jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (108 posts)

Newtown (Sandy Hook Shootings)

  1. peoplepower73 profile image86
    peoplepower73posted 3 years ago

    Today marks six months since the Sandy Hook shootings. Over 5,000 people have been killed by guns since then.  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … oting.html

    What are your thoughts?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image62
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think you mean how many people have been killed by people since then, the gun is the tool that killers use because its more efficient. 
      Here in the UK we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world however we still have an unacceptable murder rate, people who wish to kill will always find a way to do it.

      1. gregas profile image79
        gregasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The thing is, it isn't as easy to kill in masses with a knife as it is with a gun. Greg

        1. Silverspeeder profile image62
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's true Greg but shouldn't the focus be on those who would use the weapon and not the weapon itself?

          I myself was involved in an incident here in the UK where someone slashed 14 people in less than a minute over two floors of a department store, it was lucky that no one was killed but the assailants objective wasn't to kill but to maim, I am sure if he wanted to kill it would just have been as easy with a knife as it would have been with a gun on that particular day.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image86
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The number one purpose of a high capacity automatic or semi-automatic weapon is to kill efficiently. I doubt that the person yielding a knife could kill as efficiently as an AR15.  It is the degree of lethality of the weapon that is at issue here. I'm guessing for the AR15 to kill efficiently requires very little training.  While the same person with a knife would require a lot of training to even come close to what the AR15 can do. Look at what happened at Sandy Hook in a matter of a few minutes.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image62
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In 1996 Thomas Hamilton entered Dunblane primary school with 2 9mm Browning pistols and 2 M19 .357 Smith and Wesson magnum revolvers he shot dead 17 people before shooting himself, after this event the UK banned all privately owned hand guns. On 2 June 2010 George Fisher killed 12 and injured 11 shooting victims with a 12 gauge double barrelled shotgun and Cz 452-2e ZKM . 22 calibre bolt action riffle.
              The point. The ban on hand guns didn't stop Fisher from murdering anyone. So do you think banning certain types of weapons will stop people killing with guns?

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                To answer that you'd need to look at overall shooting death rates bewteen countries with different banns on weapon types.  I suspect you would find more people are shot overall in the US than in the UK, suggesting it does suppress some shooting events? There is a difference between suppressing (reducing the rate) and making impossible (which is frankly unrealistic).

              2. Mighty Mom profile image89
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                14 years in between mass murders sounds like pretty darned good progress to me.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image62
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The point i was making is you don't need automatic weapons to kill a large amount of people.
                  These killings say more about the people than the guns they use.

            2. Jack Burton profile image79
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In many instances a person wielding a knife can kill much more efficiently than someone with an AR-15. Don't let your ignorance and your bias do your posting for you.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image86
                peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you for judging me as ignorant and biased. The mantra for gun people is "We know it's not going to work, so why even try it."  That my friend is passive resistance. I know one thing that is working, the killings by firearms since Sandy Hook are over 5,000.  It's working great for the killers! So let's not do anything, so that more people can die by guns.

                1. Jack Burton profile image79
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So, tell us, how many people since Sandy Hook have been saved by them having a firearm available?

                  You don't know, do you. You don't care, do you. You're happy to just write those people off since they don't fit into your preconceived notions about life and the way it should be.

                  And why shouldn't I "judge" you as ignorant and biased when you post an ignorant and biased statement?

                  Feel free to label me ignorant when I go on a hub about knitting and demand that they stop what they are doing because pearls come from an endangered species and the knitters are using them all up in their hobby.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who is using up all the pearl in knitting (???)
                    roll
                    Do you mean PURL stitching?

              2. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How are you Jack? It is nice to see ya.

                “In many instances,” you say, “a person wielding a knife can kill much more efficiently than someone with an AR-15.” In how many instances, Jack? In one of a hundred, one in a thousand, one in a million? I have no idea and I suspect you have no idea either. Where will I find the data that establishes your claim “in many instances” is in any way factual?

                To kill with a knife, one has to get up close to the victim. How many children can you kill with a knife, Jack, while standing in the doorway of a classroom or while aiming your knife down a hallway?

                Better still, Jack, a navy seal trains himself for years before he can claim to be much more efficient with a blade then with an AR-15. In fact, if your claim was even close to the truth and seal teams with knives were more efficient, then they would not have to carry guns at all.

                I know I can kill dozens of people in a minute or less from the opposite end of a school cafeteria using an AR-15 equipped with a 100 round magazine. Do you think you can do the same with a knife, Jack? Perhaps it is you who have “let your ignorance and your bias do your posting for you.”

                When I leave my home, I deadbolt all my exterior doors. Do I expect this will prevent all intruders from getting in? Of course not! However, I do expect to slow them down a bit, make it a tad more difficult, and even to discourage those lacking the necessary skills or motivation. As a result, I expect to reduce, not eliminate, the number of possible intruders.

                While every American has the right to own a gun if he wants one, every American also has the right to know that this is one right that is being exercised by stable, law-abiding, citizens.

                Reasonable background checks are a step in that direction. No one is deprived from buying a gun except those found to be a risk to themselves or others. Background checks do not take anyone’s guns away but they do make it more difficult and more complicated for some, perhaps not all, buyers who are a risk to themselves or others.

                I long for peace in this country, Jack, a peace that does not require every citizen to carry a gun. 
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    2. Shyron E Shenko profile image85
      Shyron E Shenkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Peoplepower73, background checks, to make sure that guns do not get into the hands of the mentally ill.  We also need the assault weapons ban that President Clinton had in place.

      1. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
        Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Jack Burton profile image79
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Shyron doesn't know that the same exact guns that she thought were "banned" and she wanted "banned" during the Clinton AWB were all legally bought and sold by the hundreds of thousands during those years.

          But she knows she wants it renewed.

      2. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What are YOUR thoughts?

        Do you propose this question purely as an anti-gun platform?

        In my opinion the anti-gun movement, and ALL those that espouse it are merely pandering to the masses or offering pablum for the ignorant.

        You wish to blame the tool for a human fallacy .

        It is good to decry our inadequacies, because we do need to constantly strive for improvement. But this "gun" issue is baloney.

        Why don't you have the courage to state your thoughts instead of posing it as a "discussion" issue?

        Guns, picthforks, knives, blunt instruments, ropes, poisons, hammers, etc. etc. all are just tools.l And if they did not exsit we would invent/use other "tools." So have the courage to state your point instead of posing it as a "question"?

        GA
        ps. the Curmudgeon didn't take his meds today and consequently feels obligated to point out the bullsh*t of posts like these.

        1. John Holden profile image62
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But you don't have a problem with pitchforks, knives, blunt instruments, ropes, poisons, hammers etc, do you? You have a problem with guns and a problem with the pro gun lobby who seem to think that the answer is more and more powerful guns which is like tackling the drug problem by supplying more drugs!

          1. Jack Burton profile image79
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Errrr.... drugs are illegal and hurt people who take them. 99.999 percent of the 80 million guns in America are legal and will never hurt anyone.

            Comparing the two makes your concept of "common sense gun control" apparent for what it really is.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image86
              peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Jack:
              What you are saying maybe statistically insignificant.  However, when there are mass killings, it doesn't matter about the statistics.  When all of those children and teachers were massacred at Sandy Hook, Statistics didn't matter a hoot to the parents of those children and their spouses. 

              What is missing in the gun enthusiast is the capacity for empathy.  Empathy is where one has the ability to put themselves in the place of the other person and feel what they are feeling.  Gun people won't go there, because that is a threat to their possession of their weapons that they use for fun and recreation and in defense of tyranny that in all likelihood will never occur. 

              One child too many is one child too many, one person too many is one person too many. You don't care if those same weapons are used for the destruction of other peoples lives as long as you can have your play things. If we ban the supply of play things, it also reduces the supply to people who have the potential to use them for all the wrong reasons. I have come to realize that gun people's motives are selfish.  That's why they don't want background checks and ban on high capacity assault weapons, because they are afraid their play things will be taken away from them. 

              Yes, it means you have to sacrifice, and not get anymore play things.  But that's what adult people do they sacrifice for the  greater good of the country.  You may think the greater good is playing with your guns, and that you need them for defense against tyranny, but you are blowing smoke up your own gun barrel.  All of your insults, convoluted logic and all of your gun knowledge doesn't mean a damn thing to those people who have lost loved ones

              Take a look at this.  I'm sure you won't find it as credible evidence but i'll post it anyway.
              http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … otings-map

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Your post would make a lot more sense if we didn't allow/encourage a great many things that get people (and children) killed.  Statistics are obviously of no use to the people losing a child or other loved one, but they are extremely useful in deciding what we are willing to pay, as a society, for the things we want.

                Example: the valley I live in is covered in irrigation canals.  Canals 5-6' deep of fast running, very cold water and canals without which this area would be a barren desert.  In the 17 years I've lived here I don't think there has been a single year when at least one child did not drown in one of those canals, yet we continue to use them.  It is a price we are willing to pay to live here.

                If you don't like examples with things necessary to live, consider alcohol.  Used ONLY for recreational purposes, it is directly responsible for a great many lives each year but we still allow it.  We are willing to pay the price in lives lost from a recreational drug.

                1. John Holden profile image62
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you'd liken a child drowning in an irrigation ditch or a person drinking themselves to death with somebody going out and deliberately killing another person!

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Now why would you twist it like that?  Just to denigrate the post and make it sound evil as long as the reader doesn't actually read and think?

                    I clearly liken the desirability of having irrigation canals and alcohol to the desirability of having guns.  Canals are necessary for the city as we know it, guns have some use as self protection plus entertainment value and alcohol is pure entertainment.  All kill people, but two are perfectly acceptable and one is not.  The difference, please, that makes one unacceptable?

                    1. John Holden profile image62
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      The fact that two only cause death by accident, the third (guns) causes death by intention.

                  2. Jack Burton profile image79
                    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No... he is likening the concepts of freedom and evaluating ALL systems and society by the idea of acceptable gains versus acceptable loses.

                    You will never, ever, once find in any society the ability to stop every single lose possible in all circumstances forever and ever, amen. Each society must determine within it's concept of freedom and structure where that acceptable lose is.

                    But you knew this, didn't you. But you can't argue it rationally or logically. That is why you took the easy path of the emotional insult. It's all you have.

              2. Jack Burton profile image79
                Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                PP sez: What you are saying maybe statistically insignificant.  However, when there are mass killings, it doesn't matter about the statistics.  When all of those children and teachers were massacred at Sandy Hook, Statistics didn't matter a hoot to the parents of those children and their spouses. 

                Jack replies: But it matters to the rule of law… or else we devolve into a mindless, emotional mob with pitchforks storming the castle to kill those evil guns.

                PP sez:  What is missing in the gun enthusiast is the capacity for empathy. 

                Jack replies: And this, Dear Readers, is the simple reason that the gun control movement is losing in the courts, the court of public opinion and the state houses. All PP and his ilk have is slander and emotional rants. That’s it. He has to demonize the gun owner because he doesn’t have a logical, reasonable argument or proposal to put forth.

                PP sez:  One child too many is one child too many, one person too many is one person too many. You don't care if those same weapons are used for the destruction of other peoples lives as long as you can have your play things.

                Jack replies: For a much more mature examination of this issue than PP will ever be able to call forth on his own please check out my hub, “Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?”

                PP sez: Take a look at this.  I'm sure you won't find it as credible evidence but i'll post it anyway.
                http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … otings-map

                Jack replies: And here’s a guide to ordinary people with firearms saving their lives, their dignity and there well being against thugs.

                http://www.rationalityrebooted.com/

                Their map is about 1,000 more filled out than your map, eh.

            2. John Holden profile image62
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But legality is just the toss of a coin. It is only circumstance that allows everybody and his brother to arm himself to the teeth in the US.

              Using guns and drugs as comparison was deliberate to show up the stupidity of gun controls in the US.

              As you so rightly point out, drugs hurt the people who use them, unlike guns which rarely hurt the people who use them but frequently hurt other people.

              1. Jack Burton profile image79
                Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Errr.... no, rights are not subject to the "toss of a coin" here in America. I realize that in Britain you do things differently with the concept that if it is not specifically allowed then it is illegal.

                "Frequently"? Are you aware that less than 0.001 percent of ALL firearms in America are used to "hurt other people"? No... of course you are not.

      3. Jed Fisher profile image87
        Jed Fisherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My thoughts? No injured survivors, no images of bullet-riddled or blood spattered walls, and the building is scheduled to be torn down soon. I think it's a hoax.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/Forum%20Junk/NoSirIDidntLikeItOneBit3a.jpg

    3. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago

      It would appear that we have reached the point where life is cheap. Throughout the history of man were guns have become a part of human lifestyle we accept the many deaths by guns irrespective of the impact on society. This may sound insane but it seems as though insanity is what we accept-let's take years ago when there was the black plague, how insane is it for people to say let's import more rats. People want to exclude the gun, ignore the gun as if it doesn't matter but around this world the utilization of guns is prevalent. If in fact people were dying at the rate they are with guns using a pitchfork then the focus would be on modifying, altering the use of that pitchfork. You won't find in any military organization the same number of pitchforks as you do guns.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image62
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The fact is you could never take away all the guns in the world or even America but it would be a good idea to focus on taking away those most likely to use guns or weapons for murder and criminality.
        Restricting legal gun ownership will do nothing to restrict the guns owned and used by criminals.

        1. SpanStar profile image60
          SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's like saying removing the nuclear bombs will do nothing to stop nuclear explosions.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image62
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It wouldn't stop those who would take no notice of any international law about having no nuclear weapons. How would you retaliate if they sent one of their illegally held weapons crashing down on your country, it's citizens and your family?

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not by firing a nuclear weapon to wipe out a huge area of the globe populated mainly by the innocent.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image62
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The fact is you wouldn't be able to defend yourselves against those who take no notice of your rules and regulations. What deterrent would you have?

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You asked what one would do after it happened, and I answered.  Instead of responding to that you just changed the question.  We could discuss that other question but I'd like to finish with this one first. Would you fire a retaliation nuke knowing what it would do to millions of innocent people?

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image62
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The simple answer is to own one deters others from using there's.

                    1. peoplepower73 profile image86
                      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Below is a quote from John Howard who was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007. I'm not suggesting a gun buy back program...God forbid.  But this is in contrast about your statement.

                      "The simple answer is to own one deters others from using there's."

                      John Howard said:


                      "In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

                      Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control."

    4. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago

      Silverspeeder

      Look around you it is evident that having instruments of death does not end or resolve conflict it simply escalates it. If you come up with a pistol I'll come up with a rifle. If you come up with a rifle I;ll come up with a tank. If you come up with a tank I'll come up with a bomb this idea of living by the gun only produces more guns.

      1. Jack Burton profile image79
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes... this is exactly why we should never, ever defend ourselves against thugs, rapists, murderers, and all around bad guys because if we do they might get mad and hurt us even more.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No one tells the gun in the household whether to help the victim or the perpetrator who, for the majority of cases of sexual violence, also lives there.

          1. Jack Burton profile image79
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Which has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, eh.

            And since the firearm can be used by either side then it is neither good nor evil... it is just a tool.

      2. Silverspeeder profile image62
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."

    5. profile image59
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

      I bet the first people called to the school were people with guns.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yup precisely, which rather backs the argument that only people who are qualified and vetted to have them should have them.

        I don't actually agree with that argument but yours really doesn't demonstrate a thing.

        If you take a drug overdose they often give you other drugs to counteract the effects, obviously then all drugs should be legal on that basis right?

        1. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
          Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. profile image59
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And more than likely a better shot than the guy who has to qualify every six months!

          2. profile image59
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hundreds of thousands of veterans who are infinitely more qualified with firearms than the average police officer! I'm afraid its your argument that doesn't do anything.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yup and veterans as long as they have regular background checks and psych tests and competence tests would I imagine be allowed to have guns under this supposed system.

              As I said should all drugs be legalized because you are given drugs to counter act a drug overdose? Same argument, completely empty.

              1. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
                Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. Jack Burton profile image79
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, in his heart Josak really, really believes a criminal will do just that. This is why it is called "common sense" gun control.

                2. John Holden profile image62
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, but he is less likely to be able to steal weapons from a legitimate owner who takes his ownership responsibly and keeps them properly secured when not in use.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image79
                    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not aware of too many gun owners who leave them laying about on the lawn, the sidewalk or the street in front to their homes.

                    Are you?

                    1. John Holden profile image62
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      A recent shooting, forget all the details but it was said that the kid involved had got hold of his mothers guns.

                      She obviously had them very secure.

                      1. Jack Burton profile image79
                        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                        Were they laying on the lawn out front?

                        People rob banks all the time. You want to claim that banks are not very secure.

      2. Jack Burton profile image79
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

        Good thing we have the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of What Josak Can Imagine.

