Shooting at the Empire State Building

I think it initially got media attention because it was thought the gunman had gone on a shooting spree, firing into a crowd of people. Had it been known that the police, in trying to take down a gunman, had fired into a crowd of people, wounding several, it would still have been news but might not have been covered with such immediate relish.

Had the gunman and his victim been black or Hispanic there would unlikely have been any police or media presence at all, which is sad but then again, would have resulted in less mayhem and casualties.

 

Unless the shooter was white-hispanic! Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Guns are made solely for killing unlike cars, knives and other stuff than can be used as a lethal weapon, so let's not compare them.

Is there no better argument than this against limiting guns?

Before you say that gun control doesn't work, isn't it right that we should at least try?

 

There's a lot of places that have laws about safety, trigger locks etc... Plus as pointed out above NY is heavily regulated when it comes to firearms, way more so then cars. And there's a bunch of regulations regarding who can buy what type of firearm. For a while there I was licensed to buy and sell fully automatic rifles and pistols. Still have the expired ATF license, Monkey's seen it. Getting that was no small feat. Canceling it was almost as hard. They wanted a receipt for every weapon I ever sold. I had a home fire in 1995 and the ATF simply would not accept "I no longer have those records" as an answer. I ended up leaving the country with the issue still up in the air. I simply could not give them what I did not have.

So basically increasing regulations, at least in this case, would have may zip difference.

People who do not live around people who own guns don't understand this culture. But in the US it's a large culture. Something like 40% of all US homes have a firearm in them. I would guess in a place like NY city the % of legally owned firearms is relatively small. But the last place I lived in the states, near Astoria Oregon, I frankly didn't know anyone who didn't have at least one firearm in the home. Firearm related crime in Astoria Oregon or even it's county, Clatsop, is basically nil.

So, I really don't see where gun ownership equals higher crime. For every nut bag out there shooting people who pisses them off there's 1000's, probably 100's of 1000's of people out there enjoying firearm related sports and are a threat to no one.

 

Accidents...as opposed to intentional -- 11,00o+ homicides by guns (and 18,000+ suicides)

 

Guns are only made for the purpose of killing people? Holy crap! Someone better tell the International Olympic Committee! Because they have several firearm related events every four years. I wonder how many people get killed every year at these events?

As far as gun control laws... the US does indeed have them. I know many people seem to think it's the wild, wild west but, even though owning a firearm is a constitutional right, there are many gun control laws. Some states more so then others... like in NY, where this event happened. Didn't stop it.
--- merged: Aug 25, 2012 8:08 PM ---

Now who's being naive? You think all auto related deaths are accidents?

 

Less than 1/3 of auto deaths are vehicular homicide (mostly drunk drivers).

More than 2/3 of all homicides are by guns.

 

You're kidding yourself that there is a legitimate non lethal reason for guns. Gun laws won't stop shootings - just like traffic laws won't stop speeding - but it's a deterrent to most, so it helps. I've said before that the US has to accept the consequences of the right to bear arms, and that I'd carry one if I could and wear a bullet proof jacket for the same reason.

 

So then guns and alcohol both sound like problems... let's outlaw both.
--- merged: Aug 25, 2012 at 5:20 PM ---

You're kidding yourself if you think the only purpose of a firearm is to harm or kill someone. I've owned guns for most of my adult life and have fired off countless rounds. If someone told me I'd fired 1/2 million rounds I would not be surprised. Now I hunt so I have indeed used a firearm for lethal purposes. But I'd bet I've shot less then 1% of the rounds I shot for a lethal purpose. The rest target practice and competitions.

 

I dont want to outlaw either one, but I would suggest good public policy should be to attempt to reduce the number of preventable deaths by both.

And, IMO, we have done more to prevent car-related deaths....cars are not the sacred cow and dont have an NRA equivalent.

 

The challenge is keeping guns out of the hands of the nut bags. Can't be done (or even discussed) in an environment unwilling to pursue further restrictions on gun ownership.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true but those same people without guns would be killing less people. I don't see how that can be disagreed with.

Why are the only choices free and open access to gun ownership or no guns at all? Why are so many 2nd amendment advocates against broadening the restrictions to ownership via psychological evaluations and the like? Any move towards limits to gun ownership are quickly cut off by the NRA as if denying a firearm to someone who can be determined to be potentially unfit threatens the 2nd amendment and the right of the responsible to bear arms?

Baffling.

 

One more thought on the gun-car comparison.

Cars are continually resdesigned to be safer (anti-lock brakes, air bags, backup sensors....). Firearms are continually redesigned to be more deadly(more lightweight, more accurate, more deadly bullets....)

 

...but the RPG-7 hasn't changed in decades, Duxxy. Your point is irrelevant.

...

The problem with your "safety" list is that both objects kill people because of operator negligence or craziness.

You can make a scalpel as high tech as you want, it'll still kill a patient if a surgeon is negligent or homicidal.

Pretty sure there were lots of gun laws back in the days when guns came in single shot black powder models.

And something tells me they didn't really do a whole lot to deter the negligent, criminals or crazy people.

I can't wait for this to turn into another Trayvon Martin / Sikh Temple thread. Sprawling circlejerk, ahoy!

 

The AR-15 has, has it not?
--- merged: Aug 25, 2012 at 6:19 PM ---

I know it is sacrilegious and anti-American to even suggest that looking at gun laws might help reduce gun violence.

Putting the breaks on the circle jerking.

 

Seriously? No.

For the purposes of this ridiculous "discussion," the Colt M16A1 rifle issued to a grunt during the Vietnam War does basically the same thing as the Colt M4 carbine I carried in those two shitty countries during my stint as a Boy Scout in the 2000s. For those that only experience weapons through over the top napalm action movies and the played-up horror stories on the evening news, guns really haven't changed much in the last 50 years.

The mass media, however, has.

That and people are craaazy.

Well, I'm an atheist. Bring me solutions that attack the problem, not just the implement.

I don't have any answers. I just obey the law and keep a gunshot kit nearby just in case.

 

The scopes arent better? Flash suppression protection better? New, more deadly projectiles (armor piercing) ?
My mistake.

 

Dude, stay in your lane. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. You sound like me talking about Congress.

...

I'll elaborate on the points if necessary.

 

The conversation continues because, though I and others are perfectly content to accept the fact that we have a Constitution (or at least a preponderance of legal precedent) protecting the rights of citizens to bear arms, the gun advocates on this site are strangely averse to engaging in any part of the conversation which includes discussing limitations of those rights.

Y'all keep trying to sabotage the discourse with the retreat to "You want to take my gun away from me, wahhhh" A tack which keeps you off the hook but which is also absolutely untrue.

 

Not necessary.

You're the expert. If you say today's scopes arent better than 1970 models or flash suppressors arent better or today's armor piercing bullets arent better, I'll take your word for it.

 

Joniemack,

Fine... what are you limitations, Dr. Science? Lay that shit out. I keep hearing about all these solutions... and they sound like stuff that has already been in place for 30 years. Tech solutions like cable/trigger locks, action locks. Waiting periods. Mental health paperwork amendments. Storage laws.

Don't label every gun owner with your bullshit Sneetch tactics like they've all got a NRA bumper sticker and voted for Bush. I'd gladly give up every shooting iron I own tomorrow if a magical genie showed up, got rid of all my sport shooting hobbies and told me that I'd never have to use it to keep someone from attacking me or my girlfriend. Given how much fun I have shooting paper targets and how many nutjobs are out, I'll think I'll play it safe instead of pretending that the cops will show up and save me... hell, they'll probably just gun me down for being a white guy with a shaved head.

...