Another US shooting - Newtown, Connecticut

[Exe Gesis]

But how much of that is down to current gun owners stockpiling more out of fear there will none available sooner or later?

I mean, unless the buyers were teachers, school workers, clergy or anywhere else where they had a no weapon policy, it hardly seems relevant to Sandy Hook.

I don't think parents at every school are planning on sitting in the school car park armed to the teeth every day.

Either reason/way, it was always going to be that sales would go up markedly in the aftermath.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Either reason/way, it was always going to be that sales would go up markedly in the aftermath.

It just doesn't mean anything in terms of gun control. An increase in sales does not necessarily mean an increase in people that want to have guns to protect themselves.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

 

[Exe Gesis]

What else can it mean ODN ?

 

[Max zero]

The analogy has nothing to do with deaths tho.

The misuse of the car in the analogy is only speeding itself.

Completely replace this topic and title with the following....

"Yet another case of a driver speeding"

Do people come into the thread demanding govt ban the use of cars to stop people speeding? Do they demand govt prohibit the sale of specific high-powered sports cars? Do they demand all cars must be sold with accelerator limiting measures built-in before mass production? Do they suggest people only allowed to use bicycles and horses?

If they did people would laugh at them or they would be met with much resistance in the thread.

People would say....that's not how you stop people from speeding, etc.

Imagine the title was....

"Yet another case of a child (or mentally ill person) accessing his parent's car and caught speeding"

Do people come into the thread demanding all those things again?

People would instead say....that's not how you stop children (or mentally ill) from accessing cars. They would say tighter measures required to ensure the mentally ill from accessing cars. If people suggested.....govt should enforce all car owners to have to garage their cars, under lock, and wheels removed at all times until the car is going to be used.....people would laugh and yell at them for suggesting such a solution to the concept of remedying speeding, or underage/unlawful people from accessing cars to speed in.

Consistency of logic required, regardless the topic/device of debate.

Because you are ignoring potential risk and consequence.

Every device can be misused the difference is the probability of severity of consequences of misuse.

You can misuse a pocket knife easily enough but the probable outcome will be a cut on your hand. You misuse a "semi" automatic rifle and odds are good someone will end up dead, often multiple people.

We approach the risks and benefits of each device on a case by case basis, one size does not fit all.

Not all devices are created equal and you trying to say they are is anything but logical.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Max Zero

I appreciate that aspect (potential risk of consequence).

Still, as a standard problem-resolution topic, like any other problem-resolution topic, consistency of logic is required, but failing. Shows hypocrisy.

I was intending the analogy to stop purely at the speeding part. A better way to put it, look in any thread on this board regarding speeding, or anything else, and no one ever thinks a resolution to anything is banning something outright. Example, drugs. People will say, don't prohibit, make it in fact legal, that way it's more controllable etc. No one says, ban cars or sports cars. No one says, ban cigarettes. Instead it's always about re-eduction, re-marketing, etc.

Guns are no different.

If you want to include deaths by cars, that figure is astronomically higher than guns. Of course, the first retort is going to be....cars are made for traveling, guns for killing. But that's irrelevant. Like I said ages ago....there were roughly 40 people who got killed by guns in December, in the same time frame, there were 311 million people who did not get killed by guns. Gun deaths is not that big a problem as it's being made out to be by the media/etc, compared to road deaths, cancer, and other health-related deaths (obesity, diabetes, etc).

 

[Max zero]

Max Zero

I appreciate that aspect (potential risk of consequence).

Still, as a standard problem-resolution topic, like any other problem-resolution topic, consistency of logic is required, but failing. Shows hypocrisy.

I was intending the analogy to stop purely at the speeding part. A better way to put it, look in any thread on this board regarding speeding, or anything else, and no one ever thinks a resolution to anything is banning something outright. Example, drugs. People will say, don't prohibit, make it in fact legal, that way it's more controllable etc. No one says, ban cars or sports cars. No one says, ban cigarettes. Instead it's always about re-eduction, re-marketing, etc.

Guns are no different.

If you want to include deaths by cars, that figure is astronomically higher than guns. Of course, the first retort is going to be....cars are made for traveling, guns for killing. But that's irrelevant. Like I said ages ago....there were roughly 40 people who got killed by guns in December, in the same time frame, there were 311 million people who did not get killed by guns. Gun deaths is not that big a problem as it's being made out to be by the media/etc, compared to road deaths, cancer, and other health-related deaths (obesity, diabetes, etc).

But to ignore the probability and scale of misuse is silly.

Hardly anyone gets killed by explosives yet look at the restrictions placed on them?

Why can't civilians gets easy access to military grade Sniper Rifles, RPGs and Remote Detonators? More people will still die to Cancer right?

Somethings are more dangerous then others. It's not hypocrisy to treat them differently but common sense.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

Various communities based upon shared consensual ideological perspectives.

Do some reading:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/

Ask me, ""but who will build the roads?", and I will place you on ignore.

I agree with a lot of your arguments yet you're telling me you will place me on ignore if I ask you a specific question? Fair enough. I'm not going to ask about the roads. That would not be a concern of mine if all governments were abolished.

Anyway. Thank you for the link you provided. I must admit I was a little disappointed that the article entitled "Revolutionary Nudism" was bereft of any imagery.

But back on topic. From the link you provided (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-cararra-an-anarchist-case-against-gun-control)

"One can expect that in such a libertarian society, with no restrictions on peoples freedom to engage in whatever non-coercive productive and commercial activities they choose, and the absence of oppressive political institutions and laws, there will be far fewer incidents of theft and physical attack than there are today"

This argument assumes that if we dissolve restrictions on peoples freedom that the majority of people will act in a benevolent fashion. This is doubtful.

And another argument:

"Aggressors, who are already violating various laws by killing, raping, robbing, etc, will not necessarily be deterred from using guns by criminalizing their use as well"

Does the availabilty of guns lead to their use? If we restrict their availabilty, can we restrict their use?

Honestly there's nothing else I can say about that article except that the largest paragraph is a discussion on why taxi drivers should be armed... which says it all, really. But I digress.

There's already too many guns in circulation in America, and if they make assault rifles illegal, all that will do is increase revenue to criminals who would doubltlessly profit from the black market new laws would create. It's still probably a good idea though.

 

[romeoh]

What people fail to realise is that the right to arms is a part of the U.S. constitution.

It is an entrenched right that a majority of the people support, and therefore, none of our business.

Well durr-the whole thing is none of our business but here it is 25 pages later.
How do you know how much support it has? Have you got a poll, survey etc to show that is the case?
Just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it can't be repealed-haven't they repealed amendments before because they were outdated or no longer appropriate?

 

[Exe Gesis]

But to ignore the probability and scale of misuse is silly.

Hardly anyone gets killed by explosives yet look at the restrictions placed on them?

Why can't civilians gets easy access to military grade Sniper Rifles, RPGs and Remote Detonators? More people will still die to Cancer right?

Somethings are more dangerous then others. It's not hypocrisy to treat them differently but common sense.

Good debating there by you.
Not my style to worm out of things, call you childish names to save face, or go off on a tangent not granting you the point.
Still, I wholeheartedly disagree with further gun restrictions on sane/civilized people, or a total ban/buy-back, as an answer to this topic.
For many reasons as I've said thruout the thread not worth re-mentioning again.

 

[Moo]

The majority don't.

The existence of the 2nd amendment, the political inability to amend it, and a plethora of polls supporting it's maintenance.

Nice flip I said placing some additional controls but protecting the 2nd Ammendment - you are now flipping this back to a straight out attack on the 2nd Ammendment (basically because that is easier to argue).

I am aware the majority of Yanks support the right to arm themselves, however they can not go out and buy a few SAM's or RPG's as there is a line there (unless you are all for all in). What I am suggesting is why does the line have to start at assault weapons when public opinion is clearly against this (Pew poll below).

* However, about two-thirds (65%) think that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous. Just 21% say that permitting these types of weapons makes the country safer.

* A majority also backs banning high-capacity ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 bullets (53% favor, 42% oppose).

* By a 56% to 36% margin, most favor banning bullets that explode or can penetrate bullet-proof vests

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/20/after-newtown-modest-change-in-opinion-about-gun-control/

They certainly dont want a lot of control but banning assault weapons, penetrating vest ammo and clip size ....well hey it is a start.

Note - You don't have to ammend the constitution for this, they just need to put the will of the people in motion and make the Govt take the actions that will allow more to live to pursue happiness.

You know let decomcracy do its thang ....I think this is what most of the Americans want guns for isn't it?....to protect liberty and keep tyrannical governments in check.

If you don't agree can I ask ......

Why do you hate freedom?

 

[romeoh]

Max Zero

I appreciate that aspect (potential risk of consequence).

Still, as a standard problem-resolution topic, like any other problem-resolution topic, consistency of logic is required, but failing. Shows hypocrisy.

I was intending the analogy to stop purely at the speeding part. A better way to put it, look in any thread on this board regarding speeding, or anything else, and no one ever thinks a resolution to anything is banning something outright. Example, drugs. People will say, don't prohibit, make it in fact legal, that way it's more controllable etc. No one says, ban cars or sports cars. No one says, ban cigarettes. Instead it's always about re-eduction, re-marketing, etc.

Guns are no different.

If you want to include deaths by cars, that figure is astronomically higher than guns. Of course, the first retort is going to be....cars are made for traveling, guns for killing. But that's irrelevant. Like I said ages ago....there were roughly 40 people who got killed by guns in December, in the same time frame, there were 311 million people who did not get killed by guns. Gun deaths is not that big a problem as it's being made out to be by the media/etc, compared to road deaths, cancer, and other health-related deaths (obesity, diabetes, etc).

\
Yep but to a large extent cars, drugs and obesity are self inflicted damage/victimless- mostly impact on the driver or the overeater. The practical, beneficial uses of a car make it different from guns. Cancer isn't really controllable yet, is it? So that is not relevant to gun debate. ( but lot of dollars spent on it too) Nonetheless gov'ts do place restrictions on cars to try and limit their negative impact-eg seat belts reduced road toll. The gun use, type, structures for controlling them are doable and probably effective (Japan seems to be making gun control work) and guns have no practical use like cars do? Except on a farm. So banning certain guns is not going to impact negatively on anyone's lifestyle. Other than nutjobs who go on shooting rampages, who else uses them? What need is there in the community for high powered guns? Whereas cars, despite their drawbacks have great benefits.

 

[beatnik]

Wow, this is really, really stupid, and on multiple levels. Embarrassingly so.

Yeah, bombs are not legal or able to be bought at Walmart for a reason - its hard to use reason with ppl like this
#douchebagswithguns

 

[Monniehawk]

I'm interested to get your views on this. The US has taken a hit in recent years but still has the strongest economy and military in the world. Who is overtaking them? European markets have crashed and China have their own economic issues. On the back of manufacturing they will be the biggest economy within 20 years but they are technologically lagging and have a terrible human rights record.

Perhaps it's for another thread. This one has gone from talking about a school shooting to discussing PNG! Anyway, I still think they should just go back to the ban on assault rifles and look at tougher screening. I'm surprised of the interest that Australian's have on this topic. Even in Canada most people think it's their country and they can do what they want. Some tougher restrictions wouldn't go astray though.

It would require another thread.
There is rich ground to till in that one.
Perhaps you could start it?

 

[Monniehawk]

Max Zero

I appreciate that aspect (potential risk of consequence).

Still, as a standard problem-resolution topic, like any other problem-resolution topic, consistency of logic is required, but failing. Shows hypocrisy.

I was intending the analogy to stop purely at the speeding part. A better way to put it, look in any thread on this board regarding speeding, or anything else, and no one ever thinks a resolution to anything is banning something outright. Example, drugs. People will say, don't prohibit, make it in fact legal, that way it's more controllable etc. No one says, ban cars or sports cars. No one says, ban cigarettes. Instead it's always about re-eduction, re-marketing, etc.

Guns are no different.

If you want to include deaths by cars, that figure is astronomically higher than guns. Of course, the first retort is going to be....cars are made for traveling, guns for killing. But that's irrelevant. Like I said ages ago....there were roughly 40 people who got killed by guns in December, in the same time frame, there were 311 million people who did not get killed by guns. Gun deaths is not that big a problem as it's being made out to be by the media/etc, compared to road deaths, cancer, and other health-related deaths (obesity, diabetes, etc).

A couple of points that need consideration:
1. Gun ownership is more than just the mortality count. Gun ownership is about power and fear. Despite the cry that it is for security, it is precisely the opposite. You own a gun because you have fear. Or you want power. Either way, the issue is the destruction of the fabric of a society. Guns are central to the erosion of order, security and peace. The deaths are just a manifestation of those prime motives - fear and power.
2. A gun is designed to kill. It has other less tangible effects, as a symbol and instrument of personal power, to instil fear and to allay fear. Other than that, it offers nothing of any substance to society. As such, a gun is a primary instrument for committing a crime. It intimidates its victims far more than a hand weapon such as a knife or club.
A car is primarily designed as a conveyance. It has a defined and important role in modern society. It forms the economic backbone of most developed nations. Misused, it can kill, but that is mostly a consequence of poor technique during a legitimate use. It is rarely used to intentionally kill, unlike a gun, which has homicide as its major purpose.
3. The comparison with drugs, etc is equally spurious. Drug use is a victimless crime. It is not intended to kill or intimidate. Methods of tackling drugs include prohibition which has not worked. Prohibition of guns, however, has had a seriously positive effect!
4. As with a car, a gun will kill through poor handling, or suicide, but it is its innate ability to promote other criminal activity that spirals the need to have more guns - that leads to more crime - that leads to more guns....

The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - there are 89 guns for every 100 Americans, compared to 6 in England and Wales.
And the murder figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 550 murders per year. In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Banning guns outright is just not practical. It isn't being proposed. Even Howard didn't go down that path. The major concern is restricting the prevalence and type of weapons that are at large. It worked devastatingly effectively in Australia. The U.S. is a harder nut to crack because it needs to be weaned off weapons after misusing the Constitutional intentions.

I also challenge the 'astronomical' figure of motor deaths. In 2010 the death rate in the U.S. was 10.6611 per hundred thousand (down from nearly 16 in '95!) and dropped further in 2011.
The death rate from guns in 2010 was nearly identical at 10.26 per 100 thousand. The difference does not warrant a superlative such as 'astronomically' higher. It simply isn't.
Neither does the positives of gun ownership equate to the positives of car ownership. There is no overall benefit for gun ownership, only negatives.
It is simply comparing apples with pine cones.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

An excellent article by anarchist intellectual Jeffrey Tucker:

http://lfb.org/today/why-cant-schools-secure-themselves/

You should all read Jeffrey Tucker.

Every day.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You know let decomcracy do its thang ....I think this is what most of the Americans want guns for isn't it?....to protect liberty and keep tyrannical governments in check.

If you don't agree can I ask ......

Why do you hate freedom?

You can't even differentiate between liberty and democracy and you want to engage me with this crap?

Go away.

 

[Exe Gesis]

There is no overall benefit for gun ownership, only negatives.

Now this is tenuous. There are clear benefits to gun ownership. Defense of self/family, home invasions, hunting, sport, gun club enjoyment/hobby, to name but a few.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Now this is tenuous. There are clear benefits to gun ownership. Defense of self/family, home invasions, hunting, sport, gun club enjoyment/hobby, SCHOOLS

 

[Exe Gesis]

Indeed, protection of children is another obvious one

On that track....protection of valuable assets/money/possessions.

 

[Malifice]

What people fail to realise is that the right to arms is a part of the U.S. constitution.

It is an entrenched right that a majority of the people support, and therefore, none of our business.

The US Constitution is a Law. One not everyone agreed with when it was drafted.

You don't like those laws remember.

 

[Moo]

You can't even differentiate between liberty and democracy and you want to engage me with this crap?

Go away.

Well you don't have to engage in this crap, BigFooty is a voluntary posting program.

I am just interested in where you and GG see the line on the 2nd ?

Fun Fact - Each year American civilians buy as many AK47's as the Russian military and Russian police combined.....Americas next biggest security threat may not be international.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What else can it mean ODN ?

As I already said, it could mean an increase in buying by gun owners.

I just don't see the correlation between the Sandy Hook shootings and an increase in gun sales, unless it is due to the increased gun control talk and people wanting to get more guns in case new laws are passed. I highly doubt people that never previously owned guns are going out and buying them so they can patrol their child's school or that they are teachers looking to protect their classes. It makes far more sense that those that have guns are buying more in case their rights are taken away down the track. School will still be largely unprotected IMO.

Was there a breakdown of what sort of guns they were?

Edit: The article only talks about ammunition so it is only existing gun owners. They haven't gone out to buy more ammo to protect themselves in the advent of another Sandy Hook. They have stockpiled ammo in case the government makes it harder to get in the future.

I'd be interested to know how much ammo is 3 years worth for the average US gun owner.

 

[Exe Gesis]

As I already said, it could mean an increase in buying by gun owners.

I just don't see the correlation between the Sandy Hook shootings and an increase in gun sales, unless it is due to the increased gun control talk and people wanting to get more guns in case new laws are passed. I highly doubt people that never previously owned guns are going out and buying them so they can patrol their child's school or that they are teachers looking to protect their classes. It makes far more sense that those that have guns are buying more in case their rights are taken away down the track. School will still be largely unprotected IMO.

Was there a breakdown of what sort of guns they were?

Edit: The article only talks about ammunition so it is only existing gun owners. They haven't gone out to buy more ammo to protect themselves in the advent of another Sandy Hook. They have stockpiled ammo in case the government makes it harder to get in the future.

I'd be interested to know how much ammo is 3 years worth for the average US gun owner.

Also see your bolded bit above with my bolded bits below...

Also see pictures below for indication of the type of guns bought.

Gun sales in New England also went up after Sandy Hook.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...chusetts-Sees-Gun-Sales-Rise-After-Sandy-Hook

Massachusetts citizens have been buying more and more guns for years as requests for gun licenses have spiraled. Now, after the Connecticut school shooting, Class A permits which cover handguns, rifles and shotguns have risen 36%.

Bob Bernstein, who owns Bob’s Indoor Public Shooting Range in Salisbury, said, “Women, when we first opened up were almost non-existent. That was 23 years ago. Within the last 5-6 years, women who come in and shoot now are 30-35%.”

Candi Hogan is one example. She had never fired a gun before yesterday, but after the Connecticut massacre, she’s looking for a gun license and wants to teach her daughter Micaela to shoot and get a license, too:

I think it’s high time that I was informed, rather than be afraid. There may be a time I have to protect myself, my own family. There are guns in my house, if someone ever came in I didn’t know the first thing about using them, about loading a gun and putting it to use.

Bernstein said after Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009 gun sales jumped because Obama was seen as pro gun-control.

Also...
http://www.businessinsider.com/stores-running-out-of-guns-photos-2012-12

In the days following the massacre of 27 adults and children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there have been many reports of skyrocketing gun sales.

This is said to be typical.

Whenever there is a highly publicized mass shooting, Americans apparently rush to gun stores.

The theory is that they do this for two reasons:

First, they want to buy guns to protect themselves from all the guns.

Second, they worry that the latest massacre might finally wake up America to the absurdity of its gun laws and lead to a clampdown in gun control.

Based on anecdotal reports, these rushes on gun stores can be quite profound. Earlier this week, for example, some Walmarts were said to be running out of guns.

(Walmart sells assault weapons but bans music with swear words -- a policy that tells you a lot about America).

And the gun rush does not appear to be limited to Walmarts.

Nick Jacob of Seattle (@nicktjacob) recently tweeted the following photos, which Nathaniel Douglass pasted together.

They are of a gun store in Bellevue, Washington, called the West Coast Armory.

The first photo is of the store's visible inventory on December 14th, the day of the Sandy Hook massacre.

The second photo is of the same shelves on December 20th, a week later.

The store posted the photos to its Facebook page.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

 

[Exe Gesis]

Well you don't have to engage in this crap, BigFooty is a voluntary posting program.

I am just interested in where you and GG see the line on the 2nd ?

Fun Fact - Each year American civilians buy as many AK47's as the Russian military and Russian police combined.....Americas next biggest security threat may not be international.

As I've said before, I think the private sector should not be restricted or disadvantaged by the types of guns that the govt sector grants itself (eg, police, ng, fema, etc). I believe more than ever, since a couple hundred years, the words of the 2nd have to be taken on more seriously, private militias, guarding against govt tyranny (patriot act) threatening.

In otherwise day to day situations, laws like trigger locks and concealment etc should be eradicated.