Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

How to deal with nut jobs with guns?

2»

Replies

  • mohicanmohican Member Posts: 380 Member
    At the time the 8th amendment was penned, the ninth and tenth amendments were also put in place and ratified. Until the SCOTUS was allowed to become judge and legislator, everyone knew that meant that the Federal Government could not have cruel and unusual punishments. States and localities had those punishments, and the Feds did too, in the territories. The collective we also redefined what was "cruel and unusual".
  • mohicanmohican Member Posts: 380 Member
    zorba wrote: »
    My wife was just asking me today "when did people stop carrying guns as a matter of course?".

    I have no idea... What's the Cliff notes version?

    So in parts of the west that wanted to appear civilized about the 1880s or so. In the East outside of the Appalachians and parts of the south probably about 1840 or so. Whenever they were rid of most of the bandits and hostile wagon burners.

    In areas where people started to equate going unarmed with law and order and modernity. In places that placed less value, the practice of carrying guns never lessened.
  • Fat BillyFat Billy Senior Member Posts: 1,813 Senior Member
    If I'm in a store and someone pulls out a gun and shoots another person I will follow up with a double or triple tap to the chest. The reason doesn't matter. If the other person is involved with his wife or called him a name deadly force is uncalled for. Deadly force is the only way to stop deadly assault. My only concern is the cleaners ability to get any back splash off my clothing. If a gun is displayed the intent is settled and next step for me is primer ignition. :up: Later,
    Fat Billy

    Recoil is how you know primer ignition is complete.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I think Sam is referring to the crazy folks that commit the mass shootings. Of course we've rabbit trailed this, as we usually do.
    If the discussion is specifically about the mass shootings, it has (in my opinion ) ZERO to do with murders in general. Because the mass shootings represent a tiny, TINY fraction of a percent of murders in general. Almost to the point (mathematically) of being insignificant.

    Yes, my point exactly. I really don't think there is any solid way to prevent mass shootings by crazy people or fanatics. If there hadn't been a bunch of good Texas cops around that Mohammed cartoon contest, many would have been killed by those idiots, too. Other than having armed guards for every single public event, I don't know how to stop this sort of thing otherwise. Maybe it's just a sad part of our modern society and we've just got to do reasonable things without going all crazy in response. We can't turn our free country into an armed camp.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,604 Senior Member
    The point of the graph was to point out that the murder rate is currently relatively low historically for the nation and trending down which goes against your hypothesis that murder rates are primarily driven by "devaluation of human life". You claim the US is "headed in the wrong direction", but the numbers don't support that claim. I will concede that these past 15 years or so also goes against the hypothesis about income inequality as well, although I never said it was the ONLY factor, clearly there are many factors at play.

    One positive factor that I think can be at least partially credited with the drop in murder rates in this country is the significant rise in laws allowing citizens to carry guns and defend themselves in their homes.

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/


    That is one factor, I'm sure. More readily available medical care, higher quality medical care and better training for first responders can also be counted. To be truly comprehensive, the graph would have to show violent injuries vs. deaths as a ratio over the same time span. I submit that a significant portion of the current decline is simply due to better trauma care.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    That is one factor, I'm sure. More readily available medical care, higher quality medical care and better training for first responders can also be counted. To be truly comprehensive, the graph would have to show violent injuries vs. deaths as a ratio over the same time span. I submit that a significant portion of the current decline is simply due to better trauma care.

    Yup.
    This is what makes statistical comparison with other countries in the guns = deaths sputum of the left spurious.
    There may be more deaths just because of inefficient medical care.
    Second in the U.S. our good guys shoot them whenever they can.
    U.S.: Individual officer response, Garland Tx, number of good guy deaths = 0
    France: No effective officer response, Charlie Hebdo, number of good guy deaths = 12.
    I ran the numbers of Western Europe vs US gun rates per 100 and gun homicides per 100,000. As you know intellectually dishonest organizations try to pump up the numbers for their side by using suicides etc and frequently use gun deaths instead of homicides.
    There was a 0.35 correlation (low) between gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates in Western Europe.
    Now the problem is of course only law abiding citizens are reporting that they have a gun. Criminals lie and say they don't have a gun, so the first number may be as inaccurate as the political polls that do not use "likely voters". I don't know how the number was obtained.
    Next: I just attended a presentation by the Va. Tech. Chief of Campus Police. That nut job should have been on their radar for close to 2 years if the people reporting his bizarre behavior had just swore out complaints and if campus mental health had done follow up when he didn't show for counseling but he wasn't because the complainants didn't want to get him in trouble. My response to kids was always, "How much trouble will he be in if he carries out his threats? And how guilty will you feel? And how much better would you feel as well as him being in less trouble if you got him help by turning him in?"
    When you shut the barn door after the horses have gotten out the view is just a bunch of horses asses.
  • mohicanmohican Member Posts: 380 Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    In the thread about the Charleston killings, snake proffered a question about how we prevent nut jobs from getting guns.

    To that, Bigslug replied: In direct answer to Snake's post#15: The question is "How do we keep guns out of the hands of the whack jobs without infringing on the rights of everyone else?" The answer is "We don't. We kill the whack jobs when they appear".

    Which is likely a good way to deal with these things at the last measure. But prior to that, we are faced with this problem too often.

    The liberals and antigunners want to simply outlaw all guns -- we know that but it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

    The matter of background checks comes up but the problem is this: Due to, guess who, the liberals, matters of psychiatric illnesses are prevented from being entered into a person's public record where it could be accessed for potential background checks for a gun purchase. Thus the liberals have themselves prevented any meaningful way to have a nutjob's problems be a factor.

    This of course still doesn't prevent the nuts from being given a gun by their parents, duh. All I can say there is to make the laws about this pretty severe, getting you 10 years in the slammer if you provide a gun to a felon or psych.

    What are your thoughts on this? As snake so correctly says, we don't want to intrude on the ability of law abiding people to access guns, but we do, I think, need to explore ways to keep such creeps from easily accessing guns as well.

    I dunno -- your thoughts? Thanks.

    Late to this thread.

    Thoughts:
    1. The United States of Americas has a large population. It might seem cold and unfeeling to reduce the Charleston SC shootings to statistics but in a country of 321 million http://www.census.gov/popclock/ the number of shootings like this are anomalies that gather headlines out of proportion with the numbers. Comparisons to other nations don't move my emotional or logical meters on this.

    2. You can't always deal with nut jobs. Taking guns away just takes away the means most thought of. To date, the largest school killing wasn't done with a gun or guns, but explosives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster.

    3. Dispense with the notion that disarming the population - or the portion of the population that will abide by gun elimination will eliminate these occurrences. Fort Hood should be enough to show the folly of that line of thinking.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,105 Senior Member
    mohican wrote: »
    So in parts of the west that wanted to appear civilized about the 1880s or so. In the East outside of the Appalachians and parts of the south probably about 1840 or so. Whenever they were rid of most of the bandits and hostile wagon burners.

    In areas where people started to equate going unarmed with law and order and modernity. In places that placed less value, the practice of carrying guns never lessened.

    That would be mostly true of open carry as regarding carrying a pistol in a gunbelt openly. As people got more 'civilized' the carrying of concealed pocket pistols came into vogue. My great grandfather was the postmaster of Ionia, Michigan long ago, and carried a .32 Colt Pocket Hammerless in his coat pocket daily. (I have the pistol now.) It wasn't an uncommon practice at all, and he told me of the many people who carried a small pistol for protection in an outside or inside coat pocket, including women with a little Derringer in their purse. People were packing concealed way before the CCW thing took off with Florida.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement