I think you mean Nathan Cirillo (also I know I'm old but that was a pretty high profile shooting that happened only a year ago...of course I've heard of it).
I think you mean Nathan Cirillo (also I know I'm old but that was a pretty high profile shooting that happened only a year ago...of course I've heard of it).
I think what we need is a gun that only shoots bad people.
On a more serious note, what if Bullets were not made lethal but paralytic? Kinda like tranqs. If police especially started using these kinds of bullets, you'd hear about less shootings.
On a more serious note, what if Bullets were not made lethal but paralytic? Kinda like tranqs. If police especially started using these kinds of bullets, you'd hear about less shootings.
Non-"lethal" weapons are used more often (tasers, rubber bullets, etc.) and can also kill, the inhibition to use them is much lower too. You often hear storys where Kids get pepper sprayed, tased, or whatnot.
Drugs that are required for tranq. darts are hard to dose. A big guy just feels the sting, and isnt bothered by the drug. A kid can die on an overdose pretty fast.
People on amphetamines of any kind are resistant to that, so you dont have the stopping power when you need it.
You can should them in the spine, that will paralyze anyone. (sarcastic )
We dont need better and more weapons on the street, the police already has pretty good gear for any situation. Better training and kicking out unsuited police officers would be a good thing to start with.
the laws in the United States are not significantly more lax than laws in many nations. People who do not buy guns choose not to buy them because they don't want them or they don't want to put up with the hassle of jumping through all the hoops. People who choose to buy guns legally do so because they like them, they want to hunt or sport with them, or they are a collector. People who choose to buy guns illegally (or steal them from other people) are looking to do something they ought not be doing in the first place and don't care what the laws might say.
This doesn't really hold up to my experience in the UK, although it may have more to do with cultural than legal differences. Most British people would consider someone who chose to buy guns "because they like them, they want to hunt or sport with them, or they are a collector" a dangerous psychopath, legal or not. It's socially unacceptable. As a consequence, very few people own guns legally. This makes it much harder to steal guns, because there is no one to steal from.
Sport shooting in the UK is only regarded as unacceptable because, along with fox hunting and fly fishing, it's seen as a "class thing". I have a friend who enjoys clay-pigeon shooting - he had to go through extensive background checks before he was issued with a shotgun licence (it helped that he is ex-military) and licensing officers make sporadic spot checks on his home to make sure that both the firearm and it's ammo are where they're supposed to be and correctly secured.
I think what we need is a gun that only shoots bad people.
On a more serious note, what if Bullets were not made lethal but paralytic? Kinda like tranqs. If police especially started using these kinds of bullets, you'd hear about less shootings.
Im sure everyone will do that, just as soon as you invent the magic freeze ray for us. I'm not trying to put you down here, but that's not a thing for a bunch of reasons, some outlined above.
@Mathsorcerer: I agree that the more permeable border means that gun restrictions in the U.S. be less effective than in island countries. I still think that the difference in overhead between leaving the country and hiring a smuggler vs. just taking a bus outside of city limits is significant and would substantially reduce the number of guns purchased. It seems we disagree about whether or not that would help anything.
Why not allow tanks and jet fighters for recreation then?
This. It's not that I don't believe guns can be fun, it's that I don't particularly care. Your hobby matters less to me than thousands of people's lives.
This is essentially the heart of the whole debate. People who don't use guns want to do away with them, because there is no loss to them. But put yourself in their shoes. Say someone wanted to ban something you enjoyed, because there was a pattern of people using it to kill people. You'd be unhappy cause you're being punished for someone else's crime. Imagine if someone went on a killing spree with a golf club, and in response we banned golf clubs completely. All the sudden, because someone else committed a crime, you can't play golf anymore. Maybe you would accept that for you and others safety, and I think it's safe to say that most golfers would be willing to accept some regulation on golf clubs. But you can see why some golfers would be unhappy about it. This wasn't the golf clubs fault, so surely there is some better way to prevent this from happening again? This is a simplistic and hyperbolic example, but I hope it get the point across. People feel like they're being punished, even having their rights infringed upon, because of someone else's crime.
