What is it With You Guys?

[ERICOPOLY]

Should the government ever need to be overthrown, I'll be in Australia on the beach somewhere.

 

Unless it's Australia's government that gets overthrown, and your guns are locked up back in Washington!  ;D  You can always catch a flight to Fiji in that case I guess, but then there is a coup there every 5 years.  Cheers!

 

I have a third trick in the bag...

 

My father was born in London.  I can get a UK-issued passport.  I started this process already but I'm not quite finished yet.  Legally though I can claim it as I have UK citizenship by descent -- just a matter of getting through the paperwork at this point.

 

 

 

[Parsad]

Sounds worse than the Tenderloin!

 

It's a shame.  I kind of know how the Tenderloin got started out (*part* of it actually happened due to a public policy decision - we were bringing homeless and mentally ill people to the city to help them, and then allowing them to camp out without prosecution while simultaneously paying them), but I am curious how neighborhoods in general start to degrade.  I'm sure that almost none of them besides the tenderloin are shitty due to some old, weird public policy decision like we had here.

 

It was actually worse than the Tenderloin.  Dan Rather was here for CBS a few years ago, so was Diane Sawyer...doing exclusive stories on how one of the most socially-developed cities in North America could allow its citizens, including single mom's and their children, to live in such squalor and a traumatic environment.

 

Believe it or not, the area started to deteriorate after one of the city's historical department stores, Woodwards, went downhill and eventually out of business.  That area used to be the main shopping district of the city for the previous 80 years, but when Woodward's disappeared, foot traffic decreased significantly and other businesses went out of business.  Much of the shopping moved to the famous Robson Street area or to the suburbs, and you suddenly had alot of people living on social assistance moving into the area.  It just kept going downhill with virtually no government intervention. 

 

Finally, a few years ago, you had a mix of public and private development reinvigorate the area...ironically it started by turning the old shell of the Woodward's department store into a mix of condo units and street-level retail, as well as Simon Fraser University expanding their downtown campus into the new development.  From there you slowly had gentrification of the area, and now it is becoming one of the hippest areas of the city to live in, with new bistros and shops opening everywhere.  Sadly forcing some of the poor out of the area and creating problems down the road for other neighbourhoods!  C'est la vie!

 

But before I moved out of the Burnaby area of Vancouver a few months ago, my daily commute to the office downtown went through the Hasting & Main area every day, and I could not believe what I saw.  Most tourists who came to the city and saw the area couldn't believe it existed in Vancouver.  Seriously, every three doors you saw someone shooting up in plain view, and guaranteed that every block had at least one person completely passed out and just lying there on the street...not knowing if they were sleeping, drunk or dying of a drug overdose. 

 

Take a look at the picture below.  This was what it looked like on virtually every block of that six square block area.  Picturesque and liberal Vancouver...what a fu**ing mess it was! I'm ashamed my city allowed that to happen to people!  Cheers!

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/health/east-hastings-0

[doc75]

Are we asking the right question?  What if the crazy person had thrown a big Molotov Cocktail  into a crowded room?  Would we be talking about banning gasoline?  Shouldn't we be talking instead about why it is so difficult to get psychotic and potentially violent people into secure, involuntary custodial care before they do something terrible, not afterward?

 

This is a specious argument.  The fact is that gasoline is more readily available than guns, yet lunatics don't throw Molotov cocktails into crowded rooms.  It just doesn't happen.  There is something different about guns.  The perpetrator is confronting his targets directly and can be the superman.  (I'm just guessing that some type of power-play is the basic reason why guns are the weapon of choice.  I'm sure someone has looked into this carefully so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear.)

 

The thought of involuntary custodial care for people who are diagnosed as psychotic but have yet to act violently or break the law is absolutely terrifying to me.  You cannot prove someone is psychotic or "potentially" violent.  I would completely agree with you if there was some way of actually making that call, but I don't believe there is. 

 

[doc75]

This is a specious argument.  The fact is that gasoline is more readily available than guns, yet lunatics don't throw Molotov cocktails into crowded rooms.  It just doesn't happen.

 

Sorry:  I should say it very rarely happens.  It probably has happened!!  Bombings are the same thing.  They happen, but quite rarely compared to shootings.

[west]

It was actually worse than the Tenderloin.  Dan Rather was here for CBS a few years ago, so was Diane Sawyer...doing exclusive stories on how one of the most socially-developed cities in North America could allow its citizens, including single mom's and their children, to live in such squalor and a traumatic environment.

 

Believe it or not, the area started to deteriorate after one of the city's historical department stores, Woodwards, went downhill and eventually out of business.  That area used to be the main shopping district of the city for the previous 80 years, but when Woodward's disappeared, foot traffic decreased significantly and other businesses went out of business.  Much of the shopping moved to the famous Robson Street area or to the suburbs, and you suddenly had alot of people living on social assistance moving into the area.  It just kept going downhill with virtually no government intervention. 

 

Finally, a few years ago, you had a mix of public and private development reinvigorate the area...ironically it started by turning the old shell of the Woodward's department store into a mix of condo units and street-level retail, as well as Simon Fraser University expanding their downtown campus into the new development.  From there you slowly had gentrification of the area, and now it is becoming one of the hippest areas of the city to live in, with new bistros and shops opening everywhere.  Sadly forcing some of the poor out of the area and creating problems down the road for other neighbourhoods!  C'est la vie!

 

But before I moved out of the Burnaby area of Vancouver a few months ago, my daily commute to the office downtown went through the Hasting & Main area every day, and I could not believe what I saw.  Most tourists who came to the city and saw the area couldn't believe it existed in Vancouver.  Seriously, every three doors you saw someone shooting up in plain view, and guaranteed that every block had at least one person completely passed out and just lying there on the street...not knowing if they were sleeping, drunk or dying of a drug overdose. 

 

Take a look at the picture below.  This was what it looked like on virtually every block of that six square block area.  Picturesque and liberal Vancouver...what a fu**ing mess it was! I'm ashamed my city allowed that to happen to people!  Cheers!

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/health/east-hastings-0

 

Yuck!

 

So, thinking about it a bit, the reason why areas start to go downhill is probably due to economic deterioration?  Or Woodwards leaving, in the East Hastings case?

 

And things probably *really* go downhill once you're in the inner city, where the population density is much higher and people can't really just get up and leave.

 

Just a theory, I'm sure there are other reasons why neighborhoods deteriorate...

 

[rjstc]

Parsad; Have you read this about how this young man was described? Sounds to me like there were a lot of red flags. However in the U.S. you cannot profile people, you must respect their rights. Until they do something wrong,& then it's oftentimes too late. As an example an elderly person starting to have dementia.As long as that person can act normal for 5 minutes in front of a judge their rights always come first to control their own life. Even if a lot of people know they don't normally act rational and are potentially dangerous to themselves, or others.

 

  Now the argument about gun control is obviously a different subject.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/friends-of-gunmans-mother-his-first-victim-recall-her-as-generous.html?ref=todayspaper

[ERICOPOLY]

There is something to be said about what type of rifle is necessary to suppress the government:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

 

Bolt-action.

[Olmsted]

There is a lot of people killed by guns each year, but if there was no gun, then you would't even need to defend yourself as often with a gun, but that is not my point here...

 

There are serious thugs in the bad parts of town only a couple miles from me.  Put two or more of them in a group intending me harm, and I am in real trouble.  Firearms are equalizers in the right hands.

[twacowfca]

Are we asking the right question?  What if the crazy person had thrown a big Molotov Cocktail  into a crowded room?  Would we be talking about banning gasoline?  Shouldn't we be talking instead about why it is so difficult to get psychotic and potentially violent people into secure, involuntary custodial care before they do something terrible, not afterward?

 

This is a specious argument.  The fact is that gasoline is more readily available than guns, yet lunatics don't throw Molotov cocktails into crowded rooms.  It just doesn't happen.  There is something different about guns.  The perpetrator is confronting his targets directly and can be the superman.  (I'm just guessing that some type of power-play is the basic reason why guns are the weapon of choice.  I'm sure someone has looked into this carefully so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear.)

 

The thought of involuntary custodial care for people who are diagnosed as psychotic but have yet to act violently or break the law is absolutely terrifying to me.  You cannot prove someone is psychotic or "potentially" violent.  I would completely agree with you if there was some way of actually making that call, but I don't believe there is.

 

Yeah you can to the extent of getting guardianship of an older child, even an adult child who is psychotic or non compos mentos.  There are established court procedures for doing this without violating civil rights, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest notwithstanding.  The problem is that a guardian can't get permanent custodial care in a secure place  for a crazy family member.

[twacowfca]

There is a lot of people killed by guns each year, but if there was no gun, then you would't even need to defend yourself as often with a gun, but that is not my point here...

 

There are serious thugs in the bad parts of town only a couple miles from me.  Put two or more of them in a group intending me harm, and I am in real trouble.  Firearms are equalizers in the right hands.

 

 

A surprisingly high number of prehistoric skeletons have marks of homicidal violence upon them.  Murder is a close number 2 cause of death after infections among Amazonian tribes that have been studied extensively by medical anthropologists. 

 

Malcolm Gladwell recounts the off the charts murder rates in Appalachia a little over 100 years ago. 

The knife and club or stoning or fire will suffice when firearms aren't available.

[ERICOPOLY]

Are we asking the right question?  What if the crazy person had thrown a big Molotov Cocktail  into a crowded room?  Would we be talking about banning gasoline?  Shouldn't we be talking instead about why it is so difficult to get psychotic and potentially violent people into secure, involuntary custodial care before they do something terrible, not afterward?

 

This is a specious argument.  The fact is that gasoline is more readily available than guns, yet lunatics don't throw Molotov cocktails into crowded rooms.  It just doesn't happen.  There is something different about guns.  The perpetrator is confronting his targets directly and can be the superman.  (I'm just guessing that some type of power-play is the basic reason why guns are the weapon of choice.  I'm sure someone has looked into this carefully so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear.)

 

The thought of involuntary custodial care for people who are diagnosed as psychotic but have yet to act violently or break the law is absolutely terrifying to me.  You cannot prove someone is psychotic or "potentially" violent.  I would completely agree with you if there was some way of actually making that call, but I don't believe there is.

 

Yeah you can to the extent of getting guardianship of an older child, even an adult child who is psychotic or non compos mentos.  There are established court procedures for doing this without violating civil rights, One Flew Over The Coo Coo's Nest notwithstanding.  The problem is that a guardian can't get permanent custodial care in a secure place  for a crazy family member.

 

Here is an essay from a mother with a child in danger of being the next killer:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

 

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

 

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise -- in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.

 

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill -- Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011.

[rjstc]

Yup. Don't have enough money for mentally ill, challenged, handicapped. I'll get ripped for this but we just can't do enough for illegal aliens in Ca. Free medical care "because you can't deny emergency care". Free schooling. Medicaid. But we don't have enough for our own citizens with mental problems because they are a vocal/voting minority.

[ERICOPOLY]

Interesting about Australia:

 

In 1996, after 35 people were killed with semi-automatic weapons in Tasmania, Australia got tougher on the weapons, banning semi-automatics and buying back some 500,000 from citizens. There were 18 mass shootings in Australia in the 10 years before. Since, there have been none. Zero.

 

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/a-clear-correlation-keep-semi-automatic-weapons-legal-keep-seeing-children-die/

[rjstc]

Interesting about Australia:

 

In 1996, after 35 people were killed with semi-automatic weapons in Tasmania, Australia got tougher on the weapons, banning semi-automatics and buying back some 500,000 from citizens. There were 18 mass shootings in Australia in the 10 years before. Since, there have been none. Zero.

 

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/a-clear-correlation-keep-semi-automatic-weapons-legal-keep-seeing-children-die/

 

Another wards with single shots the perp isn't accurate enough so potential victim can run away? Did total yearly average murders go down?

[west]

Yup. Don't have enough money for mentally ill, challenged, handicapped. I'll get ripped for this but we just can't do enough for illegal aliens in Ca. Free medical care "because you can't deny emergency care". Free schooling. Medicaid. But we don't have enough for our own citizens with mental problems because they are a vocal/voting minority.

 

Just to clarify, by Ca., do you mean Canada or California?  I'm assuming California, but I'm biased. :)

[rjstc]

Yup. California.

[ERICOPOLY]

Interesting about Australia:

 

In 1996, after 35 people were killed with semi-automatic weapons in Tasmania, Australia got tougher on the weapons, banning semi-automatics and buying back some 500,000 from citizens. There were 18 mass shootings in Australia in the 10 years before. Since, there have been none. Zero.

 

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/a-clear-correlation-keep-semi-automatic-weapons-legal-keep-seeing-children-die/

 

Another wards with single shots the perp isn't accurate enough so potential victim can run away? Did total yearly average murders go down?

 

I don't understand the confusion.  Are you asking if 100 round magazines affixed to AR-15 assault rifles are more dangerous in the hands of a crazy person, relative to say a bolt-action rifle?

[doc75]

Yeah you can to the extent of getting guardianship of an older child, even an adult child who is psychotic or non compos mentos.  There are established court procedures for doing this without violating civil rights, One Flew Over The Coo Coo's Nest notwithstanding.  The problem is that a guardian can't get permanent custodial care in a secure place  for a crazy family member.

 

My apologies... I thought you were suggesting granting the state greater leeway as to who is locked up, rather than keeping existing procedures but offering reasonable support on the other end of the court process. 

[rjstc]

You stated that they banned semi automatic rifles and it halted all mass shootings. Did the total number of homicides per year go down after they banned them? If not then taking away the rifles didn't matter that much. You didn't explain the net effect other than "mass shooting affect".

[ERICOPOLY]

You didn't explain the net effect other than "mass shooting affect".

 

The mass shooting is the only purpose for the invention of the assault weapon!  The military trained soldiers just couldn't kill fast enough with bolt action weapons, so they come up with these things.

 

Should we, uh, take away weapons that were expressly designed for mass shootings?  Well, gee, I dunno... (sarcasm).

 

You seem to be arguing that even if we eliminate mass shootings then we're not getting anything accomplished so long as homicides still occur, or if they even go up.

 

Yet homicides can go up or go down without mass shootings.  You just get an even-higher number of homicides if you add the mass shootings to the total.  But without the mass shootings, you obviously have less than otherwise. 

[Uccmal]

This has been bugging me all weekend.  My thoughhts are clear but disjointed.

 

Its a good thing shooter killed his mother.  She would either have committed suicide or been murdered for providing him with weapons. 

 

The only use for guns per Lynyrd Skynyrd is for killing.... they aint no good for nothin' else.

 

Eliminating ALL guns would dramatically reduce the homicide rate.

 

If you are afraid your government is going to abuse its power enough that you need semiautomatics at home, then your in more serious trouble.  The only way you will go down is by fighting.  Recall Waco.  This is a poor excuse to own weapons.

 

The NRA needs to have one of its conventions blown up by an aggrieved parent to show them what it feels like. 

 

In order to make American streets safer all drugs need to be fully legalized, and money spent on the war on drugs put into treatment.  I disagree strongly with Cardboard on this.  People with mental health issues already abuse drugs.  Legalizing them at ever step in the process will not change that fact.  Police can then focus on getting sick people into treatment instead of into jail. 

 

Obtaining weapons for hunting, if one must, should be extremely heavily regulated. 

 

Of course none of this is going to fly in the USA where "freedom" trumps all else, including childrens lives.  Freedom to live in fear.  Gotta love it. 

 

Dont get me wrong.  I love the US.  I just think that your priorities as a Nation are very mixed up.

[rjstc]

StockpilesGun Numbers

Civilian Guns

CompareNumber of Privately Owned Firearms

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001

CompareRate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population

The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people

CompareNumber of Privately Owned Firearms - World Ranking

In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1

CompareRate of Privately Owned Firearms per 100 Population - World Ranking

In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1

 

Canada was ranked 13 out of 179 country's with about 23% per 100 having a firearm.

 

However homicides per 100 was 0.5 versus 3% per 100 in US and 10% in Mexico. Mexico had 15% per 100 population with guns

 

The US sure has a lot of guns.

 

These figures came from gunpolicy.org

[Tim Eriksen]

When people use a 200 year old law to justify their “right to bear arms” perhaps the type of arms they are allowed to bear should be limited to those in use at the time the amendment was written?

 

Very funny...and very accurate.  I couldn't agree more.  Cheers!

 

I find it neither funny or accurate.  Apply it to freedom of the press.  Do you want your rights to be limited to the publication formats in use 200 years ago? 

[matjone]

If you are afraid your government is going to abuse its power enough that you need semiautomatics at home, then your in more serious trouble.  The only way you will go down is by fighting.  Recall Waco.  This is a poor excuse to own weapons..

 

It's true that one guy can't beat the army.  But it's also true that there have been conflicts where a much larger and better armed force was stopped by a smaller force.

 

I think that most people believe that the U.S. and other countries have advanced to the point where we never have to worry about needing to fight the government.  I don't  see where that confidence comes from, considering the human rights abuses we just witnessed in the last decade.

 

This is one of those topics where I think both sides have good points, and it really just comes down to your philosophy.  People who have a libertarian bent are obviously going to be opposed to gun control,  and progressives are obviously going to be for it.  I think the one thing we can all agree on is that whatever our personal opinion is on it, we are right, and anyone who disagrees with us is crazy.  Since debating with crazy people is a waste of time, the logical thing to do is to drop the subject and go find some cheap stocks. 

[ubuy2wron]

Are we asking the right question?  What if the crazy person had thrown a big Molotov Cocktail  into a crowded room?  Would we be talking about banning gasoline?  Shouldn't we be talking instead about why it is so difficult to get psychotic and potentially violent people into secure, involuntary custodial care before they do something terrible, not afterward?

 

This is a specious argument.  The fact is that gasoline is more readily available than guns, yet lunatics don't throw Molotov cocktails into crowded rooms.  It just doesn't happen.  There is something different about guns.  The perpetrator is confronting his targets directly and can be the superman.  (I'm just guessing that some type of power-play is the basic reason why guns are the weapon of choice.  I'm sure someone has looked into this carefully so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear.)

 

The thought of involuntary custodial care for people who are diagnosed as psychotic but have yet to act violently or break the law is absolutely terrifying to me.  You cannot prove someone is psychotic or "potentially" violent.  I would completely agree with you if there was some way of actually making that call, but I don't believe there is.

 

Yeah you can to the extent of getting guardianship of an older child, even an adult child who is psychotic or non compos mentos.  There are established court procedures for doing this without violating civil rights, One Flew Over The Coo Coo's Nest notwithstanding.  The problem is that a guardian can't get permanent custodial care in a secure place  for a crazy family member.

There are serious thugs in bad areas close to everyone living anywhere on this planet. The prevelance of guns is part of  the problem of the constant state of low level fear that many live with on a daily basis. The thugs are afraid as well by the way. The globe and mail published some stats on prevelance of guns on a state by state basis and gun violence. More guns seem to be directly  related to more gun related violence.