O so much on the guns. Just the other day I was walking down the street minding my own business and suddenly a hand gun jumped out from the bushes and took a shot at me! And my neighbor was in his own backyard and attacked by a rifle! I'm telling you these guns are getting out of hand? Lock 'em all up and throw away the keys?
The killers? Well, it probably wasn't their fault in the first place. You know, one parent families, they got bullied in school, and they can't afford a cool car. Jeez - it's no wonder! They should be spoken to very firmly, I mean really let them know that we mean business and asked not to do it again.
Next problem!
Maryland Police May Have Prevented Another Aurora: Should We Focus on the Killers or the Guns?
Heisenberg
2012/07/27 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
752 votes
|
|
87% | |||
|
116 votes
|
|
13% | |||
Another Aurora-type shooting spree may have been prevented by Maryland police. Do you think we should focus on the killers or the guns?
Washington Post reports: "Authorities have taken a man into custody who referred to himself as “a joker” and threatened to shoot people at his former workplace in Prince George’s County, investigators said Friday."
Washington Post reports: "Authorities have taken a man into custody who referred to himself as “a joker” and threatened to shoot people at his former workplace in Prince George’s County, investigators said Friday."
Read More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/po...
Top Opinion
-
Scott 2012/07/27 19:34:27
"There are NO 'dangerous weapons', ONLY dangerous people"!!!-Robert A Heinlein (emphasis added)
But who are they?
It's much easier to focus on the guns.
We should actually do both.
LOOK WELL AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT TODAY OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING DONE NOTHING. tHE WINDOWS OF ACTION ARE ALREADY CLOSING
oh, sorry . . . . . . . OH BROTHER
"There are NO 'dangerous weapons', ONLY dangerous people"!!!-Robert A Heinlein (emphasis added)
The MOMENT he opened fire on those he wounded/killed, he became a "CRIMINAL firearms owner" AND a serial killer!
YES, we do "know" who IS, and who IS NOT a "law abiding" firearms owner!
The sad fact is, that we don't know, in advance, if a "law abiding" firearms, knife, or other household tool owner, is going to become a criminal by MISUSING the tool/s in his/her possession, or remain a "law abiding" firearms/household tool owner their ENTIRE LIFE!
Mere possession of everyday, ordinary tools, including firearms, is NOT a predictor of who is going to employ that/those tool/s to bring harm/death to other humans!
You can safely ignore the "gun" on the counter-top, it's not going to jump up and kill you, by itself, it is INERT, even with a FULL LOAD of ammunition inside it!
It's the pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other tool, in a human's hand/s that you CANNOT "safely ignore"!
The same goes for a lot of the "tools" that humans employ, ("safely"), on a daily basis, most of which CAN be easily used to attack/kill another human!!!
"There are NO 'dangerous weapons', there are only dangerous men"!!! - Robert Heinlein; STARSHIP TROOPERS - (emphasis mine)
Alluvuasudden, this ostensibly normal dude goes on a rampage. How can we predict something like that? Very difficult.
But if firearms are more difficult to acquire, then that can help to mitigate the damage of such a rampage, if not prevent it.
If progressives had it their way anyone who wasn't a progressive could be labeled as "unstable" and barred the use of what is rightfully theirs.
I have a friend who cannot own a gun because a teacher had him submitted to a psych ward, funny thing, he is the sanest person i know. That teacher got corrected by my friend and she ruined him for the rest of his life because of it.
Too often the ones that are real threats never get reported until after the fact, then what? It's too late.
Point is, killers will always exist. They will use anything they can get to kill people. If our society was not so ass--backwards that people become disenfranchised with trying to live the "American" life that they turn on us, then we wouldn't have this problem.
This has not happened because it is not profitable for corporations, and therefore will not get voted in by corporation owned statesmen. Therefore we will have more shooting, more civilians and citizens will get murdered. The corporate owned news companies will broadcast the "horrible" incidents, but will not do anything beyond milk it for ratings.
People who have become sociopaths need mental assistance, from a trained professional. They do not need to be hounded, hated, and harmed for sliding down the slippery slope since that will just speed them on the way to the bottom. When they reach the bottom they will start killing people, people who have become nothing more than puppets of a greater machine.
Ok, you all have the right to bear arms, why does that extend to automatic guns, it really shouldn't.
When was the last time someone defended themselves with an automatic gun?
If you had an understanding of what the right to bare arms was intended for you would have a better understanding of why it should extend to automatics. But it appears you don't even know what an automatic is. As we do not currently have the right to them.
point in case, just last week a man with a gun stopped a stabbing attack at a grocery store, using a gun that you would most likely mis-classify as an automatic.
Full story: http://www.abc4.com/content/a...
if someone has a gun and you dont, you have no chance in stopping them from killing you, if someone has a knife and you dont you atleast have a chance.
Gun or knife, either way if your unarmed your screwed! You chances of stopping them are the same either way. Regardless of what the media would have you believe, most people are not very proficient with firearms and certainly not with an automatic. Gun shot wounds generally render ~15-20% mortality rate. So it would seem that at least 80% of the time you do have a chance. Now granted if they sneak up from behind your screwed but same goes for if they have a knife.
Once guns were banned their rate of violent crimes skyrocketed. When all weapons were banned the amount of crimes rose even more.
If you want a comparison of The United Kingdom and The United States then there is information that can be found online with ease. The fact is The United Kingdom has about the same rate of Violent Crimes as the U.S.A. while having less than half our population.
(UK Pop is about 64 million, USA is about 311 million)
Also, not to fault your earlier statement, but resisting someone with a knife, or any melee weapon for that matter, comes down to strength and skill. If you do not know how to defend yourself against an armed combatant then you will die if the assailant wants to kill you. Your best bet is to outrun the attacker. If you had a gun you could just withdraw, chamber a round, and then shoot the attacker.
Seeing how the majority of people cannot run a mile, and criminals are more inclined to run distance, you'll get caught, thrown down, and then, with his knee in your back, get your carotid arteries slashed open.
Don't worry though! You'd stop feeling pain within 10 seconds, and you'd black out within 30. Fifteen minute later, brain death. And--if you had the ability to fight back against someone physically more imposing than yourself who was armed, you might have stood a chance.
The paper it was written over was if Firearms should or shouldn't be banned. Most of the information I found was based around the various bans and the influence said bans had on the criminal underground, and the number of violent crimes per year. In general, preventing civilians from owning firearms to protect themselves ended up with an increase in violent crimes. To your credit it has been about 4 years since I wrote the paper, and it is possible the ratios are different then remembered.
The opposite point of view is that, statistically, carrying a weapon on your person, E.G., firearm, knife, increases your chances of being the victim of assault with a deadly weapon by about 4 times overall. People get it in their heads that just because he/she has a weapon that the individual will be effective in it.
Looking at intentional homicide rates and armed offences rates (any crime committed with a weapon) is the better way to look at the difference between a country with gun control and a country without.
Intentional homicide rate 2010:
USA 4.8 per 100,000
UK 1.23 per 100,000
Armed offences 2010:
USA 41.3 per 100,000
UK 3.3 per 100,000
The US has 300 million people on the 3rd biggest country in the world (9,631,418 km²).
And Australia with a very low violent crime rate has 20 million people on the 6th biggest country in the world (7,686,850 km²).
People in the UK have on average 0.004km² to themselves (4 square meters).
People in the US have on average 0.032km² to themselves (32 square meters).
People in the AU have on average 0.384km² to themselves (384 square meters).
Who do you think is going to have the most violent crime and who do you think is going to have the least.
That America and the UK are similar in numbers is bad for America.
Comparing the UK with the US (with a much lower population density) only by population, the UK violent crime rate is higher then the US, if you compared the UK with areas of the US with a similar population density ie Los Angeles and New York, the US has a much much higher violent crime rate.