gun control:i dont understand...

onelongsong

catefrances wrote:

thank you. and knowing you, your first thought does not surprise me in the least al.
and btw i ALWAYS want to hear the honest answer.

and i know it's sad cate; but when you believe in something; and you're constantly called out and have to defend that belief; you get hardened off. as soon as i heard it; i knew. my second thought was now i'll have to defend my position for a week or two. my third thought was that if i was there; i could've saved those poor people. my forth thought was how sad it was that their families holidays will always be tainted now. every christmas will remind them.

cheers

Pearler

Its not the anti gun nuts you have to worry about, its the nuts with guns, and most of yers haven em.

should have a poll.

fanch75

TrixieCat wrote:

You are asking a bunch of people on a message board what goes through their mind??? What do you want us to say? What do you Think goes through our minds when a random shooting occurs, or someone open fires in a school or in a shopping mall????
Do you think people are all whooping it up and yelling "awesome!!!!!!!!!!! gimme some more beer cleetus! Let's go shoot ourselves some more innocent folk!"

Do we all think ah fuck it??? Please stop defining our country through laws and bills that are so antiquated they barely take women into account.

THANK YOU!

onelongsong

fanch75 wrote:

THANK YOU!

franch; where did you post that joe horn story you removed? can you pm me the link if you didn't repost it?

Ahnimus

I'm gonna be frank with everyone. I'm kind of annoyed by threads like this. It seems like every thread I go to has the same people posting on it with authority. I question how someone can know so much. Usually the arguments are from so-called common-sense so it's conceivable that they don't feel like the knowledge is superior. But clearly there is a lot of incongruence in what people consider to be common-sense or these threads wouldn't keep popping up and things like gun and abortion laws wouldn't be a debate.

In any sophisticated political discussion the parties involved are experts in the subject. Arguments are drawn from professionals and data. In terms of crime, criminologists are the experts. They are educated and practiced in psychology and more specifically criminal psychology. The census amongst criminologists on spree killers is that there is a deeply rooted animosity for society.

For example:

More than half of those surveyed in the Criminal Personality Research Project (partially funded by the Justice Department, USA) had mental illness in theier immediate family. Half had parents who had been involved in criminal activities. Nearly 70 percent had a familial history of alcohol or drug abuse. Every single one of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. All of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults, unable to sustain a mature, consensual relationship with another adult.

http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/character.html

Now I would like to appeal to developmental psychology, since matters of childhood development are well studied in this area. Children who are neglected by their parents typically develop social disorders. It's pretty well established in general psychology that social interaction is a major contributor to self-esteem. Social disorders are poorly understood by the public and people with a disorder will find attempts at interacting will often backfire. The quite kid with no social sense who tries to approach a group will usually be ridiculed and rejected.

Is it any wonder that these people occasionally go on a killing spree? I think not. To me it seems inevitable, excepting that we don't wise up. These aren't opportunistic murders. These people have been brewing in the discomfort of rejection their entire lives, the thought of harming another person is not alien to them. I know exactly how it feels. The problem is the public by and large don't want to accept any responsibility at all. People are shallow and cruel. Evolutionary Psychology explains why that is. It's not all fun and games, that little poke could push someone over the edge.

Has anyone here with an opinion ever thought about spree killing? Has anyone here read a criminology textbook? Has anyone here read the profile of a spree killer? Does anyone have anything to go on besides so-called common-sense?

Personally I have done all of those things. It's not about guns and like OLS I'm tired of hearing about them. I'm tired of it because it's quite frankly a dumb issue to be brought up every time there is a headline. I appreciate that everyone wants to have an opinion but we've heard it all before. Maybe I'm just pissed that there is always the same debates here. More often than not the unique and interesting topics are buried in pile of enraged debates over abortion, gun laws, women's rights and conspiracy theories. None of which are really debatable issues. For all the chirping people do how much time do they spend learning about the issues? What I gather from the AET is that most people work and drink. A few have specialized studies like Baraka, Soulsinging and Scubascott, but who can claim to have spent time studying the criminal mind?

To me, this is the equivelant of Andrea Dworkin saying:
"The incest taboo, because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them. The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture ... The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism" (Dworkin 1974, p.189).

prism

onelongsong wrote:

there are 23 states that allow conceald/carry. i don't have to look it up. i can also tell you which states will honor my conceald weapons permit and allow me to carry conceald.

the crime rate will rise. ahnimus posted the stats for canada and jeanie posted the stats for oz. it may have been on another thread. but you can't stop murder.

so you're saying that the NRA are liars then huh? Only two states—Wisconsin and Illinois—prohibit carrying firearms for protection http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18


violent crimes commited with guns went up in canada and australia when control laws were put into place? no one would ever claim that enacting stricter guns laws would eliminate murder

onelongsong

prism wrote:

so you're saying that the NRA are liars then huh? Only two states—Wisconsin and Illinois—prohibit carrying firearms for protection http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18


violent crimes commited with guns went up in canada and australia when control laws were put into place? no one would ever claim that enacting stricter guns laws would eliminate murder

48 states allow you to carry a NON-CONCEALD weapon for self defence. only 23 states offer conceald weapons permits in addition to that.

prism

onelongsong wrote:

48 states allow you to carry a NON-CONCEALD weapon for self defence. only 23 states offer conceald weapons permits in addition to that.

you're wrong. http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=1861

Thursday, January 19, 2006

How many states allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-defense?



A total of 46 states allow concealed carry. There are 38 “shall issue” (Right to Carry) states that have laws virtually identical to the one proposed in the PPA, establishing clear, objective standards a citizen must meet in order to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. Another eight states have subjective “may issue” systems that allow government officials to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry a firearm.






Nebraska and Kansas have since been added to those 46 states

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm gonna be frank with everyone. I'm kind of annoyed by threads like this. It seems like every thread I go to has the same people posting on it with authority. I question how someone can know so much. Usually the arguments are from so-called common-sense so it's conceivable that they don't feel like the knowledge is superior. But clearly there is a lot of incongruence in what people consider to be common-sense or these threads wouldn't keep popping up and things like gun and abortion laws wouldn't be a debate.

In any sophisticated political discussion the parties involved are experts in the subject. Arguments are drawn from professionals and data. In terms of crime, criminologists are the experts. They are educated and practiced in psychology and more specifically criminal psychology. The census amongst criminologists on spree killers is that there is a deeply rooted animosity for society.

For example:

More than half of those surveyed in the Criminal Personality Research Project (partially funded by the Justice Department, USA) had mental illness in theier immediate family. Half had parents who had been involved in criminal activities. Nearly 70 percent had a familial history of alcohol or drug abuse. Every single one of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. All of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults, unable to sustain a mature, consensual relationship with another adult.

http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/character.html

Now I would like to appeal to developmental psychology, since matters of childhood development are well studied in this area. Children who are neglected by their parents typically develop social disorders. It's pretty well established in general psychology that social interaction is a major contributor to self-esteem. Social disorders are poorly understood by the public and people with a disorder will find attempts at interacting will often backfire. The quite kid with no social sense who tries to approach a group will usually be ridiculed and rejected.

Is it any wonder that these people occasionally go on a killing spree? I think not. To me it seems inevitable, excepting that we don't wise up. These aren't opportunistic murders. These people have been brewing in the discomfort of rejection their entire lives, the thought of harming another person is not alien to them. I know exactly how it feels. The problem is the public by and large don't want to accept any responsibility at all. People are shallow and cruel. Evolutionary Psychology explains why that is. It's not all fun and games, that little poke could push someone over the edge.

Has anyone here with an opinion ever thought about spree killing? Has anyone here read a criminology textbook? Has anyone here read the profile of a spree killer? Does anyone have anything to go on besides so-called common-sense?

Personally I have done all of those things. It's not about guns and like OLS I'm tired of hearing about them. I'm tired of it because it's quite frankly a dumb issue to be brought up every time there is a headline. I appreciate that everyone wants to have an opinion but we've heard it all before. Maybe I'm just pissed that there is always the same debates here. More often than not the unique and interesting topics are buried in pile of enraged debates over abortion, gun laws, women's rights and conspiracy theories. None of which are really debatable issues. For all the chirping people do how much time do they spend learning about the issues? What I gather from the AET is that most people work and drink. A few have specialized studies like Baraka, Soulsinging and Scubascott, but who can claim to have spent time studying the criminal mind?

To me, this is the equivelant of Andrea Dworkin saying:
"The incest taboo, because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them. The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture ... The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism" (Dworkin 1974, p.189).

i actually study criminal psycology as a hobby. including criminal profiling. i go over past cases and study police and forensic procedures. and that's why i'm always singing the same old song. criminals will be criminals. if you wiped every gun from this earth; the murder rate wouldn't go down. we have to fix the people. it's also brought me to another interesting question you may appreciate. "why can't this society be responsable with guns"? in 1967; you could buy a gun without any paperwork. you could carry it on an airplane if you wanted to. in fact; since the invention of the gun; societies have learned to live with guns being readily available; except when kings disarmed the peasants or dictators disarmed their subjects. if you study the wild west; it's nothing like hollywood depicts. murders were rare. there's only 2 documented gunfights outside of the civil war. so why is this the only society that cannot accept the responsabilities?

onelongsong

prism wrote:

you're wrong. http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=1861

Thursday, January 19, 2006

How many states allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-defense?



A total of 46 states allow concealed carry. There are 38 “shall issue” (Right to Carry) states that have laws virtually identical to the one proposed in the PPA, establishing clear, objective standards a citizen must meet in order to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. Another eight states have subjective “may issue” systems that allow government officials to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry a firearm.






