pingpong2;842584629 said:

---

Ban knives. Nobody needs a pointy knife.

---

I prefer a putty knife and spackle them to death.....small or large bore knives will work.

Have mass stabbers been transitioning to ceramic knives?

You guys laugh, but...

http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/22/save-a-life-surrender-your-knife/

burritos;842584627 said:

---

Nothing. But you need baby steps when the ultimate goal is to abolish the 2nd amendment.

---

I wish more people were that refreshingly honest.

An unstated premise in these discussions is that abolishing the 2nd Amend. would decrease violence. But is that true?

Again, gun homicide rates in the U.S. have gone down 49% at the same time the number of guns owned have almost doubled (1993-today). The FBI reports (see link & chart above) that in 2013 there were 160,000+ fewer violent crime offenses than in 2009. Carefully collected long-term crime statistics do not support the unstated assumed premise; in fact, they strongly argue against it.

Look at how many countries with much more restrictive firearms regulation fare when it comes to violent crime.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;842584660 said:

---

I wish more people were that refreshingly honest.

An unstated premise in these discussions is that abolishing the 2nd Amend. would decrease violence. But is that true?

Again, gun homicide rates in the U.S. have gone down 49% at the same time the number of guns owned have almost doubled (1993-today). The FBI reports (see link & chart above) that in 2013 there were 160,000+ fewer violent crime offenses than in 2009. Carefully collected long-term crime statistics do not support the unstated assumed premise; in fact, they strongly argue against it.

Look at how many countries with much more restrictive firearms regulation fare when it comes to violent crime.

---

We have a better economy than UK?

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;842584660 said:

---

I wish more people were that refreshingly honest.

An unstated premise in these discussions is that abolishing the 2nd Amend. would decrease violence. But is that true?

Again, gun homicide rates in the U.S. have gone down 49% at the same time the number of guns owned have almost doubled (1993-today). The FBI reports (see link & chart above) that in 2013 there were 160,000+ fewer violent crime offenses than in 2009. Carefully collected long-term crime statistics do not support the unstated assumed premise; in fact, they strongly argue against it.

Look at how many countries with much more restrictive firearms regulation fare when it comes to violent crime.

---

Something bad happened quick better get overly sensitive and call any mention of guns anti second amendment. You are reacting like an abused dog lashing out at even the most benign perceived threat to your personal bubble. Chill out no ones taking your guns away. Enjoy your obsession with boom sticks while the rest of us think of the victims of this incident and be glad the attacker didn't have a way of doing more harm.

cccbear04;842584663 said:

---

Something bad happened quick better get overly sensitive and call any mention of guns anti second amendment. You are reacting like an abused dog lashing out at even the most benign perceived threat to your personal bubble. Chill out no ones taking your guns away. Enjoy your obsession with boom sticks while the rest of us think of the victims of this incident and be glad the attacker didn't have a way of doing more harm.

---

You're projecting your oversensitivity as shown by your inability to discuss this issue without the name-calling. Chill yourself out.

Violent crime rates are one thing. The outcome of those violent crimes is another. What is the rate at which those violent crimes end in fatalities?

Canada has few restrictions on long guns, more restrictions on assault rifles, and pretty much a blanket ban on handguns. What they also have is a helluva lot lower per capita death rate from violent crimes.

I'm at the point where, as a longtime owner of both long guns and handguns, I'd support a blanket ban on handguns. You want home defense? Get a shotgun. They work great. Like to hunt? Have all the rifles you want, from varmint plinkers to big game cannons. Want to walk around in public with a handgun? Earn a badge.

An armed society is not a polite society. It is an escalatory society where people shoot other people for stupid reasons.

I understand the logistical problems associated with removing maybe a hundred million handguns from general circulation. It's not a short-term fix, nor an easy one, but it's a long-term solution to a problem that, among rich industrial countries, only we have.

burritos;842584661 said:

---

We have a better economy than UK?

---

We're more religious?

burritos;842584671 said:

---

We're more religious?

---

We care less about soccer?

GivemTheAxe;842584507 said:

---

"Five stabbed" is not as bad as "25 shot."

---

This was not an attempt, at least by me, at an agenda about guns, knives, bombs or other methods of choice. I understand someone saying that gun free zones may be at issue, but does that mean more events on campuses? I'm really at a loss to explain what seems like a huge uptick on campuses. I'm not sure weapons explains any of this.

BearsWiin;842584668 said:

---

I'm at the point where, as a longtime owner of both long guns and handguns, I'd support a blanket ban on handguns. You want home defense? Get a shotgun. They work great. Like to hunt? Have all the rifles you want, from varmint plinkers to big game cannons. Want to walk around in public with a handgun? Earn a badge.

---

Not sure gun control advocates would be happy with people still owning shotguns and rifles because after all they look scarier than handguns.

It is instructive to look at homicide rates in Britain after their handgun ban in Jan. 1997.



Britain's homicide rate climbed dramatically in the ~7 years following the ban. It took about 13 years for the homicide rate to climb back down to the rate it was before the ban.

BearsWiin;842584668 said:

---

An armed society is not a polite society. It is an escalatory society where people shoot other people for stupid reasons.

I understand the logistical problems associated with removing maybe a hundred million handguns from general circulation. It's not a short-term fix, nor an easy one, but it's a long-term solution to a problem that, among rich industrial countries, only we have.

---

Sorry, but self-defense and defense of loved ones from violent criminals are not "stupid reasons."

People point out how impractical it would be to round-up and deport 40 million plus illegal immigrants. Imagine having to round-up 350+ million firearms which are much more easily concealable. Australia's compulsory confiscation of their less than 1 million firearms was successful in rounding up only about one-quarter of the total. Also, you greatly underestimate the logistical obstacles--see video below:

[video=youtube;bnoFKskvSq4][/video]

well that makes sense at least. Not sure if the data bears that out on campus killings, but its a good working theory.

I'm not interested in the UK. Canada is a much better comparison to the US.

In case you missed it, I wasn't advocating for a gun-free America. Just a handgun-free America. No need to repeal the 2nd Amendment for that. Long guns and shotguns are fine; people can still defend themselves with them from their largely imaginary meth-addled goblins and tyrannical government, but they are much less likely to escalate low-level conflicts with them.

If you don't see that people end up escalating small issues and shooting each other over stupid stuff that otherwise would likely leave everyone alive, then I can't help you. If you can't see that momentarily angry or despondent people use guns, and especially handguns, in stupidly lethal ways, then I can't help you. If you can't see that kids are killed all the time when parents' guns, and especially handguns are improperly stored, then I can't help you. If you don't believe the reams of stats that show that you're many times more likely to die from a shooting if you own a gun, and especially a handgun, than if you don't, then I can't help you.

I've owned ten guns for over 20 years. At one time I considered joining the NRA. I know your arguments backwards and forwards, and every time I've had occasion to revisit them I've found no reason to do anything but reject them categorically.

burritos;842584671 said:

---

We're more religious?

---

Countries like Brazil and Mexico are more religious than the U.S. Yet their gun homicide rate is 3 to 4.5 times that of the U.S. And their firearm regulations are also stricter.

Is it a complete impossibility that the correlation between the 49% decrease in violent crime and almost doubling of owned guns between 1993 to today is an actual, not imagined, correlation? More good guys like you and me owning a firearm for defensive purposes might make would-be criminals hesitate rather than unthinkingly act according to their impulses.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;842584697 said:

---

Countries like Brazil and Mexico are more religious than the U.S. Yet their gun homicide rate is 3 to 4.5 times that of the U.S. And their firearm regulations are also stricter.

Is it a complete impossibility that the correlation between the 49% decrease in violent crime and almost doubling of owned guns between 1993 to today is an actual, not imagined, correlation? More good guys like you and me owning a firearm for defensive purposes might make would-be criminals hesitate rather than unthinkingly act according to their impulses.

---

Fewer people are owning more guns. The odds have actually gotten better for those would-be criminals.

BearsWiin;842584696 said:

---

I'm not interested in the UK.

---

That's not how evidence works. You can't simply ignore data that weakens your conclusions. UK and Australia are good points of comparison (the President has done so himself recently) because there is data now regarding developments since their bans and confiscations.

BearsWiin;842584696 said:

---

In case you missed it, I wasn't advocating for a gun-free America. Just a handgun-free America. No need to repeal the 2nd Amendment for that. Long guns and shotguns are fine; people can still defend themselves with them from their largely imaginary meth-addled goblins and tyrannical government, but they are much less likely to escalate low-level conflicts with them.

---

Aside from the practical intractabilities of confiscating hundreds of millions of handguns, outlawing all handguns is considered by the Supreme Court as violating the 2nd Amendment. So, we'd have to abolish it first.

BearsWiin;842584696 said:

---

If you don't see that people end up escalating small issues and shooting each other over stupid stuff that otherwise would likely leave everyone alive, then I can't help you. If you can't see that momentarily angry or despondent people use guns, and especially handguns, in stupidly lethal ways, then I can't help you. If you can't see that kids are killed all the time when parents' guns, and especially handguns are improperly stored, then I can't help you. If you don't believe the reams of stats that show that you're many times more likely to die from a shooting if you own a gun, and especially a handgun, than if you don't, then I can't help you.

