Ricky simply can not admit religion had anything to do with this, yet the facts say they do ...who cares about facts when you can simply make something up and call it a fact?
I have no problem with anyone being Muslim (or Christian or Jewish, or whatever)
I do however have a problem with a person being a Militant Islamist, it's simply a terrorist hiding behind a religion. Skinheads and NeoNazi's often hide behind Christianity, they too are a problem. I have no problem accepting facts as they are and to ignore religion comes in to play is just crazy. Why can libs not accept the FACT that his militant Islamic views were the reason for the shooting and not gun availability? Hell, if this guy had no gun, can you imagine the carnage had ghe strapped a bomb around his chest instead? See that, guns save lives! (it's the same twisted reasoning so I think it's fair to state this as a 'fact")

Tom said

Ricky simply can not admit religion had anything to do with this,

Ricky said this ...3 pages ago.

Well, I'll agree that Hasan was motivated by his religious fanatacism, but if you stopped every Muslim mass shooter in the US in the last 5 years you'd have stopped Hasan.

Cognitive dissonance again?
See the point is Tom...focussing on the motivations of delusional people is pointless. As many different delusions exist as potential shooters. That the FBI is focussed on finding domestic terrorists motivated by fundamental islam makes sense. They are there to identify this risk and intervene. That the army should be taken to task for not dealing with Hasan makes sense, They should be intervening when they identify dangerously ill OR dangerously motivated personnel.
But the scale of the problem of either situation above, based soley on the death toll since say 1960, dwarves in comparison to the unresolved and continuing carnage of gun deaths, and particularly mass shootings because of their societal impact .
That the issue of easy gun access is excused in event after event because of the nuances of delusions is simply a deliberate obfuscation of the cold fact that
Mentally ill, irresponsible people are killing people because they can easliy get guns and ammo. Americans seem to accept this as a reality and don't want to deal with making changes that could prevent some of the carnage. This is irrational .

Fully automatic is the wrong term? So the Virginia Tech killer, Loughren and Hasan committed their mass shootings with semi-automatic weapons? Okay.
So what?
Thats about 60 victims in three events with mentally ill people who armed themselves and shot innocents dead. And they aparrently didn't need fully automatic weapons to accomplish this. (I think you can get fully automatic weapons in Nevada, but thats dependent on CSI being accurate ...)
The Virginia Tech shooter had known mental health issues but managed to get his SEMI_automatic guns legally without issue. Hasan and Loughren both had even easier access.
Accountability being the big thing, who should be accountable for the ease with which mentally ill people, or terrorists for that matter, can arm themselves?

hmmm, bigger government?
we can have more people check on records, more people give individual yearly reviews to anyone owning a gun, we can have additional people added to police squads to track down illegal guns, still more to take care of tracking carbon taxes and still more to work on government health care, before you know it we have nobody left to pay the government, we ALL work for the government comrade?

Aww, how cute!

rickyp wrote:See the point is Tom...focussing on the motivations of delusional people is pointless.

Sure, although you and others tried to make the point that a truly delusional person (Loughner--btw, it's hard for me to spell it right because you spell it wrong so often) was motivated in part by angry rhetoric. Now, you make the assertion that focusing on motivations is pointless when a person is delusional. Fine, but you've not established Hasan's delusional state.

As many different delusions exist as potential shooters.

Do you mean to imply every shooter is delusional? If not, please rephrase, withdraw, whatever.

That the FBI is focussed on finding domestic terrorists motivated by fundamental islam makes sense. They are there to identify this risk and intervene. That the army should be taken to task for not dealing with Hasan makes sense, They should be intervening when they identify dangerously ill OR dangerously motivated personnel.

As an island of thought, this is the most lucid thing you've posted in . . . months, at least.

But the scale of the problem of either situation above, based soley on the death toll since say 1960, dwarves in comparison to the unresolved and continuing carnage of gun deaths, and particularly mass shootings because of their societal impact .

Fumble!

This is such a broad statement as to have virtually no meaning. How many deaths have occurred in "mass shootings" since 1960? How many total gun-related deaths?

Did the Tate-LaBianca murders have a disproportionate societal impact?

As an aside, how many "dwarves" are involved? Do we need to restrict access to Tolkien and D & D?

That the issue of easy gun access is excused in event after event because of the nuances of delusions is simply a deliberate obfuscation of the cold fact that
Mentally ill, irresponsible people are killing people because they can easliy get guns and ammo.

That you are incoherent obscures the fact that you have nothing to say.

1. Please establish Hasan is delusional.
2. Please state how you propose to keep people like Hasan from getting weapons. On what basis? His religion? His ethnicity?
3. Can you stop being a broken record and actually deal with some questions that are pertinent?
4. If your worldview can't provide a few answers to reasonable questions, what good is it?
5. Are mentally ill people ever responsible? NB: your dependent clause "that
Mentally ill, irresponsible people are killing people because they can easliy get guns and ammo" suggests that mentally ill people are irresponsible. Isn't that redundant?

Americans seem to accept this as a reality and don't want to deal with making changes that could prevent some of the carnage. This is irrational .

And, you know this . . . how? The report from Lieberman and Collins was, in part, an effort to make changes. Americans certainly want to take steps to prevent terrorists, like Hasan, from killing us.

Believing banning guns would stop terrorism would be irrational.

Fully automatic is the wrong term?

If you don't know the difference between auto and semi-auto, then you ought not use the terms until you do. It makes you seem ill-informed . . . because, clearly, you are.

So the Virginia Tech killer, Loughren and Hasan committed their mass shootings with semi-automatic weapons? Okay.
So what?

Actually, there's quite a bit of "so what." Again, since these were not automatic weapons, it is very conceivable that if others had been armed, fewer would have died--maybe no one but the VT shooter (Cho), Hasan and Loughner. We don't know--because of gun control laws and regulations.

Thats about 60 victims in three events with mentally ill people who armed themselves and shot innocents dead.

Again, you've not offered any evidence that Hasan is mentally ill. I find it offensive that you would simply state that as fact. Is Osama Bin Laden mentally ill? Is every Islamist bent on murder?

And they aparrently didn't need fully automatic weapons to accomplish this. (I think you can get fully automatic weapons in Nevada, but thats dependent on CSI being accurate ...)

Thank you for citing the source of your information on American gun laws . . . CSI.

Accountability being the big thing, who should be accountable for the ease with which mentally ill people, or terrorists for that matter, can arm themselves?

Canada?

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_fir-government-gun-laws-prohibited-firearms

Nevada: It is illegal to knowingly or willfully possess, manufacture, or dispose of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or to possess or use a machine gun.

Dang! CSI is wrong? I guess I can't trust Hollywood for anything. (but I already knew that)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Here is some good information about "Fully Automatic" weapons. Please note that the definitions start the article, and provide citations for all fact. (A good habit to be used on Redscape...)

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

Well that took 15 minutes to find two sources... And that didn't include commercials!

http://www.impactguns.com/store/machine ... ities.html

It is a common misconception that machine guns cannot be owned by law-abiding citizens. This comes from the creation of a variety of confusing laws that have made purchasing a full-auto gun more difficult than purchasing a "normal" gun. But, if you can comply with the law, you may qualify to own a machine gun.
First a brief history: In May of 1986, certain laws went into effect that made it illegal for 'civilians' to own fully automatic firearms that were manufactured AFTER THAT DATE. Many fully automatic weapons manufactured, registered and tax paid BEFORE MAY, 1986, MAY BE OWNED BY AND SOLD TO INDIVIDUALS. The full-auto guns that may be owned by individuals are called 'transferable'. Some states DO NOT allow machine gun ownership at all, no matter when the gun was made, but many states do

.

