What the average person doesn't understand and the so called "news/media" doesn't check their facts on, is there are already many, many laws on the books about all the stuff thats being brought up now. Fire arms and the fire arms industry is one of the most regulated industries out there.

They always talk about gun deaths and totally ignore motor vehicle deaths. That guy could have just as easily drove a truck into the crowd waiting to get in the theater and these conversations wouldn't even be taking place.

 

See, it worked!

But how did american companies put swastica's on weapons while we were at war with them? The counterfits are easy to spot and obvious. Thats where I'm not following you. Its not like a civil war sword that may or may not be real. Its a real gun with an armory stamp, serial number that you can match up with records that even tell what model it is and if it was an SS model, etc.. So its not like theres a bunch of fraud. May be back in the day but there are too many experts not to sell on and not have paperwork on it. Thats why I don't get your statement.

 

For someone who claims to have reads thousands of books, you sure have a poor understanding when it comes to the Nazis and their rule.

Their leader was Austrian - so straight away not all Nazis were German.


Fact is the Germans were human. Each German soldier had a family, a dad, a mum, a wife, perhaps children.

Each German wrote home, drank, sang and laughed like any allied soldier.

And each one fought just as bravely as any allied soldier.

You must understand the control over everything the Nazis had, that is why your luger has swastika.

Heck, the Nazis created their own version of the boy scouts.

1.He was also 1/4 jewish, no one ever said you had to be german to be a nazi.
2. I don't recall 100,000 allied troops just giving up when they got cold.
3.Son's and Fathers, not so much, remember that was hitlers last line of defence. 1st draft age was 18, then 16, the 13. And when I say draft that means you joined or you were shot.
4. I know exactly what the nazi's controlled. I don't understand your argument? The were the current ruling politacal party of germany then EU. Thats why when you were an officer or involved in something big and official there were swastica's on everything.
5. Hilter Youth were just like ROTC and such. The re-enfoced party line and sterotypes and prepared the kids to pick up a gun when it was time. As soon as the 6th german army surrendered the the Red Army at Stalingrad the war was over.

 

...
They always talk about gun deaths and totally ignore motor vehicle deaths. That guy could have just as easily drove a truck into the crowd waiting to get in the theater and these conversations wouldn't even be taking place.

Yep, I often bring up these type of stats and sometimes get criticised for "insensitivity", but the fact is that "terror" type deaths are fairly insignificant.

Over 100000 deaths per annum in the USA each and every year from road accidents alone, but still the media make a massive fuss over some very small number of "terror" deaths. If you factor in deaths caused by bad lifestyle choices like smoking, drinking, drug use, bad eating etc then "terror" caused deaths are laughably insignificant.

However "terror" caused deaths are enormously powerful to those who would use them as a symbol to reduce the power of the people and use the deaths to trigger laws that disarm and disempower the populace.

Those people completely ignore the two main facts that 1; the freak person will find a way to get guns etc regardless of the law changes, and 2; the freak person causes a statistically insignificant number of citizen deaths compared to the very real LARGE causes of avoidable citizen deaths.

 

Over 100000 deaths per annum in the USA each and every year from road accidents alone, but still the media make a massive fuss over some very small number of "terror" deaths.

I don't understand what deaths caused by car accidents have to do with planned intentional murder. How can you compare both?

The real question is: Can murder by the "the freak" be prevented if you do not allow the population to be armed?

Like shortbus said driving intentionally into a crowd and rolling over some people is probably as easy as pulling a trigger. Doesn't require special skills.

So we agree, even the not so smart freak will find a way without firearms.

However any other deaths should not even be cited , I don't see any realtionship between someone dying from lung cancer due to excessive smoking and a mass murder incident.

 

praondevou, I think the point is specifically, using death rates to justify legislation changes. I agree that comparing psychotic murder rates to lung caner death rates is not fruitful. That's apples and oranges. But, when you bring in the second half of the issue, the legislation changes based on those numbers, that makes it apples vs. apples.

For example; (made up, and probably exaggerated numbers)
500,000 people die every year at the hands of drunk driving and nobody throws a fit and demands increases the punishment for DWI offenses.
500 people are killed every year in hostile shootings and everybody screams that we need gun control.
This points out the logical fail in the notion that gun control is a very important requirement.

I think this holds water, whereas:
500,000 people die every year from drunk driving and only 500 die per year of hostile shooting.
Therefore hostile shooting is not a big deal
-this one is a logical fail in its own right.

At least, that's how I interpret what he said.

 

However "terror" caused deaths are enormously powerful to those who would use them as a symbol to reduce the power of the people and use the deaths to trigger laws that disarm and disempower the populace.

It's been several pages since this started so I'll repeat myself again.

The existing gun control laws are working very well. Not one person in that theater was able to put up an effective defense against an armed attacker.

