mass shootings in chicago, new york

Zacchaeus said:
I like how this thread turned from being about a mass shooting to gun control to semantics and nitpicking. It's not smoke, it's tear gas. If the shooter could see well enough to pick off individual targets, some person in a given row could aim near the attacker without a civilian getting in the way because of stadium seating
Click to expand...


The difference here is, the shooter in this case didn't give a crap who he hit. He could fire blindly into that smoke and be reasonably sure he's hitting people. Whether he could see through it himself is irrelevant.

There's nothing to be gained from simply slapping guns in peoples' hands. If more people were armed, it would have done nothing but cause more injuries.
 
In my opinion, we shouldn't really be using the Aurora incident to argue our respective cases in on gun control. Between the confusion and the armor factor, a citizen with a concealed carry permit wouldn't be able to intervene successfully without a tremendous amount of luck. On the other hand, just about every other gun offense doesn't involve someone decked out in body armor with tear gas canisters.
 
My views on gun control:

I believe people have a right to defend themselves, those they care about, and their possessions. To my understanding, the Second Amendment was made under the context of weaponry used in the name of legitimate self-defense.

Any weapon which is designed to prove inconvenient for an aggressor to abuse but is incredibly good at preventing aggressive action (by, for example, being able to threaten potential robbers) should fall WELL within the second amendment IMO.

Any weapon meant to be used against non-human targets and NOT in the name of self-defense should be allowed for usage only in their proper context (i.e. hunting rifles should be kept at hunting grounds, guns meant for shooting galleries should stay in shooting galleries, etc.)

Any weapon meant to kill human targets (especially mass numbers) should be legal ONLY for those on active foreign military duty. To put it bluntly, ammo stockpiling should not occur.

I generally support ideas meant to help ensure the above rules are kept. Thus, I support the idea of all guns needing registration. I also support the idea of an ammunition audit--essentially to cut any future shooting sprees to a halt.
 
I am not a fan of gun legislation, though I can see why some of you do support it. In a Dutch scientific magazine (Quest, for those interested) I read recently, there was an article on ways to get a hold of guns. Out here in the Netherlands, gaining a gun permit is quite a long procedure; you must first have a declaration of good behaviour (meaning no criminal record, not even for speeding or anything along those lines), after which you must become member of a shooting club, where you must practice for at least a year. Over that period, you will be constantly checked on by police. Even when, after that year, you are found responsible and skilled enough to handle a weapon, the police will still track you, and the way you make use of your gun. Even then it can still go wrong, but I think a difficult procedure goes quite a way in gun control. I don't know how exactly it works in the USA, though.

Another thing stated was that pretty much every gun starts as a legal weapon, after which it ends up in criminal circuits. This could mean that less legal weapons leads to less weapons ending up in criminal circuits, meaning less weapons overall.

I'm not to sure what to say on the topic, since in the Netherlands, gun control and shooting like these are much less of an issue than in the USA.
 
Zacchaeus said:
I like how this thread turned from being about a mass shooting to gun control to semantics and nitpicking. It's not smoke, it's tear gas. If the shooter could see well enough to pick off individual targets, some person in a given row could aim near the attacker without a civilian getting in the way because of stadium seating
Click to expand...

hey, remember that time James Holmes wore a mask so that he wouldn't be affected by the tear gas

(because I don't think you do)
 
RE: Netherlands Gun Laws

More Cowbell said:
I am not a fan of gun legislation, though I can see why some of you do support it. In a Dutch scientific magazine (Quest, for those interested) I read recently, there was an article on ways to get a hold of guns. Out here in the Netherlands, gaining a gun permit is quite a long procedure; you must first have a declaration of good behaviour (meaning no criminal record, not even for speeding or anything along those lines), after which you must become member of a shooting club, where you must practice for at least a year. Over that period, you will be constantly checked on by police. Even when, after that year, you are found responsible and skilled enough to handle a weapon, the police will still track you, and the way you make use of your gun. Even then it can still go wrong, but I think a difficult procedure goes quite a way in gun control. I don't know how exactly it works in the USA, though.

Another thing stated was that pretty much every gun starts as a legal weapon, after which it ends up in criminal circuits. This could mean that less legal weapons leads to less weapons ending up in criminal circuits, meaning less weapons overall.

I'm not to sure what to say on the topic, since in the Netherlands, gun control and shooting like these are much less of an issue than in the USA.
Click to expand...
I like what the Netherlands has done, and I can see that it would be very effective. But in the USA, it is much easier to get a gun. Basically all that you need to do is show an ID and have a background check, and you can buy a gun. Yes, former criminals wouldn't be able to buy guns, but there are still tons of loopholes, like people who plan on commiting a crime and have no previous criminal record, or people buying guns for ex-criminals. There's now a law against that too, but it's nearly impossible to enforce until the shooting's already happened. So yes, I can see why the Netherlands has a lower murder rate, and I wish the US would do this too.
 
