OT: Colorado shooting

bmarlowe1 · #1 07-21-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

but I bet more innocent people will be killed this weekend by drunk drivers than were killed in Aurora. So, do we ban alcohol?......I just don't understand that when a drunk driver kills someone, we don't blame the alcohol or the vehicle,

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

vintagetoppsguy · #2 07-21-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope. Same thing could be said about tougher gun laws. The criminals will ignore the laws and find ways to get guns, just like people who choose to drink and drive ignore the DWI laws. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why they're criminals.

Edited to add: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns? If so, you prove your point and I lose my argument. If not, then I just won my argument.

drc · #3 07-21-2012, 06:24 PM

I would imagine the strict drinking and driving laws does lower dui deaths. I suspect it lowers the number of people drinking and driving.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 07-21-2012, 06:28 PM

Vital statistics from the U.S. were compared to those from 22 other high-income countries with populations over 1 million people that reported causes of mortality to WHO for 2003. Researchers relied on The World Bank�s definition of a high income nation, which included countries that had a gross national income per capita of $12,276 or more for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

In addition to the U.S., the study included Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

vintagetoppsguy · #5 07-21-2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

Peter, let's be fair. What was the homicide rate as a whole (gun, knife, other weapon) for all countries compared to the United States?

In other words, are the homicide rates about the same from country to country? If so, that just shows that people are finding other ways to kill people.

I'll await your response.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 07-21-2012, 06:39 PM

Good question, I was wondering the same thing. I will see if I can find any information.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 07-21-2012, 06:45 PM

http://www.photius.com/rankings/murd...2000-2004.html

From lowest to highest, US ranks 78th out of 121, substantially higher rate than most Western European countries.

Runscott · #8 07-21-2012, 06:47 PM

edited - wasted my breath on this topic

bmarlowe1 · #9 07-21-2012, 06:49 PM

David:My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope.

Me: In fact, the DWI fatalities are very much down since the advent of stricter laws and much more serious enforcement. (you can find this both nationally and for individual states all over the web - this has been in decline for a long time)

David: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns?

Me: No, because modern civilization cannot continue without vehicles. I think it could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 07-21-2012, 06:51 PM

Mark, civilization could not continue, because as someone pointed out earlier, there is a segment of the population that enjoy firing military-style weapons, and we couldn't possibly deprive them of that pleasure.

Peter_Spaeth · #11 07-21-2012, 08:49 PM

How great is this, the Aurora guy bought 6000 rounds of ammunition online, and he had to go through the rigorous process of certifying that he was 18 or older, or perhaps 21 or older, depending on weapon.

To Purchase Ammunition Online:
Federal law requires that you must be at least 18 years old to purchase shotgun ammunition and 21 years or older to purchase handgun and rifle ammunition.

You do not need an FFL to purchase ammunition online.
We can ship ammunition to your door via UPS ground or air.
Ammunition may be shipped air with a hazardous material classification; otherwise it can only be shipped ground.
Ammunition shipments to Alaska and Hawaii must be by air.
Ammunition and firearms must be purchased separately.
For safety reasons, we do not accept returns on ammunition.
Always make sure you use the correct ammunition for your specific firearm.
Check your local laws for any other regulations before ordering.

SetBuilder · #12 07-21-2012, 08:53 PM

After looking into the matter further, I do agree that gun control is very lax. There should be a lot more hoops to jump through before being able to purchase a powerful rifle for whatever recreational purpose it may serve.

Could ideas such as this be implemented?

Mandatory psychological exam and waiver.
Training and certification requirement.
Longer waiting period.
Requiring a license to own a military style rifle and make that license REALLY expensive.
Make guns in general more expensive by taxing them.

I like the making guns more expensive to own idea because the Colorado shooter wouldn't have been able to afford a hypothetical $10,000 "assault rifle license fee." Perhaps take it a step further and issue the licenses like liquor licenses. Only a certain quota allowed per 100,000 citizens. That, plus long waiting lists should deter a mass murderer.

There I solved the problem.

Runscott · #13 07-21-2012, 11:16 PM

edited - wasting my breath

powderfinger · #14 07-22-2012, 10:20 AM

Quite a few different issues here, and all seemingly related: second amendment, NRA, right to bear arms, etc. I'd just like to add another wrinkle to the thread.

I live in Wisconsin, and the elections last year put conservatives in the governor's mansion, and majorities in both state houses. One of the first things they did was enact an "open carry" law for the state. While there is a training session for those who want to take advantage of open carry, you have to show up with your gun to take it, which means you bought it legally through methods already described in this thread. Once you pass the training, you can legally carry your weapon in public. Most proponents of the bill insist it was passed in order to provide citizens with the right to protect themselves from gun-toting bad guys.

