man shoots his 15yr old son in 'burglary'

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

Those steps sound promising, most of them anyways, I still don't understand how you would ban assault rifles and not expect them to get into bad peoples hands. I say that just based on what I know about the black market and supply and demand. The other things sound fine, but surely you know that only law abiding citizens care about laws. So you can make laws till your blue in the face, but criminals don't really care about them.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

So what's your solution?

There is no overnight fix... but in the interest of public safety for the future, the following steps would be wise and eventually prove worthwhile:

Begin the process of registering all firearms while- at the same time- seizing and destroying all 'illegal' firearms.

Thorough background checks before issuing licenses.

No assault rifles (hobby guns) for the common citizen.

Restict the sales of assault rifle ammunition.

Handguns require 'extra thorough' background checks.

Restrict the sale of handgun ammunition to government sanctioned retailers (where checks and balances can be placed in effect).

Guys (notice I say 'guys') who want to have bad ass guns 'come Hell or high water' would still be able to access them via the black market. Ultimately though, restrictions would make access to such weaponry- not to mention the ammunition necessary for them to operate- illegal and very difficult. The average Joe who has little or no connection to the criminal element would have a really tough time (not impossibe... but tough for sure) finding themselves an illegal weapon- dealers wouldn't be standing on street corners possessing a bunch of assault rifles in their gonch.

Smuggling weapons and ammunition would seem to be a little more daunting and a little more challenging than smuggling drugs when you take into account the unit size of, say, an AK-47 versus, say, 5 pounds of cocaine. The payoff would be enough to motivate some... but not enough for many.

It would go without saying that the penalties attached to possessing illegal weapons should be severe. If it was discovered or proven that there might have been an intent to sell... well... you're spending some time!

Godfather.

goingtoverona wrote:

That sounds nice in theory, but how would that work? The reason I ask is, right now cocaine is banned, banned like you want these guns to be, yet I can have an 8 ball delivered to my house in 30 minutes if I so desired. so what is it about guns that would be different than drugs and alcohol back in the day?

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

So what's your solution?

ban all non-animal-hunting firearms.

if your having 8 ball delivered to your home chances are there is a gun invoved somewhere down the line...no pun intended

Godfather.

goingtoverona

spending time in jail. This sounds a lot like the drug war, the gun war...sounds catchy. It's funny when you think about it, the goal of banning guns would be to prevent gun violence, and I would argue that it would do the exact opposite. In my opinion there would be unprecedented violence from everyone ranging from militant groups to your everyday average joe. I think lots of people would fight, literally, the government from taking their guns. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but me personally, the government comes out tomorrow and says your guns are banned america, the few ruined it for the millions, sorry, I would gather up my guns and stash them in a safe place. then I would call the cops and say my guns were stolen and I have nothing to turn in. then over night I'm a criminal, spending some serious time in prison if I get caught. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one doing that either.

catefrances

goingtoverona wrote:

spending time in jail. This sounds a lot like the drug war, the gun war...sounds catchy. It's funny when you think about it, the goal of banning guns would be to prevent gun violence, and I would argue that it would do the exact opposite. In my opinion there would be unprecedented violence from everyone ranging from militant groups to your everyday average joe. I think lots of people would fight, literally, the government from taking their guns. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but me personally, the government comes out tomorrow and says your guns are banned america, the few ruined it for the millions, sorry, I would gather up my guns and stash them in a safe place. then I would call the cops and say my guns were stolen and I have nothing to turn in. then over night I'm a criminal, spending some serious time in prison if I get caught. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one doing that either.

back in the 90s the australian govt implimented a buy back system for firearms. they did so cause there had been a massacre in tasmania and no one wanted that to happen again. the vast majority of people willingly gave up there weapons(probabaly for the cash incentive) but there were others, and i know some of them, who chose to keep their guns... which of course means that theyre in violation of the law. however weve not had another massacre and it hasnt turned into the wild west here for criminals... tho for the most part they do tend to shoot each other. but im hard pressed to really give a shit about that tbh.

goingtoverona

I would tend to agree, the only problem with criminals shooting each other is that they can miss and hit innocent people. If only they would meet up in the desert far from civilization and shoot each other there.

catefrances

goingtoverona wrote:

I would tend to agree, the only problem with criminals shooting each other is that they can miss and hit innocent people. If only they would meet up in the desert far from civilization and shoot each other there.

well yes there is always that risk. i also should point out that our population is vastly smaller than that of the US so issues that are manageable here cant always be so easily transposed to american society. doesnt mean it shouldnt be tried tho.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

goingtoverona wrote:

spending time in jail. This sounds a lot like the drug war, the gun war...sounds catchy. It's funny when you think about it, the goal of banning guns would be to prevent gun violence, and I would argue that it would do the exact opposite. In my opinion there would be unprecedented violence from everyone ranging from militant groups to your everyday average joe. I think lots of people would fight, literally, the government from taking their guns. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but me personally, the government comes out tomorrow and says your guns are banned america, the few ruined it for the millions, sorry, I would gather up my guns and stash them in a safe place. then I would call the cops and say my guns were stolen and I have nothing to turn in. then over night I'm a criminal, spending some serious time in prison if I get caught. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one doing that either.

obviously it wouldn't be "Sept 30th your guns are legal, Oct 1st they aren't" type of situation. it would have to be gradual.

drugs and guns are vastly different, as well, so I wouldn't say you could compare the two "wars".

dunkman

pandora wrote:

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

Again why don't you speak of the other story where the homeowner protected himself
and property?
puttingt two bad guys in prison, protecting society in turn?
Oh wait, I know why.

does anyone else get bored of reading this kind of argument?

Is it really worth shooting 2 people, 2 people who might die, because they want your TV?

What if they had guns... is it worth totally endangering the lives of yourself, your family, etc because some shitbag wants your iPad?

weird.

Bored with ... :fp: wow that say's alot...
can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who has faced home invasion?
Or are you so far removed from that danger you can not empathize?

you dont know anything about me.

plus "home invasion" is a bit alarmist... makes it sound like coke-fuelled amateur SWAT teams are trying to get into my house and steal my awesome collection of 1970's french erotica.... it also makes me think that you are worried that every burglar wants to come in a kill and rape everything in the house.... why be so scared?

if i heard a guy downstairs in my house lifting my stereo i'd go down and probably try and scare them off... what i wouldnt want to do is go down and shoot the first thing i saw moving... all for a stereo? not sure i'd want that on my conscience.

but then where i live, i'm pretty certain that a burglar doesnt have a gun... very simple reasons for this.

1.we banned handguns 2.they cost a holy fucking fortune on the black market 3.if they could afford a gun then they wouldnt be robbing me... a big bank maybe, but not me. 4.we dont give away guns when we open up a bank account or buy a 3 litre bottle of Tropicana.

so yes, i'm bored of the whole "but this guy had a gun so he stopped a robbery" nonsense.... I know of people here in the UK who stopped a robbery by phoning the police and/or confronting the people in the house...

to utilise a fairly common refrain ... . a gun doesnt stop robberies, people do.

but yeah, i'm also bored of the US attitude towards their little guns... keep killing each other.... i simply dont care. seriously... to use the words of Scrooge " If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."

plus its only the extremely dumb ones who are getting killed.... Darwinism and all that.

goingtoverona

I know they're different, but that's not an answer. I want to know, in your opinion of course, how would the gun war be different than the drug war? How would it be different than alcohol prohibition? do you see what I'm saying? It can't just be, oh well the gun war would work because it's guns. just because prohibition doesn't work with alcohol, drugs, or prostitution, it will be different with guns because?....

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

spending time in jail. This sounds a lot like the drug war, the gun war...sounds catchy. It's funny when you think about it, the goal of banning guns would be to prevent gun violence, and I would argue that it would do the exact opposite. In my opinion there would be unprecedented violence from everyone ranging from militant groups to your everyday average joe. I think lots of people would fight, literally, the government from taking their guns. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but me personally, the government comes out tomorrow and says your guns are banned america, the few ruined it for the millions, sorry, I would gather up my guns and stash them in a safe place. then I would call the cops and say my guns were stolen and I have nothing to turn in. then over night I'm a criminal, spending some serious time in prison if I get caught. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one doing that either.

obviously it wouldn't be "Sept 30th your guns are legal, Oct 1st they aren't" type of situation. it would have to be gradual.

drugs and guns are vastly different, as well, so I wouldn't say you could compare the two "wars".

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

I know they're different, but that's not an answer. I want to know, in your opinion of course, how would the gun war be different than the drug war? How would it be different than alcohol prohibition? do you see what I'm saying? It can't just be, oh well the gun war would work because it's guns. just because prohibition doesn't work with alcohol, drugs, or prostitution, it will be different with guns because?....

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

spending time in jail. This sounds a lot like the drug war, the gun war...sounds catchy. It's funny when you think about it, the goal of banning guns would be to prevent gun violence, and I would argue that it would do the exact opposite. In my opinion there would be unprecedented violence from everyone ranging from militant groups to your everyday average joe. I think lots of people would fight, literally, the government from taking their guns. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but me personally, the government comes out tomorrow and says your guns are banned america, the few ruined it for the millions, sorry, I would gather up my guns and stash them in a safe place. then I would call the cops and say my guns were stolen and I have nothing to turn in. then over night I'm a criminal, spending some serious time in prison if I get caught. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one doing that either.

obviously it wouldn't be "Sept 30th your guns are legal, Oct 1st they aren't" type of situation. it would have to be gradual.

drugs and guns are vastly different, as well, so I wouldn't say you could compare the two "wars".

There are numerous, advanced countries that have gun restriction models in place- such as the one presented on this thread- that have demonstrated blue ribbon success with it. Homeruns!

It's really simple and Dunkman has put it best- if guns weren't so damn abundant in your country... then there would be a lot fewer tragedies. The 'fear' factor has paralyzed many people's rational thought process and allowed the gun industry to thrive in the US.

The 'success' stories people speak of where people 'defend' themselves against a gun with a gun pale in comparison to the senseless tragedies that proliferate the headlines of your country. Further, many of these cases where someone does defend themselves would not have occurred in the first place had some scumbag not picked up a handgun for a high five or a nickel.

I would think people become much bolder when they possess a gun- skinny little rodents think their max bench goes from 115 to 225 as soon as they have 'the might' in their hands. It doesn't help that the ammunition they purchase can be had for the deposit return of three empty pop cans.

The overabundance of weaponry designed for use other than shooting deer has become an epidemic problem for your country. This epidemic has resulted in one catastrophe after another. What's the over/under for the next random, mass public shooting at? It's sad.

But, of course, it is your country. It is not out of envy that people wish for you guys to safeguard yourselves with laws that would have the effect of doing so for you. It's concern. We hate reading of the endless 'killer gets mad and shoots up place' stories. Very disturbing.

_

dunkman wrote:

you dont know anything about me.

plus "home invasion" is a bit alarmist... makes it sound like coke-fuelled amateur SWAT teams are trying to get into my house and steal my awesome collection of 1970's french erotica.... it also makes me think that you are worried that every burglar wants to come in a kill and rape everything in the house.... why be so scared?

if i heard a guy downstairs in my house lifting my stereo i'd go down and probably try and scare them off... what i wouldnt want to do is go down and shoot the first thing i saw moving... all for a stereo? not sure i'd want that on my conscience.

but then where i live, i'm pretty certain that a burglar doesnt have a gun... very simple reasons for this.

1.we banned handguns 2.they cost a holy fucking fortune on the black market 3.if they could afford a gun then they wouldnt be robbing me... a big bank maybe, but not me. 4.we dont give away guns when we open up a bank account or buy a 3 litre bottle of Tropicana.

so yes, i'm bored of the whole "but this guy had a gun so he stopped a robbery" nonsense.... I know of people here in the UK who stopped a robbery by phoning the police and/or confronting the people in the house...

to utilise a fairly common refrain ... . a gun doesnt stop robberies, people do.

but yeah, i'm also bored of the US attitude towards their little guns... keep killing each other.... i simply dont care. seriously... to use the words of Scrooge " If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."

plus its only the extremely dumb ones who are getting killed.... Darwinism and all that.

I totally agree with you & value your perspective on this issue. But, in answer to your question, "Why so scared?"... Please keep in mind that women are much more vulnerable than men & much worse things happen to us at the hands of intruders, who are not as easily scared off by us as they are by you. If I heard a strange guy in my house, I'd be so scared that I probably would shoot the first thing I saw moving. Of course, that's why I got rid of my gun.

goingtoverona

Fair enough, I'm as disgusted with gun violence as the next guy, I just feel that right now millions and millions of people own guns and don't hurt anyone. a fraction of a percentage use those guns to hurt people and commit crimes. If you completely ban guns all together, there is still that group of shitheads that will have guns and hurt people. So all you've accomplished is taking the guns away from millions of regular people.

And I get the argument of, yeah but less guns means less gun deaths. And that absolutely true. The question is why just guns? people kill each other every day with cars, if we banned cars we would save tens of thousands of lives why not ban cigarettes, alcohol, and unhealthy foods. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

keeponrockin

goingtoverona wrote:

And I get the argument of, yeah but less guns means less gun deaths. And that absolutely true. The question is why just guns? people kill each other every day with cars, if we banned cars we would save tens of thousands of lives why not ban cigarettes, alcohol, and unhealthy foods. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Because those (not including cigarettes) are designed to do things other than kill people. The only thing a handgun is designed to do is kill another human being, thats it.

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

On the topic of guns:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/crim ... -ad/nSQXd/

Colo attack victim wants debates to address guns, By THOMAS PEIPERT
The Associated Press
DENVER — A man wounded in the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater is appearing in a nationwide television spot aimed at drawing attention to gun violence as part of the upcoming presidential debates.

Stephen Barton, 22, of Southbury, Conn., was among the 58 people injured in the July 20 attack in Aurora that also left 12 people dead.

Barton was bicycling across the country and staying with a friend the night of the shooting. He now does victim outreach and policy research for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which helped produce the ad that began airing Monday.

In the 30-second TV spot, Barton urges people to ask themselves during the debates which candidate has a plan to stop gun violence.

Filmed inside an empty movie theater, Barton talks about his experience during the shooting as photos are shown of jagged gunshot wounds to his face and neck.

"I was lucky. In the next four years, 48,000 Americans won't be so lucky, because they'll be murdered with guns in the next president's term, enough to fill over 200 theaters," Barton says in the ad.

Meanwhile, the families of eight people killed in the theater shooting joined the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to urge the moderator of Wednesday's debate to ask President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney about gun violence.

"To ignore the problem of gun violence in a state where two of the worst shootings in U.S. history took place — Aurora and Columbine — would not only be noticeable by its absence but would slight the memories of our loved ones killed," the letter said.

Jim Lehrer of PBS is moderating the event at the University of Denver.
Obama and Romney have been largely quiet about guns during the campaign, except when prodded about high-profile cases.

Obama has supported a renewed ban on assault-type weapons, and he blames Congress for opposing such measures. The president also has signed laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains.

Romney says he thinks the nation needs tougher enforcement of gun laws already on the books, not new gun laws. The key is to identify deranged or distressed people and keep them from carrying out terrible acts, he says.

The TV ad featuring Barton is part of the "Demand A Plan" campaign led by shooting survivors and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group of more than 725 mayors who advocate closing what they say are loopholes in laws designed to prevent felons, domestic violence offenders, people who are seriously mentally ill and other dangerous people from obtaining firearms.

"Especially now, given what's happened in the past few months with guns and these mass shootings, I don't think there is a better opportunity to talk about this," Barton told The Associated Press.

Barton said it's frustrating that the candidates have shied away from gun policy, and he hopes the new ad will start a conversation about gun violence and how to stop it.

"At some point we have to demand a certain level of courage and independence among politicians," he said. "At some point you just have to expect more, even in an election season."

The ad, which does not endorse Obama or Romney, indicates it was paid for by the United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund, the fundraising arm for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

hmmm...
that sounds like someone I know

I knew I heard that somewhere

pandora

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

dunkman wrote:

does anyone else get bored of reading this kind of argument?

Is it really worth shooting 2 people, 2 people who might die, because they want your TV?

What if they had guns... is it worth totally endangering the lives of yourself, your family, etc because some shitbag wants your iPad?

weird.

Bored with ... :fp: wow that say's alot...
can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who has faced home invasion?
Or are you so far removed from that danger you can not empathize?

you dont know anything about me.

plus "home invasion" is a bit alarmist... makes it sound like coke-fuelled amateur SWAT teams are trying to get into my house and steal my awesome collection of 1970's french erotica.... it also makes me think that you are worried that every burglar wants to come in a kill and rape everything in the house.... why be so scared?

if i heard a guy downstairs in my house lifting my stereo i'd go down and probably try and scare them off... what i wouldnt want to do is go down and shoot the first thing i saw moving... all for a stereo? not sure i'd want that on my conscience.

but then where i live, i'm pretty certain that a burglar doesnt have a gun... very simple reasons for this.

1.we banned handguns 2.they cost a holy fucking fortune on the black market 3.if they could afford a gun then they wouldnt be robbing me... a big bank maybe, but not me. 4.we dont give away guns when we open up a bank account or buy a 3 litre bottle of Tropicana.

so yes, i'm bored of the whole "but this guy had a gun so he stopped a robbery" nonsense.... I know of people here in the UK who stopped a robbery by phoning the police and/or confronting the people in the house...

to utilise a fairly common refrain ... . a gun doesnt stop robberies, people do.

but yeah, i'm also bored of the US attitude towards their little guns... keep killing each other.... i simply dont care. seriously... to use the words of Scrooge " If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."

plus its only the extremely dumb ones who are getting killed.... Darwinism and all that.

Nope home invasion is exactly what it should be called,
I think you might want to take some time to read what people are experiencing.
You appear clueless on the subject of this type of violence.
And then after perhaps care so much about others as to understand why they
want to protect themselves.

But you said it yourself, there in your country the size of our Maine, :fp:
you don't give a rats ass.... so be it.

goingtoverona

I'm sorry, but the main thing your statement says to me is that it's ok if people are dying by anything other than guns. That's just life. If the goal of banning guns is to save lives, how could you be against banning all these things that kill people? Banning them would save lives. And for the record, I shoot guns because it's fun, not because I'm trying to kill people.

keeponrockin wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

And I get the argument of, yeah but less guns means less gun deaths. And that absolutely true. The question is why just guns? people kill each other every day with cars, if we banned cars we would save tens of thousands of lives why not ban cigarettes, alcohol, and unhealthy foods. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Because those (not including cigarettes) are designed to do things other than kill people. The only thing a handgun is designed to do is kill another human being, thats it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Nope home invasion is exactly what it should be called,
I think you might want to take some time to read what people are experiencing.
You appear clueless on the subject of this type of violence.
And then after perhaps care so much about others as to understand why they
want to protect themselves.

But you said it yourself, there in your country the size of our Maine, :fp:
you don't give a rats ass.... so be it.

just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are clueless.

why not just answer every post with a facepalm? that's about as effective as your text.

keeponrockin

goingtoverona wrote:

I'm sorry, but the main thing your statement says to me is that it's ok if people are dying by anything other than guns. That's just life. If the goal of banning guns is to save lives, how could you be against banning all these things that kill people? Banning them would save lives. And for the record, I shoot guns because it's fun, not because I'm trying to kill people.

keeponrockin wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

And I get the argument of, yeah but less guns means less gun deaths. And that absolutely true. The question is why just guns? people kill each other every day with cars, if we banned cars we would save tens of thousands of lives why not ban cigarettes, alcohol, and unhealthy foods. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Because those (not including cigarettes) are designed to do things other than kill people. The only thing a handgun is designed to do is kill another human being, thats it.

No, I'm saying those objects have other uses. Guns don't. Cars have uses other than killing people. Guns don't.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

goingtoverona wrote:

I'm sorry, but the main thing your statement says to me is that it's ok if people are dying by anything other than guns. That's just life. If the goal of banning guns is to save lives, how could you be against banning all these things that kill people? Banning them would save lives. And for the record, I shoot guns because it's fun, not because I'm trying to kill people.

keeponrockin wrote:

Because those (not including cigarettes) are designed to do things other than kill people. The only thing a handgun is designed to do is kill another human being, thats it.

because, as already stated, everything else mentioned has a purpose. you can potentially use anything, including water, or oxygen, both of which we need to survive, to kill someone. but the point is why have something around whose sole purpose is for violence against another living being?

_

goingtoverona wrote:

I'm sorry, but the main thing your statement says to me is that it's ok if people are dying by anything other than guns. That's just life. If the goal of banning guns is to save lives, how could you be against banning all these things that kill people? Banning them would save lives. And for the record, I shoot guns because it's fun, not because I'm trying to kill people.

keeponrockin wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

And I get the argument of, yeah but less guns means less gun deaths. And that absolutely true. The question is why just guns? people kill each other every day with cars, if we banned cars we would save tens of thousands of lives why not ban cigarettes, alcohol, and unhealthy foods. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Because those (not including cigarettes) are designed to do things other than kill people. The only thing a handgun is designed to do is kill another human being, thats it.

Everything could kill people. Water kills people. Rocks kill people. Shoelaces kill people. I'm pretty sure I could kill someone with my hair if I wanted to. There's no way to get rid of everything that could kill people. Obviously we're not going to get rid of everything on the planet. (That would kill people too.) So we have to do a cost/benefit analysis, like we should do whenever banning anything. That's why the other uses/benefits of objects are relevant to this conversation.