Trying to compare gun death rates to gun accessibility is somewhat flawed, given the wide variety of factors that determine crime statistics. On one end of the spectrum, The US has relatively lax gun control laws and a high rate of crime, on the other, in Switzerland and Israel, every abled adult is encouraged to own a firearm, and they have very few gun issues (terrorism in Israel aside, seeing that any guns in said situation would be coming from outside of the country) than in the US per capita.
 
verbatim said:
Trying to compare gun death rates to gun accessibility is somewhat flawed, given the wide variety of factors that determine crime statistics. On one end of the spectrum, The US has relatively lax gun control laws and a high rate of crime, on the other, in Switzerland and Israel, every abled adult is encouraged to own a firearm, and they have very few gun issues (terrorism in Israel aside, seeing that any guns in said situation would be coming from outside of the country) than in the US per capita.
Click to expand...

But how is it that there are few problems in countries like Switzerland and Israel, but that gun control is a big issue in the USA? A difference in mentality? People being less responsible with their guns? I understand that not all crimes involve guns, but still, I guess that there are more crimes involving guns per inhabitant in the USA.
 
If you really want to boil down the reasons, the current theory revolves around the concept of each country having entirely different cultural identities. If every country in the world had the same gun control laws or lack thereof, the United States would still be one of the leaders in crimes per capita.

For instance, parts of the United States are considered to have a culture of honor, having been populated by herders who, unlike farmers, had to always make sure to keep their flock from getting stolen, eventually leading to the development of stronger family ties and aggression towards outsiders. The honor culture is also famous for how easily its members will react with one another, and how things can escalate out of hand (see, Hatfield–McCoy feud).
 
Where would you come up with an explanation like that? The shootings that started this thread were because of conflicts between people and the Aurora shooting has yet to be fully diagnosed.
 
Avatar Korra said:
Empire State shooter only shot one person, all 9 others shot by cops confirmed

This is interesting, because some people say that if the pedestrians were carrying firearms the bloodshed would have been far less, but I can't see how they could have done any better when the cops themselves couldn't even avoid hitting bystanders.

And I wonder how many more would've been injured if a third officer started shooting...
Click to expand...

I don't understand how a government can expect ordinary civilians to properly handle a gun, if not even police officers are trained enough to properly hit one man. With sixteen shots, nine innocent bystanders were hurt - a pretty bad record, if you ask me. Now, if these officers can't even shoot straight, how are untrained civilians that just got their gun going to do it? I can understand that a gun gives you a sense of security, but if you're under assault, try to shoot your attacker, and in the process hit other bystanders, you are in even bigger trouble.
 
verbatim said:
Where would you come up with an explanation like that? The shootings that started this thread were because of conflicts between people and the Aurora shooting was most likely the result of a mental disorder. Murder is not committed for attention, it is committed because of a mistake in judgement, out of anger, or in self defense.
Click to expand...

Hipmonlee said:
[youtube]PezlFNTGWv4[/youtube]
I think DM linked me to this after the Aurora shooting..
Click to expand...

Watch the video. Specifically the latter half.
 
Avatar Korra said:
Empire State shooter only shot one person, all 9 others shot by cops confirmed

This is interesting, because some people say that if the pedestrians were carrying firearms the bloodshed would have been far less, but I can't see how they could have done any better when the cops themselves couldn't even avoid hitting bystanders.

And I wonder how many more would've been injured if a third officer started shooting...
Click to expand...

verbatim said:
The standard fair for police officers is to not engage if there is a change of injuring a bystander. With that being said, if the suspect was firing upon them, then it could explain why the officers would deviate from protocol (note that I am not stating wether such a decision was good or bad, merely offering a thought as to why it was made).
Click to expand...

Also, this is probably one of the first times I've heard people praise the ability and expertise of police officers so much. But they still are regular people, they're just required to have an amount of training with a firearm which is a characteristic shared with "ordinary civilians" with concealed carry permits. It seems that the assumption is being made that anyone who is a member of the police is going to be a better shot than anyone who isn't which is clearly wrong. A responsible civilian with a concealed carry permit will practice and hone their skills frequently, possibly just as often as a cop or more. Maybe I was misunderstood and came off as "Give everyone and their grandma a gun" but what I really mean is "Don't restrict but instead promote the responsible people who know what they're doing to defend themselves and others"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top