And finally, I heard on the news this morning that ingress blocked legislation requiring background checks and preventing felons from buying guns. I don't know exactly what the bill said and I don't know exactly why it was blocked, but this is the sort of bing that needs to get passed, and the fact that it was blocked just days after a mass shooting... *sigh* Congress.
@meagloth "Say someone wanted to ban something you enjoyed, because there was a pattern of people using it to kill people." That's how society works, actually. We always cater to the lowest common denominator. And as for your analogy, it's bad. Golf clubs don't compare to guns.
I think a better analogy would be one where every day, someone goes out with a golf club and attacks five or more people, usually killing at least one of them. They're all using golf clubs to do it, because (in this example) golf clubs are the most effective way to kill people.
So then logically, a lot of people want to ban golf. It's a problematic sport to begin with, not very much fun to watch, and so expensive that historically only rich people can afford to play it.
The response from golfers is to say that there's no correlation between golf clubs and this string of violence, and that it's not golf's fault that people are using golf clubs to kill people when most of the time people own golf clubs to play golf.
Except that the analogy still doesn't hold up. Because at its core, a golf club is designed to hit a very specific object (golf ball) in a very specific context (golf course). Even specific golf clubs are designed for different parts of golf; you don't use a driver from the green, you don't use a putter from the fairway, you don't use a sand wedge from the tee. Golf clubs are not designed with death in mind; they were not invented as a weapon. And there's not a (poorly worded) amendment in the US Constitution that ostensibly protects a citizen's right to own a golf club.
If you want a proper example, use swords. Imagine if every day, someone took a broadsword and tried to commit a spree of murders with it. First of all, they probably wouldn't get very far; you can't conceal a broadsword, and you can also run away from the person wielding it. But assuming that in spite of that, there's this epidemic of sword-related mass attacks, and now people want to ban sword sales, or at least require background checks.
The sword collectors would be up in arms about it, since most swords are purchased for display purposes only, and the majority of swords aren't even battle ready. You don't buy a sword to kill someone, by and large; you buy a sword to hang it on your wall, or maybe use it for cosplay.
But if there were mass "swordings" every day (or more often than that), there would be plenty of people on board with the idea of removing them from sale. Because at the core of the thing, it's a weapon, and after 350 cases in eleven months, maybe it's time to consider that not everyone should have one, and to heck with the hobbyists and collectors.
Me personally, though, I agree with Eddie Izzard: keep guns legal, but restrict the sale of ammunition. A gun can't kill without bullets (or it can, but it's only going to be as effective as a golf club).
Obviously it's a flawed analogy. I'm not trying to epitomize the gun debate with a perfect metaphor. I'm trying to make the point that not everyone sees guns as just weapons. Some people see them more like golf clubs than other people do. Obviously not just like golf club, everyone understands that they are dangerous weapons that need to be treated with respect, but people who use them for sports also see them as sporting objects. I'm not equating guns to golf clubs. I'm just trying to show a different perspective.
Following an increase in knife crime in the UK many types of knife where banned from sale (e.g flick knives, switch blades), and it is illegal to carry a knife over 6 inches in length (which includes swords). Knife crime is still a problem in London, because you can't realistically ban kitchen knives (although you can certainly be arrested for carrying one). No one seriously objects.
Following the Dunblane massacre handguns where banned, and no one really misses them. There have been some shootings since, but they have been with rifles or shotguns, which are seen as having a "ligitamate" use other than recreation.
The way British society works, it is quite likely golf would be banned if it was seen as dangerous. It is much more inclined to err on the side of caution rather than liberty.
Following an increase in knife crime in the UK many types of knife where banned from sale (e.g flick knives, switch blades), and it is illegal to carry a knife over 6 inches in length (which includes swords). Knife crime is still a problem in London, because you can't realistically ban kitchen knives (although you can certainly be arrested for carrying one). No one seriously objects.
Following the Dunblane massacre handguns where banned, and no one really misses them. There have been some shootings since, but they have been with rifles or shotguns, which are seen as having a "ligitamate" use other than recreation.
The way British society works, it is quite likely golf would be banned if it was seen as dangerous. It is much more inclined to err on the side of caution rather than liberty.
Actually, without good reason it's illegal to carry anything that has a fixed blade or is over 3 inches.
Politics would be a lot better if the other party stopped being wrong and started listening to my views. But they always say my party is wrong and I should be listening to them. Can you believe that?
This is pretty interesting if only for the fact that it's the first editorial article to appear on the front page of The New York Times since 1920. o_o;;
If you want a proper example, use swords. Imagine if every day, someone took a broadsword and tried to commit a spree of murders with it. First of all, they probably wouldn't get very far; you can't conceal a broadsword, and you can also run away from the person wielding it. But assuming that in spite of that, there's this epidemic of sword-related mass attacks, and now people want to ban sword sales, or at least require background checks.
The sword collectors would be up in arms about it, since most swords are purchased for display purposes only, and the majority of swords aren't even battle ready. You don't buy a sword to kill someone, by and large; you buy a sword to hang it on your wall, or maybe use it for cosplay.
But if there were mass "swordings" every day (or more often than that), there would be plenty of people on board with the idea of removing them from sale. Because at the core of the thing, it's a weapon, and after 350 cases in eleven months, maybe it's time to consider that not everyone should have one, and to heck with the hobbyists and collectors.
I own one sword (not sharp) and a dagger. My boyfriend owns a katana. And I whole-heartedly agree.
I love swords, bows, any kind of medieval weaponry. Goes right up there with my love of fantasy genre. But the three things have stopped me from buying more:
1. Lack of funds.
2. Lack of space.
And 3. Because at the end of the day, a sword is a weapon made to kill--people, animals, anything--and no matter how beautiful it is, I can't help but ask myself, "What the hell do I need another weapon in my house for?"
We say we're either for or against "gun legislation" but what does that actually mean? The new your times article said "Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership." Which ones are those? I agree with the sentiment, but this is often said by someone who'd leant really know what their saying. Which ones are the super-extra scary mostly military terrorist guns, and which ones are just guns? I agree some guns should be limited and restricted, but I see no reason to restrict ammo. .177 anything aside, no ammo is really any more deadly than the other. Even .22 can kill people pretty effectively if you shoot them in the center of mass. Lots of different guns share the same ammo, and the capacity and fire rate of the gun is ore of an issue.
Id say to buy a semi-automatic rifle with a capacity greater than 4 of five (like the AR-15used in San bernardio) you should probably have to:
Have a background check Not be a felon Perhaps some kind of "not schizophrenic" check
I'd like to point out that the AR-15's used were illegal by state law. One had been modified to fire automatically and the other had its magazine modified to it could be changed out like a normal AR. California mandates a "bullet button" that secured the magazine in place.
To buy a semi-automatic pistol (also used in San bernardio) Have a background check Not be a felon Perhaps some kind of "not schizophrenic" check And to carry it in public obviously you'd have to get a concealed carry permit.
To buy a bolt action or some other kind of manually cycling rifle, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, revovers, single single shot pistols, and single shot or double barrel shot gun you should not be a felon.
Maybe I'd let felons buy muzzleloading rifles or singe shot shotguns after a certain number of years. A lot of people have felonies from dumb stuff like having pot smoke on their clothes or whatever and theirs no reason to completely restrict thme from hunting.
I see the sense in limiting hi-capacity magazines, and fixed magazines are probably a good idea. You're never going to need 30 rounds in one mag to do... Anything, really.
I'd also like to point out that AR-15's are not anything especially scary. Their EXTREMELY popular rifles, and you can not realisticly ban them in the U.S. People hunt with them, and Canada made an exception to their ban on them because of the a nation wide sport shooting competition that uses them. You'd have a hard time putting them in the super-scary para-military terrorist category, in a legal sense.
If you want a proper example, use swords. Imagine if every day, someone took a broadsword and tried to commit a spree of murders with it. First of all, they probably wouldn't get very far; you can't conceal a broadsword, and you can also run away from the person wielding it. But assuming that in spite of that, there's this epidemic of sword-related mass attacks, and now people want to ban sword sales, or at least require background checks.
The sword collectors would be up in arms about it, since most swords are purchased for display purposes only, and the majority of swords aren't even battle ready. You don't buy a sword to kill someone, by and large; you buy a sword to hang it on your wall, or maybe use it for cosplay.
But if there were mass "swordings" every day (or more often than that), there would be plenty of people on board with the idea of removing them from sale. Because at the core of the thing, it's a weapon, and after 350 cases in eleven months, maybe it's time to consider that not everyone should have one, and to heck with the hobbyists and collectors.
I own one sword (not sharp) and a dagger. My boyfriend owns a katana. And I whole-heartedly agree.
I love swords, bows, any kind of medieval weaponry. Goes right up there with my love of fantasy genre. But the three things have stopped me from buying more:
1. Lack of funds.
2. Lack of space.
And 3. Because at the end of the day, a sword is a weapon made to kill--people, animals, anything--and no matter how beautiful it is, I can't help but ask myself, "What the hell do I need another weapon in my house for?"
My answer: I don't.
This is your opinion. You are allowed to have other opinions and act on them. But I'll remind you that your opinion is not a justification for a law or ban. Just because you think something is wrong to have doesn't means you can keep others from owning it. Obviously your not advocating we restrict ownership of swords or bows, but the same argument applies to guns.
@meagloth: I don't think it's a matter of opinion whether or not @Nonnahswriter needs a fourth weapon in the house. It's completely unnecessary.
After all, a katana is properly a two-handed sword, and if you're dual-wielding the dagger and sword, you're already got two fully-equipped fighters with 3 APR at level 1.
Also, everyone in the UK is required to wrap themselves in several sheets of bubble wrap before they go outdoors or use the stairs.
It's a joke, but it does illustrate a different attitude. And I think that is what has to change in the USA. I doubt any legislation would be effective without a change in attitude. It's an approach that has been taken with smoking. Rather than a outright ban, minor restrictions are introduced. As it becomes less socially acceptable to smoke in public, tighter restrictions are introduced with the concent of the majority, until now there are quite few places where you can smoke. Social engineering.
I suppose my sentiment was, if I recognize that swords are weapons, and I recognize that I don't need any more weapons in my house because at the end of the day, they are dangerous, then why don't so many gun enthusiasts treat their own weapons the same way? Why do we have people stocked to the brim with enough assault weapons and ammunition to survive the zombie apocalypse?
Why did a psychopath like the PP shooter possess fourteen legally-purchased firearms?
How did the students at Pilchuck High School and Umpqua College, both who were severely depressed and unstable, get their hands on a gun and kill both themselves and their classmates?
Maybe if people didn't treat guns like common butter knives to be bought and purchased and shared, neither of these tragedies would have happened, or at the very least, had been hindered some.
After all, a katana is properly a two-handed sword, and if you're dual-wielding the dagger and sword, you're already got two fully-equipped fighters with 3 APR at level 1.
To be fair, neither I nor my sweetie have the proficiency points to wield said weapons. So we'd have some serious to-hit penalties.
I suppose my sentiment was, if I recognize that swords are weapons, and I recognize that I don't need any more weapons in my house because at the end of the day, they are dangerous, then why don't so many gun enthusiasts treat their own weapons the same way? Why do we have people stocked to the brim with enough assault weapons and ammunition to survive the zombie apocalypse?
That is a fair and reasonable sentiment, and it's not necessarily one I disagree with. I guess all I'm trying to say is just because you don't understand or agree with someone's behavior or culture doesn't mean you have the right to ban or limit them, and I think everybody can agree on that.
because you don't understand or agree with someone's behavior or culture doesn't mean you have the right to ban or limit them, and I think everybody can agree on that.
Actually, I think Everyone would DISagree with that.
For example, the Aztec culture requires human sacrifice in order to ensure the return of the Sun.
Comments
Ffing auto correct.
Now what is the name of the shooter without looking it up? Or when was the last time you heard his name compared to Cirillo's
Edit: Looked it up. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. In fairness he had a hyphenated last name. There was no way I'd remember that.
Drugs that are required for tranq. darts are hard to dose.
A big guy just feels the sting, and isnt bothered by the drug.
A kid can die on an overdose pretty fast.
People on amphetamines of any kind are resistant to that, so you dont have the stopping power when you need it.
You can should them in the spine, that will paralyze anyone. (sarcastic )
We dont need better and more weapons on the street, the police already has pretty good gear for any situation.
Better training and kicking out unsuited police officers would be a good thing to start with.
I have a friend who enjoys clay-pigeon shooting - he had to go through extensive background checks before he was issued with a shotgun licence (it helped that he is ex-military) and licensing officers make sporadic spot checks on his home to make sure that both the firearm and it's ammo are where they're supposed to be and correctly secured.
It's only a class thing because the upper classes are out of touch and morally bankrupt.
Killing things is another debate entirely. Remember the vegetarianism thread?
A blanket statement like that about classes isn't going to help anyone either. Im sure everyone will do that, just as soon as you invent the magic freeze ray for us.
I'm not trying to put you down here, but that's not a thing for a bunch of reasons, some outlined above.
This is slightly off topic, but I think it might help shed some light on cultural differences around guns.
This is essentially the heart of the whole debate. People who don't use guns want to do away with them, because there is no loss to them.
But put yourself in their shoes. Say someone wanted to ban something you enjoyed, because there was a pattern of people using it to kill people. You'd be unhappy cause you're being punished for someone else's crime. Imagine if someone went on a killing spree with a golf club, and in response we banned golf clubs completely. All the sudden, because someone else committed a crime, you can't play golf anymore. Maybe you would accept that for you and others safety, and I think it's safe to say that most golfers would be willing to accept some regulation on golf clubs. But you can see why some golfers would be unhappy about it. This wasn't the golf clubs fault, so surely there is some better way to prevent this from happening again?
This is a simplistic and hyperbolic example, but I hope it get the point across. People feel like they're being punished, even having their rights infringed upon, because of someone else's crime.
And finally, I heard on the news this morning that ingress blocked legislation requiring background checks and preventing felons from buying guns. I don't know exactly what the bill said and I don't know exactly why it was blocked, but this is the sort of bing that needs to get passed, and the fact that it was blocked just days after a mass shooting... *sigh*
Congress.
So then logically, a lot of people want to ban golf. It's a problematic sport to begin with, not very much fun to watch, and so expensive that historically only rich people can afford to play it.
The response from golfers is to say that there's no correlation between golf clubs and this string of violence, and that it's not golf's fault that people are using golf clubs to kill people when most of the time people own golf clubs to play golf.
Except that the analogy still doesn't hold up. Because at its core, a golf club is designed to hit a very specific object (golf ball) in a very specific context (golf course). Even specific golf clubs are designed for different parts of golf; you don't use a driver from the green, you don't use a putter from the fairway, you don't use a sand wedge from the tee. Golf clubs are not designed with death in mind; they were not invented as a weapon. And there's not a (poorly worded) amendment in the US Constitution that ostensibly protects a citizen's right to own a golf club.
If you want a proper example, use swords. Imagine if every day, someone took a broadsword and tried to commit a spree of murders with it. First of all, they probably wouldn't get very far; you can't conceal a broadsword, and you can also run away from the person wielding it. But assuming that in spite of that, there's this epidemic of sword-related mass attacks, and now people want to ban sword sales, or at least require background checks.
The sword collectors would be up in arms about it, since most swords are purchased for display purposes only, and the majority of swords aren't even battle ready. You don't buy a sword to kill someone, by and large; you buy a sword to hang it on your wall, or maybe use it for cosplay.
But if there were mass "swordings" every day (or more often than that), there would be plenty of people on board with the idea of removing them from sale. Because at the core of the thing, it's a weapon, and after 350 cases in eleven months, maybe it's time to consider that not everyone should have one, and to heck with the hobbyists and collectors.
