Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@farmerman,

Quote:

how bout street sweeping weapons? Are they removed from your selected "Data Base"

Shoot guns killed less then rifles on that list.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

When was the last "MAss bludgeoning with a Louisville Slugger" at a school full of 6 year old kids?

So you are of the opinion that young children trapped in a small room could not be killed by a grown man with a baseball bat in short order?

Quote:

Maybe youre thinking of Harp Seals

Young children can protected themselves better then seals?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Bet that there is no where in the world that with enough cash you could not picked up an illegal firearm within 24 hours of arriving including the UK.

You can bet whatever you want, but like most of the nonsense you post it's the product of your fevered imagination.

Possession of a handgun is a mandatory five year sentence. Most criminals don't bother taking the risk. If they are, they're more likely to hire one out from various organisations. These organisations aren't stupid, they know if their gun is fired, let alone used to kill someone, the police will redouble their efforts to find out who supplied the gun.

A loudmouth 'septic' with no contacts would soon find himself grassed up, but they'd probably take your money off you.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
So your position is that banning pistol grips occurred even though they were not banned in all instances, is that correct?

That's not quite how I would put it, but it's close enough to be accurate, so yes.

Banning combinations of harmless cosmetic features is just as unconstitutional as banning a single harmless cosmetic feature.

So if the Supreme Court bans guns in some places then it would be the same as a complete ban?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
People prefer to stick to what is readily available or they don't commit the crimes if they have to manufacture the materials.

Your down under people mass killers must be lazy bums as we have a history in the US a having more mass murders being done by explosives means then firearms.

We don't have such a history at all. But I would love to see your supposed source.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You know Farmerman what I find interesting is the kind of thinking that if only we did not have firearms in the world no one could or would do mass killings of children or others.

That if they could not get firearms or even a given type of firearm they would give up the idea of doing mass killings and not fall back on a millions and one way to kill people beside firearms.

I somehow question that line of thinking as for one thing these SOB mass killers tend to be brighter then average and just as capable of solving problems as you and I am.

So unless you are of the opinion that you yourself could not come up with means to deal deaths out on a mass scale without firearms why do you think that the kind of killers we had seen could and would not do the same?

2 Replies

@raprap,

Quote:

And Straw Purchasers of firearms (and ammunition) should receive federal sentences akin to a major drug dealers in a SuperMax.

An that would stop it just as such punishment levels had stopped the drug trade in the US?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

We have killings by firearms going on in this country on a daily basis.

As you yourself pointed out, guns are the weapon of choice for murders.

Do you have any interest in how to decrease the death rate from firearms in this country?

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
So are you lifting out "Semi auto rifles" from the list of killings with guns of all kinds?
So, in your mind, a semi Sig rifle is statistically different than a Sig Semi pistol?

The FBI have all rifles in one grouping and all rifles killed less then baseballs bats type weapons including the so call assault rifles , handguns is another group and so are shotguns.

Handguns of all types are the murder weapon of choices in the US.

Using the FBI stats for murders fails to support your claim. First of all over 1700 guns that killed people have an unknown type attached to them so you are only comparing known weapons not all weapons. Then your claim didn't specify murders in your likelihood of death. Suicide by gun is actually more common than murder by gun. It's almost double the murder rate. The rate of suicide by shotgun or rifle is almost 40% of the suicides. While hand gun is the weapon of choice for suicides, your claim you are more likely to die from baseball bats than rifles is factually not supported.

Using the CDC database in 2009, the suicide rate by rifle was 6 times the homicide rate.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nvdrs.html

0 Replies

@BillRM,

It works better than the slap on the wrist for present infractions.

BTW being illegal, street drugs are completely out of control. Firearms are controlled by retail and manufacture. It is under capitalist control.

You're comparing carrots and beans.

Rap

1 Reply

@BillRM,

getting rid of many weapons and controlling the ownrship and sale nd design of others is a GOAL Bill. Its going to take a few geberations an will probably come about as a result of more ND MORE OF THESE sensless slayings.
wHILE GUYS LIKE YOU TWIDDLE THUMBS AND COMPALIN THAT NOTHING WILL WORK, i SAY THAT WE MUST SEEK TO INTERDICT THE INSne nd the criminals, also we must make our public places safe, as far as schools, besides new dsigns for safety, we DO need to have armed gurds (At least for the foreseeable future)
Im like many of the gun totin liberals who arent blinded by a political credo that believes that gun"freeness" will work. Im not so naive but I feel that we ultimately will need, coupled with the three other points I believe need be to be accomplished, rationale nw gun designs and control as I stated above. Its a multiple of things that we will need and one item will help rinforce the others.

