OT: Colorado shooting

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's a useful form. I am sure people purchasing guns with bad intent are careful to be truthful.

I guess it's easier to complain than offer solutions. How do you think it could be improved?

Here's some of my ideas:
Ban assault rifles
Ban high capacity clips
Waiting period
Serial numbers on ammunition that could be traced back to the purchaser

Also, forgot to mention there is a place on the back of the form that describes the gun(s) you are purchasing - brand, model, caliber, action, serial number, etc.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I guess it's easier to complain than offer solutions. How do you think it could be improved?

Here's some of my ideas:
Ban assault rifles
Ban high capacity clips
Waiting period
Serial numbers on ammunition that could be traced back to the purchaser

Also, forgot to mention there is a place on the back of the form that describes the gun(s) you are purchasing - brand, model, caliber, action, serial number, etc.

David, I agree with all those suggestions, I think those would be helpful. Although I don't know the facts here, I am also guessing background checks probably could be more rigorous than they are. I know the counterargument is that anyone who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it, but in America that seems to happen, with guns mostly purchased lawfully, with alarming frequency. It is at least worth the experiment to see if tightening the process helps.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, I agree with all those suggestions, I think those would be helpful. Although I don't know the facts here, I am also guessing background checks probably could be more rigorous than they are. I know the counterargument is that anyone who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it, but in America that seems to happen, with guns mostly purchased lawfully, with alarming frequency. It is at least worth the experiment to see if tightening the process helps.

Peter, it's just a sad, senseless tragedy. But people try to make it into a gun issue and in my opinion it's not. It's a mental sickness that makes someone want to kill another person out of cold blood and they'll find any means to do it.

I don't know the numbers, but I bet more innocent people will be killed this weekend by drunk drivers than were killed in Aurora. So, do we ban alcohol? I really don't drink, I could care less. Maybe it's worth the experiment to see if it reduces the number of alcohol related fatalities.

I just don't understand that when a drunk driver kills someone, we don't blame the alcohol or the vehicle, we blame the person for not having the responsibility to control themselves. The situation in Auroroa should be no different. Let's quit focusing on how he did and and focus on why he did it and maybe we can prevent things like this from happening again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving would certainly agree with making it more difficult for people to drive drunk, as would I. I believe some states have enacted some fairly tough dram shop laws in an effort to make this more than an issue about personal responsibility.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

but I bet more innocent people will be killed this weekend by drunk drivers than were killed in Aurora. So, do we ban alcohol?......I just don't understand that when a drunk driver kills someone, we don't blame the alcohol or the vehicle,

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope. Same thing could be said about tougher gun laws. The criminals will ignore the laws and find ways to get guns, just like people who choose to drink and drive ignore the DWI laws. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why they're criminals.

Edited to add: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns? If so, you prove your point and I lose my argument. If not, then I just won my argument.

[drc]

I would imagine the strict drinking and driving laws does lower dui deaths. I suspect it lowers the number of people drinking and driving.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Vital statistics from the U.S. were compared to those from 22 other high-income countries with populations over 1 million people that reported causes of mortality to WHO for 2003. Researchers relied on The World Bank’s definition of a high income nation, which included countries that had a gross national income per capita of $12,276 or more for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

In addition to the U.S., the study included Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

Peter, let's be fair. What was the homicide rate as a whole (gun, knife, other weapon) for all countries compared to the United States?

In other words, are the homicide rates about the same from country to country? If so, that just shows that people are finding other ways to kill people.

I'll await your response.

[Runscott]

edited - wasted my breath on this topic

[bmarlowe1]

David:My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope.

Me: In fact, the DWI fatalities are very much down since the advent of stricter laws and much more serious enforcement. (you can find this both nationally and for individual states all over the web - this has been in decline for a long time)

David: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns?

Me: No, because modern civilization cannot continue without vehicles. I think it could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mark, civilization could not continue, because as someone pointed out earlier, there is a segment of the population that enjoy firing military-style weapons, and we couldn't possibly deprive them of that pleasure.

[Wite3]

I am a so sorry for those who were harmed in Colorado...

Joshua