It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution..... - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-23-2007, 04:24 AM   #316
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Nobody and I mean nobody here ever suggested that there is CAUSATION between buying a gun and becoming a killer. There isn't a single post on this thread, and I know because I've read them all.

So I'm not sure where you are seeing this "paranoia."
The post of yours quoted below comes mighty close. It's not much of a stretch to see how that post, and especially the line "Everyone is law abiding initially" can be interpreted as stating that once people buy a gun they are hell bent to find a way to use it.


Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I love the talk of these magical law-abiding citizens who don't abuse guns.

Guy goes crazy, catches wife in bed with another guy, loses his mind, picks up the gun in his garage and shoots her. He used to be law abiding. (And btw, these cases aren't rare, I could cite a dozen just off the top of my head)

Stupid teenager and his 3 buddies go to a 7-11, they're horsing around, decide to be dumb and steal a 6-pack of beer, it goes wrong, one of them happens to have a gun, shoots the cashier. No previous history of criminality, no previous convictions, hey, maybe it was his buddy's gun - he just happened to be holding it.

9 year old boy finds one of his father's guns in the basement, plays around with it, accidentally shoots his sister and the family dog. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy owns house backing onto ravine, hates how neighbourhood cats and dogs wander on to his property. Sees a beagle taking a dump, picks up his gun to teach it a lesson and misses, shooting the mother of 3 who happened to be walking the dog. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy's business is crumbling, he's got debt collectors showing up, he's under stress, they're relentless, he orders them out of his store, they refuse, he picks up a gun and shoots. No history of criminal behaviour.

Guy's wife tells him she's leaving him and the kids and is going to clean him out and by the way, his dick is small and she's repulsed by looking at him. He's enraged, picks up his hunting rifle, shoots her, the inlaws who live on the main floor of their house and then takes his own life.

Everyone is law abiding initially.
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 05:41 AM   #317
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Just a question. What do you think would happen if no normal citizen had a gun? What do you think would happen to society?

I also wonder about the different social aspects between say the US and Canada and Australia. We watch the same TV shows/movies, we have the same obsession with computer games with guns, we have armies, and i see lots of little boys at school playing with toy guns and "shooting" each other, so the gun culture is still there, so why does it get so out of control in the states?
__________________

__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 06:40 AM   #318
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Yes, AEON or Dread could you please explain this. . .
Of any of the examples I have provided, do any of them follow this argument?

Why dread on this? I know people who hunt. Lots of people who hunt. I know people who carry when they are out on the acres and acres of bogs they work.

I have not made the home invasion argument, quite honestly, because I do not believe a loaded weapon should be out in my house. I have two children who do not know if I have a weapon or not. I can say this, if there were an intruder in my house, my dog would get him first.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 06:43 AM   #319
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

but if we are taking care f the weapons in the manner that they should, then we are defenseless against the intruders who are breaking into our houses to rape our wives.
I agree 100%. That is why the pit bull lab mix is handy to have in the house.

I am pretty sure I have not advocated this position in the debate.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 06:45 AM   #320
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Completely different situations.
WEll, how can that be, when we are going to BLANKET remove the right for responsible people. It's not completely different based on the premise put forth in this thread.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 08:08 AM   #321
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


WEll, how can that be, when we are going to BLANKET remove the right for responsible people. It's not completely different based on the premise put forth in this thread.
Not by me.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 08:09 AM   #322
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


I don't think I responded particularly defensively. Certainly no more so than your "I'll take my chances, thank you" comment. AEON's entire post was in reference to my post, so you saying you were only responding to him is disingenuous at best.

The statistical chances of something like this happening to you are about the same as they were to him. You are free to not have a weapon -- no one is saying you must have one. You are, however, saying that he shouldn't have one, despite him never being any kind of threat to you. You obviously don't know him or care whether he lived or died, but I'm glad he did have a gun that night. I personally don't know anyone who's had a child find a gun and shoot itself or anyone else. So why should I give a flying fuck about that argument either? (I do by the way, and think that anyone with children who cannot or will not properly secure any weapons should not have them.) Do you only care about something that is likely to happen to you or someone you know? If so, you are a mighty callous person.

As for his gun being stored loaded -- I'm not sure it was. I didn't ask and he didn't say. You just assumed it was loaded. It's entirely possible he retrieved and loaded it when he heard the guy breaking in. If you know what you are doing loading a gun only takes a few seconds.

I find your willingness to brand a person you do not know "fucking paranoid" because of something you assume (ie., that he stored his gun loaded) obnoxious and not nearly as tolerant as you'd like people to believe. Or does tolerance only apply when you agree with the person?
This is one hell of a defensive response. I'll leave you to decide what nerve keeps getting hit. You make your assumptions about this man, and I'll make mine.



Quote:
I personally don't know anyone who's had a child find a gun and shoot itself or anyone else.
That makes one of us.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 09:20 AM   #323
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy

I also wonder about the different social aspects between say the US and Canada and Australia. We watch the same TV shows/movies, we have the same obsession with computer games with guns, we have armies, and i see lots of little boys at school playing with toy guns and "shooting" each other, so the gun culture is still there, so why does it get so out of control in the states?
Neither Canada nor Australia borders a country other than the US. I don't have a problem with immigration, but if you look in some other threads you will find the type of people that are all paranoid because we border Mexico. Also, most cities have pretty big gang problems, and I'd bet gang/drug related gun incidents vastly out number isolated domestic incidents. We also have the huge military, and many people who think that serving gives them the right to carry around their weapons for life. I don't mean anyone in this thread, but I know people that joined the military for lack of anything better to do and now think that they are some expert on combat and defense and carry pistols in their pockets.

It seems to me that among the people I know who are very anti-gun restriction and actually have their own guns (excluding sport rifles) do it more for the tradition than actually feeling threatened. They come from militaristic families with histories of owning and using weapons, so they kids just grow up around weapons and for them it's normal to have one.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 09:37 AM   #324
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


The post of yours quoted below comes mighty close. It's not much of a stretch to see how that post, and especially the line "Everyone is law abiding initially" can be interpreted as stating that once people buy a gun they are hell bent to find a way to use it.


No it doesn't. Nowhere did I suggest that "but for the fact he had a gun ____ would not have become a killer." It merely pointed out that in those cases, people who are law abiding and own a gun could certainly find themselves in a situation where it goes off. I don't see how you can interpret it another way: if a guy commits a crime in the heat of passion it was cause by an external event (ie. seeing his wife in bed with somebody else) NOT because he owned a gun. The gun merely helped him achieve his end, but was not a factor in causation. It's really not that difficult of a concept.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 09:43 AM   #325
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


Neither Canada nor Australia borders a country other than the US.
I really think it has to do more with American views of property ownership and that their property is sacred. The idea that in some jurisdictions you are allowed to shoot at a person if you feel "threatened" is inconsistent with say, Canadian or English law. But Americans in particular feel extremely strongly about their right to their land and mere trespassers are seen as something of an affront to a much higher degree than here.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 10:03 PM   #326
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Of any of the examples I have provided, do any of them follow this argument?

Why dread on this? I know people who hunt. Lots of people who hunt. I know people who carry when they are out on the acres and acres of bogs they work.

I have not made the home invasion argument, quite honestly, because I do not believe a loaded weapon should be out in my house. I have two children who do not know if I have a weapon or not. I can say this, if there were an intruder in my house, my dog would get him first.
Fair enough. Perhaps we can agree that both of our positions are more nuanced then we might have given each other credit for.

I wouldn't advocate a ban on hunting rifles either.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 10:36 PM   #327
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I really think it has to do more with American views of property ownership and that their property is sacred. The idea that in some jurisdictions you are allowed to shoot at a person if you feel "threatened" is inconsistent with say, Canadian or English law. But Americans in particular feel extremely strongly about their right to their land and mere trespassers are seen as something of an affront to a much higher degree than here.
I agree to an extent. Most family members and friends who would speak out against banning guns or tighter restrictions don't actually own any guns or feel the need to defend property. Heck, most of us don't even own property or have families to "defend" yet, so I can't really get in the mindset of being all obsessed over property, but maybe I'm in a majority, who knows? I guess it just goes back to their assumption that restricting guns is too dangerous a precedent for restricting rights in general. I don't agree, because I don't think that guns should be a "right" in the first place, but that's the way they see it.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 09:11 AM   #328
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:00 AM
BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- When a judge deemed Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho a danger to himself due to mental illness in 2005, that ruling should have disqualified him from buying a handgun under federal law.

It didn't.

And his slaughter of 32 people last week has raised questions about the efficacy of instant background checks for firearms purchases by the mentally ill.

Under federal law, anyone who has been judged to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, as Cho was, should be prohibited from buying a gun.

His status should have been noted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database of people disqualified from gun purchases.

But, in Cho's case, his mental status never went in the system.


That's because the federal government relied on Virginia to provide the information, and Virginia law disqualifies a person from buying firearms only if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.

Cho was ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but he was never committed. His appearance before the judge and his evaluation at a mental health facility did not show up when he bought the guns.

So Virginia never reported him, and he was not flagged in a background check.

Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell concedes that "the gap is clearly there in the state and federal law."

"We're taking a good look at whether the federal law would have been an absolute disqualifier," McDonnell said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

He said state law may need to be changed to meet federal requirements.


Ironically, although Virginia law created a loophole for Cho, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says Virginia is actually one of the best performing states when it comes to entering mental status of persons into the background check system.

In fact, only 22 states, including Virginia, put any mental-status entries into the federal database. The remaining states cite costs and privacy concerns as reasons they don't.

But even if Virginia had put Cho in the database, he could still have sidestepped the background check by buying his firearms at a gun show or from a private seller.

Those types of transactions account for about half of the guns sold in the United States each year.

In Virginia, a person 21 or older can buy only one handgun a month, unless he has a license to buy more.

Cho bought one gun, a .22-caliber pistol, in early February and another, a 9 mm pistol, in March.

He apparently bought the .22-caliber weapon from an out-of-state dealer.

Under federal law, a weapon purchased from an out-of-state dealer must be shipped to an in-state, federally licensed gun dealer, who runs a background check. The buyer must appear in person to pick up the gun, and the dealer receives a small fee -- usually between $20 and $40 -- for facilitating the pickup.

On February 9, Cho picked up the out-of-state purchase -- a Walther P22 pistol -- from JND pawnshop across the street from campus, according to Joe Dowdy, who owns the shop. (Watch dealer recount selling weapon to Cho Video)

Cho bought a Glock 19 and 50 rounds of ammunition on March 12, staying just within the limit of one gun purchase per month, said John Markell at Roanoke Firearms in nearby Roanoke, Virginia.

Even though Cho is a resident alien, Markell said, it was legal for him to purchase a firearm, and he presented three forms of identification: a driver's license, a checkbook with an address matching the driver's license, and a resident alien card.

Cho moved to the United States from South Korea at age 8.
Clips possibly bought on eBay

Investigators are seeking records related to an e-mail and eBay account that may have been used by Cho, a source close to the investigation said. The account being checked was used last month to buy magazine clips that would fit one of the handguns used by Cho in his shooting rampage.

A CNN check of eBay transaction records online showed that the account that investigators are examining -- Blazers5505 -- was used in numerous transactions over the past several months.

Those included the March 22 purchase of two empty, 10-round magazines for a Walther P22 handgun from a company in Rigby, Idaho, that sells hunting and shooting supplies. Authorities have said one of the two handguns used by Cho was a Walther P22 pistol.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-24-2007, 10:53 AM   #329
War Child
 
AnnRKeyintheUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not coming down
Posts: 603
Local Time: 06:00 AM
I firmly believe there is no way to keep guns out of hands of people determined to get them. There will always be illegal ways.
__________________
AnnRKeyintheUSA is offline  
Old 05-05-2007, 12:08 PM   #330
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:00 PM
Most political entities control guns in some way or another. The freedom to own a gun is something that most people don't think about. It shocks Australians, for example, that it's so easy to own a gun in the States and the way we use the Second Amendment to argue for rights to own a gun. I agree with Indra that this guy probably would have found a gun, although it was too easy for him. He just ordered his on the internet. A friend of mine from Ireland emailed me with the Va. Tech story and a plea for more gun control. It was too easy for this guy to get guns. He was seriously mentally ill, and really exploited the Second Amendment. It's too easy to exploit the Second Amendment. I think it's sort of dangerous.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com