Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"? (Page 3)

Maybe they should just limit the dosage to 10 pills a month.  Why would anyone need 30 pills in a month? That should solve the problem.

Its all about money.  Two hundred ninety people die everyday from the known side effects of prescription drugs, thats about one hundred and nine thousand per year.  Thats not OD's, abuse, misuse, etc..... just people dying from taking prescribed meds and experiencing "adverse effects", at a rate that is far worse than deaths associated with firearms.  Where is the outcry? Perhaps there is none because of the amount of dollars they spend lobbying.

Tri-polar..

As I have stated, you start with the people who are saying they will kill themselves or others....that's not a guess.  The only guess is to when they will possibly commit that act. 

I can't think of a single recent involuntary commitment we have donoe that didn't result in the release of that person within 48 hours.....and these are all people whop have stated or written that they will kill themselves or others.  Does that sound like a good system to you?

Interesting. Well I guess they have a lot more money to lobby those who are "taking care of us" than the NRA.

Do you have a source for that statistic?

I don't think anyone has to be "indefinitely committed"......but some people damn well need to be committed for at least long enough to give them some help, and hope.  I'm not a mental health professional, so I don't know how to define that, but surely there is a definition, or the mental health profession is lost.

What I do know is the current system is broken.....and I believe any resources we may spend banning guns or changing gun  laws is MUCH better spent working on helping those professionals and fixing that system.

Look.....sane people don't walk into a school or mall or theater and shoot other people....they just don't.  You can't argue that, and I don't think you are trying to....so let's work on identifying and getting some help for those people.....even if it means locking them away for awhile.

I agree with most of what you wrote there......except for the gun control part.....we already have reaosnable gun control......it doesn't help.  People who shouldn't have guns don't follow laws.

What changes would you propose to "gun control"?

This guy puts it pretty plainly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98...e_gdata_player

It's safe.

It's either been removed or the link is bad?

Eh...it was just a video blogger who had taken the time to break down some stats from the FBI crime report.  it showed that violent crimes were down over 50% since 1991 and that murders were down the same amount in that time period.  Another highlight was that rifles were used in only 3.5% of all violent crimes.....and AR-15 rifles are a subset of that class of weapons.  There was other information given with regard to comp-arisons with other countries.  I checked, all of his data from the UCR was correct.

LB, was it this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=share

The Journal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000, authored by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.

Wow, that was really worth watching.
Who is that guy?

Here's another one of his that deals with the use and manipulation of language.

I nominate him for the:

CoJ George Orwell Memorial Cut Through the BS Talking Points and Doublespeak
When Discussing a Hot Button Topic Award

Yep, thanks.

Yes, I believe that goes too far.

Restricting assault style weapons. Why?

For one thing that is a term that truly has no real definition, it is a term to garner support for one side and make an implication about the other side.  I don't know how you are defining the term for your purpose but however you are, if you are referring to a particular type of rifle you do realize that they are a subset of rifles. I think the FBI statistics show that rifles, not just the subset you are referring to have been involved in less than 400 killings in that year or 3.5% of all gun related deaths excluding suicide. You are proposing taking away the rights of 300,000,000 law abiding US Citizens based on this? I don't understand.

Restricting High Capacity Cartridges: This is where the Anti Gun movement and people such as yourself lose most of your credibility in having a meaningful discussion on "common sense gun legislation". When you make statements that show you really don't know the first thing about firearms, ammunition aka cartridges, magazines or clips but want to take rights away from 300,000,000 law abiding citizens with terms that have no meaning. I'll try to explain, cartridges are the thing with the powder and the projectile in them, typically a brass casing.  The cartridge then goes into a magazine which then feeds into the gun, specifically the chamber of the gun. I am not sure if you are trying to outlaw high power cartridges or high capacity magazines.  On a similar matter, most "assault rifles" are of a .223 caliber, the projectile is slightly bigger around than a normal 22 but a bit longer with much more powder than a typical 22. That being said, for killing purpose, it is not very effective for anything much bigger than a coyote. For a rifle cartridge it's on the bottom end of the "High Power" chart.

Limiting the number of guns on a premises. Why? What data can you provide that this has been an issue and what numbers are you talking about?

Gun Safety and Gun Training: Here is one we can agree on. I believe it should be taught in every elementary school, just as English is. Part of the reason we have so many who are afraid of guns is because they know nothing about them. It's like sharks, most of those who are afraid of sharks have never had the pleasure of occupying the same habitat as the sharks at the same time. I know a lot of people personally who have been around sharks in the open ocean, I don't know anyone personally who has ever been threatened, let alone bit by one.

Mandate firearms in homes with children be locked up. I'm on the fence leaning against this(though I think generally it's a good idea, kids or no kids) . Every family is different and having a one system fits all 300,000,000 I'm a bit concerned with. If we do pass a law like this, I would like to also include prescription medicine, poisons including any type of household product that could be poisonous.  Just out of curiosity, should it also include knives with a sharp edge?

More thorough background checks: I think it should be up to the states and the Feds should KTFO of it all personally. I'd have no problem with the States requiring a background check for all firearms sales excluding immediate family members. I think as we can do here in NV is to go to the POPO station and they will facilitate that.

I would be curious as to what you mean by "More thorough background checks"?

Like the discussion here, but can someone reconcile what cruse wrote about the .223 caliber above and what ??Gen McChrystal said on TV a couple of days ago?  Here is his quote.

????"I spent a year carrying typically either a M16, later a M4 carbine," he said.  "And a M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters,  at about 3,000 feet per second.  When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating.  It's designed to do that.   That's what our solders ought to carry." 

So forgive my ignorance on the subject.  I do know a little about shotguns.  So can you have different .223 loads similar to different 12 guage shotgun shell loads (duck vs. dove loads)?    So when cruse and others mention the fact you wouldn't use the .223 on more than a coyote, it just doesn't jive with what the general is stating above. 

My reference was in regard to hunting and not war/combat.

Here is a decent link to different calibers.

From left to right: .50 BMG, .300 Win Mag, .308 Winchester, 7.62 Soviet, 5.56 NATO, .22LR

In answer to your question about different loads for the .223 yes there are different ones and I hope someone more knowledgeable about them will chime in.

This a layman's interpretation and as I understand as to what makes the .223 aka 5.56 NATO round good for war but bad for killing large game.

For war the M16 which the AR15 is copied to look like is a relatively light weapon, with little felt recoil allowing the operator to keep or get back on target quicker and to be able to shoot all day without pain in the shoulder and fatigue. In war killing your target and I could be wrong about this isn't as important as taking him out of the fight. The ammo is smaller and lighter allowing the soldier to carry more of it. The .223 is also a more accurate than the typical AK47 which shoots a bigger projectile.

For hunting, the object is to take down the prey and not to just wound it, that is why the smaller round such as the .223 in some states is not allowed for deer hunting. Hunters don't have to worry about carrying large amounts of ammo, so weight of the weapon and ammo isn't as big of a concern as the proper caliber to kill your prey.

The reasoning is.  If you kill him that is one man out of the fight.  If you wound him there will be a number of others required to tend him so you take multiple men out of the fight. 

A plain .22 has devastating effects when it hits human flesh. It tears it apart. That is what it does. That is what bullets do. .223 has no "special" powers, and is in fact a medium power cartridge. It is especially good at wounding soldiers, not killing them. Many in Iraq and Afghanistan opted for 7.62/.308 rifles because they had better stopping power.

The media loves to make it out that the .223 has some sort of "special" lethality, or is made to be especially devastating/deadly. Simply not true... ballistics is ballistics and the same rules apply to everything. Ask anyone whether a 9mmm or a .45 has more stopping power, or if speed is more important than caliber.... hope you have a lot of time... the question has never been settled.

Let me ask you this... do you have a problem being shot with a pellet gun? Do you have a problem being shot with a .22? How about a .223? How about shot from a shot gun? How about a .50 BMG? What is an acceptable projectile you do not mind being shot with?

I don't mean to be argumentative, or dismissive. We have a problem with mass shooting...OK, how do we tackle that... because you and I both agree it is unacceptable. That is what is spurring the current conversation.

Yet all the things tossed around, do not address mass shootings or crime. Banning black "military style" rifles... by some estimate there are 40 million of them... there should be blood flowing in the streets... yet rifle account for 3.5% of shootings, and "assault weapons" are even less than that. All those guns, all those owners... yet statistically minuscule abuse. Most homicides are directly tied to drug trade.

The only thing general rules apply to is law abiding citizens, which ~90% of which are responsible owners. I challenge you to come up with a law, that does not punish law abiding citizens, and is actually effective at doing something about the problem of crime and mass shootings. If you can, then I'm with you.

Personally, yes.  I have read numerous times your post and I believe I understand your concerns and positions so I will do my best to respond.  The main problem I have is you (and people who have the same position) are willing to trade part of your liberty and that of ordinary citizens for a false sense of security.  I find that very sad.  Taking away or restricting gun ownership will not reduce crime.  A gun is an inanimate object that has no feelings or ideology.  By itself, just like any other object, it poses no harm.  What we need to address is people that for what ever reason is willing to take someone's life.  Look at the stats, more people are killed with objects  than guns.  Your fear of guns, to me, seems somewhat irrational.

I live in a rural community.  For the sake of demographics, I will state that most live at or below the poverty level, and it is 60 % black and 40% white.  There is no crime.  No burglaries, homicides, or other violent crimes.  Most don't lock their doors and leave the keys in cars.  Nearly everyone owns firearms for home defense and hunting.  We look out for and don't fear each other.  Folks like to get together at the local firing range which happens to be at my house because I built it when I shot bench competively.  And thats OK with me.  Shooting is a thread that helps make up the fabric of our community.   I (we) cherish our 2nd ammendment rights and fully understand why the founders put it there.  Its not there insuring we have the right to shoot at my house or to hunt, but to resist tyranny, God forbid, if it were to happen here. 

I wish you lived near me.  I would love for you to come out, meet the neighbors and see first hand that firearms are not the problem in our country today.