Me personally, though, I agree with Eddie Izzard: keep guns legal, but restrict the sale of ammunition. A gun can't kill without bullets (or it can, but it's only going to be as effective as a golf club).
I'm not equating guns to golf clubs. I'm just trying to show a different perspective.
Following the Dunblane massacre handguns where banned, and no one really misses them. There have been some shootings since, but they have been with rifles or shotguns, which are seen as having a "ligitamate" use other than recreation.
The way British society works, it is quite likely golf would be banned if it was seen as dangerous. It is much more inclined to err on the side of caution rather than liberty.
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
Let's not listen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=1
(Also it's gun control, so it's relevant.)
I love swords, bows, any kind of medieval weaponry. Goes right up there with my love of fantasy genre. But the three things have stopped me from buying more:
1. Lack of funds.
2. Lack of space.
And 3. Because at the end of the day, a sword is a weapon made to kill--people, animals, anything--and no matter how beautiful it is, I can't help but ask myself, "What the hell do I need another weapon in my house for?"
My answer: I don't.
"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership."
Which ones are those? I agree with the sentiment, but this is often said by someone who'd leant really know what their saying. Which ones are the super-extra scary mostly military terrorist guns, and which ones are just guns? I agree some guns should be limited and restricted, but I see no reason to restrict ammo. .177 anything aside, no ammo is really any more deadly than the other. Even .22 can kill people pretty effectively if you shoot them in the center of mass. Lots of different guns share the same ammo, and the capacity and fire rate of the gun is ore of an issue.
Id say to buy a semi-automatic rifle with a capacity greater than 4 of five (like the AR-15used in San bernardio) you should probably have to:
Have a background check
Not be a felon
Perhaps some kind of "not schizophrenic" check
I'd like to point out that the AR-15's used were illegal by state law. One had been modified to fire automatically and the other had its magazine modified to it could be changed out like a normal AR. California mandates a "bullet button" that secured the magazine in place.
To buy a semi-automatic pistol (also used in San bernardio)
Have a background check
Not be a felon
Perhaps some kind of "not schizophrenic" check
And to carry it in public obviously you'd have to get a concealed carry permit.
To buy a bolt action or some other kind of manually cycling rifle, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, revovers, single single shot pistols, and single shot or double barrel shot gun you should not be a felon.
Maybe I'd let felons buy muzzleloading rifles or singe shot shotguns after a certain number of years. A lot of people have felonies from dumb stuff like having pot smoke on their clothes or whatever and theirs no reason to completely restrict thme from hunting.
I see the sense in limiting hi-capacity magazines, and fixed magazines are probably a good idea. You're never going to need 30 rounds in one mag to do... Anything, really.
I'd also like to point out that AR-15's are not anything especially scary. Their EXTREMELY popular rifles, and you can not realisticly ban them in the U.S. People hunt with them, and Canada made an exception to their ban on them because of the a nation wide sport shooting competition that uses them. You'd have a hard time putting them in the super-scary para-military terrorist category, in a legal sense.
After all, a katana is properly a two-handed sword, and if you're dual-wielding the dagger and sword, you're already got two fully-equipped fighters with 3 APR at level 1.
Why did a psychopath like the PP shooter possess fourteen legally-purchased firearms?
How did the students at Pilchuck High School and Umpqua College, both who were severely depressed and unstable, get their hands on a gun and kill both themselves and their classmates?
Maybe if people didn't treat guns like common butter knives to be bought and purchased and shared, neither of these tragedies would have happened, or at the very least, had been hindered some. To be fair, neither I nor my sweetie have the proficiency points to wield said weapons. So we'd have some serious to-hit penalties.
"We should ban guns because people keep dying."
"But guns are good and useful and I like them!"
"Tough luck, but they are weapons, after all."
with this statement:
"We should ban guns because guns are bad and pointless and I don't like them."
For example, the Aztec culture requires human sacrifice in order to ensure the return of the Sun.