OT: Chaos

Submitted by ocrenter on June 8, 2013 - 7:31am.

it is just another shooting.

Anywhere else in the industrialized world, this should of course be big news. But this is the US of A. Where We the People should have already accepted this type of events as just a price to pay for our freedom and liberty.

My wife mentioned this one to me the other day:

http://www.cbs8.com/story/22503470/polic...

I read the comments, a bunch of remarks about how this is such a tragedy. But I fail to see how this is a tragedy. We have a country that can't even pass legislation for universal background checks. We have parents that bring kids to gun shows as if it is the county fair. People can walk into the local walmart and walk out with semi's and boxes of ammo.

All of these shooting stories are simply consequences of the above, they are fully to be expected given the amount of guns and ammo out and about.

Submitted by Jazzman on June 9, 2013 - 5:48am.

ocrenter wrote:
it is just another shooting.

Anywhere else in the industrialized world, this should of course be big news. But this is the US of A. Where We the People should have already accepted this type of events as just a price to pay for our freedom and liberty.

My wife mentioned this one to me the other day:

http://www.cbs8.com/story/22503470/polic...

I read the comments, a bunch of remarks about how this is such a tragedy. But I fail to see how this is a tragedy. We have a country that can't even pass legislation for universal background checks. We have parents that bring kids to gun shows as if it is the county fair. People can walk into the local walmart and walk out with semi's and boxes of ammo.

All of these shooting stories are simply consequences of the above, they are fully to be expected given the amount of guns and ammo out and about.


I'm dumbfounded by the comments that follow the story. I simply cannot believe I'm on the same planet. I'm serious.

Submitted by ocrenter on June 9, 2013 - 3:04pm.

Jazzman wrote:

I'm dumbfounded by the comments that follow the story. I simply cannot believe I'm on the same planet. I'm serious.

Not sure why you are dumbfounded. A nation full of cars should expect car accidents. A nation full of guns and ammo should expect shootings.

We collectively have decided guns are a very important part of being American. So we collectively need to change our expectations when we hear about these shootings.

Submitted by KIBU on June 9, 2013 - 6:23pm.

That guy had 1300 bullets with him.

Man, that's a lot of money the stupid guy paid.

He only killed 5 or so.

Man, he wasted about 1000 bullets left unused.

Submitted by CA renter on June 9, 2013 - 7:12pm.

Story from one of the comments on that article:

NEW YORK (TheBlaze/AP) — A 10-year-old Brooklyn boy foiled a would-be robbery by two individuals disguised as deliverymen, police say, using their own gun to scare them off.

The thugs were able to enter boy’s house around 5:30 p.m. on Monday, ordering his two teenage sisters to stay put while they searched the house. The 10-year-old escaped upstairs to where his mother was, followed shortly thereafter by the suspects.

It is unclear whether the family was armed, but the boy and his mother resorted to some quick thinking when one of the men came their way.

Seeing the thug cautiously entering the room — using his gun to open the door — either the mother or the boy slammed the door so hard on the man’s arm that he dropped the gun. Reports conflict as to who rushed the door — the Associated Press is reporting that it was the mother, while local media outlets are primarily reporting that it was the son.

Either way, we know for sure that the 10-year-old picked up the weapon without delay, and fired a shot that hit a wall.

Police say one of the suspects actually fired back, but no one was hit and the men fled the home without stealing a single thing.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 9, 2013 - 7:55pm.

CAR: Stop. No one on this thread is interested in the thousands upon thousands of reported cases where firearms are used to protect life and property.

Instead, the "argument", as it were, is simply "Guns = Bad". It's an easy to understand memetic, for those who don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 10, 2013 - 9:40am.

delete

Submitted by KIBU on June 10, 2013 - 7:15pm.

Yep, the guy got 1300 bullets to protect his life and property alright.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 10, 2013 - 7:55pm.

KIBU wrote:
Yep, the guy got 1300 bullets to protect his life and property alright.

KIBU: While I appreciate your ham-handed attempt at sarcasm, you unwittingly make my point for me. You offer a SINGLE DATA POINT to make your argument, but consciously ignore the tens of thousands of data points that refute it.

Based on your writings, you prefer hyperbole and hysteria, and have run and hid versus coming out and arguing using data, logic and facts, but you really should educate yourself before posting.

Unless you enjoy beclowning yourself, of course.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 10, 2013 - 8:55pm.

Number of people killed in mass killings in California since 1982: 131

Number of people winning $1 million or more playing the lottery in California since 1982: 247

Submitted by KIBU on June 10, 2013 - 9:19pm.

Notice that the proguns always scream for "evidence", in the face of reality. That's their tactics to hold on to their guns. Then they go and mislead people, instill fears in Americans of losing their liberty, etc. It's just the old self delusional tactics that insult their own intelligence. It's very common and tiring "argument" in the face of death by guns in America.

Again, it's interesting that the guy had 1,300 bullets to "protect" his life, property and "liberty".

-----------------------------

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
Share This:

The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.

Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, School of Nursing; Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, School of Social Policy; Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH, and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD, both from the School of Medicine, are co-authors.
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Submitted by SD Realtor on June 10, 2013 - 9:27pm.

Chill out Allan... roll a couple fatties and then go operate a crane...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 10, 2013 - 10:10pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
Chill out Allan... roll a couple fatties and then go operate a crane...

SDR: I prefer Xanax. That and some nice Enya music.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 10, 2013 - 10:29pm.

KIBU: Did you actually read the study you offered as evidence to support your position? I'm thinking you went out on the interwebs and simply grabbed the first academic looking thing that seemed to support your contention. A careful reading, especially in the middle going, will show the authors' position is one of "careful reconsideration" regarding the use of HANDGUNS for protection.

You open your post with more hysteria and hyperbole about "proguns" (I'm presuming this hackneyed malapropism refers to those of us in support of the 2nd Amendment) "screaming" in our "self delusional" way. I'm guessing you're either foreign-born (and English is your second language), or you're not particularly well educated.

My point, which bears repeating as it is actually supported by real evidence, is that for every isolated Santa Monica-type shooting (and, yes, statistically speaking, they are isolated), there are thousands of instances where firearms (not just HANDGUNS) are used to protect life and property.

You might not like facts, data and evidence, but they are irrefutable. Trotting out a SINGLE STUDY WITH A SMALL DATA SET does not change that. Nor does continuing to use hysterical and hyperbolic language. You, in essence, are engaged in the very behavior you accuse your opponents of.

Again, educate yourself. As the saying goes, One is entitled to one's own opinion. One is not, however, entitled to one's own facts.

Submitted by ocrenter on June 11, 2013 - 6:44am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
KIBU: Did you actually read the study you offered as evidence to support your position? I'm thinking you went out on the interwebs and simply grabbed the first academic looking thing that seemed to support your contention. A careful reading, especially in the middle going, will show the authors' position is one of "careful reconsideration" regarding the use of HANDGUNS for protection.

You open your post with more hysteria and hyperbole about "proguns" (I'm presuming this hackneyed malapropism refers to those of us in support of the 2nd Amendment) "screaming" in our "self delusional" way. I'm guessing you're either foreign-born (and English is your second language), or you're not particularly well educated.

My point, which bears repeating as it is actually supported by real evidence, is that for every isolated Santa Monica-type shooting (and, yes, statistically speaking, they are isolated), there are thousands of instances where firearms (not just HANDGUNS) are used to protect life and property.

You might not like facts, data and evidence, but they are irrefutable. Trotting out a SINGLE STUDY WITH A SMALL DATA SET does not change that. Nor does continuing to use hysterical and hyperbolic language. You, in essence, are engaged in the very behavior you accuse your opponents of.

Again, educate yourself. As the saying goes, One is entitled to one's own opinion. One is not, however, entitled to one's own facts.

That was a very harsh, full frontal, personal and vicious attack.

One can only conclude that KIBU attacked something you cherish and love dearly. Akin to stealing your security blanket or your favorite teddy bear. Wait, he did, he attacked your guns and ammo. Release the hounds!!!!

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 11, 2013 - 8:07am.

OCR: Really? We're treated to a constant flow of nonsensical and remarkably fact-free flow of vitriol from this poster and solely focused on guns. Anyone who disagrees is accused of all sorts of negative behaviors and from someone who appears to read at a grade school level.

Repeated requests to come up with any sort of meaningful argument to support his/her position have either been ignored or met with the sort of gibberish seen above. You can call my response vicious, but I met like with like.

As to something I cherish: Yeah, I'm kinda funny about the Constitution that way. You know, having sacrificed friends for it and all.

Submitted by livinincali on June 11, 2013 - 12:55pm.

There is only one way to completely end all gun violence and that would be to establish a police state and subject everyone to random search and seizure. The Department of Homeland security would be able to show up at your house at any given time, secure you in hand cuffs, and thoroughly search your home. You and your neighbors would be encouraged to report each other for suspicious behavior to the government which would like trigger another annoying search and seizure.

Most people don't really want to live under an arrangement where you're subject to search and seizure whenever some government official decides it's the right time, but without going down that road you'll never be able to effectively stop all gun related violence. The arms race already happened and you can't put the genie back in the box by limiting future purchases. It might make you feel good that you did "something", but it's impossible to prove that you did anything to prevent future incidents of gun related violence.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 11, 2013 - 1:18pm.

Ocrenter touched on an important point.

There is definitely a gun culture in America. People arent using guns to defend shit.
They just want their toys.

I have guns because of my peers. Wish I had bought many more guns because they are worth a lot money. But I'm pretty indifferent to the issue.

Some people feel very strongly about their toys. It's a manly man cultural thing.

But really, who says that guns can't be taxed and registered? We have right to property in America but if we don't pay property taxes, the government will take our land.

Furthermore, when the framers of the constitution wrote it, the gun technology we have today did not exist. What's the definition of a gun anyway?

There are many way to interpret the constitution.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 11, 2013 - 1:34pm.

FIH: Except for the fact that, here in California at least, guns are taxed at the time of purchase. This is the same as purchasing a motor vehicle, wherein you pay a tax on the sale.

Also, you have to fill out a BATF Form 4473 prior to purchase. While not a registration per se, it is a document filed every time you purchase a weapon at a licensed dealer.

I'm all for universal background checks. I'm just not too keen on the gubment having a centralized registry. If the revelations about IRS misconduct, NSA snooping and the AP fiasco have shown anything, it's that the US government isn't all that deserving of our trust when it comes to our personal information.

Submitted by curiousmind on June 11, 2013 - 2:12pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
SD Realtor wrote:
Chill out Allan... roll a couple fatties and then go operate a crane...

SDR: I prefer Xanax. That and some nice Enya music.

LOL!!

Submitted by CA renter on June 11, 2013 - 5:14pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Ocrenter touched on an important point.

There is definitely a gun culture in America. People arent using guns to defend shit.
They just want their toys.

I have guns because of my peers. Wish I had bought many more guns because they are worth a lot money. But I'm pretty indifferent to the issue.

Some people feel very strongly about their toys. It's a manly man cultural thing.

But really, who says that guns can't be taxed and registered? We have right to property in America but if we don't pay property taxes, the government will take our land.

Furthermore, when the framers of the constitution wrote it, the gun technology we have today did not exist. What's the definition of a gun anyway?

There are many way to interpret the constitution.

Wow. Talk about a load of hysterical nonsense. I'm female (and have been a victim of violent criminals, so not a manly-man thing), and am also a staunch defender of our right to own guns. I have used guns in self-defense, but this was never reported because they were never discharged, BTW, so those statistics don't count in the data for guns used in self-defense -- and this is very common. I have NEVER considered the ownership of guns to be anything like owning "toys" or some other kind of status symbol. Your perspective about gun owners is horribly warped.

Submitted by SK in CV on June 11, 2013 - 5:27pm.

CA renter wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Ocrenter touched on an important point.

There is definitely a gun culture in America. People arent using guns to defend shit.
They just want their toys.

I have guns because of my peers. Wish I had bought many more guns because they are worth a lot money. But I'm pretty indifferent to the issue.

Some people feel very strongly about their toys. It's a manly man cultural thing.

But really, who says that guns can't be taxed and registered? We have right to property in America but if we don't pay property taxes, the government will take our land.

Furthermore, when the framers of the constitution wrote it, the gun technology we have today did not exist. What's the definition of a gun anyway?

There are many way to interpret the constitution.

Wow. Talk about a load of hysterical nonsense. I'm female (and have been a victim of violent criminals, so not a manly-man thing), and am also a staunch defender of our right to own guns. I have used guns in self-defense, but this was never reported because they were never discharged, BTW, so those statistics don't count in the data for guns used in self-defense -- and this is very common. I have NEVER considered the ownership of guns to be anything like owning "toys" or some other kind of status symbol. Your perspective about gun owners is horribly warped.

You are clearly the exception. 90% of gun owners are men. I don't know if FlyerInHi's description of gun owners represents a majority of gun owners, but I have little doubt that it is more representative than your own situation.

Submitted by CA renter on June 11, 2013 - 5:50pm.

According to this, 23% of women own guns, while 46% of men own guns. I'm willing to bet that the number for both is low (many won't report it), and that the number for women is much higher in real life.

Submitted by SK in CV on June 11, 2013 - 6:11pm.

CA renter wrote:
According to this, 23% of women own guns, while 46% of men own guns. I'm willing to bet that the number for both is low (many won't report it), and that the number for women is much higher in real life.

I didn't find a link in your comment, but I'm pretty sure I did find the survey. And if it's the same one, it doesn't say that 23% of women and 46% of men own guns. It's the percentage of men and women who live in gun ownership homes. Very different.

According to this study...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/g...

10% of women own guns.

Submitted by CA renter on June 11, 2013 - 6:34pm.

SK in CV wrote:
CA renter wrote:
According to this, 23% of women own guns, while 46% of men own guns. I'm willing to bet that the number for both is low (many won't report it), and that the number for women is much higher in real life.

I didn't find a link in your comment, but I'm pretty sure I did find the survey. And if it's the same one, it doesn't say that 23% of women and 46% of men own guns. It's the percentage of men and women who live in gun ownership homes. Very different.

According to this study...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/g...

10% of women own guns.

Whoops, forgot the link.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-r...

And this was gender of gun owner, not those who reported a gun in the house (a much higher number of women have access to guns by that measure).

Submitted by ocrenter on June 11, 2013 - 7:24pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
OCR: Really? We're treated to a constant flow of nonsensical and remarkably fact-free flow of vitriol from this poster and solely focused on guns. Anyone who disagrees is accused of all sorts of negative behaviors and from someone who appears to read at a grade school level.

Repeated requests to come up with any sort of meaningful argument to support his/her position have either been ignored or met with the sort of gibberish seen above. You can call my response vicious, but I met like with like.

As to something I cherish: Yeah, I'm kinda funny about the Constitution that way. You know, having sacrificed friends for it and all.

The point made was the ease in obtaining massive quantity of guns and ammo. Far beyond what is truly needed for self protection. I think you clearly saw that point as well.

Somebody posted the stat indicating reduction in gun related death and injuries, but the reason behind the reduction is a dramatic reduction in crime in general. So if crime is down, how can you argue gun ownership is for self protection? By that logic, a society with reducing crime should find gun ownership down as well.

No one is looking at removal of guns, simply better and more effective restrictions in place. I dont think that is unconstitutional.

Submitted by ocrenter on June 11, 2013 - 7:41pm.

CA renter wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Ocrenter touched on an important point.

There is definitely a gun culture in America. People arent using guns to defend shit.
They just want their toys.

I have guns because of my peers. Wish I had bought many more guns because they are worth a lot money. But I'm pretty indifferent to the issue.

Some people feel very strongly about their toys. It's a manly man cultural thing.

But really, who says that guns can't be taxed and registered? We have right to property in America but if we don't pay property taxes, the government will take our land.

Furthermore, when the framers of the constitution wrote it, the gun technology we have today did not exist. What's the definition of a gun anyway?

There are many way to interpret the constitution.

Wow. Talk about a load of hysterical nonsense. I'm female (and have been a victim of violent criminals, so not a manly-man thing), and am also a staunch defender of our right to own guns. I have used guns in self-defense, but this was never reported because they were never discharged, BTW, so those statistics don't count in the data for guns used in self-defense -- and this is very common. I have NEVER considered the ownership of guns to be anything like owning "toys" or some other kind of status symbol. Your perspective about gun owners is horribly warped.

If somebody owns a single gun with just a few rounds of ammo, locked up but in an easily accessible location in the event of an armed break-in (which is extremely rare), ok, that's self defense. But most gun owners have multiple types of firearm, and a lot of them stockpile ammo as well. That's what you call a toy collection. No one is trying to limit gun ownership of the self defense type. But the profit from the gun industry is coming from the toy collectors, so to protect their profit, they pull out the single woman gun owner living alone needing a gun to protect herself. Nicely played, the toy makers are happy, the toy collectors are happy, what more can you ask for?

Submitted by KIBU on June 11, 2013 - 8:19pm.

More shootings and death in Santa Monica, close to the college:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tw...

It seems like everyday, there are plenty of the so called "isolated" deaths by guns all over the country.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on June 11, 2013 - 8:23pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
SD Realtor wrote:
Chill out Allan... roll a couple fatties and then go operate a crane...

SDR: I prefer Xanax. That and some nice Enya music.

Why the crane?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.