The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

YallMean · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

You need to be worried about those illegally carrying, not those legally carrying.

CHL carriers who carry guns have gone through extensive background testing, a training course and a shooting test. Most also take it very seriously and engage in training and situational preparedness as part of carrying (think of it as theory crafting).

As far as the farmer you refer to, you have to look at it from his perspective and chalk it up to a life lesson.
Click to expand...

A life lesson? Someone points his gun at me because I parked on his land by a mistake?
Well, you are big on your freedom to have guns, but how about my safety, my life, my kid's life, my wife's life?

Why should anyone, outside the law enforcement, be allowed to have control of guns, regardless of the training? I honestly don't think it's going to work for anyone's safety and quit citing South Africa, Zambia, Parkistan, and what not. How about Japan, UK, Sewden. Actually let's stop comparing. I personally don't like analogizing a problem in a specific context to another in a different context.

Svpernaut · Dec 18, 2012

YallMean said: ↑

A life lesson? Someone points his gun at me because I parked on his land by a mistake?
Well, you are big on your freedom to have guns, but how about my safety, my life, my kid's life, my wife's life?

Why should anyone, outside the law enforcement, be allowed to have control of guns, regardless of the training? I honestly don't think it's going to work for anyone's safety and quit citing South Africa, Zambia, Parkistan, and what not. How about Japan, UK, Sewden. Actually let's stop comparing. I personally don't like analogizing a problem in a specific context to another in a different context.
Click to expand...

You're the one who made the mistake of thinking that a piece of land wasn't private property. You broke the law by trespassing, he protected his land how he chose to. You don't know if or how he's had to defend that land in the past from robbers, looters, troublemakers, etc.

Why should we be allowed to? Because we are afforded that right by the 2nd amendment, that's all the right we need. You BELIEVE that we don't need armed citizens, I BELIEVE that we do. Neither of us is changing the other ones mind.

SamFisher · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

The shooter saw the guy with his gun, there is an interview with a local news channel floating around.
Click to expand...

Right, so he shot himself so that he wouldn't get shot.

When the best argument you can make is patently absurd...

fchowd0311 · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

Because we are afforded that right by the 2nd amendment, that's all the right we need.
Click to expand...

Of course you have the right to arm yourself......

if you are part of a well regulated militia.
Citizens arming themselves is not smart. I've seen trained Marines negligently discharge their weapon. I'm not going to trust a 30 year old milf shopping at Walmart with a concealed carry.

NewRoxFan · Dec 18, 2012

And now Governor Perry adds to the idiocy of the pro-gun argument... arming teachers. I know there is a right-wing urge to place the blame on teachers whenever there is a problem, but now we want teachers to engage in armed firefights?

Embarrassing...

fchowd0311 · Dec 18, 2012

NewRoxFan said: ↑

And now Governor Perry adds to the idiocy of the pro-gun argument... arming teachers. I know there is a right-wing urge to place the blame on teachers whenever there is a problem, but now we want teachers to engage in armed firefights?

Embarrassing...
Click to expand...

Can I have Rick Perry's job? Because it seems like any dumbass can be a governor these days.

DonnyMost · Dec 18, 2012

SamFisher said: ↑

Right, so he shot himself so that he wouldn't get shot.

When the best argument you can make is patently absurd...
Click to expand...

[logic]

Haven't you ever played Call of Duty brah?

I'll jump off a cliff before I let some n00b frag me.

[/fullstop]

YallMean · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

You're the one who made the mistake of thinking that a piece of land wasn't private property. You broke the law by trespassing, he protected his land how he chose to. You don't know if or how he's had to defend that land in the past from robbers, looters, troublemakers, etc.

Why should we be allowed to? Because we are afforded that right by the 2nd amendment, that's all the right we need. You BELIEVE that we don't need armed citizens, I BELIEVE that we do. Neither of us is changing the other ones mind.
Click to expand...

There is no such a law in any state of this country that a landowner can choose however measure he choose to fend off a tresspasser. You carry a gun, right? This is what scares me.

You seem to have a binary understand about laws. That's not how laws operate as Sam, I and other law professionals will tell you. The second amend right is not an absolute right. Once gun regulations instigated by this wave of legislation, there will be no turning back. The politics is on pro-gun-control side. The second amendment right will be restricted to a point it is a token right like some other rights also stipulated in the Constituition but not enforced.

thadeus · Dec 18, 2012

Any non-crazy American patriot who owns a gun automatically transforms into a Superhero Warrior Special Forces SEAL Marksman Protector who is capable of saving all of us from crazy people with guns (who apparently don't turn into Super Warriors, for some reason. I guess it's because they're the bad guys and only the good guys are capable of become Super Warriors when they carry guns).

CometsWin · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

Why should we be allowed to? Because we are afforded that right by the 2nd amendment, that's all the right we need. You BELIEVE that we don't need armed citizens, I BELIEVE that we do. Neither of us is changing the other ones mind.
Click to expand...

What part of well regulated militia don't you understand? Conservatives are always these strict Constitutionalists but it's clear you fellas read and don't read as you see fit.

rimrocker · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

My point stated... government can't successfully ban anything that millions of Americans want. Americans by the tens of millions support gun rights.
Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting a ban on guns. The current thinking revolves around restrictions on guns that were expressly designed to kill people and limiting the acapacit of magazines for those guns. Obviously, any proposal would have to go from now forward and would not apply to exisiting owners.

And your last sentence is incorrect. There may be tens of millions of Americans who own guns, but a majority of Americans are for reasonable gun control.

Ace · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

Why should we be allowed to? Because we are afforded that right by the 2nd amendment, that's all the right we need. You BELIEVE that we don't need armed citizens, I BELIEVE that we do. Neither of us is changing the other ones mind.
Click to expand...

Can you explain this? This is what I meant by using the 2nd amendment as an absolute truth. The argument is about whether it's right or wrong and citing the 2nd amendment doesn't really mean anything to me.

YallMean · Dec 18, 2012

Ace said: ↑

Can you explain this? This is what I meant by using the 2nd amendment as an absolute truth. The argument is about whether it's right or wrong and citing the 2nd amendment doesn't really mean anything to me.
Click to expand...

Repped!

pahiyas · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

You're the one who made the mistake of thinking that a piece of land wasn't private property. You broke the law by trespassing, he protected his land how he chose to. You don't know if or how he's had to defend that land in the past from robbers, looters, troublemakers, etc.

Why should we be allowed to? Because we are afforded that right by the 2nd amendment, that's all the right we need. You BELIEVE that we don't need armed citizens, I BELIEVE that we do. Neither of us is changing the other ones mind.
Click to expand...

Congrats, you are the real embodiment of your sig :grin:

glynch · Dec 18, 2012

Svpernaut said: ↑

My point is the government can't successfully ban anything that millions of Americans want.

See the massive failure of the "war" on drugs and the 18th and 21st amendments for details.

Bottom line? We must get to the root cause of these mass shootings, which is a mental health issue.
Click to expand...

Good try. Millions of Americans do not want assault weapons.

Millions of Americans used to smoke cigarettes and now don't.

Millions of gun nuts can be taught some sense and come to their senses when you gradually regulate the power of the gun industry lobby to propagandize to them.

rimrocker · Dec 18, 2012

Nice piece on guns and freedom...

The night of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., I was in the car with my wife and children, working out details for our eldest son’s 12th birthday the following Sunday — convening a group of friends at a showing of the film “The Hobbit.” The memory of the Aurora movie theatre massacre was fresh in his mind, so he was concerned that it not be a late night showing. At that moment, like so many families, my wife and I were weighing whether to turn on the radio and expose our children to coverage of the school shootings in Connecticut. We did. The car was silent in the face of the flood of gory details. When the story was over, there was a long thoughtful pause in the back of the car. Then my eldest son asked if he could be homeschooled.

An armed society is the opposite of a civil society.

That incident brought home to me what I have always suspected, but found difficult to articulate: an armed society — especially as we prosecute it at the moment in this country — is the opposite of a civil society.

The Newtown shootings occurred at a peculiar time in gun rights history in this nation. On one hand, since the mid 1970s, fewer households each year on average have had a gun. Gun control advocates should be cheered by that news, but it is eclipsed by a flurry of contrary developments. As has been well publicized, gun sales have steadily risen over the past few years, and spiked with each of Obama’s election victories.

Furthermore, of the weapons that proliferate amongst the armed public, an increasing number are high caliber weapons (the weapon of choice in the goriest shootings in recent years). Then there is the legal landscape, which looks bleak for the gun control crowd.

Every state except for Illinois has a law allowing the carrying of concealed weapons — and just last week, a federal court struck down Illinois’ ban. States are now lining up to allow guns on college campuses. In September, Colorado joined four other states in such a move, and statehouses across the country are preparing similar legislation. And of course, there was Oklahoma’s ominous Open Carry Law approved by voters this election day — the fifteenth of its kind, in fact — which, as the name suggests, allows those with a special permit to carry weapons in the open, with a holster on their hip.

Individual gun ownership — and gun violence — has long been a distinctive feature of American society, setting us apart from the other industrialized democracies of the world. Recent legislative developments, however, are progressively bringing guns out of the private domain, with the ultimate aim of enshrining them in public life. Indeed, the N.R.A. strives for a day when the open carry of powerful weapons might be normal, a fixture even, of any visit to the coffee shop or grocery store — or classroom.

As N.R.A. president Wayne LaPierre expressed in a recent statement on the organization’s Web site, more guns equal more safety, by their account. A favorite gun rights saying is “an armed society is a polite society.” If we allow ever more people to be armed, at any time, in any place, this will provide a powerful deterrent to potential criminals. Or if more citizens were armed — like principals and teachers in the classroom, for example — they could halt senseless shootings ahead of time, or at least early on, and save society a lot of heartache and bloodshed.

As ever more people are armed in public, however — even brandishing weapons on the street — this is no longer recognizable as a civil society. Freedom is vanished at that point.

And yet, gun rights advocates famously maintain that individual gun ownership, even of high caliber weapons, is the defining mark of our freedom as such, and the ultimate guarantee of our enduring liberty. Deeper reflection on their argument exposes basic fallacies.

In her book “The Human Condition,” the philosopher Hannah Arendt states that “violence is mute.” According to Arendt, speech dominates and distinguishes the polis, the highest form of human association, which is devoted to the freedom and equality of its component members. Violence — and the threat of it — is a pre-political manner of communication and control, characteristic of undemocratic organizations and hierarchical relationships. For the ancient Athenians who practiced an incipient, albeit limited form of democracy (one that we surely aim to surpass), violence was characteristic of the master-slave relationship, not that of free citizens.

Liberty entails precisely the freedom to offend. A gun in every pocket would stifle that.

Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.

This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.

I often think of the armed protestor who showed up to one of the famously raucous town hall hearings on Obamacare in the summer of 2009. The media was very worked up over this man, who bore a sign that invoked a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, accusing the president of tyranny. But no one engaged him at the protest; no one dared approach him even, for discussion or debate — though this was a town hall meeting, intended for just such purposes. Such is the effect of guns on speech — and assembly. Like it or not, they transform the bearer, and end the conversation in some fundamental way. They announce that the conversation is not completely unbounded, unfettered and free; there is or can be a limit to negotiation and debate — definitively.

The very power and possibility of free speech and assembly rests on their non-violence. The power of the Occupy Wall Street movement, as well as the Arab Spring protests, stemmed precisely from their non-violent nature. This power was made evident by the ferocity of government response to the Occupy movement. Occupy protestors across the country were increasingly confronted by police in military style garb and affect.

Imagine what this would have looked like had the protestors been armed: in the face of the New York Police Department assault on Zuccotti Park, there might have been armed insurrection in the streets. The non-violent nature of protest in this country ensures that it can occur.

Gun rights advocates also argue that guns provide the ultimate insurance of our freedom, in so far as they are the final deterrent against encroaching centralized government, and an executive branch run amok with power. Any suggestion of limiting guns rights is greeted by ominous warnings that this is a move of expansive, would-be despotic government. It has been the means by which gun rights advocates withstand even the most seemingly rational gun control measures. An assault weapons ban, smaller ammunition clips for guns, longer background checks on gun purchases — these are all measures centralized government wants, they claim, in order to exert control over us, and ultimately impose its arbitrary will. I have often suspected, however, that contrary to holding centralized authority in check, broad individual gun ownership gives the powers-that-be exactly what they want.

After all, a population of privately armed citizens is one that is increasingly fragmented, and vulnerable as a result. Private gun ownership invites retreat into extreme individualism — I heard numerous calls for homeschooling in the wake of the Newtown shootings — and nourishes the illusion that I can be my own police, or military, as the case may be. The N.R.A. would have each of us steeled for impending government aggression, but it goes without saying that individually armed citizens are no match for government force. The N.R.A. argues against that interpretation of the Second Amendment that privileges armed militias over individuals, and yet it seems clear that armed militias, at least in theory, would provide a superior check on autocratic government.

As Michel Foucault pointed out in his detailed study of the mechanisms of power, nothing suits power so well as extreme individualism. In fact, he explains, political and corporate interests aim at nothing less than “individualization,” since it is far easier to manipulate a collection of discrete and increasingly independent individuals than a community. Guns undermine just that — community. Their pervasive, open presence would sow apprehension, suspicion, mistrust and fear, all emotions that are corrosive of community and civic cooperation. To that extent, then, guns give license to autocratic government.

Our gun culture promotes a fatal slide into extreme individualism. It fosters a society of atomistic individuals, isolated before power — and one another — and in the aftermath of shootings such as at Newtown, paralyzed with fear. That is not freedom, but quite its opposite. And as the Occupy movement makes clear, also the demonstrators that precipitated regime change in Egypt and Myanmar last year, assembled masses don’t require guns to exercise and secure their freedom, and wield world-changing political force. Arendt and Foucault reveal that power does not lie in armed individuals, but in assembly — and everything conducive to that.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/#more-137622
Click to expand...

Commodore · Dec 18, 2012

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Welcome to gun control paradise <a href="http://t.co/DmPAV9kR" title="http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/">homicides.redeyechicago.com</a></p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281127028953059328" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:01:21+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>60 murders in Chicago 2012 were non-gun (stabbings, beatings, strangulation). Iowa, with 500k more people, had 46 total murders in 2011.</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281131734844706816" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:20:03+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Chicago, pop. 2.6 million. Iowa, pop. 3.1 million. More murders in Chicago since Jan 1, 2012 than in Iowa since Jan 1, 2002.</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281136364014166016" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:38:27+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Since Jan 1 1990, 13,800 more people have been murdered in Chicago than in Iowa.</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281138901727449088" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:48:32+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

YallMean · Dec 18, 2012

Commodore said: ↑

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Welcome to gun control paradise <a href="http://t.co/DmPAV9kR" title="http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/">homicides.redeyechicago.com</a></p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281127028953059328" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:01:21+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>60 murders in Chicago 2012 were non-gun (stabbings, beatings, strangulation). Iowa, with 500k more people, had 46 total murders in 2011.</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281131734844706816" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:20:03+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Chicago, pop. 2.6 million. Iowa, pop. 3.1 million. More murders in Chicago since Jan 1, 2012 than in Iowa since Jan 1, 2002.</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281136364014166016" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:38:27+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Since Jan 1 1990, 13,800 more people have been murdered in Chicago than in Iowa.</p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/281138901727449088" data-datetime="2012-12-18T20:48:32+00:00">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

I am done talking. These are the numbnuts that carry guns. I am all for a gun control legislation banning numbnuts from having any type of guns.

http://lifeisbutalabyrinth.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/b****_slap.jpg

tallanvor · Dec 18, 2012

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
Click to expand...

NewRoxFan · Dec 18, 2012

tallanvor said: ↑

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund
Click to expand...

This John Lott? LOL!

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research

In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."[49] Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer's claims in a reply letter. Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.[50][51] (The most cited criticism of Lott John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 41[17] has been Ayres-Donohue John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 247.[24])

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed -- The National Rifle Association -- only funds research that will lead to these conclusions." Dershowitz provided no evidence for his claim.[52][53] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research.[54] (In Jan 2000 criminologist Otis Dudley Duncan questioned Lott's statistics because the NRA was not citing them.[55])

Disputed survey

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000,[55][56] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[57] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[58] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Following extensive publicity, James Hamilton, a retired detective in Tennessee, came forward saying that he had taken the survey. David Gross, a former city prosecutor and former NRA board member came forward to say that he had been interviewed for a gun survey, and he thought that he was interviewed in the spring of 1997, probably by people working for Lott.[59] Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[8] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[60]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Forums

The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

YallMean Member

Svpernaut Member

SamFisher Member

fchowd0311 Member

NewRoxFan Member

fchowd0311 Member

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member

YallMean Member

thadeus Member

CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

rimrocker Member

Ace Member

YallMean Member

pahiyas Member

glynch Member

rimrocker Member

Commodore Member

YallMean Member

tallanvor Member

NewRoxFan Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

YallMean Member

Svpernaut Member

SamFisher Member

fchowd0311 Member

NewRoxFan Member

fchowd0311 Member

DonnyMost Member Supporting Member

YallMean Member

thadeus Member

CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

rimrocker Member

Ace Member

YallMean Member

pahiyas Member

glynch Member

rimrocker Member

Commodore Member

YallMean Member

tallanvor Member

NewRoxFan Member

Share This Page

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member