I saw this on Facebook.
“If more guns = less crime, then why are Republicans saying the Iran deal is a bad idea since it may lead to Iran acquiring more weapons?
Iran might get more weapons? Great! We want to arm everybody! More guns means less crime, folks.
Right?”
What are your thoughts?
The development and maintenance fear will make people do nearly anything.
My very first thought was—effective ad against guns.
But then I gave it a second thought. And that led me to conclude that this was like comparing grapes and giant pumpkins—the kind you see at state fairs around this time of year.
The population of the country of Switzerland is not even as high as the population of New York City alone. Israel, one of the countries the US is compared to, is roughly the size of NJ. Ditto for Sweden and West Germany. The UK is bigger but it is still only half the size of California. And according to the newspaper The Daily Mail there is a knife attack in the UK every four minutes.
Canada looks like a better country to compare to size-wise but the population of the entire country is about 35 million compared to the United States’ 321 million. Japan is fairly small with respect to its size but is densely populated. The death rate related to guns is very low there but the death rate via knife attacks is quite a bit higher.
Here’s another interesting fact to put things in perspective: In 1889 there were only 26 people killed in automobile accidents. In 2013 there were over 32,000–about three times higher than that same year’s gun related deaths.
This is NOT to say we should be unconcerned about gun violence or that we should reduce car ownership to pre 1900 levels to save lives. But it does help put the issue in a more fair perspective.
And I can’t help wondering if the people of Syria would be fleeing out of their country on flimsy, un-seaworthy rafts if they had the means to defend themselves against the beheaders and other radicals?
With respect to Iran, well, it’s nukes we are worried about, not guns. And as long as Iran makes regular announcements about their goal to annihilate Israel, we have good reason to be worried.
But, hey, it’s all in the Bible.
Cindy. Here are some grapes and grapes for you. Source Wikipedia. Gun related deaths per 100,000 population
Japan 0.06
U.K. 0.26
Switzerland 2.91
Canada 2.22
Israel 1.86
Sweden 1.47
Germany 1.24
USA 10.64
And Australia for good measure 0.86.
I agree with what Cindy is saying about grapes and pumpkins. The Iran deal has zero to do with firearms – they already have plenty of those. It’s about nuclear weapons and their continual threats to destroy another country. Grapes to giant pumpkins is a bit of an understatement.
DB. No – Cindy was talking about the apparent statistical issue of comparing sheer numbers of deaths given the population differences between the countries. EG “The population of the country of Switzerland is not even as high as the population of New York City alone. Israel, one of the countries the US is compared to, is roughly the size of NJ. Ditto for Sweden and West Germany. The UK is bigger but it is still only half the size of California.” The issue of Iran and nuclear weapons is just another part of that argument.
I think that the correct statistic for comparison would be murders + accidental deaths from guns and other dangerous tools. The murder rate is lower in most of the other countries specified in the OP, but not that much lower. Also, vehicular deaths are 3 times the gun deaths in the US. If you want your family to stay safe, use defensive driving and teach your kids to do so also.
My thoughts are that guns and crime have nothing to do with the Iran deal so that quote makes no sense. And what is the quote’s author supporting? The Iran deal? Iran acquiring weapons? Or are they just using nonsense to bash Republicans?
Db, did you miss what the author wrote quoting the logic of the nra?
Talk about an OP being a complete “non sequitur”
As another poster observed, the concern is Iran acquiring or developing Nuclear weapons, not having handguns. Of course, Iran already has VERY strict gun laws, since it has never, whether under Mohammed Mosadegh, the Shah Reza Palavi, or the various Ayatollahs (and not of rock-and-rolla), been anything resembling a democracy or a constitutional republic. And its various factions and ethnic groups have no compunction about being surreptitiously armed. The Kurds aren’t exactly using spitwads.
Not JUST Republicans, but Libertarians like myself and any freedom-minded folk are concerned about efforts to disarm the law-abiding citzenry for the sake of ‘safety’. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of deaths by firearms (mostly sidearms) are from two occurrences: (1) suicides and (2) gang-related violence, usually meaning that the trash takes itself out. To deduce that firearm ownership constitutes a public health menace would be a better argument for taking away private operation of automobiles and having everyone ride the bus. And I don’t see many liberals volunteering to get a bus pass!
Those of us old enough to recall Archie Bunker (“All in the Family”) might remember THIS little gem about gun control and the contemporary issue of skyjacking:
That still has me ROFL,LMMFAO…though in all seriousness IDK the wisdom of having most, if not all, passengers on a civilian airliner being armed. In “Goldfinger”, though 007 is correct that the .45 ACP round fired from Pussy Galore’s Smith and Wesson revolver would ‘pass through the fuselage like a blowtorch through butter’, it would not necessarily result in an explosive decompression, even at 35,000 feet ASL that would do something like what happened to the corpulent titular character later (“Where’s Goldfinger? Playing his golden harp.”). However, as was depicted some 33 years later in “Air Force One”, I don’t believe that it’d be a good idea for anyone to be ‘spraying and praying” their PDWs (presumably firing 9mm Parabellum) on a 747 with all that jet fuel on board…unless somehow Air Force One is so well armored with such a lightweight and strong material (and IF that material exists, we’d have a great air-transportable main battle tank, wouldn’t we?), or at least some extraordinarily powerful AND fuel-efficient engines, that the combatants can freely engage in gun play without fear of damaging a critical system. In a pig’s eye.
I acknowledge the death rates due to gun violence are lower in many European countries despite the fact that size-wise there are disparities. But every right we are given as citizens comes with a positive and a negative. The right to move around freely in motor vehicles comes with the possible consequence that we may one day be killed or injured in A MVA, and that possibility is FAR higher than any of us being killed by a gun.
Yet we drive around all the time. Why? Because we have decided the benefits of modern transportation outweigh the possible consequences—and the odds that we will be wounded or killed while we are in a car are still fairly low.
I feel the same way about the right to own a gun. I had a great grandmother who escaped from Poland during WW II. The majority of the people in Europe then had no means to defend themselves against a corrupt, evil government. I do not believe for a minute that the Jewish people would have allowed themselves to be herded submissively onto trains during the Holocaust if they had access to arms. Their brave stand in Warsaw is evidence of their willingness to fight when they had the means.
Every single slice of freedom comes with a possible downside. You are FAR more likely to die in a car accident, through a fall, or of heart disease or cancer than you are from gun violence. At this time in America, we have obviously decided that the right to bear arms is worth the risk. It is a position I agree with.
I also agree guns and crime have nothing to do with Iran. I think it was nonsense to bash Republicans. If we are going to argue the merits vs consequences of the Iran deal, I prefer to do it thoughtfully.
The idea is that violent crime crime drops when more law abiding citizens own guns. I think if citizens in Iran own guns, their crime will also drop.
But DB is correct. This has nothing to do with the Iran deal. Wheatmeister (and MH) are arguing a straw man.
Gun in the hands of the right people, not people that are crazy. The supreme leader of Iran is bat shit crazy
I have a friend (and I use the term loosely), a strong supporter of the NRA (which isn’t synonymous with the Republican party Cindy), who believes that there should be no restrictions on weapons. Anyone should be able to own a rocket launcher, grenade, missile launcher, tank, or even a nuclear weapon. NOTHING should be outlawed, because it is a restriction.
Ken, he made no restrictions on “bat shit crazy” people, because presumably the government could therefore restrict bat shit crazy people from owning guns, which shouldn’t happen according to him. The government could presumably get any doctor to call someone bat shit crazy for purposes of preventing him from owning a weapon, which is unconstitutional.
These people exist people, and they are members of the NRA. According to such people, Iran is perfectly within it’s right to defend itself.
That’s what the NRA brings you people: Bat shit crazy people owning nuclear weapons. It’s not a strawman. I could give you his facebook address, but I won’t. He is a real person, and he’s not alone.
Just curious though Cindy, Ken, DB. Do you agree with my friend? What restrictions are ok for guns (or better said weapons)? Patriot missiles? Grenades? Rocket Launchers?
Crazy people commit mass murders, with guns, knives, drugs or via slamming a plane into a hillside or building.
The problem is crazy people, not weapons. We need to keep any and all weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill or those that have low empathy disorders such as autism.
The supreme leader is doped up on the teachings of Islam and is crazy. He is the largest sponser of terrorism in the world, funding Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Houthi.
So you believe in gun control for crazy people, right?
So how we get guns out of the hands of madmen in this country if we can’t see to do it in North Korea or Iran or Pakistan or Iraq or Syria? Better to just arm them all for their own protection, right?
Russia is doing a good thing in Syria by going after ISIS and supporting Assad, right? After all, better to arm the crazies if we can’t stop them.
Ok, my real question: how do we keep weapons out of the crazies both in this country and outside? How do you, Ken, stop mass murders. By arming everyone? Is that working well anywhere? Columbine? Virginia Tech? World Trade Center? Denver movie theater? Syria? Afghanistan?
Is there a limit to how effective arming everyone is?
Heretic, citing your “bat-guano-crazy” NRA-loving associate is still a Straw-Man argument. Though in PRINCIPLE I’d agree that free citizens ought to be able to own ANYTHING they can afford to buy, as a pragmatic matter we don’t have every Tom, Dick, and Harriet running amok with explosives, nuclear materials (weaponized or not), or even items of a hazardous biological nature, for obvious reasons. There are means for private citizens to gain access to a great deal of items that can be mis-used to wreak utter mayhem, provided proper regulations and/or documentation is observed. I myself do likely have more familiarity with the custodial procedures and handling of thermonuclear devices than most, if not all, denizens of this forum, and see no peaceful reason, beyond whimsy (and I’d wonder about the mental stability of a billionaire holding a W76 (100 kT) or W88 warhead (475 kT) just for the “hell of it”), for anyone to possess one. The Second Amendment, while stating EXPLICITLY that that right to KEEP and BEAR arms (does it also include the right to arm bears?) shall NOT be infringed, but also mentions a “Well-Regulated” militia. The framers of the US Constitution may not have been able to foresee the technological advances nor the geopolitical ramifications of our time, but their wisdom and downright common sense still works best today.
Likewise though I feel that the firearms act of 1934 is highly unconstitutional (forbids ownership of full-auto weapons save for the purchase of a special TAX stamp, which is extremely difficult to obtain), were that law repealed I wouldn’t rush out and buy a Thompson (except as a collector’s item) or an Uzi. The ‘average’ civilian is better off with the firearms easily obtainable now, like a decent pump-action 12 gauge shotgun and a sidearm with sufficient stopping power (9mm Parabellum or Makarov, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP), as home defense depends more upon preparedness, coolness under pressure, and hitting power of the individual round rather than the ability to “spray and pray” (looks cool in the movies but makes the Special Ops boys grimace). Still, I like the way the Swiss do it, with every able-bodied adult male issued and keeping at home a Steyr AUG or equivalent as part of the citizen militia…hence why they haven’t been invaded in 800 years.
MH – I think you’ve hit the crux of the issue here and that is understanding the nuance of gun ownership. Most people, unlike your friend, appreciate that complete freedom in this respect is fraught with danger. There must be some restriction.
We recently had a situation where police shot and killed a man who became disgruntled at his boss. He went out at lunchtime, bought a knife and came back to the office attempting to stab him. He failed in the attempt, lunged at the police and was shot dead. At some previous stage we would have qualified for a firearm in a country like the USA. Things deteriorated and he snapped.
I have no problem believing that had he had a gun many people may have lost their lives in that incident. To own a firearm in Australia, you have to demonstrate a genuine reason. Protection of self or others is not a genuine reason.
American friends that I have tell me that fear of black people, fear of the government, fear of the Unknown, fear of anything – are the reasons why they own firearms. Someone is generating that fear and it’s not just your money that they are taking.
A legal ability to possess a firearm is not equal to an obligation.
How do you, Ken, stop mass murders.
You can’t
By arming everyone?
As many good guys as you can
Is that working well anywhere?
Yes
Columbine?
If some teachers had been armed, less people would have died.
Virginia Tech?
This would never happen at the U where students can be armed and are, it us estimated there are 18,000 conceal carry permits with students and teachers
World Trade Center?
We will be attacked in a free society, there is no way to stop that reality.
Denver movie theater?
Again, if people were armed in that theatre, less would have died. I carry to every movie I attend, which is allowed in Utah even if the theatre has a sign that says no guns
Syria?
We need to use bigger bombs and more frequent bombing raids
Afghanistan
We need to maintain a force like we have in Japan, Korea and Germany
Ken, with your answers, in no way did you stop the crazies. Without a doubt, there would still have been life-threatening injuries and likely deaths, and admitted “You can’t.” Once again, let me ask this question: “how we get guns out of the hands of madmen in this country if we can’t see to do it in North Korea or Iran or Pakistan or Iraq or Syria?”
Let’s look at what every military and police force in the world does. When they go into any hostile situation, they take away guns from the irresponsible. Look at the gun-related deaths per 100,000 (see comment 3 above.) We’re about 10 times more than 2nd place Germany, and 177 times higher than Japan (both of whom we disarmed in WW2.)
The US military didn’t say, like the NRA, “hey I think it will be safer if we arm all the Germans and Japanese.” But this is the ludicrous claim by the NRA.
Are you saying that Russia in Syria is helping the situation? Will there be more or less death there with Russia’s involvement?
Or is this a case of “let’s a-bomb them to end the war, so that there won’t be more deaths” like we did in Japan. That’s a strange argument. I guess it worked, but we also killed 130,000 to 250,000 in two days to save the rest of the Japanese from death by machine guy and bayonet. Maybe the Japanese learned from our example, which is why they have a measly 0.06 deaths per 100,000 people now.
The logic of arming as many “good” people as possible with guns never washes with me.
The inherent stupidity of how we work out who the good people are is impossible. See me previous post from earlier in the year “Nephi today…would he be a member of the NRA”.
One maniac in the USA was quoted as saying something like “the only think that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Unfortunately everyone thinks they are a good guy….
I feel far safer in Australia, and I am far safer in Australia, without millions of guns around.
“how we get guns out of the hands of madmen in this country”
As I said, you can’t. There is evil, there always has been and there will be until the Savior returns. ALL the more reason to have a legitimate means of self defense by owning a weapon.
MH,
Understand also where the gun crime happens in this country, in the places run by liberals that have tried to take guns away–Chicago, Baltimore, DC.
Utah has over 750,000 conceal carry permits. Next time you drive on a Utah freeway understand most cars (yea Most) have a loaded weapon in the car. Where I live most people carry to theaters, grocery stores and shopping malls. You have very little gun crime in Davis County where I live.
Yes Ken, you keep repeating what the post says, “Iran might get more weapons? Great! We want to arm everybody! More guns means less crime, folks.”
I mean Reagan even sold them arms back in the 1980s. (Iran-Contra anyone?) It’s a no-brainer. More arms in Iran means a safer world. What’s to argue?
I mean if Iran had nukes, don’t you think the US would be more hesitant to invade? Therefore there would be less deaths because there would be less war. Makes sense to me.
Yes, more guns makes us safer! If it works in Davis County, it ought to work in Tehran just as well! You’ve convinced me Ken. What a fool I was! I’m gonna go out an buy that concealed carry permit right now.
*Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010
*Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010
*73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010 and
*In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
*People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
See http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Good things guns keep us so safe!
Heretic, by your (il)logic and the (mis)quoting of statistics, you make likewise an excellent case to either reinstate the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, as for example, according to MADD, in 2012 some 10,322 persons lost their lives in DUI-related vehicle accidents in the USA. Or, even better, why not REALLY make this country “safe”, and prohibit the private ownership and operation of automobiles? After all, the “right” to drive a motor vehicle wasn’t spelled out in the Bill of Rights (never mind that the first ten amendments to the Constitution predated the automobile by about 100 years).
As for the some 11,078 homicides by firearm in 2010, how much of that is gang-related, wherein both prep and victim(s) are/were gang members with extensive criminal histories? Quite a bit, if you dig a bit deeper into crime stats. I have little issue with the trash taking itself about, as long as innocents aren’t victims of “collateral damage” (which unfortunately DOES occur all too often, if our own well-trained soldiers and marines cause the occasional ‘friendly fire’, you can darned well bet that gang-bangers don’t exercise the necessary degree of care).
I see NO evidence that any ‘gun control’ measures would have significantly reduced ANY of the tragic statistics you (mis)quoted. In fact, gun-related crimes, including homicides, have been documented to be significantly higher in cities with highly restrictive gun laws, like Washington, New York, and Chicago.
The “smart”-EST gun law was enacted in 1791…it’s called the Second Amendment. What part of ‘shall NOT be infringed’ do you not understand? Or do I need to enlist the services of the fictional Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) as to your comprehension of English?
MH, you’re lumping Iran, your crazy friend, other crazy people, the NRA, criminals, Republicans, gun owners, and a potent amount of sarcasm into the same emotionally charged argument and you’re coming out with a jumbled mess. Who or what is the actual target of your argument? Limit your argument to that and leave out the unrelated straw men. Or, present a separate argument against the different targets.
“MH, you’re lumping Iran, your crazy friend, other crazy people, the NRA, criminals, Republicans, gun owners, and a potent amount of sarcasm into the same emotionally charged argument”
Yes, because I think Iran, the NRA, Jihadists, and criminals all are crazy. None of them should have guns, and the NRA’s emotionally charged rhetoric is as crazy as Iran with a nuke. Glad you caught the sarcasm though.
(Some keep conflating the NRA=Republicans. Not all republicans support the NRA, and not all democrats are anti-NRA. Not sure why that conflation keeps happening in the post.)
The comparison between Iran having weapons and the US having weapons is invalid. There is a logical fallacy to it. The agreement with Iran is whether the government should be allowed to have specific types of weapons. The US numbers are based on civilians holding a completely different type of weapon. If they want to make the comparison, they should be using numbers of deaths that the government has sanctioned. This opens them to police and military statistics. But to compare the citizens of the United States to the government of Iran is disingenuous at best, and outright fraud at worst.
13 dead in Oregon school shooting just now. I was interested in the final comment on the news article…
According to pro-firearms control group Everytown for Gun Safety, it is the 142nd school shooting since Sandy Hook in December 2012…
How many in Australia since 2012 – zero…
I like Australia’s number much better.
“How do you, Ken, stop mass murders?
You can’t”
Australia begs to differ.
MH – just wait for the inevitable comeback…”yeah, but if more people had more guns, the shooter could have been shot dead”.
I saw this on Facebook. Wish I could claim it as my own.
Let’s regulate the militia as it says in the Constitution!
#34 – Regulation of the ‘militia’ is ALREADY in place. For example, the cretin that ambushed and murdered parishioners at the Charleston, SC, Church will be subject to trial and likely CONVICTION (and how soon he’ll meet his just reward is debatable, for sure it won’t be by ‘musketry’ as he (will) be a criminal and not a lawful combatant) and sentencing (to death, won’t be as sudden and painful as I’d prefer, but can’t have everything).
I see no issue with in effect ‘drumming out’ felons and the insane who by definition are unfit to serve. Nor would I see any problem with the local sheriff mustering the able-bodied adults several times a year for drill. BTW, those that have served in the National Guard are NOT part of the militia, indeed, some states have a separate state militia (Texas being one). Read the National Guard Act of 1909.
“well regulated militia” is NOT in place in Charleston or there would have been no shooting in the first place (or in Oregon today.) That’s the whole point there caveman. Sorry you seem to have missed the point AGAIN.
Makes me want to move to Australia where they haven’t put up with a mass shooting in 19 years…..
We were all chatting at work today as we watched Pres Obama struggle to put into words something logical out of complete irrationality. I honestly do. It know what the answer is for the USA and guns. What worked for us worked very well. My knowledge of my many American friends leads me to believe that if the government tried the same thing over there a civil war would break out. The culture of fear has produced a circle of logic that allows the very thing you don’t want to happen to actually happen. Ie – school shootings happen because not enough guns. People buy more guns. Then more shootings. More guns more shootings. It never ends.
Ultimately my thoughts are with the families and first responders that have to deal with the mess, the search for answers.
The 2nd amendment was based on the philosophy that a regular army controlled by the government in peacetime, a standing army, was a threat to the rights and liberties of its citizens. Armies were what kings, emperors, and tyrants used to control their own people and to the founding fathers, an army was synonymous with tyranny. Even creating the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War took a lot of convincing. The preferred military philosophy was to rely on non-regular, citizen militias for defense in order to avoid a government controlling its people with an army. After the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army was disbanded to almost nothing and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights was written to establish a relatively weak federal government with limited military capability. We didn’t fear citizens with guns, we feared a government with guns. That’s been part of our culture from the very beginning. While the term “militia” in the 2nd amendment does not refer to all citizens, the term “people” in that amendment does. The idea was that by keeping all people armed, local militias could be easily maintained and trained, or regulated, and we could rely on those militias for national defense and only build up the small regular army when absolutely necessary. That practice persisted until the Civil War after which our political and military philosophies switched from weak federal government and strong state governments with a reliance on militias for national defense to a strong federal government and subordinate state governments with a reliance on a standing army for national defense. However, the 2nd amendment remained although we no longer followed that philosophy.
Today, the 2nd amendment is really a relic of our past and is no longer practical for the purpose it was originally intended but remains a strong part of our culture, tradition, and national identity. Guns are ubiquitous in the U.S. today but they always have been. In countries, like Australia, where guns have less cultural, traditional, or national prominence, strong gun control laws work. In the U.S. those same laws would not work and likely would lead to another civil war if the government tried to enact and enforce such laws. So what is the solution, what would actually work to reduce gun violence? I don’t know but I’m inclined to believe it’s something we’re probably stuck with.
It’s not as if Australia has the only solution. Maybe we can follow the Israelis! Some gems from this article. See http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Israeli-gun-control-regulations-opposite-of-US
Israeli gun control regulations ‘opposite of US’
Israel has been mentioned as a country awash in guns yet still free of such random massacres. Many have pointed out that the difference between the countries is not in the prevalence of guns, but the regulations that accompany them.
Anyone who fits the requirements, is over age 21 and an Israeli resident for more than three years, must go through a mental and physical health exam, Amit said, then pass shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range, as well as background checks by the Public Security Ministry.
Once they order their firearm from a gun store, they are allowed to take it home with a one-time supply of 50 bullets, which Amit said they cannot renew.
“Those people over there [United States] are barbarians when it comes to weapons, the situation there is insane”
“The private gun sales market is virtually nonexistent.”
“It actually took a few months to get the license and this was back when buses were being blown up every day, so there was pressure to arm people but they still weren’t in a hurry.”
After three months he said he got a license and then took his test and the shooting range, before being allowed to purchase a CZ-75 pistol that took around a week to receive. He then had to go through a three-hour course with the instructor on gun safety and the use of the particular firearm, even though he serves in an IDF combat reserves unit and was a shooting instructor in the army.
He added that his license must be renewed every three years through the same extended process, and that he is still restricted to the same lifetime supply of 50 bullets at home.
“It reminds me of what a shooting instructor in the army told us. If you need more than 50 bullets, a pistol isn’t going to solve your problem.”
LDS_AUSSIE
First off, Obama is the single largest sponsor of terrorism the world has ever know. He made the decision to release 150 Billion dollars to Iran, who will then turn around and give it to terrorists in Yemen, the West Bank and Syria. These terrorists will then use this money to buy more weapons, who will kill more innocence. Iran will use it to develop a weapon of mass destruction and will try and use in on Israel and the US. With this said, Obama has no credibility. None. He funds terrorism.
Secondly, there is NOT a gun problem in the United States. There is just simply not a problem. With a population 330 million the amount of people that die from guns is minimal. Except in the larger cities in this country where officials choose to play politics rather that back the police and make stupid decisions like attempting to take guns away from citizens.
Third, and most importantly, I wish I were in one of those class rooms. I really do, because I would have had at least one gun on me. I conceal carry a weapon almost everywhere I go and I would have used it to kill that bastard. If students were allowed to carry a weapon in Oregon like they can in Utah, at least one of them would have been armed and would have been able to fight back and not as many innocent people would have died.
“Secondly, there is NOT a gun problem in the United States.” Yes and the world is flat too. My hell how can you say that with a straight face?
We had 5 cops at Trolley Square, 5 people died, and 4 seriously maimed WHERE CONCEALED CARRY IS LEGAL! How can you do better than FIVE COPS Ken?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
I think you need to work on your sense of self there Ken. Better yet, work on your sense of reality. I don’t know what planet you live on, but you need some serious mental illness help to quit saying ridiculous things like “Again, if people were armed in that theatre, less would have died.” I guess 5 dead and 4 wounded is “not a problem” in your world. PUHLEEZ. GET OUT OF MY WORLD. IT’S A GIGANTIC PROBLEM!
“We had 5 cops at Trolley Square”
First off,there is a sign at Trolley Square forbidding guns. Secondly, the gunman was killed by someone with a conceal carry permit, which he took into the mall ignoring the sign. The gunman was NOT killed by a police officer called to the scene, rather by an off-duty officer with a conceal carry permit, so you have proved my point.
There is not a problem. Again, 750,000 people in Utah (me included) have conceal carry permits and carry weapons. You don’t see daily gun fights and you see minimal shooting deaths of innocent people.
A well-regulated militia is not a militia that is controlled by lots of rules, laws, and regulations. Nor does it mean that the use and possession of arms is controlled by lots of rules, laws, and regulations. A regulated militia is a militia that is made and maintained as a regular military unit. A regular militia or a regular army is a military that is under control of the state, permanently maintained, and has a formal structure and training; as opposed to a non-regular or guerilla military unit which is not controlled by the state, is not permanent, and may or may not have a formal structure and training. During the Revolutionary War, we generally did not have regular, or regulated, militias. The local militias were ragtag guerilla units made up of the local citizenry, with little if any training, that operated temporarily and only when or as needed. Even the Continental Army could barely be considered a regular army until the French came in and trained them. Following the Revolutionary War, the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights realized that if we were to depend on militias for national defense, they had to be regulated, or maintained as regular units, with formal structure and scheduled training so that they could be quickly mobilized and could operate effectively. Militia members were still responsible for their own personal equipment and arms. This is the meaning of “A well regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment. These types of military units, the well-regulated militias, will be most familiar to students of the American Civil War.
“the gunman was killed by someone with a conceal carry permit”
Ken, IF YOU CAN’T GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT, QUIT COMMENTING. Talovic was killed by Scott Hammond, an Ogden City Police officer, not your average citizen with a concealed carry permit. Read the Wikipedia article before you continue to spout falsehoods. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT.
Face it Ken. You can’t do better than 5 cops, who couldn’t stop 5 deaths.
More evidence that Ken standing on campus won’t help, and neither do concealed carry laws. See http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/
Nice try there Ken. Another fallacious argument you need to quit making.
MH,
You did not read my comment, as I said he was OFF DUTY at the mall with his wife and was legal to carry a weapon NOT because he was a cop, but because he had a conceal carry permit. When he is OFF DUTY he CANNOT carry a concealed weapon unless he has a conceal carry permit. Period. And, yes just because he is an officer it does not mean he automatically has a permit.
In other words, when he is OFF DUTY he is like a regular citizen. You are the one that needs to get your facts straight.
I am greatful 1) he was there 2) he ignored the sign 3) he was legal because his conceal carry permit allows him (and all others) to carry a weapon into a place that has a sign that says no guns 4) most importantly he was able to kill the Muslim before he was able to kill anyone else
Ken, a relative of mine is an FBI agent. As part of his job, he carries a gun at all times. He couldn’t have stopped the 5 deaths at Trolley Square any easier than that dude up in Oregon could have either.
I am grateful Scott Hammond was there. He was part of a well-regulated militia (police force) and performed admirably under the most difficult of circumstances. But it is complete BS to keep saying there would have been fewer deaths. 1 dead is too many, 10 dead with concealed carry citizens on campus is worse. You wouldn’t have done any better at that community college than that dude in the article. Cut your hubris and get a reality check.
Do you believe in Unicorns too?
Let’s talk reality check!
Death happens.
That same day had you driven 3 blocks to the northeast at least that many would have died at the U hospital due to various accidents or dieases. Likewise with the LDS hospital 2 miles to the southeast. It is unrealistic to think you can prevent deaths or people acting crazy.
Gun in the US
You are not going to get rid of them. There are hundreds of millions of them. They are embedded in our culture.
Crazy People
We have crazy people from all walks of life. Until the savior comes you will have crazy people doing crazy things.
With all that said, the best we can do is live the life the Savior asked so we are prepared when that day comes for everyone of us in this mortal existence.
Ken, you are the crazy person.
You defend killers of children, killers in movie theaters, killers in malls, and the mentally ill to purchase guns. (After all, if they haven’t committed a crime, they can purchase legally. No “crazy check” required. Thanks NRA! Even Israel for God’s sake requires mental health evaluations before a gun purchase.)
See http://time.com/3983557/mass-shootings-america-increasing/
Your response: “Death happens.”
It doesn’t happen in Australia, or Israel, or Canada, or Germany, or Great Britain, or Russia, or Iran, or Cuba, or North Korea any other major country in the world with the frequency it does here. Here’s a list of countries with less than 1 death per 100,000.
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year
Country Total
Hong Kong 0.03
Azerbaijan 0.04
Japan 0.06
South Korea 0.06
Belarus 0.1
Zimbabwe 0.12
Qatar 0.15
Singapore 0.16
Romania 0.19
Ukraine 0.2
Poland 0.25
United Kingdom 0.26
Kuwait 0.36
Netherlands 0.46
India 0.48
Spain 0.62
Australia 0.86
Hungary 0.87
Taiwan 0.87
Cyprus 0.96
Here’s a list of countries the United States compares with.
United States 10.64
Mexico 11.17
Uruguay 14.01
Panama 17.6
Brazil 19.03
South Africa 21.51
Colombia 28.14
Guatemala 36.38
Swaziland 37.16
Jamaica 39.74
El Salvador 46.85
Venezuela 50.9
Honduras 64.8
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Of the 71 countries listed on the site, the US ranks 59th. 58 countries have figured it out better than the US. We’re better than only 3rd world countries. The greatest country on God’s green earth (as Michael Medved likes to say) can do better.
It doesn’t have to be this way in the US, Ken. Lots of countries seem to have figured this out. Your position perpetuates the violence.
I have nothing more to say to you.
Did you know that per capita Canadians own more guns than Americans?
A few differences:
In the US- if someone SNAPS, or gets REALLY MAD- they have the ability to go out and get a gun in the heat of the moment and do something they, and everyone else will regret…
In Canada- You can’t decide you want to go the the local shop and pick one up, like an Xbox game.
The steps below prevent people who don’t really need a gun from over arming & needlessly arming.
Making guns available, normal pieces of the home, contributes to gun violence but certainly isn’t recognized as a contribution.
PS- What are the stats on guns helping regular citizens vs guns harming regular citizens?
Here’s basically how people do it in Canada…
1. You must pass a day long gun safety course – according to stats only .5% fail
(crazy people HATE tests! they hate a day long course! SCHOOL SUCKS!)
2. Provide three references of character
(crazy people are crazy! BILL IS CRAZY AND WANTS TO BUY A GUN. DON’T SIGN IT HAROLD.)
3. Provide information on your love life and financial affairs
(have abuse charges against your lady/boy friends?? bankrupt? SORRY GAIL!!)
***note: when husbands/wives get a license to buy a weapon, the spouse must sign a form indicating they feel safe with him/her buying a weapon.
Now mail this all in, get a license back in the mail (4-6 weeks later) and go and BUY YOUR HANDGUNS AND RIFLES AND ALL THE AMMO YOU NEED.
If you want to protect your home or go shoot a duck… these rules should not offend your sensibilities. If they do bother you, you need some outside help, not just a gun.
There, now you guys know why seemingly normal young adults, husbands and wives don’t often kill each other with guns in Canada we use swords and cars. And yes there are illegal guns available, and no people don’t go out and get them and kill each other. I don’t know why, but they don’t!
Mentally ill people are everywhere, but the US is the only place where mentally ill people can buy something built to kill human beings.
As I have said previously, I like most aspects of Canada’s plan. Most of it is fairly reasonable. In essence they are saying the same thing I am — crazy people are the problem, not guns.
Similarly, the State of Utah is the only State in the union that runs DAILY criminal background checks against all conceal carry permit holders.
I’d be more impressed if “the State of Utah is the only State in the union that runs DAILY [MENTAL HEALTH] checks against all conceal carry permit holders.”
Might have caught Talovic if that were the case. Most shooters aren’t criminals until after the mass shooting so criminal checks are a bit worthless and a case of too little, MUCH TOO LATE.
“MENTAL HEALTH”
They do.
Not only do they run the list of conceal carry permit holders against criminal background (including the FBI), they also check it against mental health issues.
You are once again proving my point.
When you pass stupid laws restricting gun ownership for stupid reasons, only the people with something to lose will hand over their weapons. People like Talovic, with no assets, no job, no insurance, no morals, no sense of wrong and right, no respect for the law with and no respect for others will keep their weapons. They will not register their weapons. They will not get a permit. They will break the law. That is why they are called criminals.
Allow good people to have guns and support laws like Utah and Canada that do their best to keep it out of the hands of crazy people. That is the solution and that (per the OP) is the reason we need to keep weapons of mass destruction away from Iran
By the way, you can own a gun without having a conceal carry permit.
“Not only do they run the list of conceal carry permit holders against criminal background (including the FBI), they also check it against mental health issues.
You are once again proving my point.”
Your point is that the FBI does such a sucky job of identifying mentally ill people with guns that they haven’t been able to stop any of the 142 MASS shootings since Sandy Hook Elem in 2012. Their track record is sooooo good that we’ve quadrupled mass shootings since the 1970s. Things are getting WORSE KEN, NOT BETTER. THAT’S YOUR POINT?
Please support the following Canadian proposals, since you previously said you support them.
I’m really done with this conversation.
Ken and friends would do well to listen to what the researchers in this field say regarding mental illness. Unfortunately, referring to anyone with a mental illness as crazy is disgusting and unchristlike. Study after study supports the notion that people with a mental illness are victims of crime far more than they are perpetrators. According to your logic, given that 25% of your nation (maybe you or a member of your family) will suffer a mental illness this year. Should they/you all hand back their/your guns?? No of course not. But your naïve and hateful reference to crazy people is reflective of a wider view that blames much of the gun crime on those dr jeckel and mr Hyde types. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242
I should know, I work in law enforcement. I deal with this every day. I have done the HCR threat assessment training, I have worked with the lapd and Canadian police forces. If anyone should, I should hold such a position against mentally ill people. Because I’m at the front line of it – yes…?? Well, no. I have been assaulted by all Kinds of people. And do you know who is the most dangerous?? Young males, under 25 who are intoxicated. By far that is the lost dangerous group. Sure I’ve had dramas with people with a mental illness, sieges, on top of cliffs etc, but in 20 years my experience is that people in acute mental health crisis exhibit more fear than any other behaviour or emotion.
Can we please refrain from referencing people with a medical condition “crazy”. And can we be open and intelligent enough to realise that this issue is more than stereotypes and simple (but usually wrong) causal relationships….
“Unfortunately, referring to anyone with a mental illness as crazy is disgusting and unchristlike.”
You are absolutely correct, not all people that have a mental illness committ mass murder. However, ALL of the people that commit these mass murders are crazy. That is the spirit I intended my reference to crazy people. If I offended those with mental illness, I offer my apology.
Ken – I appreciate your words and maybe, upon reading mine again, I may have been a bit harsh.
Your assertion that ALL people who commit mass murders are crazy is probably wrong depending on your definition of crazy. If you are in fact referring to mental illness you are wrong. Take for example, Hitler. Many believe he was not mentally ill. Very difficult to do what he did if he was truly psychotic. It’s difficult to think that someone could do what he did and not be like the rest of us. But a lot of psychiatrists believe he was indeed like the rest of us. We wish to push such behaviour to “over there” whilst we stay “over here”. Most serial killers are not psychotic.
I hear too much of the “keep guns away from the bad people” narrative. What most people don’t want to understand is that there are very few “bad” people and a lot more “good” people who have potential to do bad things.
LDS Aussie, this made me think of this conversation regarding mental illness (language warning).
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/_no_f_cking_plan_john_oliver_slams_gop_presidential_candidates_blaming_mental_health_for_gun_violence
Yes MH. Sone good points. Mental Health and gun control is your classic straw man argument.
This was an awesome article. Some mains points.
*Gun control advocates used the event as an opportunity to campaign for stricter gun control, despite the fact that Rodger bought his guns legally and easily passed the background checks.
*Mental health advocates used it as an opportunity to urge better mental health care, despite the fact that Rodger had a small army of therapists and social workers working with him for practically his entire life.
*Feminists used it as an opportunity to promote awareness for violence against women, despite the fact that Rodger killed indiscriminately and the majority of the victims turned out to be men.
*Social justice advocates used it as an opportunity to rail against white male entitlement, despite the fact that Rodger was mixed race and a significant number of school shooters have also been minorities (Two examples: Seung-Hui Cho and Kimveer Gill).
All of these issues are legitimate and deserve conversation. But they are not the singular cause. They’re not the point.
…
According to the FBI, mass shootings (defined as shooting events that kill at least four people) occur on average every two weeks in the United States. Yes, every two weeks. Yet we rarely, if ever, hear about most of them. The reason is because these shootings are easily explainable. In most mass shootings, the crimes occur at a private location and the victims are people close and well-known to the shooter — family members, neighbors, friends. Many of them are attributable to gang violence or illicit criminal activities. Others are a crime of passion.
School shootings only account for 4% of all mass shootings and yet they dominate the news media and get the entire country talking about them for weeks on end.
…
An FBI study on school shooters found school shootings are never a result of a crazy person “snapping.” Most shooters do have serious mental health or emotional issues, but they all plan their attacks months or even years in advance. And as they plan, they almost always “leak” information about the attack beforehand, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes in incredibly obvious ways.
…
MASS SHOOTINGS AS NON-POLITICAL TERRORISM
For a country that is so single-mindedly obsessed with terrorism, it’s jaw-dropping that almost nobody recognizes that school shooters use the exact same strategies to disseminate fear and their twisted agendas throughout society. Terrorists use violence and mass media coverage to promote political or religious beliefs; school shooters use violence and mass media coverage to promote their personal grievances and glorification.
http://markmanson.net/school-shootings
From Texas: “NRA-Backed Legislator: We Can’t Take Syrian Refugees Because It’s Too Easy For Them To Buy Guns”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/17/3722968/nra-texas-rep-no-syrians-gun-access/
Let’s keep it simple. 200 Million people killed in conflicts started by the USA since the end of WW2. USA the only nation to use a Nuclear Weapon. USA where you are just as likely to die due to gunshot as in Iraq !USA with the second highest prison population per capita. USA where racism is still rife. Sick country