General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsColorado School Shooter Legally Purchased 12-Gauge Shotgun
The teenage student police say opened fire at his Colorado high school legally purchased a 12-gauge shotgun at a Denver-area gun store within one week before Friday's attack, according to multiple law enforcement sources.
Karl Halversen Pierson, 18, barged into Arapahoe High School in Centennial with a shotgun on Friday, set off an explosive device, shot one student in the head, then killed himself. He was seeking "revenge" on the school's debate team instructor, Tracy Murphy, according to police.
Pierson had asked students where to find Murphy, according to police.
"The kid went after him specifically," the school's custodian Fabian Llerenas said. "He wanted to kill him."
Llerenas said he saw Halversen enter the building carrying a shotgun slung over his shoulder.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-school-shooter-legally-purchased-12-gauge-shotgun/story?id=21218890&singlePage=true
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shotgun.
One teen was wounded and two others suffered minor injuries Friday at a suburban Denver high school after a fellow student seeking revenge against a teacher opened fire with a shotgun before taking his own life, authorities said.
The shootings — on the eve of the anniversary of the Newtown school massacre, in which 20 students and six staffers were murdered — sent scores of terrified students and staffers at Centennial's Arapahoe High School scurrying at about 12:30 p.m. Police and other first responders quickly mobilized to surround the 2,220-student school.
A 15year-old girl suffered a gunshot wound and was reported in critical condition at a Littleton hospital Friday evening.One other student suffered minor gunshot-related injuries and was released from the hospital hours later, authorities said. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said Friday night that another girl taken to a hospital was covered in blood from the other student, but wasn't injured.
Sheriff Robinson identified the student who opened fire in Colorado school as Karl Halverson Pierson, 18.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/12/13/two-reported-injured-in-colorado-high-school-shooting/4014393/
Little Star
(17,055 posts)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)CENTENNIAL, Colo.—An 18-year-old high school student reportedly frustrated when he was ejected from the school debate club has been identified as the shooter who opened fire at a suburban Colorado high school Friday, wounding another student before killing himself.
Karl Halverson Pierson, 18, was said to be angry at the school debate coach and entered the school shortly after noon Friday with a shotgun, repeatedly calling the teacher’s name, according to interviews with students and law enforcement officials.
When he found the teacher, he “shot once and missed” before the teacher fled, according to senior Frank Woronoff, 18, who talked with the instructor—who seemed shell-shocked afterward—outside the school as students fled for safety.
“He could barely speak. All he could say were the same statements over and over. He seemed like he might have a panic attack,” Woronoff said of the teacher, whose name has not been released by authorities.
Contrary to earlier reports, there was only one gunshot victim, a 15-year-old girl, Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson told reporters. “There’s no reason to believe she was a target,” the sheriff said, adding that it was unclear whether the girl had tried to confront the shooter.
A second girl was mistakenly thought to have been shot, but she had blood on her only because she had come into contact with the injured girl, Robinson said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-school-shooter-identified-20131213,0,7601970.story#ixzz2nUZnuZ6s
seattledo
(295 posts)That is a fact. I can't believe modern public schools still have them.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Is knowing how to debate some how passé? 
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)I've been here since '03, so wow.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The teenage gunman who entered Arapahoe High School on Friday afternoon and shot two fellow students with a shotgun was outspoken about politics, was a gifted debater and might have been bullied for his beliefs, according to students who knew him.
Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson identified the gunman as Karl Pierson, an 18-year-old student.
"He had very strong beliefs about gun laws and stuff," said junior Abbey Skoda, who was in a class with Pierson during her freshman year. "I also heard he was bullied a lot."
Robinson said that his department was investigating reports that Pierson was seeking to settle a score with a teacher after a confrontation.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24721367/arapahoe-high-gunman-held-strong-political-beliefs-classmates
mikeysnot
(4,756 posts)that he has a right to shoot anyone he does not like or disagrees with...
Gun Rights, you know.... second amendment...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)to that.
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)You keep claiming this but you have not posted one link...
What's up?
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)his Facebook entries.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)All you have to do is go to Walmart and buy a gun and you're a member!
Private E-1 in the well-regulated militia! I'm not sure who regulates these "militia" members, but it's in the Constitution, so I'm sure somebody is doing it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)because the shooter's political beliefs are irrelevant to my comment.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)their guns as the answer for many ills..he was for all intensive purposes, anti gun. Anti- Republican
and was bullied for his opinions. To what degree, I am not certain.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)what that has to do with my post.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)I just read your OP and went to the link and there was nothing there like you claim. Did you forget your Glenn Beck link?
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Since you don't seem to want to link, here is the quote:
"Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"
Read more: Arapahoe High gunman held strong political beliefs, classmates said - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24721367/arapahoe-high-gunman-held-strong-political-beliefs-classmates#ixzz2nY6PXsH5
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook"
Maybe read the articles before you accuse someone of being Glenn Beck.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)adios.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But something tells me you're point was more based on a misunderstanding of the phrase "well regulated" than it was about the make up of the militia under federal law.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)"well equipped" That is what regulated meant at that time. I am sure he is aware of that fact.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Too many folks around here are way too eager to rewrite or ignore history in an effort to score political points for their agenda, making rational discussion of certain topics next to impossible.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)and, to a citizen of the Roman Empire, it meant exactly what it means to us today.
Don't even try to insult peoples' intelligence by saying that it meant something different to the drafters of the Constitution. That is a truly stupid argument.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The phrase as they were using it did not mean "regulated" in terms of legal regulations (which we have loads of).
Just a quick examination of various written texts from the founders would underscore this.
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
Do you think George Washington was implying that the Indians in question had better legal regulations on their troops?
Another from Washington:
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
Or this one from the Continental Congress:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
Do you think they were talking about an army with sufficient legal regulations? No, of course not. The implication that they might have been saying any such thing is where the stupidity comes from.
RC
(25,592 posts)It has nothing to do with any hardware. Your attempts to redefine words ranks right up there with the local, Politically Correct, thought police.
reg·u·late ( rµg“y…-l³t”) v. tr. reg·u·lat·ed reg·u·lat·ing reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits. [Middle English from Late Latin r¶gul³re r¶gul³t-from Latin r¶gula rod, rule; See reg- in Indo-European Roots.] reg “u·la”tive or reg “u·la·to”ry ( -
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Also, one could easily argue that a militia in "good working order" is one that is well equipped.
RC
(25,592 posts)You can still be well equipped, without being very well regulated. Or poorly equipped while being well disciplined.
And yes, I replied to the correct post.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But I honestly don't know how the hell you would have a militia that is "well regulated" if it isn't equipped properly. "To put or maintain in order" being one of the definitions of the word, and given the context of the 2nd amendment itself as it pertains to arms, trying to remove arms from the context of a "well regulated" militia is nonsensical.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)"Regulated" has never meant "equipped" in the English language or any other language.
Native Americans were very well-organized. The Iroquois Confederation is believed to have influenced the drafting of the Articles of Confederation.
Your implication that Native Americans did not have the capacity to regulate a military operation reflects your ignorance.
In the quote you provided from Washington, he states that the Creeks were "united." Are you really arguing that a combined military force can be united, without regulation. That's just plain stupid.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Exactly where did I imply that the Native Americans couldn't "regulate" a military operation? The quote I gave was directly to the contrary.
Well disciplined and in good working order is what they meant by it, not "under legal regulation" as you were earlier implying (tho now all of the sudden you seem to be changing your tune, interestingly enough).
Your attempt to not only misrepresent my point of view (and accuse me of racism in the process) and your constant backpedaling is completely obvious now.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)This seems to be the answer when confronted with facts, you know, just like everything pro 2A is an NRA talking point.
It's no wonder that the gun debate is so polarized in this country, with the controllers losing in every category in the country except in very few states, I mean, look at IL., a state solidly controlled by Dems, they just instituted Shall Issue CCW, despite Chicago's opposition.
I just shake my head in wonder when I read a few of our fellow member's post proclaiming that gun control is on the march and that BIG CHANGES are coming, when in reality, that's just wishful thinking.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)That's the most absurd bullshit I've heard yet from the gun nuts!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)you barge right in with a misconception and the typical "gun nut" insult. It is no wonder that any discussion about guns is made an exception in GD. For now, however, you get yet another opportunity to insult.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Gun fanciers prefer it that way for obvious reasons.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)set for GD.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It was the post itself: "The ONLY good thing about this whole incident is that one more gun nutter is dead."
If you don't find that disgusting, then I find YOU disgusting.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)enlighten me as to the meaning of "well regulated!"
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Also "properly equipped and trained" would have been another usage.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)wondering about what was behind his relationship with the debate coach and what happened to throw the kid into a killing rage.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)There were several teachers when I was in school who participated in bullying and general mistreatment of some students...I remember feeling very bad for those targeted. .
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)For the sake of reassuring the community the threat will be constructed to exist wholly within the shooter who no longer exists.
Conversation that goes beyond that raises the possibility that more similar threats might exist. That message is something the press contacts of the community and the school won't be talking about.
indie9197
(509 posts)Evidently she was shot in the head at point blank range.
My own daughter will be 17 next month. I have no words to convey my emotions right now.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)NickB79
(19,233 posts)A buckshot load fires 9, .32-caliber lead balls, so perhaps the majority missed her, but one or two at the edge of the pattern spread out just enough to make contact.
My cousin's fiance took a shotgun blast at point-blank range during a freak hunting accident 7 years ago. The gun discharged into his armpit, and the steel BB's went through his shoulder and into his skull. He lived long enough to get airlifted to a hospital and put on a ventilator, but was brain-dead by the end of the night.
I hope this poor girl fares better.
billh58
(6,635 posts)for the glaring reasons we need to demand sane legislation aimed at curbing gun violence. Support Moms Demand Action, Americans For Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, our President, and all of the sensible Americans who support increased background checks, gun registration, and other measures aimed at reducing the current easy access to guns for anyone who wants one.
The insanity has to stop, and call for action against the unfettered proliferation of guns is growing louder every day. Help defeat the NRA and its right-wing supporters and apologists.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)check or, up until he snapped, a psyche evaluation.
Turbineguy
(37,322 posts)that's the whole point of the campaign. To arm everybody as heavily as possible. Research shows that people are happiest when they know they can be shot dead at any moment.
On edit: 
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)pump action shot gun on the proposed ban list?
did he pass a background check?
was he of legal age to own the weapon?
my guess is no, yes and yes.
So what are the laws that would have prevented this that are being looked at?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Clearly this young man had some undiagnosed mental health issues that may have been ID'ed in school with proper screening. But no, we can't talk about solutions that address the root causes, or even ID anything else other than guns AS a root cause. Doing so means you are a right wing troll or some other such nonsense.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The fact that he could get a gun without having to go through a detailed procedures where his motives for wanting the gun may have emerged is a problem. You appear to be in the Second Amendment camp. I don't believe in preventing people from having guns, but for you to insist that what appeared to have been a normal teen with strong political views some how displayed psychological problems that could be detected is projection on your part. Do we start putting a kid that shows even a small change in behavior into forced therapy? How does one judge what is dangerous behavior from a teen that is undergoing changes to manhood or womanhood? The answer to preventing shootings like the one in Colorado WILL involve people wanting guns having their motives for wanting a gun scrutinized. Homicidal attacks won't end with forceful gun ownership laws, hell, a killer can use a variety of items to kill, but what will be impacted is the extent that a gun wielder can slaughter unsuspecting people.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And understanding that people rarely "Just snap" but that there are almost always warning signs leading up to an event such as this is me "projecting?"
The young man apparently threatened the teacher he targeted with harm prior to the attack taking place, so there was at least some sort of lead up to this.
Let me know if you decided to take a step back and are willing to have a rational discussion, otherwise there's a place I'm more than willing to put you if all you're willing to offer is insults. (and in case anybody thinks I'm making a threat of bodily harm, I'm talking about the ignore list).
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)do that at some point during their adolescence. So, do you suggest that society start putting every teen that threatens violence under restraints and submit them to psyche evaluations, while not subjecting a potential gun owner to the smallest bit of scrutiny? Are there mental hospitals with enough beds for such a policy? Go ahead and put me on Ignore, any one that have read my posts know that I consider Ignore to be the domain of people that can't argue their points of view. You don't like your pro-gun position being challenged, too bad because every senseless shooting where a person freely purchased a gun without extensive scrutiny will result in your position being challenged. Now, there were recall elections in Colorado where people that favored minimal, weak gun control laws were recalled. Can you say that more robust gun purchase laws wouldn't have prevented the senseless shooting in Colorado Friday?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And your last post was very much in that category.
As to your argument, it is based entirely on a logical fallacy, unless you honestly think there is no middle ground between "doing nothing when a teen threatens somebody with bodily harm" and "locking any such person away in a cell to be submitted to testing."
And can I say more robust laws could have, for certain, not prevented the shooting? No, I can't, because I don't deal in absolutes when it comes to hypothetical situations. But do I think the laws you're proposing would have had a high probability of preventing it? No, I don't. An apparently intelligent and determined young man would have had little difficulty in coming up with a reason for wishing to purchase a firearm that didn't involve a crime. And that's assuming that a law requiring an answer to that question would survive the constitutional challenge it would face.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)that use with deadly force. I stay with the question of do those teens get restrained for psyche evaluation? If a teen tells a person that he or she is going to kick that person's ass, should that teen be thrown in jail and forced to undergo a psyche evaluation? I would agree that if a teen tells a person that he or she is going to kill the person during the threat then that teen deserves scrutiny. But the issue is did the Colorado teen issue that type of threat and if he did, was it given a level of scrutiny that hindsight now would demand? You want to thread on the thin line of taking rights from a person that shows anger with maybe or maybe not any violent follow up, yet you seem to decry any reasonable attempt to regulate guns so that a potentially homicidal teen doesn't easily get hold of a gun.
One aspect of scrutinizing why a person wants a gun is that allow an experienced professional to get information that can't be gained with gun ownership after a few minutes. You say that the teen may have been intelligent enough to lie through a gun ownership check, but you claimed that the teen has threatened bodily harm before buying the gun. Is it unreasonable to assume that a professional would have talked to people that knew the teen, in particular at his school and uncover the threat, IF the scrutiny had been robust WITH ENOUGH time for the investigator to perform an investigation?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...mental healthcare system is a treading a "thin line" to "taking rights away?" Again, you are dealing in extremes where there is a clear and obvious middle ground.
As for having an in-depth, time consuming investigation for each firearms check, it would be an absolute logistical nightmare that would require an insane amount of time and resources to accomplish if it were to be done effectively, and have at best a minimal impact on the violent crime rate give how easy it is to subvert, even IF it is done with the level of scrutiny you are implying it should have. It is at best a pie in the sky pipe dream that stands almost zero chance of succeeding for both practical and political reasons.
