Protestantism

» Migisi - Should We Talk About It?

In response to Should We Talk About It? posted by EvilChihuahua:

.
While it has made it impossible for someone like me to legally own a gun
.
Someone 'like me'? I can't ask it any gentler, Kim, but are you referring to mental illness? Anyone wanting to purchase guns or applying for a FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) card in the US is required to submit to a background check. This check includes criminal activity and mental illness.
.
The Virginia Tech killer was ~adjudicated~ mentally ill in 2005. This means that a court of law officially declared him mentally ill. Here it is 2007, and that information had not reached the state's list of those unqualified for gun ownership. Had it been available, it would've prevented Cho from buying a gun from a ~legal~ source (gun or pawn shop). Unfortunately, some individual states are not computerized, or the information is not updated frequently enough and kept current. Many gun laws are in place, but they simply don't work in all cases.
.
It is entirely likely that Cho was on medication for his illness. What influence did those psychiatric meds have on his paranoia, mania, and premeditated decision to commit mass murder? As I've posted earlier, other school shooters were on meds when they committed their crimes. Given this, should we prohibit anyone with a history of mental illness on school campuses?
.
Even 'law abiding' citizens sometimes ignore gun laws. At the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy VA in 2002, a disgruntled student wounded 3 students and killed 1. Two armed students confronted the shooter, stopped him, and detained him until police showed up. Note that these two students did NOT kill the shooter, but the fact that they were armed deterred him from continuing his rampage. Although there was a campus gun ban, the two students saved lives by disregarding it (neither student was prosecuted). There are many accounts like this.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Roots

In response to Roots posted by pink101:
.
Yet, we ARE a violent bunch when taken on an historical basis.
.
You've been studying American History more intensely recently, right? And Brian certainly knows his history. The American revolution against British tyranny wasn't won by shooting spit balls through a straw. When and where was the first shot fired?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Roots

In response to Roots posted by Migisi:
.
When and where was the first shot fired?
.
On Boston Commons? Who knows. In the hearts of the oppressed? In the heart of the tyrant?
.
Violence begins in the minds of men (and women?). I believe it is a response to injustice.
.
Does that turn violence into a just action? I don't know or, at least, injustice in and of itself cannot be seen as a legitimate basis for violence.
.
"In Chicago, on Memorial Day, 1937, a strike at Rep[ublic Steel brought the police out, firing at a mass picket line of strikers, killing ten of them. Autopsies showed the bullets had hit the workers in the back as they were running away; this was the Memorial Day Massacre."**
.
That's an example. What I'm saying is that when we try to disassociate ourselves from the violence, we create the foundation for dysfunction. And, the way to truly develop an understanding to to dig deep to the roots--to educate ourselves to our complicity in these actions of horror that we want to blame on some nondescript evil or paranoia or other chemical imbalance. You can be sure there is a cause no matter how obscure it may seem to us--always a cause.
.
It behooves*** us to learn our roots.
.
**Howare Zinn; A People's History of The United States; http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-Un... Page 401
.
*** Behooves us, literally means to put shoes on our feet so we can walk.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Roots, 2

In response to Roots, 2 posted by paper_turtle:

.
The article below comes from guncite.com too. It's a good (but very long) study worth reading. Of course, one can find surveys proposing the opposite.
.
It's important to be careful when considering 'gun-related' death/injury totals. Legal and justified gun-related deaths/injuries are often lumped in with criminal use of guns - such as deaths/injuries caused by police officers, justified self-defense, and yes, accidental discharge.
.
CRIME, DETERRENCE, AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS
PDF file: www.guncite.com/lott.pdf
or you can view the cached pages here:
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=808...
.
Abstract
"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county-and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these [carry] laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000."

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Roots

In response to Roots posted by pink101:
.
"In Chicago, on Memorial Day, 1937, a strike at Rep[ublic Steel brought the police out, firing at a mass picket line of strikers, killing ten of them. Autopsies showed the bullets had hit the workers in the back as they were running away; this was the Memorial Day Massacre."**
.
My father remembered and talked about that day, Pink. He was a loyal union worker and steward back then (and all his life). He told me that he kept guns for self-defense... not only for protection against the criminal element (he worked in some very BAD and dangerous neighborhoods), but against the tyranny of his own government.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Right To Carry

In response to Roots, 2 posted by Migisi:
.
I believe in the right to carry; but, I also believe in the responsible handling of deadly weapons. We don't allow anyone off the street to be a police officer.
.
Here, in Michigan, it has been the case that individuals can receive concealed weapon permits IF they have cause.
.
That may have changed recently, I'm not sure. I know there are rules that demand certain gun handling skills.
.
Recently, my wife walked down the hall toward our bedroom and when she opened the door, a person was starting to climb in the window. He turned around and fled as soon as he saw her. I immediately called the police. They made some recommendations regarding lights and alarms. Good!
.
I remember a case of some years ago--in Indiana, I think--where a home owner was found guilty of felony manslaughter for firing on a burglar in a break in. Not clear on the details; but, it was a highly publicized case. Imagine, a person convicted of a crime while he was attempting to protect his person and his property.
.
The idea that some government can take care of us is plain unadulterated B.S.. These are the kinds of issues we must deal with if we are to be a truly democratic society. We cannot allow ideologues to take responsibility for us. Hitler was a perfect ideologue.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Right To Carry

In response to Right To Carry posted by pink101:
.
.
Michigan does have concealed-carry and licensed possession.
.
He turned around and fled as soon as he saw her.
.
From the article I posted earlier:
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=808...
"The potential defensive nature of guns is indicated by the different rates of so-called hot burglaries, where residents are at home when the criminals strike.11 Almost half the burglaries in Canada and Britain, which have tough gun control laws, are 'hot burglaries.' By contrast, the United States, with laxer restrictions, has a 'hot burglary' rate of only 13 percent. Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveal that they are much more worried about armed victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts 'casing' a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because 'that's the way to get shot".
.
"The case for concealed handgun use is similar. The use of concealed handguns by some law-abiding citizens may create a positive externality for others. By the very nature of these guns being concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether the victim is armed before they strike, thus raising criminals' expected costs for committing many types of crimes."
.
Perhaps when the burglar cased your home, he figured an elderly couple wouldn't be a threat to him.. you wouldn't be armed?
.
I think--where a home owner was found guilty of felony manslaughter for firing on a burglar in a break in.
.
Was the burglar INSIDE the home at the time he was shot? Or was he fleeing the premises? If the criminal no longer presented a threat to anyone's life, lethal force wasn't justified.
.
The idea that some government can take care of us is plain unadulterated B.S..
.
As an ex-police officer, I can attest to that. Ask any woman who's being stalked. Police can do nothing UNTIL her stalker injures or kills her. I'd say that's good cause for carrying a weapon - legal or not. Rather alive and jailed, then dead and buried.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - 1950s - answer to redback

In response to Shooting posted by redback:

Brian...how do you explain the changes since your Dad's time? Less gun safety, greater proliferation, poorer attitude?

Well, I think it clearly shows that the problem isn't guns. If the problem were guns, then there WOULD have been gun violence in the 1950s as much as today. Certainly would have been the case in high schools like my father's.

There have been MANY books written on why violence has increased since then. I think several factors are involved....population growth, more anger and frustration toward society, breakdown of the family, etc, etc. Quite a few reasons. But not guns.

» Brian Tubbs - Migisi - that explains it!

In response to Right To Carry posted by Migisi:

As an ex-police officer, I can attest to that.

Now, I understand that cynical, tough-as-nails, no-nonsense side of you.

How long were you a police officer? Did you like it?

Seriously, I have great respect for anyone willing to dedicate a part of their life to protecting the public. Thanks for your service.

» paper_turtle - 1950s - answer to redback

In response to 1950s - answer to redback posted by BrianTubbs:

Does anyone have any figures about the number of people who owned guns in the '50's as opposed to today? Do we know that there were less guns around in the 50's? If we don't know that, then how can we say the problem isn't guns?
.
There were no laws against owning a gun in the '50's, but that does not necessarily mean more people owned them than today. One figure I found on the net put the percentage of gun ownership (in 2004) at 49% (whihc I found shocking).
.
Therefore, if there were fewer guns, this, in and of itself, limits access to guns--and hence does not absolve guns of blame.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle