world

5 Colorado deputies shot, 1 fatally, in 'ambush' attack

60 Comments
By COLLEEN SLEVIN and ELLIOT SPAGAT

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


60 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

It is more evidence of the gun cancer we are all having to live with because of the tragic misinterpretation of the long-obsolete Second Amendment.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

While it goes without saying that it is tragic that the officer lost his life and the others were injured, it has to be expressed or you will be viewed as a heartless person. It also has to be said in order to set up the emotional atmosphere in which some will then claim "it isn't the right time to talk about gun control" or state, "don't politicize this tragedy."

And the cycle of violence continues.

Happy New Year.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Expect many thousands more dead this year due to the gun sickness.

A tragic and terrifying start to 2018.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I wish those families peace. This is going to be horrific for them.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

What a country, America first eh. First at what? Being one of the most dangerous hellholes in the world?

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

It sucked this morning when I woke up and instead of having a nice New Years Eve morning this was on the local news when I was expecting specials about New Years celebration info from other countries.

Not a very good day in Colorado close to the start of the new year....

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This killing of People has to stop!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

First at many things, Harry.

dangerous hellholes are places where sharpshooters have to be placed on rooftops, and women forced into "women-only" blocks just to enjoy a terror-free New Years Eve celebration.

Sound familiar?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

dangerous hellholes are

are relevant to each individual.

places where sharpshooters have to be placed on rooftops, and women forced into "women-only" blocks just to enjoy a terror-free New Years Eve celebration.

Prisons? Undoubtedly, prisons qualify as "hellholes," and certainly dangerous.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Expect many thousands more dead this year due to the gun sickness. 

A tragic and terrifying start to 2018

I hope that this year they will look into the mental issues surrounding certain people that should never, ever own a firearm.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

I hope that this year they will look into the mental issues surrounding certain people that should never, ever own a firearm.

It's not just a mental health issue, It's and access issue. One shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm simply because it's their birthday. Criminals shouldn't have such ready access to the sea of legal firearms in the US.

Fewer firearms = fewer deaths by firearms.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I hope that this year they will look into the mental issues surrounding certain people that should never, ever own a firearm

That would be easier if the Republicans hadn’t cut spending on mental health issues.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Criminals shouldn't have such ready access to the sea of legal firearms in the US.

@Tommy Jones, they don't have legal access, that's why they're criminals. It's still a felony with mandatory time if a known criminal has a firearm in their possession. The majority of guns they get are stolen or sold to them through criminal channels.

The issue is the people that are not registered as felons or ex-cons, deciding that because they got fired, or don't like the haircut the barber gave their child (look that one up...), or think that having a gun can "protect" themselves better then brandish the weapon for the dumbest reasons, or accidentaly leave it on the table and their child decides they can "play" with it.

That would be easier if the Republicans hadn’t cut spending on mental health issues.

What else can you expect from a profit over people government?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Tommy Jones, they don't have legal access, that's why they're criminals.

You're misquoting him. He didn't say legal access, he said access to legal guns. With guns readily available within a few hours drive of anywhere in the US, it's ridiculous to think that criminals wouldn't try to get them simply because they're not supposed to.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

With guns readily available within a few hours drive of anywhere in the US, it's ridiculous to think that criminals wouldn't try to get them simply because they're not supposed to.

And if statistics show that tougher gun laws do nothing, whats your wonderful suggestion?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

And if statistics show that tougher gun laws do nothing, whats your wonderful suggestion?

We need to try stiffer, uniform gun laws before coming up with another "wonderful suggestion." Without universal laws, one need only to drive to Texas, Arizona, or some other place with lax laws.

It's still a felony with mandatory time if a known criminal has a firearm in their possession.

Depends on the crime for which one is convicted.

@Tommy Jones, they don't have legalaccess, that's why they're criminals.

Stranger handled this one. Thanks, Stranger.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

And if statistics show that tougher gun laws do nothing, whats your wonderful suggestion?

There is no 'if' about it. Look at Japan - extreme opposite of America when it comes to guns, and as a result, there is nearly no gun violence in Japan.

My suggestion is to implement gun laws like Japan.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

There is no 'if' about it. Look at Japan - extreme opposite of America when it comes to guns, and as a result, there is nearly no gun violence in Japan.

My suggestion is to implement gun laws like Japan

So suspend all reality about 2 completely different countries and 2 completely different cultures. Then implement a no gun policy that work so well in cities like Chicago.

Oh. wait a minute. Don't do that. That proved to be incredibly disastrous.

Do you have a plan B?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Strangeland, don't forget the UK, the UK has very stringent gun laws as well!, and there are very few gun related crimes here, the ones that do pop up from time to time are criminals using illegally owned guns, the legally owned guns ( that are locked up) the last shooting was 10-15 years ago! Ted Newsagent who is an ardent fan of the NRA in the US has this philosophy of "More guns ,more protection" how much further from the truth can he be? as for trying to alter the gun laws in the USA I think that the cancer has deeply imbedded its self now in this gun culture, you will have no chance of altering it, the only thing that will change this misperception is to alter the countries populous attitude towards guns.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I hope that this year they will look into the mental issues surrounding certain people that should never, ever own a firearm.

That's something you hope only so long as it can serve as a diversion from discussion of the dangers of allowing people in general to own firearms on the easiest possible terms. If it were to be pointed out that you yourself are just the kind of person others wouldn't trust with a water pistol, you might not be so keen on the idea of linking ownership to mental health.

In short, you don't support gun control as a safety measure, you bring up mental health as a way of making widespread ownership of all kinds of guns, and the consequent carnage, someone else's problem.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

 Brian Wheway - Sorry, but your analysis is factually wrong;

The gun bans in Australia and Britain also didn't work. Australia and Britain are both hailed by the Left as evidence that gun control works. However, the facts tell a different story.

Two studies – a 2007 British Journal of Criminology study and a 2008 University of Melbourne study – concluded that Australia's temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings.

"Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback," wrote Lott. "It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback." 

"Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts," Lott continued. "In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership – there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased."

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

con't:

In Britain's case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban.

Additionally, there was an 89 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.

A closer look at the actual facts show that the Left's favorite examples of Britain and Australia are actually examples of how gun control doesn't work.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

they don't have legal access, that's why they're criminals.

Nope. Most gun crime in America is inflicted by those legally entitled to firearms. All this talk of more stringent mental or legal checks flies straight into the face of Repub legislation. A cop is dead, and the Repubs own it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

A cop is dead, and the Repubs own it.

Then how do you explain the fact that police officers killed in the line of duty are down to a 50-year low during President Trump's 1st year in office?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/28/number-officers-killed-2017-hits-nearly-50-year-low/984477001/

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

How do those afflicted with gun sickness handle living in Japan? That's what confuses me.

Ill go out on a limb and assume that insult is directed at me, but I'll indulge you.

Hate guns. Never fired one in my life.

But I imagine it's incredibly hard getting good psychological counseling here compared to the west. It always confused me why those who suffer from it reside in a country so lacking..

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Nope. Most gun crime in America is inflicted by those legally entitled to firearms.

Sorry, Laguna. Factually wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.ea72f3a1d7fa

About 80% of all gun crimes in the US are committed by those with illegal possession of a firearm

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Clam:

Your info is dated:

"In 2011, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, co-authored a paper that reviewed the available studies, as of 2011, on the effect of Australia’s buyback program on firearm deaths. He wrote that “many studies … found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.”

Hemenway and his Harvard colleague and co-author, Mary Vriniotis, summarized the evidence in support of the theory that the buyback program saved lives:

“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”

“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”

“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”

“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write.

“Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA — the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide,” the authors write."

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

A closer look at the actual facts show that the Left's favorite example of Australia is actually an example of how gun control works quite well.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

sorry, Tommy Jones- but the study you cite has no conclusion as to why numbers may or may not have have gone down. Not good enough. As Van Jones would say; "A big nothing burger"

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

sorry, Tommy Jones- but the study you cite has no conclusion as to why numbers may or may not have have gone down. Not good enough

Okay. This seems like a bit of a conclusion, while not the crystal clear assertion you are looking for:

“Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA — the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide,” the authors write."

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It is not a conclusion. They simply threw up there hands and said; "Well, hell. At least the numbers seem to be going down"

Nothing burger.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

and interesting that my Washington Post- backed evidence was actually downvoted because it didn't jive with the false liberal narrative.

Interesting, indeed..

