danivon wrote:Here's another question though - how many people are murdered using the following methods in the USA each year:

1) knife
2) automobile
3) gun

My point in bringing attention to the knife and car murders is not to compare to guns.

My point is that there are more murders by people, than are murdered by guns. EVERY murder is committed by a person. Not every gun commits murder. But to answer your question... More non firearms are used to commit murder than firearms:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/us-united-states/cri-crime&b_cite=1&b_define=1&all=1

Gun violence > Homicides > Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. 3.6 [8th of 32]
Gun violence > Homicides > Non-firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. 5.5 [16th of 32]

The continued debate about firearms being used by murderers is not refuted. I never said guns were not used in murder. I just want the lefties to admit that there are more non-firearm murders that firearm murders. So perhaps the issue is not guns, as RickyP et. al. continue on about.

Steve asked last page for actual documentation of US military regulations on firearms. Now we had this debate a year ago, and I listed them then. (Here I list them again). I guess the point is that when evidence exists that some of you don't like - you simply forget it. How convenient. Since you couldn't retain the information last year, here you go again.

Quote:
a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to
qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life
or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if
firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a
firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against
the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of
firearms.

Furthermore here are specific restrictions: You'll note well that the policy is far more restrictive than most gun laws in the US. There are also very very few gun incidents on US army bases.
Its pretty clear that the only reason Hassan was able to act on his delustions was that he was able to go to a local store and buy his weapons and ammo without any qualifying process.
Its pretty clear that the US military has more sane laws and regulations regarding weapons than outside the bases. That there was a Ft. Hood shooting, was because, similarily to all the other shootings out there, someone had access to guns who couldn't have got them on a US military base.
Quote:
Persons prohibited from carrying firearms
a. The following persons are not authorized to carry firearms:
(1) Those exhibiting unsuitable behavior as defined in AR 50–6,
AR 190–56, or AR 380–67.
(2) Those with medical conditions, traits or behavioral characteristics
are defined as disqualifying factors in AR 50–6, AR 190–56,
or AR 380–67.
(3) Those whose security clearance has been revoked or denied
under AR 50–6, AR 190–56, or AR 380–67.
(4) Those taking prescription drugs or other medications that may
produce drowsiness or impair reaction or judgment.
b. Personnel authorized to carry firearms are prohibited from
consuming alcoholic beverages 8 hours prior to carrying a firearm.
An officer in the chain of command or supervisory chain in the
grade of at least colonel may grant an exception to this provision for
USACIDC special agents and supervisors, military police investigators,
and DA civilian investigators operating in a covert role.

Here's the source:
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_14.pdf

Steve, you keep blowing hard about knowing military regulations. All you came up with in your imagination were possible reasons that the Army regulates firearms. Faced with the actual regulations - will you acknowledge your ignorance?

So we should have the entire nation follow Military procedures? Are we to salute our superiors? Should we have military tribunals? Should we have different laws? I simply don't get what you are trying to get at? Because the military has strict gun laws, the rest of the nation should have them ,but wait, we had a shooting on a military base, but wait, this is somehow different ...how?
Where I work we do not allow firearms, I could point to how well this works because we have never had anyone shoot the place up. Schools don't allow them either and in the overwhelming majority that works as well, but then you have a school shooting and ...what? I don't get this reasoning in the least little bit.

Comparing the army and their strict rules to the rest of society is inane.

rickyp wrote:Steve asked last page for actual documentation of US military regulations on firearms.

Because you, ricky, are so given to outright lying, I had to go back several pages so I could find exactly what you actually said and what I actually asked, instead of your representation of it:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Then why hasn't the military reversed its policies on strict gun control on base?Could it be that the generals have adjudged that if everyone on every base was armed that shootings on base would be common occurrences?

We could speculate eternally on that. Do you have ANY military source to support your thesis?

So, my question was for about the REASONS for said restrictions, not the restrictions themselves. YOU were the one who hypothesized it was to prevent an onslaught of Hasan-like shootings by military personnel. I remain dubious because you've not supported your claims at all.