Improved mental healthcare resources and access as well as addressing issues such as poverty are almost certain to have a significantly larger impact on violent crime.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)may not follow up on with deadly violence and a situation where a person has shown definable signs of mental illness. The Connecticut and Aurora shooters showed bona fide signs of being mentally ill and the signs were not picked up on and dealt with effectively. Even in the Aurora case, the shooter would not have triggered deadly force potential warnings based upon what is known, he was a bit strange, but being strange doesn't equate to being unbalanced enough to mass kill.
You claim that robust background checks won't have an impact. What proof backs that claim? The reality is that any investigation that allows insight into a potential gun owners state of mind should screen out people that shouldn't own guns.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...costly, not to mention of questionable effectiveness at best, if, as you claim, people who commit these sorts of crimes rarely exhibit any warning signs prior to the commission of their crime. But even that not being true, dealing with the sort of volume we are speaking of here when such a huge percentage of them will be completely innocuous is reason enough to strive for more targeted options.
You seem to think the only way mental healthcare can function is for people to only start having any sort of mental health examination AFTER they've already started committing questionable acts. I propose that child psychiatrists should be the part of every school staff to help keep an eye on the mental health of every student. This should help ID potential issues children may have prior to them becoming serious. We need to shake the negative stigma that mental healthcare has in this nation and start treating our mental health the same way we treat our physical health (well, better than that ideally, given the poor state of health care in this nation even after the ACA).
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)of gun owners? Please explain the difference, esp. with regard due process.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that will be the only way to prevent this, he did everything legal.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)
Then they end up going out in public and shooting people.
Huh.
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)A complete ban on all guns and confiscation from those who already own guns?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)But since the NRA is a powerful lobby, it'll never happen.
Don't worry. Your guns are safe.
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)Go to door to door? throw people in jail? Im sorry but that is too extreme of a position for a Democrat. Instead you should be supporting universal background checks and increased mental health care. Just like the fail bill last April.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And even people opposed to the NRA don't automatically support a ban. Prohibition is rarely as effective as its supporters imagine it will be, and comes with many unintended consequences.
And there's always the moral issue of thinking of and treating everybody as a criminal prior to them committing a crime.
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)I do not support a ban. I did not support the proposed assault weapons ban from DiFi. I know some Democrats think its sacrilege to be a supporter of gun ownership and be liberal, but we are out there.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I wish the party spent more time focusing on the root causes of crime, as well as identifying those causes as such.
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)You would think by now Democrats would learn talking about bans in public is a recipe for a republican controlled congress. The Democrats also need to make it know they support the 2nd Amendment but also support common sense legislation, such as mental heathcare reform and universal background checks. Banning the tools does nothing, as you said we must get to the root cause of why so many suddenly just snap.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The sad thing is people rarely just snap. There's almost always signs leading up to the snapping, but they are too often ignored for various reasons by the people around them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)
For instance, the shotgun Zimmerman lusted over and was awarded by the gun manufacturer for shooting unarmed teen and getting away with it.
I think it's fairly easy to identify people with an unhealthy obsession with gunz.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm a shooting enthusiast and gun owner. I strongly support universal background checks, access to mental health records for the NICS system (and huge reforms in mental healthcare in general), legally mandated secure firearms storage, and several other additional regulations. There are common sense measures that would do some good (although not nearly as much as addressing wealth inequity and ending the idiotic War on Drugs).
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)It's simply not realistic all guns could ever be banned. How would you confiscate them? Go door to door to over 100 million people? And like it or not the constitution grants the right to own a firearm, provided you aren't a felon or some insane psycho. As others have pointed out a ban does nothing except let tea baggers win elections. Even most Democrats at least support the right of ownership if they themselves do not like guns. If the gun control crowd is serious about reducing gun crime then look to the illegal arms trading, gang bangers who sell guns on the street. Pour your resources into that and you will see the results we all want.
firsttimer
(324 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Are you thinking that the vast majority of gun owners would just turn them in when ordered to do so?
firsttimer
(324 posts)If they are law abiding and not criminals , just like the law abiding people did it in the UK
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)U.K. is a different nation and culture which never enshrined any right in a constitution; we have done so with the 2nd. The number and percentage of gun owners is/was far greater in the U.S. I can't say how Britishers would react, but 80,000,000+ Americans would take exception to being slapped arbitrarily with the term "criminal," overnight, by prohibitionist edict.
firsttimer
(324 posts)The UK also had a lot of gun owners percentage wise to their population.
Most of them weren't happy about it either and they were not made criminals over night.
It took time for them to turn in their firearms, just like it would here.
They did it for the greater good of their country.
The gun violence there is next to nothing now.
People there can still own guns it's just tightly restricted and monitored.
What you can own , how many rounds you can have in your home , where you can shoot .
It's not slavery to have more control and restrictions on firearms.
Why would that be so bad here for our country to put an end to most of gun violence?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Saying the gun violence in a nation wig few guns is not a profound statement. The question is what impact, if any, did it have on the violent crime rate, and what other factors were at play that may also have had an impact.
firsttimer
(324 posts)Even here in the US a violent crime can be considered a guy punched in the face and robbed.
The only study that matters is how many people have been killed by guns in the UK since the ban .
I have read the argument that violent crime went up in the UK but that isn't due to gun ban( and that is not the right term)
They can still own a firearm there, almost anyone that wants a gun can buy one.
The number of assaults went up there due to other circumstances that happened in the UK
The gun laws had nothing to do with it.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)In order to measure the effectiveness of a ban you have to confirm that there wasn't a transition to other implements being used.
And those numbers would discount the cost both in life and property of people no longer able to effectively defend themselves.
Also, I find it interesting that you state with such certainty that gun laws had nothing to do with any increase the UK had in violent crime, because that was due to other factors. I submit that those other factors should have been the target in the first place.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The kind pro-2A folks warn of even as they are accused of "paranoia." In a curious way, they might appreciate your rehabilitation!
Not much crime "now," not much crime then. (Old saying re Harvard U: They graduate the best because they accept only the best.) Didn't Tory fears of leftist & labor union movements figure more into disarmament of civilians?
It would be good to lessen gun violence; even better to lessen violence. Strangely, my home town of Austin, Tx (pop. 830,000) recorded more deaths by "knife or sharp-edged instrument" than by guns for 2011. We are a violent & resourceful people.
Consistently, 75% of Americans believe 2A protects an individual RKBA. They will not go quietly into the night, and I cannot imagine a process where general prohibition would be effected or effective. But somewhere in the faint outer loops of my speculative galaxy, I do perceive this nation's vast capabilities at defeating prohibitions of all sorts.
firsttimer
(324 posts)If we give an inch they will take a mile so we can't give anything , nothing at all.
I'm not in that group , I haven't mentioned it but I am a firearm owner.
As for related deaths , sure I could put up automobile deaths , alcohol related deaths.
Like I said before in another post , some people are just criminals and no matter what
laws are passed they will still commit crimes.
If we outlaw knives they will use rocks . yes I know that.
If you're asking me the answer on how to stop all violent crime , I don't have that answer.
But I know we can do a whole lot better as a nation when it comes to firearm related crimes committed.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Zero percent is an impossible goal, but one we should set our sights on anyway. And you do that by attacking the root causes. Here, those would be poverty, poor access to mental healthcare, poor education, the war on drugs, mandatory sentencing laws that can turn non violent criminals into violent ones, and so on.
Your attempt to ban a single implement would not only fail to address any of these issues, it would actively make them more difficult to address due to the expended political capital it would take even to attempt such a fools errand.
There are gun control measures we can implement to help reduce access to criminals and the mentally unstable, but gun control is treating the symptom, not the problem.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)When a mass shooting occurs, the FIRST Calls are for bans; this gun, that magazine, these bullets. The mindset is what prohibition can we get for now, even (and this is critical) if the ban de jour has no practical bearing on the tragedy at-hand. Only after the banners (and they are obvious in DU) run into the usual brick wall, do they mumble something about universal b.g. checks. Then they howl that they can't even get that. No surprise, after poisoning their own well.
This dynamic has played out before, but the same behavior is repeated with hopes, I suppose, of a different outcome.
Give the devil his due. Even the most rabid 2A defenders (I too am not among them) have some credibility in the subject of mile taking. They have seen their "enemy" in action.
Please join in the duscussions in the Gungeon. We are not crazies, and we give good argument!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Yes, we do not bite and as a group are very respectful of opposing views
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Unlike the other group, huh.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...there would still be no chance of a ban/confiscation. The large majority of gun owners aren't NRA members, and while most are much more open to reasonable regulations than that organization, virtually all of them would oppose radical measures like an outright ban. That opposition would include working to see that any officeholder who voted for such a measure was voted out of office in their next election. Any even remotely savvy and competent politician knows this.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)tools next? But the gun nut resistance to having their motives for wanting to own a gun scrutinized is just as much of a problem. Potential gun owners shouldn't be allowed to have any gun that they want to own, some guns have no practical use in the hands of a person other than to kill other people.
The Founding Fathers didn't anticipate the type of guns in existence today, just like they didn't anticipate motorized vehicles, air flight and damned flush toilets. NO ONE can just walk out and buy a car and drive, or buy an airplane or airline ticket without undergoing state controls over their flying, and I damned sure can't install a flush toilet in my home without getting code approval. Every "right" that we have today have restrictions placed on them by the state, and so should be a person's "right" to want any fucking weapon they desire.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)One can own a car without having a license or registering it so long as they only make use of it on private property. The rest only comes into play when there is a desire to make use of it on public grounds.
Similar to how in the vast majority in states one must get a license to carry a firearm in the public.
I'm sorry, but you're entire line of attack on the issue is deeply flawed, as it fails to address any of the root causes of crime.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Before I was able to drive a car on public grounds, I had to undergo training, a written test and a driving test with a cop sitting beside me. How many people that get gun licenses have to go through anything near what a prospective drive has to go through? Before I can install a toilet in my home, I must fill out an application, answer a series of question, and face an inspection before I can use the toilet. How many people wanting a gun license go through what a homeowner that wants a toilet go through?
