Oh the Irony

[blackshoe]

Chuck Hagel's attitude toward using force -- albeit on a much larger scale than we've been discussing -- seems eminently sensible to me. The use of deadly force, while sometimes unavoidable, has to be a last resort.

I agree completely. Of course, sometimes the Monday morning quarterbacks will tell you that you should have done more to resolve the situation (whatever it was) peacefully rather than using force. And sometimes they'll be wrong, but you'll get crucified by the media anyway.

 

Be interesting to see how Hagel does as SecDef. Assuming he gets past the confirmation hearings.

[kenberg]

Are you using maybe in that last sentence in the same way D. H. Lawrence used it in Lady Chatterley's Lover

 

 

or the way Ring Lardner used it in You know me Al?

 

 

 

Maybe

[y66]

:)

[onoway]

Where is the line drawn? IS there a line?

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

[Scarabin]

Normally, living in Australia I would not presume to express any opinion on US laws, but may I offer one thought. If I were concerned with guarding against a tyranical minority taking over my country I would fear the use of robots in accumclating wealth and power in a few hands.

 

While oppression by drones may not be feasible in America, I think Assad would be in a much stronger position if he had a plentiful supply of drones.

 

I do not think I am a Luddite but I would be interested in posters views on computers and robots taking over jobs, and on drones - I think the latter are a two-edged sword: At the moment they suit the west but what a weapon for a terror group!

[helene_t]

Not a new article (2004) but it looks like a decent study: Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

[kenberg]

I started a robot and tech thread so we can give this one back to the guns.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58387-robots-technology-and-such/

[barmar]

I started a robot and tech thread so we can give this one back to the guns.

Sigh, one of the few times I was in favor of thread drift. :)

 

I've moved all the robot posts into the new thread.

[mike777]

So many of you seem to live in a world whn you or your loved ones have not been raped or shot.

 

 

I repeat Europe has seen this more than USA yet many there seem to forgot or not care.

 

I grew up in a city where 100,000 gang members......12,ooo cops and many more are crooks.

 

 

See:

http://www.spotcrime.com/il/chicago/roseland

 

 

this is where i grew up.

 

We did not own a car so I walked...biked alot...lol

 

I know all of these streets

 

scroll down to see recent crimes....just recent.

 

--------------------

 

 

so many posters seem to live in fantasy land where you have not been raped or mugged.

 

My school is in the middle of all this crap.

 

 

edit

 

guys I know all of these streets listed as crimes I lived there I walked there.

[Trinidad]

So, you live in an area with a lot of crime. What does that have to do with the discussion whether gun ownership needs to be limited? Exactly nothing.

 

You live under the notion that the best way to reduce crime is to own a gun. I don't know who gave you that idea (well, actually I sort of do), but if there is any correlation between the amount of guns owned and violent crime it is positive, not negative. (This means: more guns -> more crime and less guns -> less crime.)

 

Of course, the NRA wants you to believe that guns reduce crime. But it is a believe... it is not based on facts.

 

If the NRA wants to, they could convince the nation that hamburgers and pulled pork sandwiches taste better if you own a gun... or that your wife looks prettier if you own a gun or that the weather will be nicer if you own a gun. People would believe that, no matter what the facts say.

 

But the gun discussion isn't based on facts and reason. It is based on whipped up emotions:

- My personal freedom is at risk if I can't walk around with a gun. (In SF they are no longer allowed to walk around naked. How about that for personal freedom?)

- I have a God given right to bear fire arms. (Of course, God created the Fire Arm and he saw that it was good. Firearmism is a religion and we have freedom of religion.)

- The only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. (Wouldn't it be much better if the bad guy wouldn't have a gun to begin with? And given the fact that many bad guys got their guns from good guys and many bad guys used to be good guys before, it would be a better idea if there were less of these "good guys with guns".)

 

If the gun discussion would be based on facts and reason, there wouldn't be a gun discussion at all anymore: No individual would be allowed to own a gun, except for a few who have a very good reason to own one and have proven to be reliable. But the gun discussion is not based on facts and reason.

 

Rik

[mike777]

I make no claim and your logic is well stupid.....I make no claim or logic. I repeat i MAKE no claim or logic.....you live in fantasy land.

 

 

In any event do you live in a high crime area..if so what is your logic?

 

If you dont then stop/

 

 

If you grew up in Roseland/Pullman ok ....I did.

[blackshoe]

You live under the notion that the best way to reduce crime is to own a gun. I don't know who gave you that idea (well, actually I sort of do), but if there is any correlation between the amount of guns owned and violent crime it is positive, not negative. (This means: more guns -> more crime and less guns -> less crime.)

 

Of course, the NRA wants you to believe that guns reduce crime. But it is a believe... it is not based on facts.

Sure. That explains the title of John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime.

 

I should point out that Lott originally set out to prove your premise (more guns = more crime), but much to his surprise found the evidence says otherwise.

 

I don't know how Lott feels about the NRA now, but his original research had nothing to do with that organization.

[blackshoe]

If the NRA wants to, they could convince the nation that hamburgers and pulled pork sandwiches taste better if you own a gun... or that your wife looks prettier if you own a gun or that the weather will be nicer if you own a gun. People would believe that, no matter what the facts say.

I missed this at first. Sorry Rik, but this puts you squarely in the "nutcase" camp.

[nige1]

Sure. That explains the title of John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. I should point out that Lott originally set out to prove your premise (more guns = more crime), but much to his surprise found the evidence says otherwise. I don't know how Lott feels about the NRA now, but his original research had nothing to do with that organization.

What does Helene_t make of this book?

I grew up in a city where 100,000 gang members......12,ooo cops and many more are crooks. See: http://www.spotcrime...hicago/roseland

this is where i grew up. We did not own a car so I walked...biked alot...lol I know all of these streets scroll down to see recent crimes....just recent. My school is in the middle of all this crap.

Why don't the Chicago authorities flood the city with guns so that concerned citizens can restore law and order? Simples!

[blackshoe]

What makes you think the authorities want the citizens to restore law and order? :ph34r:

[kenberg]

I make no claim and your logic is well stupid.....I make no claim or logic. I repeat i MAKE no claim or logic.....you live in fantasy land.

 

 

In any event do you live in a high crime area..if so what is your logic?

 

If you dont then stop/

 

 

If you grew up in Roseland/Pullman ok ....I did.

 

And did you carry a gun as a teenager? I didn't, nor did anyone else at my school. I am guessing, sure it's a guess but it's a strong guess, that you now live in a safer neighborhood. Dangerous neighborhoods are a fact of life. Maybe these neighborhoods will become safer if all the eighteen year olds buy guns, but I am (very) skeptical. And of course they can then provide them to their younger brothers as needed.

 

 

The Post today has a story about aremed officers in school (perhaps more suitable for the Newtown thread but appropriate enough here I think)

http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z2

 

 

The following statistic from http://www.washingto...2a_graphic.html caught my eye:

 

 

In D.C. there is an enrollment of 80,230 and they have 95 armed officers. In Montgomery County Maryland (adjacent to D.C.), they have an enrollment of 144,727 and 6 armed officers. I can't say for sure, but as far as I know the number of armed officers for the St. Paul system when I was in high school (1952-1956) was 0. Which would be the same as the number of students who were shot in school.

 

Kids have to be protected, sure. But how has it come to this? More importantly, what should we do? I have to be plainspoken here. I see guns as the simple-minded solution. I suppose that if everyone is armed to the teeth then everyone (well, not quite everyone) will be careful about stepping on someone's toes but I think we need to do better. Like most any kid, I had my troubles from time to time in high school. I was and am really grateful that guns were not in any way part of the equation. The earlier article about the sharp reduction of crime in New York City seems to give hope that there are more creative solutions than massive gun sales. Once we focus on such approaches, we can be successful.

[Trinidad]

To paraphrase a president who experienced an attack with a fire arm: "Guns are not the solution to our problems. Guns are the problem."

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

To paraphrase a president who experienced an attack with a fire arm: "Guns are not the solution to our problems. Guns are the problem."

 

Rik

There will come a time when people finally realize that this is true.

[billw55]

Pro gun argument: if we ban these guns, criminals will still have them, because they are criminals. They don't obey laws, so why would this law affect them?

 

Counter point: when these mass shootings happen, it is often the case that the shooter wants to kill as many people as possible. Sometimes they explicitly state this in their writings/recordings. So it occurs to me to wonder, why aren't they using fully automatic weapons? Surely they could kill many more that way. The obvious answer is that those weapons are not available, because they are illegal. So, gun bans evidently do work to keep the banned weapons out of criminal hands, despite what gun advocates say.

 

Is there something wrong with this logic?

[ArtK78]

Pro gun argument: if we ban these guns, criminals will still have them, because they are criminals. They don't obey laws, so why would this law affect them?

 

Counter point: when these mass shootings happen, it is often the case that the shooter wants to kill as many people as possible. Sometimes they explicitly state this in their writings/recordings. So it occurs to me to wonder, why aren't they using fully automatic weapons? Surely they could kill many more that way. The obvious answer is that those weapons are not available, because they are illegal. So, gun bans evidently do work to keep the banned weapons out of criminal hands, despite what gun advocates say.

 

Is there something wrong with this logic?

That you are trying to make sense in an entirely emotional argument?

[jjbrr]

I won't offer an opinion on gun laws, but the Christopher Dorner situation is amazing to me.

 

Still trying to wrap my head around this. Cops on the lookout for 270 lb. bald black male in a dark pickup truck somehow identify and open fire on two white little old ladies delivering newspapers in a light blue pickup truck. Somehow this revelation is not accompanied by "obviously the cops have been fired from the police force, arrested on the spot, and held for psychiatric evaluation while every officer either of these two had ever worked with or for is questioned as to how they failed to notice their obvious Mr. Magoo observational abilities and trigger-happy demeanor."

[VMars]

I won't offer an opinion on gun laws, but the Christopher Dorner situation is amazing to me.

 

Still trying to wrap my head around this. Cops on the lookout for 270 lb. bald black male in a dark pickup truck somehow identify and open fire on two white little old ladies delivering newspapers in a light blue pickup truck. Somehow this revelation is not accompanied by "obviously the cops have been fired from the police force, arrested on the spot, and held for psychiatric evaluation while every officer either of these two had ever worked with or for is questioned as to how they failed to notice their obvious Mr. Magoo observational abilities and trigger-happy demeanor."

 

They should extend this investigation to the people that supervised Dorner (a former cop/navy reservist).

[blackshoe]

The report that I saw about firing on pickup trucks said there were two incidents, one the one described upthread. In both, police detailed to guard people who might be Dorner's targets fired on a pickup truck they thought was his. In one incident two people were wounded, in the other no one was hurt. Both incidents took place about five in the morning. The two incidents, afaik, involved different cops and different, widely separated, people being guarded. I certainly hope there will be a thorough and objective investigation into both shootings, but I doubt that much will come of either.

[mike777]

I certainly hope there will be a thorough and objective investigation into both shootings, but I doubt that much will come of either.

 

 

you start something but you should follow through with your point and logic.

 

 

You basically start out saying something is rotten in Denmark but dont really say what......

[Trinidad]

They should extend this investigation to the people that supervised Dorner (a former cop/navy reservist).

And, therefore, another example of a "bad guy with a gun" who used to be a "good guy with a gun".

 

Rik