Gun Violence, Mass Shootings & Gun Reform

[KinkaidAlum]

It's time to really start taking a look at gun control...

Yeah-Yeah,,,Right to Arm Bears...This is Texas...If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns...guns don't kill people, people do.

One of the best things about Boston is just how RARE gun violence is. It's still a MAJOR news story here whereas in Houston, it's pretty much an oddity for a day to go by in which there isn't a murder in the Galleria, a hostage situation at NASA, a shoot out on the friggin' Southwest Freeway, a car jacking in Alief, an armed robbery in Sugar Land...

[hokieone]

It's time to really start taking a look at gun control...

Yeah-Yeah,,,Right to Arm Bears...This is Texas...If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns...guns don't kill people, people do.

One of the best things about Boston is just how RARE gun violence is. It's still a MAJOR news story here whereas in Houston, it's pretty much an oddity for a day to go by in which there isn't a murder in the Galleria, a hostage situation at NASA, a shoot out on the friggin' Southwest Freeway, a car jacking in Alief, an armed robbery in Sugar Land...

No Violence in Boston

Still none

Actually sounds like the same as Houston stats

[musicman]

No Violence in Boston

Still none

Actually sounds like the same as Houston stats

let's hope Kinikaid doesn't get caught in the crossfire!

[ricco67]

10 dead in Houston since Saturday.

While the statistic is true, it also doesn't tell the entire story.

2 Dead at NASA Murder/Suicide over a poor job review. Victims knew each other.

2 Dead on post Oak lane Murder/suicide over eviction. victims new each other.

2 Dead in an apartment Complex. Murder/suicide. Domestic Violence.

From here, i don't remember the details of the news stories, so forgive me if I'm a bit off.

2 were shot in an apparent road rage incident. Killer fled.

I don't know know the circumstances of the last two, but I think it was either in a robbery or some other form of random violence.

it's not a single murderer running loose shooting people, but rather a series of events that no amount of police patrolling could have prevented.

[MidtownCoog]

I'lll take gun battles vs. living in Boston anyday.

[TheNiche]

It's time to really start taking a look at gun control...

Um, no. There are worse things than gun-related murders and accidents...like Hitler.

Btw, I'm not referring to the urban legend quoted on so many bumper stickers, but to the fact that gun control was practiced prior to the rise of facism and that it has been documented as one of the factors that hurt Jewish resistance and would've made any attempt at widespread resistance by the general population very difficult.

Also btw, I'm aware that mentions to Hitler in various arguments often (and usually deservedly) get the rolleyes emoticon, but this is actually a pretty good and well-known example right out of history.

[Avabamse]

Um, no. There are worse things than gun-related murders and accidents...like Hitler.

Btw, I'm not referring to the urban legend quoted on so many bumper stickers, but to the fact that gun control was practiced prior to the rise of facism and that it has been documented as one of the factors that hurt Jewish resistance and would've made any attempt at widespread resistance by the general population very difficult.

Also btw, I'm aware that mentions to Hitler in various arguments often (and usually deservedly) get the rolleyes emoticon, but this is actually a pretty good and well-known example right out of history.

While your point on gun controls laws prior to / during the Nazi regime and Hitler is valid under that era, doesn't technology allow people to have access to other forms of weapons? Information via email and the internet as a "weapon" can aid a populace against fascism or dictatorial rule.

In present day examples, disidents in China have more hope now than people in comparable situations 75 years ago due to the accessibility of information as a weapon. Only a handful of countries (i.e. Iran and North Korea) have been able to severly restrict information by artificial means. Even then, much of the outside world has ways to get access to what conditions are like within a closed society.

I am just unsold on the idea of reasonable gun restrictions leading to severe limitations to my other freedoms. I have yet to hear a reasonable, linear argument on this topic. One of the comments that I heard from a pro-gun representative after Va Tech tragedy was that "if students had guns on campus, then someone would have had the opportunity to go get their gun and reduce the number killed." Wow!

FYI - Australia has significant gun control laws and they seem to be doing okay as a society. I have yet to travel there, but no one has told me that they are ruled by fascists.

[sevfiv]

I am just unsold on the idea of reasonable gun restrictions leading to severe limitations to my other freedoms. I have yet to hear a reasonable, linear argument on this topic.

neither have i - but i am all ears...err, eyes

...anyone?

[TheNiche]

FYI - Australia has significant gun control laws and they seem to be doing okay as a society. I have yet to travel there, but no one has told me that they are ruled by fascists.

Point well taken about information availability, but that can only get you so far. When we're talking about a political entity that has slipped off the precipice of democracy and into the hornet's nest that is tyranny, that they have guns and the citizens do not is a big problem in securing their position. And I'm not saying that this is something that happens every day, either. There aren't going to be a lot of modern-day examples because you have to think in terms of centuries instead of days, and that can be difficult in today's 24-hour media outlets. It may be difficult to determine that a tyrant has even taken hold, or that a call to arms would be warranted until it is too late to act.

There's a secondary argument that is not quite so extreme that proposes that policies tend not to change dramatically, especially with respect to the redistribution of wealth, on account of that a significant segment of the population may become disaffected and stage a coup. Those aren't very good for political stability. If people have access to a means to stage such an uprising, politicians are more likely to be mindful of such issues and seek moderate ground.

[WesternGulf]

Either way it goes, I think we would have to evolve as a society to see the benefits of gun control. Australia has had severe gun control for generations.

[Vertigo58]

neither have i - but i am all ears...err, eyes

...anyone?

Morris (to the left) prefers to be near the catnip and enjoy it all...

[KinkaidAlum]

Point well taken about information availability, but that can only get you so far. When we're talking about a political entity that has slipped off the precipice of democracy and into the hornet's nest that is tyranny, that they have guns and the citizens do not is a big problem in securing their position. And I'm not saying that this is something that happens every day, either. There aren't going to be a lot of modern-day examples because you have to think in terms of centuries instead of days, and that can be difficult in today's 24-hour media outlets. It may be difficult to determine that a tyrant has even taken hold, or that a call to arms would be warranted until it is too late to act.

So, the question becomes, when will you take up arms against our current government? They have definitely slipped of the precipice of democracy and into the hornets nest that is tyranny!

[KinkaidAlum]

No Violence in Boston

Still none

Actually sounds like the same as Houston stats

I never said there wasn't crime in Boston. What I did say was that gun violence and murder rates are MUCH MUCH MUCH lower in the Boston metro. There are 4,422,547 people in Eastern Massachusetts in cities and towns like Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Newton, Quincy, Dedham, Milton, Everett, Medford, Malden, Winthrop, Chelsea, Arlington, Belmont, Revere, Wellesley, Waltham, Lynn, Hingham, Hull, Braintree, Randolph, Weymouth, Concord, Natick, Swansea, Taunton, Woburn, Sudbury, Rockland, Rockport, Attleborough, Andover, Danvers, Beverly, Gloucester, Newburyport, Marblehead, Peabody, Swampscott, Canton, Norwood, Abington, New Bedord, Lowell, Fitchburg, Littleton, Norwell, etc...

The combined 2005 murder total for all of the towns and cities that make up Eastern Massachusetts was 118. That means there was one murder for every 37,479 people.

By comparison, there were 334 murders alone in the city of Houston in 2005. With an estimated population of 2,016,582, that means there was a murder for every 6,038 people.

Apples to oranges comparison you say? Well, let's throw in the Houston suburbs like Alvin, Angleton, Arcola, Atascocita, Bacliff, bayou Vista, Baytown, Bellaire, Belleville, Brookside Village, Brookshire, Channelview, Cinco Ranch, Cleveland, Cloverleaf, Clute, Conroe, Dayton, Deer Park, Dickinson, Freeport, Friendswood, Galena Park, Galveston, Hempstead, Hitchcock, Highlands, Humble, Huntsville, Jacinto City, Jamaica Beach, Jersey Village, Katy, Kemah, LaMarque, LaPorte, Lake Jackson, League City, Liberty, Magnolia, Manvel, Meadows Place, Mission Bend, Missouri City, Mont Belvieu, Montgomery, Nassau Bay, Oak Ridge North, Pasadena, Pearland, both Pinehursts, Richmond, Roman Forest, Rosenburg, Santa Fe, Seabrook, Sealy, Shenandoah, South Houston, Spring, Spring Valley, Stafford, Sugar Land, Texas City, The Woodlands, Tomball, Waller, Wallis, Webster, West University Place, Wharton, and Willis. There are 3,767,476 people in those towns. There were 388 murders. That means there was a murder for every 9,710 people.

So, keep thinking that tighter gun control measures don't have an effect on gun violence and murder...

[editor]

The city with the strictest gun control laws is Washington, DC. 2005 Population: 550,521. 2005 murders: 195. One murder for every 2,823 people.

I'm not sure why you people are arguing over Boston vs. Houston crime. Shouldn't we compare Houston to cities or MSA's of a similar size?

Houston MSA is 5,539,949. Boston MSA is 4,455,217. That more a million difference.

It seems if you want to argue numbers, compare Houston's MSA to Atlanta (5,138,223), Dallas (6,003,967), Miami (5,463,857), Philadelphia (5,826,742), or the aforementioned Washington, DC (5,290,400).

[TheNiche]

So, the question becomes, when will you take up arms against our current government? They have definitely slipped of the precipice of democracy and into the hornets nest that is tyranny!

Because your "tyranny" allowed congress to go entirely Democrat and will likely step down in 2008. People in the U.S. take peaceful and regular regime change for granted.

EDIT: And btw, when we start talking about crime statistics, you'd better be willing to pull out all the stops of an academic study, because simple comparisons like you made are terribly insufficient to conclude *anything*.

Edited April 25, 2007 by TheNiche

[editor]

While we're talking about gun control, here's the top story on RTHK at this hour:

"The jury will continue considering its verdict tomorrow at the inquest into the deaths of constable Tsui Po Ko, two other policemen and a security guard. They died in three separate shootings in 2001 and last year."

This in a country where posession of firearms is completely illegal.

[nmainguy]

Because your "tyranny" allowed congress to go entirely Democrat and will likely step down in 2008. People in the U.S. take peaceful and regular regime change for granted.

The US Congress is not entirely Democrat. The Senate is 51% Democrat/Independent caucasing Democrat and 49% Republican. The House is 53% Democrat and 47% Republican. Looks like Kink's "tyranny" isn't so tyranical after all. I'll post again when the Democrat's majority in the Senate increases in 2008. (Open and/or up for election: 21 Republicans and 12 Democrats.)

Edited April 25, 2007 by nmainguy

[editor]

Remarkably, RTHK Radio 3 right now is talking about.. of all the things in the world.. the Galleria and NASA shootings. There's a fen sui master in the studio. He blames them on astrology. He says the Smith & Wesson was invented in the year of the pig, and this is another year of the pig, so we're going to have lots of shootings.

[TheNiche]

The US Congress is not entirely Democrat. The Senate is 51% Democrat/Independent caucasing Democrat and 49% Republican. The House is 53% Democrat and 47% Republican. Looks like Kink's "tyranny" isn't so tyranical after all. I'll post again when the Democrat's majority in the Senate increases in 2008. (Open and/or up for election: 21 Republicans and 12 Democrats.)

SENATE COMPOSITION:

Democrats - 50

Republicans - 49

Independents - 1

50>49>1

Democrats have a majority.

[nmainguy]

SENATE COMPOSITION:

Democrats - 50

Republicans - 49

Independents - 1

50>49>1

Democrats have a majority.

Because your "tyranny" allowed congress to go entirely Democrat

51% v 49% does not represent an entirety. Everyone seems to get that but you.

[woolie]

I'm all about gun proliferation. It's like nuclear weapons. The possibility your opponent is carrying heat places strict limits on how far a conflict can escalate. Better yet. We should carry grenades strapped to our chest for second-strike capability incase we're incapacitated by the initial attack.

[TheNiche]

51% v 49% does not represent an entirety. Everyone seems to get that but you.

I'm going to assume that the word "entirety" was meant to be "tyranny".

But my point stands, even if there is some understandable doubt as to the usage of the word "majority" under certain situations. If Bush were a tyrant, there wouldn't be any check on his power by means of election...but there most clearly is. And so I'm content not to put my life, wealth, or freedom on the table. Very simple.

The moment that those three things start becoming threatened by political instability within my own government is the moment that I plan on dusting off the arsenal. Alternatively, if we went all-Democrat in 2008, I'd buy up an arsenal in December of that year...not necessarily because the tyrant would be among them, but because there may be one 25 years out or further, and I wouldn't expect to be able to buy anything even with cash without at least getting on a government list by the end of 2010.

[TheNiche]

I'm all about gun proliferation. It's like nuclear weapons. The possibility your opponent is carrying heat places strict limits on how far a conflict can escalate. Better yet. We should carry grenades strapped to our chest for second-strike capability incase we're incapacitated by the initial attack.

I'll agree that there should probably be limits on the upper end of the spectrum of weapons available to the public. After all, the only thing we need is enough to put up a good insurgency, and if Iraq has taught us nothing else, it is that all it takes are some dedicated fellows with some rifles and ammo and a good knowledge of chemistry to cause big problems.

...and that's all that's really necessary for the 2nd Amendment to do its job. Put fear in the eyes of overzealous politicians that there could be a popular uprising before they're done consolidating power.

[CDeb]

Every time there's a highly publicized shooting, the subject of gun control comes up.

And every time, I ask the people proposing it how gun control would have stopped said shooting.

I have yet to hear a good answer.

But I'm all ears.

Full disclosure: I do not own a gun and probably never will. I have never been hunting and have only fired a gun a few times in my life.

Edited April 25, 2007 by CDeb

[houstonmacbro]

While your point on gun controls laws prior to / during the Nazi regime and Hitler is valid under that era, doesn't technology allow people to have access to other forms of weapons? Information via email and the internet as a "weapon" can aid a populace against fascism or dictatorial rule.

In present day examples, disidents in China have more hope now than people in comparable situations 75 years ago due to the accessibility of information as a weapon. Only a handful of countries (i.e. Iran and North Korea) have been able to severly restrict information by artificial means. Even then, much of the outside world has ways to get access to what conditions are like within a closed society.

I am just unsold on the idea of reasonable gun restrictions leading to severe limitations to my other freedoms. I have yet to hear a reasonable, linear argument on this topic. One of the comments that I heard from a pro-gun representative after Va Tech tragedy was that "if students had guns on campus, then someone would have had the opportunity to go get their gun and reduce the number killed." Wow!

FYI - Australia has significant gun control laws and they seem to be doing okay as a society. I have yet to travel there, but no one has told me that they are ruled by fascists.

I do not own a gun, nor do I intend (in the near future) to own one, but ...

I like the option of being able to purchase one if I feel the need.

I would not want that taken away.

I believe that the way society is breaking down, there will be some point --probably in the not too distant future--where it will be upon the citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones, because the police and the federal government will not be able to do it for us.

And who knows ... heck, we might have to protect ourselves from them if things are really bad...

Edited April 25, 2007 by houstonmacbro

[TJones]

Nmain, your cute little Avatar says volumes about why we don't need stricter gun laws for law abiding citizens. You don't bring knives to gunfights, and it seems like that is what "Gun-control" advocates seem to want.

Try to remember that most criminals, probably 99%, that actually use guns in a crime, didn't get them from Carter's Country. They stole them or bought them off the street from some other criminal. The gun control laws currently in place keep criminals from having easier access to weapons. The only place where the system is flawed is when you have would be criminals, WITHOUT any type of record going in to purchase, but then, in those rare cases, the perp. would most likely be caught, as in the case of the VT massacre. Cho filed the numbers off the guns, what good did that do him? They had him on file already as buying the gun back in March, the .22 however hasn't been shown that he purchased it. So, he most likely didn't buy that at a store, he bought it off the street, where are your gun laws gonna come into play there? Guns are like Pot, if you know the right guy or know a guy that knows a guy, you can get access to them.

[musicman]

chief hurtt just announced that 21 guns were taken from the police property room. 2 have been recovered, but 19 are still missing. a few people have been relieved of duty.

[sevfiv]

for all the gun toters:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4763469.html

Gov. Rick Perry said Monday that Texans who are legally licensed should be able to carry their concealed handguns anywhere, including churches, bars, courthouses and college campuses.

"I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they're in church, or whether on a college campus or wherever they are," he said.

[RedScare]

I guess Mr. Perry has forgotten that the guy who killed my friend and boss Chris Marshall in the Tarrant County Courthouse on July 1, 1990 was a "law abiding" former lawyer, who would have qualified for a concealed handgun permit had they been available in 1990.

[musicman]

I guess Mr. Perry has forgotten that the guy who killed my friend and boss Chris Marshall in the Tarrant County Courthouse on July 1, 1990 was a "law abiding" former lawyer, who would have qualified for a concealed handgun permit had they been available in 1990.

you can't stop a psycho. when major incidents happen, people always bring up a reason for/or against guns. reacting can be good in some instances, but in this instance, it would have made no difference.