Nebraska and Kansas have since been added to those 46 states

that's great news. the paper i have is from my conceald carry class so it's a couple years old. the problem must be that people don't know about it; or they don't care enough about their fellow man to get involved. i would have risked my life to save them. then again; maybe the situation couldn't have been contained.

searchlightsoul

onelongsong wrote:

why don't we ban fuckin cars when a drunk driver kills a family?

Because their is no intent when a drunk driver kills someone, its an accident. Cars also serve a useful purpose, guns don't. Guns are designed to kill people. Time to quit with the bullshit circular argument about guns as protection.

onelongsong

searchlightsoul wrote:

Because their is no intent when a drunk driver kills someone, its an accident. Cars also serve a useful purpose, guns don't. Guns are designed to kill people. Time to quit with the bullshit circular argument about guns as protection.

time to grow up and realize guns are here to stay. sticking your head in the sand is useless.

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/83.cfm

chopitdown

searchlightsoul wrote:

Because their is no intent when a drunk driver kills someone, its an accident. Cars also serve a useful purpose, guns don't. Guns are designed to kill people. Time to quit with the bullshit circular argument about guns as protection.

guns also allow people to participate in interscholastic competition and gain scholarship for their ability to shoot targets. So guns can serve a useful purpose too.

Ahnimus

Haha.

I was reading this research by synergy blackwell copyright "The Author" and it studied high-school shootings. It listed a common cause in all cases as "availability of guns".

It's pretty obvious to me that if you are gathering statistics on shootings that a gun of some sort is going to be involved every time.

Of course it listed mental illness, child abuse and all these other true causes but asserted that "availability of guns" was the only consistent "cause". But 'tis not a cause at all.

If John Doe goes from Miami to Los Angeles by plane. Who would say that the plane is the cause for his going to LA?

Sigh. A sufficient cause is any set of antecedents that makes an effect occur. A necessary cause is the set of antecedents that are required for the effect. For John Doe, having a meeting with a client in LA is the necessary cause for his going to LA. A sufficient cause of getting to LA would require some form of transportation, but not specifically a plane.

One could easily make the mistake. If all people who go from Miami to LA go by plane, then planes must be the cause for people going to LA from Miami. Stop all flights between the two cities and nobody will ever go from Miami to LA again, right?

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

if you wiped every gun from this earth; the murder rate wouldn't go down.

there are no guns in Iceland... murder rate on Iceland is 0.0001 per 100,000

Ahnimus

dunkman wrote:

there are no guns in Iceland... murder rate on Iceland is 0.0001 per 100,000

The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/iceland.html

810wmb

dunkman wrote:

there are no guns in Iceland... murder rate on Iceland is 0.0001 per 100,000

people are too damn cold to murder anybody there...though i hear random hugs for warmth were on the rise

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/iceland.html

thank you. thank you a million times for being there and having the facts at hand. you're the smartest bloke i know. you know right where to find information. the most respect i have for you is your willingness to post the truth; even when it goes against your opinion. you're a pillar amoung men.

dunkman

Ahnimus wrote:

The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/iceland.html

i never said CRIME as a whole would go down... the topic at hand was that the murder rate if there were no guns would stay the same (so onelongsong said) and yet you dismissed all the facts on that page and posted the only three crimes that showed any rise..

i'll post the whole paragraph rather than filtering it to suit my needs :rolleyes:


Between 1997 and 1998, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.73 to 0.00 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 100%. The rate for rape decreased from 16.35 to 14.53 a decrease of 11.1%. The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate for burglary decreased from 903.09 to 761.09 a decrease of 15.7%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%. (Note that data for motor vehicle theft were not reported to INTERPOL by Iceland for years 1997 and 1998.)



i know ahnimus only posted to try and prove me wrong but he of all people (being so smart as he is) should know that he shuld post a: the whole facts not just the ones promoting his viewpoint and b: he should really read the posts first... this was about murder rates staying the same as a result of guns being wiped off the earth.. no-one mentioned larceny

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

thank you. thank you a million times for being there and having the facts at hand. you're the smartest bloke i know. you know right where to find information. the most respect i have for you is your willingness to post the truth; even when it goes against your opinion. you're a pillar amoung men.

Thanks OLS.

I seriously do not like guns myself. I know of a number of accidents with guns that could have easily been avoided. But it's just not a solution to these problems of homicide. Murder has been around longer than gun powder. Ever since humans could grasp stones we've been killing each other.

The chance of being shot at school is 1 / 2,000,000. It hasn't really increased either, it's simply garnered more media coverage. So it doesn't seem like that serious of an issue. Given the history of the United States, it is perhaps a sufficient sacrifice to maintain civilian rights.