tom

Yet in Ricky's world EVERY (he capitalized for emphasis, not me) shooting is where there is "absolute ease" of weapon access. Looks like you are wrong yet again pal.

You might want to actually read the stories you linked to Tom. Then explain how difficult it was for these shooters to get ahold of their weapons. It wasn't. That doesn't make me wrong.
In some cases (england) the shootings you link to lead to stricter gun control. I don't think any of the shooters had automatic or semiautomatic hand guns...

Be that as it may, the more difficult it is to get guns, the fewer shootings there are... Mass shootings occur all over the world. So do gun deaths. Its simply that in the countries where gun ownership is more restrictive there are fewer... Fewer is better .

steve

You know what would have stopped Hasan? The soldiers at Fort Hood being armed--as is their right under Texas law. He would have drawn his weapon, maybe shot once, and then gone down in a hail of gunfire.

I have a friend who reasons like you about seat belt laws. He doesn't wear his seat belt because he'd read somewhere about a guy being thrown clear of an accident and surviving. Whilst the other occupants ended up drowning ...
He beleives that it makes sense not to wear your seat belt becasue of the rare possibility that he might also enjoy a fortuitous survivable vault.
Far be it from him to understand that statistics over a long while have proven that wearing your seat belt increases survivability in a car wreck enormously...And that one incident can't disprove the numbers....
The Army decided that restricting weapons on base would decrease acts of violence. When they can enforce that regulation, they have been successful in avoiding any incidents - as you duly noted.
One shooter comes onto base with weapons, and the policy is wrong? You'd arm everyone, and deal with the attendant accidents and crimes of passion that I demonstrated occur frequently on bases in war theatres where guns are carried.... in the remote chance that another shooter might be stopped before he did too much damage? You know Hasan shot up a medical waiting area?
You don't understand risk management do you?
Anecdotal information doesn't trump statistical reality. .

rickyp wrote:steve

You know what would have stopped Hasan? The soldiers at Fort Hood being armed--as is their right under Texas law. He would have drawn his weapon, maybe shot once, and then gone down in a hail of gunfire.

I have a friend who reasons like you about seat belt laws. He doesn't wear his seat belt because he'd read somewhere about a guy being thrown clear of an accident and surviving. Whilst the other occupants ended up drowning ...
He beleives that it makes sense not to wear your seat belt becasue of the rare possibility that he might also enjoy a fortuitous survivable vault.
Far be it from him to understand that statistics over a long while have proven that wearing your seat belt increases survivability in a car wreck enormously...And that one incident can't disprove the numbers....
The Army decided that restricting weapons on base would decrease acts of violence.

Tripe, as usual.

You can't make your case on gun control, so you trot out . . . seat belts?

On the base, there was gun control. Result? Mass shooting.

Even if you were right, you do have a problem: it's called "the Second Amendment."

Back to this instance: Hasan did not kill because he had a gun. He murdered those people because he is an Islamist. Why won't you acknowledge that? Is it too painful?

When they can enforce that regulation, they have been successful in avoiding any incidents - as you duly noted.

You've never established your presumption of why the military handles weapons as they do. I'll give you a big one that has NOTHING to do with violence: if young men aren't carrying guns all the time they don't lose them. They also don't get stolen. Those observations are far more valid than your speculation.

One shooter comes onto base with weapons, and the policy is wrong? You'd arm everyone, and deal with the attendant accidents and crimes of passion that I demonstrated occur frequently on bases in war theatres where guns are carried

One of the cases you cited was not even gun related.

•In June 2005, an Army captain and lieutenant were killed when an anti-personnel mine detonated in the window of their room at the U.S. base in Tikrit. National Guard Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez was acquitted in the blast.

Were you trying to prove that anti-personnel mines should be restricted too?

Some of what you claim are "crimes of passion" were actually motivated by Islam (Akbar), alcohol (Rolan), and the pressures of combat. None of them were "caused" by the mere presence of guns.

.... in the remote chance that another shooter might be stopped before he did too much damage?

How do you know it's "remote?"

You know Hasan shot up a medical waiting area?

Yup. You do know he is Muslim, don't you?

Look, if there was an armed guard IN the area, would Hasan have been as "successful?"

Posture all you want about guns. It was ideology that led to the murders, not weaponry.

You don't understand risk management do you?

Oh, I understand it real well. It was, in a manner of speaking, my living for 21 years. I wonder if your life has ever depended on your ability to assess risk?

Anecdotal information doesn't trump statistical reality. .

And yet, all you do is trot out anecdotes. You've tried to take what was a terrorist attack and turn it into a gun control argument. A gun was used, but it was not the cause of these murders. It's shocking that you cannot acknowledge the true motivation of Hasan. Well, no, I guess it's not: you're a liberal.

Green Arrow wrote:

danivon wrote:GA - relationships are not designed to kill or maim. Weapons are.

Who cares what they are designed for.

I think it's pretty important when saying things are being used 'incorrectly' to point out how that differs from what they are designed for.

I am stating that they are both used incorrectly at times. Sometimes a relationship causes harm to many people (RickyP's quote). I am trying to show that it is the USE that matters, not the design or simple possession.

But a gun, particularly a semi- or full-automatic is designed to shoot at things. Usually people (hunting rifles and shotguns are designed for other animals). So using one to kill people is not 'incorrect use'. It may be 'illegal use' if you are not acting in self defence or in time of war or to defend others.

Many people want to curb the use of the internet because of the "cyber-bullying" that occurs on Facebook and MySpace. These are both beneficial sites that should not be curbed, but the people who misuse these sites should be punished.

Indeed. Networking sites are designed for people to communicate

Punish the action and the person committing the action.

Sure. But do nothing about limiting the chances of the action happening in the first place? I think Dr Fate and I agree on that at least - that Hasan should not have been allowed to get into the position where he shot all those people. I'd also agree with Steve that he should have been picked up as a risk.

OK Ricky, according to your own statements just made, we need to make guns more restrictive than Canada, France, the UK, Germany, etc. I must ask are ANY guns to be allowed for any purpose?
If you take it that far, then deer accidents with cars is going to soar. We keep the deer population under control by hunting them. In areas that do not allow gun hunting we have deer populations getting out of control, so we can take the leap to claim Deer are the next enemy? They will be responsible for killing more people than guns so they must be evil and they must be eradicated, but no guns to kill Bambi with? What to do????

Yeah, it's a rambling really stupid thought
...just like the facts of a certain persons last few postings..

tom

OK Ricky, according to your own statements just made, we need to make guns more restrictive than Canada, France, the UK, Germany, etc. I must ask are ANY guns to be allowed for any purpose?

I haven't set out any specific country's regulations as ideal. All I'm saying is that greater gun restrictions generally correlate to few gun deaths and mass shootings. Period.
Currently it is incredibly easy to purchase semi and even fully automatic weapons. One of the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting has a new film out that demonstrates this fact.
So who can get guns easily? The list includes:
- criminals
- mentally ill people
- .terrorists
Now the arguement goes, why punish ordinary people because of the actions of a few? I don't look at responsible background checks, a requirement for gun safety training in order to acquire a permit, and restrictions on types of weapons, as punishment. I look at that as responsible behaviour. The same behaviour expected of car owners/drivers.
Now your next arguement is that "the criminals will still get their guns". And yes this is admitted. In fact, if they acquired them outside of the requirements they be criminals by definition.
You have laws against drunk driving and speeding. The rules are there because both behaviours are known to frequently lead to accidents. Do the presence of laws against them eliminate all acts of speeding or drunk driving, of course not. But fear of prosecution does limit some bad behaviour.
The opposite view is to arm everyone and forget laws. If that were similar to driving, everyone would speed and drive drunk with impunity. You can imagine the carnage?

Indeed, Tom. Where did Ricky say you needed stricter laws than we have? I can't see it.

By the way, we still have legal guns. My uncle works as a gunsmith.

rickyp wrote:Currently it is incredibly easy to purchase semi and even fully automatic weapons.

Really? Please point me to a vendor.

I know a bit about this and it's not "incredibly easy" to own a fully automatic weapon.

Wow you guys can backtrack and change course with the best of them.
Where did Ricky state you needed stricter laws?
He stated "But the common element in EVERY mass shooting is that there was absolute ease of access to the weapons"
He clearly says EVERY shooting is due to an ease of getting weapons, no kidding then your laws need to be tightened. That's what he's calling for. Not unless you want to live in a fantasy world where he claims EVERY shooting is due to ease of access but your laws are tight enough, your laws of Ricky's universe somehow don't apply?

Ricky, you claim nobody is perfect but your other claim is EVERY shooting is due to absolute ease to guns, then it simply can not follow that any country has acceptable laws, once a shooting were made, then, due to your own statement of "fact" EVERY shooting is due to easy access? This boggles my mind, you (again) oversimplified things and stated your misunderstandings as facts. Yet you fail to retract the comment and Danivon plays along.

And speaking of facts that are simply pulled out of the sky,
"Fully automatic weapons are incredibly easy to purchase?
Please tell me where I can buy my fully automatic weapon with incredible ease. Your "fact" is plain wrong.

GMTom wrote:Wow you guys can backtrack and change course with the best of them.
Where did Ricky state you needed stricter laws?
He stated "But the common element in EVERY mass shooting is that there was absolute ease of access to the weapons"
He clearly says EVERY shooting is due to an ease of getting weapons, no kidding then your laws need to be tightened. That's what he's calling for. Not unless you want to live in a fantasy world where he claims EVERY shooting is due to ease of access but your laws are tight enough, your laws of Ricky's universe somehow don't apply?

I think I can see the leap of logic you have made there. Can you?

If not, here it is: Ricky said that availability was an issue. That may well imply stricter laws than currently, but it does not mean the same thing as saying the US should have stricter laws than any other nations.

You filled in the gaps, and decided to tell us what Ricky said, even if it wasn't the same thing as what he actually said.

You really must do something about your cognitive dissonance problem, Tom.

steve

I know a bit about this and it's not "incredibly easy" to own a fully automatic weapon

This guy disagrees with you.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jan/18/tech-massacre-survivor-screens-documentary-advocat-ar-780604/

rickyp wrote:steve

I know a bit about this and it's not "incredibly easy" to own a fully automatic weapon

This guy disagrees with you.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jan/18/tech-massacre-survivor-screens-documentary-advocat-ar-780604/

Do you even READ your own link? Here's what he actually said:

The documentary features hidden-camera clips showing the ease with which firearms can be purchased at gun shows. Samaha, who is interviewed in the documentary, said they have the chance to make change in America.

First, please note "fully automatic weapons" are not mentioned.

Second, please note it talks about "gun shows." That would mean that, at the very least, "ease" of purchase of firearms is limited to "gun shows." If it's Tuesday morning in Philadelphia, I doubt there is a gun show I can go to.

Neither supports your idiotic claim that automatic weapons are "easy" to obtain. I know a lot of gun owners. I only know one who has the necessary licensing to get an automatic and he says it's anything but "easy." Do you have any proof that it's easy or are you going to keep citing gun opponents' opinions? If it's "easy," there ought to be tens of thousands of legally obtained machine guns floating around, right?

really?
according to Ricky, the same guy who claims we can buy machine guns with ease, in EVERY shooting case, it is due to incredible ease to obtain a gun legally. And you want to claim this might infer the laws should be stricter? He isn't actually stating this, we can only infer this to be the case? (while we should ignore other postings of his where he states guns are too easy to buy in America and we need stricter gun laws) he also has mentioned AMERICAN laws are too lax?

His facts are his opinions, his facts are lacking, trying to support his claims makes your own position less than appealing when trying to defend something that simply can not be defended.

I went to every gun shop in town, AND the gun show this weekend with negative results in purchasing an automatic weapon. I could not even buy the parts to retrofit a weapon to fully automatic.

Where is this place, RickyP. Have you reported this violation? It is against the law to sell fully automatic weaponry or parts.

Green Arrow wrote:I went to every gun shop in town, AND the gun show this weekend with negative results in purchasing an automatic weapon. I could not even buy the parts to retrofit a weapon to fully automatic.

Where is this place, RickyP. Have you reported this violation? It is against the law to sell fully automatic weaponry or parts.

This is where Ricky changes topics or quotes some irrelevant op-ed.

Blame it on health care?