Shooting in New Jersey Supermarket leaves 3 Dead

[MarcoM]

What I would like to compare is the following:
- the percentual usage of legally used guns (non police) that resulted to death in the US against
- the percentual usage of illegally used guns that resulted to death in Europe.

I have no idea where to get such figures. But it would certainly put things into perspective. At least for me.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Only the bit about a warzone. The reality is banning guns in the US would be hilariously stupid, as many states would never allow it to happen and I could see them trying to separate from the Union over it, not to mention it would be impossible to police black market guns. Like I said before, England can't even manage to control its gun black market reasonably well, it is a small island nation that doesn't have a 200 year history of having firearms.

I know, I was just punting the "warzone" bit a little

I agree with you, though. As much as I am opposed to guns in general, there's no point saying we should ban all guns as a European. We're just living in two completely different worlds and hence I have no idea about the culture or way of living of a US citizen. If banning guns would make life more dangerous as you say, than it is completely understandable that one applies for gun ownership as a means to protect his or her family, should it ever come that far one day.

I bet most Americans don't even own or carry a gun, let alone have shot one. But if some areas are as dangerous as those documentaries on National Geographic make it out to be, I understand that you people would feel a lot safer if you carried something which you could defend your life with.

 

[Zenith]

What I would like to compare is the following:
- the percentual usage of legally used guns (non police) that resulted to death in the US against
- the percentual usage of illegally used guns that resulted to death in Europe.

I have no idea where to get such figures. But it would certainly put things into perspective. At least for me.

These statistics would be irrelevant.

Almost all crimes committed with a legally owned gun would have happened if you were to ban guns or restrict them further.

The only difference would be that the crime would now have been committed with an illegally owned gun.

 

[MarcoM]

These statistics would be irrelevant.

I do not share your opinion.

Almost all crimes committed with a legally owned gun would have happened if you were to ban guns or restrict them further.

The only difference would be that the crime would now have been committed with an illegally owned gun.

That's guessing at its best. It think there is a certain thresshold to acquire a gun illegally.

 

[Adamgp]

Regardless of how strict the gun laws are ... YOU WILL NEVER - EVER control the black market movement of firearms.

This forum really needs a sarcasm font.

 

[Zenith]

No, that is not guessing, that is history.

Look at the gun situation in the UK.

Look at the gun situation in Chicago.

Look at alcohol prohibition in the US.

Look at the current ban on narcotics in the US.

This has been covered several times by myself and others in several threads over the past few weeks.

You cannot get rid of the guns. The end. It is an item that people want.

 

[MarcoM]

This has been covered several times by myself and others in several threads over the past few weeks.

Interesting attitude. So you and several others covering it, makes it true.

My take on it is that is an cultural thing. I am willing to believe that some people in the US feel safer carrying guns.

Zenith013, try something refreshing, try to think of were most EU people are used to: no guns. Just try it.

 

[Zenith]

Me and several others covering it makes it indicative of your prior research on the topic and the argument you make. Make your strawman arguments less obvious next time you accuse me of having an "attitude."

I reply with this: Take reality into account. The US shares nothing in common with the EU as far as guns and crime are concerned. We are discussing whether or not Americans should be allowed to purchase firearms. The US has a 200 year history with firearms and a completely different crime and violence situation than any part of the EU.

 

[MarcoM]

I have taken that into account, hence I fully understand that "I am willing to believe that some people in the US feel safer carrying guns."

All I ask is that you would view it from another perspective. Try to think out of the box. That way you might be able to understand what I and some other people from non US countries are saying.

 

[Maccer_42]

First, R.I.P to those who lost their lives.

Fixed.

You can't change the mentality of a population in regards carrying/owning a gun as it's not a mentality, it's simply who we are. We are very protective people. We don't carry guns because we want to use them, we carry them because we fear others who have no regards for the law and will misuse them.

Hearing that just made me think of this.




Obviously banning guns in the US would be a silly move considering the fact there is so many guns already produced, trying to recall every gun and expecting every owner to willing hand them in would never happen.

Maybe the US should be trying to limit and control the production of bullets, and bullet sales insted of trying to ban guns.

Of course bullet control wil not stop or have any effect on deaths related to illegally aquired guns, but it might cut down the ammount of these shootings where people go "crazy" and decide to shoot up their work place. I'm not sure how much bullets cost, but if say a single 9mm round cost $1,000 these people close to losing the plot and going on a shooting spree might not be able to due to not being able to afford the bullets.

 

[Zenith]

Obviously banning guns in the US would be a silly move considering the fact there is so many guns already produced, trying to recall every gun and expecting every owner to willing hand them in would never happen.

Maybe the US should be trying to limit and control the production of bullets, and bullet sales insted of trying to ban guns.

Of course bullet control wil not stop or have any effect on deaths related to illegally aquired guns, but it might cut down the ammount of these shootings where people go "crazy" and decide to shoot up their work place. I'm not sure how much bullets cost, but if say a single 9mm round cost $1,000 these people close to losing the plot and going on a shooting spree might not be able to due to not being able to afford the bullets.

First off, that wouldn't work. It only takes a dozen or so rounds to perform a robbery or drive-by shooting. On the other hand, I routinely put 500 rounds downrange in a single day of recreation. This is in California. In most parts of the country, a single shooting trip can easily exhaust a thousand rounds. It punishes recreational shooters more than criminals.

If someone wants to murder a person or people, they are willing to disregard the very serious law we have against murders. Do you not think that they'll be willing to foot the bill for some cartridges in order to achieve this goal?

"Well, I was planning to kill my wife and coworkers, but then I saw those ammo prices and decided that it would be better not to."

Second, the only way to artificially raise the prices on ammunition is with a tax. Why would I buy my ammunition from a legal gun store and pay a ridiculous tax when I can get it in an illegal manner and only have to pay the production and procurement cost? The unreasonable price of the product will drive the market towards the illegal means and it will be mainstream to buy from the illegal source. This is how music piracy has become so popular and accepted.

There is nothing you can do to the firearm or its ammunition to slow down the amount of violence and shootings. You need to address the people.

I have taken that into account, hence I fully understand that "I am willing to believe that some people in the US feel safer carrying guns."

All I ask is that you would view it from another perspective. Try to think out of the box. That way you might be able to understand what I and some other people from non US countries are saying.

That point of view exists, yes. It is still not one that can be applied to this discussion.

 

[MarcoM]

The unreasonable price of the product will drive the market towards the illegal means and it will be mainstream to buy from the illegal source. This is how music piracy has become so popular and accepted.

Uh, no. Music piracy has virtually no thresshold. Buying guns, legally or illegally has a thresshold.

There is nothing you can do to the firearm or its ammunition to slow down the amount of violence and shootings. You need to address the people.

I agree it's the people who do it. Go out and change them! Tell them to stop shooting

 

[Zenith]

What is this threshold of which you speak?

Because buying weed (federal ban, I remind you) is awfully easy to obtain around here. So was alcohol when that was banned.

 

[MarcoM]

Threshold, as in it is easier to buy a bag of crisps (ie illegal music) than it is getting a gun.

I sincerly hope a bag of crisps is cheaper than a gun.

 

[Maccer_42]

First off, that wouldn't work. It only takes a dozen or so rounds to perform a robbery or drive-by shooting. On the other hand, I routinely put 500 rounds downrange in a single day of recreation. This is in California. In most parts of the country, a single shooting trip can easily exhaust a thousand rounds. It punishes recreational shooters more than criminals.

Well as others and youself have said it's impossible to stop shootings and deaths by illegally aquired guns, as there is already so many out there, it's seems like a problem created by yourselfs from your desire own more and more weapons to protect yourselfs.
You say it punishes recreational shooters like it's a bad thing, I don't see it like that, why are you spending so much time shooting for "fun" guns arn't toys, they're for killing in war and hunting for survival. Why are you practicing at shooting ranges? Are you training for war? Are you in a situation where you need to hunt to survive? Or are shooting them cause its fun.

If someone wants to murder a person or people, they are willing to disregard the very serious law we have against murders. Do you not think that they'll be willing to foot the bill for some cartridges in order to achieve this goal?

"Well, I was planning to kill my wife and coworkers, but then I saw those ammo prices and decided that it would be better not to."

Of course if someone is hell bent on killing someone they will do so no matter what, you can't stop crazy people, but you can atleast try and make it harder for them to kill people.

Second, the only way to artificially raise the prices on ammunition is with a tax. Why would I buy my ammunition from a legal gun store and pay a ridiculous tax when I can get it in an illegal manner and only have to pay the production and procurement cost? The unreasonable price of the product will drive the market towards the illegal means and it will be mainstream to buy from the illegal source. This is how music piracy has become so popular and accepted.

Well that might be true, but if you're that dedicated to aquiring bullets and willing to get them illegaly when you have a legal option what would you be planing on doing with them? Surely the extra tax could be used to fund police opperations to try and cut down on illegal gun crime. And I'm pretty sure music piracy came about due to music company and movie companys releasing their product in one country while blocking it in others untill a later date, so people pirated as they felt if it's availble to the public in one country why should I have to wait? I don't think music piracy started because of increased taxes. Last time I checked you can still get a CD album / DVD for between £10-£20 roughly the same price it's been for the last 10 years or so.

There is nothing you can do to the firearm or its ammunition to slow down the amount of violence and shootings. You need to address the people.

Address the people in what way? And which people need addresing? The common recreational legal gun owner, or the criminal / gang member with illegal weapons.

 

[Zenith]

Well as others and youself have said it's impossible to stop shootings and deaths by illegally aquired guns, as there is already so many out there, it's seems like a problem created by yourselfs from your desire own more and more weapons to protect yourselfs.

This problem that would exist whether firearms were legal or not. Bad people intend to do bad things. Some good people end up doing bad things as well. I desire to protect myself from anybody who intends to do bad things to myself, my family, and my property. Buying and training with one firearm and ammunition is an effective way to protect myself.

You say it punishes recreational shooters like it's a bad thing, I don't see it like that, why are you spending so much time shooting for "fun" guns arn't toys, they're for killing in war and hunting for survival. Why are you practicing at shooting ranges? Are you training for war? Are you in a situation where you need to hunt to survive? Or are shooting them cause its fun.

It is most certainly a bad thing. Anything that hinders a person's means to enjoy themselves while not infringing on the rights of others is a bad thing.

I don't need to justify why I shoot for fun, but I will anyways. Do you ask ballerinas why it is necessary that they dance for fun?

Guns are tools. They are not "for killing in war" anymore than a hammer is built for killing in war. A firearm accelerates a small projectile to high velocity. What is done with this tool is up to the person. The gun has no intrinsic purpose. The idea that a gun has a built-in purpose such as killing or hunting has been covered many times. It is a meaningless and fallacious statement.

I enjoy recreational shooting because it involves a mix of engineering and skill. Try to shoot a tin can that is 100 yards away. It is difficult for the tool and the person. You practice, you improve the tool, you get better, you have fun. It also has practical purposes that I find valuable for entirely different reasons. Even if I didn't enjoy shooting, I would use a firearm for the defense of myself, my property, and my family.

If you have some personal grudge against firearms or shooters, you might want to dump that. It opens up holes in your argument to be exploited.

Of course if someone is hell bent on killing someone they will do so no matter what, you can't stop crazy people, but you can atleast try and make it harder for them to kill people.

If it doesn't make a difference to the crazy person, why punish those who have done no wrong? Saying "Well at least we made it difficult for them" does little to comfort victims or those whose rights have been taken away.

Well that might be true, but if you're that dedicated to aquiring bullets and willing to get them illegaly when you have a legal option what would you be planing on doing with them?

What do you plan to do with music that you obtain illegally? You listen to it. With a cartridge I would shoot a target. Someone else might defend themselves. Someone else might kill someone.

Surely the extra tax could be used to fund police opperations to try and cut down on illegal gun crime. And I'm pretty sure music piracy came about due to music company and movie companys releasing their product in one country while blocking it in others untill a later date, so people pirated as they felt if it's availble to the public in one country why should I have to wait? I don't think music piracy started because of increased taxes. Last time I checked you can still get a CD album / DVD for between £10-£20 roughly the same price it's been for the last 10 years or so.

Piracy is popular in the USA because people do not want to pay $1 per song.

Address the people in what way? And which people need addresing? The common recreational legal gun owner, or the criminal / gang member with illegal weapons.

The person who plans to use a tool (whether it be a firearm or hammer) to infringe on the rights of others. This is the person that needs to be dealt with.

People who go to a range on weekends are the same as people who dance, build cars, or paint for fun. Your opinion on the acceptability of this hobby is irrelevant.

EDIT:
On the left is a cartridge/round on the right is a bullet.

It's computer mouse vs. mouse button.

 

[Maccer_42]

This problem that would exist whether firearms were legal or not. Bad people intend to do bad things. Some good people end up doing bad things as well. I desire to protect myself from anybody who intends to do bad things to myself, my family, and my property. Buying and training with one firearm and ammunition is an effective way to protect myself.

I could understand your desire to own a firearm if you live in a situation where your home, family and yourself are under threat. But if they're not I can't understand the desire to own one just because it could possible be in the future. Or if you live in a situation where you need to hunt for food, I have no problem with that.

It is most certainly a bad thing. Anything that hinders a person's means to enjoy themselves while not infringing on the rights of others is a bad thing.

I don't need to justify why I shoot for fun, but I will anyways. Do you ask ballerinas why it is necessary that they dance for fun?

Guns are tools. They are not "for killing in war" anymore than a hammer is built for killing in war. A firearm accelerates a small projectile to high velocity. What is done with this tool is up to the person. The gun has no intrinsic purpose. The idea that a gun has a built-in purpose such as killing or hunting has been covered many times. It is a meaningless and fallacious statement.

I enjoy recreational shooting because it involves a mix of engineering and skill. Try to shoot a tin can that is 100 yards away. It is difficult for the tool and the person. You practice, you improve the tool, you get better, you have fun. It also has practical purposes that I find valuable for entirely different reasons. Even if I didn't enjoy shooting, I would use a firearm for the defense of myself, my property, and my family.

If you have some personal grudge against firearms or shooters, you might want to dump that. It opens up holes in your argument to be exploited.

Can ballerina dancing be used to kill another person? I have no personal grudge against firearms or shooters, I just strugle to understand the reasons for it to be a right to own one at times, probably as I wasn't raised in a culture where it's accepted. It should be a right to have access to food and clean water, in my opinion it should be a privilege to own a firearm, and to me it seems that privilege can be exploited far too easily
And a hammer has a purpose it's purpose to hit a nail into wood, could it be used as a weapon to kill? Of course it could, but that's not it's purpose. The purpose of a vehicle is for transportation, could it be used as a weapon to kill? Again of course. But they are not designed to be used primarily for killing.
A gun is designed to kill, it could be used to kill an animal for food and survival, or could be used to kill a person who may or may not be a threat to you. That it is what it is desgined for, they didn't invent it and then learn it could be used to kill. And i'm not denying that target shooting can be a great fun, and a technical skill to learn, I've been clay pigeon shooting and enjoyed it. But if you enjoy guns for the sport and technical skill involved in hitting a target why does the projectile need to travel at a velocity that can kill? Why not use airsoft rifles or plastic BB guns to practice your abillity to shoot a target?

If it doesn't make a difference to the crazy person, why punish those who have done no wrong? Saying "Well at least we made it difficult for them" does little to comfort victims or those whose rights have been taken away.

You're right it won't make any difference to the victims, and it's unfortunate we live in a world where not everyone values life the same way. But as we both agree some people are just going to be crazy and you can't stop them, but I think the least that could be done is to try and limit the damage they could cause. Unless there is constant checks done on every individual to assess their mental health how are you going to stop them? How are you going to know when person "X" has had enough of his job or his boss or whoever and decids to go crazy, having acess to a firearm makes it easier to cause much more damage than if they had to use a hammer. (Not saying that killing 1 indiviudal is better than killing 10, but it's the lesser of two evils) I don't think it would nice to have to be constantly monitored and checked upon.

What do you plan to do with music that you obtain illegally? You listen to it. With a cartridge I would shoot a target. Someone else might defend themselves. Someone else might kill someone.



Piracy is popular in the USA because people do not want to pay $1 per song.



The person who plans to use a tool (whether it be a firearm or hammer) to infringe on the rights of others. This is the person that needs to be dealt with. People who go to a range on weekends are the same as people who dance, build cars, or paint for fun.

How do you find out who needs to be delt with though? That seem's like an impossible to task to achive.

But I don't have a solution to the problem. Just an opinion on it that something needs to be done to change it.

 

[Zenith]

I could understand your desire to own a firearm if you live in a situation where your home, family and yourself are under threat. But if they're not I can't understand the desire to own one just because it could possible be in the future. Or if you live in a situation where you need to hunt for food, I have no problem with that.

They're not in danger until the moment that they are. $400 for a firearm and ammunition is something that I (and millions of other people) have deemed worth it. The benefits of this investment are proved several times a week in defensive shooting scenarios and by every day as firearms act as a deterrent for criminals.

Can ballerina dancing be used to kill another person? I have no personal grudge against firearms or shooters, I just strugle to understand the reasons for it to be a right to own one at times, probably as I wasn't raised in a culture where it's accepted. It should be a right to have access to food and clean water, in my opinion it should be a privilege to own a firearm, and to me it seems that privilege can be exploited far too easily

It doesn't matter. The gun that I take to the range will never be used to kill anyone. It has the same effect on other people as a ballerina's dancing. A car can be used to kill someone. It depends on the driver's mindset. The same goes for firearms.

And a hammer has a purpose it's purpose to hit a nail into wood, could it be used as a weapon to kill? Of course it could, but that's not it's purpose. The purpose of a vehicle is for transportation, could it be used as a weapon to kill? Again of course. But they are not designed to be used primarily for killing.

Incorrect on all fronts.

A hammer is designed to apply force to an object. The object can be a nail or it can be a human skull. As long as the hammer is using a lever-arm to apply force, it is fulfilling its purpose. Whether or not this is misuse is up for the law to decide.

A car is designed to accelerate itself and its occupants. It can be used to reach a destination, drive in a race, or run someone over or ram them them. As long as it is accelerating itself and its occupants, the car is fulfilling its purpose. Whether or not this is misuse is up for the law to decide.

A gun is designed to accelerate a small projectile. This small projectile can be used to hit a tin can, shoot a squirrel, or shoot a human. As long as it is accelerating a small projectile, the gun is fulfilling its purpose. Whether or not this is misuse is up for the law to decide.

A gun is designed to kill, it could be used to kill an animal for food and survival, or could be used to kill a person who may or may not be a threat to you.

This is what you need to get out of your head. This is not the way tools work.

But if you enjoy guns for the sport and technical skill involved in hitting a target why does the projectile need to travel at a velocity that can kill? Why not use airsoft rifles or plastic BB guns to practice your abillity to shoot a target?

Because I don't want to. Why don't you wear a grey jumpsuit every day? The firearm that I take to the range will never kill somebody. It has the same effect on the rest of society's safety as a BB gun or a ballerina.

Access to the means to protect myself is a human right. Access to a firearm is a right that is affirmed by my country's Constitution. The ability to explore my hobbies that do not interfere with the rights of others can also be argued to be a human right.

You're right it won't make any difference to the victims, and it's unfortunate we live in a world where not everyone values life the same way. But as we both agree some people are just going to be crazy and you can't stop them, but I think the least that could be done is to try and limit the damage they could cause.

So you can either try and fail to do this by trying and failing to limit their access to firearms and ammunition. Or you can have a society that is capable of responding to a threat to the public's safety.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Unless there is constant checks done on every individual to assess their mental health how are you going to stop them?

How do you find out who needs to be delt with though? That seem's like an impossible to task to achive.

You can't. This a reality. You can try to stop crazies before they act and you can respond to them when they act. It's best to do both, not just the first as you suggest.

having acess to a firearm makes it easier to cause much more damage than if they had to use a hammer. (Not saying that killing 1 indiviudal is better than killing 10, but it's the lesser of two evils) I don't think it would nice to have to be constantly monitored and checked upon.

You know what else can kill many people? A car. A kitchen knife. Any of the chemicals found under your sink. These are available to everyone.

But I don't have a solution to the problem. Just an opinion on it that something needs to be done to change it.

Yes, I agree. You proposed a solution (taxing ammunition) and I disagreed.

 

[MarcoM]

Interesting discussion, really no joke.

But Zenith013, how are you so sure that the gun you take to the range will never be used to kill people? Your country is full of people who are threath to you or your property.

So there is big chance that your house will be visited by a burglar who steals your gun and shoots somebody with it. Or .... you will use the gun and shoot the burglar who has an interrest in your PlayStation 3.

tin can < squirrel < human ; that is some gliding scale

 

[sumbrownkid]

I like how most people assume that anyone who has ever fired a weapon meant to kill the guy when in a lot of cases they only fired to wound the guy.

 

[Dennisch]

you will use the gun and shoot the burglar who has an interrest in your PlayStation 3.

He is on your property without you asking him. If someone enters my house he'll be on the receiving end of a baseball bat. He can consider himself lucky if he can talk afterwards.

 

[Azuremen]

But Zenith013, how are you so sure that the gun you take to the range will never be used to kill people? Your country is full of people who are threath to you or your property.

There aren't that many people that threaten property where I live, but everyone owns a gun. Oddly enough, I believe a large part of why home invasions don't happen often here is no one wants to take a round of buck shot to the chest.

So there is big chance that your house will be visited by a burglar who steals your gun and shoots somebody with it. Or .... you will use the gun and shoot the burglar who has an interrest in your PlayStation 3.

My father slept with a shotgun next to his bed. It wasn't to protect his computers or property, it was to protect his children and wife if someone broke into our home. Where we lived, it would take 30 minutes easily for the police to show up from an emergency call, and a lot can happen in 30 minutes if you have no means to defend yourself.

The fact is, he only once was woken at night by someone in the house. He grabbed the gun, walked towards the room with noise, and announced himself and declared he had a gun. Turns out his friend's car had broken down a mile away (in December) and this was long before cellphones were common. No one got shot in a panic or anything. Why - because my father was mentally prepared for the situation.

But really, a criminal isn't likely going to bust into your home at night if he is pretty certain you have a loaded gun next to your bed. And if you want to argue that someone could break in and get one of your guns before you could arm yourself, this is why you buy a gun safe and keep the rest of your guns unloaded and locked away.

tin can < squirrel < human ; that is some gliding scale

Pretty insane difference from one to the other, yes.

As for the rest of you decrying how we shouldn't have guns over here (the US) because we just kill ourselves. Or that guns are only dangerous weapons that have no other merit, please enlighten yourselves to the radically different culture regarding guns.

 

[Dennisch]

In the Netherlands, you can join a gun club. After a set period you can own guns/rifles for yourself. And you can have any gun or rifle you want. Including a Barrett or something assaulty. All you need to do is remove the auto fire option. Single shot only.

I really, really like the idea of having something ridiculous as a Barrett.

 

[Nicksfix]

So .... what about that shooting in Jersey ?

Please, can we take the gun debate to this thread ?

 

[a6m5]

Are you training for war? Are you in a situation where you need to hunt to survive?

What if I was training for war? What if I wasn't? What if I did, or didn't need to hunt? If I didn't need to, you won't allow it? This isn't United States of North Korea buddy.

So .... what about that shooting in Jersey ?

Please, can we take the gun debate to this thread ?

Or American thread, or something. I think Batman shooting spurred other public shooting + media coverage, and every shooting related thread has turned into anti-gun people from other countries preaching to the Americans.

 

[MarcoM]

Thank Nicksfix for pointing to the right thread.