On 12/18/2012 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:01:34 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee,
then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do
we do about the 100's of thousands of others?

100s of thousands?

Cite that

No problem!!

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm


Since 1973? OK. Do you want to talk about what killed the most kids
since then?

Hint, more kids were killed in cars since Newtown than were killed at
Newtown (as of this afternoon)
You can find that stat at CDC (1702 a year 0-14 in the last year on
their site. 20 every 107 hours)
Why doesn't that make the news?


If we really wanted to make a dent in violent death we would end the
drug war.

That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes
were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a
legal owner.


Why don't we just make theft illegal?
That should stop it.



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:46:53 -0500, wrote:

Why don't we just make theft illegal?
That should stop it,

===

The Taliban know how to deter theft. Maybe that Sharia law isn't
such a bad thing after all. :-)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/pakistan-taliban-amputates-hands-of-three-men-accused-of-theft.html

On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:46 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/18/12 12:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:07 -0500, ESAD wrote:

Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light
on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on
these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete
evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read and
heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved.
Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia.




We have a culture of violence. We were started in a revolution where
we threw out all of the rules of "civilized warfare", our most bloody
war was amongst ourselves and the rest of the world uses us as their
enforcer/hit man.
You really just have to look to the media to see the model for these
shootings. What passes for news and entertainment (which is only
separated by a blurry line) all you see is mass killing of one kind or
another. The public seems to be drawn to it and the media outlets are
more than happy to oblige.
The biggest news story last year was the cold blooded murder of Osama
Bin Laden. I agree he needed killing but it was still a "hit" worthy
of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar.

We love bomb camera and drone strike videos even when a bunch of kids
are "collateral damage".
.
It is not shocking that a disturbed individual thinks the best way to
be somebody is to kill a lot of people. The more shocking the victims,
the bigger splash you get.


Once again, you are just extending the psychobabble. What evidence do
you have that the Connecticut shooter wanted to "be somebody"?


Isn't every debate driven by psychobabble?

There is no shortage of people who make penis references to guns, fast
boats, fast cars or just about anything else they are opposed to?
Isn't that psychobabble?

It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking
processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as
this story goes on.
There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like
you from this waste of oxygen.


I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze
someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The
few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are
rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face
evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the
"symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest
schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many
different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the
shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get
even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it
is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not
common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more
common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:34 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee,

then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do

we do about the 100's of thousands of others?



100s of thousands?



Cite that



No problem!!



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

From that site:

"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those posessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

- a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
- a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
- family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

Where's that 90% you claim are stolen? No cite for that?

Sure!!

http://extranosalley.com/?p=12198

Which states:

The same studies found that 11% of persons arrested for a gun crime were
armed with a gun from ?unknown sources.? That is interesting but not
extremely informative.

Those studies also found that 82 percent of those arrested for a gun
crime were armed with a stolen gun. Which is interesting and
informative.

So depending on how you want to slice the ?unknown 11%? the percentage
of gun toting criminals arrested with a stolen gun runs between 82 and
93%.

Conventional wisdom has it that 92% of all gun criminals are armed with
a stolen gun. Something that is not unreasonable, although in fact it
may be a percent or two high.

But all this talks begs the question; ?What percentage of crimes are
committed with stolen guns? is the question. The fact is that a very
high percentage of gun related crimes are never solved.

We know from other studies that a typical criminal will commit a ?major
crime? every 48 hours or so to cover living expenses. We know that a
typical criminal will ?be on the street? for more than four months
before they slip up and are arrested. That would place a typical
criminal?s run at around 65 serious crimes before they are arrested.

But since it is not to the criminal?s interest to confess, we do not
know how many of those are gun crimes and how many are not. Ten? Twenty?
Fifty? Probably closer to a dozen. But until all the crimes get solved,
we can only guess.

The best guess I can come up with is 96% of all gun related crimes are
committed by career criminals, using a stolen gun. That seems to be the
consensus among the detectives and criminologists I have talked to.


http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm

Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread.

Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention.

Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all.

Well sure they do, your problem is you cherry pick pieces instead of
being able to comprehend the whole story.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:01:34 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee,
then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do
we do about the 100's of thousands of others?

100s of thousands?

Cite that

No problem!!

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm


Since 1973? OK. Do you want to talk about what killed the most kids
since then?

Hint, more kids were killed in cars since Newtown than were killed at
Newtown (as of this afternoon)
You can find that stat at CDC (1702 a year 0-14 in the last year on
their site. 20 every 107 hours)
Why doesn't that make the news?


Hint, who said "kids" only?

If we really wanted to make a dent in violent death we would end the
drug war.

That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes
were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a
legal owner.


Why don't we just make theft illegal?
That should stop it.

That's just stupid on so many levels.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:34:25 -0800, jps wrote:


MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the
National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that
after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the
ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now
backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips.

In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough
connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were
the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s
syndrome.

“Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he
explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children.
Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the
topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading
from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college
campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being
spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health
crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.”

“I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings
over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over
guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and
government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for
solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my
long-held beliefs on these subjects.”

Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past
career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I
demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change
everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old
way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls
don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem
in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not
guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style,
high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity
magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to
put children before deadly dogmas.”

What's 'high calibre' about a ,223 rifle?

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:41:45 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:



The best guess I can come up with is 96% of all gun related crimes are
committed by career criminals, using a stolen gun. That seems to be the
consensus among the detectives and criminologists I have talked to.

~snerk~
"The best guess I can come up with..."

You left out the last two entries on that page:

"But the lack of information makes all this pretty murky."

"Stranger"

Signed by "Stranger"? This is your researched, footnoted, reliable info?

You are truly a laugh a minute!



http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm

Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread.


Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention.

Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all.

Well sure they do, your problem is you cherry pick pieces instead of
being able to comprehend the whole story.

The sad thing is, I really do believe you think they do.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Califbill" wrote in message
...


Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why
did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

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

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to
acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of
how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine
capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common
recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just
announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits
magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".


How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the
other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five
seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off.

Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined
killer in any way.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:58 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Califbill" wrote in message
...



Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.

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

My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one
to kill the children and adults.
He used a pistol to kill himself.

Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on
assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to acknowledge
that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many
people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity of no
more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact,
Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will introduce a
bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10.

So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in
our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?
There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope
that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns
exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass
murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.

I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine
capacity that is "acceptable".




I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of
these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like
the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless
animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't
begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in
the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though.

That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a
traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that
holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial
wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for
that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds.
Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber.

Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or
four while hunting.

Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't
walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines.

What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill
people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting.

I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say,
.22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round
magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more
than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh?

I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I
don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition.

Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and
certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with
serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms
transactions without paperwork and a background check.

That would do for starters.

Makes sense. I just responded to Wayne with an idea about the styling
of the rifle lending permission to go to war with the perceived enemy.

The 'styling' of the rifle changed big time during the Vietnam war. However, the style didn't seem
to interfere with our ability to go to war *before* Vietnam. Is this a hunting rifle or a 'go to war
with the perceived enemy' rifle:

http://tinyurl.com/c6jno2d

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:47:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks, I'd heard mention of this story but hadn't seen it yet. I believe the mother should have
called the law and pressed charges when threatened with the knife.