The thing is, CoF, how do you weed out the "mentally unstable"?
As we know, countries which have super-strict firearms laws, including doctors' statements saying that the person applying for a permit is "of sound mind" still have their spree killers. And, of course, stopping them getting a firearm legally does not stop them getting one illegally and/or using other methods to achieve their aims.
I mean, as said in the Aurora thread, you could have a psych test that says you are "fit" and then go loony tunes 2 hours later, so how would you be able to stop a loon from getting a weapon?
I would suggest that when we exhaust every other alternative to curb violence in our society by addressing the root cause of the problem....that being a society that encourages violence by not punishing the violent, not identifying the violent early on, not removing the violent from access to other people....then I would consider having a debate on the implement that is used by the violent.
We have ample laws in existence that if properly enforced....and Judicial action taken....would go a very long way to curbing the violent in our society.
I absolutely do not care to disarm the innocent no matter how good the intention. I absolutely do want to disarm the deranged, the violent, and those intent upon terroristic acts of any kind.
The key is not disarming the law abiding citizens but disarming the guilty.
Ask yourself how aggressive the Seattle Police are in using "Stop and Frisk" procedures? Have we as a society taken a position that such tactics are racial profiling, abuses of people's rights, or part of a Police State culture.....or do we see it as a very valid and effective method to find illegally owned, carried, and concealed weapons?
If a Police Officer stops a vehicle....must he have to wait for an actual violation of a traffic law before stopping that vehicle or should he be able to stop a car load of known Gang members merely because he recognizes them as being known Criminals.....known to be involved in Drug Dealing, Extortion, and violent crimes in the past?
No....disarming the Public is the last step in the process....not the first or early step.
I agree we have to stop and consider the situation but lets focus upon the finger on the trigger....not the gun. There are millions upon millions of guns and tens of millions of gun owners who do not violate any law or commit any violent act using the type firearms you seek to ban.
I have investigated a fair number of shootings, stabbings, and other sorts of assaults and killings....and know too well the cost of such events but I see the perpetrator as being the problem not the weapon.
I actually endorse the carrying of firearms by Citizens....done so in compliance with the pertinent laws and only after a background check, training, and certification by the State.
I most assuredly embrace the empirical data that confirms crime rates go down where Citizens go armed. Robbers, Rapists, Muggers, and Burglar's do not want to get hurt themselves and when there exists a significant risk they might just encounter someone that is armed.....they go elsewhere to seek their prey.
I would guess there are about 300 Million guns in this country.....and when you can absolutely guarantee me that no one would have a firearm of the kind you wish to do away with....then I will gladly give mine up. Until then....I will maintain my Concealed Weapons Permit, carry my weapon as I see fit, and go about my travels without fearing needing a gun and not having one.
I began carrying a gun for a living in 1967.....never used it outside armed combat in wartime....but have stopped an armed robbery on one occasion (other than on duty as a law enforcement agent)....and that only required me telling a couple of Navajo Indians they had erred by bringing a knife to a gunfight and that we were about to play Cowboy and Indians just like in the movies.
Yes....it was one of the semi-automatic's that you are concerned about.
That incident proves my point....there are evil people in this World....and a gun can be used to protect ourselves from that evil just as the same gun can be used to commit an evil act.
The difference is the finger on the trigger.
There is a great video out there somewhere....I posted it at one time....shows a young woman walking down a city alley taking a shortcut....she gets grabbed by a guy and is dragged out of sight into a side alley. The alley lights up with several flashes of bright light coincidental to the sound of gunshots. Your heart breaks....until the Woman steps out of the side alley putting her gun back into her purse and walking off on down the alley. A great video!
Seen elsewhere....
Quote:
Gun control is the belief that a woman found in an alley bound, beaten, raped, and murdered is morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker received his fatal wounds.
C'mon guys! Did you read my words? You're taking fragments and reacting with sweeping generalizations.
When would psych test make sense? Not proposing this!
Curb violence? You have got to be kidding.
Does the difference between gun ownership and the need for semi-automatic have any differentiation or is everything just "guns or no guns" that you read in my post?
Quote:
If a Police Officer stops a vehicle....must he have to wait for an actual violation of a traffic law before stopping that vehicle or should he be able to stop a car load of known Gang members merely because he recognizes them as being known Criminals.....known to be involved in Drug Dealing, Extortion, and violent crimes in the past?
No....disarming the Public is the last step in the process....not the first or early step.
Sasless, my friend..... we should not stop a vehicle, because there 'might'be gang related criminals. Why even ask this as a retort? Your argument about identifying and removing those that might be a danger is about as unrealistic as identifying pedophiles at birth. Why is the notion of curbing the type of semi-automatic guns so readily accessible , not an option for you? Who said anything about disarming the public? I merely suggested that some semi-arms be a bit more restricted.
Seriously....why should the average individual need such a firearm to begin with? Answer that for me.
SASless
"I most assuredly embrace the empirical data that confirms crime rates go down where Citizens go armed. Robbers, Rapists, Muggers, and Burglar's do not want to get hurt themselves and when there exists a significant risk they might just encounter someone that is armed.....they go elsewhere to seek their prey."
Well said
CityofFlight
"Why is the notion of curbing the type of semi-automatic guns so readily accessible , not an option for you? Who said anything about disarming the public? I merely suggested that some semi-arms be a bit more restricted."
Restricting access to Semi Autos is disarming the public in one way.
And as has been amply demonstrated, crims will get and use whatever firearm they can get hold of, regardless of what it is - semi auto, revolver, cap gun, shot gun, you name it.
In any case, the horse has already bolted in the USm you have no hope of getting back any or enough firearms to even make a dent.
And as for "Seriously....why should the average individual need such a firearm to begin with? Answer that for me."
I'm an average individual, I want to own one, I want to shoot one, I want to carry one for SD and I want to shoot one at Targets and in competitions. Is that enough reasons ?
One point that no-one appears to have mentioned so far is that when the "guilty" are apprehended and get into the court system, there appear to be a whole class of people who make their living out of getting them back out of the same court system without paying the price for their crimes.
Should we be addressing that issue first, then when we do catch the criminals they can be dealt with effectively?
If we're truly honest with ourselves, the forefathers of our Constitution never envisioned a future where it would get inflicted on innocents in this manner. Should we not look within ourselves to make some changes? Really? Are hand guns and shot guns not enough for the personal individual who passes all requirements?
What would that really do for us as a nation....but perhaps demonstrate that we can look within and make concessions. Would it truly be wrong to do so?
Can only agree with this thoughtful post! Concessions are the mark of civilization.
CoF....There is a thing called the Second Amendment which has that awkward wording about "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.".
The danger of some seeking to talk the Second Amendment out of existence is they risk other Rights being talked away with....say the 1st and 4th.
Your premise falls squarely into that trap.....perhaps for good intent but still it runs afoul of one of our freedoms.
With freedom comes responsibility and I guess a certain amount of liability or risk.
YOur solution does not guarantee any cure for the problem as others and I have pointed out....for various reasons ranging from there just being too many guns and the certainty the nutcases and criminals shall always find a way to obtain such a weapon. They until recently could have gotten one from the very people who are in business to stop them from getting them (our lovely ATF.) There is an example of the government providing Automatic weapons to Drug Cartels.
So....if anyone is being unrealistic it is you in putting forward such a solution as you have.
Your rebuttal of my offer of increased Police attention and focus on the very sorts of people that commit the bulk of these murders and shootings is case in point of what is wrong with society today.
Every time you see some gang graffiti (tagging) there is your sign there are violent street gangs in your neighborhood. Unless dealt with effectively....and by the mere presence of the tagging, it becomes apparant that we are not dealing effectively with the problem....you are going to have violence in your own neighborhood.
The guvmint tels us all about a their War on Drugs....hundreds of Billions of Dollars spent so far....and yes....Drugs are still common in our schools and streets. They have failed miserably in combatting Gangs....Gangs that were generally limited to Los Angeles have now grown throughout the country and more than a few have ties to the violent drug cartels in Mexico.
The majority of murders today are Gang Related. If we removed the Gang murders and domestic killings by folks that know/live with one another....we find the kinds of killings you wish to prevent are very few.
That does not mean you are wrong for seeking a solution.....I just think you are offering up an idea that does not warrant implementation for a lot of reasons.
Just how would you implement your idea? How many folks like me would just stick a center finger into the air if told to hurry down to my nearest Police Station and turn in all my semi-automatic weapons or face criminal charges? Would you want to be the Police Officer that was tasked to go fetch these guns from People who really....really....do not care to surrender them to the government? Do you think that resistance might be the very reason we need such things to begin with? Do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the People to be comparably armed to that of the Government? In the old days the local gentry had the same kinds of guns the government provided the Army....why does that not hold today?
If automatic weapons are such threats.....when was the last time you read of a mass killing in Switzerland where darn near every household has one of the things? Why are we killing one another here....and the Swiss are not?
I would encourage you to seek the answer to the why....rather than the how.
Caco....compromise is not the mark of civilization....but it can certainly be the downfall of civilization. You come from a society that can possess a weapon only at the mere whim of Parliament. Your country has effectively been disarmed by that very Parliament and yet you still have a very significant gun violence problem. I would suggest your compromise over guns proves the fallacy of the premise put forth by CoF.
Please don't run this bit about Americans being uncivilized by us again.....you folks in the UK just do not understand or do not care to try to understand the difference in our concept individual freedom where the government is limited by our Constitution not the People or States. Course expecting you to actually grasp that notion is about as wasted as expecting someone to ignore a Wet Paint sign.
I would encourage you to seek the answer to the why....rather than the how
Does a sane man fiddle around wondering why a pyschotic did what he did before making it a tad more difficult to do what he did! Nope the sane man puts that disturbed fellah in a little white jacket and removes all harmful toys first before he then decides as to why what occurred, occurred and how it might be possible to "treat" the cause and not the symptom.
This guy was on the mental radar screen yet he had the "freedom" to legally obtain the means to rob the innocent of their right to freely be alive.
Not against the freedom to bear arms but do think a balance is needed and CoF's post sounded that balance well.
Also, The Most Dangerous Cities in America - 24/7 Wall St. starts the list from 10 downwards regarding the USA's most dangerous cities, leading to St. Louis, Detroit and Flint being 3,2,1 respectively, and add this regarding Chicago as well as here for Nawlins.
Milwaukee don't come close, and is 76th in the "top 100" most dangerous cities in the US, and the murder rate is, well......
Our illustrious FBI....maintains a central crime reporting index called the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for each year.
The majority, but not all, police agencies report crime data to the FBI which then tabulates the data into an annual report.
One must read carefully what is put out by the FBI....and recall the data can sometimes be skewed particularly when relating to property crime. Whole studies have been done pointing out the errors that can work their way into the FBI's report.
One example...if a local Police Chief is looking to expand his staffing....any damage to a house or business property finds itself be classified a Break-in or Burglary instead of a Damage to Property....the reverse happens if he is wanting to keep his job by showing how effective his officers are....and Break-ins or attempted break-ins (where property is not reportd stolen at the time of the initial report) and are then classified as Damage to Property.
Also....the other fluke is no matter the number of crimes or the number of victims involved in an incident....only one crime shall be reported....so in the case of a kidnapping, rape, robbery, murder, and arson......only the murder catagory gets an entry....not the others.
All that being said....for year 2010.....the FBI break down of Homicides by perpetrator. These numbers must be factored by the Ethnic break down of the total population of the country as a whole to fully grasp the import of the numbers shown.
Race Distribution The overwhelming majority (97 percent) of the total U.S. population reported only one race in 2010. This group totaled 299.7 million. Of these, the largest group reported white alone (223.6 million), accounting for 72 percent of all people living in the United States. The black or African-American population totaled 38.9 million and represented 13 percent of the total population.
This guy was on the mental radar screen yet he had the "freedom" to legally obtain the means to rob the innocent of their right to freely be alive.
When was he on the "mental radar"? As more emerges, we see some minor offences due to alcohol but nothing that would have barred him from getting a firearm in Wisconsin (his ex, however, is a different matter). They won't say who signed the paper saying he "was of good character" in North Carolina, when he obtained permission to buy a firearm there, but, overall, I'm seeing NOTHING that says that this guy appeared on any record as having any sort of "mental problems" or that anyone even suspected he did (yeah, we know something was screwed up now but hindsight didn't exactly work when he acquired the weapon). After all, there still hasn't been anything official on that subject from the Police or FBI regarding that or anything else like motive, so how can you sit there and say he showed up on any "mental radar"?
