Shooting in Seattle

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What part of "easy access to guns being a problem" do you not understand? But gun loving people like you do not see a problem in what happened in Seattle, so what do you care if some more innocent people die when the next nut case decides to take our their frustrations on society.

Actually, we're thinking more about the innocent people that will die if your master plan were adopted. '

You have no idea how many people could actually be saved, but we do know the people that protect themselves, as well as those that get killed during the mandatory waiting periods.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me know when you plan your push for Congress

News flash ... my government does not have a congress.

Quote

if you're going to blame the tool and not the user of the tool

What part of "easy access to guns being a problem" do you not understand? But gun loving people like you do not see a problem in what happened in Seattle, so what do you care if some more innocent people die when the next nut case decides to take our their frustrations on society.

What part of "easy access to cars being a problem" do you not understand? You car loving people do not see a problem in what happened in (insert latest multi-death car accident here), so what do you care if some more innocent people die when the next nut case decides to take out their frustrations on society.

Appeal to emotion works equally well for any tool, if you're willing to blame the tool and not the user. Try another tactic - preferrably one that doesn't involve prior restraint - and I promise to honestly consider it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Actually, we're thinking more about the innocent people that will die if your master plan were adopted

And what master plan is that?

Quote

You have no idea how many people could actually be saved

How many people in the USA die every year as the result of being shot? It's in the thousands if not tens of thousands. And you still think guns save lives?

Debating you people is pointless. Guns are here to stay and Americans will never stop killing each other with your guns because you don't see a problem with all these deaths.

Flame away ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How many people in the USA die every year as the result of being shot? It's in the thousands if not tens of thousands. And you still think guns save lives?

Debating you people is pointless. Guns are here to stay and Americans will never stop killing each other with your guns because you don't see a problem with all these deaths.

Many more are killed in auto crashes. I'll say it again (and again and again and again) show me a solution to the USER problem (since my guns haven't jumped up all by themselves and killed anyone yet) and I'll give it honest consideration.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

What part of "easy access to guns being a problem"

I got easy access to a new car that I just bought. Now I think I'm going to go drink and take out a family van of 6. I never had a background check done. I bet that would have stopped me.

Quote

so what do you care if some more innocent people die when the next nut case decides to take our their frustrations on society.

I cant worry about every other nucase in the world. I am only concerened if that nutcase comes in contatct with me. I have firearms, bought with all the permits for the ones that require them. But whats not to say I snap or something 20 years down the road? How can yuo do a background check on something like that?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Many more are killed in auto crashes.

The ratio of automobile related deaths between the US and the rest of the world is not all that different (auto travel is not a safe activity). The ratio of death by guns in the US dwarfs virtually every other nation. But time and time again you people are proving my point that you don't think there is a problem with all of your gun related deaths. So why are people surprised when year after year some nut case snaps and goes on a shooting rampage. There's no problem ... guns save lives not take them right?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Many more are killed in auto crashes.

The ratio of automobile related deaths between the US and the rest of the world is not all that different (auto travel is not a safe activity). The ratio of death by guns in the US dwarfs virtually every other nation. But time and time again you people are proving my point that you don't think there is a problem with all of your gun related deaths. So why are people surprised when year after year some nut case snaps and goes on a shooting rampage. There's no problem ... guns save lives not take them right?

Nope...my point is you saying over and over "guns baaaaaaaaaad"... when there are more people killed every year by autos, but I don't see you saying anything about going after Ford or Vauxhall or Volvo.

You concentrate your efforts against the tool, and not the person MISUSING the tool... *THAT* is my sole point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Nope...my point is you saying over and over "guns baaaaaaaaaad"

Where am I saying that all guns are bad? Please enlighten me.

I am however saying that easy access to guns in a culture where the idea of having a gun will automatically protect you is bad. More guns in circulation means that guns are more likely to be used in all different types of scenarios. Do you have a loaded firearm by your side 24/7 and are you ready and more important, are you alert to use it 24/7? If not how can you possibly think that your gun will be there to protect you when you least expect you'll need it. Would your gun have protected you if you were sitting in a house at 7:00 am in the morning after a night of partying when you least expected that you would need it? Better yet, don't you think that all school children should be armed? This way there's no possible way a school shooting would occur right? I mean if everyone is packing, everyone is safe right? LOL ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[CanuckInUSA 0]

As I said, there's no point in debating you guys since you seem to think that guns save lives when in fact they are used (sometimes lawfully, often not) towards taking lives.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You have no idea how many people could actually be saved

How many people in the USA die every year as the result of being shot? It's in the thousands if not tens of thousands. And you still think guns save lives?

