Another school shooting - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15049274
Godstud wrote:Yes, @Drlee Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to own unregistered firearms, or that there should not be good gun controls in place to prevent military grade firearms from being in the hands of civilians(especially the mentally ill, or criminals). It does not mean that firearms shouldn't be regulated, either.


If you walk into a gun dealer here in Florida and buy an AR-15, that's not a military grade weapon. It has no selective fire. It's a dressed up ranch rifle and nothing more...

A right to bear arms does not mean that you should have more than firearms used for personal defense or hunting weapons. i.e. revolvers, shotguns and hunting rifles. The 2nd Amendment is not specific on types of guns, although if it were updated, it should.


The 2nd Amendment wisely does not specify why a person should own a gun.

There's a famous exchange in which uber-liberal idiot Piers Morgan got flat-out owned on the gun control issue:

Image

It would be, I think, reasonable for Americans to have to have their weapons insured, against theft or misuse, as well as being licensed in safe use and storage of said firearms.


My firearms are all insured against theft and, with the exception of the gun I carry and one in a strategic location near my front door, they're all locked up. My desk, where I also keep a loaded firearm, has a fingerprint lock which requires the four fingers of my right hand to open.

Again, no reason to license anything beyond granting a CCW when applied for...

Direct example of gun control - After the Port Arthur shooting in Australia(Tazmania) in 1996, they banned certain firearms, and since then they have not had a similar incident. It worked, in short.


I love when gun-haters like yourself trot out idiot stats like this.

Tasmania is a country of about a 500,000 people. The United States is over 650 times the size of Tasmania. Accordingly, it's silly to believe that because something works there it'll work here. Believing that is silly.

2016 numbers:

Privately owned firearms in Tasmania - 147,000
Privately firearms in the US - 393,000,000
Number of firearms per 100 people in Tasmania - 28
Number of firearms per 100 people in the US - 120

To reiterate, it's just silly to believe that the fact that it works there means that it would work here.

It won't...
#15049276
Wow. You're just so wrong that it's not even funny.

Just to correct your rather large lapse in education, Tasmania is a territory of Australia. It's like what Puerto Rico is to the USA.

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
It is worth considering, as one data point in the pool of evidence about what sorts of gun control policies do and do not work, the experience of Australia. Between October 1996 and September 1997, Australia responded to its own gun violence problem with a solution that was both straightforward and severe: It collected roughly 650,000 privately held guns. It was one of the largest mandatory gun buyback programs in recent history.

And it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but it is worth at least looking at their experience.


In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
#15049283
You have to remember Godstud that people like Big Steve, and the twitter poster he quoted, do not think of guns as self defense. They think of them in two ways. It is an expression of their manhood and it is a method for killing the soldiers of our elected government. Nothing more.

I will admit that there are a few people (other than the police and security people) who selectively arm themselves against a real threat. The overwhelming majority of armed Americans (I am talking about the CCW people here) are arming themselves against a threat that simply does reasonably not exist. They are chasing phantasms.

Take my state for example. Arizona does not require any training whatsoever to carry a concealed weapon. It is perfectly legal for a person to buy a Walther PPK (which stands for Police Pistol Kriminal by the way) so they can be just like James Bond, put it in a shoulder holster and go into the community ostensibly to protect themselves and others. They can do this without ever having fired the pistol, taken a class on gun safety, or even read a brochure on when it is legal and proper to use a firearm in self defense. There is no way in creation that this person is safer with than without this firearm. Certainly the poor sods around him/her are much less safe should he/she decide to pull it out and start blasting away. These are the same people who sternly warn their 8 year old not to touch daddy's gun in the nightstand. So:

Nearly 1,300 children younger than 18 years of age die from shootings every year.
1 in 3 families with children have at least one gun in the house. It is estimated that there are more than 22 million children living in homes with guns.
Most of the victims of unintentional shootings are boys. They are usually shot by a friend or relative, especially a brother.
Nearly 40% of all unintentional shooting deaths among children 11-14 years of age occur in the home of a friend.


