Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[LegendKiller]

I humbly, but thoroughly, disagree. One small case in point: The guy who used to live next to me used to pop off rounds in his back yard, which was technically illegal. I have 3 and 1/2 acres, a stream and forest beyond it in back, and a big 'ol former farm on the other side from Plinky McPlinker. Yet, no home target practice for me.

LK, it becomes more lethal just to be a pedestrian or a cyclist in high density areas.



Grammatic irony!

Sure, target practice and bystander affect comes into play, but that doesn't mean you should be disarmed. If anything it encourages more poor behavior. Look at NYC, without a strong and pervasive police force you're left with a shithole. Criminals know weakness and they flock to it.

My neighborhood has had a lot of break-ins recently. It's a very nice neighborhood, surrounded by even nicer neighborhoods. We were talking to the cops about it 2 nights ago while arranging a neighborhood watch. They said one pattern they are seeing in all of the breakins is that they are targeting Indians and Asians almost exclusively because gun ownership is relatively low.

 

[Perknose]

Sure, target practice and bystander affect comes into play, but that doesn't mean you should be disarmed.

Whoa, who said anything about being disarmed? I sure didn't (brushes the flung straw off while murmuring something about goalposts, and the possible surreptitious movement thereof. )

You said, and I quote, "As far as high density and guns, there is no problem with it."

No problem? Again, I disagree. There are several problems. Hell, you even listed a couple yourself.

 

[LegendKiller]

Whoa, who said anything about being disarmed? I sure didn't (brushes the flung straw off while murmuring something about goalposts, and the possible surreptitious movement thereof. )

You said, and I quote, "As far as high density and guns, there is no problem with it."

No problem? Again, I disagree. There are several problems. Hell, you even listed a couple yourself.

I meant general Constitutional rights, which was responding to the post above.

ohhh, it's a slippery slope. You can absolutely tell how this'll go. They'll ban "assault weapons", like they did before, which won't ban AR-like rifles, at all. Then somebody like the VA tech guy will come around with a .22 and a 9mm and take down 32+ people, then it'll be ban semi-autos. Then some guy with a bolt action will start killing people, then it'll be take those away. Then you'll have knifings, like in NYC, then it'll be ban knives.

They won't be satisfied until anybody wanting to protect themselves is protected by the state and only the state.

It's interesting when you talk to liberals about it, especially hard core ones that live in NYC or the greater Chicago area. The mere concept of self-defense is so foreign to them that anybody who would think about doing it is a cretin. They sputter and splutter about, refusing to accept that by the time the cops get there it is far too late.

I faced down two guys that were likely going to rape a woman with nothing more than a 9" kitchen knife. Luckily I had 5"+ on each one and they knew the cops would get there sooner rather than later. But it's not a position I'd prefer to be in again. My boss' husband, who is a detective, said it wasn't the smartest thing to do but was glad I did it. What else was I to do? If I had a gun it wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[Artdeco]

Whoa, who said anything about being disarmed? I sure didn't (brushes the flung straw off while murmuring something about goalposts, and the possible surreptitious movement thereof. )

You said, and I quote, "As far as high density and guns, there is no problem with it."

No problem? Again, I disagree. There are several problems. Hell, you even listed a couple yourself.

Well, one could argue your neighbor wasn't a responsible law abiding gun owner, we both know you could have asked law enforcement to slow him down.

As far as population dense areas, they've already enacted laws that are enforced after the fact, and turned once again many formerly law abiding citizens into criminals.

Look, I think the loss of a single human life is a horrible thing, but a knee jerk reaction isn't going to help, our country has benefitted from its visionary leaders, let's all take a deep breath before we allow terrorists to make us run like scared children to amend our constitution.

The FBI says when a legally armed citizen intervenes in an active shooter situation, there are typically 2 deaths versus 16 with no citizen intervention.

Plus, WTF people, look at the numbers, it's handguns that are killing people at a near exponential number more than long guns.

 

[MongGrel]

Awe, poor baby. Don't like being called out on your statistical ignorance? Bring your best without getting banned. You can't. But try.

Silly troll. Stats are always easily manipulated depending on how they are leveraged to begin with.

 

[LegendKiller]

Silly troll. Stats are always easily manipulated depending on how they are leveraged to begin with.

So you think suicides should be included in a discussion about the "national crisis" of firearm deaths?

Why?

 

[SlowSpyder]

So you think suicides should be included in a discussion about the "national crisis" of firearm deaths?

Why?

Because it inflates the numbers.

 

[Strk]

Well, one could argue your neighbor wasn't a responsible law abiding gun owner, we both know you could have asked law enforcement to slow him down.

As far as population dense areas, they've already enacted laws that are enforced after the fact, and turned once again many formerly law abiding citizens into criminals.

Look, I think the loss of a single human life is a horrible thing, but a knee jerk reaction isn't going to help, our country has benefitted from its visionary leaders, let's all take a deep breath before we allow terrorists to make us run like scared children to amend our constitution.

The FBI says when a legally armed citizen intervenes in an active shooter situation, there are typically 2 deaths versus 16 with no citizen intervention.

Plus, WTF people, look at the numbers, it's handguns that are killing people at a near exponential number more than long guns.

I'd be curious to see some proof of that one. There's a big difference between what you do at a firing range vs an actual active shooter situation.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wish this was a real president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

 

[trenchfoot]

So I guess it's going to take the federal gov't to institute a nation-wide policy toward universal background checks and more efficient methods of keeping firearms out of the hands of those that "shouldn't have them" (what a marvelously nebulous description that is, isn't it?)

And that can only happen when and if those scary gun-grabbing Democrats get a-hold of all the branches of federal gov't and start their "end-around games" with the laws of the land like how those Repub controlled state governments do with their "blatantly surreptitious" gerrymandering and their voter rights laws and their war against abortion clinics and their war against gay rights.......

Hey, now those ploys really DO work well for the Repubs. I mean look how well they got around Roe v Wade with their tricking the system.

Hmmmm....if the Repubs can so effectively neuter those constitutionally protected rights at the state level.....then I guess the Dems can and should do it vis a vis the 2A at both the state and federal levels of gov't because goose and gander, right?

Damn, I guess the gun rights folks do have cause for their paranoia. What their Repub legislators do can be mimicked in turn by the Dems with the 2A.

But then turn-about is fair play, right? Especially when national demographics are slowly turning in favor of the Dems. Look out America, our nation is going to turn into what most of Western Europe looks like, including and especially so their gun control policies.

The end is nigh.

 

[alcoholbob]

I wish this was a real president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

Well he does touch an important point--the human condition part: the cause of violence and crime. The biggest thing liberals fear is if research leads to genetic causes of violence or crime, because the solution in their minds must be Nazi gas chambers or forced sterilization or some other kind of hysteria. That's why liberals focus primarily in round-about ways to address the issue of violence by banning the tools. Most honest liberals know that banning tools isn't actually an honest way to solve the problem, just like banning cars is not the solution to solving vehicular deaths, but it's the only politically expedient angle to address it without being called a Nazi or a racist. And there aren't many things worse than being called a racist or a Nazi in the West, so if the rights of responsible gun owners have to be sacrificed at the altar, so be it.

 

[Mai72]

Why can't I have an AR15 and an Uzi on each arm?

Why!!!!!!!

 

[Venix]

I'd be curious to see some proof of that one. There's a big difference between what you do at a firing range vs an actual active shooter situation.

Including Orlando, there have only been five US mass shootings with a death toll greater than 14, so I don't see how the claim could possibly be true. It appears to have originated from a politician quoting a blog.

However, the FBI actually has researched active shootings, including the prevalence and impact of armed and unarmed citizen intervention:

The study identified 21 (13.1%) of 160 incidents where unarmed citizens made the selfless and deeply personal choices to face the danger of an active shooter. ... And in 6 other incidents, armed off-duty police officers, citizens, and security guards risked their lives to successfully end the threat. These actions likely saved the lives of students and others present.

It seems obvious that quick intervention will reduce casualties, but I'm not aware of any research that quantifies how often intervention succeeds, how much it reduces casualty count, or the difference in effectiveness between armed and unarmed intervention.

 

[agent00f]

Well he does touch an important point--the human condition part: the cause of violence and crime. The biggest thing liberals fear is if research leads to genetic causes of violence or crime, because the solution in their minds must be Nazi gas chambers or forced sterilization or some other kind of hysteria. That's why liberals focus primarily in round-about ways to address the issue of violence by banning the tools. Most honest liberals know that banning tools isn't actually an honest way to solve the problem, just like banning cars is not the solution to solving vehicular deaths, but it's the only politically expedient angle to address it without being called a Nazi or a racist. And there aren't many things worse than being called a racist or a Nazi in the West, so if the rights of responsible gun owners have to be sacrificed at the altar, so be it.

Real world problems are often complex & thus solutions can likewise operate at multiple levels. Banning/reducing tools is sometimes an effective part of a solution, such as cigarettes in the case of cancer, or nukes in the case of end of human existence.

Other first world countries have gun bans and have correspondingly low gun or similar resulting violence. Unfortunately many americans don't believe that or other effective solutions first world countries use apply to them, presumably because they don't think of their country as the first world or maybe don't know what that means.

 

[DigDog]

it's not just population density in a strict geographical sense.

let's go back to the days of the frontier; you see a guy with his cart about a mile away, there's nothing else around. you could kill him and take everything he has, but maybe you are not going to do that. you're gonna go get yourself some land, grow horses, farm corn, and shoot deer. you'll have freedom and that's all you want.

if i look out of my window, i don't see any deer, or cattle, or hunting game - all i see is buildings and people.
if i want to make a living, it will have to do with interacting with these people, in a way or another.

countries with low density population tend to have less crime for this very reason, a whole subset of crimes depends on having a lot of people nearby; to be a career scammer, forger, guy who steals cars, guy who buys stolen cars, guy who breaks up stolen cars, burglar, drug dealer, cigarette importer, you name it - they rely on having "customers".
when you're on the range, if you only have four neighbors in a 10 mile range, you won't make much out of being a career criminal - you got cattle rustling, murder, and bank robber - that's bout it.

they had nearly no law presence in the old west, you'd think there would be more murder, but no.

it's a mentality that derives from having no opportunities except interacting with people, that causes crime to spike. that's why gun ownership is more problematic in high density areas while it's less of a problem in rural areas.
also, when you live in rural areas, you actually have to shoot thing, be them rabbits eating your garden, or the occasional angry moose.


and besides, we're not perfect .. if anything, we are stupid, irrational animals. waving a gun is like waving a spear is like beating your chest: you're just trying to get the other alpha to stay away from your kids / food / water source .. but if they come closer, you'll have to use it.
the more people waving guns at each other, the more guns get waved, the more guns get used - it's arms race escalation, not something i just made up. it leads to war - surely you should be able to see the parallel that the same on a smaller scale leads to crime
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p.....69i57j0l5.3382j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.



second, having more guns leads .. having free, uncontrolled guns that are seen as toys (not by everyone, but by many) https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=9plmV5fZA43W8Aecso24BA&gws_rd=ssl#q=shoots+himself+selfie
leads to more crime.
you can't just keep ignoring the statistics and their correlations that everyone else in teh world has studied and which have always led to the same conclusion, with subsequent application, and corresponding effect - "reducing guns" reduces crime.

many americans seem tied to the idea that they must preserve the constitution at all costs; that if an article is in it, preserving it is the duty of every citizen.

dude, what you MUST do, is come up with a reasonable set of laws that allows you to live; that's why the constitution was drafted in the first place. because otherwise, "it's written in the constitution" starts to sound a lot like "it's written in the bible".

 

[Artdeco]

DigDog, I do look out my window and see cattle, deer, bunnies.

The population dense cities and states write laws that make those places safer.

 

[alcoholbob]

Real world problems are often complex & thus solutions can likewise operate at multiple levels. Banning/reducing tools is sometimes an effective part of a solution, such as cigarettes in the case of cancer, or nukes in the case of end of human existence.

Other first world countries have gun bans and have correspondingly low gun or similar resulting violence. Unfortunately many americans don't believe that or other effective solutions first world countries use apply to them, presumably because they don't think of their country as the first world or maybe don't know what that means.

Name one country with similar demographics to the United States that has a gun ban that's successful reduced the rate of violent crime.

 

[Carson Dyle]

All semi-automatic firearms should be banned. Period. Won't happen any time soon, but it _will_ happen. Long guns, shotguns, handguns. And it won't impinge on anyone's sacred 2nd Amendment rights.

No BS about stocks, barrel lengths, magazine capacity. ALL semi-automatic weapons. We're already seeing a call for this and the end of the stupid "assault rifle" crap. Just a matter of time.

 

[Artdeco]

All semi-automatic firearms should be banned. Period. Won't happen any time soon, but it _will_ happen. Long guns, shotguns, handguns. And it won't impinge on anyone's sacred 2nd Amendment rights.

No BS about stocks, barrel lengths, magazine capacity. ALL semi-automatic weapons. We're already seeing a call for this and the end of the stupid "assault rifle" crap. Just a matter of time.

Can I keep a revolver?

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

 

[LegendKiller]

All semi-automatic firearms should be banned. Period. Won't happen any time soon, but it _will_ happen. Long guns, shotguns, handguns. And it won't impinge on anyone's sacred 2nd Amendment rights.

No BS about stocks, barrel lengths, magazine capacity. ALL semi-automatic weapons. We're already seeing a call for this and the end of the stupid "assault rifle" crap. Just a matter of time.

Ahh, liberal tolerance.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Can I keep a revolver?

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

You're right. The average person shoots like Jerry Miculek. And if revolvers were the only legal handgun left, more people would simply learn to shoot like that and since someone who wants to kill will always find a way, the hundreds of mass shootings that we normally see will now be conducted by shooters who have the skill to mow down scores of people with a revolver. We would not see any decline in firearm violence because semi-automatic firearm deaths will now be completely replaced by revolver deaths. And if revolvers get banned, people will simply use knives to kill the same amount of people.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Can I keep a revolver?

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

Yes and if you practice for tens of thousands of hours maybe you be able to almost do the same

 

[Carson Dyle]

Give that guy in Orlando a revolver and bolt action rifle and see how many people he would have killed. You're never going to stop the nutjobs. We can try, but it will never happen. Best we can do is limit the damage they can do. There's a reason why automatic weapons are outlawed. It's the same reason that semi-autos will one day be outlawed.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Give that guy in Orlando a revolver and bolt action rifle and see how many people he would have killed. You're never going to stop the nutjobs. We can try, but it will never happen. Best we can do is limit the damage they can do. There's a reason why automatic weapons are outlawed. It's the same reason that semi-autos will one day be outlawed.

Lets say you get what you want and all that people have are hand guns, bolt action rifles and shotguns. How does one defend themselves against their own government?

 

[Artdeco]

Don't tell these folks about speed loaders for revolvers, they'll ban revolvers too.