The happy conclusions of the present gun debate.

[JGG]

Okay, I am on the gun control side of the issue but seriously? You didn't even attempt to show causation.

Sorry, you're right. I'm not trying to showing causation. I'm showing correlation. It could be that the more gun deaths you have, the more guns you need. But, why is selling more guns the solution?

 

[bhsmte]

Along the theme of personal responsibility:

Canadians have 22,000 guns per 100,000 people. Americans have 112,000 guns per 100,000 people. Canadians have a firearms death rate of 2.2 per 100,000 people. Americans have a firearms death rate of 10.4 per 100,000 people.

Now, I'm just eyeballing the statistics, but it seems that the more guns you have, the more people are killed by them. So why is the solution to put more guns out there?

I don't think there is any question, that guns simply make it easier to kill people and the more guns that are available to people, the greater chance someone will use this tool, to kill someone. Anyone who denies this, is really not paying attention.

With that said, the issue is deeper than just the number of guns and you have to peel the layers back to get to the core issues of:

-why do so many Americans desire to have guns?
-why motivates someone to kill someone with a gun?

The first question to me is simple; the US has a deeply embedded gun culture, going back to the founding of the country and the importance guns played in acquiring land, etc.. You have the wild west, where everyone had a gun and you had to mafia wars that were dramatic in the 20's and 30's, where people were getting gunned down by the mafia. Hollywood movies, TV shows and video games, also have been glorifying guns for years and it is difficult to watch a movie or TV show, that doesn't have guns involved in the same and people getting shot. As kids, one of the first toys we wanted, where toy guns and to think being exposed to all this, doesn't impact people, is just more denial.

Gun manufacturers wouldn't keep making guns, if people were not willing to buy them. And, since the likely hood of guns being somehow banned, or extremely limited in this country is about zero, the only way these numbers are going to get better, is for the deeply embedded culture to change and that will take decades and decades to accomplish and will only be accomplished, when people (on their own) change their feelings about guns in general.

 

[Haasrecht]

Sorry, you're right. I'm not trying to showing causation. I'm showing correlation. It could be that the more gun deaths you have, the more guns you need. But, why is selling more guns the solution?

So what is the point of throwing random correlations out there and then asking incredibly short, leading questions?

My point is this. You are endlessly asking short, curt questions without context in the hopes of making your discussion partner look stupid or ignorant. It is unbecoming.

 

[JGG]

I don't think there is any question, that guns simply make it easier to kill people and the more guns that are available to people, the greater chance someone will use this tool, to kill someone. Anyone who denies this, is really not paying attention.

With that said, the issue is deeper than just the number of guns and you have to peel the layers back to get to the core issues of:

-why do so many Americans desire to have guns?
-why motivates someone to kill someone with a gun?

The first question to me is simple; the US has a deeply embedded gun culture, going back to the founding of the country and the importance guns played in acquiring land, etc..

I'll grant you that this is possible. Canada didn't exactly need to fight for independence. We just asked for it.

You have the wild west, where everyone had a gun and you had to mafia wars that were dramatic in the 20's and 30's, where people were getting gunned down by the mafia. Hollywood movies, TV shows and video games, also have been glorifying guns for years and it is difficult to watch a movie or TV show, that doesn't have guns involved in the same and people getting shot. As kids, one of the first toys we wanted, where toy guns and to think being exposed to all this, doesn't impact people, is just more denial.

But this is the same as Canada. We have all the same movies, TV shows and video games as you do in the States. I admit, I did not have toy guns as a kid, but not for lack of availability.

Gun manufacturers wouldn't keep making guns, if people were not willing to buy them. And, since the likely hood of guns being somehow banned, or extremely limited in this country is about zero, the only way these numbers are going to get better, is for the deeply embedded culture to change and that will take decades and decades to accomplish and will only be accomplished, when people (on their own) change their feelings about guns in general.

That could be too.

 

[JGG]

So what is the point of throwing random correlations out there and then asking incredibly short, leading questions?

My point is this. You are endlessly asking short, curt questions without context in the hopes of making your discussion partner look stupid or ignorant. It is unbecoming.

