or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting - Page 4

post #121 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So you believe education would be more effective. Do you have statistics on this and links? Not argumentative just a question.

 

I believe increased gun ownership would be more effective than an outright ban. I think Switzerland proves my point. They don't have a standing army, they have a peoples militia.

 

I don't necessarily agree with their mandatory conscription in to militia service, but the fact that nearly every man between the age of 20 and 30 becomes a part of the militia and undergoes military and weapons training means that the population is properly educated and trained in the use of firearms, and that most of the population is armed.

 

And in Switzerland, personal weapons of the militia are kept at home.

 

This is also interesting:

 

 

Quote:
Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #122 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Ending the war on drugs would allow the cops to come down from their paramilitary stance, increase civil rights, all but eliminate no-knock warrants, defund over armed swat teams, reduce the ability of the cops to illegally confiscate property without warrant, allow the cops to focus on other crimes, make rec' drugs safer, defund the criminal gangs ... It would be a revolution in our society.

 

I agree for the most part.  The other thing such an approach does is eliminate much of the profit in the drug trade.  Lack of supply means prices go up.  Higher prices mean more money for sellers, distributors and cartels.  More money means more violence.  

 

Then again, some drugs are so horrible in their effects that I do think we have a vested public health interest in preventing their manufacture and sale.  It seems to me we should punish distribution rather than consumption for these "hard" drugs (coke, meth, etc) and legalize pot.  In fact, either way, pot should absolutely be legal.  It is unreal to me that we are prevented by law from growing, drying and smoking a freaking PLANT.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #123 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What sammi and muppetry have run into is the cold, hard truth that further gun restrictions clearly violate the 2nd Amendment.   There is really no way around this, even if we decided that we could and should ban assault weapons.  As for rocket launchers, WMD, etc...all of our freedoms do have certain limits.  From my understanding, most of these are restricted through background checks, licensing, etc...but most are not "illegal" to own.  One can by fighter jets, tanks and even RPGs.  WMD probably falls into another category.  As sammi says, the line must be drawn somewhere.  Somehow I think most people would agree that Weapons of Mass Destruction are a good start.  

 Why do you assume that amendments can not and should not be be changed?

 

The term itself implies change.

 

There have been many laws that have been changed over time.  Constitutions are not religious edicts that must be observed ad finitum, hell, even religious edicts are subject to change.

 

I for one subscribe to the principle that even state employees that are licenced to carry arms are human and subject to making errors. I suspect that the constant checks and balances do have a positive impact .Never-the-less I don not want to see UK police routinely armed, and fortunately nor do they .

 

I have seen the pro- NRA  posts on this site and wonder why you all side step discussing (meaningfully) the UK model- a country that culturally is very similar to the USA but has significantly lower gun crime.

post #124 of 184

Because the English people have smarts where the Americans do not.Everything to the Americans is guns guns guns!
 

post #125 of 184

jimmac, I'd be interested in reading your response to my post: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151454/aurora-co-movie-theater-shooting/120#post_2158564

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #126 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 Why do you assume that amendments can not and should not be be changed?

 

The term itself implies change.

 

There have been many laws that have been changed over time.  Constitutions are not religious edicts that must be observed ad finitum, hell, even religious edicts are subject to change.

 

I for one subscribe to the principle that even state employees that are licenced to carry arms are human and subject to making errors. I suspect that the constant checks and balances do have a positive impact .Never-the-less I don not want to see UK police routinely armed, and fortunately nor do they .

 

I have seen the pro- NRA  posts on this site and wonder why you all side step discussing (meaningfully) the UK model- a country that culturally is very similar to the USA but has significantly lower gun crime.

 

I did not assume anything of the kid.  I'm saying if you want to pass any real further restrictions, it would have to be changed.  Secondly, that's not going to happen.  Less than a snowball's chance in hell, actually.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

jimmac, I'd be interested in reading your response to my post: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151454/aurora-co-movie-theater-shooting/120#post_2158564

Ahhh... Switzerland - the country that tells it's school children that the Nazi party were too in awe of the might of the Swiss army to contemplate attacking them whilst they were busy steam -rolling through the rest of mainland Europe 

 

 I was wondering when someone would bring up the case of Switzerland. IMO Switzerland is an anomaly. With gun ownership of roughly half that of the USA (per capita) it does have extremely low rates of gun crime and indeed very low rates of violent crime period. It does however have disproportionally high levels of gun  suicide, accounting for 25%. With this in mind there are calls for stricter controls.