 

I don't understand what deaths caused by car accidents have to do with planned intentional murder. How can you compare both?

The real question is: Can murder by the "the freak" be prevented if you do not allow the population to be armed?

Like shortbus said driving intentionally into a crowd and rolling over some people is probably as easy as pulling a trigger. Doesn't require special skills.

So we agree, even the not so smart freak will find a way without firearms.

However any other deaths should not even be cited , I don't see any realtionship between someone dying from lung cancer due to excessive smoking and a mass murder incident.

Happen in the same week, did anyone see this in the media?
It was "intentional" he was smuggeling human cargo. Never made the news here, was informed about it by a friend.
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-highway-accident-kills-14-110827530--abc-news-topstories.html

 

Happen in the same week, did anyone see this in the media?
It was "intentional" he was smuggeling human cargo. Never made the news here, was informed about it by a friend.
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-highway-accident-kills-14-110827530--abc-news-topstories.html

I don't watch the news, but things that make the news in a grand way, make it to me. I'll hear about it on facebook or people talking about it at work. I never heard about this. Pretty sad. Nobody cares. Nobody can use that story to push their agenda.

 

Nobody can use that story to push their agenda

Ain't that the truth!

 

Firearms deaths are not as bad as the media makes it to be.(All deaths are bad, I'm not saying they aren't) The latest data from the CDC (US) is from 2008. Guess where firearms deaths rank? And this is for intentional and accidental firearms deaths. I couldn't believe it 110th!!!! Pages 3-5 in this link - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_06.pdf


But all of the other causes DON'T have the newsworthiness and controversy that firearms do. Who would watch on TV if they said- "12 people today died and 59 hospitalized from salmonella, report at 11:00".

The "freaks" are going to have their way one way or another. It's just the way the world is today.

 

I don't understand what deaths caused by car accidents have to do with planned intentional murder. How can you compare both?

Would the mother whose teenage daughter died on the way to that same theater to see that same show feel less pain and loss just because she was killed by someone running a red light because they were drunk or fell asleep at the wheel?

While I imagine there are differences, I don't think they are nearly as much as you would think at first blush. I read a report years and years ago that looked at the impact on families that lost a child in the years that followed, and it concluded that the means of death, be it accidental, illness, or intentional, didn't have much impact on the impact. What did have an influence was whether the cause could be (rightly or wrongly) blamed on someone in the family. For that reason, probably, the suicide of a child had the strongest impact because everyone tended to blame everyone, including themselves, in many cases.

The real question is: Can murder by the "the freak" be prevented if you do not allow the population to be armed?

Shouldn't this have the same answer as the question: Can cocaine overdoses be prevented if you do not allow the population to have cocaine?

What amount of laws aimed at not allowing the population to be armed would have prevented Oklahoma City or 9/11, neither of which involved a gun at all, yet both of which killed well over one and two orders of magnitude more people, respectively?

 

But how did american companies put swastica's on weapons while we were at war with them?

When did that ever stop evil capitalists? All the better to make money selling guns to both sides!

 

I don't watch the news, but things that make the news in a grand way, make it to me. I'll hear about it on facebook or people talking about it at work. I never heard about this. Pretty sad. Nobody cares. Nobody can use that story to push their agenda.

Back in 1988 or 89 (I remember where I was living at the time I read it), Time had an issue that was largely devoted to saying that we have to ban guns because right about half of all suicides are committed with a firearm. They had a picture of every person that had died from a firearms suicide during some period of time (about 500 of them).

In reading the article, the made a big deal about pointing out that 50% of the population has "ready access" to a handgun, either at home, work, or elsewhere (such as a relative's for friend's home).

Yet they never bothered to put two and two together and note that 50% of the people don't have ready access to a handgun and 50% of the people that committed suicide didn't use a handgun! Thus if someone wanted to kill themselves, if a handgun was handy, it was a likely choice but, if one wasn't, they just found another way with largely equal success.

If they had wanted to get at whether guns played a role, they needed to ask a different question, namely is the suicide rate (regardless of the ultimate means used) higher among the half of the population that has ready access to a handgun. They didn't address this, so you have to infer.

As with most things, gun deaths shouldn't be lumped together and a one-size-fits-all strategy adopted. Gun deaths associated with gangs, crime, suicide, accidental discharges by poorly trained people, accidental discharges by properly trained people, hunting/shooting accidents, self-defense, unsupervised access by children, gun/ammunition failure, horseplay, and reckless behavior are each a very different type of problem and the best approach to most of those will have only limited effect on the others.

 

The only common factor in all gun related deaths is someone will be grieving.

Even if they properly identified the factors, what is the solution for those with improper training? To me, it would be to ensure there is training available. To others, it's they don't need guns.