Ive seen guns made that (for police use) have little elctronic gizmos that can read the fingerprints and palm prints of the user and only one set will let the gun respond by firing.

Assault type weapons need design controls and AND, we need a grandfather clause that affects all th assult waepons that hve been sold. We need to control FULL-AUTO eapons.
We need better taggant id on explosive grade and fertilizer grade nitrates (and, including even these bags of"Blue Ice"-cause I could make a bomb with **** from your kitchen).
Gun sales need controls too. Its possible to purchase hundreds of weapons a month (or any unit of time) at gun shows.

So, in my way of thinking, we need to do it all and Im sure it will dawn on the gun nutz that the 2nd amendment will ultimately need changing or repeal. We repealed prohibition so, in another century we may grow up and get past all these chest thumpings and "big dick" contests and we will realize that guns need to be re;egated to their use as tools and defense.

being singularly anti-gun is just as silly and emotionally driven as is the "Arm everybody cause its our constitutional right" theory. Theyre both unsustainable

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Do you have any interest in how to decrease the death rate from firearms in this country?

No. I view the "cure" as so much worse than the disease in this case, that it isn't worth thinking about.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Do you have any interest in how to decrease the death rate from firearms in this country?

Not when even if you are able to somehow make firearms disappear the means of killing is the only thing likely to change not the numbers.

Nor when the only possible results in the real world is the disarming of law abiding citizens that would then who could be killed in safety by those who do not obey such laws.

0 Replies

@raprap,

Quote:

It works better than the slap on the wrist for present infractions.

Why would you think that, as the far less punishments level in the EU for drugs dealings seems not to had resulted in greater drug dealing in those nations then the US for example?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think I could live in a Swiss style gun control world. I used to spend lotsa time in Switzerland when I worked in the gas fields of Italy. I recall the Rekrutschule training that all (males) had to undergo in their lives as a way to assure that they would have a militia when and if needed.
Everybody was issued a Sig rifle and pistol AND (as I remember ) 50 ROUNDS OF AMMO EACH. ALSO these rounds were occasionaly inspected.
There is a sporting tradition in some areas of Switzerland where NON military guns are kept.
SO, controlling the AMMO is sort of a gun control.

Inspecting the military ammo issued with the military rifle does not equate to any limits over civilian ammo.

I do think people need to sign their name and leave a record of their civilian ammo purchases though. (Except for shooting ranges, where people can buy as much ammo as they want with no bureaucracy, so long as they use it all at that same shooting range.)

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I love the idea of banning the 150 millions or so semi-auto in the US and if I through it was possible I would stock up on lever action rifles that are about as deadly or at least the stock of gun makers that are big into lever action rifles to say nothing of pump actions shotguns.

Remington makes a pump rifle (and even a .223 assault weapon version that takes M16/AR15 clips).

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

While FBI statistics show that levels of violent crime in the United States, including murder, have steadily declined since 1991, homicides still claim about 15,000 lives a year. More than half of all murders in a given year are typically committed with guns...

And if we made it so they were killed with knives instead, they'd still be just as dead.

Quote:

a 2011 study in the Journal of Trauma

Quote:

A 2002 study published in the American Journal of Public Health,

These kinds of medical studies are legendary for their bogus comparisons that deliberately omit nations with lots of guns and low homicide rates, as well as nations with few guns and high homicide rates.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
So your position is that banning pistol grips occurred even though they were not banned in all instances, is that correct?

That's not quite how I would put it, but it's close enough to be accurate, so yes.

Banning combinations of harmless cosmetic features is just as unconstitutional as banning a single harmless cosmetic feature.

So if the Supreme Court bans guns in some places then it would be the same as a complete ban?

You mean if they allow the legislature to ban guns in some places?

It would not be the same, but depending on the circumstances, it may or may not be acceptable.

We have the three standards of scrutiny: Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis Review.

If the Supreme Court were to allow guns to be banned in some places, and doing so passed muster with the appropriate standard of scrutiny, then it would be OK.

If the Supreme Court were to allow guns to be banned in some places, and doing so did not pass muster with the appropriate standard of scrutiny, that would not be OK.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

We have killings by firearms going on in this country on a daily basis.

As you yourself pointed out, guns are the weapon of choice for murders.

He pointed out that handguns were the weapon of choice (meaning not assault weapons).

firefly wrote:

Do you have any interest in how to decrease the death rate from firearms in this country?

Does it matter? They'd be just as dead if they were killed with a different weapon.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

We have the three standards of scrutiny: Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis Review.

Really? I'd thought it were the the 3rd (aka Oculi), 4th (aka Laetare), and 5th (aka Judica) Sundays of Lent.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know