers, criminals, and people wishing to raise hell will find ways to have guns.

Tell me, what have we accomplished using your plan? From what I'm gleaning, the people that pose almost no threat now pose even less of a threat...BUT the people that pose a reasonable and significant threat now pose at the very least an equal threat. What has this accomplished?

I never said do nothing, good try though.

 

[Eric_8]

This is where the gun lobby is disingenuous. I have quite a lot of guns here in the UK. I just have to jump through a lot of hoops and convince our senior police that I pose a minimal risk to other people.

Of course, we can still get it wrong. But given that your gun owners both legal and illegal kill nearly forty times as many as ours, would suggest that our checks and rules work quite well. Of course, the gun industry doesn't make $Billions here, but hey... What's a life worth?

I don't at all disagree that the gun lobby is disingenuous. That said, neither are the moral crusade liberals arguing that banning this gun or that magazine is going to solve these issues. They won't.

As always, there's a middle ground that holds the correct and logical answers. That said, middle ground equals conceding, and conceding is something ain't chill with politickers in the US.

 

[Drifterwood]

You are being naughty Eric.

Criminals can get weapons, but they can't get high performance guns of any kind unless they are the highest of the high type of criminal. Our average drug dealers might get a reworked WWII pistol, not the semi automatic weaponry that your delinquents can get without a second thought.

I can tell you categorically that the price for your lack of control is the loss of innocent life.

The NRA should be honest and say that they are willing to pay that price. I would propose a $100 tax on each gun sold so that the innocent victims can get a public compensation of at least $10 million. Perhaps an ongoing tax on ammunition to cover the public expense of dealing with guns and their aftermath.

 

[superbot]

To steal a line Hillary, what difference does it make? You're right, law abiding citizens would not want to own guns if we had laws that would severely limit the number in circulation. The problem is that they are not the problem.

You've admitted yourself that criminals, drug dealers, and (my addition) people wishing to commit violence will find a way to obtain weapons.

So, what your proposal has left us with is this: people that want guns for pleasure, leisure, and/or self-defense will not have guns. However, drug dealers, criminals, and people wishing to raise hell will find ways to have guns.

Tell me, what have we accomplished using your plan? From what I'm gleaning, the people that pose almost no threat now pose even less of a threat...BUT the people that pose a reasonable and significant threat now pose at the very least an equal threat. What has this accomplished?

I never said do nothing, good try though.

...your arguement makes no sense whatsoever.The number of people in the UK killed by the gun is TINY so clearly something works for us.Your people (and police) are armed to the teeth and yet this killings are increasing not decreasing so clearly your countries 'solutions' aren't working,which is exactly what Obama has already stated.Besides the sort of people that are committing these mass shootings in the US seem to be young and unstable....that would definatley preclude them from owning a gun here in the UK....no ifs or buts.
The criminals who do manage to obtain guns over here is very small,simply because handguns is about the only choice they have limited access to and that's mainly because wanting to own anything such as semi automatic weapons is virtually impossible.You argument of its not the gun its the people who use them is at fault will go round and round and round and round until you realize that the cycle has to be broken.Try thinking society and not individual.

 

[NCGUY1972]

You take your family with you everywhere you go?

What do you think? lol of course not thats why my wife has a gun on her too!

 

[lovinglife]

You should provide some research to backup your claims.

This site, Gun Policy Facts and News, lets the user compare statistics regarding gun ownership, regulations, and usage. For the UK, in the period 1996-2011, they show a 50% drop in total gun deaths, 45% drop in gun homicides, 50% drop in gun suicides, and so on.

The corresponding time period in the USA all show increasing rates in the same categories.

In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population in 2011- 0.237

In the USA the annual gun deaths per 100,000 people was 10.3. That is 434 times higher than the UK rate.

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Mail Online

Simply taking away guns doesnt solve anything. And we have tried a number of things in the US. However, results are mixed because different areas call for different measures.

For example, in Pittsburgh, they had the police adjust their patrolling so that at certain times in certain areas they would patrol 25-50% more. This resulted in 71% lower gun related injuries. More funding for counseling (mental health), closing loopholes for obtaining guns, further education goals. Areas with higher education traditionally have lower gun crime than any other location.

There are so many more options than "TAKE THEM GUNS AWAY" that are far more effective. Even without guns though, there are still issues with violence. There have been a lot of stabbings in Houston as of late, sadly.

 

[Eric_8]

FBI Confirms: No Indication AR-15 Was Used in Navy Yard Shooting | TheBlaze.com

For the first time in ever, I will be watching the Piers Morgan show to see if he issues a mea culpa.

 

[Klingsor]

You take your family with you everywhere you go?

What do you think? lol of course not thats why my wife has a gun on her too!

And what about your kids? Neither you nor your wife can be with them twenty-four/seven. Surely you arm them as well?

My God, won't someone please think of the children???