General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOnly a real coward would want to use the kind of guns the NRA says are for hunting. nt
jody
(26,624 posts)spanone
(135,586 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)neverforget
(9,433 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)As a another poster just said, guns are crime facilitators.
The young lady who just shot and killed her brother trying to take a picture after a night of drinking, was a crime committed? If there was no gun there would the young man now be dead from a gunshot wound to the head?
jody
(26,624 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I don't even hate nuclear weapons, I think they may well have forestalled a third World War even more destructive than the last two.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)Condoms are capable of creating rape and in some cases they do.
As a another poster just said, Condoms are crime facilitators.
Now that sounds just as stupid as your reply.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The young woman who just shot her brother in the head while he was taking pictures, was a crime committed?
hack89
(39,171 posts)yes - it is now common for rapist to use condoms. After all, they watch CSI like the rest of us.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Like guns make negligent manslaughter common?
hack89
(39,171 posts)which is why the focus needs to be on people and their behavior, not inanimate objects.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)by your logic there are many things that need to be banned - starting with cars.
At some point it is not society's job to protect people from their own irresponsibility or idiocy.
Lets focus on criminal violence - it is a much smaller group of people and there is much less controversy involved in going after them.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If something carries criminal penalties then it is a crime, QED.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Cars and alcohol being two common ones. Household chemicals are particularly deadly to young children.
I was referring to habitual criminals - those with records of criminal violence. Take Chicago for example - their recent spike in gun deaths has everything to do with gang violence. Lets fix the big problems first.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)By your reasoning individuals should not be deterred from having nuclear weapons.
And also by your reasoning the only person alcohol kills negligently is someone who drinks too much of it, it's rather unlikely that you are going to negligently kill someone with your bare hands.
Cars are actually amazingly safe considering how much we use them and how badly a lot of us do it, you would have to drive at 60mph 24/7/365 for something like 70 years in order to have a fifty percent chance of dying in a car crash.
If you spent the same amount of time with everyone in the public shooting at a sustained rate for 24/7/365 there would be vastly more casualties than from cars.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and the problem is significantly diminished.
Car accidents accounted for 39%
Poisoning 18%
Falls 16%
Suffocation 4.6%
Drowning 3.1%
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=ARH6hbOvM52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=1&age2=85&agegp=1-85&deaths=978574&_debug=0&lcdfmt=customðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death
Hands and feet kill more people than rifles so actually it is very likely. A fight gets out of hand and a fatal blow is struck.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Want to reduce gun deaths? Hammer habitual violent criminals to reduce crime and provide mental health care to reduce suicides. Quite fixating on objects and concentrate on root causes.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If you kill someone in a fight by deliberately striking them it's not a negligent act.
Nuclear weapons have killed far fewer people than guns, why are they not allowed to be owned by the public?
hack89
(39,171 posts)accidental deaths, negligent or not, are not grounds to severely restrict guns - it does not rise to a sufficient threshold to warrant it.
The majority of gun deaths are due to criminal acts or suicides - those are the problems to be addressed.
There are more negligent deaths cause by automobiles then guns - by orders of magnitude. If you want to reduce accidental deaths perhaps traffic safety would be a better cause.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Nuclear weapons are "arms" why are nuclear weapons banned from possession by the general public?
You still haven't answered that question.
Cars get used for their intended purpose many orders of magnitude more than guns get used for their intended purpose, I can hear cars 24/7 at my location but gunfire is not that common although I did hear some law abiding gun owners firing theirs on New Year's Eve, I hope they were using an approved bullet stop.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Are you saying that nuclear weapons make it too easy to kill?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Don't you think that the potential to kill tens of millions in a single act puts nukes in a different category?
I find your line of argument puzzling - do you really think that equating guns with nuclear weapons is really going to resonate with the public? Most people can intuitively understand why nuclear weapons must be tightly control. You seem to have an issue with that logic.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I'm just trying to figure out what the accepted number of dead in one incident is, obviously 26 is too low and you appear to be arguing tens of millions is too many.
I suppose you could kill 26 people at one time with a hand grenade although it would probably be unlikely and yet hand grenades are illegal for the general public to own despite the fact that they are "arms".
hack89
(39,171 posts)the 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms. The definition of arms has never included crew served weapons, ordnance such as cannons or explosive devices.
The American right to keep and bear arms has a history that goes back to the British Bill of Rights of 1689. The dividing line between what constitutes arms and what doesn't is pretty clear and is backed by centuries of case and common law.
Nuclear weapons are not covered by the 2A. Guns are.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I'm trying to figure out what the socially unacceptable level of mass slaughter is.
You don't seem to be of much help in that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so why bother playing silly games?
The issue is not what a socially unacceptable level of mass slaughter is. The issue is what workable solutions exist that are legal and constitutional.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)See how that works?
And you still have not addressed the issue of hand grenades.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and can therefore be tightly controlled. There is no constitutionally protected use for them.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms. The definition of arms has never included crew served weapons, ordnance such as cannons or explosive devices.
The American right to keep and bear arms has a history that goes back to the British Bill of Rights of 1689. The dividing line between what constitutes arms and what doesn't is pretty clear and is backed by centuries of case and common law.
jody
(26,624 posts)The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunninghams legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms. See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing arms). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited arms (as opposed to weapons) to instruments of offence generally made use of in war, even that source stated that all firearms constituted arms. 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 3536 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
duhneece
(4,093 posts)Guns destroy...paper targets, cans..and some were designed to kill many human beings as quickly as possible.
Two different intentions entirely.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Lots of people kill other people with knives. So you don't have knives in your house, do you? They facilitate crimes.
I watch those true crime stories a lot. A lot of people are killed with knives (butcher and small ones, incl. dinner knives). Knives in the head, in the eyes, in the chest, in the guts, in the back, slit the throat, you name it. It's apparently the tool of choice for many killers. And handy, too.
How about poisons? Some people kill other people with poisons. These are more sophisticated killers. Nurses, people familiar with gardening chemicals, women (women killers use poison a lot of times, according to the true crime shows I've seen). So...ban all poisons?
How about hands, tire irons, and cars? That young woman who was just raped and murdered in India by several men was beaten up, raped, and her body dumped out of the bus, and then they drove over her in a car. They also used a tire iron to beat her. This crime was facilitated by (1) males, (2) hands, (3) tire iron, and (4) car.
Bats are rarer, but are nonetheless used more often than you'd think. Should bats be banned? Or just metal bats? They facilitate crime sometimes.
Strangulation is often used by thrill killers. It's up close and personal. But that's the "hands" category mentioned above. They facilitated those crimes.
Cords and ropes are sometimes used to strangle people. The Boston Strangler used nylons sometimes. Should those items be banned?
Wow, there are quite a few items we have to ban, in order to prevent murder! But if we ban these things, there will be no murder.
Silly, huh? Yes, it is. That's because we can't stop murder, or even mass murder. The best we can do is ban those items that are used most often for mass murder. That does not include all guns or knives or cords or ropes. Just the assault weapons, those high count mags, and such.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In that respect the gun facilitated the crime of negligent manslaughter.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The teen daughter and her boyfriend stabbed Mother numerous times. Mother objected to their relationship. They used what was handy. And they planned it. They could have gotten a gun. But their weapon of choice was the knife. That's apparently very common.
Knives are even used in mass murders. Check out Japan....man entered school and stabbed a lot of children. 8 died, others seriously wounded.
Poisons are used in mass killings, if you include saran gas and things like that. Japan incidents.
Knives facilitate crimes, no doubt about it. They've been used to murder since the knife was invented. A knife's purpose is to cut and stab, after all. It worked out so great, that they made them bigger and longer and called them swords.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Negligence has a specific meaning, none of the things you mentioned are negligent.
And you still didn't answer my question, would the woman's brother not have had his head blown apart if the gun had not been there?
I don't know what it is about guns that makes people post stupid stuff but you are defending against a completely different point than the one I'm making.
My guess is that's because you have no defense against the point I'm making.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I don't own a gun and could care less but that does't make any sense.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I already pointed out that the woman who shot her brother in Phoenix would not have done so without a gun being present.
The gun "created" the crime in this instance, same people doing the same drunk photos minus the gun and the young man would be alive today.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)More gunz please and no pesky regulations.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)The poster may not hate all guns. They may be fine with handguns, for instance. Maybe they do hate guns, but you certainly can't infer that from their post.
jody
(26,624 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)MURDERS by weapon
1,704 Knives or cutting instruments
745 Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
540 Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)
358 Rifles
Do you believe those other weapons are capable of creating crime?
Since they are used more often, don't you want to ban them also to be consistent in your logic?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Gun refers to pistols even more than it does rifles.
You are smarter than this, I've read enough of your posts to know you're probably smarter than I am.
So stop making stupid arguments, please?
jody
(26,624 posts)minority of hunters.
OP was almost certainly talking about rifles since those are the ones with large magazines and scary looking things like a bayonet lug, or made from composites.
Fact is handguns were used in 6,009 of the total12,996 homicides in 2010.
People who want to ban or control firearms undefined will fail.
If they take the time to learn the language of violent crime and what weapons are used to murder, then they just might common ground with many pro-RKBA Democrats and seek solutions that make it more difficult to get firearms.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I also know there's strong evidence that links this decline to a lowering of lead levels in our environment, largely but not entirely due to tetra-ethyl lead being banned by law.
You accused me of hating guns, I don't hate any inanimate object and I try with varying degrees of success not to hate any person either.
I have decided upon reflection over the last few weeks of debate that since a complete gun ban is unworkable in the USA then I'm not in favor of that, you can have anything you can afford to buy and shoot with some caveats.
What I want to see is your gun if you are in public, no more concealed carry, I want be able to remove myself from the vicinity of armed persons in public places. I want licensing and insurance for use *or* criminal misuse of the gun, including if the weapon is stolen and used to commit a crime and the owner can be shown negligent in securing it. Gun licensing records should be searchable online by the public.
I also want to see heavy mandatory penalties for carrying a concealed gun.
That's really my bottom line.
jody
(26,624 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Next 44% of murders are committed by people who know each other.
Murder Circumstances by Relationship, 2010, Total 12,996
- Of which 5,657 (43.5%) by Husband, Wife, Mother, Father, Son, Daughter, Brother, Sister, Other family, Acquaintance, Friend, Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Neighbor, Employee, Employer,
- Of which 7,339 (56.5%) by Stranger, Unknown
Seems to me the first group (43.5%) may be amenable to one type solution and the second group (56.5%) another.
Don't know because I'm not a criminologist but I've enough experience to expect major problems that appear to be intractable can be solved in small pieces.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In Soviet Russia was dog eat dog.
In America is other way around.
jody
(26,624 posts)The media just want to keep the fight going and sometimes publishes outright lies or carefully distorted truths.
I don't believe one set of federal laws will satisfy all needs, e.g. Wyoming's 600k citizens and crime ridden Chicago (2.7 million) and Detroit (700k) citizens.
I'm beginning to understand the debate about the upper limit on a "republic" that our Constitution promises "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"
I've read a number of papers that suggest 200k might be the upper limit of a population that can self-govern a republic as a democracy.
FBI UCR shows violent crime rates go up rapidly as metro population increases, see http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl16.xls
madinmaryland
(64,913 posts)Occulus
(20,599 posts)Deflection and redirection.
In other words, troll tactics.
Jury: I'm speaking to the post, not the poster.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Gun pushers always say the bad guys could use other means but they almost always seem to use guns. Do they bring a gun and bomb? Not usually they bring multiple guns and multiple gun clips.
Gun porn creates an atmosphere of glamour to use these killing instruments. That's why these wackjobs are always posing with their guns like Rambo or something.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Blame the "culture". If it's not video games, it's glamorizing guns. Just another day in the trenches of the culture wars.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Why do you think such a thing?
-..__...
(7,776 posts)I'm part Irish, so be prepared to be disappointed (or elated depending on where your head is at).
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Response to Fumesucker (Reply #25)
-..__... Message deleted by the DU Administrators
dionysus
(26,467 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)no hamsters were harmed or exploited during that photo shoot.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Finally.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)but, if one want's to risk it...that's their choice.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=mexican+carry&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#q=%22mexican+carry%22&hl=en&lr=&tbo=d&as_qdr=all&ei=5VvmUP3OH_SQ0QHJnoHIDw&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2dbbe2882a1815c7&bpcl=40096503&biw=1440&bih=689
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)I've easily been spending more time online than on the range or bedroom lately, but it's like riding a bicycle... once you learn how, you never forget.
That reminds me... I have to get back to the "range" more often.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Someone that scared has no business even with a bee bee gun.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Please describe in detail.
Marinedem
(373 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)Mark gave him that rifle.
flvegan
(64,384 posts)Not all of them, mind you.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)go out and bring back that deer with nothing but a knife.
There is no sport in shooting an animal, if you need to eat, go ahead and shoot it. But please quit pretending you're doing anything but slaughtering a helpless animal.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I don't believe we cannot regulate guns. We "regulate" our free speech rights, we "regulate" our freedoms in many, many practical ways with which very few, if anyone, on this thread would argue (licensing and training for driving automobiles, special license to drive a tractor trailer, etc). So why are military weapons okay in the hands of untrained, unlicensed civilians? I'm tired of the stupidity. We license PETS for fuck sake! I don't think America will collapse because we can't freely purchase military weapons at the civic center gun show. Get serious, people...it's a serious problem, and IDIOTS are framing the debate.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)duhneece
(4,093 posts)Handy. It is eloquent and perfect. Thank you. I am smarter for reading this thread!
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)samsingh
(17,548 posts)and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)use a spear or a bow and arrow, now that is hunting.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you're not chasing down the game and killing it with a flint knife, you're a coward!