Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later[^][v]#397,640
Clearly we need to have a national conversation about common-sense gun control.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,644
If only the baby had been carrying an assault rifle in its diaper.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 17 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,645
@397,640 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Boy, are you some commie socialist Lenisit queer? This would not have happened if the dad and baby were packing heat. We need to just blame video games or something for this and slacken the gun laws. That'll solve everything.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,646
@397,640 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
This problem tends to be isolated to the big cities of Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,649
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q) @397,645 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If magazines were limited to 10 rounds, and barrel shrouds and forward pistol grips were banned, this tragedy could have been averted.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,651
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
If guns were federally banned, they'd go away forever, and no state could ever rebel. Just like Marijuana.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,664
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
No one is trying to ban all guns.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,672
@previous (C)
I think it's incrementally working towards that. Today it's 10 round magazines and "assault weapons" then when someone commits a mass shooting with a non-assault 10 round magazine gun, it will be banning semiautomatics (see: Dunblane Massacre) then when someone commits a tragedy with a double barrel shotgun, it will be restricting those, etc.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,676
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
But guns need restriction. Something that stops them from falling into the hands of crazies.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 38 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,677
@397,672 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Thats hard to say. Back in the day, the only guns were one shooters, that had to be packed manually. The founding fathers had no concept of automatic assault weapons, or army piercing bullets.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,678
@previous (C)
This. You couldn't shoot up a school with a musket that takes like 5 minutes to reload.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,684
Also the majority of gun deaths are accidental shootings, and most illegal weapons were stolen from their legal owners.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,686
@397,677 (C)
The AR-15 came out in 1958. If it didn't need to be banned then, why now? Also, armor piercing bullets have long been banned for civilian use and have not been used in any meaningful amount to commit crimes. @397,676 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
There's already laws on the books banning crazies from getting guns, and have been for many many years.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,690
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
How many gun deaths happened then versus now? Are there more, perhaps? Did citizens have access to them at that time?
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 43 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,691
@397,686 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Wait, how do you feel about armor piercing bullets? Shouldnt they be legal?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,692
@397,686 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
And clearly they've not been enough.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,694
@397,690 (C) > Did citizens have access to them at that time?
Yes. Back in 1958, you could actually mail order a gun from the Sears catalog. No background check, nothing. > How many gun deaths happened then versus now? Are there more, perhaps?
Well, according to the Bureau of Justice (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf) per-capita homicides peaked 22 years ago in 1991 and have been in decline since. They are now at levels last seen in the late 1960s.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,695
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
You could mail order assault rifles from a sears catalog? Also, this means that the rates increased up until the 90's correct?
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,696
@previous (C)
Yes. Reasons for why homicide peaked in 1991 are varied, but the assault weapons ban of 1994 probably didn't have much to do with it.
Sears catalogs did not, to my knowledge, sell AR-15s but it would have been perfectly legal to do so in 1958.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,697
@397,694 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
But there have been several horrible massacres recently involving people of questionable mental health and firearms. Surelt it's reasonable to put in laws to help prevent these people from aquiring firearms, yes?
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,701
@397,696 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Source for this? Also, why do you think that gun murders went down?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,708
@previous (C) > Source for this?
Source for the legality of selling guns via mail-order prior to 1968? The Gun Control Act of 1968 was the first legislation requiring a Federal Firearms License to purchase guns in interstate commerce (ie by mail order), along with many other restrictions. It was passed after the assassination of John F. Kennedy who was shot with a rifle mail-ordered from the an ad in the back of a magazine. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 > Also, why do you think that gun murders went down?
Most homicides in the US are committed with firearms, because that is the most effective way to kill people. Source (again from Department of Justice) for homicides by type of weapon: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27 also shows gun homicides peaking in the early 90s.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,709
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
No I'm asking you, why have gun murders decreased if it had nothing to do with legislation?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,710
The objective data from the US government would seem to indicate that homicides, including firearm homicides, are occurring at a lower rate than 20 years ago. I would think increased media coverage and awareness is behind a lot of the fear and urge to "control" (read: ban) guns. Like how everyone freaked out about terrorism after 9/11 even though more Americans died on the highways during 2001 than in the Twin Towers.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,713
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Could be true, though wouldnt there have been increased media coverage from the 60's on?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,715
@397,709 (C) > No I'm asking you, why have gun murders decreased if it had nothing to do with legislation?
Then I ask you, why did gun murders increase after the Gun Control Act of 1968? Gun control was far less strict in 1961 than it was in 1991, but 1991 had many more gun homicides.
As for the 1991 peak: you can take your pick. The choices include: a better economy during the 1990s, better education, abortion, and the banning of leaded gasoline (which caused a decrease in children's blood lead levels - elevated lead levels in children are linked to crime), among many others.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,718
@397,697 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx) > But there have been several horrible massacres recently involving people of questionable mental health and firearms. Surelt it's reasonable to put in laws to help prevent these people from aquiring firearms, yes?
It's very reasonable indeed, which is why we have such laws. Let's look at the Newtown shootings from December. Adam Lanza was batshit crazy. He tried to buy a gun, and was turned down because he didn't want to go through the background check process. Crisis averted! Except his mother was not crazy, and was a law-abiding gun owner. So Adam Lanza shot his mother with her own gun, then used her guns to shoot up the school. Laws against crazies having guns would not have prevented this. We know this, because such laws were already in force and failed to stop it.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw triple-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,719
@397,713 (C) > Could be true, though wouldnt there have been increased media coverage from the 60's on?
That's exactly my point. Improved media coverage leads to more hysteria, while homicide rates actually fall.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,721
@397,697 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
There are technically laws about it on the books, but a lot of American firearms regulations are ineffective simply because nobody does shit to enforce them.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,722
@previous (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
How do you tell who's crazy though?
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,723
@397,715 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Do you think that the media, might have contributed to gun violence? As it did increase until the 90's.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,726
@previous (C)
Movies involving shooting have been around before, during, and after the peak in firearm homicides so I don't think movies are to blame. Most of the really violent computer games were developed after the peak in firearms homicides, so I don't think they were to blame either. I don't think it was the media. It would have to be something in the culture, I think, but I don't know what.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,728
@397,722 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I strongly doubt I'm qualified to make such statements, but I'm sure that in regards to weapon rights, it's a matter of enforcement rather than legislation. @397,723 (C)
Even so, it's been decreasing steadily since then, and the media has gotten only worse.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#397,731
@previous (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
I think the media sensationalizes things to get ratings. No one is going to tune into the news to hear about people who didn't get shot today.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,758
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Do you think that the type of crime may be changing? I've looked at the mass gun shootings,and those are more prevalent.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,762
@previous (C)
I guess if mass shootings increased while individual shootings decreased, then the total homicide number wouldn't change much. How much more prevalent are mass shootings, though? We all know about the movie theater shootings in Colorado, and Newtown and Virginia tech but those all combined don't even make 200 fatalities (not to minimize their significance but they are a very tiny amount of total homicides).
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,763
Again, a lot of people obsess about guns and mass shootings, but you're more likely to die behind the wheel of your car than by a bullet. It's like people who are afraid to fly but happily drive daily. Humans are bad at calculating risk.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,764
@397,762 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Cant find the original site.
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,765
@397,763 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I know, but that doesnt mean that we cant work to stop these types of crimes. They make laws to try and prevent car accidents.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,766
@previous (C) > I know, but that doesnt mean that we cant work to stop these types of crimes.
How could these crimes be stopped? What laws, specifically, would stop them? > They make laws to try and prevent car accidents.
True but no law is going to stop a drunk from wandering onto the wrong side of the road. Laws only affect law abiding citizens.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,767
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Laws would stop weapons that make it too easy to kill humans. Citizens don't need assault rifles. We really need to revamp our gun culture, but that probably wont happen
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,768
@previous (C) > Laws would stop weapons that make it too easy to kill humans. Citizens don't need assault rifles. We really need to revamp our gun culture, but that probably wont happen
Again, "assault rifles" have existed in the US civilian market for at least 50 years. Even if gun magazines were capped at 10 rounds (pointless now with 3D-printed magazines), 10 round magazines didn't stop Eric Harris from killing plenty of kids at Columbine. > Interesting wiki about female school shooter. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann
Interesting. Again, she did not need "assault rifles" to carry out her small reign of terror.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,769
@397,767 (C) > Laws would stop weapons that make it too easy to kill humans. Citizens don't need assault rifles.
According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11) out of 8,583 firearm homicides, 323 were committed with rifles (all kinds). Even if every single one of those 323 were committed with an "assault rifle" it would still be less than 4% of total firearm homicides.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,772
@397,768 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
But she was crazy, and able to purchase a gun. As I'm looking through these, that keeps coming up.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,773
@previous (C)
Again, how can you tell in advance who is crazy? You'd either have to ban all guns, or institute some kind of crazy-until-proven-normal system.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 37 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,774
@397,769 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Why does that matter? I'm against weapons that make it too easy to kill people, because of our particular entitled, and violent society.
Shooter mentions waiting period:
n the February 22, 2013 PBS Need to Know show titled "After Newtown" (see Newtown_Mass_Murder) journalist Maria Hinojosa reported, "In fact, in an interview with Newsweek in 2007 after 32 people were killed in the Virginia Tech shootings ... Wayne Lo said: 'The fact that I was able to buy a rifle in 15 minutes, that's absurd. I was 18. I couldn't have rented a car to drive home from school, yet I could purchase a rifle. Obviously a waiting period would be great. Personally, I only had five days left of school before winter break ... If I had a two-week waiting period for the gun, I wouldn't have done it.'" [4]
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,776
@397,773 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Many times these people had previously been reported to authorities for suspected mental health issues.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 46 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,777
@397,774 (C)
Okay, what makes a weapon "too easy to kill people"?
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,781
Do you think that I should go through these and write down from each, the weapon type and things like hat?
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,782
@397,777 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Well, I'd say that a weapon that can sprays large amounts of bullets (each could kill one person) with only one trigger pull, and no reloading, is overkill. Citizens dont need weapons like that.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,783
The identity of the shooter was originally protected at the time of his arrest,[4] but was soon revealed to be 17-year-old Gary Scott Pennington. He had lived with his family in Elliott County, Kentucky his entire childhood, before moving to Carter County in August 1992. It was reported that Pennington had expressed frustration with moving to Carter County.[3] His family was living in poverty in the years and months prior to the shooting, as the family could not afford plumbing and lacked sufficient electricity. His father, Gary Pennington, was an unemployed former laborer and coal miner who received monthly disability pensions, due to a coal mining accident.[2] His mother Esta was an unemployed homemaker.
Pennington had excelled academically since elementary school, participating in the academic team since the fifth grade and winning the Eastern Kentucky regional science competition in the seventh grade. He attended Elliott County High School for grades nine to eleven, and taught himself calculus during his freshman year. After moving to Carter County, he joined the academic team at East Carter High School.[2] He also developed a grudge against his English teacher Mrs. McDavid after she gave him a "C" as his midterm grade.[3] The midterm grade was for an essay Pennington had written about the Stephen King novel Rage; the content of the essay concerned McDavid, given that some of his other writing likewise focused on "violence, death, and dying". McDavid even apparently brought her concerns before her colleagues.[2]
Afterward, he said he did not dislike Mrs. McDavid, but that his intention was to kill any two people in order to become eligible for the death penalty.[5]
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,784
@397,782 (C) > Well, I'd say that a weapon that can sprays large amounts of bullets (each could kill one person) with only one trigger pull, and no reloading, is overkill. Citizens dont need weapons like that.
Weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull are machine guns and have been banned since 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban). @397,781 (C) > Do you think that I should go through these and write down from each, the weapon type and things like hat?
Just a general description of what you think is too easy to kill people with.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,787
I mean, don't be like Carolyn McCarthy, Congresswoman from New York and advocate banning barrel shrouds without actually knowing what they are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
(They are a feature which makes a hot gun barrel safer to grab; they don't affect the lethality of the weapon at all).
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,791
No I mean to that we can say what type of guns that they used. 38's are coming up a lot.
Good. They were banned for a reason, and that reason was that it made easy for civilians to kill people.
It would be a weapon capital of killing multiple people, long range, with very little physical exertion needed.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 13 years ago, 30 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,793
@397,787 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Do you think that armor piercing bullets, and hollow points should be legal?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,795
@previous (C)
Yes. Against soft targets (anyone not wearing a kevlar vest) armor piercing bullets are actually less effective because they are less dense, being made with a steel core rather than lead, (so they have less momentum) and they don't expand (so they transfer less energy to the target). Armor piercing bullets would have been pointless for any of the mass killers in recent history. As for hollow points, again yes. Hunting with a non-hollowpoint bullet would be inhumane, sine the animal would bleed out slowly rather than die quickly. And for self defense, hollow points are better at stopping attackers.
You still haven't answered though, what exactly makes a gun too easy to kill people with??
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,796
Also, gun control advocates like Mike Bloomberg (mayor of NYC) and president Obama protect themselves and their families with automatic weapons. Are the common people less worthy of self defense?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#397,815
@397,677 (C)
They had no concept of the internet, and they didn't know about the westboro baptist church, which makes the first amendment irrelevant.