Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

MotoDC

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?

I think I agree with you -- that the story and coverage wouldn't be that different if he were just non-white -- but yeah if he were Muslim it would be a whole different thing in the media. In their defense, in initial reports they did mention that there were no known ties to terrorism, though that may have been before they knew he was a white guy.

Cosmo

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?

...
Remember Oklahoma City? First assumptions were Arab Terrorists due to the nature and scale of the attack. People were almost in shock when it was discovered to be home-grown white folk from Middle America.
...
And the initial assumption of shoot 'em up gun freak is white male between 17 and 45... because in most cases (with Virginia Tech being an exception), it is. The anomaly here is the inteligence level... not the disgruntled employee going to shoot up his former workplace.

comebackgirl

mikepegg44 wrote:

guns serve purposes other than to kill. They open locked doors, they can be used to crack walnuts, I am obviously kidding there...but I will say that guns do serve other purposes. While they can be used to efficiently kill, they can also be used to protect. Guns are amoral not immoral, it is the user that attaches the morality of the action. Target shooting is an absolute blast and relieves a ton of stress, and it isn't about killing anything but a small clay pigeon or circle on a piece of paper...

How many would he have killed with a can of gasoline and a fire at all the exits? Or the explosives he had in his apartment...This is going down a different road than my main intention and since I love to argue I have played along, but my point is that with constitutional rights comes good and bad. Every right has consequences on both sides of the coin. While not all of them end up in death, I am sure they can be causally linked. The 4th and 5th amendments have probably gotten very guilty people off who probably went on to do terrible things, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them or place limits on them. I have a firm belief that when we allow a little infringement we open our selves up to a lot.

To say that a regular citizen doesn't need this or doesn't need that is a losing battle...technically we don't need anything but food, water, and shelter. Gun deaths are prevalent in the country, I am more worried about why people kill others than I am worried about the tools with which they chose to do it with...

Ok...your quoting has me a bit boggled :crazy: so not sure if I'm replying to the right part of your post. So guns protect by.....wait for it....killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure. Unless you use it to repel the bullets à la Wonder Woman's bracelets, in which case you are required to wear her whole outfit. Do you need an assault rifle to do target practice? And even so, why do you then need to keep it in your car or in your home or on your person?

Sure he could kill a lot of people by setting a fire. How many people keep cans of gasoline in their homes or in their cars or on their person? I'm guessing not many...because it's dangerous

Of course people's behavior matters more than the tools, but why have such open access to those tools that serve no other purpose than to injure and kill?

catefrances

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

brandshing a gun alters the conversation and effectively silences one side of the debate. let's face it, who is going to speak up to someone who is holding a gun???

i guarantee you that those tea partiers that showed up at health care town halls with loaded, open, and brandished rifles silenced one side of the debate, and that side was the side that did not agree with them.

that is infringing on free speech right there... strictly by intimidation.

did the gun walk there on it's own? Or was a person choosing to use intimidation to quiet others? the use of intimidation is not a new technique and you certainly don't need guns to do it.

no the gun did not walk there on its own... much like they dont walk anywhere on their own.. but i can tell you as awesome logical and persuasive as i am at the talking, if i were confronted by someone holding a firearm id be very very careful how i chose my words.... id certainly change my tone as well as what i said and how i expressed that... and even if id express that.

but youre correct... a gun isnt necessarily needed for intimidation... but it sure as hell would give one pause for thought.... and i know if confronted by someone of less intelligence than me, or one lacking control of their logical faculties and they were holding a firearm, then absolutely i would feel intimidated. to what degree and how i would handle that is another matter.

but i can tell you im def not arrogant enough to think my wits alone would win a gunfight.

pandora

g under p wrote:

Pandora wrote:

Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.

Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.

And for those who have no compassion for those with mental
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.

I agree, JH took the time to carefully plan this crime out for months, now it probably didn't go perfectly according to his plans but he did cause mayhem and a mass killing. Maybe down the road we will find out what set these plans into motion then committing the plans he drew up. I have NO EMPATHY for him and what he did here.

Peace

If he is found not to be schizophrenic, not living a delusion, to have a rational mind,
I too will have no empathy ...
but that is not my initial gut feeling.

The OP question is answered in my opinion by addressing mental illness.
The lack of awareness, easily attainable help, affordable help, and education for loved ones
so they can find all three before violence or suicide.

pandora

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)


I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.

There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?

Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?

I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.

Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.

Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.

Yes the bullshit term is rude and condescending and truly inappropriate for debate
or even polite discussion. (And I think you meant I not "he")

Those were not my words,
I gave you an estimated time and it sticks with me because it moved my heart.
A young lady and I sat at home from 2pm until we picked up my son from work at 5 pm
watching CNN mostly, flipping maybe to Fox news. Didn't think I would need to prove it

To me what is outlandish is that you would think not a soul in the world
could have empathy for this man. I will give a good lord here and mean that.
I have a feeling church sermons are reflecting on the shooter as well,
giving empathy.

An apology does not contain a BUT because it puts blame on the one receiving it
therefore removing all heartfelt and sincere feeling from it.
An apology is sorry plain and simple.

I agree no need to speak on the subject further... your day as well.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)


I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.

There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?

Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?

I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.

Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.

Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.

Yes the bullshit term is rude and condescending and truly inappropriate for debate
or even polite discussion. (And I think you meant I not "he")

Those were not my words,
I gave you an estimated time and it sticks with me because it moved my heart.
A young lady and I sat at home from 2pm until we picked up my son from work at 5 pm
watching CNN mostly, flipping maybe to Fox news. Didn't think I would need to prove it

To me what is outlandish is that you would think not a soul in the world
could have empathy for this man. I will give a good lord here and mean that.
I have a feeling church sermons are reflecting on the shooter as well,
giving empathy.

An apology does not contain a BUT because it puts blame on the one receiving it
therefore removing all heartfelt and sincere feeling from it.
An apology is sorry plain and simple.

I agree no need to speak on the subject further... your day as well.

Maybe I wasn't very clear. For clarification's sake... I apologized for the term I used. I never apologized for my reluctance to believe the victims are empathizing with the victim through the media- but said I would apologize again if I ever hear this is actually the case.

I do think there are people that have empathy for this man- I never once implied that (you are living proof). I stated that the victims are not part of that group.

mikepegg44

comebackgirl wrote:

Ok...your quoting has me a bit boggled :crazy: so not sure if I'm replying to the right part of your post.

that's ok, we can just start over. I have all the time in the world.

guns protect by.....wait for it....killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure. Unless you use it to repel the bullets à la Wonder Woman's bracelets, in which case you are required to wear her whole outfit. Do you need an assault rifle to do target practice? And even so, why do you then need to keep it in your car or in your home or on your person?

Threatening a criminal with bodily harm, or harming them isn't something I am going to lose sleep over. Ever.
threatening the innocent is a crime already punishable.
I have answered this a few times, but no, no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47. No one needs anything but food water and shelter. In fact, most hunters wouldn't use them to hunt because of the caliber of the bullets. they are low caliber for big game if my memory serves correctly, and unless you are a crack shot you will wound an animal rather than, as odd as this sounds, kill it humanely (I get the slight contradiction in that but this isn't an argument about hunting). Most hunters don't go for that.

Sure he could kill a lot of people by setting a fire. How many people keep cans of gasoline in their homes or in their cars or on their person? I'm guessing not many...because it's dangerous

anyone with a lawn mower has at least 2 gallons at home...or they will wish they did when the mower stops working in the middle of the work

87 killed in a new york arson fire at a bar. kind of puts into perspective that people intent on doing harm will do it, and with something he likely purchased for a dollar a gallon.

Of course people's behavior matters more than the tools, but why have such open access to those tools that serve no other purpose than to injure and kill?

I already explained that they do serve other purposes than injuring and killing humans. Target shooting is a fun, stress relieving, adrenaline pumping activity and is a good skill to have. Not acknowledging that fact makes it hard to discuss further with any real hope at a conclusion. Your bias is clear, and so is mine. Prove to the supreme court that guns are a constant clear and present danger and you will be able to limit the 2nd amendment to your heart's desire. Or get a constitutional amendment passed. Those really are the options. Common sense isn't the same to everyone and thinking that all the limits in the world will stop dip-shits from doing this is wrong.

Hand guns kill far more people and are used in far more violent crimes than assault rifles. Regardless of how effective a gun appears to be, the vast majority of the people who own assault rifles are responsible gun owners. Why punish all of them for the actions of a few? I don't understand that rational. That isn't limited to guns by the way, it is in all things.

No one walks around with an assault rifle in the streets. Often times that is illegal. Leaving the house with a loaded weapon in MN without a permit will land you in some serious trouble. They don't just hand out those permits to anyone who wants one by the way.
Hunting shotguns/rifles need to be unloaded in vehicles while transporting them. as well as being unloaded, they need to be out of reach by vehicle passengers but you may get some leeway depending on what you are doing.

We have an extremely high murder rate comparatively, do you think they go away with less guns? i don't know if I agree with that. You can point to other countries and say the gun laws there are strict and look, less murders and violent crime. To some degree you may be right. But correlation doesn't = causality. I could hand you a rock and tell you it protects you from tiger attacks, and if you live on earth you will probably not be attacked by a tiger. Doesn't mean that the rock protected you...it probably means there is a Host of other reasons as to why you weren't attacked, mystical powers of the rock not withstanding of course. point being, we need to figure out our penchant in the US to "take things out side" to punch/stab/shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is so prevalent. That is my greater concern, it isn't what those people use to kill that concerns me.
Best statistics I could find in one place
Homicides by Weapon Used, 2000-2008

Totals, 2000-2008 % of total



Handguns 65,581 51%
Rifles 3,791 3% should add that it isn't necessarily assault rifles.
Shotguns 4,356 3%
Other firearm not specified or type unknown 820 1%
Firearms, type not stated 11,564 9%
Firearm subtotals 86,112 66%

Knives or cutting instruments 16,547 13%
Blunt Objects 5,782 4%
Personal Weapons 8,220 6%
Poison 106 0%
Explosives 43 0%
Fire 1,093 1%
Narcotics 408 0%
Drowning 150 0%
Strangulation 1,281 1%
Asphyxiation 948 1%
All other 9,051 7%
All other weapons subtotals 43,629 34%
Total, all types: 129,741 100%

Interesting stats from the census bureau. Tells me that I have a better chance of being stabbed to death than killed by an assault rifle. But maybe I am wrong...I mean even if you factor in all types of guns not known and consider them assault rifles...add that to the total of all rifles (hunting and assault) it is still less. I don't know, but I am now terrified of cutting tools I can tell you that.

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the fact that accidental discharge deaths would be preventable if guns were completely banned. That is a fair amount of people, same with suicide (although don't know how many of them would have still done it).

I understand the want for gun control in the country, but do we need it is the better question isn't it?

mikepegg44

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?

right, if he were muslim he would have obviously killed those people because he hated their freedom. Anyone who can't see that is blind.

But in defense of the "white guy snapped" thing...isn't that pretty common among white mass murders, that they have snapped? And how many African American mass murdering psycho's have their been? It is much more of a white problem I think...I am going to have to look into this...People in gangs who murder and other areas of life definitely have something wrong with them, but to go this crazy and do this kind of thing is a much larger white issue isn't it? I mean, McVeigh was crazy, most of the serial killers are crazy, intelligence level not eliminating their craziness.

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?

right, if he were muslim he would have obviously killed those people because he hated their freedom. Anyone who can't see that is blind.

But in defense of the "white guy snapped" thing...isn't that pretty common among white mass murders, that they have snapped? And how many African American mass murdering psycho's have their been? It is much more of a white problem I think...I am going to have to look into this...People in gangs who murder and other areas of life definitely have something wrong with them, but to go this crazy and do this kind of thing is a much larger white issue isn't it? I mean, McVeigh was crazy, most of the serial killers are crazy, intelligence level not eliminating their craziness.

Gang murders usually have motives though. That's what so disturbing about this intelligent white guy thing, with no criminal history or motive. Just snapped? :? But I think you're right there's a trend with serial killers and mass murderer I think.

pandora

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012 ... l-illness/


http://www.schizophrenic.com/content/sc ... statistics

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)


I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.

There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?

Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?

I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.

Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.

Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.

Yes the bullshit term is rude and condescending and truly inappropriate for debate
or even polite discussion. (And I think you meant I not "he")

Those were not my words,
I gave you an estimated time and it sticks with me because it moved my heart.
A young lady and I sat at home from 2pm until we picked up my son from work at 5 pm
watching CNN mostly, flipping maybe to Fox news. Didn't think I would need to prove it

To me what is outlandish is that you would think not a soul in the world
could have empathy for this man. I will give a good lord here and mean that.
I have a feeling church sermons are reflecting on the shooter as well,
giving empathy.

An apology does not contain a BUT because it puts blame on the one receiving it
therefore removing all heartfelt and sincere feeling from it.
An apology is sorry plain and simple.

I agree no need to speak on the subject further... your day as well.

Maybe I wasn't very clear. For clarification's sake... I apologized for the term I used. I never apologized for my reluctance to believe the victims are empathizing with the victim through the media- but said I would apologize again if I ever hear this is actually the case.

I do think there are people that have empathy for this man- I never once implied that (you are living proof). I stated that the victims are not part of that group.

Some dude who got shot was in the hostpital and did an interview, and he briefly mentioned that he has pity for the man or something because he assumed he was a sick fuck. And I think I saw one witness say she felt bad for him in a way because he must be so screwed up in the head. That's it. 1 out of 70 people, and 1 more out of another couple hundred witnesses. But Pandora was right... but as far as I know, ONE victim has expressed this sentiment publicly, and that was within 24 hours of him being shot (and his mother was sitting there and actually kind of looked at him like he was crazy when he said it, lol). Who knows how he feels now that the shock has worn off. *shrug* I think all that is neither here nor there, frankly.

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/01/19/1-in-5-americans-suffer-from-mental-illness/


http://www.schizophrenic.com/content/sc ... statistics

Woah, interesting. Thanks for that.
I also found this an interesting read:
http://us.cnn.com/2012/07/25/health/rai ... ?hpt=hp_t2
***
"How can we better guard ourselves against crimes that make no sense and come with no warning?
Court appearance fuels theories about Colorado shooting suspect.

I don't have an answer to this hugely important question, but one doesn't have to share my experience as an emergency psychiatrist to recognize at least two factors that most of the recent mass murders share in common. First, they have been conducted by young men. And second, they were conducted by men who may have become psychotic, although few details are currently known regarding accused Colorado shooter James Holmes' mental condition.

Because we use the word "psychotic" loosely in common parlance it is worth defining it more carefully here. To be psychotic is to have lost touch with common shared human reality. While this can and does occur in a variety of ways, most people with psychosis struggle with two primary types of symptoms: delusions and hallucinations.

Delusions are fixed false beliefs. Sometimes delusions are wrong, but make sense. But just as often, they are so bizarre that the people afflicted with them cannot explain their ideas in a way that is comprehensible to anyone else.

Hallucinations occur when someone experiences something that is not present, or more technically, that is not experienced by others in the same environment. All the senses are vulnerable to hallucinations, but most hallucinations involve either sight or sound. People see or hear things that aren't there. Interestingly, visual hallucinations are more common in older people with brain diseases such as dementia, and auditory hallucinations are more common in younger people suffering from psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (manic depression).

We know from many studies that the vast majority of individuals afflicted with a psychotic disorder do not commit violence. And I know from much professional experience that people with schizophrenia are, as a group, among the sweetest and most dignified people on the planet. But it is also very clear from studies that people with psychotic disorders are far more likely than others to commit violent acts.

And the great tragedy behind these acts is that they are typically committed by people who may believe they are doing the right thing. Some of the most harrowing experiences of my professional life have involved watching people who had done something terrible when psychotic come to realize the horror of their deeds as they regained their sense of reality through treatment."

comebackgirl

mikepegg44 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Ok...your quoting has me a bit boggled :crazy: so not sure if I'm replying to the right part of your post.

that's ok, we can just start over. I have all the time in the world.

guns protect by.....wait for it....killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure. Unless you use it to repel the bullets à la Wonder Woman's bracelets, in which case you are required to wear her whole outfit. Do you need an assault rifle to do target practice? And even so, why do you then need to keep it in your car or in your home or on your person?

Threatening a criminal with bodily harm, or harming them isn't something I am going to lose sleep over. Ever.
threatening the innocent is a crime already punishable.
I have answered this a few times, but no, no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47. No one needs anything but food water and shelter. In fact, most hunters wouldn't use them to hunt because of the caliber of the bullets. they are low caliber for big game if my memory serves correctly, and unless you are a crack shot you will wound an animal rather than, as odd as this sounds, kill it humanely (I get the slight contradiction in that but this isn't an argument about hunting). Most hunters don't go for that.

Sure he could kill a lot of people by setting a fire. How many people keep cans of gasoline in their homes or in their cars or on their person? I'm guessing not many...because it's dangerous

anyone with a lawn mower has at least 2 gallons at home...or they will wish they did when the mower stops working in the middle of the work

87 killed in a new york arson fire at a bar. kind of puts into perspective that people intent on doing harm will do it, and with something he likely purchased for a dollar a gallon.

Of course people's behavior matters more than the tools, but why have such open access to those tools that serve no other purpose than to injure and kill?

I already explained that they do serve other purposes than injuring and killing humans. Target shooting is a fun, stress relieving, adrenaline pumping activity and is a good skill to have. Not acknowledging that fact makes it hard to discuss further with any real hope at a conclusion. Your bias is clear, and so is mine. Prove to the supreme court that guns are a constant clear and present danger and you will be able to limit the 2nd amendment to your heart's desire. Or get a constitutional amendment passed. Those really are the options. Common sense isn't the same to everyone and thinking that all the limits in the world will stop dip-shits from doing this is wrong.

Hand guns kill far more people and are used in far more violent crimes than assault rifles. Regardless of how effective a gun appears to be, the vast majority of the people who own assault rifles are responsible gun owners. Why punish all of them for the actions of a few? I don't understand that rational. That isn't limited to guns by the way, it is in all things.

No one walks around with an assault rifle in the streets. Often times that is illegal. Leaving the house with a loaded weapon in MN without a permit will land you in some serious trouble. They don't just hand out those permits to anyone who wants one by the way.
Hunting shotguns/rifles need to be unloaded in vehicles while transporting them. as well as being unloaded, they need to be out of reach by vehicle passengers but you may get some leeway depending on what you are doing.

We have an extremely high murder rate comparatively, do you think they go away with less guns? i don't know if I agree with that. You can point to other countries and say the gun laws there are strict and look, less murders and violent crime. To some degree you may be right. But correlation doesn't = causality. I could hand you a rock and tell you it protects you from tiger attacks, and if you live on earth you will probably not be attacked by a tiger. Doesn't mean that the rock protected you...it probably means there is a Host of other reasons as to why you weren't attacked, mystical powers of the rock not withstanding of course. point being, we need to figure out our penchant in the US to "take things out side" to punch/stab/shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is so prevalent. That is my greater concern, it isn't what those people use to kill that concerns me.
Best statistics I could find in one place
Homicides by Weapon Used, 2000-2008

Totals, 2000-2008 % of total



Handguns 65,581 51%
Rifles 3,791 3% should add that it isn't necessarily assault rifles.
Shotguns 4,356 3%
Other firearm not specified or type unknown 820 1%
Firearms, type not stated 11,564 9%
Firearm subtotals 86,112 66%

Knives or cutting instruments 16,547 13%
Blunt Objects 5,782 4%
Personal Weapons 8,220 6%
Poison 106 0%
Explosives 43 0%
Fire 1,093 1%
Narcotics 408 0%
Drowning 150 0%
Strangulation 1,281 1%
Asphyxiation 948 1%
All other 9,051 7%
All other weapons subtotals 43,629 34%
Total, all types: 129,741 100%

Interesting stats from the census bureau. Tells me that I have a better chance of being stabbed to death than killed by an assault rifle. But maybe I am wrong...I mean even if you factor in all types of guns not known and consider them assault rifles...add that to the total of all rifles (hunting and assault) it is still less. I don't know, but I am now terrified of cutting tools I can tell you that.

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the fact that accidental discharge deaths would be preventable if guns were completely banned. That is a fair amount of people, same with suicide (although don't know how many of them would have still done it).

I understand the want for gun control in the country, but do we need it is the better question isn't it?

:shock: That's a lot of words. And we seem to have shifted from your original question about how a gun could impact free speech, but I'm used to following tangential lines of thought I'm going to answer the main points as succinctly as possible.

Regardless of whether or not you would lose sleep, we come back to the same conclusion that guns are solely designed to injure or kill or to threaten to injure or kill (I feel like I've said this before). :think: People may keep cans of gasoline for a lawnmower (ideally not in their home) :shock: which also proves the point that gas serves a purpose other than to kill or injure.

That's great that target practice is a stress reliever for you. I would argue that you don't need a gun to engage in this. I have a whole list of effective stress reducers that don't involve guns if you're interested.

You're point about the murder rate is interesting. I agree that human behavior is the most important factor, namely the need for power. Some people use guns to attain power, others drive big cars to feel more powerful. I think if someone wants to kill themselves or others, they will find a tool and a way to do it, but I'm all for advocating for a less efficient way. Guns certainly aren't the source of the problem, but since it's clear that we live in a country in which the homicide rate is high, having such an effective tool to murder is a huge concern. It would be an interesting experiment to have 2 islands, one where everyone has a gun and one where no one does, and see what happens Lord of the Flies style. Something tells me the same human traits for power and control would emerge, but poor little Piggy might suffer a worse fate on the island of guns.

mikepegg44

comebackgirl wrote:

:shock: That's a lot of words. And we seem to have shifted from your original question about how a gun could impact free speech, but I'm used to following tangential lines of thought I'm going to answer the main points as succinctly as possible.

Regardless of whether or not you would lose sleep, we come back to the same conclusion that guns are solely designed to injure or kill or to threaten to injure or kill (I feel like I've said this before). :think: People may keep cans of gasoline for a lawnmower (ideally not in their home) :shock: which also proves the point that gas serves a purpose other than to kill or injure.

That's great that target practice is a stress reliever for you. I would argue that you don't need a gun to engage in this. I have a whole list of effective stress reducers that don't involve guns if you're interested.

You're point about the murder rate is interesting. I agree that human behavior is the most important factor, namely the need for power. Some people use guns to attain power, others drive big cars to feel more powerful. I think if someone wants to kill themselves or others, they will find a tool and a way to do it, but I'm all for advocating for a less efficient way. Guns certainly aren't the source of the problem, but since it's clear that we live in a country in which the homicide rate is high, having such an effective tool to murder is a huge concern. It would be an interesting experiment to have 2 islands, one where everyone has a gun and one where no one does, and see what happens Lord of the Flies style. Something tells me the same human traits for power and control would emerge, but poor little Piggy might suffer a worse fate on the island of guns.

First, I thought I received the answer I was looking for...and since it can happen but is VERY unlikely to happen, I don't believe it to be a major concern. and considering a gun being brandished or pointed at a person for no other reason than intimidation is already a crime, I am not concerned with it legitimately legally being used to limit free speech.
again, if you aren't willing to see that a gun's sole purpose is not to kill and maim we cannot go much further. I have given you a purpose to a firearm that has nothing to do with killing. It seems like you assume that someone who haves a gun in their house for protection will threaten to kill with it. That may be the case sometimes, but sometimes simply having it in hand will do the trick. I wouldn't have to threaten anyone, they will feel threatened themselves, and it serves them right for breaking into my house uninvited. What this clearly shows is that you aren't willing to see more uses for a weapon than simply killing. Which is fine, you can have that opinion but further discussion of the point is rather moot wouldn't you think?
I understand why people want gun control, I understand a lot about why people want the government to limit certain things...I just don't agree that it is their duty or their right to do it all the time with everything.

You may have a whole list of stress reducers that work for you, the same philosophy that asks the question why do people need guns gives birth to questioning what I do to relieve stress as if it is somehow wrong and that i don't need to do it. You are right, I don't need to do it, you don't need to squeeze a stress ball or get a massage, what it is is SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR YOU.

I ask a lot of why do people need questions all day long...why do people need to text while they drive, why do people need to yell at their 1 year old kids like they are adults that have a different level of cognitive ability....the list goes on forever...the answer is no one NEEDS to do those things. We choose to do them.

The list of stats I posted is pretty clear...knives are more dangerous to you than assault weapons. I can buy a million knives tomorrow that I intend on doing harm with...I have to wait and go through a background check to legally purchase the firearm.
do you honestly believe that you can prove that all guns are a clear and present danger to society? that VAST majority will never be used to harm or threaten. Ever. That doesn't represent a clear and present danger to me.

comebackgirl

mikepegg44 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

:shock: That's a lot of words. And we seem to have shifted from your original question about how a gun could impact free speech, but I'm used to following tangential lines of thought I'm going to answer the main points as succinctly as possible.

Regardless of whether or not you would lose sleep, we come back to the same conclusion that guns are solely designed to injure or kill or to threaten to injure or kill (I feel like I've said this before). :think: People may keep cans of gasoline for a lawnmower (ideally not in their home) :shock: which also proves the point that gas serves a purpose other than to kill or injure.

That's great that target practice is a stress reliever for you. I would argue that you don't need a gun to engage in this. I have a whole list of effective stress reducers that don't involve guns if you're interested.

You're point about the murder rate is interesting. I agree that human behavior is the most important factor, namely the need for power. Some people use guns to attain power, others drive big cars to feel more powerful. I think if someone wants to kill themselves or others, they will find a tool and a way to do it, but I'm all for advocating for a less efficient way. Guns certainly aren't the source of the problem, but since it's clear that we live in a country in which the homicide rate is high, having such an effective tool to murder is a huge concern. It would be an interesting experiment to have 2 islands, one where everyone has a gun and one where no one does, and see what happens Lord of the Flies style. Something tells me the same human traits for power and control would emerge, but poor little Piggy might suffer a worse fate on the island of guns.

First, I thought I received the answer I was looking for...and since it can happen but is VERY unlikely to happen, I don't believe it to be a major concern. and considering a gun being brandished or pointed at a person for no other reason than intimidation is already a crime, I am not concerned with it legitimately legally being used to limit free speech.
again, if you aren't willing to see that a gun's sole purpose is not to kill and maim we cannot go much further. I have given you a purpose to a firearm that has nothing to do with killing. It seems like you assume that someone who haves a gun in their house for protection will threaten to kill with it. That may be the case sometimes, but sometimes simply having it in hand will do the trick. I wouldn't have to threaten anyone, they will feel threatened themselves, and it serves them right for breaking into my house uninvited. What this clearly shows is that you aren't willing to see more uses for a weapon than simply killing. Which is fine, you can have that opinion but further discussion of the point is rather moot wouldn't you think?
I understand why people want gun control, I understand a lot about why people want the government to limit certain things...I just don't agree that it is their duty or their right to do it all the time with everything.

You may have a whole list of stress reducers that work for you, the same philosophy that asks the question why do people need guns gives birth to questioning what I do to relieve stress as if it is somehow wrong and that i don't need to do it. You are right, I don't need to do it, you don't need to squeeze a stress ball or get a massage, what it is is SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR YOU.

I ask a lot of why do people need questions all day long...why do people need to text while they drive, why do people need to yell at their 1 year old kids like they are adults that have a different level of cognitive ability....the list goes on forever...the answer is no one NEEDS to do those things. We choose to do them.

The list of stats I posted is pretty clear...knives are more dangerous to you than assault weapons. I can buy a million knives tomorrow that I intend on doing harm with...I have to wait and go through a background check to legally purchase the firearm.
do you honestly believe that you can prove that all guns are a clear and present danger to society? that VAST majority will never be used to harm or threaten. Ever. That doesn't represent a clear and present danger to me.

Oh good. I'm glad you felt your question was answered. I wasn't sure.

I assume nothing about the people who own guns, only about the guns themselves. I'm positive that not everyone who has a gun in their home would threaten or kill with it, but yes we do disagree as that it still seems to be the only reason guns were made, whether or not someone chooses to use it in that manner. Just as shoes are made to be walked in, whether or not I choose to have a whole collection just to admire on a shelf :shifty: I'm open to hearing more purposes for a gun, but the target practice use is not a convincing one for me. And yes you wouldn't need to use the gun to threaten, I agree the gun is threatening in and of itself, as that is one of its purposes.

You absolutely can use any stress relieving activity that works for you. I'm not here to limit that choice....just pointing out that there are other options and guns are not a necessity for this. Good for you for finding something that works! Stress probably kills even more than guns.

Guns are certainly more efficient at killing than knives. I certainly don't feel safe being in the presence of one. They're certainly used for illegal purposes by people who own them legally often enough to make me feel unsafe.

mikepegg44

comebackgirl wrote:

Oh good. I'm glad you felt your question was answered. I wasn't sure.