Try reading some of the hate sites where he was posting and tell me that some of the "opinions" that are posted there don't bring the mental stability of the posters into question.
He was a known extremist who had been "let go from the army" due to instability (some of it alcohol related) and was clearly on the law's risk register (the Feds do monitor those sites you know).
Ah Caco.....your Liberal mindset is coming out....just because you consider him a nut case for what he said....American law does not. Your opinion re his mental fitness matters not. You have to recall the great benefit to the Insane and Society our fluffy feel good types have done the Mental Health services with their law suits and changes to the law that has turned out all but the very most violent people from the mental institutions. Note the dramatic rise in Homeless persons as a result of that.
You folks cannot have it both ways....if you force these folks out of surpervision by the Mental Health Services then don't come crying when bad things happen. Involuntary committments used to be a routine Police procedure that has since been thwarted by changes in the law. Another of those compromises that sound good but do harm.
He had been reported to a Police Officer by a Psychologist/Psychiartist approximately one week before the shooting. Why that information had not been processed is one of the questions to be answered. The report had gone to a Street Cop....and not directly to a higher level in the chain it is reported.
So someone apparently had tried to report his problematic behavior.
In response to post no. 88, SASless, although eloquently expressed, the sentiment can essentially be distilled as "I am not prepared to compromise my right to bear arms, even if there were a possibility that compromising such right (for example, by restricting the use of semi-automatic weapons) could actually result in lowering the number of murders perpetrated by people legally in possession of firearms". (I would even take that a step further and suggest you would hold the same view even if it were proven that the death toll could be reduced by taking such a step).
Now you may say the majority of murders are committed with illegally held guns, you may say a determined murderer will find other ways, you may say that it's your constitutional right and should not be interfered with (for whatever reason), but it seems to me your stance is that you are prepared to accept some murders as the price of your right to bear arms.
I suspect that view is shared by other posters on this thread as well. In which case, why not come out and say it? It would give clearer parameters for debate, IMHO.
On the other hand, Octopussy, what is your evidence that depriving law-abiding citizens of an effective means of defence would NOT increase the numbers of those citizens killed or maimed by those holding illegal weapons?
Put it another way. How many murders with legally-held weapons are there in the US, and what percentage increase in murders with illegally-held weapons would it take to completely wipe out any gains were there to be no legal guns?
If automatic weapons are such threats.....when was the last time you read of a mass killing in Switzerland where darn near every household has one of the things? Why are we killing one another here....and the Swiss are not?
SASless, every Monday there are usually a few reports of killings - nearly always within the family, from small villages with alcohol involved- in different parts of the country.
Remember reading a report once about why the rifles (SIG ? ) weren't used more in criminal attacks like bank-raids and the conclusion was that they were too big and heavy.
This is a very good discussion, and I appreciate the civility shown so far by those on both sides of the issue.
CofF, I give your opinions a lot of cred, as you know, but I think you're on the wrong track on this topic.
I bought a semiautomatic pistol because that is what I had trained on in the military, although the air force used 9mm semis while I picked a .45, mostly for stopping power but also for a wider array of pistols to choose from. I knew the basic construction and mechanics when I bought my Kimber, and I wanted reliability and build quality, and the Kimber fit well in my hand. As a semi was what I was used to, that's what I chose.
Semiauto only means you can fire a shot every time you pull the trigger. A revolver will do the same, but it is classified as double action - the hammer goes back before it can go forward. Operationally the difference is minute and not worthy of driving the debate. Semi vs. Auto is another discussion where there is more nuanced meat for debate.
The important thing is, I want to be armed to have a fair chance, or even an advantage against the person who would attack me, whether out on the streets or in my home. I don't have an aggressive bone in my body and generally wish all people, especially Republicans, well. I'm convinced, based on documented data, violent crime would decrease if all law-abiding people armed and trained to defend themselves.
I have a dog who will alert me if our home is being intruded upon. I need five seconds to go from deep sleep to ready to fire. I worry about my wife when I'm gone, and have thought about equipping her with a less complicated and more intuitive revolver. Would you be happier, CofF, if we relied on non-automated revolvers to protect ourselves from the evil abroad in our vicinity? I don't think it makes much difference.
