Colorado, gun control and the 2nd Amendment

[DB008]

7 people injured this time...

Seven hurt in spa shooting spree

At least seven people have been injured in a shooting at or near a day spa in the midwestern US state of Wisconsin.
Police have told reporters they were looking for a black male who may be driving a black Mazda as a suspect in the shooting overnight in Brookfield, a suburb of Milwaukee.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/seven-hurt-in-spa-shooting-spree-20121022-2801o.html#ixzz29y0dIqwB

 

[DB008]

Relevant....

http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Award-Winners/show/Vanguard/Guns-in-America-4201205.html

 

[Smurf1976]

I just cant understand how people hunt for fun, my neighbour does but I just dont get it.

I'm not at all keen on hunting as a "sport" but I acknowledge that others disagree. The main issue I have with it, is that so far as I'm concerned a sport involves the possibility of win, lose or draw as the outcome. I fail to see how anyone "loses" hunting, unless they themselves are shot which seems to be rare. In other words, it seems awfully one sided - the animals aren't armed, and nobody fires even a single shot in the direction of the hunters.

It's like having a motor race with one V8 and another 20 small 4 cylinder cars. Or putting an established cricket team up against a group of recently arrived immigrants who have never actually seen a game of cricket played before, let alone played it themselves. Or a mathematics competition where one participant is a university maths lecturer and the rest are professional chefs. So far as I'm concerned, it's just not sport when the game is so far skewed in favour of one side as to make the outcome virtually certain.

All that said, no doubt there will be hunters who don't "get" why anyone would invest in shares, let alone discuss it on a forum but hunting isn't for me that's for sure.

So far as the "blow them up versus clean killing" bit is concerned, my experience with such people is to the effect that groups of males under 30 on "hunting trips" favour the "blow 'em up" approach, especially when plenty of alcohol is involved (as it usually is on such trips). Older people, farmers etc go for a clean kill but, in the case of amateurs, still manage to mess it up reasonably often.

I'm no radical Green that's for sure, but I can't see the point in killing for the sake of it. And don't even mention those who start shooting at things other than animals....

 

[Julia]

+1, Smurf.

 

[DB008]

x-post from Dutchie

Connecticut shooting leaves at least 26 dead

At least 26 people, including up to 20 children between the ages of five and 10, have been killed in a mass shooting at the Sandy Hook primary school in Newton, a small town in rural Connecticut.

The gunman, found dead at the scene, was identified in US media reports as 24-year-old Adam Lanza, who killed his father at home before driving to the school and killing his mother, who worked there, along with many of her young students. His brother Ryan Lanza, who was initially identified as the shooter, has been questioned.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/connect...ast-26-dead-20121215-2bfw3.html#ixzz2F42S8aXu

 

[CanOz]

What a world we live in....

Only days apart, 20 children are slashed at a school in China, horrifying

20 children are shot dead at a school in America, a senseless tradegy

But....access to firearms will be challenged eventually. The majority will get tired of the gun lobby.

God bless those poor, innocent little kids.

CanOz

 

[Aussiejeff]

What a world we live in....

Only days apart, 20 children are slashed at a school in China, horrifying

20 children are shot dead at a school in America, a senseless tradegy

But....access to firearms will be challenged eventually. The majority will get tired of the gun lobby.

God bless those poor, innocent little kids.

CanOz

Consider this mind boggling statistic. Then the Prez's big smile as he touts how civilized the US is.....

http://www.iansa.org/news/2012/03/us-over-3000-children-killed-by-guns-every-year

US: Over 3,000 children killed by guns every year

Posted on Thu, 2012-03-01 00:00

Just over 3,000 children are killed and 17,500 are injured by guns every year in the US, according to the blog site ‘Kid shootings’, run by members of Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, Protect Minnesota and States United to Prevent Gun Violence. The site highlights statistics, articles and stories about minors involved in or affected by gun crimes or dangerous situations involving guns in the US.

Hmmm. Those stats are close to the number killed and injured by 9/11. Upon which the US declared a War On Terror.

It would seem however, that the US is not-so-covertly conducting it's very own War On Children every day of every month of every year.

What a bunch of GUTLESS US lawmakers and pollies they have.

I know, I know - I might "disappear" in an act of "rendition" for such critique, but I don't give a damn.

 

[Pager]

Some states have decided to do something about mass shootings I see, Michigan for example has legislated for people to carry concealed weapons in Schools and churches, apparently the states politicians think it will act as a deterrent !!!! now how F@cked up is that ?.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mic...ns-schools-just-hours-before-newtown-massacre

There’s always been a gun culture in the USA , always will be but what I don’t get is as the weapons get more and more sophisticated no one will legislate or take on the powerful gun lobby to restrict them or have them banned, its one thing having a Colt 45 or similar but some of the weapons available are built to kill en masse which is what needs addressing.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Some states have decided to do something about mass shootings I see, Michigan for example has legislated for people to carry concealed weapons in Schools and churches, apparently the states politicians think it will act as a deterrent !!!! now how F@cked up is that ?.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mic...ns-schools-just-hours-before-newtown-massacre

There’s always been a gun culture in the USA , always will be but what I don’t get is as the weapons get more and more sophisticated no one will legislate or take on the powerful gun lobby to restrict them or have them banned, its one thing having a Colt 45 or similar but some of the weapons available are built to kill en masse which is what needs addressing.

The term WMD's comes to mind.....

 

[Joules MM1]

December 14, 2012
Newtown and the Madness of Guns
Adam Gopnik


excerpt

So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...wn-and-the-madness-of-guns.html#ixzz2F5rpDSOR

-------------------------------------



Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
by Jeffrey M. Jones

(the charts within these links are quite amazing and give a picture far deeper than words can express. ed)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

excerpt:

For the first time, Gallup finds greater opposition to than support for a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles, 53% to 43%. In the initial asking of this question in 1996, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 57% for and 42% against an assault rifle ban. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but the law expired when Congress did not act to renew it in 2004. Around the time the law expired, Americans were about evenly divided in their views.

 

[DB008]

Nuts.....

If I were shopping in Coles/Woolies/Target/K-Mart and saw someone like this, l'd freak out. But this seems 'normal' in the USA. No wonder they have issues.......

A well dressed WalMart Shopper

http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/well-dressed-walmart-shopper

and
Wal-Mart Adds Guns Alongside Butter

 

[MrBurns]

Even if they ban them now it will take a generation to change the culture and get rid of many of the weapons, but they have to do it as things get more feral over there and the sooner they start the sooner it finishes.

 

[Tink]

This is sad to read, and always seems to be around children and schools.

I really hope the majority do challenge the gun lobby, and start implementing some changes -- they cant keep crying, saying its a tragedy and in a week its all back to normal.

 

[Smurf1976]

There are numerous examples of things which are done / used simply because they are there and guns are unfortunately no exception.

If things are there then people will use them. That's just the way it is and it applies to everything from cigarettes to lawn mowers. Most adults would have tried smoking at least once at some point in their lives and most people have mowed a lawn. If things are there, they get used.

Now, can anyone give me one legitimate reason why a gun is needed in an urban area? I can see a potential need for farmers etc, but not in the suburbs of a city. It's not like motor vehicles, for example, which whilst being a common cause of death also serve a very useful purpose. Guns have no actual purpose in a town or city and need not be there.

You don't need to spend long in the US to notice that Americans are obsessed with "freedom", "liberty" and their own military. Get on a domestic flight, attend a baseball game or anything like that and you'll notice it pretty quickly. The sad part is, the sheer obsession with it all is itself an expression of fear. And inciting fear is precisely the objective of terrorists. When, as a tourist, you end up being security screened several times in the one day that reality really hits you.

 

[white_goodman]

Would Banning Firearms reduce murder and suicide?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . ."

 

[MrBurns]

There's no doubt banning guns would save lives but it would take years to take effect.

No you'll never stop crims from getting them but it would stop a number of suiicides as the immediacy of pulling a trigger would be gone and nut cases would find it difficult to get guns and it would also take away the immediacy of their actions.

Big political issue but I have a feeling Obama might get the ball rolling.

 

[bellenuit]

Would Banning Firearms reduce murder and suicide?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . ."

Of course, because guns do not make non-violent people violent or violent people non-violent. But guns do make violent people more lethal and non-violent people more likely to cause accidental deaths. A good example of the difference between violent acts where guns are involved compared to when they are not involved is a comparison between the knife wielding deranged man in a Chinese school just yesterday and what happened in the USA. In the former 20 kids were injured but none fatally. The latter had 20 killed as well as 8 adults.

This is a more relevant correlation statistic than what you quoted:

 

[MrBurns]

It's common sense really, any arguments to the contrary are simply rubbish.

 

[DB008]

There's no doubt banning guns would save lives but it would take years to take effect.

No you'll never stop crims from getting them but it would stop a number of suiicides as the immediacy of pulling a trigger would be gone and nut cases would find it difficult to get guns and it would also take away the immediacy of their actions.

Big political issue but I have a feeling Obama might get the ball rolling.

Yep.

And in 6 months time, l'll be posting in this thread again.....sadly....

 

[Sean K]

There's no doubt banning guns would save lives but it would take years to take effect.

Yep.

And in 6 months time, l'll be posting in this thread again.....sadly....

Yes, maybe another 2 generations to go perhaps. It will eventually change. Just hope I'm still around to see it.