Can you imagine what might have happened if, say, a half-dozen other people in that full theater who were legally. openly carrying handguns that night decided to open fire in the direction of the shooter to defend themselves and others from the bad guy?

Open carry is now legal in almost all 50 states. Wisconsin was one of the last hold-outs, but the NRA spent a lot of cash in Madison (our capital city) and sadly, got its way.

So many layers to this problem we could debate it forever, but reading the comments here one gets a pretty clear understanding as to why they never get solved. Physical or emotional, turf is turf, and we all fight to the finish to defend our own.

novakjr · #15 07-22-2012, 10:25 AM

First, I'd like express my deepest sympathies for those in Aurora, Colorado.

Now, as far as gun laws. C'mon. The people responsible for these acts aren't gonna be stopped because of harsher gun laws. Criminals and Psychopaths are known for "Breaking the law". Even if guns were outlawed, incidents like these aren't going to stop. If anything, it would only force them to change their methods. Maybe we should outlaw forks for making people fat.(no offense intended towards people of the larger variety)..

And while I agree that certain items should require a psychological examination, overall, I think the gun laws are fine. BUT certain purchases should be a perfect "tip off" as to when things like this could occur, and probably should require a bit of monitoring afterwards. Rather than a simple, "here ya go, enjoy your WMD's, and thank you for your business."

steve B · #16 07-22-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

After looking into the matter further, I do agree that gun control is very lax. There should be a lot more hoops to jump through before being able to purchase a powerful rifle for whatever recreational purpose it may serve.

Could ideas such as this be implemented?

Mandatory psychological exam and waiver.
Training and certification requirement.
Longer waiting period.
Requiring a license to own a military style rifle and make that license REALLY expensive.
Make guns in general more expensive by taxing them.

I like the making guns more expensive to own idea because the Colorado shooter wouldn't have been able to afford a hypothetical $10,000 "assault rifle license fee." Perhaps take it a step further and issue the licenses like liquor licenses. Only a certain quota allowed per 100,000 citizens. That, plus long waiting lists should deter a mass murderer.

There I solved the problem.

That's about the process to legally own an actual "assault weapon" - IE, an actual AK47 or M16 capable of fully automatic fire. Those have been very tightly regulated since 1938. Last I checked there had been 0 crimes comitted with legally held machine guns since then. Very stringent background check, $500 tax to transfer(Maybe $1000? haven't checked in a while) on top of the price and sales tax. Very difficult license to get. And I think the background check is redone for renewal.

One of the problems with attempting to regulate what are currently called assault weapons is that they are functionally no different from many if not most hunting rifles. The only difference is cosmetics -they're built to look like the military guns.
Banning them by function means banning every semi automatic gun, which includes a vast array of legitimate rifles for hunting and target use as well as many shotguns used for legitimate sports like trap shooting. And while that might seem reasonable in urban areas it's totally unreasonable in rural areas where some people actually do hunt for food rather than for sport.

-------------
I don't own a gun, having ADD means I'd be the guy leaving it out on the coffe table, NOT the way to properly care for it or the people around you.
But I have done very occasional sport shooting.
I'm in favor of a higher bar to initial ownership, but less restriction as you prove yourself. Maybe bolt action for 5-10 years then semi auto. Some graduated system like with a drivers license. (But we have that here in Mass for pistol permits, and uneven application makes it a problem.)

I like the idea of easily traceable ammunition. It should be a trivial thing to number the cartridges during manufacture. There would be complications for a few circumstances like people who reload their own shells, and clubs that buy in bulk for events.

California bans them, initially by a list of models, then by a list of models and adding language about "or similar to" or something like that.

glynparson · #17 07-23-2012, 02:54 PM

I do have a problem with certain clip/magazine/drum sizes as well as certain types of available ammunition. I am far from wanting to take away the right to own a gun but that doesn't mean I feel it should have any type of capacity or its projectile should be enhanced with armor piercing or chemicals, etc. That is why Idont join the NRA they fight for the extreme in my beliefs and rational gun control/ gun laws are not a bad thing and neither is discussing it contrary to what a political action committee would have you think.

prestigecollectibles · #18 07-25-2012, 10:49 AM

When was the last shooting on a commercial airline? Thank you gun control.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vintage baseball Stuff in Colorado and Wyoming?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	07-31-2012 02:13 PM
c1960's Rawlings field and court dimensions poster & shooting trophy plaque	CarltonHendricks	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	01-03-2012 11:48 PM
COLORADO AVALANCHE PETER FORSBERG JERSEY - FOR SALE	Archive	Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T	0	01-22-2009 06:58 PM