---

Before giving up on attempting to help me (don't give up on me!), let us examine some facts. Why has the gun homicide rate decreased 49% since 1993 when at the same time the numbers of guns have almost doubled? That doesn't show a pattern of escalation due to gun ownership; perhaps the opposite? The oft-cited stat that 3000 kids are killed every year due to negligent use of guns is bogus because that includes minor-age gang members who die while intentionally committing crimes. The actual number every year is somewhere between 35 and 70. Negligent or reckless parents should be tried and convicted for their negligence or reckless disregard for their children's safety. Gun ownership carries risks and responsibilities (I am 100% for educational and licensing requirements and background checks) just like many other activities.

According to the FBI, ~480 people were killed in the U.S. from 2000-2013 in "active shooter" incidents (defined as scenarios in which an individual or individuals kill or attempt to kill people in a populated area with firearms). That is an average of 37 deaths per year.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death"][U]U.S. Deaths/year attributed to[/U][/URL]:
Smoking tobacco 435,000
Alcohol 85,000
Traffic collisions 43,000
Active shooter incidents aka Mass shootings 37

Why the grossly disproportionate outrage? Those other causes of death outnumber deaths from mass shootings by a factor greater than 1,000x to 10,000x. Why aren't politicians and cable news talking heads clamoring day and night for the outlawing, confiscation, and destruction of all tobacco, alcohol, and motor vehicles?

BearsWiin;842584700 said:

---

Fewer people are owning more guns. The odds have actually gotten better for those would-be criminals.

---

Now, you are making stuff up. Fewer people own guns today than in 1993? Ridiculous.

Nasal: You note statistics on reduction of gun homicides that includes gang deaths but when presented with mass shootIng statistics that include gang deaths you brush them off as biased stats that are meaningless. Sounds like a double standard to me.

tommie317;842584714 said:

---

Nasal: You note statistics on reduction of gun homicides that includes gang deaths but when presented with mass shootIng statistics that include gang deaths you brush them off as biased stats that are meaningless. Sounds like a double standard to me.

---

Those remarks were in regard to deaths of children. When people cite deaths of "children" due to specifically "negligent" gun misuse, they are painting a picture of thousands of deaths of children due to gun ownership by their parents. Almost all those cited deaths however (usually cited as "3000 children") are of minor gang-members intentionally committing crimes, which are very different from the 35 to 70 deaths resulting from negligent storage of firearms.

Edit: If you are referring to the Shooting Index, almost all gang shootings are not Mass Shootings as we all see it, the intentional shooting of multiple, innocent people in public places. Gang shootings tend to be aimed at rival gangs or drug dealers or police officers. Innocents killed are usually from occasional stray bullets. To the extent of the relatively few gang-related incidents which do meet the definition, they should be included. I don't remember in the last several years a nationally-publicized news item of a gang-related Mass Shooting. The problem is the Shooting Index does not make these distinctions because it only seeks to inflate the numbers for political purposes.

tommie317;842584714 said:

---

Nasal: You note statistics on reduction of gun homicides that includes gang deaths but when presented with mass shootIng statistics that include gang deaths you brush them off as biased stats that are meaningless. Sounds like a double standard to me.

---

He's all over the place. Not worth it. Not here, at least. Aplologies, people.

BearsWiin;842584722 said:

---

He's all over the place. Not worth it. Not here, at least. Aplologies, people.

---

Your curious sense of superiority would make sense if you actually brought substantive facts to the discussion and tried to substantively answer the points I raised. My apologies for "not being worth" your hidden facts.

You're more likely to get roughed up in the UK than in the US, but much more likely to get killed in the US.

Cal88;842584732 said:

---

You're more likely to get roughed up in the UK than in the US, but much more likely to get killed in the US.

---

The gun homicide rate in the U.K. almost doubled in the ~7 years following its gun ban. It took them ~13 years to get the rate down to where it had been before the ban. To claim their gun ban (which is what U.S. politicians have been proposing recently when they cite the U.K. and Australia as examples we should follow in this context) has equaled less murders is a tall order given the statistics.

True story. About six months ago every house but two were hit on our small street one night-shockingly given small community, excellent police force , etc. They stayed outside hit patios, open garages, workshops, took the ornate metal gates off one guys place. The two house not hit? Next door neighbor who is known avid hunter and me -known gun owner and will track you to the end of the earth kind of guy. All the stats I need.

I'd be interested in knowing how many on this board have been trained in the use of firearms, and maintain proficiency, much like lawyers take CEB courses.

1979bear;842584792 said:

---

I'd be interested in knowing how many on this board have been trained in the use of firearms, and maintain proficiency, much like lawyers take CEB courses.

---

We are going to use regulation of lawyers as some sort of standard? This thread has gone over the deep end.

wifeisafurd;842584682 said:

---

This was not an attempt, at least by me, at an agenda about guns, knives, bombs or other methods of choice. I understand someone saying that gun free zones may be at issue, but does that mean more events on campuses? I'm really at a loss to explain what seems like a huge uptick on campuses. I'm not sure weapons explains any of this.

---

Fwiw, Galdwell had a piece in the New Yorker about this. A number of psychologist think this a result of young whites being encouraged and empowered by their peers who did this before, e.g, Columbine, etc. It's called the threshold theory- there is a threshold to committing an act you know is wrong but people have different thresholds to overcome. The first guy to start a riot has a lower threshold while people who follow have a higher threshold but are empowered by the first. Likewise a lot of these kids have in common that they regard the Columbine killers with awe and want to emulate them.

I pass this on with no opinion

If gun ownership was not illegally restricted in this state, an armed student body would have easily subdued this troubled perp.

Bobodeluxe;842584814 said:

---

If gun ownership was not illegally restricted in this state, an armed student body would have easily subdued this troubled perp.

---

Knives are not illegal. Why don't everyone carry knives?

1979bear;842584792 said:

---

I'd be interested in knowing how many on this board have been trained in the use of firearms, and maintain proficiency, much like lawyers take CEB courses.

---

I was taught to shoot ages 10-16 by my step father - strictly with a handgun on shooting ranges. Target shooting.

He was a marksman with multiple firearms. He ultimately gave me the gun I learned to shoot with - 1965 Browning 22 Luger manufactured in Belgium and it is in mint condition. One of my prized possessions- been offered $1200 for it last time I took it to gun shop for check up. Shot it rarely for years - usually shooting snakes or in one case a dog which had been crushed by car and needed to be put down. Also own a .410 which I have determined is the best weapon for my wife to have when I am out of town. I think the last time I fired it was when I taught her to shoot it. Try to have her fire it once every 2-3 years just so she can remember what to do. Note all weapons were removed from house and stored in uncle's gun safe from the time the oldest was born until the youngest went off to college. Went dove hunting once on my 18th birthday- you were not allowed to use rifles or shotguns in my family till you were 18. Shot 6-7 doves, did not like it - have never hunted since. ( Fishing is a different story)

Last year with all of the craziness going on and also out of curiosity, I purchased a Glock 19, 3d generation. paid an instructor for 2-3 sessions to teach me everything from disassembling gun, reassembling, firing techniques etc. When work permits, go to range Monday and Wednesday nights ( less crowded). Sixty round regimen with last ten being rapid fire at 25 yards. I would certainly say I am above average but there are two guys up there I will never surpass and two more I might surpass with a lot of work. The weapon is a killing machine - 9ml, can empty a clip in seconds with great accuracy - very little kick. Hope I never have to use it for that purpose. When you have a good night at the range, I will post the riddled targets on the fence at the back drive for a few days. Juvenile, but I think it sends a message.

1979bear;842584792 said:

---

I'd be interested in knowing how many on this board have been trained in the use of firearms, and maintain proficiency, much like lawyers take CEB courses.

---

Had training because my neighborhood group target shoots together for fun. Despite shooting, I don't own an operating gun (have a WW2 relic from wife's dad). The entire group uses instructors who spend a lot of time on safety. My impression is most people who actually use their guns (as opposed to say collectors), think training is essential.

That was not my experience. I was in law enforcement for 33 years and in only one non-police incident did I see a gun used in proper self-defense. Only got shot a burglar in his home to protect himself. ONE!

When we see civilians of any age packing heaters, both my wife and I stay as far away from them as we can get. This includes leaving leaving events. We do see this more in other states. There is no way to tell if those packing are stable or not, or whether they will just start blasting away if they even suspect something. The message a heater sends is "don't even think about getting near me, I suspect you of criminal intent just by looking at you". Just the kind of people you want to say hello to. Is every daily encounter to be a test of macho toughness backed by heat? Is this the best we can do as a society? I don't see a pragmatic argument here either. Remember also that at both the Gabriel Giffords shooting in Arizona and at the recent junior college shooting in Oregon, civilians were present who packed heaters. In both cases the civilians did not pull them for fear of being identified as the primary assailant by police. I realize my reaction will place me at odds with a lot of you, but really, just how friendly is a society where every individual packs a heater? Want to pack a heater? We don't need to know you. And by the way, I was a national target shooting champion at the age of 14.

tommie317;842584822 said:

---

Knives are not illegal. Why don't everyone carry knives?

---

Some of us have short arms. Nothing beets a nice concealed handgun to keep the flag of freedom flying.

:patriot