Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #176
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Here is a start, why not make the crime of providing a gun to a known felon or other that is not legally able to have a gun that is used in the commission of a crime be the same as that crime?

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28...est=latestnews

    From the article: "The federal charges carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment, a fine of $250,000 or both."
    10 years? WTF? I like your idea better.

  2. #177
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Yes, but lets bring forth the whole truth:

    Guns illegally obtained and illegally used
    Numerous laws in terms of legal possession violated
    Proven history of mental instability of the shooter(s) prior to the incident
    Numerous missed signs concerning the individual(s) proceeding the shootings
    More important, the vast majority of these shooting took place in areas, especially schools, that the shooters knew, with out a doubt, there would be absolutely no resistance or fear of fire arms used for self defense. Why, because the law abiding gun owners did just what the laws says, the did not bring their guns into places that expressly prohibit them.
    Funny how the shooters, breaking numerous laws, get a pass on this fact? Oh, that's right, it's the guns fault.
    No, not the guns fault. But making the guns less available and less common....would HELP.

    Again, just 1 piece of the puzzle.


    PS - 2 of those shootings occurred in places where it was known there was armed security. The shooters apparently didn't care about that.
    don120 likes this.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  3. #178
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    ...
    Guns aren't the problem, they're just the tool of the maniac.
    ...
    So why not work to get rid of that tool? If it stops 1 person....isn't that a good thing?
    don120 likes this.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  4. #179
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    No, not the guns fault. But making the guns less available and less common....would HELP.

    Again, just 1 piece of the puzzle.


    PS - 2 of those shootings occurred in places where it was known there was armed security. The shooters apparently didn't care about that.
    And a ban or extreme gun controls is going to prevent these if that's the case? What makes you think they will care about that?
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  5. #180
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Yes, but lets bring forth the whole truth:

    Guns illegally obtained and illegally used
    In most of those cases, the original purchase of the weapon was legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Numerous laws in terms of legal possession violated
    Proven history of mental instability of the shooter(s) prior to the incident
    Numerous missed signs concerning the individual(s) proceeding the shootings
    More important, the vast majority of these shooting took place in areas, especially schools, that the shooters knew, with out a doubt, there would be absolutely no resistance or fear of fire arms used for self defense. Why, because the law abiding gun owners did just what the laws says, the did not bring their guns into places that expressly prohibit them.
    Funny how the shooters, breaking numerous laws, get a pass on this fact? Oh, that's right, it's the guns fault.
    I'm not giving anyone a pass. What I do know is that other countries allow their citizens to own firearms and those same countries don't seem to have the same problem. We should think about studying what works in those countries and what doesn't. The current knee jerk reaction is to dismiss any type of firearm restriction as unnecessary.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #181
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    So why not work to get rid of that tool? If it stops 1 person....isn't that a good thing?
    Agreed. When a kid throws a rock at another kid in the schoolyard the reaction isn't to give all the children rocks.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #182
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Agreed. When a kid throws a rock at another kid in the schoolyard the reaction isn't to give all the children rocks.
    No, and there in lies the debate: a kid throws a rock at another, you take away all rocks. Those laying around not doing anything, from kids who may be using rocks for hop scotch or the young kid that is collecting them. Punishing all.
    Or you take the rock from the kid that threw it and punish them. Now that would require adult action directed at the individual doing the throwing.
    I guess when it makes you feel better and you don't have to man up and face the individual throwing the rock, its easier to be anonymous and punish all. There by removing any personal responsibility from the person doing wrong.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-28-2012 at 09:03 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  8. #183
    Forum Member
    GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    No, not the guns fault. But making the guns less available and less common....would HELP.

    Again, just 1 piece of the puzzle.


    PS - 2 of those shootings occurred in places where it was known there was armed security. The shooters apparently didn't care about that.
    You don't seem to understand, so I will spell it out.

    The Clinton Assault Weapons ban lasted from 1994-2004.

    North Hollywood occurred in 1997.

    Columbine occurred in 1999.

    Both of these events occurred during the last AWB. Only an idiot would believe that a ban for legal and law abiding gun owners does anything to take the weapons from criminals.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  9. #184
    Forum Member
    GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    So why not work to get rid of that tool? If it stops 1 person....isn't that a good thing?
    Not when stopping one more hypothetical crime infringes on the God given rights of millions of people.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  10. #185
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,304

    Default

    Some years ago, folks figured out that it wasn't the cars that were the problem with DWI, it was the drunk drivers. As a result, we have a plethora of laws dealing with drunk drivers. We didn't take away everyone's cars.

    Of course, even though drunk drivers aren't supposed to drive (at least under certain circumstances), they still do, and such drivers sometimes rack up another DWI even while they're waiting for the court date for a previous such charge.

    So maybe we should take away everyone's cars. That would take care of the DWI problem, wouldn't it?
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  11. #186
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    So why not work to get rid of that tool? If it stops 1 person....isn't that a good thing?
    In that case, shall we ban knives, rope, belts, cable, hammers, baseball bats, and hands? After all, if it stops one person...

    I don't have a problem (for the most part) with having some restrictions to some gun-related items, and I even question why someone needs an AR-15, large magazines, etc., but I think it's BS that we're restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens because of those who break the laws.

    What's the problem with enforcing the laws we have now? Imagine how many lives we could save enforcing laws that already exist. The school shootings cited (and a number not cited) would be prevented, DWI fatalities would cease to exist, drug-related deaths...

  12. #187
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Some years ago, folks figured out that it wasn't the cars that were the problem with DWI, it was the drunk drivers. As a result, we have a plethora of laws dealing with drunk drivers. We didn't take away everyone's cars.

    Of course, even though drunk drivers aren't supposed to drive (at least under certain circumstances), they still do, and such drivers sometimes rack up another DWI even while they're waiting for the court date for a previous such charge.

    So maybe we should take away everyone's cars. That would take care of the DWI problem, wouldn't it?
    Maybe we should require those BAC things in every car sold in the US where you have to breath into it to start it.

  13. #188
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    In most of those cases, the original purchase of the weapon was legal.
    But was that individual responsible?
    In most cases, the vast majority of guns purchased are used and used legally by their rightful owner. Lets punish them.

    The current knee jerk reaction is to dismiss any type of firearm restriction as unnecessary.
    And what of the hundreds of laws already in place: Age limits, background checks, waiting periods, registration to name just a few?
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-28-2012 at 10:59 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  14. #189
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I would disagree. A lesser capacity magazine gives the targets still alive time to react while the shooter reloads.
    It takes about 2 seconds to reload a mag, Chuck Norris doesn't have the ability to cross a room and disarm somebody in 2 seconds. If your theory carried any weight, all military weapons would be belt fed.


    The bystanders that wrestled down Jared Loughner (the Gifford's shooting) were able to do so when his 30 round magazine was empty and he reloaded. Had the magazine been only ten rounds, that act could have been potentially performed earlier.


    Had Loughner been proficient, those four people
    and more would've been dead.




    And since you stated a ten round magazine has ZERO effect, then you should have no problem enforcing a ban on magazines that can hold more than ten rounds.


    I see no point in a law that is worthless because it makes ignorant people feel good.




    And there are significant regulations relating to the sale of explosives or components or explosives.


    We're just lucky the wackos haven't discovered IEDs and EFPs.




    And all those children lived.


    Wrong, a lot didn't...


    Don't keep kidding yourself about "gun bans", they don't work.
    Last edited by johnsb; 12-28-2012 at 11:05 PM.

  15. #190
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    In most of those cases, the original purchase of the weapon was legal.

    Irrelevant to this topic. Why? Because the legal purchaser violated no laws. The person that stole the guns and then used them to commit yet ANOTHER crime is responsible. Frankly, this attempt at debating by you is so ridiculous I can't believe you posted that and were serious in doing it.


    I'm not giving anyone a pass. What I do know is that other countries allow their citizens to own firearms and those same countries don't seem to have the same problem. We should think about studying what works in those countries and what doesn't. The current knee jerk reaction is to dismiss any type of firearm restriction as unnecessary.

    Whay works in Israel is having actual assault rifles in the homes of civilians. Even more shocking to the anti-gun crowd here assault rifles in the hads of teachers to protect their students. WOW!! That seems to have prevented mass shootings in schools in Israel, why wouldn't it work here if your idea is to model other countries working gun ideas?

    Actually the current idiotic knee jerk reaction is to punish law abiding citizens in yet another repeated FAILURE to understand that criminals are criminals because they don't obey the law. It just makes me shake my head at the utter lunacy of believing that punishing those that have broken no laws will stop those that wantonly flaunt their disregard for laws already in place.
    Open your eyes, taking guns or gun accessories away from law abiding citizens to prevent gun violence is like taking matches away from everyone because an arsonist uses them to set fires. Stupid, ridiculous, and bound to fail.
    bcjack likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  16. #191
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Agreed. When a kid throws a rock at another kid in the schoolyard the reaction isn't to give all the children rocks.
    Just as the reaction isn't to astroturf the entire playground. The reaction should be to punish the offender and not blame the rock...yet another inanimate object that did not fling itself at the injured student. Nice try, poor analogy on your part.
    bcjack likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  17. #192
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    It takes about 2 seconds to reload a mag, Chuck Norris doesn't have the ability to cross a room and disarm somebody in 2 seconds. If your theory carried any weight, all military weapons would be belt fed.
    True about reloading time. Which was used to advantage by the bystanders at the Gifford's shooting.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Had Loughner been proficient, those four people and more would've been dead.
    But he wasn't proficient. I believe Loughner's level of proficiency is typical. You're assuming the shooter has significant practice and ability. That was not the case in many of these types of incidents. The Lougher's and Lanza's of the world are not former Army Rangers or Navy SEALs. For one thing, those outfits are too difficult for the types of persons who engage in the mass shootings of innocents. The physically and mentally weak are weeded out in their programs. I also don't believe the video game culture is a factor given that other nation's have video games that are as if not more violent without having to deal with psychos mowing down a bunch of 1st graders or theater goers.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    I see no point in a law that is worthless because it makes ignorant people feel good.
    Once again. Since you believe it makes no difference, you should have no problem with limiting capacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    We're just lucky the wackos haven't discovered IEDs and EFPs.
    Google the term "Unabomber."

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Wrong, a lot didn't...
    A lot did. Which can't be said for Lanza's victims.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Don't keep kidding yourself about "gun bans", they don't work.
    Once again, other countries don't seem to have these problems. Certainly there are lessons we can learn.
    Last edited by scfire86; 12-29-2012 at 03:27 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #193
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Whay works in Israel is having actual assault rifles in the homes of civilians. Even more shocking to the anti-gun crowd here assault rifles in the hads of teachers to protect their students. WOW!! That seems to have prevented mass shootings in schools in Israel, why wouldn't it work here if your idea is to model other countries working gun ideas?

    Open your eyes, taking guns or gun accessories away from law abiding citizens to prevent gun violence is like taking matches away from everyone because an arsonist uses them to set fires. Stupid, ridiculous, and bound to fail.
    The beliefs about gun ownership in Israel are highly misleading.

    This article details the difficulties of gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland.

    Excerpts:

    The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
    Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household....
    You said that Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest rate of rejection of any country in the world. And even when you get approved, you say that “all guns must have an Interior Ministry permit and identifying mark for tracing.” That seems like it might make people think twice before they shoot from a gun they know the government can track.
    Here's another.

    Excerpt:

    One of things that strike most visitors to Israel is the number of guns they see people carrying everywhere. But most people don’t realize that Israel’s gun laws are both stricter and very different from those in the U.S.

    Personal weapons are more difficult to come by in Israel. A lot of vetting is done by the government, the police, a doctor, and the gun range that must train and test the potential gun owner before they, too, sign their approval. And the Israeli government prefers to limit gun licenses to those with army experience, if possible.

    Even then, one normally is permitted to only own one gun, and a limited amount of ammunition (although one can buy as many bullets as one wishes at the gun range). Some admittedly feel that the single gun limit, is too restrictive.
    And another.

    Excerpts:

    A spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry told the New York Daily News that this was simply wrong. “We didn’t have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” he said. “What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years.” The spokesperson added, “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion.”
    Israeli guns laws, it turns out, are much stricter than America’s gun laws. This may help explain why Israeli gun ownership is just one thirteenth of what it is in the U.S. To bring that number into focus, it would likely be even lower if not for mandatory military service, which means Israelis are more likely to be familiar with guns. Israel’s unique security challenges and its periodic bouts with terrorism would also seem to bolster an NRA-style case for allowing more privately owned guns so that more citizens can defend themselves. And yet, there are far fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, and far less gun crime.
    I believe the facts about gun ownership in Israel is probably not what you want to embrace for this nation.
    Last edited by scfire86; 12-29-2012 at 11:29 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #194
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    I know people don't like hypotheticals.

    But for those that believe having armed guards everywhere is the right thing to do....when a mass murder occurs (again) at a place with armed security....is the answer still having armed security?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  20. #195
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zarack808 View Post
    As a parent, an American, and as a human being, I offer my sincerest condolences to the parents and community of Newtown, CT.

    To the rest of you guys, please don't allow this thread to devolve into a political debate over gun control. I know an incident like this can conjure strong feelings one way or the other. But create a separate thread for that discussion.
    Though I fear that I am doing so in vain, I will nonetheless bring your collective attention to this previous post. Come on, people...respect those little ones who are now tragically departed. Please don't continue to use this thread to grandstand with your musings on firearms - regardless of your position. If you feel so inclined, CREATE A SEPARATE THREAD. Otherwise, I'm suggesting that this thread be closed.

  21. #196
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I know people don't like hypotheticals.

    But for those that believe having armed guards everywhere is the right thing to do....when a mass murder occurs (again) at a place with armed security....is the answer still having armed security?
    I would like to give it a shot. Everything else we have tried has failed: pacification, restrictions, bans, background checks, waiting periods. Until we lay blame squarely where it belongs, the individual, what is left?
    I read, with as much amusement as frustration, that the city of New York won't say a word about the mental health care failure when it comes to background checks and gun ownership, but make it a front page issue when it comes to pushing people in front of the subway.....
    Of course there is Chicago, some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, pushing over 500 murders.....yep, gun restrictions are the answer.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  22. #197
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zarack808 View Post
    Though I fear that I am doing so in vain, I will nonetheless bring your collective attention to this previous post. Come on, people...respect those little ones who are now tragically departed. Please don't continue to use this thread to grandstand with your musings on firearms - regardless of your position. If you feel so inclined, CREATE A SEPARATE THREAD. Otherwise, I'm suggesting that this thread be closed.
    It's what we do, in our homes, at the table in the firehouse, having a beer at the bar, we discuss the issues. In these forums, I can guarantee this, though we may not agree, there isn't a single one of us in emergency services that don't respect or care for those that this tragedy has affected.
    To be honest, there really is no grandstanding. Grant it, I don't agree with bones or scfire, but I don't take it personal nor do they. How I know that, logical arguments and points that I need to read, research and counter. Honest debate is what solves issues.
    Other than the families, there are very few people that know what this community is going through other than us in the fire/EMS service.
    DeputyMarshal and Chenzo like this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  23. #198
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    139

    Default

    @SPFDRun: Don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all opposed to the discussion/debate over gun laws, etc. And yes, that's the whole purpose of having an online discussion forum, for those in the fire service or elsewhere. My thing is that this particular thread was created to acknowledge the tragedy that befell those victims in Newtown (children and adults) and allowed us to pay our preverbial respects online.

    However, people instead have used this thread topic as a spring board to argue over gun laws, with almost no mention of the children or the specifics of the Newtown event whatsoever. In my opinion, that is grandstanding, and that trivializes the intent of this thread.

    Again, I'm not opposed to the discussion at all. Just saying that it should have been a separate thread. If it weren't for the title of the thread, someone reading pages 2 through 10 would have absolutely no idea what this thread was originally created for. I know we get off topic from time to time, but I put that admonition on page one for a reason.

  24. #199
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I know people don't like hypotheticals.

    But for those that believe having armed guards everywhere is the right thing to do....when a mass murder occurs (again) at a place with armed security....is the answer still having armed security?
    I doubt most of us believe this is the answer. There are no silver bullets (pun intended) to the problem, anyone who believes in a single answer is either fooling themselves or is a fool.

    As for "if it saves one life": What if it costs a life? We can be certain that disarming law abiding citizens will cost lives, but we cannot prove it will save a single life.

  25. #200
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Of course there is Chicago, some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, pushing over 500 murders.....yep, gun restrictions are the answer.
    I just saw an interview with Cory Booker. The mayor of Newark, NJ. He was confronted with that scenario and he stated the issue in both Chicago and Newark is the secondary market (aka gun shows). When his police chief started investigating the source of the guns used in the commission of most of the homicides, those guns were coming from states where laws are lax to states where laws are stricter. Some pathways even have names, such as the Iron Pipeline from the Southeast to New England. We know that comprehensive background checks and expanded denial criteria are feasible and effective, because they are in place in many states and have been evaluated. California, for example, requires a background check on all firearm purchases and denies purchases by persons who have committed violent misdemeanors. Yet some 600,000 firearms were sold there in 2011, and the firearms industry continues to consider California a “lucrative” market. The denial policy reduced the risk of violent and firearm-related crime by 23% among those whose purchases were denied. Which I can attest to having purchased a handgun in 2010 and had to wait the requisite time before I could take possession.
    Last edited by scfire86; 12-30-2012 at 01:30 PM.
    SPFDRum likes this.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 05:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 05:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 05:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 03:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register