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?
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.
The thing is, it isn't as easy to kill in masses with a knife as it is with a gun. Greg
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.
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.
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?
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).
14 years in between mass murders sounds like pretty darned good progress to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who is using up all the pearl in knitting (???)
Do you mean PURL stitching?
Mom...
Thank you for helping me make the point.
When people who don't know much about "pearls" in knitting want to comment on the subject anyway those of you who do know have every right to wonder why they are being so foolish.
When people who are ignorant of guns, gun laws, and gun owners post about guns, they usually lose all credibility with those who actually know about guns.
It's a point that the anti-gun folk never seem to learn.
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.
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.
Deleted
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
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?
The fact that two only cause death by accident, the third (guns) causes death by intention.
Anyone that drinks and drives is NOT doing it by accident. It is absolutely intentional.
Canal deaths are accidental; the construction and use of those canals (giving rise to the inevitable accidents) is purely intentional. So is not making those canals child-proof. Try again.
And if by chance you can explain that reasonably, try setting speed limits far above what is unlikely to cause death in an accident. Or allowing swimming pools in back yards. Or allowing farmers to step wide of OSHA laws and child labor laws. Or the hundreds of other things we allow, knowing that people will die from them.
Nope, no point. If you can't see the difference then all the explaining in the world won't make it any clearer.
By the way, where did the drink driving come from? Up until then I thought we were talking about, for instance, the guy who likes a bit much and kills himself, by liver failure or such like.
ETA. Drink driving is against the law.
I wasn't talking about the guy ruining his liver, although that is a small part of it. So is destroying the lives of his family, too.
I was talking of drunk driving. And yes, it is illegal, but so what? That doesn't stop it while removing alcohol from society will.
But you're right - if you can't see that we allow all kinds of things that kill people, and know that deaths will occur as a result of those things, then you will be unable to figure out that society deems death an acceptable price if we just want those things badly enough.
That's the point, you see - that society is willing to pay the price of the death of others as long as we get what we really want. Sometimes we limit the death rate - DUI laws and enforcement - but seldom enough to totally remove the cause of those deaths. Guns are no different, it's just that there is an increasing number of people that don't like guns and are therefore unwilling to pay the price. The rights of others doesn't matter to them, just the price being paid vs the benefit gained (zero to gun haters) is unacceptable to those that don't to own a gun.
As you are changing the parameters by insisting that you were talking about DUI you'll have to help me a bit here.
What are the penalties in the US for being drunk in possession of a fire arm and how often are these penalties imposed? (Roughly, I'm not too bothered about exact figures)
None that I know of, although there could be.
Recognizing that a drunken gun handler could harm himself or others, I'm still not sure of our point. The number of deaths resulting from that combination is probably quite small, though I freely admit that I've never seen any such stats. Which again seems to point to society finding such deaths an acceptable price to pay if society does indeed impost no requirement that guns and alcohol not mix.
Only anecdotal I know, but I've seen several videos on you tube of bar room arguments that have quickly turned into gunfights!
I wonder how many of your citizens truly believe that it it is wrong to drink and drive but OK to carry a fire arm when drunk and how much it is that they've never been asked - silenced by a powerful lobby perhaps?
Probably very few. Anyone thinking it's OK to drink and drive is likely to be stupid enough to think it's OK to drink and carry a weapon.
And there are probably far, far more that think it's OK to use a cell phone while driving even though we know that merely using a cell phone while driving has more effect on driving ability than being legally drunk Like the gun debate it comes down to only restricting only what I don't do. I don't like guns - ban them, but don't you dare ban the cell phone I use while driving. People die from it, but I want it so don't take it away.
One thing I never do is use a cell phone while driving, not even a hands free one.
I do. Use a hands free while driving that is. I've never seen any studies on it, and tend to think it is much like talking to a passenger - something that can actually help maintain attention to driving as no one is capable of 100% concentration for extended periods.
If a drunk is carrying a gun and does no harm to anyone with it, then just why are you so concerned?
It's a state by state law. Some states have no law against it, others have it as a misdemeanor. But the other poster was right. It have very little consequence on the overall murder rate with guns.
Deleted
Thank you, as an encore do you have any indication of how many are prosecuted for contravening this law?
Deleted
But despite that you do still have a rather high incidence of gun crime in the US.
Does that not concern you?
Austria, with 5 times the guns per capita of England, has a homicide rate of 1/3 that of England. Does it concern you that you have taken the protection out of the hands of good Englishmen only to find that more guns means fewer homicides? Is that not a big concern?
I've never yet seen a gun arrested, prosecuted and put into jail for committing a "crime". We have no "gun crime" in America. Neither does Britain. We both have a lot of people who commit crimes and use the gun as a tool to do so. For both our countries you factor out certain sections of certain cities and the crime rates drops a hundred fold.
It's not a gun problem. It is a society problem which is not willing to face the reality of who is committing the vast majority of crimes.
Deleted
Interesting, but it only covers concealed carry holders.
Deleted
Gun control doesn't involve making all guns illegal, it means controlling them.
I know you scorn anything we do in the UK but for instance, a five year sentence for illegal possession of a fire arm tends to focus the mind a little. Note, that's illegal!
Rachel Maddow, a noted liberal commentator here in America spoke in 2009 about the desire to “control abortions.”
***************************************************************
Those laws effectively require women to make two separate trips on two different days, taking two days off work to obtain this procedure. Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma - they all heavily restrict private insurance providers from covering abortion services.
Other states require that abortions be performed in hospitals, not in clinics. Some states ban abortions from being done in any facility that gets public funds. Some states say institutions that get public funds can‘t even recommend a clinic where the services could be provided or provide any abortion-related counseling.
The effect of all these restrictions is that in 87 percent of all U.S. counties, it is not possible to get a legal abortion. Why bother making it illegal if you can just make it impossible to get?
*******************************************************************************************************************
John doesn’t want to make guns “illegal.” He just wants to “control them” and make them “impossible to get.”
Deleted
But control isn't about disarmament! It's about stopping the bad guys getting and using guns.
We aren't disarmed in the UK, I could go out and buy a gun tomorrow, if I came up clean, could prove that I could keep the weapon secure and never carried it in a public place uncovered and available for use.,
"But control isn't about disarmament!" Yes it is, that is all its about.
"It's about stopping the bad guys getting and using guns." We have controls in place for that and they still get them. More won't do any better.
The Beeb declares John a liar...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974
You are right. You simply don't understand freedom and that is why it is difficult, if not impossible, to have a discussion with you on the topic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's like saying removing the nuclear bombs will do nothing to stop nuclear explosions.
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?
Not by firing a nuclear weapon to wipe out a huge area of the globe populated mainly by the innocent.
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?
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?
The simple answer is to own one deters others from using there's.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
I bet the first people called to the school were people with guns.
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?
Deleted
And more than likely a better shot than the guy who has to qualify every six months!
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.
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.
Deleted
Yes, in his heart Josak really, really believes a criminal will do just that. This is why it is called "common sense" gun control.
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.
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?
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.
Were they laying on the lawn out front?
People rob banks all the time. You want to claim that banks are not very secure.
They were kept in a place where an unauthorised person had access to them.
An "unauthorized" person with a few minutes can get into any possible place you want to put your gun. What you are asking for is simply impossible to do. Which is why no gun owners really trusts people like you. We know that you make your decisions while living in a fantasy land about perfection and perfect people.
BTW... if you are speaking of the Sandy Hook murders than note that the shooter murdered his own mother to get the guns. I am sure if he had seen a safety lock on the gun it would have changed his mind completely about the situation. He wouldn't want to break the law by removing a safety lock, eh.
Well I don't know what Mickey Mouse gun cabinets you use in the US but here in the UK gun cabinets take considerably longer than a few minutes to break into.
Deleted
I think we settled this concern a few hundred years ago.
What that you know everything, are best at everything and couldn't possibly learn anything off anybody else?
I suppose that's why your country is in hock to China and you lock up more of your citizens than any other country in the world!?
The best thing that has come out of England in the past 100 years is the old joke, do you have prince albert in a can?
:-)
Poor class of criminals, eh. And power tools that aren't worth a carp in the merry UK.
Got to agree with you on the second point, too many US made power tools over here.
Deleted
Not a judgement, just an observation. But yes you are right, we do have a lot of problems, one being our bankers buying up badly rated US sub prime mortgages.
Good thing we have the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of What Josak Can Imagine.
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.
Are you really that afraid you wouldn't pass the background check?
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.
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.
{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/
Deleted
Hi Uncle.
I list links to all my sources in my endnotes.
Deleted
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
What difference does your "huge difference" make in the grand scheme of things like mass killing at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Tucson...and on and on.?
Because a revolver is limited by the technology of the system to a certain number of rounds. Nine is about the maximum that you are ever going to see in a commercially sold revolver although I am sure there might be some with a few more. And the 9-rounders almost always shoot small-caliber rounds. You are much more likely going to see 5 to 7 rounds if you're shooting anything with any power to it.
A revolver is also much harder to reload unless you are quite experienced.
All these are reasons why the military abandoned revolvers a century ago, and why most police departments did in the 1970s.
They make excellent guns for a variety of reasons and some experts prefer them. While I am not an expert I would prefer a semi-auto except that my arthritis makes using a semi auto much more difficult.
They were not talking about revolvers. They were talking about semi-automatic pistols. The one used at Tucson on Gabby Gifford was a 9mm Glock with a 33 round high capacity magazine.
Which has nothing to do with either the question I answered or the answer, eh.
And I quote you Jack, this is your reply to Quill, Lie Detector and me about semi-automatic weapons. And you focused on the revolver. In your reply.
"Because a revolver is limited by the technology of the system to a certain number of rounds. Nine is about the maximum that you are ever going to see in a commercially sold revolver although I am sure there might be some with a few more. And the 9-rounders almost always shoot small-caliber rounds. You are much more likely going to see 5 to 7 rounds if you're shooting anything with any power to it.
A revolver is also much harder to reload unless you are quite experienced.
All these are reasons why the military abandoned revolvers a century ago, and why most police departments did in the 1970s.
They make excellent guns for a variety of reasons and some experts prefer them. While I am not an expert I would prefer a semi-auto except that my arthritis makes using a semi auto much more difficult."
Yes, I understand you can quote well.
Now quote the part where the confusion and the questions came on the topic of the revolver and the semi auto. Or do you think the Dear Readers can't scroll back and see for themselves exactly what I was answering, and who I was answering.
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”?
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.
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free zones.” Many rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the...
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
The shooting in Thousand Oaks is too close to home. I use to work in Thousand Oaks. Our thoughts and prayers are with you means nothing to those who lost loved ones. We are being attacked by domestic terrorism from within by mentally unstable people who have easy access to lethal weapons. Every...
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.
by VC L Veasey 9 years ago
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
For the 22nd time just this year, somebody opened fire on an America school campus. While most of the others had an AR-15 as the gun of choice, this one was accomplished with a shotgun and revolver. In my mind, that changes the discussion somewhat based on what facts come out.In terms...
by Cindy Vine 12 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |