Do you have a problem with answering questions? Steve has asked 3 times. Steve has answered yours at least twice w/o getting an answer from you. Fess up.

rickyp wrote: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?

If you had any credibility, you are squandering it rapidly.

Why would I not favor everyone having mg's? Because I personally am not sure anyone needs a machine gun to defend themselves and it would take more training to become proficient than most people would be willing to put in.

So, now I've answered your question--again.

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?

There is a huge difference between management and the cop on the street. Management tends to be anti-gun. Cops tend to be pro-gun. We like guns. We just don't like criminals having them.

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.

I think you'd find that's redundant. Our civil courts would already hear such cases when negligence is involved.

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....

Great idea.

Question: Who would NOT get insurance?

Answer: those who do not respect the law, aka "criminals."

So, further restrict law-abiding citizens while crooks get a free pass (since criminals tend to have little regard for the law--that's part of the definition)? Lame.

Do you have a problem with accountability?

No, but your solution does zero about providing it.

Will you answer my questions?

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

Why would I not favor everyone having mg's? Because I personally am not sure anyone needs a machine gun to defend themselves and it would take more training to become proficient than most people would be willing to put in.

So change the word MG (machine gun to) semi-automatic concealed handguns.
Or simply handguns...
And doesn't your argument against machine guns apply equally?
What training did Loughren get in using his guns before he was sold them? What training do most people who acquire hand guns have?
Your argument here is about 1) need and 2) proficiency
You agree then that people who have unproven proficiency or need should not be allowed to have weapons in their possession? (To be consistent with your argument about machine guns.)

Steve:

Great idea.
Question: Who would NOT get insurance?
Answer: those who do not respect the law, aka "criminals

."

Who drives cars now without insurance? Law breakers?
The policing of insurance requirement is done at the point of acquisition of cars, and licenses. I'd see the same thing with guns.
This is considered a responsibility and responsible people don't mind being held accountable.
You don't like criminals having guns. Here's a perfectly reasonable way of taking guns from them...they are uninsurable.
How do insurance companies decide to insure? Its a free market, they'll figure out ways to manage their risk and return.

Your questions
1. I linked you earlier to a physciatrist who made the case. And I beleive that his defence will be insanity. But the court will rule on that. I simply beleive that all fundamnetal Islamists preaching violence are delusional.
2. In hasans case, there is currently a federal registry for people with known mental problems that are barred from gun ownership The army could have put his name on that. If he required insurance, he would have been vetted by an insurance company, and they might have inquired at his work place ...setting off warning bells...(Which could have been ignored. But I'm not looking for absolute perfection just a decrease in events like Hasan and Loughren)
3. I have repeatedly. But its hard to respond to your assertions that don't reflect reality. I.E. the military restricts weapons possession on its domestic bases because the risk of accidents and events like Hasan are greater then the reward of potential defence against an unlikely event. But beleive you know the risk/reward calcualtion better than the military.I appeal to the authority of the military and their experience, you appeal to the all knowing Steve.
4. I'm completely reasonable. And you and I agree on machine guns...so its just a matter of you adapting your unreasonable view point to semiautomatic handguns and concealed weapons. I'd point to the number of gun deaths every day in your country as a perfectly reasonable reason to adopt that view.
5. Mentally ill people are iresponsible. Irresponsible people aren't all mentally ill.

rickyp wrote:steve
Why would I not favor everyone having mg's? Because I personally am not sure anyone needs a machine gun to defend themselves and it would take more training to become proficient than most people would be willing to put in.

So change the word MG (machine gun to) semi-automatic concealed handguns.
Or simply handguns...
And doesn't your argument against machine guns apply equally?

Nope.

You ever fire a machine gun? I have. I've fired a light machine gun and an M-16 on automatic. It is very difficult to control such weapons because of the constant force (especially a non-mounted weapon, like an M-16). There really is no comparison to a semi-auto, which you would know if you had any experience.

What training did Loughren get in using his guns before he was sold them? What training do most people who acquire hand guns have?
Your argument here is about 1) need and 2) proficiency

Right. And, in almost any conceivable situation, a machine gun is not needed. I've rarely faced hundreds of miscreants charging me with mayhem on their minds. I'd say even if it was about 6-10, a shotgun would do just fine.

As for proficiency, you'll find it is difficult to procure. Why? Because no matter how much you target shoot, shooting under stress with your life on the line can be a completely different experience. That's why police officers are often put through a "combat" course--consisting of shooting both shotgun and handgun while moving, and being timed.

That said, the most immediate need for "proficiency" is most often home defense--i.e. a burglar. Often, mere brandishing is enough to carry the day.

You agree then that people who have unproven proficiency or need should not be allowed to have weapons in their possession? (To be consistent with your argument about machine guns.)

No, I don't. I believe everyone has the right to self-defense. You might think that is the State's responsibility. I don't. My grandmother once called LAPD because she had a prowler outside her home. After 45 minutes, they had not responded. They called her. She said, "Don't bother. I shot him." They were there in less than 2 minutes.

When I was a minor, we had a man take an ax to our front door. He spent 15 minutes on that door, eventually removing the bolt lock. The police never did show up. Had he come in, we would have all been dead. We lived one mile from the police station.

Steve:
Great idea.
Question: Who would NOT get insurance?
Answer: those who do not respect the law, aka "criminals."

Who drives cars now without insurance?

Um, criminals and those hoping not to get caught.

The policing of insurance requirement is done at the point of acquisition of cars, and licenses. I'd see the same thing with guns.

And, the results would be similar: those law abiding citizens would buy it. Criminals, especially those who bought their weapons on the black market, would not. It would be simply another hurdle to legal gun ownership.

Newsflash: the vast majority of home owner's policies cover gun use on your property. What you are suggesting would, in large measure, just be another bone to insurance companies. It would accomplish nothing else.

This is considered a responsibility and responsible people don't mind being held accountable.
You don't like criminals having guns. Here's a perfectly reasonable way of taking guns from them...they are uninsurable.

This is naïve-squared. Do gun-enhancements in sentencing keep criminals from carrying guns? Do restrictions on parolees carrying weapons stop them? Insurance requirements wouldn't even be a speed bump.

Your questions
1. I linked you earlier to a physciatrist who made the case. And I beleive that his defence will be insanity. But the court will rule on that. I simply beleive that all funadmanetal ISlamists preaching violence are delusional.

First, thanks for answering.

Second, as I noted, he wrote that piece days after the shooting. He didn't know much of what we know now. The initial press coverage portrayed him as a hapless loser. It wasn't until much later we learned of his Islamism, contacts with Al-Alawki, etc.

There is nothing to suggest an insanity defense will work. You repeatedly said he was delusional. You have ZERO evidence for that.

2. In hasans cae, there is a federal registry for people with known mental problems that are barred from gun ownership The army could have put his name on that. If he required insurance, he would have been vetted by an insuracne company, and they might have inquired at his work place ...setting off warning bells...(Which could have been ignored. But I'm not looking for absolute perfection just a decrease in events like HAsan and Loughren)

Insurance is a ridiculous idea (see above).

Hasan was an army psychologist. This means he was surrounded by psychologists. No one ever reported him as having mental problems. Next.

3. I have repeatedly. But its hard to respond to your assertions that don't reflect reality. I.E. the military restricts weapons possession on its domestic bases becasue the risk of accidents and events like AHsan are greater then the reward of potential defence against an unlikely event.

My assertions that don't reflect reality? You mean like gun insurance would stop criminals from getting guns?

Oh wait. That was your idea.

Oh, and I never said anything like "the military restricts weapons possession on its domestic bases becasue the risk of accidents and events like AHsan are greater then the reward of potential defence against an unlikely event."

4. I'm completely reasonable. And you and I agree on machine guns...so its just a matter of you adapting your unreasonable view point to semiautomatic handguns and concealed weapons. I'd point to the number of gun deaths every day in your country as a perfectly reasonable reason to adopt that view.

So, you're "completely reasonable" as long as everyone agrees with you? Well, aren't you a model of moderation?

Gun control won't stop criminals. It never has and it never will. No criminal has ever said, "Restrictions on getting guns stopped me from going on the black market and buying a gun." And, that goes without regard to country. In ANY country, if you have the money, you can buy a gun. It may not be "legal," but if you're out to break the law, guess what? You don't care if you also break the gun laws!

5. Mentally ill people are iresponsible. Irresponsible people aren't all mentally ill.

So, in other words, to answer my question, "Yes, it was redundant."

steve

Oh, and I never said anything like "the military restricts weapons possession on its domestic bases becasue the risk of accidents and events like AHsan are greater then the reward of potential defence against an unlikely event

No. I did. Because they do.
You have a hard time recognizing this fact.
You're also able to hold two competing thoughts at one time...
Arming everyone, which would surely result in huge rise in accidental shootings and crimes of passionate impulse, is, according to you, supposed to remedy the sudden appearance of a shooter like Loughren.
And yet, you say this...

As for proficiency, you'll find it is difficult to procure. Why? Because no matter how much you target shoot, shooting under stress with your life on the line can be a completely different experience. That's why police officers are often put through a "combat" course--consisting of shooting both shotgun and handgun while moving, and being timed

.

rickyp wrote:steve

Oh, and I never said anything like "the military restricts weapons possession on its domestic bases becasue the risk of accidents and events like AHsan are greater then the reward of potential defence against an unlikely event

No. I did. Because they do.

Here's something that would help you, if you would bother to absorb it: you are not the determiner of truth. Just because you say something doesn't make it so. You gave YOUR reasoning behind the gun ban on domestic military bases, but you never proffered any evidence that this is the reason. I gave alternative reasons that were equally plausible (or more so) and yet you go back to your opinion as fact--without substantiation.

Oh wait. You did say "Because they do" with great force. I suppose that's meant to carry the day?

You have a hard time recognizing this fact.

One more time, as this seems so difficult for you to grasp: a "fact" is not simply "Ricky's opinion." When you supply military documentation of their reasoning, you'll have something. Until then, you just have your opinion. Having done some research, it seems accidental discharges are the main reason, but those were just opinions--like yours--so I don't try to claim them as "facts."

You're also able to hold two competing thoughts at one time...

I see the problem. I hold a thought and that alone completely undoes you, as you cannot do this. You have my sympathy.

Arming everyone, which would surely result in huge rise in accidental shootings and crimes of passionate impulse, is, according to you, supposed to remedy the sudden appearance of a shooter like Loughren.

Actually, I specifically referenced the Hasan shooting. The Loughner (note spelling) incident is more problematic because of the setting.

And yet, you say this...

As for proficiency, you'll find it is difficult to procure. Why? Because no matter how much you target shoot, shooting under stress with your life on the line can be a completely different experience. That's why police officers are often put through a "combat" course--consisting of shooting both shotgun and handgun while moving, and being timed

.

It's true. That doesn't mean people should not be armed. It does mean they need to exercise caution.

Of course, in rickyworld, everyone with a gun randomly shoots people.

Now, some follow up questions. Let's see if you can muster the courage to answer them:

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?

One thing Ricky is stating is just silly (ok, one of many things)
To compare guns to cars is like comparing apples and oranges
It could be apt and I get what he's driving at but people who use cars illegally are doing so by operating a large machine over a public road where they run the risk of getting caught should they get into an accident or break a traffic law.
Guns are hidden with ease and (for criminals) are generally only used to commit a crime with. Not the same as with a car where they simply want to get around and avoid the extra payments.

If he insists on this being equal, then he must allow police to frisk anyone and search their belongings and even homes on their own whim, otherwise the two simply can not be compared.

and how about answering Steve? He asked, what 10 times now? You replied several times but ignored answering each and every time.

Can I pretend to be Ricky?

1. Do you acknowledge your insurance suggestion would, at best, only cause more headaches for law-abiding citizens?
No, it would generate income, more government employees are being paid a decent wage and paying taxes on that decent wage. Further, by requiring such a system (not unlike the DMV) it would force gun applicants to wait in long lines and cause great anger, this itself would help provide psychological testing at no extra cost to the taxpayer.

2. Does gun control stop criminals from obtaining guns?
Yes, it is a fact that once this were to happen, all guns would disappear from the black market, it's a FACT.
notice no proof or even any reasoning, but nonsensical facts seem so apropos in this answer

3. Why did Hasan kill those soldiers?
Due to lack of government sanctioned psychological testing thanks to a poorly run health care system. That and the mere fact that he had a gun, it is a well known fact that holding a gun in ones hands causes one to shoot other people, he simply could not help it.

GMTom wrote:Can I pretend to be Ricky?

1. Do you acknowledge your insurance suggestion would, at best, only cause more headaches for law-abiding citizens?
No, it would generate income, more government employees are being paid a decent wage and paying taxes on that decent wage. Further, by requiring such a system (not unlike the DMV) it would force gun applicants to wait in long lines and cause great anger, this itself would help provide psychological testing at no extra cost to the taxpayer.

2. Does gun control stop criminals from obtaining guns?
Yes, it is a fact that once this were to happen, all guns would disappear from the black market, it's a FACT.
notice no proof or even any reasoning, but nonsensical facts seem so apropos in this answer

3. Why did Hasan kill those soldiers?
Due to lack of government sanctioned psychological testing thanks to a poorly run health care system. That and the mere fact that he had a gun, it is a well known fact that holding a gun in ones hands causes one to shoot other people, he simply could not help it.

Overall, I give that 3 out of 4 on the ricky-meter! Well done!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/12/brooklyn-stabbings_n_822349.html

Maksim Gelman killed 4 people with an "extended clip" knife and an "semi-automatic" automobile. These weapons of carnage are allowed to be purchased by normal consumers but have little use in society. When will this senseless killing come to an end! When will society curb the ability to buy and keep weapons that can be used in mass killings.

[/sarcasm]

As I have said before, you can use many things for mass murder. This is the perfect supporting incident for my argument.

True enough, GA. Automobiles are hardly regulated at all are they? You don't have to get a licence, sit any tests, register the item, insure it, maintain it to a standard, pay taxes on it, pay extra taxes on using it, or anything. [/sarcasm]

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

You can point to 4 in one case that can be attributed to the first two categories.

Knives are useful other than as killing tools (although clearly some are designed offensively and possibly should also be controlled). Cars are useful other than as killing tools. Guns? Not so useful other than that they can be used to kill. I suppose they make a good door stop or paperweight, but a lump of rock can do that just as well.

and defense? I can think of nothing as useful for ones defense as a gun. Like it or not, there are guns aplenty in the US. Criminalizing them will not make them go away, that would only assure the only people to have guns were criminals. That is a fact, we have plenty, I will even agree there are too many!
So here you have a situation (one that is not the case in the UK or even in Canada, where our two biggest anti-gun proponents hail from) where guns are easily obtained by criminals, there is absolutely zero recommendations that will limit that criminal aspect. Now throw in our constitutional rights (that you guys once again do not have), toss in the right to defend ones self and the story is different not to mention pretty much completely foreign to our biggest anti-gun side here.

I have not seen one single idea that would limit the criminal gun market while allowing for one to defend themselves. (this coming from a person who really doesn't like guns himself, I do not own one nor do I want one, I dislike the blasted things. That said, I know the situation and I know my constitutional rights, combined you can not sway me from defending those who want to protect themselves and own a gun)

GMTom wrote:and defense? I can think of nothing as useful for ones defense as a gun.

Well it's more of a deterrent than a defence. It's defensive power springs from it's offensive capabilities.

Like it or not, there are guns aplenty in the US. Criminalizing them will not make them go away, that would only assure the only people to have guns were criminals. That is a fact, we have plenty, I will even agree there are too many!

If you assume that we want to criminalise all guns (which I don't) or restrict them from law enforcement (which I don't), then your argument makes sense. Shame, that.

So here you have a situation (one that is not the case in the UK or even in Canada, where our two biggest anti-gun proponents hail from) where guns are easily obtained by criminals,

But why is it so easy for criminals to obtain illegal weapons in the USA compared to Canada or the UK (or even, can you substantiate that assertion)? Could it be that restrictions on gun ownership and enforcement of them in the latter nations make it more risky for dealers in illegal guns to operate?

there is absolutely zero recommendations that will limit that criminal aspect.

Rubbish. Enforce laws properly, and you can limit (while not guaranteeing you can eliminate) infractions. Having enforcable gun laws would make it easier to deal with illegal guns.

I have not seen one single idea that would limit the criminal gun market while allowing for one to defend themselves. (this coming from a person who really doesn't like guns himself, I do not own one nor do I want one, I dislike the blasted things. That said, I know the situation and I know my constitutional rights, combined you can not sway me from defending those who want to protect themselves and own a gun)

Well, perhaps you aren't looking hard enough. You certainly aren't reading what I've written if you think I want to remove all guns from people.

I suggest YOU read what I said before insisting I said something I did not say.
The problem is we have a huge market of guns, if we had strict gun laws right from the start, then that availability would be lower and this issue would be much different. But that's beyond us, a criminal can easily buy an illegal gun.Your simple claim only shows you to be more foreign to the situation than you assume, guns are here, we can buy them with ease, legal guns are responsible for only a fraction of murders, restricting the legal market would do precious little to reduce murders, it could very well make things worse when you suddenly make the law abiding larger segment of the population completely defenseless (or nearly so ...I know, you don't want to take them away, but only make them really hard to obtain?) Making guns illegal or greatly restricting them (basically the same thing) only puts them in the hands of criminals. If you want to argue they offer no defense since they are offensive, that's really a strained argument at best. If you threaten me with a gun and I shoot you with mine, uhhhh, I defended myself quite well with my offensive weapon now didn't I?

We have laws that restrict illegal guns, we have laws that restrict drugs and laws that restrict plenty of things that simply can not be stopped. Simply claiming we should enforce laws better does not make them go away, it is so much easier to simply say this than it is to enact it. It's like saying we should enforce murder laws stricter and by doing so murder would never happen?

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:and defense? I can think of nothing as useful for ones defense as a gun.

Well it's more of a deterrent than a defence. It's defensive power springs from it's offensive capabilities.

Isn't a deterrent actually better than a defense? Consider this: a defense is only helpful if one is attacked; a deterrent is something that raises the potential cost of an attacker beyond that which he/she is willing to bear, thus preventing the attack and negating the need for defensive action. Personally, I would rather not be attacked. So, I think a deterrent is just fine. Thanks.

I find it telling that rickyp has resorted to gun control arguments and/or disappeared. The entire Hasan incident is a rebuke to his world view regarding Islamism and gun control, so I am not surprised.