Here's where the semanitcs and spin come in !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Win
I agree with you that it is highly likely that Lanza's first crime was stealing those weapons from his mother.

DBMaaster is suggesting otherwise.


I think DBM is implying that Adam didn't have to write down the plate number of cars at a gun range then wait to see them at a popular intersection in order to follow them home, so he can watch for them to leave for work with the intentions of breaking into their home and steal their gun.

Adam had to go upstairs.
 
Originally Posted By: Gabe
That was a really good article.

It is nice to be able to read something without a major spin either way. Articles like that help the general population of voters to make an informed decision about how to tackle the violent crime problem that is plaguing the US right now.


I disagree. The major spin starts right here:

"Guns, on the other hand, are designed specifically, primarily and exclusively for one purpose — to kill things. They have no other purpose, ...."

By this metric, all of mine are defective. Unless you count the Armadillo I put down about thirty years ago after somebody clipped it with a car.
 
Originally Posted By: Gabe
....
Adam had to go upstairs.


I understand this is what you want to believe; that nothing more was required to get those guns that he used to commit a heinous crime. And it may in fact, be fact, I don't know. If there has been any fact based discussion of the means his mother used to secure, or not secure, her firearms, I've missed it.

It would certainly be relevant to the discussion to know if this is fact, or not.

What evidence is there, one way or the other?
 
Win is correct. I am just speculating. And, I also do not think further gun control will do squat at this point. While we're at it let's look at how successful other "bans" have been - pot, cocaine, cigarettes and alcohol sold to minors, cheating on taxes, fraud, identity theft, robocalls (ever hear of "cardmember services?), etc.

As far as my speculation about legally obtained guns being used for murder goes only time will tell. No one has to argue with me because this is just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions.
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I am more concerned about the stellar rise in gun sales after recent incidents. It means that there will be many more guns out there to injure the stupid and be used by the crazies. Somehow, I doubt that all this panic buying is being done by responsible, experienced gun owners. Since an unloaded gun locked in a cabinet or safe is useless in the event of an emergency many of them will be kept near at hand and loaded. You see where I am going with this?

I am neither supporting nor disparaging gun ownership, just making a statement. A number of new guns out there will eventually supply many more Adam Lanzas. (He used his mother's legal guns.)


Well said. Too many dont get this and just knee jerk back against the knee jerk from the anti-gun idiots.

And for standing up to the government? This is no longer bayonets and muskets and a few cannons that weren't convenient to transport. Sure, the Afghans give everyone a run for their money with simple arms and horses, but at the end of the day the imbalance of power here is so extreme that the argument is IMO silly anymore. We ceded that at minimum with the growth of the military-industrial complex from the 50's on. Not that I advocate an uprising in any way, anyway. .
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Yamamoto, the famous Japanese Admiral in WWII, who spent some time in the US, is quoted as saying he feared invading the West Coast because "There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass", a class of citizen far removed from the FIVE MILLION Stalin killed just prior to WWII because they were "politically inconvenient".


There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Yamamoto actually said this, although he did study in the United States and was familiar with the culture.
Hard to prove a negative, isn't it.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Yamamoto, the famous Japanese Admiral in WWII, who spent some time in the US, is quoted as saying he feared invading the West Coast because "There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass", a class of citizen far removed from the FIVE MILLION Stalin killed just prior to WWII because they were "politically inconvenient".


There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Yamamoto actually said this, although he did study in the United States and was familiar with the culture.
Hard to prove a negative, isn't it.



Indeed.

Let's assume he did say it. I bet he wouldn't say that today.
 
The Japanese invading the U.S. mainland in WWII would have been as smart as the Germans invading the Russian mainland. How did that work out for them? It has nothing to do with individual citizens' gun ownership, IMO.
 
The VT massacre was done with a few pistols if I am not mistaken. Not sure I buy that most mass shootings are done with a rifle. Though I might be mistaken, need to look at the FBI data again.
 
Does it really matter what kind of gun? George Hennard killed 23 (shot 50 in total) in a Luby's in Killeen in 1991 with two pistols. In fact, sales of the Glock 17 that he used skyrocketed immediately following that. I guess people were impressed how many shots he was able to fire without jamming.

