Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

blueandwhite

unsung wrote:

Seriously when are you anti-gun goofs gonna get it? CHICAGO has the STRICTEST gun laws in the country and there are more deaths by shooting there than our troops in Afghanistan lately.

Gun control simply does not work. "Gun-free" zones only create an opportunity for a murderer to apply his problems to others unhindered.

Then why do other nations with stricter gun laws fare so much better than the US when it comes to gun-related homicide? I hear Chicago thrown around as the exception that proves the rule, but when push comes to shove there is nothing that makes it more difficult to acquire a firearm in Chicago than in Austin or Colorado. Statistically you guys are more violent than any other first world nation by a significant margin.

Other nations may have higher rates of gun ownership amongst their citizens (Norway and Switzerland come to mind), but these nations also respect that a gun owner needs to be responsible and accountable. In the US, guns seem to be treated as a god-given right; a toy which every citizen is entitled to. America's indifference to gun violence and irresponsible gun ownership scares the hell out of me. I am genuinely unnerved whenever I visit the US because of the indifference Americans feel towards gun violence.

ComeToTX

blueandwhite wrote:

unsung wrote:

Seriously when are you anti-gun goofs gonna get it? CHICAGO has the STRICTEST gun laws in the country and there are more deaths by shooting there than our troops in Afghanistan lately.

Gun control simply does not work. "Gun-free" zones only create an opportunity for a murderer to apply his problems to others unhindered.

Then why do other nations with stricter gun laws fare so much better than the US when it comes to gun-related homicide? I hear Chicago thrown around as the exception that proves the rule, but when push comes to shove there is nothing that makes it more difficult to acquire a firearm in Chicago than in Austin or Colorado. Statistically you guys are more violent than any other first world nation by a significant margin.

Other nations may have higher rates of gun ownership amongst their citizens (Norway and Switzerland come to mind), but these nations also respect that a gun owner needs to be responsible and accountable. In the US, guns seem to be treated as a god-given right; a toy which every citizen is entitled to. America's indifference to gun violence and irresponsible gun ownership scares the hell out of me. I am genuinely unnerved whenever I visit the US because of the indifference Americans feel towards gun violence.

Nailed it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Seriously when are you anti-gun goofs gonna get it? CHICAGO has the STRICTEST gun laws in the country and there are more deaths by shooting there than our troops in Afghanistan lately.

Gun control simply does not work. "Gun-free" zones only create an opportunity for a murderer to apply his problems to others unhindered.

Hilarious.

Your country has pockets with strict gun laws. That's effective. Outside of these pockets... access to assault weapons and ammunition- even over the internet. Brilliant. If your country is not 'all in' then it's out.

I would suggest to you that it would be a hell of a lot more difficult smuggling illegal weaponry over the Mexico border than state lines. Would you agree with that?

unsung

blueandwhite wrote:

I hear Chicago thrown around as the exception that proves the rule, but when push comes to shove there is nothing that makes it more difficult to acquire a firearm in Chicago than in Austin or Colorado.

Another untrue statement. In order to obtain a permit to own a handgun in Chicago you have to jump through many hoops with one being actual range time. The city has effectively banned ranges in its limits with exceedingly high taxes and regulations. People who wish to defend themselves spend more money on the permit and steps required than the actual firearm.

That is unless you are a gangbanger, as only the law abiding people have to fight for their RIGHTS.

ComeToTX

unsung wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

I hear Chicago thrown around as the exception that proves the rule, but when push comes to shove there is nothing that makes it more difficult to acquire a firearm in Chicago than in Austin or Colorado.

Another untrue statement. In order to obtain a permit to own a handgun in Chicago you have to jump through many hoops with one being actual range time. The city has effectively banned ranges in its limits with exceedingly high taxes and regulations. People who wish to defend themselves spend more money on the permit and steps required than the actual firearm.

That is unless you are a gangbanger, as only the law abiding people have to fight for their RIGHTS.

