Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up

[DutchJazzer]

dutch thank you for the info.

I like the rules of most European countries, and how hard they make it to get a weapon. I am ok with people owning a gun, but I think they should have to
go through a strict process to own and keep it. Its not something to be taken lightly.

and the 3 brave soldiers (they were not all marines) took him down with NO weapon.

i have been training my *** off for years to also be able to be a credible unarmed threat to any armed opposition!
it takes training but being unarmed does not make 1 helpless.

for example if there is a burglar in your home and your a petite small woman, lets say he punches u in the gut. not really leaving a mark. you manage to grab a knife and stab him. you will get in trouble because deadly force is not warranted!
do you think that is fair? some lawmakers and politicians deciding you have no right to self defense.

a man spent 4 months in jail because he shot a burglar in the chest.
you may ask wtf happened that he'd shoot the burglar in the chest.
well he heard noises went downstairs and there was this burglar with an axe
he swung at the man the men ran back up the stares whit a man with axe swinging with axe marks on the wall. he managed to get to his room locked the door and put a piece of furniture in front of it. he bought himselfs some time to open up his 2 safes 1 with ammo 1 with the gun. managed to load it in time and shto a warning shot the burglar ran towards him. he shot him in the chest.
and got hauled of to jail spent about 4 months in jail but was acquitted
he had to prove in a court of law amongst other things:
1.why the use of the gun was warranted.
2.couldn't he handle it another way
3. where his gun and ammo really in separate safes and not just a loaded gun under his pillow.
4.did he take his gun out of safe AFTER he was attacked or before.
5. did the burglar first saw the gun and feared for his live and started swinging axes(aka the man was the agitator and not the burglar).
and much more

luckily he got acquited after 4 months in jail. away from his wife and kids.
but hey atleast he got about 500 euros per month in jail.

so yeah **** this ****. its easy to talk now, but I would tell the judge and the whole system to go **** them-self. lock me up and throw away the key!

 

[Revolution 9]

i have been training my *** off for years to also be able to be a credible unarmed threat to any armed opposition!
it takes training but being unarmed does not make 1 helpless.

for example if there is a burglar in your home and your a petite small woman, lets say he punches u in the gut. not really leaving a mark. you manage to grab a knife and stab him. you will get in trouble because deadly force is not warranted!
do you think that is fair? some lawmakers and politicians deciding you have no right to self defense.

a man spent 4 months in jail because he shot a burglar in the chest.
you may ask wtf happened that he'd shoot the burglar in the chest.
well he heard noises went downstairs and there was this burglar with an axe
he swung at the man the men ran back up the stares whit a man with axe swinging with axe marks on the wall. he managed to get to his room locked the door and put a piece of furniture in front of it. he bought himselfs some time to open up his 2 safes 1 with ammo 1 with the gun. managed to load it in time and shto a warning shot the burglar ran towards him. he shot him in the chest.
and got hauled of to jail spent about 4 months in jail but was acquitted
he had to prove in a court of law amongst other things:
1.why the use of the gun was warranted.
2.couldn't he handle it another way
3. where his gun and ammo really in separate safes and not just a loaded gun under his pillow.
4.did he take his gun out of safe AFTER he was attacked or before.
5. did the burglar first saw the gun and feared for his live and started swinging axes(aka the man was the agitator and not the burglar).
and much more

luckily he got acquited after 4 months in jail. away from his wife and kids.
but hey atleast he got about 500 euros per month in jail.

so yeah **** this ****. its easy to talk now, but I would tell the judge and the whole system to go **** them-self. lock me up and throw away the key!

I see no harm in using deadly force if an intruder is in your home. Especially if you are protecting a wife, and kids.

You must be cautions though because the shoot first ask questions later mentality has killed innocent people.

Its a fine line, but in the case you stated above the man shouldnt have been in ANY trouble for his actions.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I see no harm in using deadly force if an intruder is in your home. Especially if you are protecting a wife, and kids.

You must be cautions though because the shoot first ask questions later mentality has killed innocent people.

Its a fine line, but in the case you stated above the man shouldnt have been in ANY trouble for his actions.

i'd rather live in a country where the defense of me and my family is in my own hands, rather than afraid to defend urself.
i know a guy who served 3 years for excessive force on bruglar in his home who was found guilty.

but there are other reasons for why i am in this country for now.

 

[fishonjazz]

aka only the criminal had guns while the citizens where sitting ducks. or fish in a barrel

What if the shooter was unable to get access to a gun though? That would have probably saved some lives

 

[fishonjazz]

not gonna read too much liberal rantings as i believe it causes brain cancer if prolonged to long..


but if thats the criteria. are u allowed to enter the navy yard as a citizen with a gun?
NO

a navy yard is a gun free zone. the fact that law enforcement( including mp and special private armed security) are armed does not make it a non gun free zone.
a police officer can go to a gun free mall with his gun. does it mean the mall is gun free.


i see our definition of gun free zones differ.
you see it as a zone where even cops have to turn in their guns, there cannot be armed guards there. even military police and mp should turn in their gun!
i see a gun free zone as a zone where regular citizens are not allowed to carry a gun.

Dutch, don't be dumb.

A gun free zone is where guns are not supposed to be there.

The example provided was a location where there are always people walking around with guns (armed guards)

 

[fishonjazz]

so whats a gun free zone in your world?

i know for most gun owners gun free zone is all about them a citizen to carry a gun or not into that zone.
they dont care about wether cops can carry a gun or not..


tried googling gun free zone.
first result i get is :gunfreezon.net
and second is :Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) - Wikipedia.


The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is a federal United States law that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921

i know this aplies to gun free school zones. but cant find any other reputable source that defines a gun free zone.

So by the definition you provided that navy base is not a gun free zone.

 

[DutchJazzer]

So by the definition you provided that navy base is not a gun free zone.

well some people see navy bases as gun free zones only police military police and guards are allowed to carry gun.
the majority of people on navy base's are unarmed.

https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf.


i guess if you want it your way all mass shootings happened in a place where the general public is not allowed to carry guns!

 

[DutchJazzer]

speaking of rants...

here is one of yours Dutch.

 

[fishonjazz]

well some people see navy bases as gun free zones only police military police and guards are allowed to carry gun.
the majority of people on navy base's are unarmed.

https://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf.


i guess if you want it your way all mass shootings happened in a place where the general public is not allowed to carry guns!

The difference is that at a movie theater or a school or something there is not supposed to be guns there...... Except in an EMERGENCY when the cops get called in.

At the navy base there are always supposed to be guns there at all times. Its standard operating procedure. So the shooter knows and expects guns to be there and yet still carries out the attack anyway.

There is huge difference there that you are probably to stubborn to recognize.

I think I'm done discussing things with you for a while

 

[DutchJazzer]

The difference is that at a movie theater or a school or something there is not supposed to be guns there...... Except in an EMERGENCY when the cops get called in.

At the navy base there are always supposed to be guns there at all times. Its standard operating procedure. So the shooter knows and expects guns to be there and yet still carries out the attack anyway.

There is huge difference there that you are probably to stubborn to recognize.

I think I'm done discussing things with you for a while

ok bro

 

[moevillini]

Really, I think there are several different sides to the issue of gun homicide - to the point that it's almost like they are different issues

One aspect - inner city violence, much of it related to the drug trade and gang affiliation; armed robbery probably falls into this category as well. Some of the problems related to poverty and unemployment factor into this type of violence.

Second aspect - the mass shooters such as the Columbine killings, James Holmes, Sandy Hook/Newton CT., the Charleston, SC church killings, etc etc; mental illness probably plays a role here. This typically involves shooting at random people who are not known to the killer

Third aspect - anger and jealousy - I think today's shooting in Roanoke fall into this category, though the shooter may have had some mental illness issues as well, but there are plenty of other homicides that are just simply someone going into a rage and shooting someone they perceive to be a rival or threat. Often times this is someone they know.

I think I had a fourth in mind, but I don't remember what it was.
(edit: I think the fourth one was accidental shootings, but that's an aspect with solutions that would be less directly related to the others)

At any rate, the factors frequently mentioned here as "root causes" , such as poverty, unemployment, unstable families etc. etc. etc. really play a role only in the first aspect. So what might be a way to start looking at solutions for one aspect of the problem (that is, for those who perceive it as a problem) is not going to do anything to resolve the issue of gun violence in those aspects where poverty and unemployment do not have a role - such as a jealous husband who kills his wife; or the angry young man who hates blacks.

OK, well since nobody offered any additional alternatives in evaluating the "sources" of gun violence, let's start a discussion of these various factors that lead to gun violence:
* gangs/drugs
* anger/jealousy
* accidental
* irrational reasons/mental health issues

(understanding that there can be some overlap between categories)

Now, I have a two questions to start:

1 - Are homicide statistics given by the number of deaths, by the number of incidents or what? Are injuries that are not fatal accounted for? I think it makes a bit of a difference and I'd be curious to know how many shootings involve just ONE victim, compared to those with two or more. Does anybody have a source where these things are broken down?

2 - Does anyone know of a link to a source where the number of shootings is broken down by "cause" similar to those I've listed above? And again, is it by number of incidents or number of fatalities and/or injuries?

Lots more questions of course, but I'd like to see if we can get some information towards those two questions and go from there.

 

[RandyForRubio]

well that would be hilarious, seeing as the argument to maintain gun access is always grouped with the notion of "we need to address systemic factors leading to gun violence!!"-- so this either means bigger government, or scapegoating black people.

Binary thinking bruh.

You're being too emotional in this conversation, Bruh.

 

[Harambe]

what part of all mass shootings HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE!!!!!!!!!!! ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


edit: Correction all SUCCESFULL MASS SHOOTINGS HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE

If someone brings in guns to a gun free zone, it clearly isn't gun free, now is it?

 

[Gameface]

If someone brings in guns to a gun free zone, it clearly isn't gun free, now is it?

Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I still get security alerts for my alma matter, looks like there was an attempted shooting just now on campus.

 

[Gameface]

OK, well since nobody offered any additional alternatives in evaluating the "sources" of gun violence, let's start a discussion of these various factors that lead to gun violence:
* gangs/drugs
* anger/jealousy
* accidental
* irrational reasons/mental health issues

(understanding that there can be some overlap between categories)

Now, I have a two questions to start:

1 - Are homicide statistics given by the number of deaths, by the number of incidents or what? Are injuries that are not fatal accounted for? I think it makes a bit of a difference and I'd be curious to know how many shootings involve just ONE victim, compared to those with two or more. Does anybody have a source where these things are broken down?

2 - Does anyone know of a link to a source where the number of shootings is broken down by "cause" similar to those I've listed above? And again, is it by number of incidents or number of fatalities and/or injuries?

Lots more questions of course, but I'd like to see if we can get some information towards those two questions and go from there.

Moe, I like what you're doing. I haven't had time to respond, but I'd like to. Just need to get a little coffee in me and wake up.

 

[Gameface]

Right. But EVERY one of those, having LESS guns available would mean LESS people shot. Period. End of story.

We can discuss how effective any means of getting the guns out of people's hands would be, and whether we should or not, or whether we legally CAN or not, but...

Gun rights advocates have won. All the way up to the Supreme Court. You're not going to be taking any guns away. That's the very least realistic alternative in any of this. If that's what you're gunning for (puns always intended) I'm afraid you're gonna find you're shooting blanks, from a jammed gun, at an invisible target.

 

[fishonjazz]

Gun rights advocates have won. All the way up to the Supreme Court. You're not going to be taking any guns away. That's the very least realistic alternative in any of this. If that's what you're gunning for (puns always intended) I'm afraid you're gonna find you're shooting blanks, from a jammed gun, at an invisible target.

Unfortunately this is true

 

[Gameface]

So by the definition you provided that navy base is not a gun free zone.

Actually people might be very surprised. On a Navy base the only people allowed to be armed are the military police (called Masters-At-Arms, in the Navy, or MAs for short). I had a friend who lived on the ship and he and I would go shooting regularly. He had to declare that he had a gun at the gate, then wait, then hand the gun over to the MAs, who would then escort him to the ship, where they would inform the Officer of the Deck that he had a gun, who would then get the shipboard MAs to take possession of the gun and escort him to the ships armory where a gunners mate would check the gun into the armory. Reverse the process to get the gun off base so we could go to the range.

 

[Stoked]

OK, well since nobody offered any additional alternatives in evaluating the "sources" of gun violence, let's start a discussion of these various factors that lead to gun violence:
* gangs/drugs
* anger/jealousy
* accidental
* irrational reasons/mental health issues

(understanding that there can be some overlap between categories)

Now, I have a two questions to start:

1 - Are homicide statistics given by the number of deaths, by the number of incidents or what? Are injuries that are not fatal accounted for? I think it makes a bit of a difference and I'd be curious to know how many shootings involve just ONE victim, compared to those with two or more. Does anybody have a source where these things are broken down?

2 - Does anyone know of a link to a source where the number of shootings is broken down by "cause" similar to those I've listed above? And again, is it by number of incidents or number of fatalities and/or injuries?

Lots more questions of course, but I'd like to see if we can get some information towards those two questions and go from there.

I'll reply to the bolded one. To start it off at least.

Gangs: Part of this comes from several different areas itself. Uninvolved parents, limited economic opportunity/status, lack of a good education... work on those things and the gangs will find that their potential recruits start drying up. Give many of these kids a viable alternative to gangs.

Drugs: One can start by bringing marijuana into the light, legalize it already. The war on drugs has been a disaster. Secure the border and strangle to flow from outside the country and then work not on the sellers/addicts but on the producers here at home. You will never fully stop drugs. One can also create better anti drug programs as well.