Conceal and Carry in Chicago (Oregon, Wayne: cost, mall, statistics)

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by rparz

I'll never give up my guns, and I've never been involved in or have any history of mental instability.

I have a hunch that those who are qualified to make such a judgment might say otherwise.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by rparz

In the hands of the wrong people, everyday objects become deadly. Just because there's a chance I could kill someone with the steak knife in my drawer, should we outlaw knives? Are there enough restrictions on their purchase?

Guns don't kill people, people do.

I've already addressed this, but here goes. Knives that are for utilitarian purposes such as cutting beef, or peeling apples are not inherently weapons, and don't have nearly the same potential killing power a couple of handguns with a few clips of ammo. The single purpose of a gun is to fire bullets that will hit someone or some animal. There is no other use for them, so they are weapons that solely exist to cause harm. Anyone who can hold a gun has the ability to kill masses of people from a distance, hence the massacres in the school, the cinema... Military grade knives, ie knives that have a spring loaded switch release function are illegal to own by civilians, because its a weapon for the purpose of combat.

The point of banning guns is to make it harder for people to cause such wide spread violence with such ease. You have a much greater chance of running away from a person with a knife intent on hurting you than you are with against someone with a gun.

As horrific as that knife attack in the school in China is, those kids survived the knife attack. The kids in the US died from the gun shots. Again, the difference is unsubtle.

[Chi-town Native]

My point earlier about denying guns to someone based on mental illness (which already exists last I heard) was simply that it wouldn't have applied in this case regardless. The guns belonged to the mom, not her kid.

[J. Lundegaard]

Originally Posted by chitownperson

I've already addressed this, but here goes. Knives that are for utilitarian purposes such as cutting beef, or peeling apples are not inherently weapons, and don't have nearly the same potential killing power a couple of handguns with a few clips of ammo. The single purpose of a gun is to fire bullets that will hit someone or some animal. There is no other use for them, so they are weapons that solely exist to cause harm. Anyone who can hold a gun has the ability to kill masses of people from a distance, hence the massacres in the school, the cinema... Military grade knives, ie knives that have a spring loaded switch release function are illegal to own by civilians, because its a weapon for the purpose of combat.

The point of banning guns is to make it harder for people to cause such wide spread violence with such ease. You have a much greater chance of running away from a person with a knife intent on hurting you than you are with against someone with a gun.

As horrific as that knife attack in the school in China is, those kids survived the knife attack. The kids in the US died from the gun shots. Again, the difference is unsubtle.

Guns are a tool (like a drill, a knife, or a car). You might not like the purpose of a gun, but it is a tool just like any other. As I've pointed out, two purposes of guns is to hunt (procure meat) and self-defense (preserve your life or that of a loved one). By outright banning guns, you would be taking away people's ability to hunt and defend themselves. That is a bad thing in my opinion.

Also, you haven't really thought out your position much have you. There is something like 300 million guns out there right now. From a logistical standpoint, how are you possibly going to go and confiscate all these guns? Door to door even though no one has committed a crime? That would be like living in a fascist state.

Second, criminals would continue to buy or possess guns (there's 300 million of them out there), which means we would be living in a society where criminals have guns, law-abiding citizens do not, and criminals know that law-abiding citizens (their victims) do not have guns. Criminals would then know that they can commit crimes against citizens with no risk of getting shot. What do you think would happen to the level of home invasions and armed robberies if this were the case?

If we were starting a country from scratch, you may be right -- have a blanket law stating that no one, except police and military, can own guns, and yes, gun crime would probably be much lower. But the genie is already out of the bottle in this country.

(I won't even get into how your solution is a complete violation of a constitutional right. We are governed by the rule of law in this country and if you want to enact a new law to solve a problem, that new law must not violate any constitutional rights. But that's a whole different argument.)

[rparz]

An interesting angle on why this really did happen and *gasp* it's not about a gun...


"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

My point earlier about denying guns to someone based on mental illness (which already exists last I heard) was simply that it wouldn't have applied in this case regardless. The guns belonged to the mom, not her kid.

Yeah, I understood and I agree with you there. I was just saying that another problem with that strategy (besides the one you mention), is that if we're going to successfully keep guns out of the hands of anyone with any mental instability, we're going to be keeping them from a pretty large chunk of the population who seek certain types of weapons (i.e. the ones designed to kill the most people in the least amount of time), at which point we may as well just ban those weapons. There are quite a lot of unstable people out there. We just don't become aware of most of them because most don't go on murderous rampages. Only in hindsight are we able to say which unstable people shouldn't have been allowed to possess tools of mass murder.

I wonder what was up with the mom that she felt the need to have these in her house, unstable kid or not? I'm going to guess that the apple may not have fallen too far from the tree.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by rparz

An interesting angle on why this really did happen and *gasp* it's not about a gun...


"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

Gee, thanks, Morgan Freeman. That was so insightful! Now I can clearly see that if we would just stop talking about mass shootings, they would all go away. Silly us for not thinking of that!

[rparz]

So, you don't think these people do it for attention, or to have their name attached to something, leaving a messed-up legacy?
You are unable to accept any reality except that a piece of steel and brass we call a gun is 100% to blame for of our societal ills?

I see I've lost the battle of intellect.




Why do you think in sporting events if there is a streaker or someone jumps on the field, they pan the camera away? When people do things for attention.....

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

As I've pointed out, two purposes of guns is to hunt (procure meat)

Most would agree that this is a legitimate purpose. It's generally not done with handguns or military-style assault rifles, though.

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

and self-defense (preserve your life or that of a loved one).

This one is just another way of saying "kill people." The fact is, you're not going to end up using your gun to protect your life or that of a loved one. You just aren't. We don't live in a Bruce Willis movie. You're more likely to be struck by lightening or attacked by a shark. Sure, you can point to the once-a-year story where this happens, and ignore the multiple-times-per-day story where guns purchased under the guise of "self-protection" end up killing innocents (intentionally or accidentally), but the rest of us live in reality.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by rparz

I see I've lost the battle of intellect.

That was the first time I've literally laughed out loud while reading C-D in a long time. Yep, Morgan Freeman quotes trump observable data in the intellect department every time. Thanks for that, in all seriousness.

I like Morgan Freeman as much as the next person, and I certainly agree that we shouldn't glorify killers, but from what I can see I don't think we are in this case. Should the media just stop reporting all bad news in hopes that it goes away? Maybe the Israelis and Palestinians are just looking for attention.