 

Depending on definition. it is the richest country in the world and  has some of the lowest levels of "poor" people. Perhaps US gun laws should be subject to means testing, ie only affluent people should be allowed to own guns. In no way am i suggesting that less affluent people are more likely to commit crimes,  it may be the case that less affluent people are likely to commit crimes that involve guns.

 

All of the above aside, we still have no valid explanation as to why countries that are culturally/demographically similar to the uSA, eg the UK, have lower levels of gun ownership and gun crime. Nor has anyone tried to explain they the US states with the strictest gun control laws have lower rates of gun mortalities. 

post #128 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

IMO Switzerland is an anomaly. 

 

Why is that?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

With gun ownership of roughly half that of the USA (per capita) it does have extremely low rates of gun crime and indeed very low rates of violent crime period. It does however have disproportionally high levels of gun  suicide, accounting for 25%.

 

Do you assume some sort of causal relationship here?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Perhaps US gun laws should be subject to means testing, ie only affluent people should be allowed to own guns. In no way am i suggesting that less affluent people are more likely to commit crimes,  it may be the case that less affluent people are likely to commit crimes that involve guns.

 

Oh dear.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 184
Thread Starter 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #130 of 184

This account of what happened in Aurora is an interesting take. What we have been told so far by the mainstream media leaves A LOT to desired, as far as credibility is concerned.

 

Extracted:  (links in original text)

 

Quote:

Robert Holmes, the shooting suspect's father, is a senior lead scientist with FICO, the American credit score company. He was scheduled to testify in the next few weeks before a US Senate panel that is investigating the largest bank fraud scandal in world history. This banking fraud threatens to destabilize and destroy the Western banking system.

 

Robert Holmes not only uncovered the true intent of the massive LIBOR banking fraud, but his "predictive algorithm model" also traced the trillions of "hidden"dollars to the exact bank accounts of the elite classes who stole it. In other words, Robert Holmes could NAME NAMES! Those names WOULD AWAKEN THE WORLD to the depth of government and corporate corruption which could include members of Congress, Wall Street, Federal Reserve and EU executives and could even include US Presidential candidates and the British Royal family.

 

The motives for the massacre are:

 

1) To silence whistelblower Robert Holmes whose son is now facing a possible death sentence

 

2) To influence the upcoming vote on the UN Global Small Arms Treaty which could result in gun confiscation and disarming world citizens. The UN treaty could override national sovereignty and give a license to federal governments to assert preemptive gun control powers over state regulatory powers.

 

and it continues...

 

Quote:

James Holmes is reportedly arrested at his car without resistance.

 

Why was the back rear window on James Holmes white Hyundai Coupe broken? Was he locked inside? Did the police have to break the window to gain access to him? The mainstream media didn't report whether or not James was in the car when he was arrested or whether he was coherent.

 

ABC News circulated a false report about an incriminating statement made by James Holmes' mother. Arlene Holmes. ABC reported that when they phoned Arlene Holmes and asked her about her son being a suspect in the shooting, she answered "You've got the right guy". His mother has denied making that statement.

There are way too many problems with this case to consign it to the standard "crazed lone gunman" scenario, so often used by the powers that be and echoed by a complicit, lying media. At least two witnesses have come forward and described events that indicate that others were involved. 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #131 of 184

So if others are involved why is the Colorado Police Department covering this up?What are they hiding by doing this secretive thing?
 

post #132 of 184

I'm going to go with the grad student went bonkers and killed a bunch of people theory.

post #133 of 184

The father's job is an interesting fact, but surely there are simpler ways to manipulate someone's testimony that orchestrating something like this.

 

Also, the account above doesn't really explain how the Gun Club managed to screen him out ahead of time.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #134 of 184

This is no answer  at all. There is something be covered up and I hope they find the real truth.
 

post #135 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

This account of what happened in Aurora is an interesting take. What we have been told so far by the mainstream media leaves A LOT to desired, as far as credibility is concerned.

 

Extracted:  (links in original text)

 

 

and it continues...

 

There are way too many problems with this case to consign it to the standard "crazed lone gunman" scenario, so often used by the powers that be and echoed by a complicit, lying media. At least two witnesses have come forward and described events that indicate that others were involved. 

FFS- I was silly enough to go to the site that you hyperlinked to-  what a cheery bunched of racist scum bags. After clicking on a couple of internal links, including the one suggesting that the shooter wasn't even there I feel that the following quote should proove sufficient enough to sum up the sanity of the site owners, 

 

Staged terror attacks are chosen according to numerology calculations which favor the numbers 9, 11 and 13 or repeating numbers like 33. In numerology, numbers are added together. August 11th, 2012 is 8/11/12. Notice the number "11". 8 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 13. Notice the triple "1" which triples the power of the number "111"

post #136 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Do you assume some sort of causal relationship here?

 

 Yes, i assume that there is a relationship between Swiss gun ownership and the disproportionally high rates of suicide (where the gun is used to commit the act). Employing your supposedly superior logic, are you able to discount any link? 

 

Thus far I get the impression that you are in the habit of asking people to prove their points whilst offering nothing in return, other than puerile bill poster images and questionable links. Again I feel compelled to ask you why, you believe that countries such as the UK have tighter gun controls and significantly lower gun crimes/mortalities/morbitities than the USA.

post #137 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 Yes, i assume that there is a relationship between Swiss gun ownership and the disproportionally high rates of suicide (where the gun is used to commit the act). Employing your supposedly superior logic, are you able to discount any link?

 

What I'm saying is that you seem to assume people are more likely to commit suicide because they have a firearm. As if the cause of these suicides is firearm ownership. This seems to be a dubious conclusion.

 

It is highly possible that there is something else going on in Switzerland that is resulting in a higher rate of suicide and the fact that they all own guns simply makes the choice of method easier (I suppose).

 

I suspect that if someone is inclined to commit suicide, they will chose whatever means are available to them (pills, slash wrists, hanging, run the car in the garage, etc.) and the fact that they happen to own a firearm merely gives them another method to achieve their goal.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Thus far I get the impression that you are in the habit of asking people to prove their points whilst offering nothing in return, other than puerile bill poster images and questionable links.

 

Okay. :rolleyes:

 

If you wish to address these allegedly "questionable links" and "puerile bill poster images" I've posted I'd be happy to discuss them.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Again I feel compelled to ask you why, you believe that countries such as the UK have tighter gun controls and significantly lower gun crimes/mortalities/morbitities than the USA.

 

I don't know. I haven't looked at the data in detail. I know that, as far as gun crimes and specifically gun mortality goes in the US, there's a very strong correlation to gang activity and the illegal drug trade. While I've not taken the time to do the math on this, I suspect if you factor that out the overall gun crime and mortality statistics in the US would probably line up with other comparable countries.


Edited by MJ1970 - 8/4/12 at 1:44pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 184

The Truth about Guns

 

 

Quote:

The tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, has led to a lot of unfortunate misinformation about firearms. Let’s try to add some facts to the justified emotion.

 

Are Some Guns More Dangerous than Others? The shooter in Aurora had three firearms when he entered the theater: a pump action shotgun, a semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun.

 

In a closed, crowded setting like a movie theater, the shotgun was probably the most lethal of the three. Every shotgun shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person. Twelve-gauge shotguns often fire five shells, and sometimes more, before needing to be reloaded. And unlike semiautomatics, they don’t typically jam.

 

Yet in most American cities, just about anybody can buy a shotgun at the drop of a hat. Antigun activists and politicians almost never propose banning them.

 

Instead, the focus these days is on so-called “assault weapons.”

 

Should We Be Especially Worried About Assault Weapons? Assault weapons are not usually the weapon of choice. Neither of the two worst shooting sprees in U.S. history involved assault weapons. James Huberty, who killed 20 people at a McDonald’s restaurant in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, used a shotgun, a pistol and a hunting rifle. George Hennard, who killed 22 people at a Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, used two ordinary pistols.

 

Still, gun opponents seem obsessed about them. So what exactly is an “assault weapon”?

 

What Are Assault Weapons? You would think that the definition would hinge on a weapon’s fire power or its capacity to maim or kill. Not so. Assault weapons are mainly defined by their appearance. As Steve Chapmanexplained the other day:

 

Assault weapons are functionally indistinguishable from ordinary semiautomatic hunting rifles. They don’t fire more rapidly, they don’t deliver more lethal rounds, and they don’t spray bullets. They only look like military arms.

The features that disqualified a gun under the federal ban were ones that didn’t affect destructiveness, such as pistol grips and bayonet mounts. If accused [Aurora] killer James Holmes had been prevented from buying this gun, he could have found plenty of others that would have served his purpose just as well.

 

Basically, what disqualified a weapon when the short-lived assault weapons ban was in effect was looking like a military weapon. The offensive features included plastic stocks, extended ammunition clips, collapsible butt-stocks, and other decorative devices that made them look like, but not operate as, a fully functional assault rifle.

 

Contrary to the claims that military-looking weapons are only designed to kill human beings, they are, in fact, the fastest growing segment of the hunting rifle market!

 

What About Machine Guns? Most TV commentators who decry assault weapons imply that they are automatic—that you just pull the trigger and bullets start flying. Not so. It has been illegal to buy a machine gun on the open market in the United States for more than 80 years. However, you can obtain one under special permit and there are about 250,000 in private hands.

 

Now here is something interesting: despite all those guns in private hands, there appears not to be a single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used to commit a crime throughout the entire 80 year period. This illustrates two things: (1) the bumper stickers have it right: guns don’t kill, people do; and (2) we can have reasonable restrictions on access to guns without banning them altogether.

 

That brings us to another obsession: the insistence that guns are useless as tools of self-defense.

 

Are Guns Useful for Self-Defense? As it turns out, they are. According to research by renowned Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used between 800,000 and 2.5 million times every year in self-defense.

 

A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that handguns appear to help women more than men. While murder rates drop when either sex carries more guns, the effect is especially pronounced when women carry. Each additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women three to four times more than an additional armed man reduces the murder rate for men.

 

Do More Guns Cause More Crime? In the typical Western movie, everyone has a gun. When they go into a bar, they start drinking. Then, they start insulting each other. Before long, they start shooting each other. It may be good theater, but it’s lousy history. Turns out, 19th century Dodge City was more peaceful than most American cities are today! Robert Heinlein explained why: “An armed society is a polite society,” he wrote.

 

Overall, some of the most heavily-armed states have very low violent crime rates and vice versa. Also, it appears that when the good guys are armed there is less gun violence. Research by John Lott shows that allowing citizens the right to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In those states that passed right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, the average murder rate dropped from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000 nine to 10 years later—about a 1.7% drop in the murder rate per year for 10 years.

 

In states that enacted right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1999, the overall occurrence of multiple-victim shootings dropped by a remarkable 67% with deaths and injuries from such shootings plummeting by 75% and 81%, respectively. And since 1997, two of eight school shootings were both stopped by citizens with guns (before police even arrived at the scene).

 

What Does the International Evidence Show? Switzerland actually requires young males to keep weapons in their homes, as part of the country’s militia. Yet no one has ever accused Switzerland of being a host to Wild West shootouts. Finland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Yet it too has a very low rate of violent crime.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #139 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

What I'm saying is that you seem to assume people are more likely to commit suicide because they have a firearm. As if the cause of these suicides is firearm ownership. This seems to be a dubious conclusion.

 

It is highly possible that there is something else going on in Switzerland that is resulting in a higher rate of suicide and the fact that they all own guns simply makes the choice of method easier (I suppose).

 

I suspect that if someone is inclined to commit suicide, they will chose whatever means are available to them (pills, slash wrists, hanging, run the car in the garage, etc.) and the fact that they happen to own a firearm merely gives them another method to achieve their goal.

 

I am not suggesting that owning a gun predisposes one to want to commit suicide. I am suggesting that guns are very effective killing machines. When a gun is used one is far less likely to survive.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I don't know. I haven't looked at the data in detail. I know that, as far as gun crimes and specifically gun mortality goes in the US, there's a very strong correlation to gang activity and the illegal drug trade. While I've not taken the time to do the math on this, I suspect if you factor that out the overall gun crime and mortality statistics in the US would probably line up with other comparable countries.

I would imagine that the drug trade in the UK is comparable to the USA, yet our gun crime is vastly lower than yours.  Perhaps if you were willing to "do the math" you might well find that there is an relationship between legal gun ownership and overall gun crime...

post #140 of 184

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/05/13130110-gunman-opens-fire-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin-at-least-4-shot?lite

 

 

This is on going right now.

Quote:

Gunman opens fire at Sikh temple in Wisconsin; at least 4 shot

 

 

 

Quote:
At least four people, including a suspected gunman and a police officer, were shot Sunday morning at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee, local media and law enforcement reported

 

 

Quote:
An officer responding to a 911 call confronted a gunman outstide the temple and was shot multiple times, Wendlandt said. The officer returned fire, striking the victim. Wendlandt described the gunman as "down on the scene" outside the temple. The wounded officer was taken to a hospital and was expected to survive, he said.

 

 

 

Now I just have to point out this situation probably ( although we don't know for sure at this point ) is an example of nondrug related gun violence.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #141 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

I am not suggesting that owning a gun predisposes one to want to commit suicide. I am suggesting that guns are very effective killing machines. When a gun is used one is far less likely to survive.

 

Yes, And? So people with firearms who attempt suicide are more successful in achieving their goal? What is your point?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

I would imagine that the drug trade in the UK is comparable to the USA, yet our gun crime is vastly lower than yours.  Perhaps if you were willing to "do the math" you might well find that there is an relationship between legal gun ownership and overall gun crime...

 

I've done enough of the math to convince me that overall gun crime in the US is largely related to gang and the drug trade.

 

Let's end the war on (some) drugs and see what happens.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #142 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now I just have to point out this situation probably ( although we don't know for sure at this point ) is an example of nondrug related gun violence.

 

Yes. And? What is your point?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #143 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now I just have to point out this situation probably ( although we don't know for sure at this point ) is an example of non drug related gun violence.

 

Yes. And? What is your point?

My point is that this sort of situation happens a lot and so it would be evidence that making all drugs legal wouldn't have an effect on this kind of gun violence.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #144 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

My point is that this sort of situation happens a lot and so it would be evidence that making all drugs legal wouldn't have an effect on this kind of gun violence.

 

Actually, it doesn't happen "a lot". It happens to too often (but this is true if it happens only once.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #145 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

My point is that this sort of situation happens a lot and so it would be evidence that making all drugs legal wouldn't have an effect on this kind of gun violence.

 

Actually, it doesn't happen "a lot". It happens to too often (but this is true if it happens only once.)

However it's just one example of non drug related gun violence. I'm not saying legalizing all drugs wouldn't have an effect. But there's a whole series of classes of gun violence that doesn't have anything to do with drugs.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #146 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However it's just one example of non drug related gun violence. I'm not saying legalizing all drugs wouldn't have an effect. But there's a whole series of classes of gun violence that doesn't have anything to do with drugs.

 

Yes, I'm aware of this. It is an imperfect world in which, sometimes, people who are mentally unstable and/or prone to violence in some way act out.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #147 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However it's just one example of non drug related gun violence. I'm not saying legalizing all drugs wouldn't have an effect. But there's a whole series of classes of gun violence that doesn't have anything to do with drugs.

 

Yes, I'm aware of this. It is an imperfect world in which, sometimes, people who are mentally unstable and/or prone to violence in some way act out.

Or they perceive a threat by some group. So this brings me back to my question would legalizing drugs do as much to reduce gun violence as banning?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #148 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Or they perceive a threat by some group.

 

Yes, that can be the case also.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So this brings me back to my question would legalizing drugs do as much to reduce gun violence as banning?

 

In my opinion...it would do more.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #149 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Or they perceive a threat by some group.

 

Yes, that can be the case also.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So this brings me back to my question would legalizing drugs do as much to reduce gun violence as banning?

 

In my opinion...it would do more.

Considering the nature of today's gun violence and others that are obvious why in your opinion would it do more to reduce gun violence? If it's a belief that's one thing if you're going to present this as a certainty then please proved a link to support you claim.

