Is the right to bear arms outdated.

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
"We are talking about trying to limit an angry, mentally ill, WHITE ADOLESCENT'S ability to randomly kill a large number of people in less than 5 minutes."
...but, evidently Latino, black, and Asian adolescents (or you name any other group) can just have at 'er, I assume. That's just a weeeee bit "RACIST!!!" view, isn't it? (See? I can opt to play the race card at the drop of a hat as well as any liberal on the planet.)

So tell me, how is further restricting the gun rights of people who are NOT mentally ill, angry, and who have no desire to slaughter people going to "limit" or PREVENT what a criminal/loon does?


Also some of those founding fathers were slave owners.
So now you choose to pettifog the issue, go off on a tangent, and try to establish an 'if-A-then-B' correlation between the two subjects???


Many of their views would not be popular today and they certainly were not infallible.
...and, of course, it then follows that a view that's "popular today" automatically invalidates the views of the Founders? 'Incredible.

There is a constitutional mechanism in place (which those imperfect FOUNDERS created by the way) that outlines how to address that possibility. It's referred to as the amendment process.


That argument just does not hold water.
REALLY???!!! The Founder's views on what they themselves wrote "(don't) hold water" simply because their views differ from the views of some people today??? You cannot be serious, sir!
 
Last edited:
Just maybe it would be good for everyone to read the statement made by the father of one of the Colombine students. He makes the real problem pretty clear. Check out Darrell Scotts testimony before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, given on May 27, 1999.
 
Last edited:
Larry you are illiterate at best.

I said your argument does not hold water not the "founders views".

I am white and of course it is not ok for other races to "have at er" I was just pointing out that it is a small percentage of the population that we are concerned with here.

I none of my posts so far, have I suggested that we should in fact restrict your personal gun rights. I am actually commenting more on your failure to discuss the subject in an intelligent way. There was not always a NICS check or a waiting period to own a gun. These are all changes that were made well after the writing of the 2nd Ammendment. And guess what, there will be more changes in the future. You can spin your wheels talking about the same BS over and over or you can come up with some creative solutions to protect both yourself and maybe a few innocent children too.

Hey Rambo, the edge will always go to the aggressor! Unless you come out the front door shooting every morning, you are really not that much better off than those of us who are not armed. If its just a hobby and you love to hunt or target shoot, well then I think you will be ok with a few changes.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry you are illiterate at best.
Oh, so now we're going to go down the name calling path, are we?
Puhleeeeze.


I said your argument does not hold water not the "founders views".
The arguments I posed reflect the Founder's views...the several quotes I cited illustrate that.


When you can propose gun laws that focus on and effect ONLY the criminal/loon elements responsible for incidents like Sandy Hook, I'll be more than happy to throw in with you. But, to this point I don't see where you (or any other gun control advocate) has offered any.

The sad FACT is we'll never be able to eliminate/prevent this kind of incident. We can pass all the laws we want, they won't change things. Proof? How many of the 876,942,527,103 gun laws presently on the books were broken by the loons at Columbine, V.T., Sandy Hook, et al?
Good grief, even the "gun-free zone" laws which flat out prohibit absolutely everyone from packing absolutely any kind/type of gun known to man on this or that property HAVEN'T PREVENTED this kind of incident. All gun-free zone laws have done is provide fish in a barrel for loons. Now, if a law that, in effect, totally prohibits the presence of guns altogether fails to stop this kind of thing from happening, how will 1,000 MORE "no-no" gun laws get the job done?


Nuts to this. I'm going back to the 'Hawks/Frisco game...
 
Sorry I have upset you Larry. It is hard being in a long distance relationship. You on the west coast and me way out here. I wish we could just hold eachother. I do not know how to tell you this but it may not work out between us. I can only take comfort in knowing that I can easily replace your company with a visit to the zoo.

I think the issues related to identifying and treating mental health problems are much more pressing than gun control reform. I am not a gun control advocate and do not think it is the solution to protecting our children.........but if it can in any way help then I am open to discussing it.

What if we raised the age of owning a firearm to 25 just like renting a car? Would that help get us past the angry adolescent stage? Underage use of firearms could be permitted with supervision only? How about holding gun owners accountable if their guns are lost, stolen, used in a crime? Just some thoughts and I would love to hear others from both sides............ Except for you my dear Larry! 20 1st graders were just killed with a gun and you can not understand why need to at least talk about guns. Your head is made of marble.
 
There are many people in Newtown, CT that are thinking that they should have reported their professional or non-proffesional opinion/feelings about this shooter to someone that could have prevented this. This kid didn't live in a bubble.
 
Ok you gun control nuts, Lets just say this last murdering maniac walks into that school with three or four holstered revolvers holding eight rounds each and kills 15 defenceless kids......... what do you do now, claim victory?
 
There are many people in Newtown, CT that are thinking that they should have reported their professional or non-proffesional opinion/feelings about this shooter to someone that could have prevented this. This kid didn't live in a bubble.
So many different reports, sometimes it sounds like the kid was practically a mute and then at other times it seems like he had a few friends at least during high school. No job or school for the last three years though, maybe some social interaction with someone other than his mom could have made a difference.
 
Ok you gun control nuts, Lets just say this last murdering maniac walks into that school with three or four holstered revolvers holding eight rounds each and kills 15 defenceless kids......... what do you do now, claim victory?

Of course not, but wouldn't you be willing to make some changes if it could make it harder for the next shooter to succeed. Maybe its not about restricting weapon types, but more about the process of buying a gun coupled with more responsibility to make sure that gun is never accessible to an unauthorized user.

Maybe no changes are made or necessary, but its the attitude that I do not understand. Kind of a "Not us, sorry we couldn't possibly help you, keep moving" attitude.
 
Last edited:
I found this to be an interesting read on this issue.

It wasn't supposed to happen in England, with all its very strict gun control laws. And yet last week Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others. A headline in The Times of London read: "Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy
."


Multiple victim public shootings were assumed to be an American thing for it is here the guns are, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, where most countries have much tougher gun laws, has experienced many of the worst multiple victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple victim public shootings in Europe occurred where guns are banned. So it is in the United States, too -- all the multiple victim public shootings (where more than three people have been killed) have taken place where civilians are not allowed to have a gun.


Look at recent history. Where have the worst K-12 school shootings occurred? It has not been in the U.S. but Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth worst shooting was in the U.S. -- Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 killed. The fifth worst school related murder spree, with 11 murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.


With three of the worst five attacks, Germany may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control. Even by European standards, Germany has some of the strictest gun control laws. Indeed, these laws are far stricter than existing gun control in the U.S., or for that matter, the restrictions currently being discussed in the United States.
Though not quite as tight as U.K. regulations, Germany has strict licensing and registration requirements. German licenses are only valid for three years and to obtain a gun license people must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness as well as convince authorities that they have a necessity for a gun. This comes on top of requirements against mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violence or aggressive tendencies, and felony convictions.


The attacks in Europe might not get as much attention in the U.S. or even in other countries in Europe besides where the attack occurred as the attack in the U.S., but multiple victim public shootings appear to be at least as common in Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks occurring in Europe since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed:
- Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament.
- Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
- Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
- Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
- Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
- Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
- Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
- Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school.
- Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
- Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia).
- Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
- Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
- Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
- Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
- Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year's Eve.
- Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.


So how does this compare to the United States? The University of Chicago’s Bill Landes and I have collected data on all the multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 (for a discussion of that information see the newly revised third edition of my book "[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226493660/ref=nosim/?tag=johnrlotttrip-20"]More Guns, Less Crime[/ame]
"). If we only examine those cases where 4 or more people have been killed in an attack, the worst such attack was the Luby's Cafeteria shooting in which 23 people died. On average 10.56 people have died each year,


One reason for limiting the cases to attacks with 4 or more deaths is that I haven't collected all the cases in Europe, and the quick review here will miss fewer of the larger cases.


Obviously, my list above for Western Europe will not have many cases where 4 or more people have been killed in a multiple victim public shooting, and I have not included attacks in Northern Ireland. That said, the average number for Europe over the 9.5 years from 2001 to the present is about 11.8 deaths per year -- essentially the same as the U.S. rate.


On the other hand, Western Europe’s population over the last decade is about 48 percent larger than the U.S. population over the earlier period (about 387 million to 262 million). To have the same per capita rate as the U.S., Western Europe would have had to experience one more shooting involving 4 people killed per year in six of the nine-and-a-half years. Whether a more detailed search would find that many more cases isn’t clear, but that is surely possible.


Large multiple victim public shootings are exceedingly rare events, but they garner massive news attention and the ingrained misperceptions they produce are hard to erase.


When I have been interviewed by foreign journalists, including those from Germany, they usually start off by asking for my opinion as to why multiple victim public shootings are such an American problem.
And of course, they are astonished when I remind of attacks in their own countries and I point out that this is a universal problem, but with a common factor: the attacks take place where civilians are banned from carrying guns.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...you are illiterate...I can easily replace your company with a visit to the zoo...Your head is made of marble...(blah, blah, and more blah.)
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. Waaaaaay back in high school, I was taught that one who resorts to hurling insults in a debate has lost the debate. You've clearly lost.

Regardless, I'll deal with the following before terminating my participation in what's become a pointless exercise:


What if we raised the age of owning a firearm to 25 just like renting a car? Would that help get us past the angry adolescent stage?
...'would probably help about as much as the law that says the same guy can't drink booze 'til he's 21. Law or no law, anyone who wants a gun for criminal purposes will find a way to get one no matter what "the law" says.
.
How many of history's younger mass murderers actually obtained their guns legally?


How about holding gun owners accountable if their guns are lost (I don't know a soul who's ever "lost" a firearm - except by theft), stolen (oh, yeah, the gun owner should be held criminally responsible for any deaths that result from his guns being s-t-o-l-e-n!), used in a crime (you mean like we hold a stolen car's owner responsible for any deaths that occur as a result of his car being stolen?)?
You have heard that the courts have ruled that gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible for deaths resulting from criminal acts of those who've purchased their guns, right? The same logic would apply to the prosecution of those whose property was stolen and subsequently used to kill someone, wouldn't you think?


Now, flame away 'til your little ole heart's content. I'm not going to bother responding to you any further, sir.
 
Of course not, but wouldn't you be willing to make some changes if it could make it harder for the next shooter to succeed. Maybe its not about restricting weapon types, but more about the process of buying a gun coupled with more responsibility to make sure that gun is never accessible to an unauthorized user.

Maybe no changes are made or necessary, but its the attitude that I do not understand. Kind of a "Not us, sorry we couldn't possibly help you, keep moving" attitude.
Problem is Chris once you've taken some of our constitutional rights away and things actually don't improve or get worse, we will never get them back..
Now if you really want to put an overall dent in gun related murders in the US you will start cracking down on all gun related crimes, that includes small grocery store robbery's at gun point..we need to give these criminals some real hard time 50yrs plus no questions asked...again I know most liberals never really want to solve problems, they just want to feel like they did SOMETHING....think I'm joking look at all the liberal judges that let criminals walk with like a $25.00 bail.
Chris murder is murder and it's especially heart breaking when it happens to a little innocent child......
But here is the undeniable truth that most liberals can not comprehend...
We will never ever detect or stop who will be the next mad lunatic that decides he wants to randomly kill.....But we as a nation really do have a way to put a scare into a rationally thinking gun thug.....it's called 50 yrs plus....(any crime commited with the use of a firearm)
This whole conversation mirrors why we are so compliant in searching grandma's A'hole at the airport but god forbid we ever profile......

Lets not really fix anything lets just talk..
 
Thanks Tom, for that article. Its certainly not just a problem for the U.S. and just restricting the purchase of guns does not guarantee safety for anyone. I totally agree that gun control alone is not the answer. Even in those countries that have restrictive laws, the laws may be somewhat dated. Now that mass shootings have become popular worldwide, it may be time to at least revisit those laws everywhere. There could be changes or new penalties used to punish only irresponsible gun owners. Although nothing is 100%, I just feel if you own a weapon legally it should never end up in the hands of someone mentally ill. The law obiding, responsible owners could carry on business as usual.

Craig,

Stiffer penalties for gun crimes will only deter the criminals who plan on sticking around long enough to get arrested. If you are going to shoot yourself as the authorities arrive, then you are not too worried about a 50yr sentence.

I do not want to take away your constitutional rights or your guns. I just think there is always room for improvement. What steps would you take personally with your own firearms to make sure that they never end up in the hands of a mass shooter? Whatever those steps are, maybe there are some people who are not doing this right now and could use some direction.

And cue......... Larry!!! How many times has Larry threatened to walk away from the thread for good? You are very resilient Larry and although we do not agree, I will always be happy to read your next post and try to consider all points that you make.
 

Steve

Supporter
Tom,

Some interesting statistics. It's also important to note that firearm related violent crime (both fatal and nonfatal) has been steadily declining in the US over the last 20 years. This is according to the US govt bureau of justice statistics. The incidence per 1000 people accounts for the rising population in that time and the rate now (for non-fatal firearm related violent crime) is less than 2 per 1000 people vs 6 in 1993.

During this same period, there is a precipitous rise in mass killings such as Columbine and Newtown. You are also seeing these episodes in Europe as well (Norway of all places!?). How do we explain the overall drop in gun-related violence in the US with concomitant rise in mass-killings? I certainly don't have the answer but it is clearly not specifically related to guns. There are some commonalities: young men in late teens and early 20's, often a history of mental illness with recent progression/worsening of their condition, expressions of a desire to proceed with a violent crime (announcing their intentions to others). Why does this manifest itself as an act of often random mass-killing? Answer that and you can begin to search for solutions to this problem. Focus on gun issues and you'll simply miss the point and the problem will continue.

I always have a fear that in emotionally stressful times the populace will be willing to sign over some of their freedoms in order to have perceived security. The problem is, of course, once you sign over those freedoms, you'll never get them back. Our founding fathers certainly warned of this....
 

Keith

Moderator
I completely agree but I am too tired and he's far too committed to his own reasoning and interpretation of statistics. I feel it would be a waste of my precious oxygen and Ron's bandwidth. It did get me a bit fired up this morning though....
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Here is some good news, although the total number of guns in the US has gone up, the actual number of gun owners has gone way down!



What has happened is that fewer people own more guns. Not only that but the average age of gun owner is goining up quickly, and we know who they are.

It seems that when they are not yelling at chairs, they are playing with their guns. Yes, by far the majority of guns are owned by Red State, Conservative, "Old white guys", and they own lot of guns!

When ever we have a another mass gun slaughter, we hear that gun sales have gone up, that scary until we find out that its mostly folks who aleardy have guns, just buying more!

It seems that the "Gun Culture", like Consevatives are slowly dying off! This bodes well for our kids and our future.
 
Last edited:

Keith

Moderator
It's not necessarily good news. It means guns are being stockpiled. Gun sales went up following the CT massacre. If everyone in the USA had one firearm provided they were qualified to own it, that would be a reasonably good thing. To have thousands of guns owned by a lot less people could equal a private army, and that, is Not a Good Thing.

Also, would you please desist on this Conservative vs Liberal nonsense.

Are you equating gun ownership and use in the USA with one political association?

Do 'liberals' not own guns?

Stop being silly.
 
Top