Now we had this debate a year ago, and I listed them then. (Here I list them again). I guess the point is that when evidence exists that some of you don't like - you simply forget it. How convenient. Since you couldn't retain the information last year, here you go again.

Now, it would be funny, maybe even ironic, that you would accuse me of not "retain(ing) information" from a year ago, when you can't retain information from a few pages ago. Instead, it just looks either pathetic or dishonest. Nah, actually, it's both.

Furthermore here are specific restrictions: You'll note well that the policy is far more restrictive than most gun laws in the US. There are also very very few gun incidents on US army bases.
Its pretty clear that the only reason Hassan was able to act on his delustions was that he was able to go to a local store and buy his weapons and ammo without any qualifying process.
Its pretty clear that the US military has more sane laws and regulations regarding weapons than outside the bases. That there was a Ft. Hood shooting, was because, similarily to all the other shootings out there, someone had access to guns who couldn't have got them on a US military base.

You have not established your premise--that the military is most worried about shootings like Hasan and THAT is the reason for the gun restrictions. Nothing in your postings supports your thesis to the rationale.

Again, I ask, with all the respect due a liar, what evidence do you have that Hasan is delusional? You cited a psychologist who wrote an article a few days after the shooting. He attributed the shooting to secondhand post-traumatic stress syndrome. He had never spoken to Hasan, nor did he know about the emails between Alawki and Hasan, or all the info that's come out in the months following.

Steve, you keep blowing hard about knowing military regulations. All you came up with in your imagination were possible reasons that the Army regulates firearms. Faced with the actual regulations - will you acknowledge your ignorance?

Ricky, no one blows harder than you--on so many levels. You were the one who "imagined" the reasons for the military's restrictions on firearms. When challenged, you eventually posted a source, but one that did not prove or even mention your reasoning.

I cannot acknowledge anything other than this: you have once again demonstrated your own ignorance and dishonesty.

And, Mr. Ricky, I notice you have once again failed to answer my questions:

1. Do you acknowledge your insurance suggestion would, at best, only cause more headaches for law-abiding citizens?

2. Does gun control stop criminals from obtaining guns?

3. Why did Hasan kill those soldiers?

here's an alternate THEORY as to why the military might be so strict, this is a guess and has no fact behind it, I only suggest this to go against those who may think why else would the military have such rules?

The military operates with their own rules, they have a system of beating people down before they lift them back up, a system of strict dedication and more than a bit of mental and physical "abuse" all designed to achieve their desired end result. Not all make it and more than a few crack, of course you want to limit exposure to firearms by these people.

Again, just an idea but one that does not support Ricky's position at all.
...unless he is calling for a military coup in America???

1. No. Unless If being required to buy car insurance, a drivers license and a permit for the car ...is a headache for car drivers. What you see as a nuisance I see as responsibility and accountability. It shouldn't be convenient to buy a weapon when that convenience contributes to irresponsible people like Hassan easily arming themselves.
2. Yes. Not 100% but in nations wiith stronger gun control there are far few gun crimes.There's an obvious correlation.
3. He was insane. Why did he shoot them instead of using another weapon?

Since Sept. 11, 2001, "270,000 Americans were killed by gunfire at home."

"Nine years, ago we were attacked -- 3,000 people died. In response, we started two long, bloody wars and built a vast homeland-security apparatus -- all at a cost of trillions! Now consider this. During those same nine years, 270,000 Americans were killed by gunfire at home. Our response? We weakened our gun laws."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/14/doonesbury/doonesbury-strip-says-270000-americans-have-been-k/

and how many people choked to death, had food poisoning, etc
Should we ban food as well?

rickyp wrote:1. No. Unless If being required to buy car insurance, a drivers license and a permit for the car ...is a headache for car drivers. What you see as a nuisance I see as responsibility and accountability. It shouldn't be convenient to buy a weapon when that convenience contributes to irresponsible people like Hassan easily arming themselves.

Still wrong. What would have stopped Hasan from getting insurance? What makes you think criminals will get gun insurance? If it's only for non-criminals, then please explain the point of it.

2. Yes. Not 100% but in nations wiith stronger gun control there are far few gun crimes.There's an obvious correlation.

Absolute foolishness. NYC has very strong gun laws . . . and plenty of gun crime. The only ways to put a serious dent in criminals obtaining guns are these: 1) turn the US into an island (like the UK) as this makes importing weapons more difficult (I suppose you could actually seal the borders); 2) establish an absolute authoritarian dictatorship with no private property rights--so that the police can search homes randomly and seize any guns.

3. He was insane.

With all due respect, Dr. Ricky, you've not spoken to the man, have you? How do you know he was/is "insane?" What evidence do you have or is it just your prejudice that a jihadist is presumptively insane?

Why did he shoot them instead of using another weapon?

Because he could. Score one for you. However: 1) you have no way of knowing if he was "insane" enough to strap on a bomb, do you? (score 5 for me, since you are the one who labeled him "insane" and insane people blow themselves up every day--that's "jihad"); 2) no law would have prevented him from getting a gun--he could have bought one on the black market or driven to Mexico and returned through our porous border; 3) the only way to stop him would have meant racial profiling.

rickyp wrote:1. No. Unless If being required to buy car insurance, a drivers license and a permit for the car ...is a headache for car drivers. What you see as a nuisance I see as responsibility and accountability. It shouldn't be convenient to buy a weapon when that convenience contributes to irresponsible people like Hassan easily arming themselves.
2. Yes. Not 100% but in nations wiith stronger gun control there are far few gun crimes.There's an obvious correlation.
3. He was insane. Why did he shoot them instead of using another weapon?

Since Sept. 11, 2001, "270,000 Americans were killed by gunfire at home."

"Nine years, ago we were attacked -- 3,000 people died. In response, we started two long, bloody wars and built a vast homeland-security apparatus -- all at a cost of trillions! Now consider this. During those same nine years, 270,000 Americans were killed by gunfire at home. Our response? We weakened our gun laws."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/14/doonesbury/doonesbury-strip-says-270000-americans-have-been-k/

As for your facts (which have zero bearing on the Hasan case), suicides outnumber homicides. If we could seize every gun, people would still kill themselves, so 100K+ of the above number is absolutely immaterial to the issue of gun control.

Beyond that, politifact's bias comes screaming through. Where is the analysis of this part of the claim: ". . . We weakened our gun laws"?

Green Arrow wrote:

danivon wrote:Here's another question though - how many people are murdered using the following methods in the USA each year:

1) knife
2) automobile
3) gun

My point in bringing attention to the knife and car murders is not to compare to guns.

My point is that there are more murders by people, than are murdered by guns. EVERY murder is committed by a person. Not every gun commits murder. But to answer your question... More non firearms are used to commit murder than firearms:

You didn't answer my question. You answered a different question. I asked how many people were murdered by each method. You gave us a rate for homicides by guns and other homicides, but homicide != murder (and non-gun is not the same as telling us how many knife- or car- related homicides there are).

Of course there are more murders by 'people' than there are murders by gun. As long at least one single murder is by another method, that will be true. I'm not sure you've revealed any shocking truth here.

I looked up 'Murder' rather than 'Homicide' on the nationmaster site you linked to, and got the following page: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us- ... /cri-crime

Murders 16,204 [2nd of 49]
Murders with firearms 9,369 [1st of 36]

I make that most Murders are with firearms.

I never said guns were not used in murder. I just want the lefties to admit that there are more non-firearm murders that firearm murders.

Sorry, I won't admit something that the source you pointed me at shows is not true.

and now we have the trial for this terrorist.

Early on in this post and all throughout, we had some liberals trying to tell us this was a gun problem and one of mental instability, they tried to downplay the radical Islam angle. In fact Rickyp himself stated the following:

...We've had this discussion before, Hassan was also
a workplace shooting. His behaviors are close to those of many postal workers and office workers who've shot up their place of employment. And not all that different from a school shooter...Not that different from the guy who shot up his church last year.. And frankly not that different from Loughren...
Alienated, disassociated, mentally ill people who've found a reason to arm themselves and kill their previous community or some intended target. That there is a focus on Hassan because his motivation was the poison of perverted fundamental Islamist is simply down to xenophobia.
You can get all angry and huffy about the armies failings in this matter. But who do you get angry and huffy about with the IBM employees in Florida or the church goer in Oklahoma?
Its a matter of perspective. And you have none.

so this has nothing to do with religion and he's just like any postal worker or IBM employee who went off their rocker? It's all down to xenophobia he claims.

According to this position, we had no perspective
Well now we do! Hasan said the following in court:

"The evidence presented in this trial will only show one side, that I was on the wrong side, and then I switched sides,"
"We the Mujahideen are imperfect Muslims trying to establish the perfect religion in the land of the supreme god."

"the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter. The dead bodies will show that war is an ugly thing."

Xenophobia?
uhhh, yeah, on his end of things! Looks like our perspective from the start has been right, the liberals were the ones jumping to alternate conclusions blaming the rest of us for actually paying attention to the facts. How dare us for criticizing his fanatical religious beliefs! That being said, yes we have Christian nut-jobs, and Jewish nut-jobs, etc. But to insist radical Islam is the same as the postal service is simply ignoring the blaring obvious!

Tell it to the prosecutors, Tom. What are they calling it?

They are calling it "murder" why?
Murder is murder, but for anyone to deny radical Islam is the reason for said murder and attempts to compare it to "any other workplace shooting" is again, ignoring the facts. Radical Islam is a major problem, radical "anything" can be a problem no doubt but the sheer numbers at this time are on the side of radical Islam and that needs to be focused on. Calls to ignore the obvious for fear they may upset someones feelings is nonsense and frankly, DANGEROUS.

and part of the shooting:
"More than 130 victims of the shooting and their family members have joined a lawsuit seeking damages from the U.S. government, arguing that warnings that Hasan had become radicalized were repeatedly ignored because of “political correctness.”

again, liberal political correctness, having to ignore radical Islam is in fact dangerous (and probably costly if these people win their suit)

I wrote this in the beginning of the thread--on the first page.

Doctor Fate wrote:Was it his ideology or the gun that led Hasan to commit murder? Was he completely neutral on the matter until he held the cold steel in his hands? Was that the moment of homicidal conversion (when he crossed from believing all human life was valuable to thinking the dhimmi could be slaughtered)? Or, was it something from his religion?

This Administration, for political reasons, shafted the men and women who were shot that day by classifying Hasan's rampage as "workplace violence." Frankly, that was vile.

The man is a terrorist:

FORT HOOD, Texas -- Days before he's set to go on trial, the Army psychiatrist charged in the Fort Hood shooting rampage released more of his writings about America and Islam.

Foxnews.com on Thursday posted documents in which Maj. Nidal Hasan renounced his U.S. citizenship and soldier's oath and denounced democracy. Hasan is charged in the November 2009 rampage that killed 13 soldiers and wounded more than 30 people at the Texas Army post. His court-martial is scheduled to start Tuesday.

The renunciation of U.S. citizenship is contained in a handwritten note dated Oct. 18, 2012, Fox News reported. A typewritten note that does not have a date says it is not "permissible" for someone to prefer American democracy over traditional Islamic Sharia law, the network also reported. Hasan wrote that Muslims should not "compromise their beliefs" for the sake of non-Muslims.

Hasan also wrote about Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. The government has said that Hasan, a U.S.-born Muslim, had sent more than a dozen emails to al-Awlaki starting in December 2008. Hasan described al-Awlaki as his "teacher, mentor and friend," Fox News reported.

He doesn't want to be a US citizen and has described the attack as finally doing the right thing--getting on the "right side" of the conflict (he describes) between Islam and the US.