I don't count suicides, so the number is about 10,000. Of that, a majority are felons killing felons. I don't miss any of them. If we legalized drugs, much of this goes away.

If guns weren't legal for citizens, how many of these 10k deaths go away? Pretty few. Even Columbine was committed with illegally acquired weapons.

Meanwhile, estimates of defensive gun uses range from 85,000 to millions. Either end of the range are much higher.

Drunk drivers kill ~3000 other people each year. Yet we still don't punish DUIs the way other countries do. Or ban alcohol.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As I said, there's no point in debating you guys since you seem to think that guns save lives when in fact they are used (sometimes lawfully, often not) towards taking lives.

Are you claiming those two sides are mutually exclusive?

And is your insistence there's no point in debating and yet your continuation of doing so mutually exclusive?

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Quote

This sort of thing won't stop until law makers and the general public are made to realise it's not a given right to own a weapon, but a priviledge, i don't care what the 2nd Amendment says, thats well out of date and open to misinterpretation anyway.

sorry, sweeping aside RIGHTS because it seem convenient to you doesn't solve the problem. There's nothing out of date, or open to interpretation. Unless you have an agenda.

A punk kid in the boonies shooting a representation of a moose doesn't really sound off alarms for me. Misdomeanor conviction does seem appropriate. Nothing about the article you cite suggest mental instability.

Please tell me what my agenda or issue of "convenience" is, if i already stated i have no problem with the law abiding, sane and rational general Joe Public owning a gun for protection. The problem is that most of the law is based around the fact that each and everyone has the RIGHT to own, and responsibility - be it for safe storage, careful useage and carry AND background checking or assessing if someone is SANE enough to own a weapon, as a result, go out the window quite frankly.

How you can classify a kid who takes a shotgun and shoots up a public art exhibit as a "punk kid" messing about, catching kicks is beyond me. I will say it again - when was the last time you, or someone you knew decided for a laugh they would take their gun out in a public place, other than the range, and start shooting at things for no apparent reason?

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[mnealtx 0]

Ok...how do you tell if someone is going to do something like that?

That's like saying "Joe Skydiver (Joe Driver) (Joe Biker) decided to commit suicide by not opening his parachute (driving into an abutment) (crashing into a tree), so we're not going to let anyone skydive (drive) (bike) anymore unless we can be sure they're not going to try to commit suicide".

Prior restraint isn't the answer.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Prior restraint isn't the answer.

Actually i think it is. Shoot a gun off in public, have your licensed revoked for "irrational and potentially life threatening behaviour". You don't want to play by the rules? Fine, you lose your rights. Just because someone shoots a moose statue does not mean they are going to freak out and go on a killing spree. What it certainly does say, unequivocably, is that this person has abused their right to own a firearm, so now they must be taught a lesson and lose that right.
What would you expect be the outcome if you were to get into your car and drive it through the wall of a gallery because you disagreed with what the artist was trying to say? Would it be advisable for you to be allowed to just hop back in another car after receiving a slap on the wrist? I personally don't think so.

Talk about wanting to kill yourself at the dz - either intentionally or through radical downsizing for instance - which implies you are endangering yourself and potentially other skydivers in the air around you, and having the CCI/DZO overhear or being made aware of, should result in that person being kicked off the dz/blacklisted at the extreme, or some self regulation at the very least ("you're grounded/you are not going to fly that 97sq ft napkin here with 150 jumps" etc) . It's far from an unheard of practice. Prior restraint and action is the answer here.

Why should it be a god given right for people to flgrantly go around and do what they want, to hell with the law/what impact it has on other people? I think most of the anti gunner crowd would lose a lot of the weight of their argument if the often blinkered pro gun crowd took more measures to regulate and make other gun owners aware that if they abuse their right to handle firearms in a safe and responsible manner, they will not stand behind those people, making it socially unacceptable from all fronts to play around with firearms.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[mnealtx 0]

What you're mentioning isn't prior restraint. If someone has stated an intent, or acted upon an intent, it ceases to become prior restraint.

However, the punishments don't allow that to happen - and if they did, people would scream even more about their rights being infringed. Look at the thread about the security cameras for a prime example - people screaming about a non-existent right to privacy in a public place being violated by security cameras.

