GMTom wrote:

Does banning convicted drunk drivers from driving prevent them from driving?

But that's not a fair comparison, drunk drivers have easy access to cars, they can find one or steal one from so many places. Guns are ...ooops, yeah, that's a real good comparison after all.

Yep. So let's just have more and more guns lying around for criminals to steal, so that we need more and more guns to defend us from the ones that he bad guys stole from the good guys, and so on and so on...

I don't see that downward spiral with drunk drivers, as people don't make the argument that more cars would protect us from them.

DF - Suicide rates are generally higher than homicide rates (using guns) in most states. But suicide by gun is still a problem that is often overlooked. Basically, it's more successful than other methods. Why is that a problem? Well, I hope we can agree that suicide is not an ideal solution to people's problems, and a lot of the time, people who try to commit suicide change their minds during/after. But gunshot is so quick and effective, and easy to do, that there isn't time to change one's mind.

Still, the highest rates of deaths being in the states with the least strict gun laws should tell you something, right?

Doctor Fate wrote:On the other hand, maybe it does do some good to let honest, hardworking people defend themselves (and others):

So the two examples are:

1) A guy who had a gun and was well trained enough to know not to shoot it (because he risked hitting others), so didn't actually stop anything - the shooter killed themself.

2) An armed guard (a moonlighting cop, but hey, hope he was fit for his next shift) doing his job.

If we were arguing to remove guns from guards/cops, the second example would be salient, but we are not. Not sure what kind of weapon the first guy had, but it was moot anyway - he didn't stop the victims or the gunman from dying - anything he may potentially have stopped is conjecture.

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:

Does banning convicted drunk drivers from driving prevent them from driving?

But that's not a fair comparison, drunk drivers have easy access to cars, they can find one or steal one from so many places. Guns are ...ooops, yeah, that's a real good comparison after all.

Yep. So let's just have more and more guns lying around for criminals to steal, so that we need more and more guns to defend us from the ones that he bad guys stole from the good guys, and so on and so on...

I don't see that downward spiral with drunk drivers, as people don't make the argument that more cars would protect us from them.

Yet, we are going to have more drunks driving. When you legalize marijuana, you remove any stigma attached. We are likely to see more people firing up before and while driving.

We know that impaired drivers are driving, in effect, scud missiles: not well-directed, but deadly when they hit. We could stop it. We have the technology, but we don't.

DF - Suicide rates are generally higher than homicide rates (using guns) in most states. But suicide by gun is still a problem that is often overlooked. Basically, it's more successful than other methods. Why is that a problem? Well, I hope we can agree that suicide is not an ideal solution to people's problems, and a lot of the time, people who try to commit suicide change their minds during/after. But gunshot is so quick and effective, and easy to do, that there isn't time to change one's mind.

Still, the highest rates of deaths being in the states with the least strict gun laws should tell you something, right?

My question was particular: will banning assault weapons or high-capacity magazines impact suicide rates?

Yeah, DF, let's have everyone walk around with guns so every verbal argument, every fistfight has a chance to become lethal. These are solutions? Have every school have someone armed? And if every school then clearly every mall should have armed guards, every movie theater should have an armed guard, etc. And every responsible American adult should carry a gun with them at all times just in case something happens. Rather than modest restrictions on guns, let's make our society into an armed camp..What a horrific vision of American society.

Not every school is armed, almost none are ...except for the one where Obama sends his kids that is (not counting the secret service agents). Yeah, it's ok that his kids go to an armed school, but for anyone else to suggest it might help ...shame on you!

freeman2 wrote:Yeah, DF, let's have everyone walk around with guns so every verbal argument, every fistfight has a chance to become lethal. These are solutions?

You should write a book, "How To Create And Destroy Straw Men in a Single Sentence."

Have every school have someone armed? And if every school then clearly every mall should have armed guards, every movie theater should have an armed guard, etc. And every responsible American adult should carry a gun with them at all times just in case something happens. Rather than modest restrictions on guns, let's make our society into an armed camp..What a horrific vision of American society.

Since you want to take the low road, how about answering this: how do you suppose your utopian vision fared in Newtown? You had everything you wanted--no guns on campus.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:On the other hand, maybe it does do some good to let honest, hardworking people defend themselves (and others):

So the two examples are:

1) A guy who had a gun and was well trained enough to know not to shoot it (because he risked hitting others), so didn't actually stop anything - the shooter killed themself.

2) An armed guard (a moonlighting cop, but hey, hope he was fit for his next shift) doing his job.

If we were arguing to remove guns from guards/cops, the second example would be salient, but we are not. Not sure what kind of weapon the first guy had, but it was moot anyway - he didn't stop the victims or the gunman from dying - anything he may potentially have stopped is conjecture.

These are not "the" examples. They are two recent examples.

In every recent mass shooting, it's been the psychologically-challenged shooter vs. unarmed citizens. I think there alternatives to believing banning certain guns will solve the problem.

". . . anything he may potentially have stopped is conjecture." So, it was a coincidence?

If you really think we can stop gun violence as easily as banning assault weapons, I'd suggest considering the implications of the drug trade. Read this article and ask yourself:

1. If drugs get in, can't guns?

2. Won't American gangs pay for guns from the same people they're getting drugs from?

3. If the Mexican cartels are using robot-boats (and maybe submarines) to move drugs via the ocean, wouldn't they move guns too?

Hmm... You support having an armed guard in every school and you post how great it is in when there is someone who is armed to deal with a gunman . Your vision seems pretty clear--have someone armed to deal with gunmen when they strike. If it makes you uncomfortable when the full implications of that theory are spelled out, well it should. We should be taking moderate steps in response to the New Town tragedy, not remaking America.

freeman2 wrote:Hmm... You support having an armed guard in every school and you post how great it is in when there is someone who is armed to deal with a gunman . Your vision seems pretty clear--have someone armed to deal with gunmen when they strike. If it makes you uncomfortable when the full implications of that theory are spelled out, well it should. We should be taking moderate steps in response to the New Town tragedy, not remaking America.

I'm not Wayne LaPierre.

Please point to where I suggested putting an armed guard in every school.

I do think it is great when a gunman is shooting innocent people and there is someone there to put a stop to it. Do you think that is a bad thing?

What you describe as "the full implications of that theory" are nothing I've expounded and have nothing to do with what I posted. I never suggested everyone should be armed.

Your response to Newtown might have, theoretically, saved what, 2 or 3 lives? At most?

And, we'll never know. What you describe as "moderate steps" would have done little or maybe NOTHING to affect the murder of 20 children.

Doctor Fate wrote:These are not "the" examples. They are two recent examples.

It was the two examples in that post, I meant. Sheesh.

In every recent mass shooting, it's been the psychologically-challenged shooter vs. unarmed citizens. I think there alternatives to believing banning certain guns will solve the problem.

And those are? Since you are so sure that gun control suggestions won't work, can you explain how your ideas would have prevented the same events?

". . . anything he may potentially have stopped is conjecture." So, it was a coincidence?

Possibly. Not much to go on, really.

danivon wrote:

In every recent mass shooting, it's been the psychologically-challenged shooter vs. unarmed citizens. I think there alternatives to believing banning certain guns will solve the problem.

And those are? Since you are so sure that gun control suggestions won't work, can you explain how your ideas would have prevented the same events?

For example, in Newtown, the mother acted irresponsibly. She taught her son, who was incapable of relating with people on an emotional level, to shoot guns.

Ethically, she should have either had him committed or had him under appropriate medical treatment. Legally, it should have been easier for her to do so.

". . . anything he may potentially have stopped is conjecture." So, it was a coincidence?

Possibly. Not much to go on, really.

If that's how you want to view it . . .

This piece is helpful.

Doctor Fate wrote:For example, in Newtown, the mother acted irresponsibly. She taught her son, who was incapable of relating with people on an emotional level, to shoot guns.

Ethically, she should have either had him committed or had him under appropriate medical treatment. Legally, it should have been easier for her to do so.

Any evidence that she wanted to? if she didn't how would your suggestion prevent anything.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:For example, in Newtown, the mother acted irresponsibly. She taught her son, who was incapable of relating with people on an emotional level, to shoot guns.

Ethically, she should have either had him committed or had him under appropriate medical treatment. Legally, it should have been easier for her to do so.

Any evidence that she wanted to? if she didn't how would your suggestion prevent anything.

I don't understand, so I'll take it in two parts as if I understand:

1. Is there evidence she wanted him committed? (I think that's what you're asking)

Actually, there appears to be. At the very least, there is massive speculation. Google "Lanza's mother tried to commit him."

2. Of course, if she had acted as an adult (i.e. responsibly) instead of as an over-indulgent parent, I don't think any of this would have happened. Is that speculation? No.

Go over the facts. Why did he know how to shoot? Why did he have access to the guns?

freeman2 wrote:Archduke, guns are not made the same, they have different parts, their trigger systems require different amouns of pressure,etc. I don't think you have thought about it , you had a snap reaction that all semi-automatic weapons fire at the same average rate of fire(obviously there are differences based on the individual shooter)
Here is a pro-gun article. http://www.gunsandcrime.org/firerate.html

Note that he specifies that are different rates of speed associated with different guns. He also states that the max you can pull the trigger was 4 times a second. Maybe at that time 4 times a second was the max. I don't really know why the Bushmaster is so fast but because it fires so fast it makes it very lethal in close quarters (if not so good at shooting deer)

No I did not have a qut reaction. I am 44 years old. I have been firing weapons since I was about 15. I have fired everything from a Brown Bess to an M-16. In my lifetime I have probably fired over 10,000 rounds of ammunition. I am very aware that trigger pulls are different. But you can always modify any type of weapon to change the trigger pull. Stretch the springs or file the trigger down. This is an effect not just limited to Assault weapons.

What may be the effect you are referencing to the Bushmaster may actually be a style of firing called Bump firing. In this, the shooter keeps his trigger finger immobile and uses the other hand to jerk the weapon back and forth so that the trigger repeatedly strikes the finger.

Because it is easier move your entire arm quickly, repeatedly then to repeatedly squeeze the trigger, it allows you to increase your fire but decreases your accuracy. In close quarters and when the goal is indescriminate killing, the lack of accuracy doesn't matter much. However, again, this can be done with any semi automatic weapon and is not limited to just assault weapons.

DF...

1) Massive speculation is not 'evidence'. If it was, there would be 'evidence' that 9/11 was an inside job.

2) I get that it would have been prevented had she not acted unethically, but I asked how you would prevent it. What would you do to have made her act ethically? If you 'proposal' is for people to choose to act better, it's not really going to stop 'bad' people is it?