It was the tipping point in getting the concealed carry law in Texas.
 
Yes, I think it does matter what kind of guns are being used in homicides. Because once the debate starts in earnest, numbers and "facts" are are going to start flying. Having accurate metrics is going to be highly important I think.
 
Assault Kool-Aid? Jones town massacre, 918 dead.

Assault Trucks/Vans? Illegals killed in crashes, 10 dead, 18 dead, 13 dead, 14 dead, 12 dead, 9 dead.

Assault Illegals? Killed babies, mothers, fathers, police, nuns, pensioners, with assorted weapons and drunk driving.

Assault Mental Patients? See recent headlines.

Assault dynamite? The year is 1927, the school was in Bath Michigan. 44 people killed.

Assault Rental Vans? Oklahoma City. 168 dead.

Assault Hijacked Airliners? 3000+ dead.

Excerpted from Slate.Com article - "Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman’s 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

A mass murderer’s weapon of choice depends somewhat on his victims. Attacks with guns, fire, knives, and bare hands are far more likely to be directed against family and acquaintances than total strangers, while mass murderers prefer to use explosives against people they don’t know. Also of note: Those who use firearms in a killing spree turn the gun on themselves 34 percent of the time, while only 9 percent of mass-murdering arsonists take their own lives."
 
And, lastly:

Assault Medical Procedures? Planned Parenthood admits to 333,964 ab0rti0ns in 2011.

Where ever you stand on that, it's still a lot of little lives. If the liberal argument was simply about the number of lives taken by guns, this would kind of blunt their argument. Don't you think?
 
Originally Posted By: Oldwolf
Yes, I think it does matter what kind of guns are being used in homicides. Because once the debate starts in earnest, numbers and "facts" are are going to start flying. Having accurate metrics is going to be highly important I think.


Without any "facts" to back me up I am willing to put some money down and bet that far more homicides are committed with handguns than the so-called "assault weapons" that everyone is up in arms about.

How about death by poor food and lifestyle choices? When will a legislator introduce a Big Mac control bill?
 
I just saw this:

payn_c10627120130108120100.jpg



grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster

How about death by poor food and lifestyle choices? When will a legislator introduce a Big Mac control bill?


I don't have much doubt that some Washington think tank already has one written. Or maybe it's already been passed in Obamacare, and we just haven't heard about it yet.
 
Wouldn't it be more likely that Big Mac control will start in New York where they already have the soda control thing going on?
 
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
And, lastly:

Assault Medical Procedures? Planned Parenthood admits to 333,964 ab0rti0ns in 2011.

Where ever you stand on that, it's still a lot of little lives. If the liberal argument was simply about the number of lives taken by guns, this would kind of blunt their argument. Don't you think?


Funny that when they say it's just a fetus and not a human being and doesn't have the same rights as the rest of us so it's ok to "get rid of it"...ok then what else could it be growing inside the woman other than a human being...a friggin' Buick? It's a child, a fellow human being with rights, period! Argue that one Libs.! This issue is way more importain than any other debate anywhere, including gun rights which I defend staunchly! Thank U for posting mr. incredible!
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/conservatives_demand_hammer_control/

Quote:
Yes, assault rifles are used in a tiny fraction of guns crimes, about 2 to 8 percent, but petty crime was never the main target of the Assault Weapon Ban. Rather, it’s designed to stop mass shootings, where rifles are vastly overrepresented. Rifles or assault rifles were used to kill John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and were deployed in the the Beltway sniper attacks, the Columbine massacre, the Aurora movie theater attack, the Oregon shooting in December, the Sandy Hook spree and countless other massacres.


Doesn't have to be anything to do with an "Assualt Weapon", as I said in the other thread, when you start to draw on the "like an assault weapon" distinction to start banning stuff.

Now "rifles" are the problem...when rifles, single shot,and up to three rounds, are the solution to the problem in another version of the same argument.

Author failed to mention that the very next mass killing from the gun ban was the torching of a hostel, by a deranged person, killing 15...

Neat how they did the "rifles or assault rifles" thing. Let's you know they want all of them. They just slipped a bit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top