A national tragedy that makes terrorism look like a lightning strike. And this is deaths. Imagine how many injuries. 37,000 people will die from gun violence in America this year and 36,000 will die in traffic accidents. We license car drivers and I know of not a single individual who says we shouldn't yet pea brained fools have convinced our law makers to not license something that is even more dangerous fatality wise. Why? Because lib'rals and comm'nists and 'dem mes'kins commin' across our borders. We require seat belts and they are saving lives but gun locks? That'll keep me from shooting all 'dem black folks slaverin' to invade my house in Palm Springs.

It is important for all of us to frequently express these sentiments to our lawmakers. It doesn't matter how many guns are in America when discussing who should own one and what vetting training should be required to do so.

I grew up around guns. When I was a little boy I had gun safety training when I was in cub scouts. That is simply not done anymore in any real numbers. Gun safety is not even discussed at a national level.

Here is the most telling thing:


The United States accounts for just 4% of the world’s population but 35% of global firearm suicides and 9% of global firearm homicides.

The US gun homicide rate is 25 times that of other high-income countries.

The US gun suicide rate is 10 times that of other high-income countries.

Women in the United States are 21 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries.


There is no way in hell to parse the ownership of a firearm into personal safety. We are all less safe when guns are around and as uncontrolled as they are here. I imagine the rest of the world is laughing at us. Or just shaking their heads in disbelief. And yet some Americans actually believe that we are safe from tyranny because they own a Glock. I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of them.
#15049285
Godstud wrote:Wow. You're just so wrong that it's not even funny.

Just to correct your rather large lapse in education, Tasmania is a territory of Australia. It's like what Puerto Rico is to the USA.


The way it read it seemed like you were comparing Tasmania to the United States.

In that regard, my numbers are accurate.

Perhaps, if you were better educated, you could've been a bit more articulate. But, of course, let someone misread something and you jump on your high horse, as you always do.

Something for you to consider: There are now more guns in Australia than there were in 1996. Is that really the desired effect you want? I thought gun haters looked to reduce the number of guns. In that regard, the crackdown in Australia is a failure, because it demonstrates that more guns isn't the problem...
User avatar
By Drlee
#15049286
Oh. And by the way. As we are nattering on about gun control.

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — Four people were killed and six more wounded when “unknown suspects” sneaked into a backyard filled with people at a party in central California and fired into the crowd, police said.

The shooting took place about 6 p.m. on the Fresno’s southeast side, where people were gathered to watch a football game, Fresno Police Lt. Bill Dooley said.

Deputy Chief Michael Reid told the Fresno Bee and the KSEE/KGPE TV stations that a total of 10 people were shot, with three found dead in the backyard. A fourth person died at the hospital. Six others are expected to survive and are recovering at the hospital.
#15049288
@BigSteve :roll: Your mistake is not something you can blame on me. You made the error, not I. Nice try. Your childish bullying tactics don't work with me. :lol:

BigSteve wrote:Something for you to consider: There are now more guns in Australia than there were in 1996. Is that really the desired effect you want? I thought gun haters looked to reduce the number of guns. In that regard, the crackdown in Australia is a failure, because it demonstrates that more guns isn't the problem...
I never said that banning all guns was a solution. I said good gun controls and banning specific weapons. Do I have to repeat myself or can you accept that?

They banned specific guns, in AUSTRALIA.

A radical gun law reform occurred in Australia after a gun massacre (35 dead and 18 seriously injured) in April 1996. Semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles were banned; a tax-funded firearm buyback and amnesties saw over 700 000 guns surrendered from an adult population of about 12 million.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
#15049290
Drlee wrote:You have to remember Godstud that people like Big Steve, and the twitter poster he quoted, do not think of guns as self defense. They think of them in two ways. It is an expression of their manhood and it is a method for killing the soldiers of our elected government. Nothing more.

I will admit that there are a few people (other than the police and security people) who selectively arm themselves against a real threat. The overwhelming majority of armed Americans (I am talking about the CCW people here) are arming themselves against a threat that simply does reasonably not exist. They are chasing phantasms.


This is some of the most ignorant bullshit you've ever posted.

My daughter was at Santana High School.

When I was living in Portland, Oregon I was at Clackamas Town Center.

The difference between you and me is that I'm not stupid enough to believe that there aren't threats out there, every day.

Which raises the question: If a threat doesn't reasonably exist why is it reasonable to think we need more gun control?

Do you think criminals will obey any new laws regarding guns?

And, I seem to recall you saying you had your CCW... Interesting...
#15049291
Godstud wrote:Do I have to repeat myself or can you accept that?


I reject that.

Do you believe criminals will obey any new gun laws?

It's a simple question, but I've no doubt you'll dodge and avoid. It's what you do...
#15049293
I'm heading out on the boat for some sea trials after getting the engines overhauled.

I'll, come back and laugh at you all later...
#15049313
My daughter was at Santana High School.


I don't believe you and I doubt anyone but Hindsite does.

When I was living in Portland, Oregon I was at Clackamas Town Center.


I don't believe you. But I know Gabby Gifford and was at the spot where she was shot dozens of times. And you point is? One day one time in all their history and you would arm yourself against the threat? :lol:

The difference between you and me is that I'm not stupid enough to believe that there aren't threats out there, every day.


There are threats. The ones that might require my using a gun rather than situation awareness and prudent behavior are vanishingly small.
Which raises the question: If a threat doesn't reasonably exist why is it reasonable to think we need more gun control?


There is a threat. Just not one that an armed private citizen can reasonably expect to prevent. But one that prudent gun control can. And Godstud and I have posted real evidence several times that supports our claim. You have not even attempted to refute it. All you have done is more of your tough guy talk.

Do you think criminals will obey any new laws regarding guns?


Yes. Many will. Making the ones who won't work harder to get them and pay a higher price in prison if they try will also work.

And, I seem to recall you saying you had your CCW... Interesting...


Really?

Did you ever hear me say that I thought we should prohibit private ownership of firearms or even concealed carry? You have not. You have heard me call for strict gun controls like requiring a permit to carry a weapon and banning some kinds of weapons.

If you think that I am one of the mental midgets who arms himself when he goes to Walmart just in case some idiot tries to shoot up the place you are wrong. I do not live in a macho fantasy world like so many GI-Wannabees do.
#15049315
BigSteve wrote:any sane individual?

393 million firearms:

U.S. civilians account for about 46 percent of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms. But surveys show that gun ownership in America is actually highly concentrated. Just 3% of American adults, the overwhelming majority male, own a collective 133 million firearms and 19% the rest.

Strangely, for a tool that is meant to save your life, gun suicides make up the majority (63%) of US gun deaths.
#15049320
And the hits keep happening.

Highway Patrol: 3 killed in shooting at Oklahoma Walmart


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Nov 18th 2019 12:19PM


DUNCAN, Oklahoma (AP) — Two men and a woman were fatally shot Monday outside a Walmart store in Oklahoma, the chief of police said.

Two victims were shot inside a car and the third was in the parking lot outside the store in Duncan, Police Chief Danny Ford said.

Police are looking for witnesses to the shooting, Ford said.




https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/18/highway-patrol-3-killed-in-shooting-at-oklahoma-walmart/23863579/

Good point Ingliz. Perhaps if we had mandatory licensing suicide prevention could be a part of the requirement.

Note that earlier I posted evidence that gun control dramatically reduces suicide deaths which supports your point.

And for the record, no. I am not going to arm myself to go to Walmart on the outside chance that I might protect myself from something like this. There is a much simpler and surefire solution.
#15049395
BigSteve wrote:Do you believe criminals will obey any new gun laws?

It's a simple question, but I've no doubt you'll dodge and avoid. It's what you do...
Gun control laws work to reduce access to firearms, by criminals, of the types that cause the incidents. That's simply a fact you don't like to admit.

It's been proven, that if you make access to certain firearms difficult, then these types of firearms do not usually turn up in crimes, as you are either making them inaccessible to the criminal, or simply too expensive for the criminal to acquire, illegally.

I don't dodge or evade questions. Your assertion is asinine, as you reject my answers to your questions(as you just did), and that's simply because you have trouble with facts, studies, and statistics that show that you are incorrect.

My arguments are clear. I have never, here or anywhere else, called for a ban of ALL weapons. To clarify: I believe in gun ownership by well trained, licensed, insured(against theft AND liability), for the purposes of recreation, hunting, and protection. I want there to be waiting times, background checks, and a system to prevent mentally ill people from access to guns, for their safety, and for the safety of others.

I merely disagree with you on what weapons should be available to the public, when you have the military, national guard and police there to protect your rights, already. The threat from foreign takeover, in the USA, is only the stuff of movies.

Semi-automatic weapons(including Semi-automatic handguns) and pump-action shotguns banned, like what they did in Australia, is very reasonable. You certainly would have incident body counts drop.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15049396
ingliz wrote:Strangely, for a tool that is meant to save your life, gun suicides make up the majority (63%) of US gun deaths.
ingliz wrote:Strangely, for a tool that is meant to save your life, gun suicides make up the majority (63%) of US gun deaths.


Let me preface, I am in no way suicidal, nor have I ever had thoughts of seriously committing suicide.

That said, something I've thought about before is that if for whatever reason, I was put in a position that there was basically no hope of survival. Like say, a zombie apocalypse or mass starvation of some crazy disease. One of these "I'm the only one left" type of situations. I like the fact that I have a gun handy to off myself. I think that would be my preferred method of suicide.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15049397
Godstud wrote:I don't dodge or evade questions.

Yes you do.
you have trouble with facts, studies, and statistics

Like yourself. :lol:
My arguments are clear.

No they are not.
#15049398
Godstud wrote:Gun control laws work to reduce access to firearms, by criminals, of the types that cause the incidents. That's simply a fact you don't like to admit.

It's been proven, that if you make access to certain firearms difficult, then these types of firearms do not usually turn up in crimes, as you are either making them inaccessible to the criminal, or simply too expensive for the criminal to acquire, illegally.


If AR-15's were to be banned tomorrow, and the law required current owners were required to turn them in, do you believe criminals would obey that law?

I don't dodge or evade questions.


Shit, you've damn near turned it into a career...

My arguments are clear. I have never, here or anywhere else, called for a ban of ALL weapons. To clarify: I believe in gun ownership by well trained, licensed, insured(against theft AND liability), for the purposes of recreation, hunting, and protection. I want there to be waiting times, background checks, and a system to prevent mentally ill people from access to guns, for their safety, and for the safety of others.


I'm in favor of background checks, provided they are completed within 48 hours. I am in favor of a waiting period of no more than 48 hours. There is already a mechanism in place for keeping mentally unstable people from obtaining firearms, but that requires that people actually do their job. Law abiding citizens should not suffer the consequences for that...

I merely disagree with you on what weapons should be available to the public, when you have the military, national guard and police there to protect your rights, already. The threat from foreign takeover, in the USA, is only the stuff of movies.


You've got to be joking.

I live in a very affluent neighborhood. In the last five years, we've had two home invasions and one attempted home invasion. When these occurred, the police were nowhere to be seen.

There's an old saying, and it's very true: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I don't need, nor do I want, the police to "protect" my rights. That's not their job...

Semi-automatic weapons(including Semi-automatic handguns) and pump-action shotguns banned, like what they did in Australia, is very reasonable. You certainly would have incident body counts drop.


No, it's not, for reasons which I've already explained...
#15049403
BigSteve wrote:If AR-15's were to be banned tomorrow, and the law required current owners were required to turn them in, do you believe criminals would obey that law?
No, but by virtue of most of them belonging to legal gun owners, who would want to remain such, most would disappear off the streets and make the price and ease of accessing those types of weapons, harder, and more expensive.

BigSteve wrote:Law abiding citizens should not suffer the consequences for that...
Most people, before they commit a crime with a weapon, are law-abiding citizens. This is not an argument. The guy who killed 59 people in Las Vegas, was a law-abiding gun owner prior to that incident.

BigSteve wrote:I live in a very affluent neighborhood. In the last five years, we've had two home invasions and one attempted home invasion. When these occurred, the police were nowhere to be seen.
I was not referring to that, but some American's fear of their government being over-thrown. I am not against firearms for home defense, provided they are suited for such. i.e. a small caliber firearm.

BigSteve wrote:No, it's not, for reasons which I've already explained...
Yes, you've explained it, but the facts and studies done on this do not support your opinion.

Reducing access to specific types of weapons reduces their frequency, by making them prohibitive just by way of reduced accessibility, and cost. This is borne out by facts and reality.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11
Trump and Russiagate

Ok. Name a federal prosecutor that's recently bee[…]

Oxygen in the oceans is being lost at an unprecede[…]

Theotech: The Ultimate Technology

A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being[…]

Sprinkling incriminating adjectives doesn't hel[…]