Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[spectral]

Calling a response "utter nonsense" is not making it personal. It is responding directly to the comment made with an opinion of the value of that comment. Just because Dave is a moderator doesn't mean he can't express his opinion on a comment.

Sorry to disagree with you, Rich. If you look at everyone else's responses, they are "I disagree" and "I strongly disagree" - perfectly civil and non-personal. Dave's response (e.g. "utter nonsense" and "clueless response"; and yours herein) was a personal attack and criticism of my comments. I personally know now very well who's "clueless".

But to call other people irresponsible...

Correction. I never called anyone "irresponsible" - I said there is nothing responsible about owning guns. For it to be responsible, you will have to convince me that every gun owner or advocate out there WILL BE responsible about it 24x7 under _any_ circumstances. I don't think you will be able to convince me on that.

Finally, look around the world: many fewer guns, many fewer violent crimes involving such, same drug problems but more and more effective policing. And there is plenty of farmland all around the world with equally plenty of wildlife, and still no guns to go around. The larger part of the world is pretty much black and white on this subject.

 

[Rich]

There are a few curious questions that come to my mind when these situation occur. As these situations appear to be occuring more frequently over the years, is the problem really with gun control or something broader? In other words, are there that many more people wanting to commit mass shootings because of the easier access to guns and ammunition, or are other slacking social values at play?

I agree with you, Kevin, that there are more issues at play. Yet, when we try to address some of the social issues that result in crime, such as income inequality, economic mobility of the lower class, or the need for the government to provide more money for health care to help those in need (like those with serious mental/emotional issues), conservatives scream up and down that we are taking away their rights, wasting taxpayer money, and turning into a socialist country. In my State alone, they have shut down most of the State facilities that handle people that have been civilly committed by the courts as being a danger to themselves or others. These people are put right back on the street because there are no hospitals to send them to anymore. This is a big part of the problem. There is little help and no resources available to deal with the crazy people. So you end up with a lot more crazy people on the streets.

Timothy McVeigh didn't need to fire a single round of ammunition to kill more than 100 innocent adults and children. Just some things to ponder.

Right. But you forget that after that incident, we changed the regulations to make it much more difficult for an individual to acquire those types of products in the bulk nature needed to build such a bomb. And we haven't had a similar experience since then. Likewise, after 9/11 we changed the way we do airport security in this country, which has had a lot of impacts on innocent people just wanting to take a flight. But we haven't had a similar experience since then. After a tragedy like this, you must as a society re-evaluate these issues and sometimes you must put in place additional restrictions in order to lessen the likelihood of such an event or the severity of such an event should it occur. You will never completely stop crazy people from going off the handle, or criminals from being criminals. But with a reasonable mix of regulation and social welfare you can reduce the instance of occurrence of such things.

 

[Rich]

Sorry to disagree with you, Rich. If you look at everyone else's responses, they are "I disagree" and "I strongly disagree" - perfectly civil and non-personal. Dave's response (e.g. "utter nonsense" and "clueless response") was a personal attack and criticism of my comments. I personally know now very well who's "clueless".

We will have to agree to disagree, then. Saying "I strongly disagree with your comment" may be a more polite way of saying "I think that comment is utter nonsense/clueless" but they are both responses to the substance of the comment itself and not a personal attack. Very different than saying: You are clueless; you are an idiot; etc. That is a personal attack.

Correction. I never called anyone "irresponsible" - I said there is nothing responsible about owning guns. For it to be responsible, you will have to convince me that every gun owner or advocate out there WILL BE responsible about it 24x7 under _any_ circumstances. I don't think you will be able to convince me on that.

Again, your all or nothing perspective on this is simply irrational and unreasonable. Should we ban all alcohol because some aren't responsible with it? (Oh, that's right, we already tried that -- it resulted in the rise of the mob and the gangsters made a killing, literally). Should we ban all automobiles and cell phones because some people text while driving and kill others? There will always be irresponsible people in the world and often times innocent people are harmed by their actions. But it simply isn't reasonable to ban everything simply because some are irresponsible. And like I pointed out, even such a ban would have little effect. Lots of irresponsible people would still be able to get their hands on firearms. But the responsible people would no longer be able to.

By the way, how do you explain Switzerland? There is a gun in almost every household as required by the government. Yet they don't have the kinds of gun violence that we do. They have almost no gun violence at all. Kind of blows a hole in your argument that there is nothing responsible about owning guns.

 

[spectral]

Yes Rich, we agree to _strongly_ disagree. From my perspective, I am quite certain you and Dave both know the exact difference in the meaning (or lack thereof) between calling one's comments "clueless" (and how this translates to the person making said comments) versus calling one "clueless" directly - just try using that word in any shape or form in the courts; tell a police officer that you think his comments are clueless. And for the record, I didn't call anyone's opinion "ill-informed" either or used any the other epithets that you did. My hope is that everyone will stick to the points w/o personal remarks, this is an especially hot potato.

I haven't analyzed Switzerland, sorry. All I know is what I have read, and that is that everyone is everyone else's enemy of sorts, where they all watch over each others' shoulders and report misdoings to the authorities. Perhaps this is in line with the "more and more effective policing" comment that I made. I can't offer you anything more. I am not condoning their government's decree either, but they do have a very small army at the same time.

If you want to talk policing in this country, let's do it.

 

[twich54]

I am quite certain you and Dave both know the exact difference in the meaning (or lack thereof) between calling one's comments "clueless" (and how this translates to the person making said comments) versus calling one "clueless" directly.

Yes we do and in response to your gun knowledge, or in this case, lack thereof, I WAS claiming that your response of guns having no place other than 'killing' to be clueless and I stand by that.

The fact that you have no place in your life for firearms is just fine and dandy, I do and generations before me have seen to it that your kind of thinking is kept in check.

FWIW....you did win points with the 'young man' come back......I'm feeling better already ! ....

 

[Kevin]

I agree with you, Kevin, that there are more issues at play. Yet, when we try to address some of the social issues that result in crime, such as income inequality, economic mobility of the lower class, or the need for the government to provide more money for health care to help those in need (like those with serious mental/emotional issues), conservatives scream up and down that we are taking away their rights, wasting taxpayer money, and turning into a socialist country. In my State alone, they have shut down most of the State facilities that handle people that have been civilly committed by the courts as being a danger to themselves or others. These people are put right back on the street because there are no hospitals to send them to anymore. This is a big part of the problem. There is little help and no resources available to deal with the crazy people. So you end up with a lot more crazy people on the streets.

Rich, I can easily offer a counter argument that "liberal" policies have helped fuel an increase in crime. It has always been my perception that people who wake up in the morning, put on their work clothes and strap on their boots, aren't the ones usually sitting at home, with free time to ponder their next crime. Poverty (economic mobility, income equality etc) doesn't cause someone to decide to shoot into a crowd of people. Stick a loaf of bread under their shirt at the grocery store, perhaps. I haven't seen where any of these recent mass shootings, both Colorado shootings, the Arizona shooting or the V-tech shooting have involved kids living in poverty. I think when the government so blindly sends checks out monthly so people can sit at home, single mothers can easily have children without a father in the household, and people can have drug money in which they didn't have to do the work for their habit, it tends to lead towards more crime. Liberals policies are what have allowed this to happen.

I was thinking of other social values as well. Look at the percentage of crimes committed by young males that grow up in fatherless homes. How about Hollywood movies, children games and music that are glamorizing crimes and killings more often? Which states are harder on crime, those that trend conservative or liberal?

Yes it is harder purchase some of the materials that Timothy McVeigh purchased to create his bomb without drawing attention to yourself. But there are many ways to create a deadly bomb, and finding out how is just a matter of having a computer and some 'free time'.

 

[Kevin]

Gordon, I know that you didn't want this discussion about gun control to turn into an ideological debate, but Rich clearly took it into that direction and I had to answer back.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

No need for an apology.

I know that this is an emotional issue for all (at least I hope it is) and passion / ideologies are typically a by-product of that discussion.

I will repeat what I said in a similar thread I started after the Tuscon incident. My motives are, in fact, selfish.

There are many bright, articulate people who post on this forum and all of you help me better understand, or come to terms with, a tragedy such as this.

Thank you all for your honest, heart felt discourse on an extremely difficult topic.

Gordon

 

[Rich]

I haven't analyzed Switzerland, sorry. All I know is what I have read, and that is that everyone is everyone else's enemy of sorts, where they all watch over each others' shoulders and report misdoings to the authorities. Perhaps this is in line with the "more and more effective policing" comment that I made. I can't offer you anything more. I am not condoning their government's decree either, but they do have a very small army at the same time.

If you want to talk policing in this country, let's do it.

My point about Switzerland is that they have one of the higher rates of guns per person in the world, and one of the lowest rates of gun violence. This calls into question your notion that there is nothing responsible about gun ownership. In fact, it greatly supports Kevin's comments that there are many other social issues that lead to the gun violence in this country. Brazil is another country whose statistics bear out the faults with your argument. They have one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world, yet have some of the highest gun violence rates in the world. Banning guns is not the answer.

 

[twich54]

I know that this is an emotional issue for all (at least I hope it is) and passion / ideologies are typically a by-product of that discussion.

agreed Gordon, and in light of the recent tragedy in Colorado (btw Kevin there was actually a third tragedy besides Columbine and Aurora; in Bailey, Co back in June '06) Rich and I agree that outright banning of firearms is not the answer so other than re-instating the assault weapons ban, mag capacity ....any other thoughts ?

 

[Rich]

Poverty (economic mobility, income equality etc) doesn't cause someone to decide to shoot into a crowd of people. Stick a loaf of bread under their shirt at the grocery store, perhaps. I haven't seen where any of these recent mass shootings, both Colorado shootings, the Arizona shooting or the V-tech shooting have involved kids living in poverty.

I was referring to gun crimes in general being a result of poverty, rather than this specific crime. I think we all know that this person was just insane. Most likely schizophrenic, from my experience. But I don't think there is any question that poverty breeds crime. People see no way out of a desperate economic situation, so they just decide to get a pistol and go rob the local convenience store or bank. Or, as kids with no hope, they get into a gang and start selling drugs. Which leads to other crimes. A lot of inner city crimes result from just these types of situations.

I think when the government so blindly sends checks out monthly so people can sit at home, single mothers can easily have children without a father in the household, and people can have drug money in which they didn't have to do the work for their habit, it tends to lead towards more crime. Liberals policies are what have allowed this to happen.

I actually agree with you that we have some poor disincentives in our welfare system. It would make sense to use the system to provide incentives for people to get an education, job training, and to have fewer rather than more kids. I absolutely agree that this system has been poorly implemented and should be reformed. I don't think the data supports your idea that the welfare system leads toward more crime, though. And I don't think any of it matters if we can't provide economic opportunities for these people.

 

[Rich]

....any other thoughts ?

Yes. Ban Bullets! Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

 

[twich54]

Yes. Ban Bullets! Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

exactly....that's why I love my shotgun, #8's on clay pigeons for me !

 

[Rich]

There are many bright, articulate people who post on this forum and all of you help me better understand, or come to terms with, a tragedy such as this.

Thank you all for your honest, heart felt discourse on an extremely difficult topic.

Gordon, ultimately, there is no real coming to terms with a tragedy such as this. It is impossible to understand, from any logical and reasonable perspective, how any sane person could decide to inflict such harm on innocent people. It is similar to the shooting that occurred at our University in Huntsville a year or so ago. A harvard educated professor pulls out a weapon in a staff meeting and starts systematically shooting good and decent people. For no obvious reason. Except for the simple fact that she was batsht crazy. Everybody that worked with her knew she was crazy. It is just that no one knew she could be violent. No one knew that she had shot and killed her own brother as a teenager. No one knew . . . until it was too late. Had her mental disorder been properly dealt with when she was a teenager, maybe that tragedy could have been avoided. Maybe if people had really paid attention to the behavior of this kid in Colorado, this tragedy could have been prevented. Maybe . . . but doubtful. Some people kill because they are stupid. Some because they are hateful and evil. And some for no other reason than that they are mentally deranged.

 

[amey01]

It doesn't have to be all guns or no guns.

This is very pertinent.

Right. But you forget that after that incident, we changed the regulations to make it much more difficult for an individual to acquire those types of products in the bulk nature needed to build such a bomb. And we haven't had a similar experience since then. Likewise, after 9/11 we changed the way we do airport security in this country, which has had a lot of impacts on innocent people just wanting to take a flight. But we haven't had a similar experience since then. After a tragedy like this, you must as a society re-evaluate these issues and sometimes you must put in place additional restrictions in order to lessen the likelihood of such an event or the severity of such an event should it occur.

Likewise, we had a similar-style massacre here in Australia.

For anyone that's interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

Gun laws were tightened. (too much as is my opinion). For an overview, read the section "Community and Government Reaction".

It has not happened again.

A government has to at least try to implement some measures in my opinion. To watch something like the cinema shooting happen over and over again and just sit back and say "Shit Happens" is beyond unacceptable.

 

[Gordon Gray]

agreed Gordon, and in light of the recent tragedy in Colorado (btw Kevin there was actually a third tragedy besides Columbine and Aurora; in Bailey, Co back in June '06) Rich and I agree that outright banning of firearms is not the answer so other than re-instating the assault weapons ban, mag capacity ....any other thoughts ?

No my friend,

That is reasonable and, from my perspective, will be just dandy. However, I don't think this will happen.

If we care, we should all try to learn from history and seek a balanced solution within the confines of our reality, and strive to make the world a better place for all.

Gordon

 

[spectral]

Yes we do and in response to your gun knowledge, or in this case, lack thereof, I WAS claiming that your response of guns having no place other than 'killing' to be clueless and I stand by that.

And that makes you what? Superior? A man? At the end of the day, you as moderator are making direct, personal and inflated comments. You use the internet like most... It would be interesting to know whether you'd would call you kids', grandkids', wife's, boss's, cop's, judge's, et al comments "clueless" every time you disagree with them.

 

[Rich]

And that makes you what? Superior? A man? At the end of the day, you as moderator are making direct, personal and inflated comments. You use the internet like most... It would be interesting to know whether you'd would call you kids', grandkids', wife's, boss's et al comments "clueless" ever.

Jeez, get over it spectral. Dave was a member of this forum long before he was made a moderator. Tom made him and Tim moderators to help with the load. It is a service he provides free of charge to help Tom and the forum out, and he does a darn good job of it. But that position doesn't require him to leave his opinions at the door. And if you take every criticism of your comments as a personal attack, you have the thinnest skin on the planet. Oops, there's another personal attack. Quite honestly, I think even most gun control supporters would agree that your comments that all gun ownership is irresponsible and that guns are only meant for killing are clueless. If you can't open your eyes and recognize the many responsible uses to which guns are put to every day that have nothing to do with killing people, then yes, you haven't a clue about the issues of which you speak.

I am quite certain you and Dave both know the exact difference in the meaning (or lack thereof) between calling one's comments "clueless" (and how this translates to the person making said comments) versus calling one "clueless" directly.

According to those semantics, your following explanation is hogwash:

Correction. I never called anyone "irresponsible" - I said there is nothing responsible about owning guns.

Saying there is nothing responsible about owning guns is the same as calling all gun owners irresponsible. That is a personal insult to every gun owner on this forum. There, see how easy it is to use semantics to take a great, feigned personal offense to someone's comments?

You are the one who has taken this debate down a level by throwing a hissy fit when your comments were criticized. If you don't think your comments are clueless, then defend them. But take the personal grudge match elsewhere.

 

[twich54]

Rich, thanks for more eloquently defending my position.......now spectral.....for the LAST time I WAS NOT implying that you (in totality) are cluless, rather your comments on firearms and 'killing' are ! FYI, the Olympics begin this coming weekend, tune in, there are numerous shooting venues in competition, other than paper, clay and steel I don't see any human flesh on the docket !

 

[Brad225]

On a related note to Gordon's opening of this thread commenting on the weapons ban of 1994 and at the risk of throwing another pot on the stove to stir.
The person in 1994 that was behind the assault weapons ban was former US district attorney Dennis Burke. He has been quoted in text and on audio in a speech he gave in D.C. that people/citizens could be brainwashed to believe that weapons should be banned.
He is also the person behind the Fast and Furious gun running to Mexico with the claimed intention of catching criminals. It is this type of action by both sides of our elected officials that makes vast majority of our countries citizens so angry with Washington. There are so many qualified people to move this country forward but they don't fit the mold of the 2 parties that run the system.

I am a hand gun and rifle owner and am puzzled where would he have gotten the grenades that were part of the booby trapped apartment. I have never looked for them so maybe they easier to find than one would think.

Thankfully he didn't choose to use them in the theater.

All that said my heart goes out to all of the victims of this tragedy in Colorado.