Poll: Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them?

What's your point?

Do you believe that guns should be confiscated from all law-abiding people because of what a few of them might do someday in the future?

Why do you play these silly games with innuendo? You're a college professor whose job it is to explain ideas to people. And yet here, you don't seem to be willing to just come right out and say what you actually mean. What's with that? What are you afraid of?

And to add to your confusion, about once a year you express your support for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. So once again we find you seeming to want to ban gun ownership, in contradiction of other statements you've made.

Explain yourself!

Where did I write that I want to ban gun ownership?

Effective controls to prevent loonies from getting guns is not the same as banning gun ownership. You talk a good talk about keeping guns away from criminals and the unbalanced, but your national organization fights rabidly to prevent any controls from having actual teeth.

Whining about "law abiding" gun owners with "legal guns" is dumb, when all it takes is a microsecond to switch to criminal with illegal gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You talk a good talk about keeping guns away from criminals and the unbalanced, but your national organization fights rabidly to prevent any controls from having actual teeth.

The NRA has expressed general support for any legislation that would improve the record keeping for those with disqualifying mental health issues.

The GOA, otoh, is opposed. It's membership is 1/10th that of the NRA, so it can't be the one you referred to.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them?

What's your point?

Do you believe that guns should be confiscated from all law-abiding people because of what a few of them might do someday in the future?

Why do you play these silly games with innuendo? You're a college professor whose job it is to explain ideas to people. And yet here, you don't seem to be willing to just come right out and say what you actually mean. What's with that? What are you afraid of?

And to add to your confusion, about once a year you express your support for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. So once again we find you seeming to want to ban gun ownership, in contradiction of other statements you've made.

Explain yourself!

Where did I write that I want to ban gun ownership?

See? There's that silly innuendo thing again. You make a statement implying that law-abiding gun owners can't be trusted, and then turn around and claim you never implied any such thing.

You're playing games. No one can take you seriously, because you don't want to participate in honest debate. All you want to do is play with innuendo, and then claim that you didn't really mean what you implied. You're like the fable of the "boy who cried wolf". Your tactics are making you irrelevant in this discussion.

Quote

Effective controls to prevent loonies from getting guns is not the same as banning gun ownership.

Okay, so why didn't you just come right out and say that in the first place, instead of playing games with innuendo? You would think that a college professor would know how to effectively express a thought, without me having to drag it out of your brain kicking and screaming.

So tell us, what "effective controls" do you want to see implemented?

Quote

Whining about "law abiding" gun owners with "legal guns" is dumb, when all it takes is a microsecond to switch to criminal with illegal gun.

See? There you go again. What "effective controls" would you implement that would prevent a law-abiding citizen from turning into a criminal at some point in the future. I'm really curious about this, because to my knowledge, in the entire history of the world, no one has yet been able to figure this out. But maybe the college professor from Chicago has finally done it. Enlighten us. Spill it. Reveal your genius to us.

P.S.
Please spare me the use of the word "whining" to characterize my messages, unless you are willing to have it thrown back at you for your own posts.

[billvon 3,090]

Both of you cut it out. Your one warning.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

See? There you go again. What "effective controls" would you implement that would prevent a law-abiding citizen from turning into a criminal at some point in the future.

Prevent those who have been deemed a danger to themselves and others from legally obtaining guns in all states.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

What "effective controls" would you implement that would prevent a law-abiding citizen from turning into a criminal at some point in the future.

Prevent those who have been deemed a danger to themselves and others from legally obtaining guns in all states.

Okay, that takes care of a few kooks from getting a gun through normal channels. But it doesn't stop them from getting one on the black market, or stealing one.

And that does nothing to address the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who aren't kooks.

So that's not much help.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Okay, that takes care of a few kooks from getting a gun through normal channels. But it doesn't stop them from getting one on the black market, or stealing one.

And that does nothing to address the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who aren't kooks.

So that's not much help.

It could have prevented a little shooting at VT you may have heard about. Or it could not have, but it sure would have made it quite a bit harder for the shooter to acquire the guns, and quite a bit more expensive too.

No law has a 100% success rate JR, that argument is really starting to wear a little thin.

Personally I believe that in light of the original intent of the 2nd amendmend, there should be absolutely no restriction on guns, or any other weapons. As you say, there are other laws in place to "prevent" people from doing harm with any weapon they may purchase.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It could have prevented a little shooting at VT you may have heard about. Or it could not have, but it sure would have made it quite a bit harder for the shooter to acquire the guns...

Well, if your goal is to make it more difficult for mass murderers to complete their acts, then you should be in favor of concealed carry laws for citizens, and getting rid of "no gun" zones. Are you?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

You guys can carry concealed all you want, doesn't affect me. I think in your current climate it makes sense.

If you stop "no guns" zones, you really accomplish nothing. The guy at VT would just have built a bomb in stead of using a gun and would have blown up a building.

In the end I believe that those who own private property should be allowed to dictate whether visitors are allowed to carry guns or not.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You guys can carry concealed all you want, doesn't affect me. I think in your current climate it makes sense.

If you stop "no guns" zones, you really accomplish nothing. The guy at VT would just have built a bomb in stead of using a gun and would have blown up a building.

In the end I believe that those who own private property should be allowed to dictate whether visitors are allowed to carry guns or not.

I've got NO problem with private property owners saying "no guns allowed" on their property.

>> "If you stop "no guns" zones, you really accomplish nothing"<<

Really? Heard of many slaughters at a gun range or police station? It really ISN'T about the guns and/or availability of same... the fact is that the criminals KNOW that their victims are unarmed and unable to resist in an effective matter...so that's where they go.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

.......Effective controls to prevent loonies from getting guns is not the same as banning gun ownership. You talk a good talk about keeping guns away from criminals and the unbalanced, but your national organization fights rabidly to prevent any controls from having actual teeth.

Quote

Quite a claim. Can you back it up??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Really? Heard of many slaughters at a gun range or police station? It really ISN'T about the guns and/or availability of same... the fact is that the criminals KNOW that their victims are unarmed and unable to resist in an effective matter...so that's where they go.

Yup, heard of many gun-free zones where mass shootings don't happen very often, like most of the Western World.

My argument, if you had quoted more you would have seen that, revolves around teh same argument the pro-gun people make. That if you take away guns, bad guys will just use other tools. That argument works the other way as well. If you prevent bad guys from going on shooting sprees in schools, they will resort to other tools, like building a bomb.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If you stop "no guns" zones, you really accomplish nothing. The guy at VT would just have built a bomb in stead of using a gun and would have blown up a building.

You err in presuming that someone bent on mass murder will actually give a rat's ass about a "no gun" policy. The fact is, he'll just ignore that and bring a gun anyway. And he did. All the school shooters have. How many is it going to take before anti-gun liberals realize that no-gun zones don't work?

And even if you could wave a magic wand and make guns vaporize the second someone crossed a line into a no-gun zone, then those murderers would still use some other method, or some other place, like you say.

And since you seem to acknowledge that no-gun zone laws won't stop murderers, then you should also be willing to admit that other gun-control laws don't work either. Do you recognize this too?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Really? Heard of many slaughters at a gun range or police station? It really ISN'T about the guns and/or availability of same... the fact is that the criminals KNOW that their victims are unarmed and unable to resist in an effective matter...so that's where they go.

Yup, heard of many gun-free zones where mass shootings don't happen very often, like most of the Western World.

My argument, if you had quoted more you would have seen that, revolves around teh same argument the pro-gun people make. That if you take away guns, bad guys will just use other tools. That argument works the other way as well. If you prevent bad guys from going on shooting sprees in schools, they will resort to other tools, like building a bomb.

You're helping prove my point. The government CAN'T (or won't) protect you from all attacks. *WHY* would you let them take away the means to protect *yourself*?? Maybe I'm too old fashioned, but I just can't wrap my head around how making yourself defenseless is supposed to stop crime/violence.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I've got NO problem with private property owners saying "no guns allowed" on their property.

I do, when it comes to businesses and their employee parking lots.

Here's a real story.

A woman I know lives in an isolated area of a small town. She's very familiar with guns, and keeps one in the house for self defense. She works at a university that bans guns, on campus, and even in employee cars. Because of this, she does not carry a gun in her car, so it is not available for self defense when she drives home to her isolated area.

No big deal, most would say. Well, a few months ago, a woman was found murdered in the area, her body dumped in a ditch, and her hands had been cut off.

So, now the woman is faced with either; 1) keeping a gun in her car to protect herself from a brutal killer on the loose, while violating school policy and possibly loosing her job, or; 2) being accosted and murdered.

For this kind of reason, I don't think that employers should be allowed to dictate that their employees can't have a self defense gun in their cars. This policy effectively renders them defenseless against criminal attack during their commute to and from work. And no employer should have the power to do that to people.

[billvon 3,090]

>1) protecting herself from a brutal killer on the loose, or; 2)
>violating school policy and possibly loosing her job.

Right. Because once again, those are the ONLY POSSIBLE two options - getting a gun or becoming a potential victim of a brutal killer.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I've got NO problem with private property owners saying "no guns allowed" on their property.

I do, when it comes to businesses and their employee parking lots.

Here's a real story.

A woman I know lives in an isolated area of a small town. She's very familiar with guns, and keeps one in the house for self defense. She works at a university that bans guns, on campus, and even in employee cars. Because of this, she does not carry a gun in her car, so it is not available for self defense when she drives home to her isolated area.

No big deal, most would say. Well, a few months ago, a woman was found murdered in the area, her body dumped in a ditch, and her hands had been cut off.

So, now the woman is faced with either; 1) protecting herself from a brutal killer on the loose, or; 2) violating school policy and possibly loosing her job.

For this kind of reason, I don't think that employers should be allowed to dictate that their employees can't have a self defense gun in their cars. This policy effectively renders them defenseless against criminal attack during their commute to and from work.

While her situation sucks, I still disagree - that is like saying that Joe Blow off the street has the right to come into your living room and smoke dope. Property rights carry the trump, sorry.

Now, something that STILL amazes me is the fact that nobody (to my knowledge) has ever sued over being injured in a gun-free zone on grounds of not having a way to protect themselves.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Right. Because once again, those are the ONLY POSSIBLE two options - getting a gun or becoming a potential victim of a brutal killer.

Have you been studying ncclimber's technique of interpreting posts ultra-literally then attacking irrelevant precision errors?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

While her situation sucks, I still disagree - that is like saying that Joe Blow off the street has the right to come into your living room and smoke dope. Property rights carry the trump, sorry.

Negative. I'm not talking about having a gun inside someone's place of business. I'm talking strictly about what's in your private vehicle on the employer parking lot. The employer shouldn't get to regulate what you can have inside your private car.

If you go visit a friend who doesn't like guns, you respect his feelings and don't bring a gun inside his house. However, he doesn't have any business telling you not to even bring one over in your car with you. Your car is your business.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>1) protecting herself from a brutal killer on the loose, or; 2)
>violating school policy and possibly loosing her job.

Right. Because once again, those are the ONLY POSSIBLE two options - getting a gun or becoming a potential victim of a brutal killer.

Let's see, the killer is obviously able to overpower women. And he's carrying some kind of knife or axe, since he chops off hands.

So, you tell me, what do you think would be better for a woman than a gun, for self defense against this murderer? If you wife was in this situation, what would you have her do?

Oh yeah, you would have the 100-pound women just give him a judo flip, and it would all be over. Yeah, right...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

While her situation sucks, I still disagree - that is like saying that Joe Blow off the street has the right to come into your living room and smoke dope. Property rights carry the trump, sorry.

Negative. I'm not talking about having a gun inside someone's place of business. I'm talking strictly about what's in your private vehicle on the employer parking lot. The employer shouldn't get to regulate what you can have inside your private car.

If you go visit a friend who doesn't like guns, you respect his feelings and don't bring a gun inside his house. However, he doesn't have any business telling you not to even bring one over in your car with you. Your car is your business.

Still their property - if they say "no guns on the property" then that's the rules. I believe there's been case law on that, but I'm not sure - might be worth doing a search.

With that said - I don't believe that the school has the right to search her vehicle without due cause. I think if I were her, I'd have a quick-access lockbox hard-mounted in the vehicle... and let the school try to get a valid warrant to search it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If you go visit a friend who doesn't like guns, you respect his feelings and don't bring a gun inside his house. However, he doesn't have any business telling you not to even bring one over in your car with you. Your car is your business.

I'm curious what technical distinction -- if any -- you're making here. How is carrying a concealed gun under your clothing into your friend's house different than keeping a weapon in your car in a parking lot?

In both cases it's a gun contained inside your property that you've brought inside their property.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that any owner of private property can make any exclusions they want even including the contents of pockets or cars or hell! your personal bodily fluids.

On the other hand, it's certainly everyone's right to refuse to go to that place. I would never apply for a job that insisted on analyzing my body fluids, nor do I go to sports arenas that expect to search me for weapons or beer bottles.

If a teacher wants to carry a weapon, they should find a job at a school that doesn't prohibit them. Or failing to find one, change careers.

Of course if the teacher finds they want to be a teacher MORE than they want to carry a gun, they can make that choice too.

Freedom is a bitch when other people have it too, huh?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,090]

>So, you tell me, what do you think would be better for a woman than a
>gun, for self defense against this murderer?

Common sense and a safe environment. Knowledge of self-defense.

>Oh yeah, you would have the 100-pound women just give him a judo flip,
>and it would all be over. Yeah, right...

Actually in cases like that they generally just take out his knees and call the cops. 100-pound women who train in martial arts are deadly, because they're inherently faster and assailants regularly underestimate them. My roommate was a short 130-pound guy who was a lot faster than I was. Someone tried to mug him years later and they didn't even get his money.

[DFWAJG 4]

Yes, true. supports equals success. unfortunately, for most of the severely mentally ill, the families are burnt out of taking care of them. Most lay people don't understand mental illness (nor do most physicians, sadly) and when they are faced with a family member who is suffering, they just don't know how to cope. Or, they don't have the financial means to help. And, insurance companies put severe limitations on mental health. for instance, Value Options of NY will give a person 30 LIFE TIME days coverage for hospitalization. Manics and schizophrenics get hospitalized alot. so, with little payment for care, psych hospitals close because they can no longer afford to remain opened.

[Lindsey 0]

. Most lay people don't understand mental illness (nor do most physicians, sadly) and when they are faced with a family member who is suffering, they just don't know how to cope.

But ya' know what? That's a fucking cop-out. They need to learn how to cope. When your child or parent is diagnosed with a serious mental illness, it's time to learn a little bit about it and step up to the plate. I don't even remember what post of mine this refers to....I'll have to look back. But the attitude of "poor me" "I don't know how to cope...." just doesn't meet the minimum criteria for my heart to bleed. I'm one of the physicians who understands mental illness very well. Worked as a social worker for years, with people with serious mental illness for a bunch of those.... Despite the barriers, there's no excuse for family members getting burned out or just not understanding. None. Tell that to a mother of autistic twins. Doesn't matter if she gets burned out. She has a responsibility to those people.

And, insurance companies put severe limitations on mental health.

It's been a few years, but mental illness is the one area that Medicaid pays much more than any private insurance co. for treatment. Is that still the case? My biggest payment source used to be Medicaid. People with serious mental illness usually qualify, especially people with schizophrenia and bipolar d/o. Now a person with run-of-the-mill anxiety may find more barriers.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail