The Guardian Plan - Page 14
Closed Thread
Page 14 of 53 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 528
Like Tree233Likes

Thread: The Guardian Plan

  1. #131
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    On Australia:

    If we are to believe that the correlation between strict gun control and low rates of gun violence in other industrialized nations really is some sort of incredible coincidence, events in Australia must be taken for nothing short of a miracle. In the 18 years prior to 1996 gun control reforms, that nation saw 13 mass shootings. In the 16 since, they have seen one -- which usually isn't even counted, because the shooter was only able to kill two people before he had to stop to reload (because: gun control) and was apprehended. That wouldn't even count as a mass shooting in the guide to American massacres I linked to earlier. Still, after that incident, Australia reviewed and tightened its gun laws again. Ten years later, there hasn't been another.
    Before the gun fetishists start freaking out (as if they hadn't already): it didn't take some sort of total authoritarian prohibition in Australia to achieve this kind of result. It just took common sense gun laws. In fact, there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the 1996 reforms. But, magazine size is limited, weapons designed for war zones can only be owned (in a non-operational state) by collectors and people who own any gun need to be over 18, have a license and keep them stored safely. Exactly what part of that sounds so unreasonable to the average sportsman?
    And if you're a gun enthusiast still clinging to the based-on-nothing belief that people will just find other ways of committing gun homicides, here's a little something more from our friends down under:
    After the introduction of gun laws, a significant downward trend was evident in total homicides, and the ratio of pre‐law to post‐law trends differed statistically from "no effect" (p = 0.01, table 33).). We conclude that the data do not support any homicide method substitution hypothesis.
    In short: when gun homicides declined, all homicides declined. People did not simply commit them another way.
    I actually disagree when they conclude that no method substitution occurs, however. There is some evidence to suggest that people who want to go on a violent rampage do try to find other ways when guns are not available. Of course these people do not, in fact, slyly poison 20 school children when a Glock isn't handy or mix up some kind of crazy Joker laughing gas. When guns aren't handy, they seem to use the next best thing: a knife. We've seen this over and over again in China lately. The major difference is that, even when a knife-wielding maniac is able to reach dozens of victims, often every single victim survives. These events aren't showing up as homicides perhaps because homicide wasn't achieved, because it wasn't as easily achievable. Ever hear that expression about taking a knife to a gunfight? It exists for a reason.
    Still, too many Americans -- including our lawmakers -- insist on remaining astonishingly obstinate when it comes to any suggestion of responsible firearm regulations. Instead of common sense solutions, they repeat bizarre myths and offer idiotic distractions. It's as if every time a white suburbanite picks up a gun, half the country suddenly becomes your crazy grandfather, claiming that the same violent films and video games that kids in Australia, Ireland and Britain are watching and playing are somehow compelling only Americans to go on shooting sprees. It's an... unique idea, to say the least. (Let's not even talk about what they're watching in Japan, which has -- through strict gun control efforts -- virtually eliminated gun violence altogether.)
    Not that it would matter if these things were somehow magically compelling only Americans to shoot up their local malls. Contrary to popular belief, sometimes the most effective solution is not, actually, attempting to remove every underlying motive or eliminate every contributing factor. Sometimes it's just using the most effective solution at your disposal.
    To be clear, I am definitely not saying that our health care system doesn't need a top-to-bottom overhaul. It does. What I am saying is that by far the most effective, proven solution at our disposal is a major, common sense reform of our gun control laws, and that there is no good reason not to do it.

  2. #132
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    On Australia:
    Yeah, that link that you provided earlier was good.

    I think that it shows that some countries have successfully made strict gun laws without completely banning the tools that make hunting a viable food source for those who want it to be or feel its important to them.
    mom3girls likes this.

  3. #133
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    No, but if a women tried to tell me her loss was THE SAME I would tell her that I absolutely disagreed with her and that that viewpoint was very hurtful to women who had experienced the loss of a living child.

    I still don't understand your second bolded at all. I don't use the excuse "they would do it in an alley". I believe that women have a right to bodily autonomy. I believe that children and humans have a right to bodily autonomy as well, i.e the right to not be riddled with bullets. What on earth is contradictory about that to you.

    Again, you trying to link this tragedy to abortion is hurtful and, in my opinion, sinful.
    I did not say the pain was the same. It is not.

    I am ok with you thinking it is sinful. It was not meant to be hurtful, just pointing out that if abortion among other things are ok because it will happen anyway, so why not regulate it, I do not understand why you would not use the same rational about gun control. You will never be able to completely ban guns. It would be more realistic to regulate them, then to ban them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    The pain of losing a wanted pregnancy is certainly real. But I don't think you can compare losing a pregnancy to losing a born child, and I certainly don't think you can compare choosing to end a pregnancy over losing a born child. It's just a way to try to change the conversation back to a certain set of Conservative approved talking points.
    I was in no way trying to compare the pain of loosing an unborn baby to the pain of loosing a first grader. I was solely talking about the reason it is legal. That many say that you can not ban abortion because it would happen anyway. I was in no way meaning to compare the recent loss to abortion. I was trying to compare banning all guns to banning abortion.

    ~Bonita~

  4. #134
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    It could have been the only theater in the area that was screening the film at midnight. It could have been the only theater that had parking spaces very near an emergency exit. It could have been the only theater that did NOT have alarmed emergency exits. It could have been some combination of all of these. He could also have been counting on the fact that never in American history has a mass murderer been killed by a bystander, even those who *did* have a gun on them.

    first bolded: No, all 6 theaters were screening it at midnight.

    second bolded: Really? That would be why i found 4 cases.

    Do Civilians Armed With Guns Ever Capture, Kill, or Otherwise Stop Mass Shooters?

    Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings. Opponents occasionally ask: If that?s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven?t heard even one such example.
    Naturally, such examples will be rare, partly because mass shootings are rare, partly because many mass shootings happen in supposedly ?gun-free? zones (such as schools, universities, or private property posted with a no-guns sign) in which gun carrying isn?t allowed, and partly for other reasons. Moreover, at least some examples are contested, because it might be unclear ? as you?ll see below ? whether the shooter had been planning to kill more people when he was stopped. But here are instances that I have seen, not counting killings stopped by people who were off-duty police officers (or police officers from other jurisdictions) at the time of the shooting.
    1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn?t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state.
    2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun ? possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I?ve seen are unclear ? when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It?s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.
    3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). It?s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.
    4. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn?t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have.

    So it appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public. In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? We don?t know. In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after he?s already done? We don?t know. In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to bystanders? Again, we don?t know. Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1% of all homicides in the U.S., and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Still, people have asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter ? so here they are.

    eta* found another one.(from the same link)

    1966, University of Texas. Charles Whitman climbed the 28 story university tower and began shooting people.
    Soon citizens on the ground grabbed their rifles and returned fire.
    An off duty deputy sheriff and two civilians climbed the tower and ended the rampage
    49 were shot before the sniper was killed.
    Today the police would have spent hours clearing the area (and maybe arresting those that fired back) and then assemble a hundred men swat team before they decide to drop a bomb on the tower killing the shooter as well as destroying the building.
    The death toll would have been much higher
    eta* (same link again.
    It is interesting but the next story on FR after this one is about a hospital in Birmingham where the shooter wounded three before being shot to death by an armed person. So add this to the list.
    Last edited by Sapphire Sunsets; 12-19-2012 at 11:48 AM.

  5. #135
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I did not say the pain was the same. It is not.

    I am ok with you thinking it is sinful. It was not meant to be hurtful, just pointing out that if abortion among other things are ok because it will happen anyway, so why not regulate it, I do not understand why you would not use the same rational about gun control. You will never be able to completely ban guns. It would be more realistic to regulate them, then to ban them.


    I was in no way trying to compare the pain of loosing an unborn baby to the pain of loosing a first grader. I was solely talking about the reason it is legal. That many say that you can not ban abortion because it would happen anyway. I was in no way meaning to compare the recent loss to abortion. I was trying to compare banning all guns to banning abortion.
    That must be why I am confused. I have never, ever, heard a single person argue that abortion is morally wrong, but that they believe that it should be legal for purposes of regulation. Ever. Most people believe that abortion should be legal for a host of other reasons, stemming from a womans rights to her own body. Of course from that right comes the right to have a safe way to abort.

    Secondly, I have not seen one single person in this entire debate argue for banning all guns.

    Still dont get your argument, which is why I believe you bringing up abortion is simply grandstanding off of a tragedy to bring attention to a conservative talking point. Taking advantage of a tragedy to force attention to your personal agenda is terrible, IMO

  6. #136
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,103

    Default

    I don't really care if armed civilians ever stop mass shooters. Of course if the scenario exists it is logical that it will play out that way a certain percentage of the time. That alone doesnt' justify keeping certain kinds of guns around so civilians can arms themselves. It doesn't because it speaks NOTHING of the state of things if a properly written gun law were in place.

  7. #137
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    That must be why I am confused. I have never, ever, heard a single person argue that abortion is morally wrong, but that they believe that it should be legal for purposes of regulation. Ever. Most people believe that abortion should be legal for a host of other reasons, stemming from a womans rights to her own body. Of course from that right comes the right to have a safe way to abort.

    Secondly, I have not seen one single person in this entire debate argue for banning all guns.

    Still dont get your argument, which is why I believe you bringing up abortion is simply grandstanding off of a tragedy to bring attention to a conservative talking point. Taking advantage of a tragedy to force attention to your personal agenda is terrible, IMO
    You missed our most recent abortion debate. My take away from that debate is that was what several felt. I of course could have miss read everything. It is difficult to convey tone of voice and intent over the internet. It is possible I miss read the intent on that, and I feel many are miss reading my intent on this. I am not trying to offend.

    ~Bonita~

  8. #138
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    I don't really care if armed civilians ever stop mass shooters. Of course if the scenario exists it is logical that it will play out that way a certain percentage of the time. That alone doesnt' justify keeping certain kinds of guns around so civilians can arms themselves. It doesn't because it speaks NOTHING of the state of things if a properly written gun law were in place.
    Gun laws do NOTHING to stop people from having ILLEGAL guns. All they have to do is ENFORCE the laws that already exist. Get the illegal guns off the street before you go after the legal ones.
    Rivergallery likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #139
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    See I also work and promote activities that lessen the amount of abortions performed. I would be so happy if there was no need of abortions medically or by election. Truly. I promote sex education in schools. I work to help woman get health care for the reproductive needs etc. I don't promote abstinence as the highest form of birth control because historically it doesn't work etc.

    Same with guns. I said my loftiest of goals is no guns. Realistically, I know how unlikely that it is. Does that mean I stop working to reduce guns, the type of guns avail etc?

  10. #140
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,963

    Default

    This is an interesting article. I'm only going to quote some of it.

    Preparing for School Attacks

    The situation is
    very much like fire protection. The probability of a student being killed or
    seriously injured by violence is significantly greater than the probability of
    being killed or seriously injured by fire. No child has been killed by school
    fire in North America in over a quarter of a century, but in the 2004/2005
    school year, 48 people were murdered in American schools.
    These are usually
    random acts of violence, or shootings by students as opposed to acts of
    terrorism, but the defense against terrorist attacks in our schools, as outlined
    in this article, is largely the same as the defense against school
    shootings.


    Thus, our children
    are dozens of times more likely to be killed by violence than fire, and
    thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured by violence as compared
    to fire. Yet, in any school you can look around and see fire sprinklers, smoke
    alarms, fire exits, and fire extinguishers
    . If we can spend all that money and
    time preparing for fire (and we should, since every life is precious) shouldn't
    we spend time and money preparing for the thing that is far more likely to kill
    or injure a child?

    The most negligent, unprofessional, obscene words
    anyone can ever say are: "It will never happen here." When someone asks, "Do you
    really think there will be a terrorist act or a school shooting here?" Just
    point to the fire exit and say, "Do you really think there will be a fire here?”
    No, we don't think there will ever be a fire here. But we would be morally,
    criminally negligent if we did not prepare for the possibility. And the same is
    far, far truer of school violence."

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions