Multiple People Shot outside Empire State Building

[Pinky]

Dude, I'm so confused.  Do you or do you not think people should be able to possess firearms, or do you actually have no opinion on the subject? 

[carpnter]

This tragedy is a murder-suicide with the suicide being suicide by cop.

[Pinky]

I just think we should all concentrate on how to make a real change to human nature.

Mass medication maybe?  Pre Crime detentions?  Prosecutions for anger management.

You know, something practical.

Oh, OK, so you're saying that we should just leave crazy people alone, and instead remove all sharp objects, rocks over one ounce, anything that can be used to bludgeon others, or literally anything else that could be used as a weapon from our environment? 

Makes sense to me.  Especially since we're doing so much to help people with mental health issues already.

heavens no.  I agree with you.  Lets meditate on mental illness for a few decades.  But in the meantime, keep selling really dangerous killing machines to people without knowing if they are mentally unstable.  What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, silly me; I thought you were *against* "dangerous killing machines" by posts like this. 

[Pinky]

 Agreed Stephen; it's idiotic to sell guns to mentally ill people.  Has anyone here advocated that? 

[Pinky]

Now this is *you* making up an opinion for me.  Show me where I've advocated selling guns to unstable people.

[Pinky]

Now this is *you* making up an opinion for me.  Show me where I've advocated selling guns to unstable people.

Coming up with a way to stop this is exactly what you have been strenuously arguing against for three solid days, pinky.

Go back over the threads and read them.

Nowhere have I ever advocated selling guns to unstable people Stephen.  Your gross distortion and mischaracterization of my position is laughable, and for you, typical. 

[Know Growth]

Reports reference seven shots,one remaining in the chamber.

possibly no evil recent appearance "high capacity" assault piece....simply plain old  '1911 Government 45'....circa 1911 A.D.

Even Grand dad's 'ol single shot is attrocious in the wrong hands/wrong mind

[ronchamblin]

Here we go again.  A man perceives he has been unfairly treated regarding his livelihood.  He feels the stress and pressure of being in a corner, and becomes because of it, much like an animal.  He strikes out because he believes that too much of his life has been taken away.  In his mind, there is nothing left.  He feels his life is threatened.  He becomes as a trapped animal, dangerous, unpredictable, desperate, and much like an animal, he is set and able to kill.

If he had no gun to kill the individual whom he perceived to be the cause of his grief and desperation, he could have used a knife, a sword, a bomb, a sharp umbrella, an automobile, a hammer, or a pipe.  As I attempt to imagine myself to be in a similar mental condition wherein I believed that I must end my suffering, and if I did not have the convenience of using a gun, I imagine myself, with some effort of course, using a hammer or a pipe, as knives seem not to permit sufficient emotional release……. no wild physical action as with the hammer or pipe.   
   
In the days of the frontier, a family needed a gun for food and to protect themselves from Indians and other threats in the wild America of the time.  Imagine anyone talking about the restriction of guns in those early times?

The Indian threat was removed during the late 19th century, but there remains today an environment within which the average person must have a method to protect themselves and their families.  Of course, for all practical purposes, a gun is not needed for food these days, but there are plenty of hunters who would raise hell if their hunting ability was removed.

Existing gun laws make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, but with so many guns out and about in America, most criminals can obtain guns if given a little time, such as being lucky during a home burglary.   

We are certainly an armed society.  And the shootings are being performed not only by the criminals, but the normal individuals who, via some kind of job, financial, or relationship loss or stress, have sought solutions, revenge, or relief by killing those perceived to be the cause. 

If a criminal or stressed individual does not have a gun, they might still kill, but it will be without the gun.  The gun makes killing much more convenient, and therefore much more probable, given a condition wherein it is an option.

The current high availability of guns will promote more killings by these individuals, simply because of the convenience provided by the high availability.  If the guns were not so available, then the criminal might instead work harder to find a job, might engage a drug treatment program, or might starve to death, or might simply survive as a homeless person.  And the stressed individual, because of the absence of a handy gun, might have time to chill out, or to resolve a predicament, and therefore might not kill the ex-spouse or the individual responsible for his job or home loss. 

So, even though it seems highly impractical to seek remove of all guns from the environment, it seems practical to decrease the overall gun population in our society by decreasing the ease with which guns can be obtained by anyone, both the criminal and the average person.   The decrease in the overall number of guns in our society could be accomplished by holding gun purchase programs throughout, and by making it inconvenient for anyone to purchase or obtain guns from any source.   

The objective would not be to ban guns, but only to reduce the availability of guns, and to make it less convenient for their purchase.  The outright banning of guns will only insure a black market, much like the prohibition environment.  There will always be entities willing to manufacture guns and ammunition.  And there will always be individuals who are willing to engage in the smuggling and distribution of guns so that anyone having the funds could obtain them.

Therefore, there is some truth to the saying that “Banning guns will insure that only the criminals will have them”.  Knowing that only criminals have guns, how many of us law abiding citizens will willingly give up our guns?  What would we use to protect ourselves from the criminals who will always be able to obtain guns, no matter what our laws say? 

[mtraininjax]

I am all for gun rights, but I always chuckle when I hear someone say they need an multi-clip assault rifle (think M16/AR15) to kill a wild boar.  Really? No sport there, might as well use a 50 caliber and shred the entire forest to hell while you are at it, and anything in its way.

Again, pro-gun here, but it is amusing to hear the discussion. Sad about NYC and Colorado, recently.

[Dog Walker]

From Wikipedia:

Running amok, sometimes referred to as simply amok[1] (also spelled amuk, from the Malay meaning "mad with uncontrollable rage") is a term for a killing spree perpetrated by an individual out of rage or resentment over perceived mistreatment.

The syndrome of "Amok" is found in the DSM-IV TR.[2]

"Running amok" is used to refer to the behavior of someone who, in the grip of strong emotion, obtains a weapon and begins attacking people indiscriminately, often with multiple fatalities. The slang term going postal is similar in scope. Police describe such an event as a killing spree. If the individual is seeking death an alternate method is often suicide by cop.

[civil42806]

see this is that part where I was telling you about.  Where you make up an opinion for me, then argue it, regardless of whatever i might actually think or say.

I have no opinion on the use or posession of firearms.

I do however think that the weapons of mass destruction that are being sold to unstable people should stop.

We have more stringent rules on driving a car than we do on ownership of these weapons, and that is a result of half cocked politics.

My main reservation over the years to this type of mass killing weapon being either banned or tightly controlled (I don't really have a preference) has been the old chestnut about guarding against tyranny.

But since our police forces are doing their best to join with national and international forces and have switched from being militias of the people and more like paramilitary outfits for the feds, I no longer think that firearms of this sort will be effective over the next few years anyways.  Not with our plans on 'gently' microwaving people, bursting their eardrums with focused sound waves and deployment of drones for police work.

The only thing these things are good for now is butchering other human beings.

For me, this is solely about limiting the scale of destruction that one person can do to the people around them.

Has nothing to do with whether or not they should own rifles, or even pistols and handguns, in my mind.

I don't know what the answer is, Pinky, but I don't think that any of the laissez faire answers weve deployed at the behest of the NRA are working.

Well if you have no opinion why did the post go on for a few more paragraphs giving us your opinion.  Look say what you think and be honest with it.  Don't pretend your agnostic and post on every gun control shooting thread its dishonest.