All of this is for naught as those who gain access to weapons circumventing the current laws have no problems with access to weapons and will use them for whatever purpose, nefairious or not, they deem necessary.

 

Even if they properly identified the factors, what is the solution for those with improper training? To me, it would be to ensure there is training available. To others, it's they don't need guns.

Even here, you have to break things down more fully. Was it a case of someone that had no idea how to handle a firearm coming upon one someplace? Was it a case of someone that was curious about firearms, in part because all they were ever told was, "No! Don't touch!" digging one out when no one was around? Was it a case of someone that had legal and intentional access to a firearm making a mistake because they didn't know any better? Was it because they didn't truly understand the kind of damage and injury that can be inflicted with even small caliber firearms? Then, in each of these, was the ultimate cause that they didn't understand the technicalities of the mechanics involved, was it because they didn't know the basic safety procedures that should always be followed, was it because they were not thinking about what was going on around them?

For some (not all) of these, providing firearms safety education more broadly would eliminate a good fraction of the tragic cases.

All of this is for naught as those who gain access to weapons circumventing the current laws have no problems with access to weapons and will use them for whatever purpose, nefairious or not, they deem necessary.

Agreed. So providing awareness education, safety training, restrictive laws, and so forth will not address this problem. Providing stiff penalties for criminal misuse of a firearm will have some effect on some of it, if only by putting people that misuse firearms criminally behind bars that much longer. But there will always be a tiny group of people that intend to misuse firearms and will obtain those firearms no matter what the laws say or what steps law enforcement takes. The most effective way of limiting the damage in those cases is for someone on scene (which means one of the victims and not someone in law enforcement) to put the person down at the very beginning.

But, as with all things, none of this exists in a vacuum. Having responsibly armed citizens does increase the potential for other types of tragedies, while the number of times that significant numbers of lives can be saved by prompt action are, thankfully, very limited.

 

I don't understand what deaths caused by car accidents have to do with planned intentional murder. How can you compare both?
...

Strantor already answered this very eloquently but I'd like to add to that in my own words.

I was talking about laws that affect the rights of the *entire* population. In regards to your question, it is never the *entire* population that "planned intentional murder". Likewise with road deaths where a bad driver kills an innocent person.

So my intended point was in regards to potentially passing laws that can affect everybody's rights, but at the same time save X amount of lives.

So a new law that requires much better driver training and re-testing every X years could possibly save 20 to 50 thousand lives a year and has a low impact on the rights of the population.

A new law that reduces the number of firearms in the population by 90%, would have practically zero effect on the ability of a freak to source firearms and zero affect on total "terror" deaths, but would drastically affect the rights of the general population and bady affect their ability to defend themselves from the freak.

Anyone prepared to be open minded and unbiased can crunch the numbers. For instance in Britain the gun laws have tightened since the '60's and it is much harder to legally obtain a gun than it was decades ago, yet the amount of gun murder and gun crime is rapidly increasing no matter how tight they make the gun laws.

...
What amount of laws aimed at not allowing the population to be armed would have prevented Oklahoma City or 9/11, neither of which involved a gun at all, ...
...

That's a superb point. Guns don't kill people. Banning guns will not stop people being killed.

 

I hope you'll excuse me using this news story to support my agenda.

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

From ABC news

 

I hope you'll excuse me using this news story to support my agenda.

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

From ABC news

This happened back in April. Does anyone remember hearing about it?

Here's a follow-up:

Follow up by same station

According to the reporter, who apparently did some research into it, guns are used by law abiding citizens to prevent/stop a crime 2.5 million times a year, nationwide. That's over 6800 times a day! I've tracked down some information about where the number comes from and I tend to agree with some critics that the rare-event nature of what was being investigated put some broad limits on the uncertainty. Critics that have looked at the data say that a more defensible number is about a factor of ten lower, so 250,000 a year (680 a day). There are roughly 36,000 deaths involving firearms with about half being suicides and about a third being murder with about 75% of those being violent crime or gang related. I've already talked about there not being much correlation between guns and how many people kill themselves, and it is unlikely that gun bans would have much affect on criminals or gangs, so we are now down to 9,000 (and this includes deaths resulting from self-defense). So that's 25 a day; for each of these firearm deaths, there are between roughly 30 and 300 instances in which the use of a gun stops a crime in progress.

I just did a Google search for "man with gun stops knife" and had to look hard to find anything other than those two reports (or YouTube-like links with the same video). I did, finally, find a story that had a name for the assailant -- Kiet Than Ly. Turns out he's a career criminal. Using his name, I find a few other follow-ups, including this one:

More information on assailant

 

When did that ever stop evil capitalists? All the better to make money selling guns to both sides!

Fanta and Coka Cola come to mind. IBM and IBM(Germany)