Not really. Those statistics weren't aimed at anyone. However, they aren't random. They seem rather pertinent to the conversation. I'm presenting them to show that Canadians and Americans are vastly different in their love for guns, despite being nearly identical in geography and entertainment. And those statistics show that where there are more guns, there are more gun related deaths. If we want to lower the number of gun deaths in the States (and maybe Canada) it would help to identify what's different in these two, otherwise nearly identical, cultures.

I do ask a lot of questions though. However, I'm not going to apologize for that. Sometimes they are leading, sometimes they are curiosity, sometimes they are to challenge a claim.

And frankly, I don't usually need to look up statistics. That was special, just for you guys.

 

[com7fy8]

I agree. We should do nothing. Those victims had it coming for not owning/using a firearm to protect themselves. I spit at weak victims. They were not Real Americans.

They say that kids should stand up against bullies.

I am curious, by the way, why a herd of zebras run from one lion, when together they could run down and trample the lion or a tribe . . . pride . . . of lions.

On TV, if I remember correctly, Ben Carson said something like > we need a protocol for if some person has a group of people at gunpoint and starts shooting them; I think I heard him say the people should rush the shooter in order to keep the shooter from killing as many as the shooter could.

In the case of Oregon, it seems that the shooter maintained an audience of people while he shot Christians. Others just stood there or played dead.

I find it "interesting" that, even though we have been getting reports of mass shootings, it seems a lot of people still do not buy guns. I haven't. I trust God with my life.

 

[JGG]

They say that kids should stand up against bullies.

I am curious, by the way, why a herd of zebras run from one lion, when together they could run down and trample the lion or a tribe . . . pride . . . of lions.

Because lions have teeth and claws, and are naturally hunters?

On TV, if I remember correctly, Ben Carson said something like > we need a protocol for if some person has a group of people at gunpoint and starts shooting them; I think I heard him say the people should rush the shooter in order to keep the shooter from killing as many as the shooter could.

In the case of Oregon, it seems that the shooter maintained an audience of people while he shot Christians. Others just stood there or played dead.

I find it "interesting" that, even though we have been getting reports of mass shootings, it seems a lot of people still do not buy guns. I haven't. I trust God with my life.

I think it's tough to mentally be prepared to make such a move knowing you're giving up your cover. It depends on everyone being prepared to sacrifice themselves for the rest of the room. While it may be possible that everyone is prepared, it's impossible to know that everyone will have your back.

 

[com7fy8]

I am curious, by the way, why a herd of zebras run from one lion, when together they could run down and trample the lion or a tribe . . . pride . . . of lions.

Because lions have teeth and claws, and are naturally hunters?

One zebra can take out a lion, with one clomp of a hoof. So, I do find it "interesting" how a whole herd would flee. It might be an every zebra for itself thing Plus, fear can blind someone from what is possible.

About if a cornered group could rush a shooter in order to keep a lot more from being killed >

I think it's tough to mentally be prepared to make such a move knowing you're giving up your cover.

In Oregon, it seems the guy was telling Christians to stand up. There was control and communication. And I guess Christians just stood up and stayed up, even though he was shooting them. So, this could have been different than everyone hiding on the floor.

It depends on everyone being prepared to sacrifice themselves for the rest of the room. While it may be possible that everyone is prepared, it's impossible to know that everyone will have your back.

I can just see every school having a training session, dramatizing doing a group rush on a shooter. And then have "fire drills" . . . when someone would come in a room with a gun, and they would see how fast and efficiently the students would all rush the gun carrying person in what could be not a drill and they don't know. But in the military they do stuff like this, I think. It takes training, and the mindset needed with the emotional discipline would possibly effect how a person develops. What you prepare for can effect how you become.

I understand that Jesus first has us preparing for how to love as family with God and one another for all eternity. This "kind of" keeps me busy

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'll place a bet....
My bet is that when another person decides they want to die and take as many people with them as possible and then go to a "gun free zone" to do just that,

They didn't do it in Oregon...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah, allow those who wish to be armed for defense to do so. Not so complicated, is it?

Didn't help Umpqua a whole lot...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think there is any question, that guns simply make it easier to kill people and the more guns that are available to people, the greater chance someone will use this tool, to kill someone. Anyone who denies this, is really not paying attention.

With that said, the issue is deeper than just the number of guns and you have to peel the layers back to get to the core issues of:

-why do so many Americans desire to have guns?
-why motivates someone to kill someone with a gun?

You were doing great, until you left out the 'why do people kill people' part. So far we have discussed the numbers but not the reasons (not that I think this the best place to start a serious conversation).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

More than you'd care to realize. I've had NICS call back with a denial days after we were legally allowed to turn the weapon over to the customer. I've had them call back five minutes after a proceed to say "Sorry, that should have been a denial. Think you can get the gun back?" There's definitely a problem at that level of the background check system.

Maybe if they would do their job better there would be fewer guns in the wrong hands (or more guns in the right hands).

When buying a rifle a couple of years ago my background check came back 'delayed'. I was involved in an incident as young man that might have needed some clarification by NICS. After three days without hearing from them the dealer released the rifle to me with the warning that if my status wasn't changed to 'proceed' they could come and get my rifle anytime they chose to. If my status has changed since then I haven't heard about it, and the dealer has retired (after being robbed of many guns and assaulted).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Okay, let's say that's true. Why do your parents and teachers seem to do worse at "this" than Canadian parents and teachers?

Canadians are better people than Americans (seriously).

 

[William67]

That's more-or-less exactly what I said. I have exorcised my petty human emotional response to mass killings, and as such, have come to the clearly superior conclusion that we should do nothing. Nothing constructive. Nothing emotional. Victims are weak. It's their own fault for not buying the little bundle of joy that is a firearm. Everybody should not only own a firearm, but the automatic rifle type. Y'know M-16s or AK-47s. And sniper rifles! So we can shoot mass murderers from a mile away! That's the problem with victims.

Unless youre trained to use an automatic weapon, you cant hit squat. Sandy Hook, Oregon shooter, none of them had automatic weapons. Here are a few facts:

1. It is illegal to own a weapon with a selective rate of fire, aka an assault weapon, made after 1986.
2. In order to own any weapon capable of automatic fire, you must pass a grueling background check, psych exam, be fingerprinted by the FBI, and pay thousands of dollars just for the license, stamps, and fees.
3. The rifles used in most of these spree killings were NOT military grade firearms and they did not use military grade ammunition.
4. Not a single spree shooter has used a sniper rifle. It takes a lot of training to be a sniper. You don't just purchase a "sniper rifle" and can suddenly hit a target the size of a half dollar at 1000 meters.
5. The M-16 was based on a civilian rifle. We no longer use the M-16. The military uses the M-4 as their primary battle rifle.
6. Actual military rifles, such as the M-4 fire single shot (semi-automatic) or short burst (4-8 rounds per squeeze of the trigger).
7. Magazine capacity (please stop calling them "clips") would have no bearing on a determined shooter.
8. More firearms laws will do nothing to deter spree shooters.

People should actually learn about firearms before spouting off. The Federal Govt can not ban firearms because that would be unconstitutional. In fact, the only way they can pass "gun laws" is by using the Interstate Commerce Act.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

4. Not a single spree shooter has used a sniper rifle. It takes a lot of training to be a sniper. You don't just purchase a "sniper rifle" and can suddenly hit a target the size of a half dollar at 1000 meters.

Charles Whitman did from the University of Texas tower.

There are millions of hunters who can drive nails with their scoped rifles at some amazing distances. I use a single bullet each year to check the sights of my .243. I place the round in a 3 inch bull at 100 yards each time.

 

[William67]

Charles Whitman did from the University of Texas tower.

There are millions of hunters who can drive nails with their scoped rifles at some amazing distances. I use a single bullet each year to check the sights of my .243. I place the round in a 3 inch bull at 100 yards each time.

Charles Whitman was a Marine, who scored high on marksmanship, and what he used was not a sniper rifle. He used an M1 Carbine, which isn't anything like the M1 Garand. The Carbine does not used a high powered round. While Whitman had other weapons, none of them were military weapons.

There is also a difference between Whitman and the current spree shooters. The current bunch seem to be killing for the sake of killing, are looking for fame, and because they feel slighted by society. Whitman didn't understand why he killed his wife and mother, then went on to the college. He stated as much in a letter and asked for an autopsy to see if there were physical damage to his brain which would cause the headaches he was having and the irrational, violent thoughts. It was found that he had a brain tumor.

Edit: I target practice with my firearms all the time, especially around hunting season, when I sight them in. I fired my first rifle, .22lr, when I was 4. My grandfather trained me.

 

[com7fy8]

Whitman didn't understand why he killed his wife and mother, then went on to the college. He stated as much in a letter and asked for an autopsy to see if there were physical damage to his brain which would cause the headaches he was having and the irrational, violent thoughts. It was found that he had a brain tumor.

"love does no harm to a neighbor" (in Romans 13:10). I don't think someone can hurt someone else, unless the person's character is capable of hurting people. But there are secular people in psychiatry who do not believe in the existence of spiritual beings who can cause people to do evil. And they do not buy that we humans have a spiritual level of being, deeper than our physical brains, from where can come our drives through our brains to do what we do. If you love someone, pain can not get you to hurt or kill someone you love.

And, "of course", was Whitman telling the truth? And was he being deceived by an evil spirit . . . of Satan's deception? Jesus says people will kill us Christians and think they are serving God. So, yes humans are capable of believing what is not true so they can then kill and justify it.

When I was a kid, we had our toy guns, but in our games we only killed "Indians" and maybe "robbers". We understood we were never to shoot anyone who was innocent and not trying to hurt us. Now, of course, I see that the world's representation of "Indians" had nothing to do with how our native tribal peoples have been, and who was the real aggressor . . . and enemy, perhaps I could say.

So, I would say that psychopaths are capable of killing ones who are no threat to them. I understand there are killers who do it for what they find to be entertainment; they don't need guns.

Also - - psychopaths, in history, have often been clever enough to use whatsoever has been available in the culture where they have been . . . including false accusation so ones even in judicial religious power would do their dirty work.

And there are psychopaths who kill because they can't get their own way > this can include killing their own selves if they find they have no hope of having the lives they want in this world.

And God does resist the proud >

"God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5.

When God's resistance effectively shuts down a selfish person's life, then is when the person can become "desperate" and kill others and/or kill oneself. So, when I start to get bent out of shape about things not going the way I want, this is all I need to know > I need to stop and wait for God to correct me and restore me into sweet and sensitive sharing with Him in His peace, then discover what He has me doing in goodness of His peace, and enjoy.

So, the problem isn't the guns or bad brain chemistry.

 

[JGG]

Canadians are better people than Americans (seriously).

I'm not sure that's how it works. But let's say it's true. Why are Canadians better people than Americans. Do all the better people just end up north of the border? How do Canadians end up as "better people"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not sure that's how it works. But let's say it's true. Why are Canadians better people than Americans. Do all the better people just end up north of the border? How do Canadians end up as "better people"?

I've met many Canadians. I find them more level-headed than Americans. I don't think that Canadians have a "too big to fail" attitude regarding their country like Americans do. Am I wrong about this?

It is a fact that crimes of all sorts decline as the weather turns colder. Maybe the long Canadian winters have something to do with the lower crime rate.

 

[JGG]

I've met many Canadians. I find them more level-headed than Americans. I don't think that Canadians have a "too big to fail" attitude regarding their country like Americans do. Am I wrong about this?

That's possible. We seem comfortable in our country's "smallness". How does that turn to violence?

It is a fact that crimes of all sorts decline as the weather turns colder. Maybe the long Canadian winters have something to do with the lower crime rate.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I currently live in Minnesota which very well may be colder than Toronto, and certainly has more snow. Minneapolis/St. Paul is considerably smaller than Toronto, at about two thirds the population, and has still had more gun-related deaths last year.