Las Vegas Shooting.

Seriously, Mother Jones? "Myth # 4 " is total BS.

 

Fred, rather than continue harping on "Mother Jones", you really need to read the article and its references as a whole, before you start jumping to conclusions.

See:

“… ‘it’s not just one study. “Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,” David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center’s director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.’"

Then go to the link Private Guns, Public Health shown here:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iANw1pb4fPAC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=david+hemenway+"more+guns+in+a+community+lead+to+more+homicide"&source=bl&ots=GMTIi0MHC2&sig=x63NBQltDDNYkxHQeADfEl1EOis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2nQIVLiKFY6wyATa5YGoCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=david hemenway "more guns in a community lead to more homicide"&f=false

Noted within his book “Private Guns, Public Health” he dissects the various aspects of the gun violence epidemic in the U.S. He also produced a scientifically based analysis of the data on deaths and injuries that occur each year that are gun related.

Quote: “Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates more guns in a community lead to more homicide… guns are used in two-thirds of U.S. homicides…Guns increase the lethality of violent crime…”

One cannot have “tunnel vision” when it comes to access and availability of guns. His book explores all aspects - which includes in part what you denigrate as reference to "Mother Jones".

 

Yes, those missiles sure are expensive, but you neglected to answer my question.

Why doesn't the average gun owner want Walmart to sell full auto M16s? Do you have a valid and relevant reason why I shouldn't have a MAC10, M16 or a P90 like the Secret Service use?

Do you really want to equate guns with the scourge of drugs?

 

It was said that Chicago's gun 'problem' was due to easily obtained guns from surrounding states. Are not illegal drugs a problem, and do not many of them come in from Mexico? My point was that illegal drugs are widely available in the US, even though we have had a war on drugs for years. Would banning guns somehow work differently?

The average gun owner wants to be left alone. And, as I am sure you know, M16's are available if you have the coin,. I doubt the Wal Marts would be interesting in selling an item like that.

Sorry, very poor editing on my part in this post.

 

My question to you was: So according to what you wrote, what should the NOT average person be entitled to = full auto rifles and stinger missiles?

You answered what the AVERAGE gun owner wants - and not the NON-AVERAGE person wants that I want an answer to? You are talking about the affordability and not answering my question. Therefore I must surmise that you seem to be stuck on that you don't have the same privilege that the militia and the common folk in the 1700's had, namely the same weapons. Are you not an average person?

Again, You didn't answer my question.

 

LegalSuit, from your Mother Jones link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us/12brfs-GUNMANKILLED_BRF.html?fta=y&pagewanted=print&_r=0

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...er-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

Now, I am sure every one of these do not fit the exact qualifications of Mother Jones, but they claimed not one incident had been stopped. And I did not use the NRA/GOA sites for my links.

 

Your question is a bit vague. What exactly is the "NOT average person"? As far as having the same privilege of the militia, well, we don't really have a militia that I know of. As an average person, how would I know what an undefined section of the population wants? Can you answer that? I mentioned stinger missiles really as a joke, do you know any people advocating for public access to such weapons?

I see the argument for missiles, nukes and all for private citizens to be a strange thing. I don't know of any large number (or even small number) of people who advocate for that. I have seen many liberals advocate for a total gun ban, like Dianne Fienstein. (sp) I could ask you this, what does the hard core "commons sense gun control" person really want?

 

He purchased them legally.

http://www.newsweek.com/paddock-las-vegas-shooting-gun-legal-676151

Again, if guns can be bought like illegal drugs, what good is a gun ban?

To legally purchase a gun in another state is not a big deal. Some states will let you buy and take home long guns, as far as I know, all handguns must be shipped to a FFL in the buyer's state of residence. In either case, unless it is a private sale, a federal background check is done.

 

No one is proposing banning guns.

You seem intent on avoiding my question. It's simple enough.

 

Fred, thank you for your efforts in putting forward the links for reference in support to your arguments, which I now address:

1.

Fred, here I clicked on the "Mother Jones" link “o” which provided illustrations of the type of “citizens” who used firearms. As it turned out they were Security Officer – former Police, Army Reserve, Marine. A reasonable person would not view these persons as your normal, average “citizen”.

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don’t stand up to scrutiny.
MARK FOLLMANDEC. 19, 2012 11:01 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings/

Extracts from that url:

“… pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings…there is no evidence to support it…Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved.

Here are five cases commonly cited and why they don’t work:

Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia
…2002… armed “students” who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers…

Middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania
… 1998, in which the shooter may well have already been done shooting: After killing a teacher and wounding three others, the 14-year-old perpetrator left the dance venue…

High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
…1997…assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun…subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.

New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado
2007 …the woman who took him [gunman] out...was a security officer…and a former cop...

Bar shooting in Winnemucca, Nevada
…2008…gunman…was taken out…by a US Marine.

And what about cases in which citizens try to use their guns and things go terribly wrong?...” ​

2.

Fred, upon following the links in reference to this story it notes:

“…assistant principal Joel Myrick…36, a commander in the Army reserves, sprinted to his own truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there. Spotting Woodham near the parking lot, he shouted for him to stop…”

"The Avenger
BY BILL HEWITT POSTED ON NOVEMBER 3, 1997 AT 12:00PM EDT"
http://people.com/archive/cover-story-the-avenger-vol-48-no-18/

Again, I wouldn’t view this person as your normal “citizen”.​

3.

“…Villagomez… stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun and began shooting again when he was shot and killed by another patron - a 48-year-old Reno man who had a valid concealed weapons permit… District Attorney Russell Smith determined the shooting was justifiable homicide."

I find this extraordinary. Not having all the facts, I can only assume the shooter could have instead shot the gunman during that period he was reloading, disabling him sufficiently until authorities arrived. Here in Australia, it may have been seen as excessive force.

​

4.

Again, the person shooting and wounding the gunman is not your ordinary citizen with a firearm –

“…The man, Matthew Murray, 24, was confronted by the guard, Jeanne Assam, a former police officer…”

The gunman then committed suicide by firing “ a single bullet into himself as he lay wounded”:​

5.

In this instance, “..the Uber driver, a 47-year-old resident of Little Italy, provided police with a valid concealed-carry permit and a firearm owner's identification card…” at least disabled the gunman until authorities arrived.​

Fred, while I understand where you’re coming from. My personal views (commonly held by Australians), still can’t qualify the need for guns or justify how a normal citizen could minimize dangerous situations without putting themselves and possibly others at risk.

From the same links you’ve presented, I have noted those persons reacting were not your normal citizens. Instead they had professional backgrounds such as police/defense, trained to manage such situations, unlike your “Joe Blogs from down the road who has firearms.”

I reckon if I were to research further, I would be able to produce disastrous outcomes where the “Joe Blogs” of the world who tried handling the same situations probably end up with disastrous outcomes.

Cheers

LS

 

You've seen too many movies.

 

Nope.

Straight quote except for my ellipsis...

Victims Released; No Charges Filed Against Reno Man In Winnemucca Shootings
Posted: Sun 5:54 PM, May 25, 2008 / Updated: Tue 6:42 AM, May 27, 2008
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

"...According to witnesses, Villagomez at some point stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun and began shooting again when he was shot and killed by another patron - a 48-year-old Reno man who had a valid concealed weapons permit.

The Reno man was initially taken into custody as a person of interest, but later released after Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith determined the shooting was justifiable homicide."

 

Wrong part. This part I don't doubt, it's the other. This is consistent with US law. In my area several years ago, a young man approached a car, told the driver he would shoot him in the head if he didn't get out and turn over his wallet and car, and reached behind him, under his shirt, as if to pull out a concealed handgun. The driver shot him first. It turns out the young man was unarmed. Because the driver believed the young man intended to carry out his threat and had means to do so, it was ruled justifiable homicide.

This works in movies, not so much in real life. Arms and legs are small targets and even if one hits them, they also have major arteries running their length. People usually die when they run out of blood.

 

It doesn't surprise me that in America it would be viewed as "justifiable homicide" given the current State gun laws. As I stated earlier, I don't claim to be au fait with laws outside Australia.

Nor did I specify what part of the anatomy to be targeted, but simply "...disabling him sufficiently until authorities arrived..."

Time wise, police here usually respond quickly to such situations by land and/or by air and it's expedient. So I would expect it's the same there(?)

Re bleeding situation - I'm not medically minded. And in any case, I'd rather have a gunman disabled while waiting for police, rather than one who continues threatening peoples' lives..if a gunmen were to bleed to death before police/medics arrived, that's something they brought onto themselves for threatening/putting others' lives at risk.

 

Legalsuit, if I recall, all of the people in my links were not active LEO at the time. And I would consider a former soldier or LEO to be a pretty much average person. I know some LEO that are crazy good shooters, they even teach classes to the general public. I also know a former LEO that struggled every time they had to do their shooting qualification. You might be surprised, but a lot of LEO are not really "gun people". And in no way am I trying to put down any LEO.

And please, if any of you are former military, correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt they do much training with side arms.

 

You might be surprised. It does happen, but not near as often as you might think.

I will say in advance, I am not familiar with this site, but it seems to reflect what I have seen: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/c...en-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/

 

Actually JustPlaying, that is an interesting question, to which I really don't have an answer. But, as far as "common sense gun safety laws" go, it really is a moot point. Few people (that I know of) are actively trying to get full auto guns sold at The Wal Marts. Honestly, I vacillate on making full auto guns available to the public.

 

They are trained to keep cool when someone is trying to kill them. That makes a hell of a lot more difference than just being able to hit a target that isn't shooting back.

 

I agree. But there are a lot of classes available to citizens to get some similar training. I know some LEO's that are great on the range, not so much on more "tactical" things. And of course, lot's of "Bubbas" out there with guns as well. And no, I am not a tacticool gun ninja.

 

Fred, from the link “o” noted in your Post #156 – extract shown here: "Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0…"

I referred to those links per my Post #160, and yes, among those links were current LEOs[1] and Defense persons which I have again noted here from Post #160:

Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia
…2002… armed “students” who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers…

High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
…1997…assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve

New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado
2007 …the woman who took him [gunman] out...was a security officer…and a former cop...

Bar shooting in Winnemucca, Nevada
…2008…gunman…was taken out…by a US Marine.

As I am not qualified to respond to this Post re formerly/ active LEOs/Defense persons termed “pretty much average person”, I’ll leave it to those in the know who can better respond.


Cheers

LS


[1] Legal Enforcement Officer

 

Legalsuit said: I reckon if I were to research further, I would be able to produce disastrous outcomes where the “Joe Blogs” of the world who tried handling the same situations probably end up with disastrous outcomes.

Again, I reckon Americans and persons from those countries with a gun culture could probably respond better than myself.

This would be a typical response re "civilians" taking on a gunman, definitely in Australia, and I expect also in America: “…law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved…”[1]


[1] Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don’t stand up to scrutiny.
MARK FOLLMANDEC. 19, 2012 11:01 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings/

 

Per your post #170

Your link for the Appelation is not working for me.

The New Life Church shooting:

I don't see "security officer" to be on pair with LEO or military. It is not clear in the link if she was a security officer at the church or not. It is actually fairly common for civilians to volunteer for church security. My understanding is it is up to the church administration, and some do require a short class on security, probably 8 hours or so, not exactly beyond the shooting ability of a casual range shooter.

 

From your Mother Jones link:

Where is the evidence, beyond pure speculation? Does Mrs Jones provide any instances where civilian shooters injured more than 9 people? Going out on a limb here, and saying no.

Again, from your link. Where are the mass shootings in Louisiana churches?

Again from your link. Ahh, well, if wishes had horses, dreamers would ride. Pure speculation, not a reliable source, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps in a few states, this might work. Again, mis information. Yes, most states recognize other states carry laws, but, that means my Louisiana permit (from the state I reside in) is recognized in many other states. I can't get one from Florida and use it in Nevada. And again, even if true, where is the carnage?

Again, from your Mrs. Jones link [QUOTE]There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years[/QUOTE]
Bold mine, seems to be contradicting the other link were no civilian helped...

Here we go again from your link.

An AR-15 is a legal sporting rifle. An assault rifle is one used by the military, you know, with the auto option. I pulled this from the web:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault-rifle

Now, how can they be both automatic and semi auto? Confusion of terms.

So, can you see how Mother Jones just might not be an objective site?


Hmm....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/asia/australia-police-shoot-3-bystanders/index.html

 

Hey Fred,

Apologies.

You may find it better if instead you go directly to my Post #160 for the URL to this Article:

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don’t stand up to scrutiny.
MARK FOLLMANDEC. 19, 2012 11:01 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings/

Within that Article there are those two references you noted:

• Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia - the link within that point "also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers," brings up an error when I tried also; but
• New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado - the link within that Article she was a security officer goes to this website:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/6-shot-at-new-life-church-gunman-2-churchgoers-dead.

I can only assume following completion of investigations that her name would have been a Public Record at time of writing for that Article.
​

This is what was in the article re the item "New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado:"

"In 2007 a gunman killed two people and wounded three others before being shot himself; the pro-gun crowd likes to refer to the woman who took him out in the parking lot as a “church member.” Never mind that she was a security officer for the church and a former cop, and that the church had put its security team on high alert earlier that day due to another church shooting nearby."

​

Fred, it appears the links failed with the copy/paste from original Post. So my apologies for any inconvenience.

Cheers

LS

 

Bold mine, seems to be contradicting the other link were no civilian helped...

Here we go again from your link. An AR-15 is a legal sporting rifle. An assault rifle is one used by the military, you know, with the auto option. I pulled this from the web: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault-rifle

Now, how can they be both automatic and semi auto? Confusion of terms.

So, can you see how Mother Jones just might not be an objective site?

Legalsuit Response: I can only reiterate my earlier comments - I am not a firearm expert (so cannot discern one fun from another); as to being objective, both sides have been presented, however, from some footnotes reviewed, input is from a variety of sources.

Hmm.... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/asia/australia-police-shoot-3-bystanders/index.html
Response: You're referencing this article re police shooting:

'I'm so sorry': Australian police probed after shooting 3 bystanders
Robert Sawatzky, for CNN Updated 1451 GMT (2251 HKT) June 10, 2016

I happened to be in that area on the day for work just shortly after the event and know the specific area in question. A couple of friends shopping at the time saw some guy wandering around calling out, acting strange, but didn't spot the knife by his side. One of the shop keepers tried to calm him down, but he appeared irrational and kept wandering around calling out in some language when police arrived.

Shoppers, bystanders weren't aware of what was going on so they skirted the guy, continued about their business, many not hearing police calling out to clear the area which is always noisy and busy. When the guy staggered towards and lunged within feet of an officer, she immediately fired and unfortunately, bystanders were injured. It wasn't until after the guy was rushed by police and injured bystanders starting calling out they'd been hit that people nearby took in the situation. My friends thought the whole thing was surreal.

With our current awareness of terrorists, Police now are cautious and thought this may have been another "lone wolf terrorist attack" so they won't take any risks. There many people wandering about at the time (my friends included) which only added to the confusion with this guy who apparently was mentally ill and had gone missing from a psychiatric hospital. Police investigations on the officers involved immediately ensued regarding the incident - I haven't happen to know the NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Denis Clifford, so it will be properly looked into.

Admittedly, my friends and I were not impressed with the outcome of bystanders being injured by police crossfire, but we trust and know it is being properly investigated with further regulations imposed on police handling of such situations. Nothing further I care to say on this matter except that it could have been much worse had that guy been brandishing a gun instead of a knife.
[/QUOTE]

 

Fred, throughout your posts, you continue to state the references are from my links re "Mother Jones links". Seems you are not aware you provided the original link from your Post #156 which I first referenced in my Post $160.

All I did was place my cursor under the o from your Post #156 to click and it took me to this link (already noted this o link in above Posts):

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don’t stand up to scrutiny.
MARK FOLLMANDEC. 19, 2012 11:01 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings/

I initially and continued to refer to that website in the following posts - so it was Your link to start with!

Cheers

LS

 

Your post, #149 Brought Mother Jones into the conversation.

So, I think origin of Mother Jones to this conversatin is actually yours.

 

Sorry if I was not clear on this. I posted this as a situation where a trained LEO officer injured others. This is back to where you were saying many of the shootings were stopped by retired police. Just an example of how just being a LEO does not always make you more qualified to respond to a shooter.

Not trying to put down that officer, just trying to say former police are not always better than civilians. And of course, all civilians are not better than the police. As I stated in an earlier post, I know one officer that struggled with their firearms qualifications throughout their career.

 

Okay...Gotcha. We've been "talking" cross purposes re different links.

 

I posted this because of how the mainstream media (Mother Jones included) use terms like "Assault Rifle" when the definition is blurred. An assault rifle is a gun capable of full auto or burst fire (I think 3 rounds in burst mode) where the AR-15 is a semi auto gun. You have to pull the trigger every time you shoot. But, since they "look" scary, yes you can attach a bayonet, lights, bi-pods and all to them, they are lumped into being an "assault rifle", when in fact they are not.

 

Pardon the glazed look in my eyes...it may as well be in Chinese for my comprehension...I am literally dumb when it comes to this sort of stuff, it simply doesn't compute...​

 

So I guess you would be glazed by trying to make sense of the "Assault Weapon Ban" which lasted for 10 years before expiring and never has been able to be renewed again? Some interesting ideas had been thrown around if it was effective or not and also would it be effective if renewed. I don't know personally, but I would imagine some were jailed for violating the law that later expired and was no longer a law. Always fun!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

And here's a piece talking about how some bans aren't even taken seriously.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

 

Hey Imandy_mann, while I have an analytical bent (e.g. law, IT, tools for house repairs), my comment of “glazed look” was a shot at myself for the inability to relate to terms of firearms and wasn’t meant to be a rude retort to Fred_G’s explanation of firearms (which BTW I appreciated).

Re Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) – the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act (from what I’ve read) was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – I don’t have the time to research your legislation/statutes to properly respond, because commonly, Acts/Policies don’t stand alone.

So for a proper response, I’d need to consider review of associated/relevant pieces of different Acts/Policies/Regulations in reference to prohibitions expiration, (which by the way apparently varies in U.S states).

A “prohibitions expiration” (if you’re not already aware) indicates a “sunset clause”[1]. Depending on how it is written in the Act(s) it may include if/how a review were to occur upon expiration and how/if the Act is to be amended to reflect any change.

In general, most laws do not have “sunset clauses”, so may remain in force indefinitely, again dependent on the type of law enacted.

Re your link[2] - guess it depends on how the Act is written for it to be enforced if persons break the law.


[1] What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban?
Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people’s unwillingness to obey. This time won’t be any different. J.D. Tuccille | June 21, 2016
[2] Sunset Legislation in the States: Balancing the Legislature and the Executive Brian Baugus and Feler Bose,
MERCATUS RESEARCH
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Baugus-Sunset-Legislation.pdf

 

I just thought it funny in a debate of this nature to be not familiar. Same as I am not familiar with some legal terms. Maybe why I lost in court!

https://www.law360.com/articles/748868/6-types-of-legal-mumbo-jumbo-attorneys-must-avoid

 

Understand where you’re coming from. The push for “Plain English” more applies to processes rather than the legal language; with some Latin and French words and terms commonly used in law translated, (I carry a pocket size Law Dictionary and have a heavy, large, thick, bound version on the shelf).

Law has “Legalese” sort of language same as some of you “Motor Heads” have your own language (case in point Thread You May Drool... And Dream!, and that typically used in this Thread re firearms).

As for “losing in court” if it were because you represented yourself…pointedly taught to law students:

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”[1]



(BTW, the footnote numbers in my previous post are reversed…Oooopsy!)




[1] Abraham Lincoln

 

The assault weapons ban, as I recall, limited all semi auto magazines to 10 rounds and did not allow for the sale of new "scary looking" civilian weapons. It was widely ineffective on preventing crime, in my opinion.

And the law did expire, (sunset) in 2004.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.a7a2af9d6f24

I don't have good links or info on the AWB.

A person with a bit of practice can reload a mag very fast, so 10 round limits are strange to me.

LegalSuit, your "glazed" expression did not bother me a bit, if you have any gun questions, I will be glad to answer if I can.

 

Thanks Fred_G.

Quick check of your link re the ban (since expired) noted loopholes:

"Did the 1994 law have loopholes? Yes, lots. Even after the ban took effect, it was not difficult for someone to get their hands on an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine."

Effecting law takes a lot of analysis and cross-referencing, and even once enacted, where necessary, amendments should be done (which doesn't appear to have occurred when that ban was put in place). Even putting amendments in place is not easy either.

Not sure why the "sunset clause" was put in to begin with. Without proper analysis (on my part) I can only guess it was a compromise to at least get the ban happening, with (perhaps) some optimistic law drafters thinking within the "prohibition period" some better approach to gaining agreements may have been found.

 

Obesity kills more people than guns, need to outlaw food too!
https://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm

 

Really? You don't think the negative repercussions would outweigh the positive outcome of reducing obesity?

 

You know without being told, to "outlaw food" is unrealistic. In any case, the cause is self inflicted mainly due to poor education/training on what to eat.

While we also have an obesity problem here, the approach used to combat it is:

• Education by different media (e.g. TV, radio, doctors, etc, etc, etc)
• schools, responsible parents now limit the amount of computer/tv their children have, and instead push them into outdoor/sport/exercise/fun activities
• Variety of outdoor/sports clubs activities. Pretty much all our beach suburbs that I know of have outdoor clubs/groups for bush walking, running, swimming, hiking, canoeing, surfing, and the list goes on.
• Responsible parents who "train" their children by the type of food they give them and skirting "junk"/"fast foods".
• School "tuck shops" removing availability of certain types of foods and drinks
• Work places providing deliciously tasty healthy foods at their kiosks.
• Australia also being very much an outdoor mentality, pre/around dawn you'll see streets, parks, beaches with people of all ages walking their dogs, running, exercising before work. At one of my local beaches, there's a number of groups of different ages who daily swims from one beach to another (with our shark scares, I reckon they're crazy). There's even one group called the "Bold and Beautiful"[1] who swim daily.

So, education, certain restrictions and social media works towards combating obesity.





[1] http://webapp.boldandbeautifulmanly.com.au/attendance/daily/manly

 

And the same can be used to combat gun violence.

 

So, why not do the same with guns, educate the citizens, instead of banning them?

 

The same can be used to combat people who illegally use guns for violent criminal activity.

 

Education - absolutely. Though not sure as to what approach you would be advocating.

My take would be an education against firearms and all its negatives (which I'm sure isn't what you're referring to).

As for a ban - it's obvious given the American gun culture, I can't see that happening any time soon.

However, I reckon there should be a ban on types of firearms; types of usage - how, when, where, what; types of persons allowed to posses any sort of firearms.

Reckon firearms experts would probably be better able to identify such categories.

 

My take would be to educate people on gun safety, and educate people on our Constitutional rights. Sadly, I see many folks with totally twisted ideas about the First and Second Amendments.

 

That sounds like a good approach. I reckon a committee with a nice blend of ordinary licensed citizens with firearm knowledge (e.g. yourself, a few others here and the American equivalent of Joffa) to represent "the ordinary person"; firearms experts; and drafters with knowledge of relevant gun laws/regulations who can properly apply it, in accordance to the 1st and 2nd Amendments, could probably nash out a strategic approach to education. Surely there must be something like that already? If not, it certainly should be.

 

In most of the cases I know of LS, that info is usually passed down by family members. My father is not really into guns, in my case it was my grandparents, and some uncles and aunts.

 

You know Fred_G, the seed for education sometimes becomes the pathway towards new standards/laws/regulations started by concerned citizens.

The smart ones, rather than just pushing forward the problem to their Senator to do something about a concern, instead push forward the problem with a plausible solution for them to review, consider then push for them to implement.

An informal committee of concerned citizens made up with different people (ordinary citizens like my earlier example), would build the framework with outside, interested parties contributing to the committee's education framework. Once agreements are reached by committee members for the final "education product," it can be put to their Senator for review and consideration. If taken up, I expect it would probably be refined with public feedback sought.

Then would be a good time to push the Senator(s) for action and to implement the education.

 

But, LS, what about this: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In all honesty, many liberals want a gun ban here. They know they can't get it overnight, and many of us see it as a 'give and inch, and they try to take a mile' thing. We already have plenty of laws in place. If you take a crazy person willing to commit murder, and take their guns away, will they not find another weapon?