Gunman kills 13 in New York siege

[perseus]

Here we go again, it seems to hardly raise an eyebrow on these forums, why? because it again questions that holy right to own a gun. I notice that Biden broke off his speech to announce this incident with a accompanying gasp from the audience, and he said (something like) there will have to be something done about it (guns).

The counterargument is that these people would simply get their hands on illegal guns irrespective of gun laws, and prevent law abiding citizens to right to own one and defend themselves. However, in this case and the following ones below how many actually used an illegal gun rather than a legal one or 'aquired' a legal one which was badly secured? In other words were these guns obtained through an organised crime syndicate with a mechanism of acquiring illegal weapons, or simply because they were widely available to nearly everybody?

March 2009: A gunman kills a total of 11 people in a series of shootings southern Alabama
Dec 2008: A gunman dressed as Santa Claus kills nine people and himself on Christmas Eve in LA
Sept 2008: Six people die in a series of shootings in the north-west of Washington state
June 2008: A worker at a plastics plant in Kentucky kills five people before killing himself
Apr 2007: 32 people and the gunman die at the Virginia Tech campus

Perhaps this Bill might help?

Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 was introduced to amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by prescribing stringent requirements for license applications, issuance, and renewals. It prohibits a person from possessing a firearm unless they’ve been issued a license under the new Act, and forces gun owners to report directly to the Attorney General regarding stolen guns or change of address. Every five years, gun owners have to go through the complete renewal process for each gun they own, and failure to do so authorizes government searches without warrant.

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/state-...sed-gun-control-is-a-welcome-change-1.1574435

Seems quite reasonable to me. But then what do I know?

Right you better lock the thread quickly before anyone starts an informed debate!

 

[major liability]

I'd rather risk being shot in cold blood by a psychotic than give up the right to own firearms the government doesn't know about. Freedom isn't free, most people just don't realize soldiers aren't the only ones who have to make sacrifices to attain, or perhaps maintain it.

Keep in mind you have a much, much higher chance of dying in a car accident or drowning in an in-ground pool than being ventilated by some scary "gunman" as they like to call mass murderers these days.

I know most people won't agree with me, but there comes a point when you have to wonder if it would be in our best interest to ban hands, because those can be dangerous too.

 

[mmarsh]

I don't think that's the issue Major. Nobody is telling you have have to give up your second amendment rights. What this bill is saying is that to own a gun you need a license and that the license is subject to renewal every 5 years. Seems reasonable to me. Is it too much to ask for the state to check to make sure that a criminal, a nut, or some-other whack-job is blocked from getting a gun? A license is a certification that this person legally checks out. That's it.

Personally I would add a clause that would require firearms training from a instructor before issuing a license because I am sick of watching armed morons on Youtube, but that's my opinion.

You know I could substitute the word "gun" for "car" and everybody would think its a good idea. As a matter of fact we have licenses for cars and nobody has any problem with it. But mention the word "gun" and all common sense goes out the door.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

Laws, like locks, are made for the honest.

The debate shouldn't be about more gun control, it should be focused on how to enforce the laws we already have...

Of course this is just my humble opinion.

 

[The Other Guy]

There was an article in The Columbus Dispatch the other day about the huge increase in ammunition sales lately. One shooting range near where I live has only 20% of its normal stock of ammo currently in the store; it's just flying off the shelves.

I like the license idea. Same as a driver's license. People just make a big deal out of it because it's mentioned in the Bill of Rights (they didn't have cars in the 1780s).

And people got mad when Obama said they clung to guns.

 

[Del Boy]

I don't think that's the issue Major. Nobody is telling you have have to give up your second amendment rights. What this bill is saying is that to own a gun you need a license and that the license is subject to renewal every 5 years. Seems reasonable to me. Is it too much to ask for the state to check to make sure that a criminal, a nut, or some-other whack-job is blocked from getting a gun? A license is a certification that this person legally checks out. That's it.

Of couse, it does give government more control. When they want to withdraw arms from the population they know where to find all those legally owned.

Leaving only the criminals armed.

 

[MontyB]

Laws, like locks, are made for the honest.

The debate shouldn't be about more gun control, it should be focused on how to enforce the laws we already have...

Of course this is just my humble opinion.

It could also be said that once you take the honest from the equation you are only left with the dishonest and that makes it much easier to enforce laws.

Laws are not made for the honest they are made to define the boundary between the honest and dishonest, we don't have laws against theft, murder, rape etc. because they never happen we have them to ensure that something can be done when it does happen.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Of couse, it does give government more control. When they want to withdraw arms from the population they know where to find all those legally owned.

Leaving only the criminals armed.

But that would mean the banning of all 2nd Amendment rights... And that's NOT what anyone (except the few extreme wacko-liberal types) is advocating. Regulation is not prohibition, friend.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

I personally don't WANT to have to have a license to own the weapons I've inherited. I don't mind that a background check is completed for me to purchase a new one, though.

As I said, I'd rather see my tax dollars go into enforcing the laws already on the books instead of paying legislators to create even more laws that won't be enforced.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Here we go again, it seems to hardly raise an eyebrow on these forums, why? because it again questions that holy right to own a gun. I notice that Biden broke off his speech to announce this incident with a accompanying gasp from the audience, and he said (something like) there will have to be something done about it (guns).

The counterargument is that these people would simply get their hands on illegal guns irrespective of gun laws, and prevent law abiding citizens to right to own one and defend themselves. However, in this case and the following ones below how many actually used an illegal gun rather than a legal one or 'aquired' a legal one which was badly secured? In other words were these guns obtained through an organised crime syndicate with a mechanism of acquiring illegal weapons, or simply because they were widely available to nearly everybody?

March 2009: A gunman kills a total of 11 people in a series of shootings southern Alabama
Dec 2008: A gunman dressed as Santa Claus kills nine people and himself on Christmas Eve in LA
Sept 2008: Six people die in a series of shootings in the north-west of Washington state
June 2008: A worker at a plastics plant in Kentucky kills five people before killing himself
Apr 2007: 32 people and the gunman die at the Virginia Tech campus

Perhaps this Bill might help?


http://www.thedailyaztec.com/state-...sed-gun-control-is-a-welcome-change-1.1574435

Seems quite reasonable to me. But then what do I know?

Right you better lock the thread quickly before anyone starts an informed debate!

There is no logical debate because logic states something you're unwilling to grasp and admit to:

That 9 people wouldn't be dead if 9 people could have shot back. He'd have nailed one, maybe two, before some "holy" gun owner ventilated him.

Once again, you choose to blame the tool and not the carpenter.

You will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Never. Even if you did, they'd manage to find another way to kill. Be it running you over with their car as you leave the mall or stabbing you in the liver and letting you bleed to death in the school parking lot - you're still dead, and they are still a criminal.

Punishing ME because a bunch of feel-good pansies refuse to accept the truth that violence only ends when it meets more violence is stupid. Why is it my penance to pay? Arm yourself, get training, and practice. When some idiot walks up on you with an AK-47 in a shopping mall intent on killing you, shoot him.

God didn't ban OR license rocks when Cain bashed in Abel's head. There's a lesson in that. People argue that an assault rifle has no legitimate use outside of war. Neither do rocks. Or sticks. Or the wooden sword that Sun Tzu used to split the head of his last opponent. Neither does a Ferrari. Buy a Yugo and live your own values before you preach to me what my values should be.

NOTE: "You" is generic in this post and does not address anyone in particular, including the original poster.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

There is no logical debate because logic states something you're unwilling to grasp and admit to:

That 9 people wouldn't be dead if 9 people could have shot back. He'd have nailed one, maybe two, before some "holy" gun owner ventilated him.

Once again, you choose to blame the tool and not the carpenter.

You will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Never. Even if you did, they'd manage to find another way to kill. Be it running you over with their car as you leave the mall or stabbing you in the liver and letting you bleed to death in the school parking lot - you're still dead, and they are still a criminal.

Punishing ME because a bunch of feel-good pansies refuse to accept the truth that violence only ends when it meets more violence is stupid. Why is it my penance to pay? Arm yourself, get training, and practice. When some idiot walks up on you with an AK-47 in a shopping mall intent on killing you, shoot him.

God didn't ban OR license rocks when Cain bashed in Abel's head. There's a lesson in that. People argue that an assault rifle has no legitimate use outside of war. Neither do rocks. Or sticks. Or the wooden sword that Sun Tzu used to split the head of his last opponent. Neither does a Ferrari. Buy a Yugo and live your own values before you preach to me what my values should be.

NOTE: "You" is generic in this post and does not address anyone in particular, including the original poster.

Well said, AZ!

 

[Rob Henderson]

There is no logical debate because logic states something you're unwilling to grasp and admit to:

That 9 people wouldn't be dead if 9 people could have shot back. He'd have nailed one, maybe two, before some "holy" gun owner ventilated him.

Perhaps, perhaps not; the world will never know. The logical conclusion is that if there wasn't a gun in the first place, he couldn't have shot 9 people in the first place... Eliminating the need for those 9 people to be armed ANYWAY.

Once again, you choose to blame the tool and not the carpenter.

I'd blame the carpenter, but how can you expect the government, or anyone for that matter, to regulate weapons on a person-to-person basis? It's simply not possible... The CONUS is simply TOO large... If the United States were an island the size of Puerto Rico, or the Bahamas, then we could probably handle a person-to-person regulation, but as it is, the only way to ensure gun control is to control the guns.

You will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Never. Even if you did, they'd manage to find another way to kill. Be it running you over with their car as you leave the mall or stabbing you in the liver and letting you bleed to death in the school parking lot - you're still dead, and they are still a criminal.

But you know what, they have licenses for cars... Odd.........

Punishing ME because a bunch of feel-good pansies refuse to accept the truth that violence only ends when it meets more violence is stupid. Why is it my penance to pay? Arm yourself, get training, and practice. When some idiot walks up on you with an AK-47 in a shopping mall intent on killing you, shoot him.

Ever heard the term "fighting fire with fire"? Do you know what happens when fire meets more fire? It doesn't go out... The fire simply gets bigger. Your logic is flawed. Violence doesn't stop when faced with more violence... The outcome is simply MORE violence.

God didn't ban OR license rocks when Cain bashed in Abel's head. There's a lesson in that. People argue that an assault rifle has no legitimate use outside of war. Neither do rocks. Or sticks. Or the wooden sword that Sun Tzu used to split the head of his last opponent. Neither does a Ferrari. Buy a Yugo and live your own values before you preach to me what my values should be.

God allowed us free choice, and we screwed that up... He left it up to us to control ourselves, and we made the wrong choice... Not much has changed, if we still think that more guns easily accessible will stop gun crimes from happening. I don't think God wants us to use weapons outside of war (it's kind of a commandment), but I suppose there's no lesson in that...As for the "values" comment... I drive a Mazda 626... It's an average car... I don't drive a Ferrari, and neither does anyone on this forum I'm willing to bet. Most items that I'd like to have that are considered "luxury" items are NOT meant for killing people efficiently. Neither are Ferraris.

 

[MontyB]

There is no logical debate because logic states something you're unwilling to grasp and admit to:

That 9 people wouldn't be dead if 9 people could have shot back. He'd have nailed one, maybe two, before some "holy" gun owner ventilated him.

Once again, you choose to blame the tool and not the carpenter.

You will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Never. Even if you did, they'd manage to find another way to kill. Be it running you over with their car as you leave the mall or stabbing you in the liver and letting you bleed to death in the school parking lot - you're still dead, and they are still a criminal.

Punishing ME because a bunch of feel-good pansies refuse to accept the truth that violence only ends when it meets more violence is stupid. Why is it my penance to pay? Arm yourself, get training, and practice. When some idiot walks up on you with an AK-47 in a shopping mall intent on killing you, shoot him.

God didn't ban OR license rocks when Cain bashed in Abel's head. There's a lesson in that. People argue that an assault rifle has no legitimate use outside of war. Neither do rocks. Or sticks. Or the wooden sword that Sun Tzu used to split the head of his last opponent. Neither does a Ferrari. Buy a Yugo and live your own values before you preach to me what my values should be.

NOTE: "You" is generic in this post and does not address anyone in particular, including the original poster.

You know I think you have this ass backwards the more I see posts like this the more I am convinced that it is the gun lobby desperately clinging to its firearms and ignoring reality.
We are now down to the strange theory that if there were more guns there would be less gun deaths?

Where in history has that worked?

If we want a logical comparison how about we look at the countries with varying degrees of firearms control and compare their gun related death rates?

 

[mmarsh]

Of couse, it does give government more control. When they want to withdraw arms from the population they know where to find all those legally owned.

Leaving only the criminals armed.

I think Henderson summed it up correctly. Regulation doesn't mean a ban. Uncle Sam regulates tons of stuff within a just framework from cars to booze, and NOBODY except a few frustrated 16 year olds have any objections.

Its abit like those people that say that Universal Healthcare or Social Security leads to Communism. Its drawing wild and radical dark conclusions about things that are only minor. Its like being afraid of a mild breeze might become a Hurricane.

Even if the President was stupid enough to try and ban guns (he wouldn't because its political suicide) he cant, because they are protected by the 2nd Amendment. There is no if and or buts. You are entitled to own a gun, but that right is not a 100% guarantee. Just like freedom of speech or religion is not a 100% guarantee.

Let me ask you all something, if getting a license or having something like a waiting period allowed the Government to keep guns out of the hands of psychos and violent criminals don't you think that's a very small sacrifice to keep America safe?

If the government told me (A network Administrator) that I needed a license or a background check to own a computer would keep sex-offenders, gangsters, hackers, spammers from applying their trade I would glad go and get a license, because I have absolutely nothing to fear. Only criminals fear laws, and personally I am sick of dealing with Spam.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

... and NOBODY except a few frustrated 16 year olds have any objections...

I'm somebody, and I have already voiced my objection...

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Perhaps, perhaps not; the world will never know. The logical conclusion is that if there wasn't a gun in the first place, he couldn't have shot 9 people in the first place... Eliminating the need for those 9 people to be armed ANYWAY.

Altruistic and Utopian, but how do you plan to get rid of the estimated 350 million firearms in this country? Ask nicely?

Once again: a criminal is a criminal, and a murderer is a murderer. They'll FIND a way -- any way -- to carry out whatever act is on their heart. If it is revenge, or spite, or whatever deviance they choose that injures another, then all you're promoting is unarming the victim.

I'd blame the carpenter, but how can you expect the government, or anyone for that matter, to regulate weapons on a person-to-person basis?

I don't. I don't want them regulated at all. I believe that Darwin was 100% correct in the survival of the fittest, and I don't need the protection from any government entity. Me and my .45, we do just fine. That not everyone has my veracity is not my problem. They deserve to be victims. I will not be a victim - to anyone OR to the government that I gave 8 years of my life to.

It's simply not possible... The CONUS is simply TOO large... If the United States were an island the size of Puerto Rico, or the Bahamas, then we could probably handle a person-to-person regulation, but as it is, the only way to ensure gun control is to control the guns.

Absolutely correct. That's the beauty of a Republic, a freedom unbeknown to our overseas Democracy friends. Here, I have a RIGHT, regardless of scare tactics.

I am 38. I have never shot anyone. I have pulled my sidearm twice as a deterrent to someone intending grievous harm to me or my family. Had they not recognized my intent to protect, then yes - I would have killed them without a single regret.

That I ow many assault rifles does not make me a criminal. So don't treat me like one and tell me that you need to take my guns for the good of society. Or regulate them. They are my Constitutional right to own as the sporting tool of my choice. That they CAN kill is irrelevant. WHY they were made is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is how they are used. Just like cars.

Speaking of cars...

But you know what, they have licenses for cars... Odd.........

And we have licenses for guns. It is illegal to possess a concealed firearm without a CCW. Boy, that and the gun-free school zone sure did protect those people at Virginia Tech, didn't they?

What we do NOT license is the type of car you own. No family? No SUV for you! You don't need one. And if you hit a Yugo, you'll do more damage and faster than if you drove a scooter.

We can continue this frivolity if you'd like, but the FACT is that owning a car is not a Constitutionally protected freedom. Owning guns is. If that is unacceptable, I understand that Sweden has easy visas to obtain.

Ever heard the term "fighting fire with fire"? Do you know what happens when fire meets more fire? It doesn't go out... The fire simply gets bigger. Your logic is flawed. Violence doesn't stop when faced with more violence... The outcome is simply MORE violence.

Ever heard the term "victim?" The level of violence is chosen by the aggressor. If you smack me on the nose, you've no fear of anything but me beating the crap out of you. If you pull a knife, I shoot you. If you pull a gun, I shoot you.

It is the AGGRESSOR to blame for the level of force I am forced to use to defend myself. Blame him. Don't blame me for owning a gun and refusing to roll over like a b1tch and allow some messed up cretin to have his way with me and mine.

God allowed us free choice, and we screwed that up... He left it up to us to control ourselves, and we made the wrong choice... Not much has changed, if we still think that more guns easily accessible will stop gun crimes from happening. I don't think God wants us to use weapons outside of war (it's kind of a commandment), but I suppose there's no lesson in that...As for the "values" comment... I drive a Mazda 626... It's an average car... I don't drive a Ferrari, and neither does anyone on this forum I'm willing to bet. Most items that I'd like to have that are considered "luxury" items are NOT meant for killing people efficiently. Neither are Ferraris.

Remember, my friend, the "you" in the post you're quoting was generic - it was not singling out you or anyone.

The doctrine of free will has nothing to do with the manner in which we defend ourselves - be it with an AK or a club or a rock or with harsh words of rebuke.

I do agree that we pretty much screwed everything up. But, bro... c'mon now. It is the criminal element that screwed it up, not us. Guys like you and me just want to live our life peaceably, free from the wiles of those that would seek to apply their injustice to our existence.

The only way to make that happen is disparity of force. You cannot reason with those unwilling to allow you your most intrinsic freedom: the pursuit of your life, liberty and happiness. When they come for you, they will do whatever it takes. The ONLY deterrent is to be the bigger [...] on the block.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

You know I think you have this ass backwards the more I see posts like this the more I am convinced that it is the gun lobby desperately clinging to its firearms and ignoring reality.
We are now down to the strange theory that if there were more guns there would be less gun deaths?

Where in history has that worked?

If we want a logical comparison how about we look at the countries with varying degrees of firearms control and compare their gun related death rates?

The lowest gun deaths in the free world are found in small towns in Georgia - where everyone is armed.

How do you explain this?

 

[Rob Henderson]

Altruistic and Utopian, but how do you plan to get rid of the estimated 350 million firearms in this country? Ask nicely?

It can't happen. That's why they must be as closely watched as possible; not allowed to run rampant and unchecked throughout the nation.

Once again: a criminal is a criminal, and a murderer is a murderer. They'll FIND a way -- any way -- to carry out whatever act is on their heart. If it is revenge, or spite, or whatever deviance they choose that injures another, then all you're promoting is unarming the victim.

Do you know how many suicides a year could be prevented if the access to the means of death was restricted? I don't have exact numbers ( I can get them if you'd like) but I can assure you, it's rather mind-blowing. The same idea lines up with criminals and murder's intent. If a murder can't get a weapon with which to kill someone, then it starts putting second thoughts into the mind of that murder. We have the misconception that murders are somehow different people, when the fact is they are still human beings, and I believe (however naively) that ALL human beings are inherently good creatures. This is simply my recollection, but I THINK there was a survey done on criminals in prison for murder, and a rather large portion of them said if they hadn't had a gun, they wouldn't have committed the crime... Stabbing is nasty business, it gives an EERY closeness to a murderer and his victim, and a lot of people aren't cut out for it... No pun intended.

I don't. I don't want them regulated at all. I believe that Darwin was 100% correct in the survival of the fittest, and I don't need the protection from any government entity. Me and my .45, we do just fine. That not everyone has my veracity is not my problem. They deserve to be victims. I will not be a victim - to anyone OR to the government that I gave 8 years of my life to.

There is absolutely no reason for your lack of compassion... Why distance yourself from your species simply so you can have a .50 caliber machine gun? Instead of slamming your door in the face of those who wish for a more peaceful place, why not open it, and try to get along with people... I don't mean to sound like a tree-hugging hippy, but there's no need to cling to your guns and lock your doors... We are human beings, and there is a reason we have intellects... To use them to better the world, not close ourselves off from it because we won't give up our precious metal.

I am 38. I have never shot anyone. I have pulled my sidearm twice as a deterrent to someone intending grievous harm to me or my family. Had they not recognized my intent to protect, then yes - I would have killed them without a single regret.

That's wonderful... I'm 18, I've never shot anyone. I've pulled a knife as a deterrent to someone intending grievous harm to me personally. If that person hadn't realized that I was absolutely serious, then that person would have been injured and incapable of causing me harm, WITHOUT ENDING HIS LIFE. Isn't that a better alternative? Why cause unnecessary death? We have so much of it anyway.......

That I ow many assault rifles does not make me a criminal. So don't treat me like one and tell me that you need to take my guns for the good of society. Or regulate them. They are my Constitutional right to own as the sporting tool of my choice. That they CAN kill is irrelevant. WHY they were made is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is how they are used. Just like cars.

No, it doesn't, but tell me... Why do you keep your assault rifles? What do you use them for? Sport? Tell me, where is the "sport" in killing an animal of lesser intelligence with a weapon that gives you 50 chances of killing said animal within a 10 second span. How is THAT entertaining? How is THAT a challenge?

And we have licenses for guns. It is illegal to possess a concealed firearm without a CCW. Boy, that and the gun-free school zone sure did protect those people at Virginia Tech, didn't they?

And you know what? Gun regulation was a complete failure in that sense... When utilized EFFECTIVELY, gun control has and does prevent gun crimes from being committed.

What we do NOT license is the type of car you own. No family? No SUV for you! You don't need one. And if you hit a Yugo, you'll do more damage and faster than if you drove a scooter.

And I'm sure this comes as no surprise to you, but I don't like SUVs... I like scooters... I'm planning on purchasing one myself when I get out on my own. Why? Because there's no need for anything else. I don't need a Ferrari, because I could give a damn what people think of me and it's ILLEGAL to go over a speed limit. Why is it illegal? Because it is UNSAFE.

We can continue this frivolity if you'd like, but the FACT is that owning a car is not a Constitutionally protected freedom. Owning guns is. If that is unacceptable, I understand that Sweden has easy visas to obtain.

Number one, the "frivolity" is simply a metaphor. Number two, owning guns was a Constitutionally protected freedom in the 18th century... You really think we haven't evolved any since then? To say that because it is said in the Constitution (written almost 250 years ago) that it should never be changed is closed-minded and stubborn. For a government to be effective, it must be able to change with the times. And so must it's governing documents.

Ever heard the term "victim?" The level of violence is chosen by the aggressor. If you smack me on the nose, you've no fear of anything but me beating the crap out of you. If you pull a knife, I shoot you. If you pull a gun, I shoot you.

Ever heard the term "excessive force"? It's illegal, BTW.

It is the AGGRESSOR to blame for the level of force I am forced to use to defend myself. Blame him. Don't blame me for owning a gun and refusing to roll over like a b1tch and allow some messed up cretin to have his way with me and mine.

Look, no one is asking you to hand in every single firearm you own... I'm all for concealed carry and using pistols etc. as deterrents from crime. That's all well and good... But there is absolutely no reason for a person to own a gun shop in his closet. If you need more than a .22 rifle to shoot a damned deer, you don't need to be firing ANYTHING anyway.

Remember, my friend, the "you" in the post you're quoting was generic - it was not singling out you or anyone.

The doctrine of free will has nothing to do with the manner in which we defend ourselves - be it with an AK or a club or a rock or with harsh words of rebuke.

I do agree that we pretty much screwed everything up. But, bro... c'mon now. It is the criminal element that screwed it up, not us. Guys like you and me just want to live our life peaceably, free from the wiles of those that would seek to apply their injustice to our existence.

The only way to make that happen is disparity of force. You cannot reason with those unwilling to allow you your most intrinsic freedom: the pursuit of your life, liberty and happiness. When they come for you, they will do whatever it takes. The ONLY deterrent is to be the bigger [...] on the block.

It was the point that sometimes we have to think of the big picture... Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD.

 

[03USMC]

Actually in ref to suicides I've only worked two that involved fire arms, most are pills, carbon monoxide, hangings, cuttings, and one each of ingestion of bleach or lye. One of the fire arms related was a cop the other a WWII vet. Cops and soliders tend to gravitate towards fire arms because they know the effects. Civilians tend to look at other means that will put them to sleep. So getting rid of guns will do very little to stem suicide.

Cutting and stabbing are up close and personal. But some (many) of the dregs prefer blades, the legal ramification to being caught with a knife is far less. I know and have arrested a great many "knife guys". They had no conpunction about using them on victims. The one who stabbed me in the face is a prime example.

All people may be born inherently good. But that goes away. People do become predatory and prey on their brethern. I see it every day. Restricting fire arms only restricts the law biding.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Actually in ref to suicides I've only worked two that involved fire arms, most are pills, carbon monoxide, hangings, cuttings, and one each of ingestion of bleach or lye. One of the fire arms related was a cop the other a WWII vet. Cops and soliders tend to gravitate towards fire arms because they know the effects. Civilians tend to look at other means that will put them to sleep. So getting rid of guns will do very little to stem suicide.

Yes, but you are only one person.... A survey of one law enforcement officer isn't going to give anyone a good idea of the bigger picture. More than half of the suicides in a year are committed by firearm.

http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm

Cutting and stabbing are up close and personal. But some (many) of the dregs prefer blades, the legal ramification to being caught with a knife is far less. I know and have arrested a great many "knife guys". They had no conpunction about using them on victims. The one who stabbed me in the face is a prime example.

Again, you are only one person... "In 2002 there were 420,637 robberies reported to the police, an estimated decrease of 0.7% over the year before, representing 145.9 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants. As shown in Table 5.8, firearms were used in 42% of the robberies. The use of strong-arm tactics (bullying) occurred in another 39.9% of the robberies, knives or cutting instruments were involved in 8.7%..."

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1757/Firearms-Crime-ARMED-ROBBERY.html

All people may be born inherently good. But that goes away. People do become predatory and prey on their brethern. I see it every day. Restricting fire arms only restricts the law biding.

Any law only "restricts the law abiding." It's hardly an argument, because we can say it about anything... Does that mean we should just let people speed? After all, they're going to speed anyway, so we can't regulate it?