|
0 members (),
3
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,089
Posts313,787
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
Does that mean that you agree that magazine limitations are an appropriate counter to mass shootings? No, of course not. But whyever not? Can you please provide any kind of a rational, legal, logical, historical basis for opposition? I just don't accept "because I say so" as any of the above. Is it not empirically demonstrable that fewer rounds will result in fewer bodies? How many people, off-hand, can be killed with a 6-shot revolver without reloading? How else does one limit the massiveness of mass shootings. Let's see, how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed intervention - before they became "mass"? .... In other words... you can't identify any? Off the top of my head let's recall a few mass shootings: Newton, Va. Tech, Aurora. What did they have in common? Gun possession was illegal! People who were obeying the law were harmed by people who didn't give a fat rat's ass about the law. I'm sorry, Mickey, but one is not entitled to simply make things up, and call them "facts." Generally citations are required for such claims. In none of those situations, none, was the possession of the guns illegal: Guns used in Newtown school shooting legally purchased by suspect's mother; Virginia Tech killer acquired his weapons legally; Colorado Theater Shooter Carried 4 Guns, All Obtained Legally. Nor is there any evidence that existing law contributed to the result of the shooting sprees. With a few exceptions, mass shootings occur in locations that are soft targets. Soft targets are locations where the shooter is not likely to meet any armed resistance. Soft targets usually proclaim themselves to be such. They even put signs on their doors. THAT is where mass shootings occur. Again, any support... any, for that broad-based assertions? Any empirical studies? Any statistical surveys? Any references whatsoever? I suspect not, because it is not true. What is true is that massacres occur where there are lots of people. That's a huge surprise, isn't it? Oh, and mass killings also require lots of bullets. I'll wait for an answer (but I don't really expect one). Your question was a shameful attempt to set me up. Oh? How so? Because you don't have an answer? Because the answer is.... 0? Let's see, what was the question again? "how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed intervention - before they became "mass"?" That is a trick question? How is that a set up, again? When armed individual stops a bad guy before he shoots people how would you know how many people that bad guy would have shot? Oh, it is reported but if it doesn't involve lots of blood, disabled children, or scandalous sex it won't lead even locally. Nationally, we'd rarely hear about it. Again, there isn't going to be too much to report if not much happened. Waitaminute, waitaminute, waitaminute. It is apparently possible to dredge up a local story about a minor incident to start a thread about how a single gun owner stopped a madman with a knife, but it's not possible to find any stories where a gun wielder stopped another gun wielder from shooting up a crowd? You can't possibly be serious. You didn't even use an emoticon to show you were just kidding? Would a magazine-size limitation have changed this situation? No. Well, gosh, this was the situation you brought up for discussion. OK, so I'll broaden the question: In any such situation? Ever? Would a registration scheme? Yes, it could. If the good samaritan had had the opportunity to inherit the gun from his grandfather or his dad, it would have been difficult under gun registration. He may not have had the gun in that instance. But, no matter. Gun registration is not going to stop bad guys from owning guns. Really, Micky, can't you even try? Yes, gun registration has stopped hundreds of thousands of felons and other prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. For example in 2010 alone 72,000 felons and other prohibited persons were denied gun transfers, in over 6 million registered transactions. Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010 - Ronald J. Frandsen, via ncjrs.gov. Damn those facts, they just get in the way of a good argument. Now, do some criminals still obtain weapons? Of course they do. And some shoot people, and rob people, and commit other crimes, even though that is illegal too! So for god's sake, let's just eliminate all laws, because, of course, they don't stop criminals from being criminals. Criminy.The remaining questions you ask do not apply to the brandishing of a weapon as occurred in the OP. Let's keep apples with apples, shall we? OMG, Mickey, I truly do not believe that you even know what an apple is.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
this is important as it forces criminals to acquire their weaponry from illegal sources ... do you see where I am going with this? no? ... ok ... it becomes a case of attrition .... as illegal sources are gradually put out of business, criminals would no longer be able to acquire weapons ... Yes, Slipped, and for a concrete real-world example look at how laws against illegal use of drugs have forced users to seek out illegal sources, resulting in the attrition of these sources, until acquiring drugs illegally is no longer ...er ... uh ... umm ... feasible. :-)
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226 |
Here is yet another story where a legal gun owner stops a mad bastard from harming more people and possibly killing someone. I think a near consensus is forming, Slipped, that the honorable and socially responsible thing for this citizen to have done would have been to either 1) put his gun away and bear-hug the guy into surrendering, or even better 2) give the knife-wielding fellow his gun and then bear-hug him into surrendering. He would then be looked upon more favorably regardless of the outcome.  LOL! Maybe tossing a fifteen and half ounce can of English peas at the attacker, throwing your hands in the air and waiting for the attacker to shoot everyone else while waiting 12 minutes for the police to arrive is a preferred option. I'd rather sit that one out.
____________________
You, you and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,972 Likes: 116
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,972 Likes: 116 |
hmmm ... i guess you didn't notice the comparisons are not appropriate ... no, don't understand ... what if you do some thinking and figure it out for yourself ... i just simply do not have the time to do your thinking for you ...
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Save America - Lock Trump Up!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226 |
Interestingly, most mass shootings (NEIS*), are stopped by unarmed bystanders.
*NEIS - not ending in suicide. Well, yeah, after masses have been shot. Throw a human wave a one or two people with guns and the chances are sooner or later they'll be overwhelmed. I have no interest in being part of the human wave. So Plan A is to stand there and get shot while hoping the shooter shoots everyone but you? Mickey So this guy was clearly deranged Would you say this circumstance is the most likely sort of reason that requires citizens to carry guns in public? Or if not the most likely need to carry, this reason in and of itself still is adequate justification to have citizens armed? Ardy, Who knows, maybe the grocery store refused to refund the guy for a carton of bad eggs. Shìt sets people off these days. I would prefer these people stab themselves in the eyes with a grapefruit spoon, but that doesn't appear to be an option. Would the situation in the OP be justification to carry a gun? If your significant other or family member or friend was being gutted with a steak knife would you welcome someone with a gun who could stop the attack, or would you politely refuse the assistance? When faced with this kind of situation damn near everyone is going to welcome someone with a gun to intercede. I don't recall ever reading where a victim shouted to a good samaritan with a gun, "No! Please use a non-violent method to make the attacker stop." I suppose given the choice between having someone with a gun respond would be your choice over having someone calmly ask the attacker to stop it.
____________________
You, you and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226 |
Does that mean that you agree that magazine limitations are an appropriate counter to mass shootings? No, of course not. But whyever not? Can you please provide any kind of a rational, legal, logical, historical basis for opposition? I just don't accept "because I say so" as any of the above. Is it not empirically demonstrable that fewer rounds will result in fewer bodies? How many people, off-hand, can be killed with a 6-shot revolver without reloading? Oh, please.  What is the situation? What is the environment? How many people are involved? What is the experience of the defender? What is the caliber of the defender's gun? What type of round? What time of day? What is the distance of the defender to the attacker? In other words... you can't identify any? Actually, I can. I'm sorry, Mickey, but one is not entitled to simply make things up, and call them "facts." Generally citations are required for such claims. You are saying that guns WERE permitted in situations I provided? That is not correct. Take a deep breath there, NW. In your haste you did not clearly read my post. It was illegal to posses a gun in the above locations. Law abiding citizens were thus unarmed, the criminals were not. Again, any support... any, for that broad-based assertions? Uh, yeah. Local and state laws. You seem to think that there was no law preventing Lanza from entering a school zone with weapons or that there wasn't a local ordinance that made possession of guns in the Aurora theater illegal. Any empirical studies? Any statistical surveys? Any references whatsoever? LOL! You got me there, NW. No doubt there have been many mass killings on ranches in East Jesus, Idaho. We just haven't read the research on them. I can't count the number of mass murders that have occurred at the mall just up the road in Nowhere, Arizona. I promise you this, as soon as I can find research on mass killings that never happened in places where there are no masses I'll damn sure post them. I trust you'll do the same. I suspect not, because it is not true. What is true is that massacres occur where there are lots of people. That's a huge surprise, isn't it? Oh, and mass killings also require lots of bullets. Police stations and gun ranges? I don't know that you've ever been to either, but I have. They are full of people. Oh? How so? Because you don't have an answer? Because the answer is.... 0? Let's see, what was the question again? "how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed intervention - before they became "mass"?" That is a trick question? How is that a set up, again? When did I stop beating my wife? When armed individual stops a bad guy before he shoots people how would you know how many people that bad guy would have shot? Oh, it is reported but if it doesn't involve lots of blood, disabled children, or scandalous sex it won't lead even locally. Nationally, we'd rarely hear about it. Again, there isn't going to be too much to report if not much happened. Waitaminute, waitaminute, waitaminute. It is apparently possible to dredge up a local story about a minor incident to start a thread about how a single gun owner stopped a madman with a knife, but it's not possible to find any stories where a gun wielder stopped another gun wielder from shooting up a crowd? You can't possibly be serious. You didn't even use an emoticon to show you were just kidding? Testy, testy there, NW. I meditate daily, sometimes twice a day. Over time it has done wonders in helping me identify and control my anger. Have you ever tried meditation? Are bad people with guns prevented from committing acts of violence by good people with guns? Sure. It happens frequently. I'm going to take a wild guess here, but if the bad guys were not successful in killing people it would be damned difficult to count the number of people that the bad guy didn't kill but would have if the bad guy could have. Maybe cops should ask the bad guys to be honest and 'fess up about what they didn't do. Would a magazine-size limitation have changed this situation? No. Well, gosh, this was the situation you brought up for discussion. OK, so I'll broaden the question: In any such situation? Ever? Naaa, never. That's why cops only carry a six round mag. Would a registration scheme? Really, Micky, can't you even try? Yes, gun registration has stopped hundreds of thousands of felons and other prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. For example in 2010 alone 72,000 felons and other prohibited persons were denied gun transfers, in over 6 million registered transactions. I'll hold my comment. The link works but the page is unavailable. OMG, Mickey, I truly do not believe that you even know what an apple is. I know sour apples when I see them. 
____________________
You, you and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226 |
Gun registration is not going to stop bad guys from owning guns Your statement is true, but only superficially There are a couple of ways your statement is irrelevant 1. you have used registration as deterrence ... the reality is no law acts as a deterrent to any crime otherwise we would have no crime 2. laws are enacted for two purposes ... to define what is acceptable behavior and define punishment for failure to comply with that acceptable behavior 3. registration is no way prevents you as a "responsible" citizen from buying a weapon but it does, if properly implemented, prevent criminals from legally acquiring weapons this is important as it forces criminals to acquire their weaponry from illegal sources ... do you see where I am going with this? no? ... ok ... it becomes a case of attrition .... as illegal sources are gradually put out of business, criminals would no longer be able to acquire weapons (of course this is the idealistic version and I am sure you have all manner of situational problems which have not been answered in the above but perhaps if you apply the general rules, you can answer those questions yourself) It is illegal to own guns in Mexico. How's that working out?
____________________
You, you and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,226 |
mass shootings occur in locations that are soft targets
my response ... what you are suggesting is unstable people have enough presence of mind to not only concoct a plan but include only "soft" targets. I will counter with the suggestion this may be pure coincidence as I suspect an unstable person does not have the mental discipline to devise a well constructed plan. That's a stretch, mate. Police stations are full of people, military bases are as well, so are gun ranges. Yes, probably there has been a shootout at a police station, but they are rare. Mass murder? Not that I know of. There was the unfortunate incident at Ft. Hood, but again, it was a rare occurrence. I do recall where there was a woman who went bat shìt at a gun range and shot a couple of people. Gun ranges are usually full of people. As to having the presence of mind to select a soft target, yes, I think that happens to be the case most of the time. Also, it seems that the courts often find the killers competent to stand trial. [quote]I propose a study: 1. Arm all mentally unstable folks with an appropriate attack package i.e. at your discretion of course but please include at least one semi auto rifle with extra large magazines and at least one large capacity semi automatic pistol, and of course plenty of ammo 2. Allow participants to devise heir horrendous plans and not interfere in any manner prior to the execution of said plan and then only in the ordinary manner 3. Run this study for 100 years 4. analyze data I predict the results will show that the perpetrators will only select sites with large number of targets, irrelevant to site, gun status If you get the grant for the study, I wish you the best of luck. Might I suggest you conduct your research in Syria where it is against the law for civilians to posses military rifles of any kind, even single shot. Handgun possession is also strictly prohibited to licensed individuals only. The controlled environment in Syria should make your research fairly manageable.
____________________
You, you and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
Wow, Mick, a very long post, and not a single citation to support a single assertion. Yes, I meditate, and I am not personally angry at all. I am rhetorically frustrated because, despite a plethora of words, not a single substantiation is provided.
For example, you assert that it was illegal to possess a firearm in in an Aurora theater. It would, I suspect, a matter of moments to look up and supply an ordinance to that effect. My suspicion is it wasn't done because... no such ordinance exists. There is an article about an a**hole who was arrested following the shooting for wearing a weapon in the theater the week after the massacre. It was explicitly pointed out by police that concealed weapons were not prohibited in Aurora, at that time. He was arrested for creating a public spectacle by displaying it. (I cannot link to the article on this device.)
I noticed that a number of obvious counter-examples were notably elided. In Tucson, where open carry is downright expected, an unarmed civilian stopped the carnage and no armed citizens intervened. Loughner used a 30-round extended magazine. At Columbine an armed officer exchanged gunfire with the perps but was unable to stop the carnage. My point is that the assertions are simply without substance and unsupported by little things we like to call facts, and citations.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,972 Likes: 116
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,972 Likes: 116 |
It is illegal to own guns in Mexico A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Mexico and that no person may possess them wiki hmmm
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Save America - Lock Trump Up!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
