Gun Violence-The True Cause (wingnut style)
So I am reading an article at the CNN website about the professor at an Alabama university who killed three of her colleagues in a faculty meeting, and I found the following in the comments:
"THIS IS ANOTHER TRAGEDY IN THE U.S.A. THEY ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE OUT OF CONTROL BECAUSE THE PRESSURE ON THEM BY THE ABUSE ON TAXES"
Now, I know there are people who think I am oversimplifying things when I insist that all modern Conservatism is about is "cut my taxes," and that all the rest is nothing but window dressing to fool the gullible. And I know you can't generalize too much from one ignorant loon on the internet. But still, could you hope to find a better example of right wing "reasoning?"
Update: But wait! There's more! From Jim Hoft, at Gateway Pundit:
"Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit: "Socialist Professor Amy Bishop Who Killed 3 Profs Yesterday Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 "
So, not only is this murder caused by high taxes, it was also the result of socialism! I haven't seen a single word in any news article suggesting that this woman, who was a biology professor, had anything to do with socialism. I guess God beamed the information right down into Jim Hoft's brain.
There's just no end to their contempt for common decency, is there?
"THIS IS ANOTHER TRAGEDY IN THE U.S.A. THEY ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE OUT OF CONTROL BECAUSE THE PRESSURE ON THEM BY THE ABUSE ON TAXES"
Now, I know there are people who think I am oversimplifying things when I insist that all modern Conservatism is about is "cut my taxes," and that all the rest is nothing but window dressing to fool the gullible. And I know you can't generalize too much from one ignorant loon on the internet. But still, could you hope to find a better example of right wing "reasoning?"
Update: But wait! There's more! From Jim Hoft, at Gateway Pundit:
"Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit: "Socialist Professor Amy Bishop Who Killed 3 Profs Yesterday Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 "
So, not only is this murder caused by high taxes, it was also the result of socialism! I haven't seen a single word in any news article suggesting that this woman, who was a biology professor, had anything to do with socialism. I guess God beamed the information right down into Jim Hoft's brain.
There's just no end to their contempt for common decency, is there?
Comments
As Green Eagle says, there is absolutely no basis, yet reported, for inferring her political persuasion.
Further, it is of no relevance anyway. Unless she had extremist associations and even then I would want to hear of a police report that explicitly stated that to be a motive.
If she turned out to be a life-long Republican... again no relevance.
She killed people. I'm interested in that fact, not who she votes for.
But no such regard for facts inhibits the demented Right.
I checked and was totally unsurprised to read one of my favorite idiots (himself a professional educator) observe that Bishop went to Harvard, was a bioscientist and (thus) proceed to call her Left-wing.
Absolutely any basis here for thinking "gee... maybe there is something in this for gun control"...? Hell no. NEVER. "Guns don't kill people - rich people having to pay their taxes and people from Harvard kill people". pathetic
I repeat: tragedy is opportunity to the loony Right. Their shithead friends stomped all over the rule of law off the back of 9/11. As long as it all happens to someone else, it's a gift.
Do they not have fingers? I could very well be a professor some day and I can hit a moving body that is within 25 feet 4 to 5 times in less than two seconds. And I don't even have my CCW license yet.
Magpie, as for tragedy, don't both sides utilize it? How many times did we hear about gun control after Columbine? Or how it was the violent video games? Or the music? People try to attribute blame.
Yes, she killed people. The question is how we can alter policy to help prevent situations like this one. The reason why we talk policy when tragedy occurs is because we realize just how important these policies are. It is life and death in many cases. In this case, had a faculty member been carrying a firearm, it seems plausible that they could have either deterred or neutralized the situation.
Oh Derek, you are such a macho man.
Really, dude, you sound like you are about 11 years old.
We had a Columbine in 1996. A deranged man killed 35 people, including two kids, 3 and 6. Our laws changed very quickly. Nationwide.
Our rate of firearm homicides in year 2000 was 3.1 per million. In the same period in the United States it was 29.7 per million.
You can buy a gun here. But it depends what type and you must have a license and meet other requirements. Generally speaking, only a minority of people own them.
"In this case, had a faculty member been carrying a firearm, it seems plausible that they could have either deterred or neutralized the situation."
Okay... How? By shooting her first? Someone they knew and worked with?
That whole line of reasoning - that the solution to the problem of guns is more guns - is utterly retarded. Heard the same bullshit when the Amish schoolgirls were murdered... "if only they had been armed...."
Schoolgirls. Armed.
I respect that people may have a legitimate enthusiasm for owning firearms.
Advocates of gun control would like them to respect that they don't see why their children should live at risk in a society where any fuckhead can get a military class firearm, take it wherever they want, and not even have a license - when the rest of us need a license just to drive a car - so they can have their hobby with no restrictions or admin.
Amy Bishop apparently thought the solution to HER problem lay in using a gun.
For once... how about we NOT think like the lunatics?
That isn't very impressive, I never claimed to be an amazing shot. The point is that a professor can easily shoot a gun accurately. You, for some reason, claimed they could not.
"How? By shooting her first? Someone they knew and worked with?"
Sure, shoot her before she is finished killing. The deterrence factor is simply knowing that someone could be carrying a gun. Would you rather break into a home you know doesn't have a gun or one that very well could have a loaded Remington 870 with 00buck? The answer is simple. There are thousands of cases where a CCW license holder has neutralized a situation or scared off criminals.
Remind me where you live again magpie? I feel like it was the UK, but I'm not sure. If it is the UK, gun crime has gone up since 1997 by 250%.
"that the solution to the problem of guns is more guns"
I disagree that guns are the problem. The problem is armed criminals, and a easy solution to that is an armed populace. There is plenty of evidence of allowing CCW reducing crime. Florida is a great example, Utah as well.
"take it wherever they want, and not even have a license - when the rest of us need a license just to drive a car"
Depends where you are in the US. Carrying a gun isn't dangerous. A man is only as dangerous as his mind. I can walk down the street with an AA12 slung over my shoulder and be no more dangerous than if I didn't have it. Of course, I am more dangerous to potentially violent criminals, but that is a good thing.
"how about we NOT think like the lunatics?"
Like the gun control advocates who kill individuals. There are crazies in every baskets.
If you'd like more info on gun control/gun crime:
http://drop.io/gunsformagpie
Let me know if you need help reading/downloading the file.
As for Australia, their gun control laws essentially had no effect on crime.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
Some studies say the laws were the cause of increasing assault rates, but the trend shows the increase was simply a continuation of the rise prior to the laws.
Robberies and break ins, however, did increase in upwards of 30%, and can at least somewhat be attributed to the laws.
=D
There is a lot more info on US gun crime and gun laws but that is just because we have more guns per person.
Crime was already at a low rate compared to yours yes.
3.1 gun deaths per million vs. 29.7. Our overall homicide rate is also a fraction of yours.
If your gun death rate was the same as ours, and relative to the current population of the US, it would mean eight thousand two hundred and eleven fewer your fellow citizens would die violent deaths.
8211 people.
Equivalent to nearly three 9/11s.
Every year.
And that’s just gun related deaths.
Sure that'd be nice but it doesn't change the fact that the stricter gun control laws in Australia didn't do anything other than restrict liberty. The whole idea behind taking away a right is that it will do more good. John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism, you know?
Gun control might be a good idea if it actually worked, but more often than not, it does nothing or does more harm than good. There are very very few gun control laws that I would support for this reason.
And what liberty would that be?
The liberty to buy firearms while mentally deranged and go shoot 35 more people? Well I think we can do without that sort of liberty, if it’s okay with you, junior.
You’d better get a move on, by the way... 8211 extra gunshot victims per annum means 22-23 funerals per day, every day for a year. Send my respects.
The right for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in a private and responsible manner. Can I purchase a M9 in Australia, then obtain a CCW license and pack heat when I go out at night? I'd say that is a liberty. What about the liberty to shoot to kill in your own home should someone be breaking in? It is a principle right of self-defense we are discussing, and it is severely limited in Australia.
"The liberty to buy firearms while mentally deranged and go shoot 35 more people? "
This type of argument would be just if the current laws actually prevented it from happening, but given the statistics, it hasn't done anything. People are still killing people in the same manner they were prior to the laws. The best thing you can do in that situation, seeing as how you aren't stopping the deranged killers, is to allow the innocent civilians to defend themselves. We've already established that the gun laws do nothing other than limit the law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves.
"Send my respects."
Will do? See, in 391 days, it is less likely that I will be one of those victims. It is also less likely that anyone around me will become a victim, seeing as how if someone were to maliciously attempt to harm them they'd likely be 6 feet under a couple days later.
The stat I provided above equates to you being more likely to be shot in the US, by a factor of nearly 10 to 1, than if you were in Australia.
Those are the odds. Over 8000 additional dead every year in the US directly because of it.
Yet you continue to insist that the US pattern of widespread and unregulated gun usage is the better situation.
How can that be if the net result is that more people die? Nearly ten times as many proportionate to population.
I do not have the impression that you are a psycho. Yet I know I won't talk you round.
So... one assumes that it could be 8 million more dead yet you’d still cling to your position because that is what your personal sense of political identity demands of you.
I’ll say it again so you don’t miss the point: Lack of gun regulation has made you nearly 10 times more likely to be shot... than if you lived here.
"The best thing you can do in that situation, seeing as how you aren't stopping the deranged killers, is to allow the innocent civilians to defend themselves."
The best thing to do is to control who owns a gun, and what kind of gun they can have, and where they can have it. The 1996 incident I alluded to happened in the one state of Australia where guns were not regulated, and the deranged killer obtained them American-style, with no checks or licenses.
And what you suggest does not "allow" people to defend themselves.... it FORCES them to.
No matter what infirmities they may have. No matter their age or situation.
How is an Amish schoolgirl meant to defend herself, Derek? You want her to carry a gun and shoot first?
It doesn't matter how you compare odds, it matters how the laws change those odds. The laws did nothing to change the odds. Due to the greater danger in the US, there is even more of a reason for a law abiding citizen like myself to carry a concealed weapon and keep a gun in my home.
"How can that be if the net result is that more people die?"
Now you are mixing your arguments. You simply stated that more people died from gunfire in the US, now you are saying the US's loose gun laws are the cause of such deaths. This isn't true, and it has been confirmed by dozens of studies by numerous credible professors. Even the National Academy of Science came out and said gun control does nothing to reduce crime.
Allowing concealed carry has actually reduced crime. However, disallowing gun ownership, or severely restricting it, has increased crime in various countries. Great Britain now has a higher crime rate than the US, the increase starting at the time of their gun ban in 1997.
"Lack of gun regulation has made you nearly 10 times more likely to be shot... than if you lived here.
"
All experts say that it isn't the lack of gun regulation, seeing as how that DOES NOTHING TO REDUCE GUN CRIME, rather it is the drug culture, the violent gangs, and increased mental illness.
"
The best thing to do is to control who owns a gun, "
You can't control people who are willing to break the law.
"it FORCES them to."
Again, you are making the failed argument that legal guns somehow cause crimes. This has been disproven time and time again. Some more gunfacts:
http://www.drop.io/gunsformagpie
"How is an Amish schoolgirl meant to defend herself, Derek? You want her to carry a gun and shoot first?"
I believe the teacher could, but I could ask you the same question. How about my grandma's neighbor, who lives alone, who was beaten and bound with wires in order to collect her social security checks. My grandma lives alone. Should she be allowed to own a gun so she can defend herself?
According the the FBI, 93% of guns used in crimes come from illegal sources, so those 93% of gun crimes would occur anyway. Now you must ask yourself, how many more successful crimes would be committed, if you removed the 750,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses each year?
Yes, that many citizens use guns to defend themselves each year.
If she wants to own a gun I have no problem with that. As long as she is competent, it's licensed, not fully automatic and it's kept secure and accessible by her alone.
I would not want her getting it from Kmart and leave it lying around for a kid to have an accident with.
yes, one of the couple dozen kids who die from accidental gunfire each year.
Take me now. I weigh a 130 lbs and have no car. I frequently have to walk 20 to 30 minutes at night to get places, and while OSU's campus isn't too bad, the second you step foot off it you best be on the lookout. There are often shootings, assaults, rapes, and robberies just off campus, and these are escalating because criminals know students won't be armed. Should I be allowed to carry a concealed weapon that is licensed and I have been trained on and is only accessible to me?
If your question related to that situation where I am I would say 'no'. But in my case the chances of the bad guys having guns are extremely low. Where you are... Pandora's Box has already been opened on guns. So in your specific milieu, I would say 'yes', I would be comfortable with you carrying a concealed gun if you were competent, the gun was licensed, not fully automatic and it was secure and accessible to you alone.
My caution with turning that response into general policy would be that I already believe that you are not a lunatic or a criminal yourself.
Further, I would not want to approach you for street directions and have you panic and shoot me.
And obviously.. I am resolutely opposed to opening Pandora's Box here.
"one of the couple dozen kids who die from accidental gunfire each year"...
Your National Safety Council determined that accidental firearms deaths for people aged 19 or younger numbered 214 for the year 1999.
Quoting a site for the University of Michigan: "According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) , the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and 9 times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries".
I can shoot a glock at a rate faster than a M60 machine gun =] I'm not at all accurate when doing so, but I still can. Full auto is a waste of ammo anyway.
"Pandora's Box has already been opened on guns"
93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. Our own government "loses" thousands of guns each year, including fully automatic guns. To say outlawing guns would somehow remove guns from criminals' hands is incorrect, and you need look no further than Great Britain to see the evidence.
"I would not want to approach you for street directions and have you panic and shoot me."
You make me sound like a frightened bunny. Concealed carry license holders are almost never involved in gun crimes, at a rate of 0.001% (seriously). It is highly unlikely that I'd shoot anyone who wasn't brandishing a weapon at me or was part of a large gang who is about to stomp my head in. Same goes for others. Many concealed carry holders don't even draw their weapon when physically assaulted by one person. Why? Because we are sane individuals who would prefer not to kill someone.
"Your National Safety Council determined that accidental firearms deaths for people aged 19 or younger numbered 214 for the year 1999."
Key figure: 19 or younger. 19 and 18 year old adults are hardly kids. Not only that, but most child related deaths with firearms come from gang violence which is related to drugs and poverty, not the legality of gun ownership (gangs rarely carry licensed guns for obvious reasons.) Also, not how I was talking about how you said accidental deaths. Firearm deaths include murders, manslaughter, and often include suicide. So when I say a dozen or so children are accidentally killed by firearms each year, I mean a dozen or so.
Total accidental deaths by firearms are close to 1200 each year.
"he rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher"
Again, much of this is drug and gang related. Removing firearms from law abiding citizens does little to lessen this number. Ultimately, this because a utilitarian issue. Which results in the most net good? By removing guns, which outweighs the other: less suicides and less deaths by legal guns, or increased murders, rapes, assaults, and violent crime in general due to the inability of private citizens to defend themselves and the removed deterrence factor. Suicides and guns don't even have a relative link, as handgun ownership has sky rocketed in the past 30 years and suicides have gone down.
Gun education could remove so many gun deaths I see no reason why simple gun safety shouldn't be taught in schools. We teach children what to do when encountering drugs, sex, and strangers, but not guns. The NRA has a great program to teach children about what to do when encountering a firearm.
What? I intended no such thing, but I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm sure you're a very brave sport when you have a gun.
"Key figure: 19 or younger. 19 and 18 year old adults are hardly kids."
The same site says "preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns".
Isn't that interesting? I do hope you put your gun away very carefully, since you obviously think that this is all worth it.
lol
"Isn't that interesting? I do hope you put your gun away very carefully, since you obviously think that this is all worth it."
Again, why we should have more gun education. Also, what four states did the study use for each? Hawaii, Virgin Islands, etc?
Even so, the number of children killed by legal guns in accidents doesn't come close to the number of lives saved by legal guns.
Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives are saved by legal guns each year.