I don't think citizens should own some types of guns, but I am ok with citizens owning some guns as they get at least the same level of scrutiny that a homeowner wanting a new toilet has to undergo.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...it could never be viewed as a barrier to a constitutional right, I would not argue with it. In fact, I think such training would almost certainly greatly reduce the number of accidental deaths related to firearms.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)certification of potential gun owners. In a society a person funds a lot of things that he or she will never use gun use training and certification is one of those items for me.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Along with opening up mental healthcare records to the background check process, I'd like to see a qualification process at the range, and annual or semi-annual re-qualification. We ask this of the police (many of whom aren't really very good shots at all), so why not ask it of civilians who are going to carry in public?
I'd also like to see all gun owners (CCW permit holders and otherwise) be required to provide proper security for their weapons. The majority of firearms that find their way into the hands of habitual criminals - who, it should be pointed out, kill many, many times as many people as the spree killers that prompt such a media circus - do so originally via theft. Properly securing your weapons is an intrinsic component of responsible gun ownership, IMO.
Short version: I agree that it's not "infringement" to require gun owners undergo a more stringent qualification process, and particularly in the case of CCP permit holders. I would gladly undergo such a process myself.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)of responsibility. Any responsible gun owner should control access to guns, either by keeping them on their person, or in a gun safe - I am not sure about specifically regulating that though. But I do believe that a gun owner whose gun is used in a crime should have some legal responsibility for the gun being used in the crime - so maybe that would drive responsible control of access to guns.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)
Same old tired and annoying argument by pro-gunners.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Nor, tho, is anti-gunner, either. Such labels only serve to drag down the level of political discourse on complex issues such as this.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Response to Vashta Nerada (Reply #21)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)to join the ban all guns camp.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...would be far more effective in the long term at reducing violent crime.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Banning guns will.
Especially if we have the death penalty for gun possession. It's SOOOO tempting now.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You do realize that something as draconian, as essentially fascist, as the death penalty for gun possession would trigger violent upheaval, right?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gunz, don't you think?
Read the post again. The proposal is for the death penalty for gun possession. If this qualifies as merely "tough restrictions" I don't know what else to say.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)There are lots of gun fanciers out there prepared to "protect" their guns, and the hatred that goes with them. Yet, we just smile and let them arm up and up and up.
When I see some yahoo with a Molon Labe (and often confederate flag) patch, Moron Labe is how I view it. Are you a gun fancier?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Anything less would be pissing on the graves of the Founders.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Wow, just wow. And you and your type wonder why gun owners don't trust you.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)some here do not think that is over the top. Very few will push back, lets see how many...................
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)I realize that most here are not for the extreme position of banning firearms, nor for the DP if guns were banned, something that will never happen, but I don't see alot of repudiation of those extreme, dare I say, insane posts?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)As you say, most of the pro-control folks are rational and respectful...and more than capable of offering good arguments. There are, unfortunately, a handful of frothing, bigoted jackasses who are an embarrassment to any real progressive.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)claim to be "law-abiding," but only when they can tote, and accumulate as many gunz as they can afford.
You guys crack me up claiming to be "law-abiding," then shouting Moron Labe every time someone suggests restricting your access to more gunz.
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)Gun nutters- bad
Killing with guns- bad
Laws to reduce poverty and increase mental health treatment- won't work
**SO**
Kill everyone who owns a gun (all 75,000,000 +/- of them)- good
really?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...by keeping them from getting to the point of using a gun in such a way in the first place.
But something tells me we will not be having a rational discussion on this topic.
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)I'm not sure this is a serious post but if it is, then it is quite fascist and very oppressive.
firsttimer
(324 posts)There are countries that have death penalties for drug sales and that is also extreme.
I would never support a death penalty carried out by the state for either of those offenses.
In fact I don't support a death penalty at all but that is an other issue entirely.
I don't understand the people that say a ban wouldn't work if it was done properly
by the federal government .
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)firsttimer
(324 posts)Not the same thing and you know it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)do not work for drugs or guns. Apples to apples, you know better also. There is a video of a guy making an AK from a shovel. How do you enforce that ban?
firsttimer
(324 posts)Criminals are criminals and they don't follow the law.
We are humans and in our species there will always be criminals for as long as the earth is around.
And if this guy is making an illegal weapon then he is a criminal , then we deal with that.
I'm going to ask you a question and if you don't want to answer it it's fine.
Do you support the machine gun act of 1934 and also the 86 Hughes amendment.
I know most gun owners don't but they still follow the law .
Why is that?
because most gun owners aren't criminals , they are law abiding people.
So if they were to ban or severely restrict gun ownership like the UK did .
Gun owners here would follow the law or face a felony same as if they decided
to convert a gun to fire full auto or cut a barrel down to 11 or 12 inches with out going through ATF
to be approved for it.
A ban like the UK did would also work here and be followed by law abiding people .
And please don't compare drugs or a little bit of weed to guns in this country.
It's not the same thing and you know it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)machine guns and most gun owners have no issue with that. I do not know where you assume most do. Same thing with explosive devices.
Machine guns have no legitimate hunting or self defense purpose. Rifles and hand guns do as has been pointed out by the USSC in several decisions.
And as long as that AK is not full auto and he uses it for personal use, it is entirely legal.
firsttimer
(324 posts)If you were to conduct a poll on people that own guns in this country the majority
wouldn't mind seeing the Hughes amendment repealed and be allowed to buy new manufactured
autos. It wouldn't repeal the act of 1934 , it would still be regulated and restricted as it is now.
The only difference is you would be able to buy new manufacture instead of pre 1986.
But to get back to the point is the vast majority of gun owners follow the law
when it comes to how firearms are regulated and sold.
That's why when you say a ban or severe restrictions like the UK have wouldn't work here
is wrong , it would work here .
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)how well did that alcohol prohibition go back in the 20's? How well has the attempt to stop the undocumented workers from crossing the southern border gone? How well has the war on drugs gone?
It is the same thing, but you just refuse to acknowledge it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)evaluation that examines why the gun is wanted. First time gun purchasers should undergo a robust evaluation. Some guns have no purpose in the hands of the general public, if a person wants to "play" with certain guns, that person should be forced to go to a supervised shooting range, with the gun staying with the range. There is a claim about that people living in remote areas need enormous firepower for personal protection from animals or criminals. Well, a standard high powered rifle will drop animal that exists in the USA, and criminals that want to attack people living in remote areas will either get blasted with a standard rifle or handgun, or show up with enough firepower to deal with any resistance.
Dwayne Hicks
(637 posts)But being required to leave the gun at the range?? That makes no sense and honestly it just seems like a sneaky way to ban "ownership". Like I said pour your resources into getting street dealers off the street.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)shooting games with them. Those types of activities can happen at a state and federally regulated shooting range, but the guns stay with registered professionals after the shooting is over. Yes, I want to ban ownership of guns that have no fucking purpose in any peaceful society, and regardless of the visions that gun lovers see, we live in a peaceful society in the USA.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)do you mean semi automatic rifles that have been around for over 100 years?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)the gun had to be reloaded and the rounds had to be contained in the body of the gun. My definition of a assault weapon would be any gun that has a magazine that puts the rounds that can be fired outside of the physical boundary of the gun. So, any gun with an extended magazine would be an assault weapon - but in terms of rounds, I would say any gun that can fire more than ten bullets without being reloaded classifies as an assault weapon, IMO, a person that can't remove a legitimate threat with ten rounds is in need of range practice, not an extended magazine.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)My 1926 Mosin has a 5 round magazine that extends past the stock is that an assault weapon? it is a military grade weapon. It even has the dreaded bayonet. My Ruger can hold 16 rounds and not extend past the floor of the grip.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)In fact, the Enfield has a detachable box magazine, tho rarely was this feature used.
EDIT: Funnily enough, my M1 Garand would be A-OK under the definition given above, which is arguable a far more effective firearm given that it is a semi-automatic rifle and can be reloaded faster with en bloc clips than most bolt actions, even with stripper clips.
Edit 2: now that I think on it, I think the K31 has a detachable box mag as well. Heh
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)It's simply too easy to change out a magazine for it to be an effective means of stopping crimes, and in fact it is only in the rarest of crimes where magazine size even becomes a factor.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Mostly because it bans essentially every single gun manufactured today.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)Divorced and Absent. Father had a separate house in Denver. Mother was out of town,
So what if he was 18? He was still in High School.
He had threatened the debate teacher with bodily harm. Did his parents know that?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)It may have saved the young man from himself, and kept him from harming others.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)I also would contrast his behavior with that of the ex-Marine in Nevada who confronted a student with a gun on school grounds. He died defending his charges. Not saying that this teacher should have stayed, but it is a contrast between the two (also the former Israeli soldier that blocked access to his classroom at Virginia Tech).
It does appear that the presence of a LEO on site kept the body count down.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I was I wish wrong, but I called this one.
Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)
Post removed
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And even if he had been, your post would still be disgusting.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)reason to get violent let alone kill anyone.
What HE did is disgusting. What the NRA and its mouthpieces are. People who think that all problems can and should be solved by guns are.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Nt
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)You're welcome to look. Tho since my posting this stone conflicting info has come up. There are also links to that in this thread.
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)Got anything else?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...when taken with the other info available.
But I'm not expecting a serious reply.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)CENTENNIAL, Colo. – Carrying a shotgun, a machete, a bandolier of ammunition and a backpack with three incendiary devices, Karl Halverson Pierson entered Arapahoe High School and launched 80 seconds of terror as he hunted his debate coach, who was also the school librarian.
New details emerged Saturday as authorities described the country's latest school shooting.
As soon as he entered the building Friday, Pierson fired a round down the hallway and another from point-blank range that critically injured one student. He fired a third round down the hall and entered the library, where he fired again and set off one of the Molotov cocktails, igniting bookshelves.
As fire and smoke poured through the room, Pierson fired a fifth round and went into the back corner of the library, where he fired his last shot, killing himself.
“It is our strong belief that he came to that school with that weapon and with multiple rounds and his intention was to utilize those multiple rounds to cause harm to a large number of individuals,” Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson told reporters Saturday. Pierson had legally purchased the weapon a week earlier, Dec. 6.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-shooting-arapahoe-pierson-20131214,0,7461708.story#ixzz2nVD2oZmc
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-school-shooter-identified-20131213,0,1442691,full.story
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)looking at the context of it all will be important.
The whole thing is tragic and a puzzle...what precipitated this and what set this young man off..too soon
to say.
RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)Where does "his own words suggest otherwise?"
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)He clearly made comments against republicans, including statements on their inaction when it comes to gun violence. But please, dismiss him as a gun nut. That's much easier than an examination of what was likely a more nuanced position.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)snip*In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as "Keynesian."
"I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn't the market correcting itself?" he wrote. "If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn't it be able to overpower regulations?"
Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24721367/arapahoe-high-gunman-held-strong-political-beliefs-classmates
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Adults buying guns as is their constitutional right?!1!
What has this country come to?
This happened for two reasons:
1) Our society is broken.
2) We don't take guns seriously enough.
I don't really know what the solution is but the end result would be less gun deaths because people had more respect for themselves and others.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)there are DU threads about it, as there should be. And every time there's a thread about a terrible gun tragedy the gun humpers show up to defend their precious. I rarely click on any of these threads anymore because of it.
I find it interesting that there are something like 300 million guns in the U.S. -- ostensibly one for every American. But most Americans don't own guns. The vast majority of those guns are owned by the gun worshippers. It's not good enough to own 1 or 2, no they must own 10, 12, 15 or more. These aren't hunters, they're cowards. I've got news for these geniuses, if the gummit wants to come and get you, they're going to come and get you and your little cap guns aren't going to make a damn bit of difference.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I will not call them by a certain term. That language poisons the well and discourages any of the pro gun groups to work with them for legislation that actually may prevent a Sandy Hook. They go after bayonet lugs and flash suppressors and some here are even calling for the death penalty for gun ownership. Are you for that?
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)to deter gun violence we need moar gunz! It's the NRA opposing any type of sane gun regulation. It's the NRA fighting background checks or psych evaluations. It's the NRA ensuring there are lots of holes in the system (gun shows, anyone?) that ensures virtually any psycho can buy a gun -- legally. It's the NRA's constant reiteration that the "gummit is cumin' to git yer gunz!" that scares the shit out of the stupid people enough so that they feel they must have . . . wait for it . . . MOAR GUNZ!
NRA: Happy Servants for the MIC.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that most vendors at gun shows are FFL dealers and must do a background check even there. Private sales withing the state are covered by state laws. There is a difference of interstate and intrastate. If I wanted to sell a gun, I think I woould go to were the people who are looking to buy are.
Are you for banning bayonet lugs and flash suppressors?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)There is increasing realization that the way we talk about violence in the U.S. is preventing any meaningful discourse, let alone practical measures. I recognize there is real catharsis, even pleasure, in condemning enemies. But there are 80,000,000 fellow Americans who own arms, and who don't like being described in terms reserved for hated minorities, ethnic groups, and orientations. It utterly clogs discussion and delays any meaningful tries at change.
Compassion is increasingly confused with the desire to smash the hated "other," the one used, even, to excuse the other.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I just want to do this
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and it's not about terminology used in a debate. It's about the Gun Humpers' insistence that their right to bear arms trumps every one else's right to live their lives.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Right there is the reason that there is such a disconnect in this country between gun controllers and gun rights people, there are extremists on both sides and this needs to stop so we can get together and pass sensible laws that will benefit both sides.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Way to "contribute" to the discussion!
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and I'll contribute mine.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I suppose we should just all enjoy the theater-of-the-absurd trainwreck) that seems to inevitably follow any suspension of the "no gun threads in GD" restriction) while it lasts.
Have a good'n...
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)at the point of a gun. I believe my right to be safe from guns is just as important as someone else's 2nd amendment rights. But the 2nd amendment seems to trump others rights and liberties.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)won't do anything about it, preferring to defend their "right" (actually need) to own guns no matter how many people die needlessly.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)have died needlessly because of DUers' guns?
Iggo
(47,552 posts)Dead kids and how they got that way is the problem.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)need to address that problem. That some have chosen pure reaction and hateful language, and who are often blind to their roll in failing to address that problem, aren't excused in their complicity. To say that kind of language is not a problem in discourse suggests a kind of social impotence at a minimum; but I would go further and suggest it is knowingly counter-productive, lest the "battle" and its alluring passions give way to less dramatic outreach and true communication.
To paraphrase a critic's observations, We live in a time when feelings and comfort zones are more important than facts, and there is low regard for science.
Some within the gun control outlook have grown comfortable with a surprisingly violent rhetoric.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)My language kills no kids.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Iggo
(47,552 posts)In real life, gun****ers have thick skins.