      3. Jack Burton profile image79
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

        Quill sez: “In many instances,” you say, “a person wielding a knife can kill much more efficiently than someone with an AR-15.” In how many instances, Jack? In one of a hundred, one in a thousand, one in a million? I have no idea and I suspect you have no idea either.

        Jack replies: The fact that you have a failure of knowledge about guns doesn’t mean that others suffer from the same problem.

        If you’re looking for a quantitative answer then you don’t really understand English very well.

        But let’s give you a couple of “instances” and see if you can decide for yourself which circumstance will leave the highest number of dead people in its wake.

        Does a AR-15 run out of bullets? Yes, it can. Easily. Can a gun jam after it fires one, two, maybe three bullets? Why, yes it can do that also. Can a person bump a magazine button, accidently releasing it before all the rounds are fired? Certainly. Can a person fail to seat the magazine in properly, not allowing the gun to fire at all? Absolutely. And ALL of these things are common problems with an AR-15 with a 30 or more round magazine. They are notorious jam-o-matics.

        Is a knife subject to any of those problems. No.  A knife doesn’t’ run out of ammo, or jam up, or fail to seat the magazine. Does a simply slash with a knife kill? Certainly possible. So if you have a AR-15 that has jammed after two rounds, and I have a fully functional knife, which of the two of us can probably “kill” more people at that point?

        Quill sez:  Where will I find the data that establishes your claim “in many instances” is in any way factual?

        Jack replies: Ask any self defense instructor. A gun has a number of advantages that make it a superior weapon in some kinds of situations. A knife has a number of advantages that make it a superior weapon in some kinds of situations. That fact that you don’t know that is not a fault of mine that I need to correct for you.

        Quill sez: To kill with a knife, one has to get up close to the victim. How many children can you kill with a knife, Jack, while standing in the doorway of a classroom or while aiming your knife down a hallway?

        Jack replies: Yes, you do have to get close. But it’s fascinating that you demand that the attacker freeze into place, standing only in the doorway or hallway. Are all of your imaginary attackers paralyzed from the waist down, or it is only the knife wielders?

        Quill sez:  Better still, Jack, a navy seal trains himself for years before he can claim to be much more efficient with a blade then with an AR-15.

        Jack replies: I am sure you are an expert on Seal Team training. Perhaps you can tell us where you learned this from? Give detail. Be specific. Note the exact Hollywood movie where you learned all about Seals, knives and guns. BTW… YOU are the only one who posted anything about anyone being “more efficient” with a knife. I certainly didn’t say anything along those lines.

        Quill sez:  In fact, if your claim was even close to the truth and seal teams with knives were more efficient, then they would not have to carry guns at all.

        Jack replies: Have you always had this ethical problem with making up stuff from thin air or have you found it to be a recent development? Give detail just where you found this “claim” that you think I made about “seal teams with knives were more efficient.” Or that anyone, including little old ladies, are “more efficient.”

        You see, Dear Readers. This is the kind of stuff that people such as Quill post that takes away any credibility for them. They really can’t answer what is actually posted so they just have to make up false, silly arguments to post that really didn’t exist. Then they argue against the silly arguments that they themselves just made up.

        Quill sez: I know I can kill dozens of people in a minute or less from the opposite end of a school cafeteria using an AR-15 equipped with a 100 round magazine. Do you think you can do the same with a knife, Jack? Perhaps it is you who have “let your ignorance and your bias do your posting for you.”

        Jack replies: And how many people are you going to “kill” when the AR-15 hopelessly jams after the third round? Yes, quill, you are ignorant of the basic facts of shooting an AR-15 but you read all about them in the media and you think you’re an expert.

        But it is fascinating as can be that you absolute refuse to acknowledge that my answer said "in some circumstances..." You want to make up a "circumstance" that totally favors what you want and then demand that I overcome YOUR "made up circumstance."

        Quill sez:  When I leave my home, I deadbolt all my exterior doors. Do I expect this will prevent all intruders from getting in? Of course not! However, I do expect to slow them down a bit, make it a tad more difficult, and even to discourage those lacking the necessary skills or motivation. As a result, I expect to reduce, not eliminate, the number of possible intruders.

        Jack replies: Good for you…

        Quill sez:  While every American has the right to own a gun if he wants one, every American also has the right to know that this is one right that is being exercised by stable, law-abiding, citizens.

        Jack replies: Approximately 80 MILLION gun owners in America.

        If only TEN PERCENT of the gun owners are other than “stable, law-abiding, citizens” that would mean that there would be at least 8 MILLION gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

        Is there? Of course not.

        If only ONE PERCENT of the gun owners are other than “stable, law-abiding, citizens” that would mean that there would be at least 800,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

        Is there? Of course not.

        If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the gun owners are other than “stable, law-abiding, citizens” then that would mean that there would be at least 80,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

        Is there? Of course not.

        And if only ONE ONE HUNDETH OF ONE PERCENT of the gun owners are other than “stable, law-abiding, citizens” that would mean that there would be at least 8,000 gun deaths a year from one gun owner illegally shooting another innocent person.

        And that’s about the right number.

        So here’s the “common sense” that people such as quill want to claim for themselves. 99.999 percent of all gun owners will NEVER hurt anyone with their gun. But 0.001 percent will harm people in some fashion or another. So Quill’s solution is to subject the 99.999 percent to new rules and regulations, knowing full well that the 0.001 percent are simply not affected by them. Common sense, indeed.

        Quill sez: Reasonable background checks are a step in that direction.

        Jack replies: This is a remarkably good idea. Now, if we can just get all the criminals to full out a background check form that they know they’ll never pass, and we can persuade all those who illegally sell firearms to criminals to demand that their clients fill out the form, we’ve taken a “step in the right direction.”

        As noted above, this is what passes as “common sense” among quill and his ilk.


        Quill sez:  I long for peace in this country, Jack, a peace that does not require every citizen to carry a gun. 

        Jack replies: Well, quill, old buddy, when you find a way to take evil out of man’s heart, along with envy, greed, sloth and all the other sins then get back to us. But no one that I know “requires” you to carry a gun. You can wait for the police to show up 15 minutes after you call them (assuming you get the chance) just like all those who choose the helpless lambs method of self defense.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image89
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are you really that afraid you wouldn't pass the background check?
          smile

          1. Jack Burton profile image79
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Would you like to have to pass a background check before you posted that comment you just made? Or are you afraid you couldn't pass one?

            And mom... remember that we've already established that people who don't know the difference between purl and pearl probably won't have much credibility when it comes to discussing knitting. We'll see how much you know about guns. gun laws, and gun owners.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi again, Jack.

          Your post goes from “about anyone being ‘more efficient’ with a knife. I certainly didn’t say anything along those lines” to “my answer said ‘in some circumstances...’” {1}
          Oh, yes you surely did, Jack. You said, “In many instances a person wielding a knife can kill much more efficiently than someone with an AR-15.” {2} Would you like to revisit your own words?I was hoping to learn for you. Instead, you provide absolutely no data to support a ludicrous claim. All you said was, “If you’re looking for a quantitative answer then you don’t really understand English very well.” Actually, I understand English well enough to know that the only time a knife is more efficient than an AR-15, according to you, is when the gun jams. However, gun experts agree the AR-15 sustained rate of fire is 12-15 rounds a minute and the semiautomatic rate is 45 rounds a minute considering both jams and reloading. {3} 

          In addition, this data confirms I was fairly accurate when I said, “I know I can kill dozens of people in a minute or less from the opposite end of a school cafeteria using an AR-15.” I rely on quantitative answers, Jack. They are the difference between knowing something and thinking I know something.

          When comparing an AR-15 to the use of a knife, you opine, “A gun has a number of advantages that make it a superior weapon in some kinds of situations. A knife has a number of advantages that make it a superior weapon in some kinds of situations.” Since the Sandy Hook incident is the topic of discussion, we are obviously talking about a situation where a gun was the superior weapon. Thank you for confirming that. It clearly establishes that your claim “a knife can kill much more efficiently” is an unnecessary distraction that begged for a quantitative citation.

          The fact that you and I have different opinions about guns and their place in society does mean that we disagree on all issues. Looking at a topic from two different perspective does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. Nor do different viewpoints mean we can not have a civil and intellegent conversation. To ask, “Have you always had this ethical problem with making up stuff from thin air or have you found it to be a recent development?” or to insult the OP with “Don't let your ignorance and your bias do your posting for you” are personal attacks that are neither civil or intellegent. The statement, “this is what passes as ‘common sense’ among quill and his ilk” says more about you then it does about me. 

          I thank you, Jack, for sharing you thoughts with me and my “ilk.” Once again, I have learn much from you.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113684? … ost2419885
          {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113684#post2419759
          {3} http://wredlich.com/ny/2012/07/gun-cont … olishness/

          1. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
            Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Quilligrapher profile image91
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Uncle.

              I list links to all my sources in my endnotes.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
                Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi again, Uncle.

                  Sadly, you have made a false assumption.

                  People that do not differentiate between real facts and fiction usually rely on assumptions in order to arrive at conclusions they can live with. The problem is that assumptions can easily move any conclusions away from a logical, well informed position.

                  Apparently, it is easier for you to make a false assumption than to look at the endnotes in my posts. As a result, the assumption has moved the conclusion away from a logical, well informed position. All you need to do is read my endnotes and reach a conclusion based upon real facts and not on false assumptions.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. profile image59
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    This is from one of your sources

                    "Revolvers are semi-automatic and have been around for nearly 200 years."

                    Revolvers are not semi-automatic they are revolvers!

                    Your source is a moron!

                    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Hello Lie Detector. Nice of you to join in.

                      I thank you for describing my source as a “moron.”

                      I suggest that you go to the NRA Institute of Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) web site…
                      http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact- … rview.aspx
                      ...where you will find this definition:
                      “Semi-automatics fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled—like revolvers, bolt-actions, lever-actions, pump-actions, double-barrels and all other types of firearms except fully-automatics (machine guns).”

                      It amazes me how many folks will jump on a false assumption rather than checking their facts.

                      You will find this definition at Slate.com:
                      “Almost all guns in the United States today, including pistols, rifles, and handguns, are semi-automatic. A semi-automatic firearm fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled.”
                      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … apons.html

                      I could give you a half-dozen more links but it would be better if you do your own research.

                      Thank you again, Lie Detector, for grading my source. I disagree with your “moron” evaluation but I understand where it comes from. Which sources did you check before you labeled my source a “moron?”

                      Be well. We all have so much to learn from each other.
                      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                      1. Jack Burton profile image79
                        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                        Quill, you are actually mostly right about this one.

                        A semi-auto and a revolver use two completely separate mechanisms to accomplish the same action... load anohter round ready to be fired after the pull of the trigger fires the current round.

                        A revolver has historically never been referred to as a semi auto, though. Functionally the same -- yes. Nomenclaturely -- not the same.

                        I often use this point when those who agitate for gun control say they only want to ban "semi automatics". Ninety percent of the people have no idea that this would also technically ban revolvers, and have the functional approach of banning about 95 percent of all handguns. . The other 10 percent have that as their goal anyway so it doesn't bother them.

                      2. profile image59
                        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                        No, this is the difference and it is a huge difference.

                        "A semi-automatic pistol harnesses the energy of one shot to reload the chamber for the next, typically via recoil operation, blowback, or gas operation."

                        This is why a semi-automatic is called a semi-automatic!

      4. Jack Burton profile image79
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

        Hi again, Jack.

        Quill sez: Your post goes from “about anyone being ‘more efficient’ with a knife. I certainly didn’t say anything along those lines” to “my answer said ‘in some circumstances...’” {1}
        Oh, yes you surely did, Jack. You said, “In many instances a person wielding a knife can kill much more efficiently than someone with an AR-15.” {2} Would you like to revisit your own words?

        Jack replies: I don’t have to “revisit” anything since you quoted me. I posted “In many instances…” Do you understand that that means? Apparently not, since you took off on Seals, cafeterias and who knows what else.

        You’ve yet to dispute that in many instances a knife can be more deadly than a firearm, even an AR-15. All you did was wave your hands and make silly noises.

        Quill sez: Where will I find the data that establishes your claim “in many instances” is in any way factual?
        I was hoping to learn for you. Instead, you provide absolutely no data to support a ludicrous claim.

        Jack replies: Quill, old chap, I cannot help your ignorance about guns, knives and their relative effectiveness under hundreds of different circumstances. I gave you a number of parameters where guns can fail and knives do not. If you don’t want to accept that it is on your shoulders.

        Quill sez: Actually, I understand English well enough to know that the only time a knife is more efficient than an AR-15, according to you, is when the gun jams.

        Jack replies: “only time”? Who said those were the “only times”? Again, you make up stuff from thin air and expect people to defend your fantasies. I said they were common… not “only.” BTW…. You missed that whole important point about guns running out of bullets and knives don’t.  Please work on your reading skills ‘cause your gun skills ain’t cutting with those who know guns.

        Quill sez:  However, gun experts agree the AR-15 sustained rate of fire is 12-15 rounds a minute and the semiautomatic rate is 45 rounds a minute considering both jams and reloading. {3} 


        Jack replies: No, it shows one person stating that the manual states that. Anyone who has actually fired an AR at the firing line (have you?) knows this is far under the amount of rounds that can be fired a minute. I am not a fast finger but I’ve easily dropped a 30 round mag in 30 seconds. Your own expert just quoted himself as saying that 45 rounds in a minute is normal under the standard semi auto firing mode.  You’re kinda in the position of a five year old on a tricycle trying to explain NASCAR racing strategy to his daddy. He may have overheard the words that adults use watching the races but he just can’t quite pull the info together in a coherent way.

        Quill sez: In addition, this data confirms I was fairly accurate when I said, “I know I can kill dozens of people in a minute or less from the opposite end of a school cafeteria using an AR-15.” I rely on quantitative answers, Jack. They are the difference between knowing something and thinking I know something.

        Jack replies: And I agree that a person with an AR can kill dozens of people in a cafeteria. But that has nothing to do with my statement, “in many instances…” Unless you want to claim that a cafeteria killing is the ONLY instance in which people are killed. If this is true then you might have a point.

        Quill sez:  When comparing an AR-15 to the use of a knife, you opine, “A gun has a number of advantages that make it a superior weapon in some kinds of situations. A knife has a number of advantages that make it a superior weapon in some kinds of situations.”

        Jack replies; And everyone noticed that you really can’t dispute that, eh.

        Quill sez:  Since the Sandy Hook incident is the topic of discussion, we are obviously talking about a situation where a gun was the superior weapon.

        Jack replies: If you want to claim that a Sandy Hook type of killing is the only kind you are concerned about then go for it. I am concerned about all kinds of killing that bad guys do to innocents. And if a person with a knife was only able to kill 13 – 15 people then I guess it would have been okay with you… he didn’t use an evil gun at least.

        Quill sez: Thank you for confirming that. It clearly establishes that your claim “a knife can kill much more efficiently” is an unnecessary distraction that begged for a quantitative citation.

        Jack replies; There he goes again, Dear Readers. Trying to purposefully mislead you because he has no real answer to my statement that “In many instances…” He has to completely leave that off in order to try to make a false point.

        Quill sez:  The fact that you and I have different opinions about guns and their place in society does [not] mean that we disagree on all issues. Looking at a topic from two different perspective does not mean one is right and the other is wrong.

        Jack replies: I prefer to believe that people who are flat earthers means they are wrong… and fit into the same category as those who believe OJ is innocent, that UFO’s are coming for them, and that gun control is going to work if they can find just the right magical combination of words and spells to recite over the punchbowl.

        Quill sez:  Nor do different viewpoints mean we can not have a civil and intellegent conversation. To ask, “Have you always had this ethical problem with making up stuff from thin air or have you found it to be a recent development?” or to insult the OP with “Don't let your ignorance and your bias do your posting for you” are personal attacks that are neither civil or intellegent. The statement, “this is what passes as ‘common sense’ among quill and his ilk” says more about you then it does about me. 

        Jack replies: 1) you did make it up from thin air. I understand why you feel it is best for me not to point this out. 2) The OP is ignorant about guns. Why should this not be noted? 3) Are you not for “common sense gun control”?

      5. Jack Burton profile image79
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

        BTW quill... this quote...

        I suggest that you go to the NRA Institute of Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) web site…
        http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact- … rview.aspx
        ...where you will find this definition:
        “Semi-automatics fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled—like revolvers, bolt-actions, lever-actions, pump-actions, double-barrels and all other types of firearms except fully-automatics (machine guns).”

        .... doesn't actually say what you think it says. The quote doesn't say that a revolver is like a semi-automatic in any other way than it fires one bullet when you pull the trigger once. That has nothing to do with a gun being semi automatic as referenced by the plain fact that the paragraph ALSO mentions several types of firearms that are NOT semi automatics.

        If you want to argue that a revolver is also a semi automatic firearm then go for it. But don't use this reference as it doesn't support you in any way. You happened to get this issue more right than wrong but it was by accident, not by any of your personal knowledge.

         
        working