 

As I've said before I don't think the war on drugs is working. So for obvious reasons ( that we've previously discussed ) I think legalizing them would be a good move. It would reduce the violence associated with this but as much as banning because of the other issues? I'm not so certain.

 

 

 

 

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #150 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Considering the nature of today's gun violence and others that are obvious why in your opinion would it do more to reduce gun violence?

 

Because a substantial amount of gun violence appears to correlate strongly to gang and drug violence. Therefore, I deduce the if you eliminate the black market in drugs, there will be much less incentive to protect drug trade with violence (including gin violence) similar to the experience this country had with prohibition and its repeal.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As I've said before I don't think the war on drugs is working. So for obvious reasons ( that we've previously discussed ) I think legalizing them would be a good move. It would reduce the violence associated with this but as much as banning because of the other issues? I'm not so certain.

 

Okay.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #151 of 184
Thread Starter 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 184
Thread Starter 

Cold Hard Facts On Gun Bans: “The Cost Of Liberty Can Be Measured In the Loss of Life”:

 

 

 

Quote:
In Chicago, where guns have essentially been banned for personal defense, the murder of innocents has risen so sharply in recent months that Mayor Rahm Emanual has been left with no other option but to call on criminals to look to their morals and values to stop the carnage. Washington D.C., which bans the carrying of concealed weapons, has maintained one of the highest gun crime murder rates in the country for over three decades – since the legislation was passed in 1975. As the Washington Post notes, the disarming of local residents has been wholly ineffective noting that the “guns kept coming, and bodies kept falling.”
 
These localized examples of the detrimental effects of restrictive gun policies are nothing, however, when compared to what’s happened in Australia, where the government implemented a “buy back” program in 1997 that completely banned gun ownership for the general population. While Australia’s politician promised a lower crime rate once the ban was in place, the disarming of its citizens has led to exactly the opposite effect.

 

 

 

Quote:
Explaining to the anti-gun activists that the benefits (of a people armed for defense) far outweigh the risks is like pulling teeth.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #153 of 184

Cherry picking.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #154 of 184
Thread Starter 

Oh look! BR has found a new favorite phrase he can use to dismiss data that doesn't comport with what he believes.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Cherry picking.  

 

One of the most eloquent and compelling arguments you've ever made. Bravo.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #156 of 184

I see the two of you are taking lessons from the Vuvuzela.  You really shouldn't be proud of that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #157 of 184
Thread Starter 

I was merely making an observation.

 

However, since you've seen fit to share what you think we should or shouldn't be proud of in our posts, I'll return the favor: You're accusing (others) of "cherry picking" (and, in the process, implying that you don't or haven't) as a way to dismiss information that doesn't comport with what you currently believe.

 

You really shouldn't be proud of that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #158 of 184

I'm accusing others of cherry picking because others are cherry picking.  It's just that simple.  There's a lovely podcast from the BBC that discusses how inconclusive all these gun-control studies either way really are.  

 

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20120727-1635a.mp3

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #159 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Because a substantial amount of gun violence appears to correlate strongly to gang and drug violence. Therefore, I deduce the if you eliminate the black market in drugs, there will be much less incentive to protect drug trade with violence (including gin violence) similar to the experience this country had with prohibition and its repeal.

 

 Whilst I would agree that many of the gun deaths in the USA seem to be the result of drug related crime, thus far, none of the pro gun members here have attempted to explain why other countries with similar rates of drug "abuse" and stricter gun laws have much lower rates of gun violence.

 

There may, or may not be some merit in legalising all drugs but I am not sure that the prohibition of alcohol is a valid argument. Few of the currently illegal drugs ever had wide spread popularity prior to be outlawed and none of them have ever been an essential part of the staple diet. It is also worth noting that other "first world"  states with historically low gun ownership did not see massive rises in gun activity during their periods of alcohol prohibition. 

 

Yet again we need to ask why the USA has such higher rates of gun crime, simply blaming it on drugs is overly simplistic: Comparisons with other similar countries evidences this.

post #160 of 184

Other countries are not happening like ours almost steadily every week.What is this about?
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting