Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Surelynot]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

so to reduce drug crime we make drugs legal

Not totally opposed to that........ done properly.......if it can be taxed, I'm happy for 'users' to contribute to reducing my tax bill.

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Here's a suggestion; require all guns be registered to guns owners.  If police find a gun used in a crime, it can be traced to its last registered owner.  If that owner can't show that the gun was stolen and he filed a police report on the theft, hold the owner responsible for the crime.

Ok you now have this perfect database of who owns guns.  1. what are you going to do with it to "prevent" crime.  You can only determine who owned the gun after the fact.  So what?  " I didn't even know the gun was missing"  

Right now if you notice the law enforcement agencies have no problem in determining how the various shooters obtained their firearms.  So what you propose would have zero impact.   To the "best of my knowledge" all of the mass shooters legally obtained their firearms.  

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

You are exactly correct.  It is not the GUNS it is the people.  If guns were the problem the rural areas would have it.  The crime and homicide are associated with those who inhabit the large rural cities.  Exactly the ones who have the strictest gun control laws. 

People without guns are not nearly as good at killing as people with guns.  BTW:  What does your survey say about the types of guns people in the rural states have?  I assume they have more hunting weapons and fewer hand guns and AR-556's, the gun used in the Boulder shooting.  Why are guns like that legal?

 

Strict gun control laws in cities surrounded by counties with lax gun control results in lax gun control in cities.  Rational gun control needs to be nationwide.

Edited March 30, 2021 by heybruce

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Thomas J said:

You might note that I have made numerous posts during some of which I asked OK what law would you propose and how would that have stopped any of the mass shootings.  Only one person was honest enough to reply with “ban all guns”.  The remaining just continued to beat the mantra of banning certain firearms, more extensive background checks, and even one person ludicrously responding more gun instruction.  

 

 

 

I assume I am the one you are referring to as making the ludicrous suggestion that people who own dangerous weapons should have training.  Why do you think that is a bad idea?

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
quoted post corrected for formatting

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

Ok you now have this perfect database of who owns guns.  1. what are you going to do with it to "prevent" crime.  You can only determine who owned the gun after the fact.  So what?  " I didn't even know the gun was missing"  

Right now if you notice the law enforcement agencies have no problem in determining how the various shooters obtained their firearms.  So what you propose would have zero impact.   To the "best of my knowledge" all of the mass shooters legally obtained their firearms.  

You've repeatedly pointed out that mass shootings only represent a small fraction of gun deaths in the US.  Now that you find it advantageous to your "logic" you want to only address restrictions that would prevent mass shootings.  Funny.

 

As I explained previously, a register of who owns the guns would enable police to identify the registered owner of a gun used in a crime and hold that owner accountable.  The excuse "I didn't know the gun was loaded" should, along with the excuse "I didn't know it was loaded", be taken as an admission of criminal negligence.

 

It would motivate owners to be more responsible in securing their guns (fewer guns stolen from unlocked cars) and less inclined to sell guns to anyone who has the cash with no questions asked.  In short, it would reduce access to guns for criminals.

 

The mass shooting this topic is about illustrates, once again, the need to keep assault rifles out of civilian use.

[Thomas J]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

t would motivate owners to be more responsible in securing their guns (fewer guns stolen from unlocked cars) and less inclined to sell guns to anyone who has the cash with no questions asked.  In short, it would reduce access to guns for criminals.

No I did not say it was only to prevent mass shootings  Perhaps you inferred that.  I said so what.  Now you have this perfect database.  What do you do with it.  YOU replied 'PERHAPS' it will cause people to become more responsible.  Well what do you do when the person says I didn't realize the gun was gone.  I have not seen it in years nor have I looked for it.  

We now have a law that says certain people are ineligible to acquire firearms and it is a crime to attempt to do so.  

Here is the enforcement of that.  12 people prosecuted out of 112,090 offenses.  And lying on the form is far easier to prove than that the person knowingly did not report a stolen gun since they can always claim they didn't know it was lost or stolen.
 

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
graphic of quoted content with no weblink source removed

[Thomas J]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

assume I am the one you are referring to as making the ludicrous suggestion that people who own dangerous weapons should have training.  Why do you think that is a bad idea?