Try reading some of the hate sites where he was posting and tell me that some of the "opinions" that are posted there don't bring the mental stability of the posters into question.
He was a known extremist who had been "let go from the army" due to instability (some of it alcohol related) and was clearly on the law's risk register (the Feds do monitor those sites you know).
Nuff said.
Caco
No, caco, that is just YOUR opinion.
He was checked out by the Feds over his links to the bands we know of, but they saw there was NO REASON TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER.
Give us a link saying he had been "let go from the army" due to instability, when his discharge was a General Discharge under HONORABLE CONDITIONS (Guess what, that means he wasn't as "unstable" as you are trying to claim).
Give us links to his actual posts on these websites as well. I know you can't because NO DETAILS ON WHICH SITES HAVE BEEN RELEASED BY POLICE/FBI, and since they are the ones with access to his computer(s), etc, they would know more than you do.
So, in other words, you are talking through your bunghole and have decided what was going through this guy's head, why he did it, etc and you know his mental state from just reading reports in the press which give no details whatsoever as the Police/FBI have not actually released the details of anything they have "found" yet and even state they have no idea over the "why" as of this moment.
Octo....your reading comprehension skills are pretty good. That is exactly what I said.....almost.
I am not about to surrender any of my Constitutional Rights to accomodate a Fool's Errand which I consider attempting to remove all semi-automatic weapons from the United States to be. Firstly, I see it as being illegal....and a government confiscation of private property that is plainly un-Constitutional. I fail to see how such an action can be justified by the goals of the effort.
An example I would use is the fact we still sell alcohol in this country and we have about 40,000 traffic deaths each year due to alcohol related accidents. We go after drunk drivers....not cars or Beer Bottles. Perhaps we should do away with six packs, half cases, and full cases of Beer Containers and save a few lives that way. That is the logic that is being offered re doing away with semi-automatic weapons.
You will also notice there is no discussion of Automatic weapons being made. Why is that? Is it that there have been absolutely no incidents of a legally owned, licensed, and taxed Machine gun every being used in the commission of a crime such as we are talking about. So if Machine guns are so dangerous...why are we not destroying all of them? Granted there are folks that would love to do away with every single firearm....for political reasons alone. That does scare me.
I clearly stated I believed that along with Freedom comes Responsibility and Liability.
In a perfect world....my freedom ends where your nose begins....as it should.
But, we do not live in that perfect world do we?
There are plenty of folks who only see others as prey.
What separates the vast majority of us from them....is a gun.... too many of the times we encounter them.
I prefer to be the one holding the gun when that happens or at the very least a gun when the other sort has one of his own.
If bringing a knife to a gun fight is bad strategy....bringing just your Wedding Tackle to a gun fight is certainly far worse is it not?
Again....let's keep it dirt simple. When you can absolutely without any doubt or risk of failure....completely guarantee me the thugs shall never ever have a weapon of any kind.....then yes....i might be willing to listen to you talk about me disarming. Until then....we really have nothing to discuss.
I prefer to die a Wolf.....not a Sheep.
If we are only going to "lower" the numbers as you propose....that is still a losing proposition for all concerned....every single one of us. Except the violent thugs who are still murdering the innocent and unarmed.
Why should I give up my rights under the law for a half measure....I fail to see the usefulness of the return on what it costs. More lives will be saved by honest folks having those guns than will be saved by removing them from society all together as we are still not disarming the killers.
I can take a standard pump action shotgun....which is absolutely acceptable to the Ban the Gun folks....and make it sound like a semi-automatic darn near by doing a thing called combat loading and there is nothing any more lethal than a shotgun at close quarters. I was trained in that technique at all the FBI firing range at Quantico in Virginia of all places. Give me a hand bag of loose shot gun shells and a standard Remington 870 pump action shotgun (standard equipment for most Police Departments) and I can inflict far more damage than ever with an M-16 or AK-47.
Wounds caused by Shot Guns shooting Buck Shot are far more deadly than a single bullet wound by an Assault rifle as some of the single round hits by the rifle are non-lethal. If you get hit from 9 to 12 .38 caliber sized Buckshot....your chances of it being fatal leap drastically.
Drop back to using a hand gun....and mortality drops lethality drops further.
I shall continue to exercise my Second Amendment Rights to the fullest extent of the Law thank you.
