I know this is a hockey forum but...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    Just an open question, as I don't know the answer. Leaving guns aside completely, does anyone share the opinion that a lot of this could be addressed away from amending gun  laws by providing universal mental health care? Would that be a partial solution? Would it be more politically viable than new gun control laws? I see all the time people pointing out that the nations where this type of incident is less common have stricter gun laws, but they also have universal mental health care. Could that be a contributing factor as well?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    Red, I do not think that would solve any problem as the issue is that most of the time the perpertrators of these crimes believe that they are not the problem but rather the victim. They perceive that the problem lies with others and therefore do not think any type of intervention or help is needed and therefore reject it when it is given.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    In response to adkbeesfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    you can defend yourself in a knife attack. kinda hard to defend yourself from a bullet headed in your direction at the speed of sound. had that lunatic been using a gun, undoubtedly, many people would have lost their lives. get it?

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes you are condescending. I get it. So let's get this straight, I'll grab a 12 inch kitchen knife and I'll charge you with it and we'll see if you can defend yourself? I'll take that bet. Or better yet substitute me and you for deranged lunatic around 36 years old and a 12 year old and tell me how they are supposed to defend themselves? Get it?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    Lamda, it would still take more time to charge with that knife, and leave the attacker more vulnerable to counterattack from someone else besides his target than if he was using an AR-15. The assault rifle is a more efficient tool than the kitchen knife. I can go into the forest and harvest firewood with a bucksaw, but I wouldn't be able to get as many cords of wood as I would if I used a chainsaw over the same time frame.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    Here is why I think a knife attack is nothing like the assualt weapon attack (besides the point above, that the death toll from the China attack was zero):

    People have gone to great links to profile the shooters in these incidents, and among other similarities, there are found to be cowardly to the point of being lazy in their attacks.  They want the killing to be easy, very easy.  They fear challenge and confrontation.  They even fear eye contact.  They want to kill unsuspecting, un-armed, anonymous people, easily, without any physical engagment or communication.

    Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora CO, Connecticut killer -- all worked this way.

    That wimp in Aurora was decked out in bullet proof gear and then surrendered the moment that the first cop confronted him with a pistol.  The others killed themselves as soon as they heard approaching sirens.  They wanted to kill people in the easiest way possible and what better way to do that then to use a high-powered assault rifle.  I bet none of these guys would have tried to stab anyone to death.  They wanted zero personal contact.

    I know this is a gross oversimplication, but these guys are cowardly wimps, tortured by their own inadequacies.  And what better weapon for a wimp than a gun that can spray 200 bullets per minute from a safe distance.  

    Any effort to make it even a little bit harder to carry out a mass shooting should be considered, because the shooters are desperate for it to be easy.  Assault rifles make it easy.  Too easy.  Lanza didn't even have to get his hands dirty.  

    (I grew up with a gun in the house and still own a handgun, which I do not want taken away from me.  But I support a ban on assault weapons)

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here is why I think a knife attack is nothing like the assualt weapon attack (besides the point above, that the death toll from the China attack was zero):

    People have gone to great links to profile the shooters in these incidents, and among other similarities, there are found to be cowardly to the point of being lazy in their attacks.  They want the killing to be easy, very easy.  They fear challenge and confrontation.  They even fear eye contact.  They want to kill unsuspecting, un-armed, anonymous people, easily, without any physical engagment or communication.

    Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora CO, Connecticut killer -- all worked this way.

    That wimp in Aurora was decked out in bullet proof gear and then surrendered the moment that the first cop confronted him with a pistol.  The others killed themselves as soon as they heard approaching sirens.  They wanted to kill people in the easiest way possible and what better way to do that then to use a high-powered assault rifle.  I bet none of these guys would have tried to stab anyone to death.  They wanted zero personal contact.

    I know this is a gross oversimplication, but these guys are cowardly wimps, tortured by their own inadequacies.  And what better weapon for a wimp than a gun that can spray 200 bullets per minute from a safe distance.  

    Any effort to make it even a little bit harder to carry out a mass shooting should be considered, because the shooters are desperate for it to be easy.  Assault rifles make it easy.  Too easy.  Lanza didn't even have to get his hands dirty.  

    (I grew up with a gun in the house and still own a handgun, which I do not want taken away from me.  But I support a ban on assault weapons)

    [/QUOTE]


    I understand they are different, my point is when someone wants to inflict harm, they will.

    Why assault weapons? They are the least often used of any type of firearm for mass killings. Hand guns are far more dangerous as they are very easily concealable. The only want for a ban on "assuault weapons" is because of the word assault being in their name. Truly any gun is an assault weapon if you break it down. It's a deadly weapon that can be used to assault another person. If you said machine guns, yes I agree, no reason for them. But assault rifles make very good target shooting guns. I have personally fired the AR-15 and it is a good target/range gun.

    Red, I understand, I'm just saying where theres a will there's a way. Ban assault weapons and you're only taking away one means for carrying out these atrocities. That still leaves handguns, which are easier to hide and more readily available, an option that is just as efficient, if not moreso. Yes wielding 2 pistols at once is stupid and unsafe, but if someone is murdering innocent people are they going to care?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    In response to lambda13's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Red, I do not think that would solve any problem as the issue is that most of the time the perpertrators of these crimes believe that they are not the problem but rather the victim. They perceive that the problem lies with others and therefore do not think any type of intervention or help is needed and therefore reject it when it is given.

    [/QUOTE]


    But wouldn't universal mental health care mean that at least some of these people would get care prior to the point they reach that level of illness? A preventitive measure?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

     


    I understand they are different, my point is when someone wants to inflict harm, they will.

    Why assault weapons? They are the least often used of any type of firearm for mass killings. Hand guns are far more dangerous as they are very easily concealable. The only want for a ban on "assuault weapons" is because of the word assault being in their name. Truly any gun is an assault weapon if you break it down. It's a deadly weapon that can be used to assault another person. If you said machine guns, yes I agree, no reason for them. But assault rifles make very good target shooting guns. I have personally fired the AR-15 and it is a good target/range gun.

    Red, I understand, I'm just saying where theres a will there's a way. Ban assault weapons and you're only taking away one means for carrying out these atrocities. That still leaves handguns, which are easier to hide and more readily available, an option that is just as efficient, if not moreso. Yes wielding 2 pistols at once is stupid and unsafe, but if someone is murdering innocent people are they going to care?

    [/QUOTE]

    I respect your opinion lam, but I just don't believe the bolded section above to be true.  I know there are a lot of different definitions out there about what an assault weapon is based on the components of the gun, and we can call it whatever we want, but I think we could agree on the difference between a handgun and an assault rifle in general terms.  Mainly, one can fire hundreds of bullets at a time and would be simply not be necesary a) for hunting; or b) to protect one's home.

    I don't know what your definition of "mass killing" is either, but assault weapons were used  for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Connecticut, and you'd have to concede  that a handgun would result in less carnage in each case.  More importantly, I think, the shooter would not feel so comfortable with a lesser weapon and might be less inclined to go for the big score in the first place.

    Why do you say that assault weapons are "the least often used of any type of firearm for mass killings"?  

    Anyhow, feel free to pass on that too -- I don't want to go on all day here and I don't really have any problem with your stance other than my respectful disagreement.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    In response to red75's comment:

    Just an open question, as I don't know the answer. Leaving guns aside completely, does anyone share the opinion that a lot of this could be addressed away from amending gun  laws by providing universal mental health care? Would that be a partial solution? Would it be more politically viable than new gun control laws? I see all the time people pointing out that the nations where this type of incident is less common have stricter gun laws, but they also have universal mental health care. Could that be a contributing factor as well ?


    Red, the answer to your first three questions is the NRA wields considerable power when state or federal politicians try to have background checks to include a) no convicted felon can buy a gun or b) someone with a mental health problem cannot be allowed purchase a gun. The NRA pumps millions of dollars into the beltway to stop any drop in gun sales.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-usa-mental-colorado-idUSBRE8BI03A20121219

    You have govenors with cahones like Colorado's Govenor. Then on the flipside the Houston Chronicile ran an article stating that Texas should put guns on the hips of, get this...., Teachers, Janitors and Gym Teachers to solve the problem. Yes it was in the papers today...

    Now I don't know about you but I'm picturing the gym teachers and janitors in my home town and they would be the last people I would want carrying a gun.

    Senator Diane Fienstien, in January, will introduce a bill simular to the one that Austrailia introduced in 1996 after a mass killing. Austrailia has had ZERO mass killings since it took assault rifles and any gun that has more the 10 bullets in a clip out of gun stores. But you can bet your bottom dollar the NRA will have rallies and fight this tooth n nail...you watch.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    Wait... they're advocating putting more guns in schools as a way to solve the problem of having guns in schools? How the heck does that logic work?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    In response to red75's comment:

    Wait... they're advocating putting more guns in schools as a way to solve the problem of having guns in schools? How the heck does that logic work?


    Advocates of this idea...Texas-South Dakota-Oklahoma-Nevada = Red Necks

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    Fletch, I was looking up information on how many assault weapons are there in the United States.  The answer was 200 million.  The number is alarming enough to suggest a ban would not work.  The article I retrieved the information from though does suggest your argument statistically to be correct,even though the calculations could be challenged easily.  Nonetheless it does mention the Aussie law, but again states the buy back program for 200 million weapons would be very costly.   Yet, comparing costs of renovating schools and having resource officers in the schools would far more expensive than a buyback.  Ironically,  the buyback program could create a market for the remaining weapons.  Paranthetically speaking, a friend of mine owns a Thompson machine gun, illegal to purchase since the 1930s but now but it is worth 25k.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

    PS:  It would be prudent to have considerable security at any sports activities at schools in NA.   

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here is why I think a knife attack is nothing like the assualt weapon attack (besides the point above, that the death toll from the China attack was zero):

    People have gone to great links to profile the shooters in these incidents, and among other similarities, there are found to be cowardly to the point of being lazy in their attacks.  They want the killing to be easy, very easy.  They fear challenge and confrontation.  They even fear eye contact.  They want to kill unsuspecting, un-armed, anonymous people, easily, without any physical engagment or communication.

    Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora CO, Connecticut killer -- all worked this way.

    That wimp in Aurora was decked out in bullet proof gear and then surrendered the moment that the first cop confronted him with a pistol.  The others killed themselves as soon as they heard approaching sirens.  They wanted to kill people in the easiest way possible and what better way to do that then to use a high-powered assault rifle.  I bet none of these guys would have tried to stab anyone to death.  They wanted zero personal contact.

    I know this is a gross oversimplication, but these guys are cowardly wimps, tortured by their own inadequacies.  And what better weapon for a wimp than a gun that can spray 200 bullets per minute from a safe distance.  

    Any effort to make it even a little bit harder to carry out a mass shooting should be considered, because the shooters are desperate for it to be easy.  Assault rifles make it easy.  Too easy.  Lanza didn't even have to get his hands dirty.  

    (I grew up with a gun in the house and still own a handgun, which I do not want taken away from me.  But I support a ban on assault weapons)

    [/QUOTE]


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: I know this is a hockey forum but...

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    I respect your opinion lam, but I just don't believe the bolded section above to be true.  I know there are a lot of different definitions out there about what an assault weapon is based on the components of the gun, and we can call it whatever we want, but I think we could agree on the difference between a handgun and an assault rifle in general terms.  Mainly, one can fire hundreds of bullets at a time and would be simply not be necesary a) for hunting; or b) to protect one's home.

    I don't know what your definition of "mass killing" is either, but assault weapons were used  for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Connecticut, and you'd have to concede  that a handgun would result in less carnage in each case.  More importantly, I think, the shooter would not feel so comfortable with a lesser weapon and might be less inclined to go for the big score in the first place.

    Why do you say that assault weapons are "the least often used of any type of firearm for mass killings"?  

    Anyhow, feel free to pass on that too -- I don't want to go on all day here and I don't really have any problem with your stance other than my respectful disagreement.

    [/QUOTE]


    Fletch, I'm not trying to convince you I just feel very strongly about my beliefs. For one the the 2 bolded incidents did not use assault weapons. Columbine was a combination of shotguns and pistols and Virginia Tech was all handguns. There have been a total of 3 mass killings that I can think of involving assault weapons which are Oregon, Colorado, and now Connecticut. Those are the reasons I say that. Hand guns are far more readily available and more commonly used in mass shootings because they are easier to conceal.

    Fletch I also want to mention that there are handguns that can fire more rounds and much faster than any civilian assault weapon. There are several fully automatic pistols available. Additionally any pistol that takes a magazine can take a high capacity magazine as well. The difference being mostly the speed at which the projectile travels. Assault rifles are designed to travel faster to increase range and accuracy. Whereas pistols are for close range protection. In all of the mass shootings that have involved assault rifles pistols would have been just as effective.

    My definition of a mass shooting is when a shooter randomly starts firing at strangers with the intent to kill as many people as possible. I don't remember the full details of the DC sniper but as I recall they didn't just open fire and shoot at random people, if I remember right they targeted one person at a time.

     

Share