It goes on to outline how to own a machine gun...
Green, does it really matter if the guns are fully or semi-automatic when the mass shooters using semi-s have killed a dozen and more at a time? I didn't think so .

rickyp wrote:http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns_legalities.html

It is a common misconception that machine guns cannot be owned by law-abiding citizens. This comes from the creation of a variety of confusing laws that have made purchasing a full-auto gun more difficult than purchasing a "normal" gun. But, if you can comply with the law, you may qualify to own a machine gun.
First a brief history: In May of 1986, certain laws went into effect that made it illegal for 'civilians' to own fully automatic firearms that were manufactured AFTER THAT DATE. Many fully automatic weapons manufactured, registered and tax paid BEFORE MAY, 1986, MAY BE OWNED BY AND SOLD TO INDIVIDUALS. The full-auto guns that may be owned by individuals are called 'transferable'. Some states DO NOT allow machine gun ownership at all, no matter when the gun was made, but many states do

.

It goes on to outline how to own a machine gun...

So, your claim about them being "easy" to obtain was complete bunk. Thanks.

Green, does it really matter if the guns are fully or semi-automatic when the mass shooters using semi-s have killed a dozen and more at a time? I didn't think so .

Shotguns could do the same thing. So could revolvers.

However, to answer your question, yes it does matter. Why? An M-16A2 can fire at a rate of 700 rounds per minute. No one firing a semi-auto could do that or even close.

Again, if everyone was allowed to carry weapons, those shootings likely would have ended much sooner.

If no one is allowed to carry weapons and someone violates that law, like Cho and Hasan did, they have everyone else at a severe disadvantage. They BROKE the law! They violated the gun ban that you believe will keep us all safe. Strange how reality trumps fantasy.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Please establish Hasan is delusional.
2. Please state how you propose to keep people like Hasan from getting weapons. On what basis? His religion? His ethnicity?
3. Can you stop being a broken record and actually deal with some questions that are pertinent?
4. If your worldview can't provide a few answers to reasonable questions, what good is it?
5. Are mentally ill people ever responsible? NB: your dependent clause "that
Mentally ill, irresponsible people are killing people because they can easliy get guns and ammo" suggests that mentally ill people are irresponsible. Isn't that redundant?

Still waiting for answers. However, I know you are not capable.

Having shot both, I would say that it does. What experience do you base your opinion on? HuffPo?

You can kill many with a single shot weapon. Shall we outlaw those as well? How about swords?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11668697

I guess mass killings can occur in countries with robust gun control laws and single shot weapons...

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2010/04/07/another-mass-killing-in-a-gun-free-zone/

BEIJING – A former medical worker allegedly stabbed to death eight young children and wounded five others Tuesday in a bloody rampage outside an elementary school in eastern China. The attacker struck in the morning as students arrived for classes, mingling with parents at the school gates before suddenly pulling out his knife and slashing children, according to witnesses interviewed on local television. . . China has witnessed a series of school attacks in recent years, most blamed on people with personal grudges or suffering from mental illness, leading to calls for improved security. The rampage in Nanping was finally stopped by passers-by and school security guards and the attacker was arrested, the reports said. The suspect was identified as Zheng Minsheng, 41. Zheng worked as a senior nurse in a community clinic before resigning last June, the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing Huang Zhongping, spokesman for the Nanping city public security bureau. Zheng was known to have a history of mental illness, said a man surnamed Wu in the Nanping city government office, who would not give his full name as is common among Chinese officials. An unidentified former co-worker interviewed on Fujian television said Zheng was “difficult to get along with.” Eight children were killed, and five were being treated at a hospital, Wu said. Six died at the scene, which was smeared with blood from the sidewalk to the floor of an inner reception room

Again, I say it is not the type of weapon that is used to mass kill. It is the person.

But Ricky doesn't like guns. They are made for the sole reason to kill others (according to him and his ilk)
Defense from others who willingly break the law is not applicable in his view, hunting and target shooting are not applicable in his view (well, not unless you first have a detailed psych review, register with several government agencies, wait several years and have a note from your mother.)

and once guns are gone, then we move on to those deadly knives and scissors!

steve

So, your claim about them being "easy" to obtain was complete bunk. Thanks.

Its a helluva lot easier than anywhere else in the world, outside say Yemen.

But the question is Steve, do you consider it a good thing that there is a process on buying a machine gun that is more difficult than buying a quart of milk? Are you happy about the restrictions?

.

rickyp wrote:steve

So, your claim about them being "easy" to obtain was complete bunk. Thanks.

Its a helluva lot easier than anywhere else in the world, outside say Yemen.

Really? That's why there are so many problems in the US with legal automatic weapons? Can you point to some? If it's too easy to obtain automatic weapons legally, and guns are the problem, then such shootings must be a daily occurrence, right?

But the question is Steve, do you consider it a good thing that there is a process on buying a machine gun that is more difficult than buying a quart of milk?

You know, at first, I thought you were making a typical, really dumb Rickyp argument (forgive the repetition). Then, I looked a bit more deeply. It turns out you have a valid point--milk may be more dangerous than guns:

t appears that the Environmental Protection Agency, in a story too weird to be fiction, has decided to regulate milk in the same way it does oil. In effect, milk spills will be considered just as hazardous as oil spills.

According to the Wall Street Journal, via Fuel Fix:

"Two weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that subjects dairy producers to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure program, which was created in 1970 to prevent oil discharges in navigable waters or near shorelines. Naturally, it usually applies to oil and natural gas outfits. But the EPA has discovered that milk contains 'a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil,' as the agency put it in the Federal Register.

"In other words, the EPA thinks the next blowout may happen in rural Vermont or Wisconsin. Other dangerous pollution risks that somehow haven't made it onto the EPA docket include leaks from maple sugar taps and the vapors at Badger State breweries.

"The EPA rule requires farms — as well as places that make cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream and the like — to prepare and implement an emergency management plan in the event of a milk catastrophe. Among dozens of requirements, farmers must train first responders in cleanup protocol and build 'containment facilities' such as dikes or berms to mitigate offshore dairy slicks.

It gets worse--it could be killing more Japanese than guns kill Americans:

Cancer rates linked to dairy can change quickly, said Ganmaa. In the past 50 years in Japan, she said, rising rates of dairy consumption are linked with rising death rates from prostate cancer - from near zero per 100,000 five decades ago to 7 per 100,000 today.

Of course, that's just men--no telling how children and women are being slaughtered.

Oh, and it may be complicit in the deaths of millions of Americans:

What looked utterly inane becomes, upon inspection, very insightful.

Are you happy about the restrictions?

I'm answering this, hoping that you will eventually answer my questions. You've been routed in this argument--so much so that you are dodging my questions.

If you're asking am I happy that everyone in the neighborhood doesn't own a .50 cal heavy machine gun, the answer is "yes."

Now, will you please answer:

1. Please establish Hasan is delusional.
2. Please state how you propose to keep people like Hasan from getting weapons. On what basis? His religion? His ethnicity?
3. Can you stop being a broken record and actually deal with some questions that are pertinent?
4. If your worldview can't provide a few answers to reasonable questions, what good is it?
5. Are mentally ill people ever responsible? NB: your dependent clause "that
Mentally ill, irresponsible people are killing people because they can easily get guns and ammo" suggests that mentally ill people are irresponsible. Isn't that redundant?

.

steve

If you're asking am I happy that everyone in the neighborhood doesn't own a .50 cal heavy machine gun, the answer is "yes."

Why?

They don't seem to keep track of the use of assault weapons (Does that mean fully automatic?) in deaths.
According to the 2000 US census 65% of murder victims in 98 were killed by guns. and 52% by handguns... But they don't differentiate more than that. I'd guess concealability is a problem.
I suppose that the assault weapons ban being supported heavily by police meant nothing to you? I have a feeling that being outgunned by criminals had something to do with that... remember the running gun battle in LA that involved assault rifles?

Here's how you might easily start regulating gun ownership. Make it a law that anyone who owns a gun is liable for damages caused by its illegal use.
Insist, as one does with cars, that owners have liability insurance that they can prove to the gun seller before they acquire their weapons or ammo. Should gun sellers sell guns before documenting that the purcahser has liability insurance - they become liable.
I'm pretty sure the insurance companies will quickly figure out a way to screen out those who are poor risks for ownership....
Its a market driven solution, involves little government action except prosecution of the liability laws.
And its strictly making people accountable for the safe use of guns in their control.
Do you have a problem with accountability?