It's a city though. You can drive out of the city and buy whatever you want. Or online.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I understand the theory behind giving citizens the right to bear arms and the theory that it is every citizen's duty to posses a gun: if citizens were not armed, a tyrannical government could conduct their business unchallenged and, as a result, oppression.

I think we've grown past that though. Speaking as an outsider (Canadian), if I was a US citizen, I'd take a leap of faith for the powers that be and look to actively solve the weapon problem via heavy and dramatic restrictions.

In the long term, the entire planet has a problem (as this thread asked). We simply have to do a better job raising our young.

dimitrispearljam

Its easy for me to understand that there are things out there,making people happy,
music,love,some hobby,sports,friends,etc..

and its more easy to understand whitout being an Einstein thats fuckin guns can provoke only
pain,sadness,tears,death ,blood..

there is no one out there can Convince Me that guns can do good..cos they cant.....
no matter the nation,laws and all this bullshit..
Guns can do only bad,....wake up before the next bullet write your name on it...

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

when someone has to rapidly reload doesn't that increase the chances of the gun jamming? and wouldn't that make the shooter have to take some sort of cover for those few seconds?

Not necessarily in my experience. Not that I've ever been in that situation but in practice I've found more of reload failures due to poorer quality equipment. That's why I refuse to use aftermarket brands for magazines, I only use factory. AR's are a little different since there are so many manufacturers but essentially the platform remains the same. The 100 rd mag, and some certain name brands are not known to be "go-to" equipment.

My step-father was a police officer so he explained many what-ifs, I think you mentioned it in another way that it is gross muscle memory, not fine movements that are turned into instinct. Repetition.

In the situation that this jerkwad was in I'm guessing his mag jammed a round in and he didn't know how to extract the round from the chamber. In theory it would have been the time to attack him but that is easier said than done. Not too many people are willing to play hero. However I will restate my position and say that gun-free zones only allow a killer to work without opposition.

unsung

ComeToTX wrote:

unsung wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

I hear Chicago thrown around as the exception that proves the rule, but when push comes to shove there is nothing that makes it more difficult to acquire a firearm in Chicago than in Austin or Colorado.

Another untrue statement. In order to obtain a permit to own a handgun in Chicago you have to jump through many hoops with one being actual range time. The city has effectively banned ranges in its limits with exceedingly high taxes and regulations. People who wish to defend themselves spend more money on the permit and steps required than the actual firearm.

That is unless you are a gangbanger, as only the law abiding people have to fight for their RIGHTS.

It's a city though. You can drive out of the city and buy whatever you want. Or online.

Online?


They still have to abide by the strict Chicago ordinances since they are residents. They can't just drive out of the city and buy a firearm, or at least they'd have to follow the laws of the city in order to posess it in the city at their home.

That's why another lawsuit was filed with the opinion that the city has made in overly burdensome to follow the rules.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I understand the theory behind giving citizens the right to bear arms and the theory that it is every citizen's duty to posses a gun: if citizens were not armed, a tyrannical government could conduct their business unchallenged and, as a result, oppression.

I think we've grown past that though. Speaking as an outsider (Canadian), if I was a US citizen, I'd take a leap of faith for the powers that be and look to actively solve the weapon problem via heavy and dramatic restrictions.

In the long term, the entire planet has a problem (as this thread asked). We simply have to do a better job raising our young.

I HIGHLY disagree with growing past that. We might be in the HIGHEST need in a long time for private ownership. Way too many laws have been passed recently that are showing that a tyrannical government is growing out of control.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Your country has pockets with strict gun laws. That's effective. Outside of these pockets... access to assault weapons and ammunition- even over the internet. Brilliant. If your country is not 'all in' then it's out.

How exactly is the city with strictest gun laws and also the title holder for murder being effective?

blueandwhite

unsung wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I understand the theory behind giving citizens the right to bear arms and the theory that it is every citizen's duty to posses a gun: if citizens were not armed, a tyrannical government could conduct their business unchallenged and, as a result, oppression.

I think we've grown past that though. Speaking as an outsider (Canadian), if I was a US citizen, I'd take a leap of faith for the powers that be and look to actively solve the weapon problem via heavy and dramatic restrictions.

In the long term, the entire planet has a problem (as this thread asked). We simply have to do a better job raising our young.

I HIGHLY disagree with growing past that. We might be in the HIGHEST need in a long time for private ownership. Way too many laws have been passed recently that are showing that a tyrannical government is growing out of control.

And that's why a lot of Canadians like myself are actually afraid of Americans.

RFTC

catefrances wrote:

RFTC wrote:

Full disclosure; have been anti-gun for most my life. have lived in TX for 5.5 years now and have come around to gun ownership to the degree i will buy a handgun sometime in 2012.

i still do not understand semi-automatic/automatic rifles not being regulated to the nth degree. someone posted an expired bill, and not even sure about what sort of approval process it takes to buy these killing machines.

for all those that will spout the 'incremental legislative' argument, fuck off. that is nra 101 bullshit. thanks!

can i ask why have you decided to buy a gun.

To answer your question;

1. to protect my family, have made the decision a baseball bat or kitchen knife "may" not be enough and i am too lazy to become a ninja black belt.

2. paranoid disclosure here, i want a mini-shtf plan and along w/some precious metals, 30-90 day supply of food/water, and cash, guns and ammo were highly recommended!

kidding aside, i will probably go w/a simple 9mm, get some training and have it stashed in a bedroom safe.

unsung

RFTC wrote:

2. paranoid disclosure here, i want a mini-shtf plan and along w/some precious metals, 30-90 day supply of food/water, and cash, guns and ammo were highly recommended!

kidding aside, i will probably go w/a simple 9mm, get some training and have it stashed in a bedroom safe.

I always laughed at those that think they'd be safe without the ability to defend themselves in a real SHTF scenario. This guy at the theatre would look like Cinderella compared to what people would become when they were beyond desperate.

Those that choose to be unarmed will be someone's else's supply stash.

comebackgirl

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You've personalized my comment. I never stated that I felt you were not outraged at loss of life. I assumed nothing of you other than you spoke of your position as, say, 'a little richer' than mine. As well, I suggested that your position might be better received at a different time when the wounds were at least a little dry.

I referred to your argument that this man's mental illness was an acceptable alibi for his actions and presented some other examples that would at the very least appear to be very close to this way of thinking- these scenarios had nothing to do with what I assumed of you. You missed this point though and that, I would suggest, is not great debating form.

Let's get honest here, it's not exactly as if you take the high road on every occasion: earlier you poked fun at someone for their large letters.

You're on an island here... and you had to know you would be. How are you going to convince anyone that we should empathize with this guy? No problems here though. You are welcome to your position.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Good lord. Yah, we're all a bunch of clods with cold hearts incapable of love- definitely below you and that one other person on this thread.

We understand mental illness. Duh. We just don't give a shit. Ill, drunk, mad, sad... whatever has a person move to large scale violence places them in the category of: 'piece of shit'.

In a similar vein, your argument would absolve the alcoholic from mowing down a mother and child at a crosswalk ("You guys are stupid. Don't you understand alcoholism? He's sober now. ")... or Sandusky ("He was sick. He's gotten therapy to assist him overcome his poor past.")... or the junkie who stabs an old lady and takes her purse with $7 in it ("What's with you guys? Don't you understand addiction. He was in pain and needed a fix. He's better now.")... you can excuse every horrible action if you really wanted to. I'll go on no further other than to state it is the bleeding hearts that allow for levels of patience and understanding that, quite frankly, mainstream society is completely exhausted with.

Your position is a strange one to take. People are outraged. Very very angry and sad. Your insistence that this mutant is the real victim here borders on offensive. Very little tact displayed here, Pandora. It's my feel that your comments are in very poor taste.

And, can you stop entering after every sentence? I keep thinking I'm reading a poem when I read your posts.

No you personalized and made your post all about me
and it was insulting, incredibly judgmental and presumptuous besides being so far off target
and against posting guidelines.

There are many, even some victims of this heinous crime, that have empathy for him
because of mental illness.

Have you ever known anyone close to you with schizophrenia?
Have you seen results from the disease?
Have you seen trauma caused by the disease?
If this was a war vet would you accept his insanity better?

And for some one who said excuse... no it is not an excuse it is the cause.

It concerns me that people are jumping to the conclusion that he has a diagnosable mental illness, let alone specifically schizophrenia. I haven't heard all the reports, but thus far I haven't heard anything that confirms this. It's quite possible he committed this horror and does not have an Axis I disorder at all, or at least not a psychotic disorder. Jumping to this conclusion just adds to the stigma of those who do carry such diagnoses. He needs to have a current psych eval and any prior mental health records need to be reviewed before a diagnosis can be used in helping us have better understanding of him.

inmytree

comebackgirl wrote:

It's quite possible he committed this horror and does not have an Axis I disorder at all, or at least not a psychotic disorder.

possible...

but Highly unlikely....

emphasis on the Highly....

comebackgirl

inmytree wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

It's quite possible he committed this horror and does not have an Axis I disorder at all, or at least not a psychotic disorder.

possible...

but Highly unlikely....

emphasis on the Highly....

He planned this out for months. That's not indicative of someone who had a psychotic break. In most of these situations the shooter is not mentally ill. They may have an Axis II disorder, but typically they're not psychotic. Seung-Hui Cho did have a diagnosable mental illness, and was on VA Tech's radar because of his writings and coming to the attention of their counseling center. It's possible Holmes may have decompensated quickly, but I really want to wait for a psych eval before jumping to any conclusions. People who are actively psychotic don't generally do a good job of hiding it. It's hard to believe that someone could do something this horrific and not be mentally ill, but that is often the case.

dignin

comebackgirl wrote:

inmytree wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

It's quite possible he committed this horror and does not have an Axis I disorder at all, or at least not a psychotic disorder.

possible...

but Highly unlikely....

emphasis on the Highly....

He planned this out for months. That's not indicative of someone who had a psychotic break. In most of these situations the shooter is not mentally ill. They may have an Axis II disorder, but typically they're not psychotic. Seung-Hui Cho did have a diagnosable mental illness, and was on VA Tech's radar because of his writings and coming to the attention of their counseling center. It's possible Holmes may have decompensated quickly, but I really want to wait for a psych eval before jumping to any conclusions. People who are actively psychotic don't generally do a good job of hiding it. It's hard to believe that someone could do something this horrific and not be mentally ill, but that is often the case.

Thank you for bringing some levity to this debate. There are a lot of people jumping to all kinds of conclusions on this thread.

comebackgirl

dignin wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

He planned this out for months. That's not indicative of someone who had a psychotic break. In most of these situations the shooter is not mentally ill. They may have an Axis II disorder, but typically they're not psychotic. Seung-Hui Cho did have a diagnosable mental illness, and was on VA Tech's radar because of his writings and coming to the attention of their counseling center. It's possible Holmes may have decompensated quickly, but I really want to wait for a psych eval before jumping to any conclusions. People who are actively psychotic don't generally do a good job of hiding it. It's hard to believe that someone could do something this horrific and not be mentally ill, but that is often the case.

Thank you for bringing some levity to this debate. There are a lot of people jumping to all kinds of conclusions on this thread.

Thanks for your post. I think we're all just trying to make sense of this. If we understand it, then we feel like we can have some control over these situations and our own safety. It's really terrifying to think that we don't. It's quite possible Holmes does have a mental illness, but the immediate jump to this conclusion just heightens this stigma that so many people with a diagnosis already have to carry. Behavioral intervention teams are often a lot less concerned with people who are schizophrenic or bipolar, and lot more worried about people who are narcissistic and lacking in empathy. Those qualities seem to be the driving force in these types of situations.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Your country has pockets with strict gun laws. That's effective. Outside of these pockets... access to assault weapons and ammunition- even over the internet. Brilliant. If your country is not 'all in' then it's out.

How exactly is the city with strictest gun laws and also the title holder for murder being effective?

Sarcasm. Sorry.