Training is fine for teaching people to appropriately use guns and become better marksman.  The NRA sponsors gun safety and training to prevent accidents.  While it is good for that purpose it is not something that would prevent any murders and the topic was the mass shooting not gun safety.  And no you were not the person who I was referring to.  There was another person who responded that training was a good way to prevent gun violence. 

[pacovl46]

5 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Of course they dont disappear. 

 

But something needs to be done to stop them from being so widely available. 

 

Some people always to illegal or harmful things that are bad for society. Are you saying that as we can't stop these things 100 percent that we should just sir back and give up? 

All I’m saying is that banning legal guns won’t reduce gun crimes! They could make it mandatory that all guns at home while the home owner is away need to kept in a guns safe, so they can’t be stolen that easily. Do better background checks as well. But, it’s not the guns that kill, it’s the people who pull the trigger, so we need to work on that.

[pacovl46]

5 hours ago, Thomas J said:

I hate to break it to you but that is absolutely convoluted "logic"  

1. The USA really has a death penalty in name only.  The Supreme Court in and the court affirmed the legality of capital punishment in the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia. Since then, more than 7,800 defendants have been sentenced to death;[16] of these, more than 1,500 have been executed.[17][18] A total of at least 185 people who were sentenced to death since 1972 have since been exonerated.[19][20] As of December 16, 2020, 2,591 convicts are still on death row.[21][22]

Do the math.  The USA has approximately 19,000 homicides each year.  That would translate to approximately 836,000 murders over the 44 years.  But only 7,800 were sentenced to death and only 1,500 were actually executed.  Deterrent? Why? In the USA if you kill someone you have approximately a 33% chance of never being caught.  Then if you are caught less than a 1% chance of being sentenced to death and then if sentenced to death only 19% chance you will ever be executed. And even if you are executed you will spend on average decades on death row while millions are spent by government paid attorneys to overturn your conviction. Again do the math.  7,800 sentenced to death, 1,500 executed and  2,591 still on death row.  That means far more people died from natural causes while in prison than were executed.  Nope that sort of death penalty is no deterrent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Since then%2C more than 7%2C800,are still on death row.

To be an effective "deterrent" and deterrent does not mean as your portray 100%. It is shown that crimes are deterred when the criminal perceives they have 1. a high probability of being caught 2. That the punishment for the crime is severe and 3. that the punishment is carried out quickly. 

None of those are true in the USA.  Only 62% of murders have anyone charged, fewer than that are convicted and less than 1% sentenced and less than 2/100 of 1% actually executed.  Pretty good odds.  



 National Vital Statistics System – Mortality Data (2019) via CDC WONDER 

Yeah, but if you don’t get executed then you will spend the rest of your life in prison that doesn’t deter anyone either. And again, murders are committed either as a heat of the moment thing in which they aren’t capable of thinking about the consequences or they’re planned murders and those are usually planned accordingly to not get caught, so those murderers don’t care about the death penalty either. 
 

China does exactly what you mentioned, you go to trial quickly and if you’re convicted they essentially take you straight out the back and shoot you in the back of the head and still there’s drug crimes and murders. The death penalty doesn’t deter. It might deter some people, but definitely not all of them! 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Yeah, but if you don’t get executed then you will spend the rest of your life in prison that doesn’t deter anyone either. And again, murders are committed either as a heat of the moment thing in which they aren’t capable of thinking about the consequences or they’re planned murders and those are usually planned accordingly to not get caught, so those murderers don’t care about the death penalty either. 
 

China does exactly what you mentioned, you go to trial quickly and if you’re convicted they essentially take you straight out the back and shoot you in the back of the head and still there’s drug crimes and murders. The death penalty doesn’t deter. It might deter some people, but definitely not all of them! 

 

If capital punishment doesn't work, and life in prison does not work, what so you recommend, community service? 

 

It is interesting, the anti-death penalty use the fact that other countries have lower murder rates as proof that capital punishment works.

 

While at the same time, typically the same people are arguing that the murder rate is high because we have too many guns.

 

How funny is that?

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Yellowtail

[pacovl46]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

You did not copy and paste the 21 page DoJ article.  I suspect you copied and pasted an opinion piece from a far less credible publication.  However since you did not provide a source for your copy and paste I can not verify that.

 

If you want your posts to be credible, post links to the source.

I copied and pasted an entire article about the survey which included statements of the guy who either did the survey of the DOJ or wrote a book about it. All the relevant information about this subject matter was taken straight from the survey and quoted in the article. That’s more than good enough for me, if it isn’t for you then that’s your problem, but it doesn’t change the fact that the statements relevant to the subject matter that are mentioned in the article are true. I also never said that I’ve copied and pasted the entire 21 page survey!

[pacovl46]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

If capital punishment doesn't work, and life in prison does not work, what so you recommend, community service? 

I never said that we shouldn’t have the death penalty or life in prison, all I’m saying is that these punishments are not the GREAT deterrents a lot of people think they are...

[onthedarkside]

The topic of this thread is:

 

Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

 

I don't think anyone has even substantively mentioned the Colorado shooting for pages... Let's try to get back on topic here.

 

The principal topic of this thread is NOT a debate on gun control laws or proposals.

 

[jak2002003]

5 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

All I’m saying is that banning legal guns won’t reduce gun crimes! They could make it mandatory that all guns at home while the home owner is away need to kept in a guns safe, so they can’t be stolen that easily. Do better background checks as well. But, it’s not the guns that kill, it’s the people who pull the trigger, so we need to work on that.

Of course the guns kill people....well it's the bullets. 

 

Why not give your young child or drunk angry mate a loaded rifle or a bunch of knives...if you think they dont kill people?  That is so dumb.

 

There is zero excuse for any sane rational human to own a gun, shut in a cupboard or otherwise.  Why not just allow everyone to have the right to own all sorts of weapons, from bombs to mini nuclear weapons...as they don't kill either according to your logic....it's the people. 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by jak2002003

[joecoolfrog]

On 3/23/2021 at 11:35 PM, pacovl46 said:

I’m for guns and I’m neither republican nor democrat nor American nor do I live there. It’s just extremely obvious to me  that banning guns won’t achieve anything. Just look a drugs, they were made illegal and the drug problem did not go away because of that! Most gun crimes are related to drugs and it’s not like gangsters are using legally in their name registered guns to commit their crimes. They use guns they bought on the black market. If you make guns illegal then all it will do is to expand the already existing black market and the shootings will continue regardless. 

Except that countries that have banned or severely restricted gun ownership , have completely rubbished your theory.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Thomas J said:

No I did not say it was only to prevent mass shootings  Perhaps you inferred that.  I said so what.  Now you have this perfect database.  What do you do with it.  YOU replied 'PERHAPS' it will cause people to become more responsible.  Well what do you do when the person says I didn't realize the gun was gone.  I have not seen it in years nor have I looked for it.  

We now have a law that says certain people are ineligible to acquire firearms and it is a crime to attempt to do so.  

Here is the enforcement of that.  12 people prosecuted out of 112,090 offenses.  And lying on the form is far easier to prove than that the person knowingly did not report a stolen gun since they can always claim they didn't know it was lost or stolen.
 

Read the post you replied to.  It clearly stated:

 

"It would motivate owners to be more responsible in securing their guns (fewer guns stolen from unlocked cars) and less inclined to sell guns to anyone who has the cash with no questions asked.  In short, it would reduce access to guns for criminals. "

 

There is no "perhaps" in there.

 

Gun laws need to be aggressively enforced.  Not knowing where your gun is is as irresponsible as not knowing your gun is loaded, in both cases there needs to be prosecution for criminal negligence.  Why do you want to excuse irresponsible gun owners who can't keep track of their weapons?

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Training is fine for teaching people to appropriately use guns and become better marksman.  The NRA sponsors gun safety and training to prevent accidents.  While it is good for that purpose it is not something that would prevent any murders and the topic was the mass shooting not gun safety.  And no you were not the person who I was referring to.  There was another person who responded that training was a good way to prevent gun violence. 

Voluntary training isn't good enough, it needs to be mandatory.  I've never taken an NRA gun safety course and don't know if it emphasizes safe use, carrying, maintenance and storage of guns to the same degree as military training.  If it does, great; make it an option for mandatory gun safety training.

 

Mandatory training, combined with aggressive enforcement of laws against irresponsible handling and storage of guns, would lesson a culture in which too many people see owning and displaying guns as a fashionable display of macho man culture.  Greater respect for guns, what they can do and what can happen to people who use them foolishly would reduce gun crime.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

All I’m saying is that banning legal guns won’t reduce gun crimes! They could make it mandatory that all guns at home while the home owner is away need to kept in a guns safe, so they can’t be stolen that easily. Do better background checks as well. But, it’s not the guns that kill, it’s the people who pull the trigger, so we need to work on that.

I'm all for laws mandating safe storage of weapons.  However any laws causing any inconvenience to gun owners are treated as the first step towards banishing guns and fought tooth and nail by the NRA and the gun nuts.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I copied and pasted an entire article about the survey which included statements of the guy who either did the survey of the DOJ or wrote a book about it. All the relevant information about this subject matter was taken straight from the survey and quoted in the article. That’s more than good enough for me, if it isn’t for you then that’s your problem, but it doesn’t change the fact that the statements relevant to the subject matter that are mentioned in the article are true. I also never said that I’ve copied and pasted the entire 21 page survey!

"I copied and pasted an entire article about the survey which included statements of the guy who either did the survey of the DOJ or wrote a book about it."

 

You are slowly getting there.  There is a huge difference between quoting a DoJ survey report that states that gun laws don't affect gun crime, and quoting a book by someone who interpreted a DoJ survey in a manner to defend his view that gun laws don't affect gun crime.

 

The DoJ survey does not draw any conclusion about how gun laws affect gun crime rates.  You copied and pasted the work of an obscure writer, and you did not post a link to the source so the credibility of the writer can be checked.  That makes your copy and paste work worthless in a rational debate.

[pacovl46]

15 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Of course the guns kill people....well it's the bullets. 

 

Why not give your young child or drunk angry mate a loaded rifle or a bunch of knives...if you think they dont kill people?  That is so dumb.

 

There is zero excuse for any sane rational human to own a gun, shut in a cupboard or otherwise.  Why not just allow everyone to have the right to own all sorts of weapons, from bombs to mini nuclear weapons...as they don't kill either according to your logic....it's the people. 

 

 

A gun is an inanimate object until a PERSON picks it up and PULLS the trigger, a gun on its own CANNOT kill anyone! You don’t see guns walking around on their own killing people, do you? So who’s logic is flawed here and your opinion on gun ownership is just that - your opinion - and you opinion is not the global standard! 

[pacovl46]

12 hours ago, heybruce said:

"I copied and pasted an entire article about the survey which included statements of the guy who either did the survey of the DOJ or wrote a book about it."

 

You are slowly getting there.  There is a huge difference between quoting a DoJ survey report that states that gun laws don't affect gun crime, and quoting a book by someone who interpreted a DoJ survey in a manner to defend his view that gun laws don't affect gun crime.

 

The DoJ survey does not draw any conclusion about how gun laws affect gun crime rates.  You copied and pasted the work of an obscure writer, and you did not post a link to the source so the credibility of the writer can be checked.  That makes your copy and paste work worthless in a rational debate.

Ok, if you say so.... let’s agree to disagree and just end it here because this is becoming a massive waste of time! 

[pacovl46]

15 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Except that countries that have banned or severely restricted gun ownership , have completely rubbished your theory.

Did said countries have had the right to bear arms continuously into modern times for 2.5 centuries? Guess not! So, therefore you can’t apply what happens or works in other countries across the board to every other nation on the planet, which in turn completely rubbishes your argument!  

[jak2002003]

57 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

A gun is an inanimate object until a PERSON picks it up and PULLS the trigger, a gun on its own CANNOT kill anyone! You don’t see guns walking around on their own killing people, do you? So who’s logic is flawed here and your opinion on gun ownership is just that - your opinion - and you opinion is not the global standard! 

Seems my opinion is the most globally accepted one.

 

If you can't see it's a bad idea to allow the general population to own lethal weapons then I don't know what to say to you.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by jak2002003