I assume nothing about the people who own guns, only about the guns themselves. I'm positive that not everyone who has a gun in their home would threaten or kill with it, but yes we do disagree as that it still seems to be the only reason guns were made, whether or not someone chooses to use it in that manner. Just as shoes are made to be walked in, whether or not I choose to have a whole collection just to admire on a shelf :shifty: I'm open to hearing more purposes for a gun, but the target practice use is not a convincing one for me. And yes you wouldn't need to use the gun to threaten, I agree the gun is threatening in and of itself, as that is one of its purposes.

You absolutely can have use any stress relieving activity that works for you. I'm not here to limit that choice....just pointing out that there are other options and guns are not a necessity for this. Good for you for finding something that works! Stress probably kills even more than guns.

Guns are certainly more efficient at killing than knives. I certainly don't feel safe being in the presence of one. They certainly used for illegal purposes by people who own them legally often enough to make me feel unsafe.

fair enough.

But statistics would say you should be more afraid of knives than assault rifles. That is my point. You feel afraid of them, not everyone does and that is what makes the argument so hard I think...You will never here me say someone needs an AR-15. Ever. But it isn't my job to tell someone what they can have if it isn't being used against other people. Each situation is different and when we look at them as blankets we might as well cover all of the homicides with the same blanket. Likelihood of attack would show that assault weapons shouldn't be feared like some other tools people use for murder.

Maybe it would do you some good to target shoot. Give me a PM if you are ever in Minneapolis, you certainly can come with first timers are a blast to shoot with...it might give a better understanding of what I am talking about...My guns, and there are far many more people like me than not, are kept locked and safe and are used for legitimate purposes and yes, sometimes those purposes are intimidation of other people who happen to be criminals.

Assault rifles are definitely better at killing than knives, I guess the stabbers are just looking for more of a challenge?

It all boils down to needs and wants I suppose...We all want to tell someone what they need and what they should want...I don't think anyone is different there. Me saying that people shouldn't care about what anyone else does until it affects them directly is me telling someone what they should want...I am fully aware of that irony.

comebackgirl

mikepegg44 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Oh good. I'm glad you felt your question was answered. I wasn't sure.

I assume nothing about the people who own guns, only about the guns themselves. I'm positive that not everyone who has a gun in their home would threaten or kill with it, but yes we do disagree as that it still seems to be the only reason guns were made, whether or not someone chooses to use it in that manner. Just as shoes are made to be walked in, whether or not I choose to have a whole collection just to admire on a shelf :shifty: I'm open to hearing more purposes for a gun, but the target practice use is not a convincing one for me. And yes you wouldn't need to use the gun to threaten, I agree the gun is threatening in and of itself, as that is one of its purposes.

You absolutely can have use any stress relieving activity that works for you. I'm not here to limit that choice....just pointing out that there are other options and guns are not a necessity for this. Good for you for finding something that works! Stress probably kills even more than guns.

Guns are certainly more efficient at killing than knives. I certainly don't feel safe being in the presence of one. They certainly used for illegal purposes by people who own them legally often enough to make me feel unsafe.

fair enough.

But statistics would say you should be more afraid of knives than assault rifles. That is my point. You feel afraid of them, not everyone does and that is what makes the argument so hard I think...You will never here me say someone needs an AR-15. Ever. But it isn't my job to tell someone what they can have if it isn't being used against other people. Each situation is different and when we look at them as blankets we might as well cover all of the homicides with the same blanket. Likelihood of attack would show that assault weapons shouldn't be feared like some other tools people use for murder.

Maybe it would do you some good to target shoot. Give me a PM if you are ever in Minneapolis, you certainly can come with first timers are a blast to shoot with...it might give a better understanding of what I am talking about...My guns, and there are far many more people like me than not, are kept locked and safe and are used for legitimate purposes and yes, sometimes those purposes are intimidation of other people who happen to be criminals.

Assault rifles are definitely better at killing than knives, I guess the stabbers are just looking for more of a challenge?

It all boils down to needs and wants I suppose...We all want to tell someone what they need and what they should want...I don't think anyone is different there. Me saying that people shouldn't care about what anyone else does until it affects them directly is me telling someone what they should want...I am fully aware of that irony.

Thanks for the invitation, but you seriously would not want to take me target shooting :shock: Seriously, if you ever have the opportunity to see me play softball, table tennis, golf or bowling you would not want to let me anywhere near a gun :? You might quickly jump to wanting to ban all guns as a matter of fact :think:

I just feel like if someone wants to kill me they should work for it, so statistically knives might be more responsible for more deaths, but at least they have to put a little effort in :P I mean don't be lazy about your killings :roll:

mikepegg44

comebackgirl wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Oh good. I'm glad you felt your question was answered. I wasn't sure.

I assume nothing about the people who own guns, only about the guns themselves. I'm positive that not everyone who has a gun in their home would threaten or kill with it, but yes we do disagree as that it still seems to be the only reason guns were made, whether or not someone chooses to use it in that manner. Just as shoes are made to be walked in, whether or not I choose to have a whole collection just to admire on a shelf :shifty: I'm open to hearing more purposes for a gun, but the target practice use is not a convincing one for me. And yes you wouldn't need to use the gun to threaten, I agree the gun is threatening in and of itself, as that is one of its purposes.

You absolutely can have use any stress relieving activity that works for you. I'm not here to limit that choice....just pointing out that there are other options and guns are not a necessity for this. Good for you for finding something that works! Stress probably kills even more than guns.

Guns are certainly more efficient at killing than knives. I certainly don't feel safe being in the presence of one. They certainly used for illegal purposes by people who own them legally often enough to make me feel unsafe.

fair enough.

But statistics would say you should be more afraid of knives than assault rifles. That is my point. You feel afraid of them, not everyone does and that is what makes the argument so hard I think...You will never here me say someone needs an AR-15. Ever. But it isn't my job to tell someone what they can have if it isn't being used against other people. Each situation is different and when we look at them as blankets we might as well cover all of the homicides with the same blanket. Likelihood of attack would show that assault weapons shouldn't be feared like some other tools people use for murder.

Maybe it would do you some good to target shoot. Give me a PM if you are ever in Minneapolis, you certainly can come with first timers are a blast to shoot with...it might give a better understanding of what I am talking about...My guns, and there are far many more people like me than not, are kept locked and safe and are used for legitimate purposes and yes, sometimes those purposes are intimidation of other people who happen to be criminals.

Assault rifles are definitely better at killing than knives, I guess the stabbers are just looking for more of a challenge?

It all boils down to needs and wants I suppose...We all want to tell someone what they need and what they should want...I don't think anyone is different there. Me saying that people shouldn't care about what anyone else does until it affects them directly is me telling someone what they should want...I am fully aware of that irony.

Thanks for the invitation, but you seriously would not want to take me target shooting :shock: Seriously, if you ever have the opportunity to see me play softball, table tennis, golf or bowling you would not want to let me anywhere near a gun :? You might quickly jump to wanting to ban all guns as a matter of fact :think:

I just feel like if someone wants to kill me they should work for it, so statistically knives might be more responsible for more deaths, but at least they have to put a little effort in :P I mean don't be lazy about your killings :roll:

on both accounts

I agree, I don't want to be murdered by anything other than a bowling bowl falling through a bath tub that starts off a chain reaction ah la mouse trap. I would be disappointed if it went down any other way.

PJ_Soul

mikepegg44 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Oh good. I'm glad you felt your question was answered. I wasn't sure.

I assume nothing about the people who own guns, only about the guns themselves. I'm positive that not everyone who has a gun in their home would threaten or kill with it, but yes we do disagree as that it still seems to be the only reason guns were made, whether or not someone chooses to use it in that manner. Just as shoes are made to be walked in, whether or not I choose to have a whole collection just to admire on a shelf :shifty: I'm open to hearing more purposes for a gun, but the target practice use is not a convincing one for me. And yes you wouldn't need to use the gun to threaten, I agree the gun is threatening in and of itself, as that is one of its purposes.

You absolutely can have use any stress relieving activity that works for you. I'm not here to limit that choice....just pointing out that there are other options and guns are not a necessity for this. Good for you for finding something that works! Stress probably kills even more than guns.

Guns are certainly more efficient at killing than knives. I certainly don't feel safe being in the presence of one. They certainly used for illegal purposes by people who own them legally often enough to make me feel unsafe.

fair enough.

But statistics would say you should be more afraid of knives than assault rifles. That is my point. You feel afraid of them, not everyone does and that is what makes the argument so hard I think...You will never here me say someone needs an AR-15. Ever. But it isn't my job to tell someone what they can have if it isn't being used against other people. Each situation is different and when we look at them as blankets we might as well cover all of the homicides with the same blanket. Likelihood of attack would show that assault weapons shouldn't be feared like some other tools people use for murder.

Maybe it would do you some good to target shoot. Give me a PM if you are ever in Minneapolis, you certainly can come with first timers are a blast to shoot with...it might give a better understanding of what I am talking about...My guns, and there are far many more people like me than not, are kept locked and safe and are used for legitimate purposes and yes, sometimes those purposes are intimidation of other people who happen to be criminals.

Assault rifles are definitely better at killing than knives, I guess the stabbers are just looking for more of a challenge?

It all boils down to needs and wants I suppose...We all want to tell someone what they need and what they should want...I don't think anyone is different there. Me saying that people shouldn't care about what anyone else does until it affects them directly is me telling someone what they should want...I am fully aware of that irony.

The thing is, knife attacks are almost NEVER random or accidents. They are usually fights in bar parking lots and domestic disputes and street fights and shit like that. Random innocent bystanders don't get caught in the downswing of a knife, and someone with a knife can't commit a mass murder.