Another point is that a criminal doesn't really *CARE* about the laws, hence why they're criminals, right? They're not going to use a club to rob someone, just because they're might get (for example) 5 more years in prison *IF* they're caught using a gun. For the violent criminal, it's all about force - they are going to use the maximum amount of force they can to prevent others from stopping them.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Newbie 0]

Quote

What you're mentioning isn't prior restraint. If someone has stated an intent, or acted upon an intent, it ceases to become prior restraint.

However, the punishments don't allow that to happen - and if they did, people would scream even more about their rights being infringed. Look at the thread about the security cameras for a prime example - people screaming about a non-existent right to privacy in a public place being violated by security cameras.

Another point is that a criminal doesn't really *CARE* about the laws, hence why they're criminals, right? They're not going to use a club to rob someone, just because they're might get (for example) 5 more years in prison *IF* they're caught using a gun. For the violent criminal, it's all about force - they are going to use the maximum amount of force they can to prevent others from stopping them.

It only ceases to become prior restraint if someone does some restraining, surely? How on earth can you call some action a "prior restraint" if nothing is done? This is the whole point of what i'm getting at - make people realise their right is one they have as long as they act responsibily. Once they do not, and/or they abuse that right, it is taken away from them.

I refuse to believe this nutter, along with the columbine kids and whichever other people decide to shoot up a bunch of people and then themselves are "violent criminals". They are normally people who have NEVER been in trouble with the law, often using weapons they hold legally. Something within them snaps, and they lose their mental stability - essentially they become psychotically deranged in a snap moment...this is not the same as saying they are consistently violent offenders. I don't know how you help people like this, i'm not a psychologist/psychiatrist, however, what i do know is that, on the occasion people are made aware of the fact that something small could trigger a violent and uncharacteristic action in this normally sane people - for instance, shooting up a piece of public art with your legally owned gun - society needs to make it clear that's unacceptable. For whatever reason that is not happening, and as i already stated, until it does, and laws are brought in to back up that feeling, you will continue to get people who snap, go completely out of chatacter, and go on killing sprees with - most likely - guns they held perfectly legally.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[mnealtx 0]

I think we might have a bit of apples and oranges going on, here, in regards to prior restraint.

"Someone MIGHT do something bad with this item, so we're not going to let ANYONE have one." That's prior restraint against law abiding citizens that may wish to own a gun - think Dunblane.

As for "society making it clear that's unacceptable"; you've obviously not listened to any rap / hiphop music in the last 10-15 years. Not acceptable? There's an entire industry frigging GLORIFYING it!!

Add to that the fact that kids aren't made to be responsible for their actions, because parents fear being turned in for abuse by the neighborhood busybody, and we've got quite the potential crop of psychopaths right in our own back yards.

We're reaping what society has sown for the last 20 years.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

I think we might have a bit of apples and oranges going on, here, in regards to prior restraint.

"Someone MIGHT do something bad with this item, so we're not going to let ANYONE have one." That's prior restraint against law abiding citizens that may wish to own a gun - think Dunblane.

As for "society making it clear that's unacceptable"; you've obviously not listened to any rap / hiphop music in the last 10-15 years. Not acceptable? There's an entire industry frigging GLORIFYING it!!

Add to that the fact that kids aren't made to be responsible for their actions, because parents fear being turned in for abuse by the neighborhood busybody, and we've got quite the potential crop of psychopaths right in our own back yards.

We're reaping what society has sown for the last 20 years.

Occasionally I agree with you. Amazing, isn't it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Occasionally I agree with you. Amazing, isn't it?

*faints*

*wakes back up, goes to store and buys *

*gives a to John*

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Newbie 0]

Quote

I think we might have a bit of apples and oranges going on, here, in regards to prior restraint.

"Someone MIGHT do something bad with this item, so we're not going to let ANYONE have one." That's prior restraint against law abiding citizens that may wish to own a gun - think Dunblane.

As for "society making it clear that's unacceptable"; you've obviously not listened to any rap / hiphop music in the last 10-15 years. Not acceptable? There's an entire industry frigging GLORIFYING it!!

Add to that the fact that kids aren't made to be responsible for their actions, because parents fear being turned in for abuse by the neighborhood busybody, and we've got quite the potential crop of psychopaths right in our own back yards.

We're reaping what society has sown for the last 20 years.

I have no problem with people owning firearms for protection. What i think is bizarre is a society that will not punish people in the correct manner (by taking away their priviledge to own that firearm) if the priviledge is abused and the person acts irresponsibly. I don't believe just banning all guns is the answer, and i'm not an anti gunner - i used to shoot handguns here before they were banned.

As for not having listening to rap/hip hop for the last 15 years - most of my last 15 years has been spent listening to nothing but hip hop actually. But i guess that makes me a gun toting violent thug does it? I guess that makes every kid that listens to it the next Columbine or Kyle Huff waiting to happen? Most of the kids that go on these mad shooting sprees tend to be white and middle class, and part of the "alternative" set - not you average hip hop kid anyway.
Why resort to incorrect stereotypes when the problem is so much more apparent? Responsible gun ownership and laws to support and above all, ENSURE responsible gun ownership is weak on the ground and not put into practice as much as it should be. And by that i don't mean "ban all guns tomorrow", i simply mean that society, or rather the powers that be (i.e. the pro gun lobby) refuse to accept that lax laws both legal and moral need to be tighted. And let's face it, when you suppose that the change of those laws, or of societial perception automatically would lead to a curtailment of what you see as your god given right - why WOULD you want a change of those laws, even if this were not the case.

It's open and shut to me - society needs to change but it can't and won't because the change needs to come from the inside (i.e. the pro gunners) who see change as a curtailment of rights, and they are too powerful to argue against.

While that continues to propagate, you will continue to see people who do show up on the radar, who do hold guns legally, or are able to legally get them, go on shooting sprees.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Please tell me what my agenda or issue of "convenience" is, if i already stated i have no problem with the law abiding, sane and rational general Joe Public owning a gun for protection. The problem is that most of the law is based around the fact that each and everyone has the RIGHT to own, and responsibility - be it for safe storage, careful useage and carry AND background checking or assessing if someone is SANE enough to own a weapon, as a result, go out the window quite frankly.

Nonsense. Background checking is fine. Background checking couple with a 10 day wait is ridiculous and has killed people. Restricting people to one gun a month is ridiculous and just makes it harder to bargain down on volume purchasing. "Safe storage" is a cute word for 'make the gun unavailable if you need it in a hurry.' I don't have kids at home, so there is no need for me to lock mine up. When gun grabbers advocate this sort of legislation, it's with the expressed notion of first making guns expensive and incovenient, and then banning them outright when fewer owners remain.

And when someone (ACLU) tries to claim that the 2nd Amendment of a Bill of Rights for the people, by the people, is really about states's rights, you have a clear case of an agenda shaping a tortured misreading of an obvious right.

Quote

How you can classify a kid who takes a shotgun and shoots up a public art exhibit as a "punk kid" messing about, catching kicks is beyond me. I will say it again - when was the last time you, or someone you knew decided for a laugh they would take their gun out in a public place, other than the range, and start shooting at things for no apparent reason?

People shoot mailboxes, stop signs, whatever, out in the countryside. No apparent reason? Shooting is fun. Paper targets are a bit boring, and aren't always readily available. And I'm sure drinking is often involved. A lifesize moose would be an especially attractrive target. Already cops and game wardens set up fake deer near roadsides to catch people who don't get off the road as they're supposed to.

Doesn't mean it's right for them to do it, but is it a felony, or a sign of things to come? Probably not. You'd have to examine the circumstances. If they're recklessly endangering others, hurt em. If their shootings are no threat, you hit them for vandalism.

In California, you can shoot outdoors on BLM land. And probably national forest. But not state parks, or national parks. And of course, there aren't signs out in the high desert that say very clearly which one you're on. I've done shooting out there that was perfectly safe, perhaps legal.

[boringjen 0]

Quote

Actually i think it is. Shoot a gun off in public, have your licensed revoked for "irrational and potentially life threatening behaviour".

When is the last time you (to include your vehicle and property) were searched for firearms? When is the last time someone asked you whether or not you were legally allowed to possess firearms?

What would revoking a license have done to prevent this crime?

Quote

I think most of the anti gunner crowd would lose a lot of the weight of their argument if the often blinkered pro gun crowd took more measures to regulate and make other gun owners aware that if they abuse their right to handle firearms in a safe and responsible manner, they will not stand behind those people, making it socially unacceptable from all fronts to play around with firearms.

What part of the pro-gun (especially those who carry concealed) crowd's argument that they would like (the right) to shoot these violent criminals with their concealed weapons to prevent/lessen their crimes gives you (or anyone else) the impression that they "stand behind those people"?

I would be thrilled if more people carried concealed. I would, but I know that carrying in your purse is a bad idea, and I just can't bring myself to stop wearing skanky clothes so I could actually conceal a handgun.

Jen
"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." - Winston Churchill

[Amazon 7]

Here is a link to some of the 911 calls and the Police radio traffic at the time.

http://710kiro.com/Article.asp?id=191653&spid=6581