VA news reporter & cameraman killed on live TV

[GreenMachine]

I occasionally listen to the AM dial on the drive home just for kicks.  I recall one afternoon the host was talking about how he wasn't gonna let Obama take some rifle he owned that was capable of downing a target from something ridiculous like a half mile away because he needed it for home protection.

I think I fired one of those rifles when I was about 19 years old out on public land in Colorado.  I was able to hit a target about the size of a trash can from, I'm gonna estimate about a quarter mile.  It really was fun, and I was amazed at the capability of something to do that.

For hunting, I can totally see why one would want something like this.  For home protection, I cannot.  In what scenario would somebody need that kind of long distance accuracy for home protection?  Are we taking up residence in the Alamo when Mexico invades?

If the maximum speed limit is 75-85 miles per hour, why would we possibly need a vehicle that can go faster than that? In what scenario would somebody need that kind of speed for legal driving? Are we all becoming Nascar drivers?

Edited August 29, 2015 by GreenMachine

[UNTFan23]

 

I am incredibly frustrated with quoting posts right now.  I'm trying to quote @UNTFan23.

I just glanced at the third article you posted, and found it to be super slanted.  Most of the "black market" stuff mentioned has to do with interstate transport.  Of course that's going to happen when every neighboring state still prohibits it.  It had been happening between Washington and Oregon for quite some time, and probably still is since Oregon won't open it's retail marijuana shops until October.  The same thing would happen if say, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Arkansas were all suddenly to prohibit alcohol.  (LOL! I just suggested Louisiana prohibit alcohol!)  The bootleggers, for whom most southern states seem to have a deep rooted cultural affection, would be guilty of the exact same crime as the "criminals" in your article.

On the other side of this coin, Colorado pulled in so much tax money in 2014, that state law required them to give the surplus back to the citizens.  And the citizens are trying to pass a bill to let the government keep the money because it's all going to schools.

Colorado isn't perfect, but it's certainly on the right track.  As for Oregon, well, I had one hell of a vacation, sitting on the beach, watching fireworks, enjoying the most freedom I'd ever seen in my life.

Does it really matter if it involves interstate transport? It's still illegal activity. The black market is able to undercut legal sales largely because of taxes.  If you read one of the articles, the Mexican drug cartels are switching gears and moving to harder drugs to import in America. That's not a good thing either.

[Rudy]

The cartels already deal stronger meth than what's in Billy Bob's trailer.

[oldguystudent]

Does it really matter if it involves interstate transport? It's still illegal activity. The black market is able to undercut legal sales largely because of taxes.  If you read one of the articles, the Mexican drug cartels are switching gears and moving to harder drugs to import in America. That's not a good thing either.

Yay!  The Mexican cartel card!  Excellent play!  

Except that those guys have been around for a long time, always willing to fill any market gaps that legislation may create.

While we love to blame those enterprising young men of earth toned melanin, illegal trade has historically come from the great white north too.

The product is irrelevant.  If it's illegal, and there's a market for it, somebody is going to assume the risks of dying and fill that market demand.  I imagine that as time passes, cartels will not see the risk of marijuana as worth it and yes, they'll move on to other illegal substances, as they always have, and they always will.  

Making one substance or another illegal has nothing to do with starving the cartels.  It rather feeds them.  I don't have the answer to that part.  They're mighty powerful in Mexico, and I don't think the Mexican government particularly cares to do anything useful about it.  

[FirefightnRick]

As for Oregon, well, I had one hell of a vacation, sitting on the beach, watching fireworks, enjoying the most freedom I'd ever seen in my life.

...until you pulled up and attempted to pump your own gas, right?

 

 

Rick

[oldguystudent]

...until you pulled up and attempted to pump your own gas, right?

 

 

Rick

Touche.  That was...disconcerting.

[FirefightnRick]

Touche.  That was...disconcerting.

Yeah, I was there in July,..part of a 6,000 mile, 11 national park family vacay.  We topped off twice in Oregon and I saw some pissed off people waiting in the lines.  And of course, silly me, not realizing the situation made it worse one day.  

While waiting in line to get to a pump I got out of the truck and walked into the convenience store to get a soda.   But there wasn't anyone inside.  Suddenly the ONE pump attendant leaves the pumps outside to walk in to sell me my soda.  I asked why he did that and he said it was SOP that inside sales were first priority over gas sales.  

Boy the looks I got from everyone in line when I walked back outside, and justifiably so.

 

Rick

[oldguystudent]

Yeah, I've also been through the gas pumping thing in New Jersey, but those gas stations always seemed to be fully staffed, and I never recall any unnecessary waits.  The attendants were all polite, capable, and of reasonable speed.

Oregon gas stations tended to have one guy tending to all pumps and the convenience store, and that one guy generally had a three tooth maximum and a marginal third grade education.  Ability to process a debit card was questionable at best.  

I really liked a lot of things about Oregon.  Ridiculously beautiful country, down to earth people outside Portland.  No sales tax!

But lawdy, those gas stations!

[LongJim]

And here's another article about why folks are killing each other in the big cities.  Not because guns.  Because of factors noted earlier in this thread.  Note also that Chicago--possessing some of the most heavy gun restrictions in the US--is included in the article.  Note also that overarching factors are poverty, gang activity, unemployment, and recidivism.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities/ar-AAdOven

But again, the actual facts are much less hysterical than CONTROL THE GUNS, even though the effect of those hindered by their social issues and their subsequent violent actions are much more devastating than the actions of mental defectives.

[Quoner]

So, if everyone agrees the mental health system is what is badly in need of reformation, wouldn't it make sense for the gun lobby and Conservative leaders, looking to shift the debate and solve a problem that ultimately would protect responsible gun owners, to be at the forefront of doing something to move this agenda forward? Is it cynical to suggest that collecting money, reaping the windfall from the spikes in demand for the rumored soon to be banned weapons, and other side effects of the current climate give them exactly what they want as far as self preservation goes?

 

I'm not trying to say it is the gun lobby's job to do this, but it seems like if there was a genuine interest in solving the problem it might be a decent first step. It seems like gun control and abortion are two very lucrative political causes to rally against at an ideological level to secure/mobilize support, but if both were resolved tomorrow, would those leading the charge know or care what to do next on other issues?

[LongJim]

So, if everyone agrees the mental health system is what is badly in need of reformation, wouldn't it make sense for the gun lobby and Conservative leaders, looking to shift the debate and solve a problem that ultimately would protect responsible gun owners, to be at the forefront of doing something to move this agenda forward? Is it cynical to suggest that collecting money, reaping the windfall from the spikes in demand for the rumored soon to be banned weapons, and other side effects of the current climate give them exactly what they want as far as self preservation goes?

 

I'm not trying to say it is the gun lobby's job to do this, but it seems like if there was a genuine interest in solving the problem it might be a decent first step. It seems like gun control and abortion are two very lucrative political causes to rally against at an ideological level to secure/mobilize support, but if both were resolved tomorrow, would those leading the charge know or care what to do next on other issues?

Good post.  The following is my opinion only, and I'm not going to try to support it with facts.  It's simply conjecture.

I think there are two basic issues that have to be faced.  One, and this is a cliché and many will disagree, but lunatics are going to kill people.  That's not going to go away.  There has to be a way to keep their effect on the populace to a minimum, and I'm not sure what the solution to that is.  I truly feel that more restrictive gun laws are essentially going to be ineffective, because it doesn't address the root of the problem, which is mental illness, and treatment of it. 

Personally, I feel that the situation with nuts committing blaze of glory stuff is much less of a concern than the real issue, which is increased crime due to poverty, unemployment, and cultural effects on the population.  If people paid attention, they would realize that the big cities--particularly in places like Detroit, Chicago, and LA--have had homicide rates at times approaching 1-2 PER DAY.  As a point of reference, I spent a month working in Dearborn MI in 1987.  During that time, I read the Free Press daily, since it was delivered to the hotel room where I was staying.  People were murdered in Detroit at a rate that was over 2 per day.  IIRC, the paper published a running, up-to-the-day total for the year.  At that time, I'm pretty sure the total was over 650.  Now, why was that?  Well, let's take a look back in time:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/15/us/urban-homicide-rates-in-us-up-sharply-in-1986.html

Again, I don't want to go into a sermon on this, but the above spells out the real issues.  Note that 30 years have elapsed, and we're pretty much doing the same old, same old.  Factors?  Drugs, decay, and criminal activity, same as now.  Note also that there's actually probably been a bit of a decrease in killings.  Isn't that great??(?)  As if a couple hundred here or there can be counted as improvement.

Point is--restrictive gun laws aren't going to make any difference here either, because they are being used by criminals who have no problem obtaining them illegally, not by Joe Blow going out to purchase a handgun for home defense or farting around at the gun range.  That demographic will be the one affected by more restrictive gun laws, not the evildoers.

 

EDIT:  And to address your question--no, I don't believe there's a real interest in solving the problem "with guns" by directing forces to address the mental health issue.  If there were interest, it would be happening already.

 

Edited September 1, 2015 by LongJim

[oldguystudent]

lunatics are going to kill people. 

 

You know how there are those innumerable stats and graphs all over the interwebs about how many more gun killings the US has than any other country?  How does the US stack up assault for assault, murder for murder, suicide for suicide against other countries?

In other words, if the gun is merely the tool, are other countries getting the job done via other means?

This question is not meant to be baited, loaded, leading, or manipulating.  I'm genuinely curious.

[LongJim]

You know how there are those innumerable stats and graphs all over the interwebs about how many more gun killings the US has than any other country?  How does the US stack up assault for assault, murder for murder, suicide for suicide against other countries?

In other words, if the gun is merely the tool, are other countries getting the job done via other means?

This question is not meant to be baited, loaded, leading, or manipulating.  I'm genuinely curious.

Here's the Guardian's data (from 2012) on homicides by firearms as a percentage of all homicides.  Yes, the US leads in the percentage of gun ownership to population.  But guess what?  The US is not even in the top 20 when homicides by firearms are tabulated as a percentage of all murders.  We come in at 28, according to this data:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Those above the US are affected by social issues to a much greater degree, as well.

Other means?  Yes they are.  Here's another site with some data that might be useful, including what countries use what "mechanism" the most to off each other.  For example, if you live in Austria, you're more likely to be stabbed to death or killed with the dreaded "other".

http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html

 

[Quoner]

You know how there are those innumerable stats and graphs all over the interwebs about how many more gun killings the US has than any other country?  How does the US stack up assault for assault, murder for murder, suicide for suicide against other countries?

In other words, if the gun is merely the tool, are other countries getting the job done via other means?

This question is not meant to be baited, loaded, leading, or manipulating.  I'm genuinely curious.

That would have been my next question, too - but I had to run to go deal with something unexpected and didn't want LJ to think I left him hanging. I honestly don't think there is a rational person who thinks this problem is just about guns, but finger pointing has made discussing the issue toxic from both angles.

[LongJim]

I honestly don't think there is a rational person who thinks this problem is just about guns, but finger pointing has made discussing the issue toxic from both angles.

Unfortunately.  I just don't see any benefit to doubling down on the legislation.  IMO, it's kicking the can down the road, because folks don't really want to address the real causes of the behavior.

[UNT90]

Yeah, I've also been through the gas pumping thing in New Jersey, but those gas stations always seemed to be fully staffed, and I never recall any unnecessary waits.  The attendants were all polite, capable, and of reasonable speed.

Oregon gas stations tended to have one guy tending to all pumps and the convenience store, and that one guy generally had a three tooth maximum and a marginal third grade education.  Ability to process a debit card was questionable at best.

I really liked a lot of things about Oregon.  Ridiculously beautiful country, down to earth people outside Portland.  No sales tax!

But lawdy, those gas stations!

Sounds like he was experiencing that sought after freeedom you described...

[LongJim]

46 more shot in Chicago.  Just another typical weekend in the "gun-free" city.

Gun Control Works...

[UNT90]

46 more shot in Chicago.  Just another typical weekend in the "gun-free" city.

Gun Control Works...

democrat led cities with the toughest gun control laws have the most gun violence of all the major cities in America.

Wonder why that is...

[Censored by Laurie]

Wonder why that is...

a variety of socio-economic issues often, if not exclusively, isolated within small pockets of under-privileged, under-represented and under-funded populations. a relative few from these populations have historically viewed the drug trade or other illegal activity as the sole means economic advancement...and within such practices there is an inherent association with violence. true unbridled capitalism, huh? 

or were you looking for a direct correlation as causation answer? 

in 2014, Chicago PD reported 432 murders. damn...that's a lotta murderin'...of course if we compare that to a decade prior we find there were 931 murders in Chicago.

so...in 10 years time, there was a greater than 50% reduction. maybe gun control is actually having a positive effect? (literally, "question, no answer" since the actual answer(s) are almost certainly far more complex and nuanced than to be attributed to some political hot-button sound-byte. that would be incredibly lazy and stupid of me)

 

[Cerebus]

so...in 10 years time, there was a greater than 50% reduction. maybe gun control is actually having a positive effect?

 

I think what deserves the most credit is the discovery that gang violence is "contagious."   Epidemiologists found that gang violence data looked like disease outbreaks.  Once case leads to another "infection", and that reprisal leads to another infection and so on.  

Communities who have funded programs in which community leaders and law enforcement work together to prevent the revenge killigns have seen huge reductions in these gang reprisals.  Chicago is one of those cities.  

[Coffee and TV]

Weird how all the big cities with the lowest crime rates are also ran by Democrats. It's almost as if there's no correlation. 

[LongJim]

I think what deserves the most credit is the discovery that gang violence is "contagious."   Epidemiologists found that gang violence data looked like disease outbreaks.  Once case leads to another "infection", and that reprisal leads to another infection and so on.  

Communities who have funded programs in which community leaders and law enforcement work together to prevent the revenge killigns have seen huge reductions in these gang reprisals.  Chicago is one of those cities.  

There's no question (IMO) that gun control has nothing to do with reduction.  The reduction comes about when you take away the reasons and motives folks have for wanting to kill each other.

[Cerebus]

There's no question (IMO) that gun control has nothing to do with reduction.  The reduction comes about when you take away the reasons and motives folks have for wanting to kill each other.

*cough* War on Drugs *cough*

 

PS: No, I don't smoke weed.  

[Coffee and TV]

*cough* War on Drugs *cough*

 

PS: No, I don't smoke weed.  

[Cerebus]

I already have my vices...