Active shooter - DC Navy yard

[Gravitymaster 0]

Bignugget

***in all fairness. I was the one that originally brought up pipe bombs.

If we're forced to use cordless drills for self defense as in Bignugget's wet dream, then he needs to recognize that the same store selling his defense weapon of choice also sells components for construction of a pipe bomb.

Again, thats a gun loving friend of yours' wet dream.

gravitymaster is the one who thinks cordless drills are as useful as guns are in killing things.

I never said such a thing. I said they are both designed to do the same thing ie make holes. The rest was stuff YOU made up. Sounds to me as if there is some disconnect from reality going on.

[masterrig 1]

Sounds to me as if there is some disconnect from reality going on.

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days.


Chuck

[Gravitymaster 0]

masterrig

Sounds to me as if there is some disconnect from reality going on.

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days.


Chuck

It starts when someone begins fearing inanimate objects. I sincerely hope a person like that is not able to purchase a gun, cordless drill or materials to make a pipe bomb. In fact I really hope they will recognize their irrationality and voluntarily refrain from voting.

[rhaig 0]

Bignugget

I am not disputing the statistic that 10k crimes were prevented by using guns.....

That's just the murders.

Quote

You can only have guns used to prevent shit if they are legal.

Just like you can only have guns used to commit crimes if they are illegal.

currently. in the real world (not your mental masturbation world) guns are legal, and criminals sometimes use them in the commission of a crime. This is a fact.

Quote

Removing guns could very well mean those 10k crimes are no longer prevented with guns.

Ah, but you can't just remove them. This is what I refer to as the "magic gun eraser button" argument. If you could push the magic button and make guns go away, then yes, there would be no gun crime. But that is fiction. Not fact.

Quote

You are the one not addressing the facts.

The fact is a pipe bomb is ALREADY illegal, for good reason.

Guns need to join.

You are addressing fictional ideas in your ideal world where guns don't exist. You are not addressing fact.

--
Rob

[masterrig 1]

Gravitymaster

*** Sounds to me as if there is some disconnect from reality going on.

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days.


Chuck

It starts when someone begins fearing inanimate objects. I sincerely hope a person like that is not able to purchase a gun, cordless drill or materials to make a pipe bomb. In fact I really hope they will recognize their irrationality and voluntarily refrain from voting.

Wouldn't that be swell!? They don't see that gang bangers, whack jobs and every day criminals need to be dealt with. In all my years and of all my guns, I have yet to see any one of them jump out of that gun cabinet and shoot-up a work place or playground or a mall or any other place.


Chuck

[Bignugget 0]

Sorry, let me rephrase it. I see it does not read as intended.


When guns are illegal, crimes can only be committed with guns, they cannot be prevented with guns.

When pipe bombs are illegal, crimes can only be committed with pipe bombs, they cannot be prevented with pipe bombs.

And conversely.

[rhaig 0]

So I still don't see the issue here.

Currently, defensive firearm uses prevent (as a median estimate) about 10,000 murders each year. You have stated you don't have a problem with that number.

If guns were illegal to own, then those 10000 murders would not be prevented because their subjects would not have been able to defend themselves. If guns were banned, those murdered people would have to commit a crime to keep from dying. Some may, and in the process also become criminals. (insert trite pallbearer reference here) Committing aggravated assault to prevent one's own murder... worth it? The number of crimes doesn't change. But the number of murders does.

Now you're talking about crime in general, not specifically murder. We can go that route if you like. We can compare violent crime rates with gun laws in metropolitan areas and/or in countries that have enacted strict gun control measures.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Bignugget

Pipe bombs can only be used commit crime.

revolutionaries from around the world would beg to differ.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Pipe bombs can be a great tool to effect social change.

[champu 1]

Bignugget

When guns are illegal, crimes can only be committed with guns, they cannot be prevented with guns.

I know you know you're being ridiculous, but this statement is also false.

If guns are illegal, all gun use is a crime in and of itself by definition, but that would still not preclude them from being used to prevent/halt other crimes from being committed.

I picture you as Frankenstein's monster pointing at a defensive gun use instance and saying, "CRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMEEEE!" and someone says, "True, but actually no one was hurt, so I don't thi-" "CRRRRRRRIIIIIMMMMMMEEEEEE!"

[chutem 0]

rhaig

***
I am not disputing the statistic that 10k crimes were prevented by using guns.....

That's just the murders.

Quote

You can only have guns used to prevent shit if they are legal.

Just like you can only have guns used to commit crimes if they are illegal.

currently. in the real world (not your mental masturbation world) guns are legal, and criminals sometimes use them in the commission of a crime. This is a fact.

Quote

Removing guns could very well mean those 10k crimes are no longer prevented with guns.

Ah, but you can't just remove them. This is what I refer to as the "magic gun eraser button" argument. If you could push the magic button and make guns go away, then yes, there would be no gun crime. But that is fiction. Not fact.

Quote

You are the one not addressing the facts.

The fact is a pipe bomb is ALREADY illegal, for good reason.

Guns need to join.

You are addressing fictional ideas in your ideal world where guns don't exist. You are not addressing fact.

If the "magic gun eraser button" removed all guns and all memories of them in humans I'd guess it would only be a matter of days before someone invented the gun as a new and improved way to kill his fellow man.

[kallend 1,625]

kelpdiver

Is this proof that Quade and Kallend are the same people?

It is, provided that you and rushmc are the same person.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

***

Is this proof that Quade and Kallend are the same people?

It is, provided that you and rushmc are the same person.

the next time I whine about what I didn't say in an related response of your's to Rush, get back to me.

(funny how this time, you refrained from that insipid tendency to repost the entire exchange and add a line. Well not funny - it's obvious you pulled a McCain there)

[kallend 1,625]

kelpdiver

******

Is this proof that Quade and Kallend are the same people?

It is, provided that you and rushmc are the same person.

the next time I whine about what I didn't say in an related response of your's to Rush, get back to me.

(funny how this time, you refrained from that insipid tendency to repost the entire exchange and add a line. Well not funny - it's obvious you pulled a McCain there)

Sure seems like a rushmc response (except the spelling is better).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bignugget 0]

Lol.

And it isn't written in some sort of weird, right wing, haiku style.

[OHCHUTE 0]

"We must change." Obama Sept. 22, 2013

Well DOH, when a gov't person tells another gov't person that someone is acting nutty, strange, hearing voices, out shooting at tires, discharging weapons in apartment buildings as in the case of the Navy Yard shooter, and could be dangerous, and as reported by Russia to the US about the Boston marathon bombers the same, the gov't might do something about it.

America will never get rid of legally obtained guns, or illegally obtained firearms, so that conversation is moot, but the GOVERNMENT MIGHT CHECK A FEW BAGS or backpacks of people that have been reported, or keep a close watch on those people, or provide better access control to groups of people who could be harmed.

The idea Obama avoided this opportunity to clean up governments problem, and passing it on to us to solve, is pathetic.

Want me to solve it?

Clean your own house first buddy!

We have access control. Something you might consider before letting in a contractor with a saw off shotgun!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Um... There are PLENTY of guns at the Navy yard. Its a Navy base.

Since Clinton military personnel are not allowed to carry loaded weapons.

The same claim was made about the Ft hood shooting. I can tell you that when I was in the military and on post, I might have had a weapon, but we were not allowed ammunition except in very specific situations... Effectively making almost any military base a "gun fee zone"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You'll notice nobody is saying he used an electric drill.

But you will also notice that he used a weapon that would not have been banned under any recently suggested law... In fact, he used the same weapon the VP said was a good choice for home defense.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

LIP SERVICE ONLY.

You oppose tightening the background checks.

He opposes tightening background checks that have been proven to not stop criminals and only hurt law abiding citizens.

You however have opposed real actions that would prevent killings. You have only advocated plans that would hurt law abiding citizens and that would do little if anything to stop criminals or the insane.

Your agenda is clear - To make it difficult for citizens to own firearms.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Since Clinton military personnel are not allowed to carry loaded weapons.

This article, which rickjumps1 posted a few days ago, addresses the false claim that Clinton is to blame for disarming military bases. Army regulation 190-14, which Clinton did sign in 1993, merely codified an existing Department of Defense Directive, which was put in place by George HW Bush.

The Yahoo story (first link) also has the following quote:
"Steven Bucci, a foreign policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank and a former Army Special Forces officer, said he doesn’t believe there was “ever an open carry law” on any military base in the country in recent history. “I don’t know where people got this idea that military guys are always carrying around weapons,” Bucci said. He said that in 1973 while stationed at Fort Bragg, he was required to keep his privately owned firearm stored in an arms room while on base."

So the policy of military personnel not carrying weapons on base goes back much earlier than Clinton.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

So the policy of military personnel not carrying weapons on base goes back much earlier than Clinton.

which is interesting and all, but only supports the notion that army bases aren't full of armed people.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

kelpdiver

***
So the policy of military personnel not carrying weapons on base goes back much earlier than Clinton.

which is interesting and all, but only supports the notion that army bases aren't full of armed people.Well sure. I just have this notion that it's helpful to have the facts straight. Why does the policy exist? Was it reasonable under whatever circumstances led to its enactment? Have circumstances changed? Falsely attributing it to Clinton, as certain Republicans have been doing lately, politicizes the issue and allows it to be wrapped up with all the rest of the self-serving mythology about Democrats hating the military.

I'd be genuinely curious to know when and especially why the policy was enacted. Are there good reasons to maintain the policy today?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

which Clinton did sign in 1993, merely codified an existing Department of Defense Directive, which was put in place by George HW Bush.

One was a suggestion, the other law. But at any rate, it just shows that the military members are not armed like some are claiming.

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

Well sure. I just have this notion that it's helpful to have the facts straight.

seemed more like you wanted to defend against a perceived Clinton slight than stay on topic. Your focus in general on these topics has been a bit odd the past few days.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Your focus in general on these topics has been a bit odd the past few days.

Well if by "odd" you mean "not following the NRA script" then I suppose you have a point.

Unlike some, I realize that there are upsides and downsides to every course of action. The question is, what action is optimal? In the seemingly paradoxical case of military bases as gun-free zones, I wonder what the reason for that policy was. Obviously in the Fort Hood incident, and now the Navy Yard, things would likely have turned out better had people been armed and able to respond. Yet, it is hard for me to think of the military as reflexively anti-gun. So, I assume some reason existed for the current policy, a better reason than "Clinton did it because he hates the military". I don't know the reason for the policy, so I can't form an opinion whether or not the policy is reasonable. Mass shootings are rare but spectacular events. Maybe, prior to the policy, smaller workplace incidents were common enough to justify the ban (just guessing, I don't know this). Two or three workplace incidents a week throughout the entire US military adds up to a lot more people than a couple of mass shootings, while attracting a lot less attention from the press.

On the other hand, society seems to have become more violent over time. Perhaps the balance between potential defensive uses and offensive uses in the workplace has shifted, requiring a new policy. It's hard to know without any data.

Of course, to some the idea of an "optimal policy" is irrelevant. The right to carry is inviolate, no need to weigh what policy would result in the lowest overall body count.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)