nice week for mass gun violence

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Thanks PH. I guess it comes down to having a good lawyer on your side.

I'm guessing there's a legal difference between saying "Give me your wallet!' with a legal gun in your holster and saying 'Give me your wallet' while pointing that gun.

If a gun is used in the crime there really isnt a distinction. Even if the guy by some miracle didnt use his gun to rob you. Just having the gun would enact a harsher penalty and treat him like he did rob you with a gun.

Another question, and forgive me if this sounds ridiculous.

Can one legally claim self-defense against the police. I recall there was a person killed holding a Playstation controller due to police mistaking it for a weapon. If his roommate had seen this happen and pulled his gun and shot down the officer would that be considered self-defense?

There a million scenarios where the specific circumstances make for a very difficult judgment; and, sadly, yes, it may ultimately come down to the quality of the lawyers and investigators involved.

That said, most incidences involving police come down to their efforts to identify themselves clearly to the civilians involved prior to the shooting. If you have no reason to know or believe that the man pointing a gun at you is a cop, and he does NOT identify himself as such, then you can more than likely get away with defending yourself... or not -- depending, of course, on the honesty of the cop and the effectiveness of the lawyers and investigators involved.

There are actually quite a few cases you could research to see the legal details involved...

Here's a recent one wherein the charges were dropped against the civilian because the officer shot first and failed to identify himself.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: NeoV
and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

I'll bet all of Europe didn't have as many mass shootings in the past 12 months as we've had in the past 1 month. A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it. Here - it's just a case of 'don't take our guns', or 'if those kids had been packing guns, their father would not have killed them' - or other ridiculous statements.

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

LOL, you want to compare us to Europe, who brought us the last 2 world wars, the holocast, and Bosnia??

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: NeoV
and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

I'll bet all of Europe didn't have as many mass shootings in the past 12 months as we've had in the past 1 month. A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it. Here - it's just a case of 'don't take our guns', or 'if those kids had been packing guns, their father would not have killed them' - or other ridiculous statements.

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

Then maybe you should start a thread about the culture of violence in this country instead of a thread antagonizing and mocking gun rights advocates. You still have not answered the question, what exactly are you looking for here? Who's pretending that there isn't a problem? Once again, you're creating a bunch of straw man arguments.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: NeoV
and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

I'll bet all of Europe didn't have as many mass shootings in the past 12 months as we've had in the past 1 month. A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it. Here - it's just a case of 'don't take our guns', or 'if those kids had been packing guns, their father would not have killed them' - or other ridiculous statements.

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

what laws would you like to see changed? what suggestions do you have? exactly what are you contributing to this conversation?

We're all appalled by the violence... does reading that make you feel better? Do you not believe it? What do you suggest we do instead?

I think the point should be that these shootings are merely anecdotal examples of situations where existing laws were not effectively enforced, or the events were completely random and therefore not easily preventable. The answer is not to write new draconian laws -- like the Germans love to do -- rather, the response should be to figure out ways to better enforce the laws we already have, and ways to recognize/report patterns of behavior that may be signs that a random act of violence is imminent.

Other than that, reality dictates that most random violence will never be entirely preventable -- it's just a fact of life. We simply have to develop better ways of detecting it and preventing it when and where we can. But, cops and armed civilians are not superheros... they can't be everywhere all the time. Shootings and other random violent acts will continue to happen for all eternity -- or, at least until we're genetically altered to end violence. :Q lol..

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: NeoV
and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

I'll bet all of Europe didn't have as many mass shootings in the past 12 months as we've had in the past 1 month. A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it. Here - it's just a case of 'don't take our guns', or 'if those kids had been packing guns, their father would not have killed them' - or other ridiculous statements.

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

what laws would you like to see changed? what suggestions do you have? exactly what are you contributing to this conversation?

We're all appalled by the violence... does reading that make you feel better? Do you not believe it? What do you suggest we do instead?

I think the point should be that these shootings are merely anecdotal examples of situations where existing laws were not effectively enforced, or the events were completely random and therefore not easily preventable. The answer is not to write new draconian laws -- like the Germans love to do -- rather, the response should be to figure out ways to better enforce the laws we already have, and ways to recognize/report patterns of behavior that may be signs that a random act of violence is imminent.

Other than that, reality dictates that most random violence will never be entirely preventable -- it's just a fact of life. We simply have to develop better ways of detecting it and preventing it when and where we can. But, cops and armed civilians are not superheros... they can't be everywhere all the time. Shootings and other random violent acts will continue to happen for all eternity -- or, at least until we're genetically altered to end violence. :Q lol..

:thumbsup:

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Someone could probably make a thread about a series of events surrounding corrupt cops but I don't think any reasonable person would want to ban cops.

I see you are a lifer, you haven't noticed that most people here hate cops. I think a lot of them would support a cop ban.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: NeoV

So what is America's reaction to these events? Nothing, zip, zero. 'It's too easy for anyone to get a gun here' - is that the best we can do as a nation? Stick our head in the sand and pretend there is no problem?

Do you really think that if these people did not have guns that they would have just sat quietly at home and do nothing thinking 'I don't have a gun, so I'll just get on with my life and forget about hurting others" I used the example before of a guy using a gallon of gas and a rag, lighting it and tossing it into a classroom. They will just move onto something else to get their relief . You can't ban everything.

You are trying to treat the symptom and not the problem.
The problem is not gun control. The problem is people like this are allowed to get to the point that they feel the only solution is to do a mass murder.

That is the reason the war on drugs has not worked. You can take away the drugs, but that does not treat the problem. Why are people wanting the drugs in the first place ? What was it in their life that was missing to make them dependent on them ?

I said it in another thread. If you want this stuff to stop, increase spending on mental health and counseling. Give people another outlet besides violence. Friends of the guy who attacked the civics building said they were not surprised at all by what the guy did . I'm 99.9% sure that if one of those friends had reached out to the guy that he would not have done what he did. Someone does not shoot people because they can't speak good english unless they have really low self esteem. When he lost his job did IBM think to offer counseling for the people they let go ? I'm betting no.

We have to change the stigma about asking for help means you are weak or crazy. Almost everyone of these shootings could have been prevented had someone just taken the time to sit down and talk with these people.

 

[StageLeft]

No denying it's a huge problem. There are, regardless of your stance on this issue, no simple or obvious solutions.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: NeoV
and still no one has addressed the culture of violence in the USA - I list 5 mass shootings that have taken place in the past week alone, and all I get is 'this is a troll thread', this is a 'ban guns' thread, blah blah blah.

That's because you cannot change a culture through laws. It doesn't work that way. All the laws in the world cannot change people's fundamental beliefs. Trying to use the government or the legal system to combat a "culture of violence" is like passing a law to stop the tide from coming in.

The sad reality is that there isn't a way to "address the culture of violence" on a governmental level. It sucks, but that's the way things are. Anyone who really wants to do something about the "culture of violence" has to do so on his own. Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer can do something to change a culture, but a President or a Congress cannot.

Originally posted by: NeoV
A mass shooting takes place in Germany and they change laws - right or wrong - but they were appalled at what happened and tried to do something about it.

So, as long as they are trying, then it's OK regardless of the actual result? Are you really saying that it's a bad thing to avoid knee-jerk responses that are nothing more than political grandstanding? That doesn't make any sense. Movement for the sake of motion is wasteful and dangerous. It wastes time and money. It results in bad laws that don't get repealed but that later need to be patched with more bad laws.

It's tragic. It's sad. But violence is an inherent part of humanity and even the best efforts of the best minds with the best of intentions cannot stomp it out. We are, all of us, animals at our cores and, like all animals, there is a tendency towards violence at times. This cannot be changed. It cannot be eliminated. Do I mourn this fact? Yes. But I don't let it cripple my interactions with the world.

ZV

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, if you look at our situation from an objective point of view, you basically have a classic case of the unstoppable object crashing into the unmovable one.

On the one hand we have a right chiseled in stone that we can legally possess firearms. On the other we have an open society that easily allows for the use of firearms to commit crimes, including murder.

Throw in the myriad of vested interests and agendas that are involved in regulating the use and sale of firemarms and you end up with the current stalemate that we now find ourselves in.

IMO, basically speaking, that's not going to change until either the Amendment gets modified or society's attitude does.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: NeoV
April 4 - father kills self, 5 children in Seattle area
April 4 - man kills 3 cops in PA
April 3 - man kills 13, self, wounds many others in NY
March 29 - man kills 7 at a nursing home in NC
March 29 - Man kills 5 relatives and himself in CA

It's ok though, because all of these shooters were criminals, who can get guns anytime they want.

Oh, and it's also the fault of our failing economy.

Place head back in sand, nothing to see here.

If they had their own guns, it never would have happened. One or two might have died or gotten injured, but the perp would have been taken down before he could do more damage.

The cops in CA and PA all had guns, and were all well trained in the operation of a firearm. They're all just as dead as the unarmed people in the nursing home.

How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if the cops had not had guns?

How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

And how exactly are we going to be able to stop him from getting a gun? We can't even keep pot out of our kid's schools.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

And how exactly are we going to be able to stop him from getting a gun? We can't even keep pot out of our kid's schools.

Hell, we can't keep drugs and weapons out of prisons.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

Since he was already prohibited from owning a firearm (he had a protective order issued against him for violence and he was dishonorably discharged from the Marines, either of which alone disqualifies a person from legal firearm ownership), how would additional laws have prevented him from obtaining the illegal firearms he did possess?

ZV

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

And how exactly are we going to be able to stop him from getting a gun? We can't even keep pot out of our kid's schools.

Hell, we can't keep drugs and weapons out of prisons.

But.. but... more laws would fix that!!

 

[Zebo]

Going to get a lot worse. Hope all my brothers and sisters at AT have a gun to defend yourselves and are trained to use it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

Since he was already prohibited from owning a firearm (he had a protective order issued against him for violence and he was dishonorably discharged from the Marines, either of which alone disqualifies a person from legal firearm ownership), how would additional laws have prevented him from obtaining the illegal firearms he did possess?

ZV

Well just for arguments sake with all the guns floating around how tough do you think it was for someone like him to get as gun? It would be a lot harder for a nutcase ton get a gun in places like Britain or Australia with their draconian firearms restrictions and laws.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It would be a lot harder for a nutcase ton get a gun in places like Britain or Australia with their draconian firearms restrictions and laws.

Do you have any data/evidence to support that statement?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

Since he was already prohibited from owning a firearm (he had a protective order issued against him for violence and he was dishonorably discharged from the Marines, either of which alone disqualifies a person from legal firearm ownership), how would additional laws have prevented him from obtaining the illegal firearms he did possess?

ZV

Well just for arguments sake with all the guns floating around how tough do you think it was for someone like him to get as gun? It would be a lot harder for a nutcase ton get a gun in places like Britain or Australia with their draconian firearms restrictions and laws.

It would seem that way, but as I've pointed out in other threads, that's not the case in actual practice. Firearm use in violent crimes in the UK doubled after the institution of "draconian firearms restrictions". It seems like the criminals who wanted firearms didn't have any trouble finding them, at the very least, they didn't have enough trouble finding firearms to justify the restrictions.

ZV

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Going to get a lot worse. Hope all my brothers and sisters at AT have a gun to defend yourselves and are trained to use it.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nutcases like the one who killed three cops (you included?) stockpile and ready your trigger finger for the straw man who is coming to steal your guns and then snap and things 'get a lot worse'

I'm all for the legal ownership and use of firearms under the second amendment but don't give me this BS. If it gets worse it's people like YOU who made it so.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many cops do you think he would have been able to kill if he didn't have a gun?

Since he was already prohibited from owning a firearm (he had a protective order issued against him for violence and he was dishonorably discharged from the Marines, either of which alone disqualifies a person from legal firearm ownership), how would additional laws have prevented him from obtaining the illegal firearms he did possess?

ZV

Well just for arguments sake with all the guns floating around how tough do you think it was for someone like him to get as gun? It would be a lot harder for a nutcase ton get a gun in places like Britain or Australia with their draconian firearms restrictions and laws.

It would seem that way, but as I've pointed out in other threads, that's not the case in actual practice. Firearm use in violent crimes in the UK doubled after the institution of "draconian firearms restrictions". It seems like the criminals who wanted firearms didn't have any trouble finding them, at the very least, they didn't have enough trouble finding firearms to justify the restrictions.

ZV

You might not like this info.
Text
Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths

THE NUMBER of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.

Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago.

The centre's director, Richard Garside, said: "Gun homicide in England and Wales is low compared with such countries as the United States, Australia, France and Italy


So maybe the firearms restrictions do work, if given some time?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NeoV
apparently pro-gun zealots can't read either.

My point isn't to call for a ban on guns - that's the third god-damned time I've said that in this tread, but apparently anything that appears to be anti-gun on any level, shape or form is obviously calling for a gun ban.

My point is - or as palehorse put it - my g'damn point is - no one cares about gun violence in this country - not a single one of the responses from the gun zealots mentions anything about there being a problem in this country with gun violence - I'm not going to link stuff anymore about it, but we all know the numbers - we have a rate of crime/murder using guns that is the worst among modern industrial countries.

5 different 'mass' shootings in the past week - no one says anything other than - yah well lots of people die in car accidents too - or soccerball's garbage about gun stats in New Jersey in the late 60's.

We accept violence far too easily now - usually at the hand of guns - and the blame is everywhere, but we are too busy fighting with each other to do anything about it.

I haven't seen anything that indicated that any of the shooters in this week's events had acquired their guns illegally, but of course apologists here are already assuming - the guns were 'probably' acquired illegally - because of course no gun legally acquired is ever used in a crime...

We should be ashamed, as a nation, for the level of violence here - instead we bask in it.

If it was a serious problem, we'd talk about it. But since it's not, we don't. Before the current economic disaster crime was down, violence was down, defense was up, etc. Sure we had cultural issues, but no one would talk about them...they all demanded we address symptomatic issues like violence instead, which we are too intelligent to waste our time doing. Or, barring that, they insisted we focus on the tools of violence (usually guns) rather than the root of violence (psychological disposition and cultural acceptance). 30 years ago we had the research to know for a fact that economic turmoil would lead to an increase in violence. There's nothing new here.

If you REALLY hate gun violence then you need to be willing to discuss the actual causes and solutions, even if they run counter to your political ideology. Otherwise you have no right to ask us to do what you wont.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: marincounty
You might not like this info.
Text
Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths

THE NUMBER of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.

Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago.

The centre's director, Richard Garside, said: "Gun homicide in England and Wales is low compared with such countries as the United States, Australia, France and Italy

So maybe the firearms restrictions do work, if given some time?

Single year. No trend established yet.

Also, that doesn't change the fact that more firearms are used in crimes in the UK than every before. Even if fewer people are being killed, there are still more guns being used by criminals. Guns in the hands of criminals have not been reduced. Yes, fewer people died last year, but there are still more guns being used by criminals than there were before the ban.

ZV

 

[JKing106]

Well, that's all fine and dandy, PriceofWands, but if, God forbid, someone in your family was blown away, you'd change your attitude in a big f'ing hurry.

Riddle me this: why is it that our country glorifies guns and killing? Why is the attempt to solve problems diplomatically considered weak? Why is it that the former polictical party in power did everything to appeal to people who would rather solve problems with their fists, tire irons, and guns? Why is it that one of the most popular TV shows recently was about a sociopath who did things that would get him put in prison for the rest of his life if he wasn't doing it to "protect the country?"

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: marincounty
You might not like this info.
Text
Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths

THE NUMBER of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.

Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago.

The centre's director, Richard Garside, said: "Gun homicide in England and Wales is low compared with such countries as the United States, Australia, France and Italy

So maybe the firearms restrictions do work, if given some time?

Single year. No trend established yet.

Also, that doesn't change the fact that more firearms are used in crimes in the UK than every before. Even if fewer people are being killed, there are still more guns being used by criminals. Guns in the hands of criminals have not been reduced. Yes, fewer people died last year, but there are still more guns being used by criminals than there were before the ban.

ZV

Wrong. Limbaugh, and people like him, are liars, you know.

Post evidence of this spree, and if you link to Fox, it's automatically disqualified.