Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Except that every one of them everywhere on earth does not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641…
The states that require a safety certification tend to treat it more like a fee...pay the dollars, physically be in class (maybe), and you "pass."
Nonsense.
…people who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered.
Guns in the home were associated with a 8-fold increase in risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance, but the study found no significant increase in the risk of being murdered by a stranger or intruder.
The study concludes that “Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” In light of this “people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.”
http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/vie…
@6, I also support training. Even cops aren't especially well-trained. Really.
And police in the UK don't carry guns? Really? Do tell. Yes, they don't carry them as much as cops elsewhere do, but there's been a sharp uptick lately. It seems that even they have had to accept reality.
I wasn't clear that I wasn't referring to women who are worried about stalkers and the like; I meant what would all the male gunowners think about arming their wives and girlfriends against themselves. Do you, for example, encourage your partner to be ready to kill you in the event that you threaten her?
Anyway, read the link I provided @4, which refutes your claim about police all being armed or all feeling that they should be armed. In several countries, including Britain (except Northern Ireland), the Republic of Ireland, Norway, and New Zealand, cops are not routinely equipped with firearms. And if you read the linked article, you'll see that even the chief of two murdered officers this year does not believe arming cops is a good solution. And there's this:
A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.
Universally, you keep using that word...
Several more studies back up Kellerman's basic premise that a gun in a home is far more likely to be used on an occupant or acquaintance of the gun owner than on any "Protection."
But you can keep believing otherwise.
What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5…
Fucking misandrist.
" Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann's study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.
For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann's approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.
What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted. "
http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/…
Those questions are great in the event of actual domestic violence, but give too much power to a bitter and possibly crazy spouse.
Yawn...
If this was simply a terrible argument and he grabbed the gun in the heat of the moment, well, then he has a point. But I haven't seen any reports, and in general I don't trust the early reports in the media. People all across the country still believe the Columbine killers were bullied outcasts because of news outlets seeking that scoop.
Hmmm, "Investigators say he legally purchased two assault rifles and 400 rounds of ammunition." Some assault rifles are indeed burst fire, but very few. Most are fully automatic or can be outfitted for both. Can I assume you pulled the 'he passed a background check' out of your ass too? There are, as yet, no reports of if he bought the guns from a dealer (background check, maybe) or from a private party (No Check.) As Missouri and Federal law says only those currently adjudicated mentally incompetent can be barred from legal purchase I stand by my original assessment.
A mentally ill person with a history of involuntary hospitalization was able to legally purchase automatic weapons and a large amount of ammunition.
I call bullshit. There's a huge difference in having and using a gun and beating someone to death with a blunt object or strangulation. And one certainly can't drive to one's place of employment, tie a noose or bash your own brains in in front of witnesses without being stopped.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national…
Oh GAWD, who gives a shit any more?! An asshole killed an innocent woman and himself. Tragic, yes, but for the love of all that's holy, Goldy, if you're not going to get up in arms over the guy who murdered TWO people in Wyoming before killing himself, why the FUCK are you that upset over this one?
Answer: Because you're a phobic bullshitter. Because you have the same irrational fear of guns that the troll has over one guy sticking his dick in another guy's asshole. You don't give 2 shits for this dead woman, any more than you do for dead people in WY. You have no interest in a rational discussion of gun safety. Instead, you troll for hits. And the saddest part is, we keep giving them to you.
Stop pretending this is about gun safety for you, Goldy, because it just plain isn't. People dead from drugs or car accidents or getting stabbed or shot are all the same to you, just like they are to everyone else. You're just scared of guns in a way that shoots waaaaaaaaaay over rational and right into Crazyland.
I could almost respect your opinion on it if you could only admit it. But you won't. Unless you have some legitimate reason you'd like to explain as to why you're still ranting about gun control when you had nothing to say about the 3 people getting stabbed to death in a college town\on campus?
Sources:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl…
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/3346…
(warning: auto-play video with audio)
However, if you're going to claim I "never" hear about such things, you'd be wrong.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/m…
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/hac…
I hear about people being beaten to death less than someone shooting or stabbing someone else, true, but not "never". And certainly they make killing easier. It's why an old woman/man with a gun is equal to a young fighter/thug in potential force. This is a debate where neither side tends to budge, but I quoted the guncite page as a counterbalance to the brady page, not as my own argument. My argument would likely be more along the lines that a high prevalence of abuse does not itself limit a right. We shouldn't curtail the right to free speech because x to 1 times it's used to criticize or put down another. We shouldn't eradicate search and seizure protections because y to 1 times it serves to allow a criminal to go free/not get caught. Of course, then I go down that line and Goldy or someone else will come in here talking about how I'm being defeatist and saying that we'll just have to accept z number of murders a year. At the same time, we'll get news stories about how the murder rate has plummeted while the gun ownership rate has risen over the past 20-30 years. It's a nonstop cycle of left-wing/right-wing circle jerking.
@35: they weren't automatic weapons. You can argue people shouldn't have access to weapons, but try to do so truthfully and accurately, eh?
"Have you [...] been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution?"
If this box is checked, at very least a hold will be placed on the sale, and in all likelihood it will be denied.
I suspect (but have no evidence one way or the other) that he checked "no," and the background check didn't pick up his history, due to the state's mental health facilities not updating the NICS database.
I'm not actually afraid of guns - I'm afraid of idiots with guns. Idiots who are immature, irrational and stupid and have a ready way to act that out with a gun.
I have always said that I'm fine with people own guns with two caveats.
They MUST take a licensing test just like getting a license to drive. (And get it updated just like a drivers license.)
Two, they MUST be held accountable for anything that happens with their gun (unless it was stolen from their possession). Want a gun? You are accountable for what happens with it especially with anyone under 18.
How hard is all that? It's asking you to be a responsible person with a deadly weapon.
If that cop who got off with leaving his gun in the car with his children (and one of them killing the other) had had another person's child in the car who was killed, he would be going to jail now. Responsible means you are responsible for ANYTHING that happens.
Whether it's a heavy fine, jail time, public service - they all need to be held responsible and time and again, are not.
There also needs to be a wait period for a thorough background check before anyone gets a gun.
I have no objection to requiring people to take a safety course before allowing them to own guns. I live in MA; that's already the law. I also have no problem with myself or anyone else being held responsible for what they or others do with the guns they own. With the caveat that we do the same thing with cars, knives, and every other dangerous they own too. And no, suspended sentences for drunk driving don't fucking count. I also have no problem with background checks before allowing someone to buy a gun. I have no problem with there being a national database of registered gun owners and the guns they own, and a national database of criminals and what they've been convicted of, so long as that search is immediate. I'm not willing to accept a waiting period before buying a gun; if I can, finances permitting, go buy or rent a car and not have to wait 5 days before crashing it into a schoolyard, there's no legitimate reason to force me to wait to pick up the new gun I want to take target shooting. Your comfort and perceived safety are not justifiable reasons.
You've linked to a different case. The more recent incident is in Missouri and there are, as yet, no details except investigators confirming that the suspect bought, "two assault rifles" legally.
The federal ban on such weapons that required federal paperwork expired on 2004.
I'll just be doing a little work while you google Blaec Lammers and try to catch up.
Absolutely incorrect. Firearms covered under the National Firearms Act (automatic weapons, short-barreled weapons, and silencers/silenced weapons, among others) still require a federal tax stamp, which requires paperwork with a six to eight month wait.
"We can all puff up our chests and harrumph harrumph, Goldy will get page hits and his ego boosted, and at the end of the day nothing will change."
Exactly.
And Goldy still does not know the definition of "suicide".
I'm still waiting for someone to post what SPECIFIC legal changes would have to be made to prevent this SPECIFIC instance from happening.
Instead, all we get is Goldy replying to some comment that some guy made in the past.
That is all we ever get.
That behavior is also the reason why the gun control people keep losing these debates.
Unfortunately, that paranoia can turn a fairly ordinary person into some one who ends up shooting some teenagers in a 7-11 parking lot because their music is too loud.
Of course, "gun nut" is a highly subjective term, I think. Reasonable people who enjoy hunting or target shooting are often lumped together with the "Obama is going to TAKE OUR GUNS," doomsday prepper crowd.
In order to defend yourself with deadly force such as a shotgun blast (even with a rock salt load), you need to have a credible risk to your well-being. If you use a half-measure such as rock salt, your actions show that deadly force was not necessary, but you used it anyway. Similarly, firing warning shots is also a bad idea in a self-defense situation.
"Gun nuts love killings like this."
If you're going to try to troll then you have to do a bit better than that.
My fear would not be ameliorated by more people having them. Nor would I be less fearful if I had them.
I'm also afraid of bears. I try not to go where the bears are (and I do the same thing with guns.)
@72 - Guns absolutely do make a difference in DV cases - the presence of guns in the household increases the likelihood of being murdered by your partner by more than 5x. http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/us…
Check my avatar, though I recently upgraded the rifle to BCM midlenght gas system with a light weight barrel profile. Handles SOOO much better than the M4, and easier to carry in the woods.
The irony about this case is maybe the girl would have been able protect herself from the rampaging steroid infused professional gladiator who murdered her.
@73
Being afraid of guns is a reasonable fear, they are fucking dangerous and need to be treated with utmost respect and safety considerations. Just like any power tool
@70
IIRC 18.25 inches in the legal minimum, 18 is federal prison time.
For more info.:
http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/…
I stand corrected. Unfortunately SBS's and SBR's are illegal in WA State despite having the federal tax stamp. Though you can go the route of the Serbu Super Shorty due to it's classification as an AOW. Though a 4lb pistol grip 12ga makes me want to say "Ouch."
Though I am going to disagree on the rock salt thing, sounds like a great way to be sued, a firearm is deadly force regardless of loading. I use to think the same thing and used #6 shot for the first round in the tube. These days the shotgun never leaves the safe and the AR does HD duty due to greater maneuverability, ease of operation under stress, ammunition capacity and it 55gn loads have less barrier penetration than 00 buck or 9mm making it less likely to send a stray round into a neighbors house.
WA State law is quite firmly on the side of a homeowner in the event of invasion. I haven't had to use a gun to protect myself, thank God, but if I ever do, the first round will be rock salt and the second round will be buckshot. I'll take my chances in court.
these nations are france, germany, sweden, england, japa, canada, etc. etc. etc.
it's just like trains: they work. national health insurance or regulations close enough to it: this works. sewers: they work. providing mass education to boost your economy: it works.
gun controls: they work. because having EZ access to guns isn't making us safer. You don't find tourists from paris coming here walking all over the south bronx at night saying omg it's soooo safe here, we can walk around! but you will find tourists from the south bronx who go to paris and say omg it's so safe here, they don't have all these guns all over!
thus, the reason we have all these deaths (the effective cause, not the moral one) is all the gun totin' gun lovin' gun ownin' GUN NUTS who block gun control. They're the people who are blocking the legislative and policy changes, and the cultural changes, that would be needd to lower our rates of death by gunfire.
Funny because France, Japan, Sweden all have higher suicide rates than the US with Canada following closely behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…
As for kids dying by gun in big cities sounds like a gang problem rather than a gun problem. I went to high school where they still had trucks with rifle racks, no one ever got shot, though more than a few died in auto accidents, and one had a tree fall on him.
Also Paris and other big European cities are hardly "safe" when you step outside the tourist track. Funny that you mention The Bronx, NYC has some of the strictest gun control int he nation, which tends to make sure that only the criminals are armed.
I have a feeling you have never been there as you describe the sewer system as "working" Paris and other big European cities with old systems smell like septic tanks in the summer months.