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

there="their" hands before you get all excited...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I think that the cancer has deeply imbedded its self now in this gun culture, 

I think cancer is the wrong word. It’s more like a vice for me. To take one example, some alcoholics don’t accept they have a problem but others can see it clearly.

Until people fall out of love with these filthy devices, as alcoholics must face their problem, people will suffer.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Jimizo - look up about 2 posts. Ditto.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I hope that this year they will look into the mental issues surrounding certain people that should never, ever own a firearm. another quote from the Trumpotology cult guidebook.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

While I have nothing but sympathy for the families of the dead, it's awful fortunate for the fans of authoritarian police and overly armed society that this story comes so fresh on the heels of the swatting story, otherwise people might stop to contemplate how America is so ready for mass violence that police can be pranked into murdering innocent civilians.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You know the killer’s ethnicity when you see the way he is painted through the media. They didn’t hesitate to brandish the mental illness card. Guns in America is an institutional problem.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is more evidence of the gun cancer

@CrazyJoe - Hyperbole.

Expect many thousands more dead this year due to the gun sickness.

@Toasted Heretic - So what? The USA has thousands of deaths caused by other products and activities that are used for purely for recreation. If the only acceptable cost to be able to own a product, engage in a behavior, or enjoy a hobby is zero dead or wounded we are all going to live very boring lives.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Additionally, there was an 89 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.

In Japan? There is a gun ban in Japan that seems to work well.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If the only acceptable cost to be able to own a product, engage in a behavior, or enjoy a hobby is zero dead or wounded we are all going to live very boring lives.

A world without guns is hardly boring.

Guns are entirely useless.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If the only acceptable cost to be able to own a product, engage in a behavior, or enjoy a hobby is zero dead or wounded we are all going to live very boring lives.

The freedom to be able to attend school, go shopping, enjoy a music concert, etc., without having to worry about getting shot at along wth dozens of others, is a very good kind of boring.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

While gun banners make it clear that they are claiming that they are trying to end gun violence, they aren't addressing the underlying problem of physical violence. Especially physical violence committed by the lunatic, or monster, who chose to ambush, and murder, police officers simply because they are police officers. Maybe these lunatics will chose to use bombs, or trucks, or airplanes to make their next kill. Ending gun ownership seems to be the goal, because the monsters, and lunatics, will still find other ways to murder people.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

If the only acceptable cost to be able to own a product, engage in a behavior, or enjoy a hobby is zero dead or wounded we are all going to live very boring lives.

I'm sure the victims of the Vegas massacre and other horrors would have preferred a bit more boring and a bit less excitement when the shots started firing.

I'm thankful to live in Japan where gun crime is rare.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A world without guns is hardly boring. Guns are entirely useless.

@Strangerland - A world without any one product by itself is hardly boring. No guns are not entirely useless, clearly people have found a recreational usage for firearms based off of all the gun clubs around world not to mention the hundreds of millions of people around the world who use firearms for recreation and never harm anyone much less themselves with them. Heck even the Japanese allow for the recreational ownership and usage of firearms.

So what is your point? That a one hundredth of one percent chance annually of dying and a two hundredths of one percent chance of being injured is to high in general to allow 32-50% of a population to own a product for recreation?

The freedom to be able to attend school, go shopping, enjoy a music concert, etc., without having to worry about getting shot at along wth dozens of others, is a very good kind of boring.

@Cleo - There is that irrational fear again of Cleo's, let me guess you are going to claim you are being sarcastic. All those locations you listed contain risk of being injured or killed by something other than a firearm. So what is your point? That a three hundredths of one percent risk annually of being killed or injured by a product that is owned by 32-50% of population is to high? If so I can't agree, in fact I would argue that person has an irrational fear.

I'm sure the victims of the Vegas massacre and other horrors would have preferred a bit more boring and a bit less excitement when the shots started firing.

@Toasted Heretic - And I'm sure all the victims of intoxicated people, especially drunk drivers, would have preferred a bit more boring and a bit less excitement when they were assaulted by an intoxicated person or hit by a drunk driver. I'm sure all the parents of children who have choked to death on game pieces for a board game would have preferred a bit more boring and less exciting board game. I'm sure all the people who are severely injured while playing a sport would have preferred a bit more boring and a bit less exciting game. etc. etc. etc.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is not a single product or hobby or recreation that you engage in that either directly or indirectly has never ever killed or seriously injured anyone?

I'm thankful to live in Japan where gun crime is rare.

And I'm thankful to live in America where the combined homicide and suicide rate is lower than the suicide rate of Japan.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

A world without any one product by itself is hardly boring.

Ok, so we don't need guns.

No guns are not entirely useless

Well they are useful for killing. But killing is a useless endeavor in this world. So the only use guns have is not one that we should accept in our world.

clearly people have found a recreational usage for firearms based off of all the gun clubs around world

Yeah, they are practicing killing. Wannabe murderers. Basically worthless members of society.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And I'm thankful to live in America where the combined homicide and suicide rate is lower than the suicide rate of Japan.

Um, no.

2016 USA suicide rate: 13.5/100,000 people

2016 USA homicide rate: 5.3/100,000 people

2016 combined rate: 18.8/100,000 people.

2016 Japan suicide rate: 17.3/100,000 people.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Ok, so we don't need guns.

@Strangerland - Unless you are claiming that people should be prohibited from owning all wants and should only be allowed to own the most basic needs purely for surival(Shelter, fire, water and very basic food), what is your point?

Well they are useful for killing. But killing is a useless endeavor in this world. So the only use guns have is not one that we should accept in our world.

Nope, not a true statement. The hundreds of millions of gun owners around the world who use it for reasons other than killing prove otherwise.

Yeah, they are practicing killing. Wannabe murderers. Basically worthless members of society.

Lets say what you are saying is true, what is the conversion rate? What percent of those who own firearms will go on to kill anyone, attempt to kill anyone, much less themselves on an annual basis? Would you say it is less than 1% per year?

For example It is estimated that there are anywhere between 70-100 million gun owners in the USA. There is around 11-13,000 gun homicides each year in the USA. So 13k divided by 70 million gives you a per capita rate of ~18.57 per 100,000, another way of putting it just under two hundredths of one percent of gun owners will actually murder anyone annually.

For all your bluster about how those who enjoy target shooting are just wannabe murders waiting to strike a two hundredths of one percent seems way to low to be considered an effective means of converting people to actually go out and murder people.

Quite frankly you are just being lazy, you are conflating that if someone enjoys a hobby and that because that hobby could also increase someones ability/proficiency to murder or assault someone that the motive behind why they enjoy the hobby is because they want to hurt someone maliciously. That is obviously not true.

For example people who enjoy martial arts, by your logic are really just people who want to go out and beat people up. People who enjoy fencing are really just people in the shadows who are just waiting to stab you with a blade, right Strangerland? People who enjoy archery are just people waiting in the shadows to shoot you with an arrow, right Strangerland?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Strangerland - Unless you are claiming that people should be prohibited from owning all wants and should only be allowed to own the most basic needs purely for surival(Shelter, fire, water and very basic food), what is your point?

I'm not claiming that. Only that guns should be prohibited as they are killing machines, that the general public has no need to own.

Nope, not a true statement. The hundreds of millions of gun owners around the world who use it for reasons other than killing prove otherwise.

Wrong. They are all practicing killing.

another way of putting it just under two hundredths of one percent of gun owners will actually murder anyone annually.

Two hundredths of a percent more than should be able to.

Lets say what you are saying is true, what is the conversion rate?

You mean other than irrelevant? Seeing as guns are tools for murder, any conversion rate above zero is anti-societal.

you are conflating that if someone enjoys a hobby and that because that hobby could also increase someones ability/proficiency to murder or assault someone that the motive behind why they enjoy the hobby is because they want to hurt someone maliciously.

They are practicing murder. Therefore useless members of society.

Sorry to point out to the whole world that you are wrong, right here in public, but you can try to pretend guns are something other than killing machines all you want, the rest of us aren't stupid enough to fall for that though.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm not claiming that. Only that guns should be prohibited as they are killing machines, that the general public has no need to own.

@Strangerland - I can't say that I believe you. I have debated so many times with people who basically claim that you don't need xyz therefore you shouldn't be allowed to own or use xyz. Well unless that person is claiming that all wants should be prohibited and people should only be allowed to own needs then there is really no point to the whole "well you don't need xyz" statement.

Wrong. They are all practicing killing.

Prove it. Literally over 99.9% of gun owners in the USA don't murder anyone on an annual basis in the USA. Prove through peer review studies that show that even a simple majority of gun owners when they target shoot the motive is because they want to kill people. Are you claiming that all of the Japanese tourists when they go to a gun range their motive is because they want to kill people? How about tourists from other countries like Australia are they going to american gun ranges so they can practice killing?

Two hundredths of a percent more than should be able to.

So grandstanding is your argument.

Seeing as guns are tools for murder, any conversion rate above zero is anti-societal.

To you they are but to hundreds of millions of people around the world they are not just tools for murder.

They are practicing murder.

Sorry they are not, once again you are just being lazy. You are conflating that if someone enjoys a hobby and because that hobby could also increase someone's ability/proficiency to murder or assault someone that the motive behind why the enjoy the hobby is because they want to hurt someone maliciously.

Again are you claiming that all people, or just a simple majority of those who practice martial arts are people who want to beat other people up? Are you claiming that those enjoy the sport of fencing are really just people who want to go around and stab other people maliciously? Are you claiming that people who enjoy archery are really just people who want to shoot other people with arrows maliciously? If the answer is no to the above then why should gun owners be any different?

Sorry to point out to the whole world that you are wrong, right here in public, but you can try to pretend guns are something other than killing machines all you want, the rest of us aren't stupid enough to fall for that though.

Unless you have a peer review study that shows that a simple majority of gun owners own firearms so that one day they can maliciously murder someone then you are just simply lying about the motivations behind why the vast majority of gun owners own firearms.

Do you disagree with the following statistic:

Over 99% of gun owners in the USA don't kill anyone much less themselves on an annual basis.

Is the above statement a statistical fact or a lie?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Strangerland - I can't say that I believe you. I have debated so many times with people who basically claim that you don't need xyz therefore you shouldn't be allowed to own or use xyz.

Good for you, and good for those people.

Guns need to be banned. Period.

Wrong. They are all practicing killing.

Prove it. Literally over 99.9% of gun owners in the USA don't murder anyone on an annual basis in the USA.

Good for them. That doesn't change the fact that they are practicing killing.

So grandstanding is your argument.

Nope. Just pointing out an argument you don't like to hear, because there is no argument against it, as shown by your lack of an argument against it.

To you they are but to hundreds of millions of people around the world they are not just tools for murder.

Correction, hundreds of millions of people pretend that they are using guns as something other than tools for murder.

Unless you have a peer review study that shows that a simple majority of gun owners own firearms so that one day they can maliciously murder someone then you are just simply lying about the motivations behind why the vast majority of gun owners own firearms.

A lie is a mistruth spoken with intent to deceive. I'm simply pointing out the truth. You don't like it.

Sorry, but all your arguments fail, because there is one point that they cannot counter:

Guns are made to kill. Guns kill. Guns are anti-societal and have no place in a modern society (which is why they are still allowed in the US).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

All those locations you listed contain risk of being injured or killed by something other than a firearm

Then adding the danger of being shot by a criminal/looney/someone in a bad mood/someone afraid of strangers is surely irrational.

I would argue that person has an irrational fear

Would you argue that each year tens of thousands of families in the US hold irrational funerals?

You have yet to prove that target shooting means the motivation is because they want to kill people.

If the aim is sincerely target shooting, they could use BB guns or paint guns or even water pistols. It's the thrill of shooting real bullets that they get off on, that makes them want lethal weapons.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The US as a society has developed an unhealthy gun culture mentality. The NRA and it's supporters amplify that sadly. It's how people believe that owning a firearm on their person will "make" them "safer" from harm.

Guns need to be banned. Period.

Uh, I would like to go hunting for deer, elk, duck, etc... and I'm not going to be using a bow. I don't see any reason for open carry or conceal carry by a citizen who is not active duty law enforcement or military personnel. Home defense, and farmers with livestock they are protecting I can find acceptable.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cops have the hardest job in America, and folks wonder why they are on edge at all times.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Good for you, and good for those people.

Guns need to be banned. Period.

@Strangerland - Yes it is good for me and good for those people. Otherwise everything that people do for fun would be banned. No guns don't need to be banned, heck even the UK, Australia and Japan agree that guns don't need to be banned.

Good for them. That doesn't change the fact that they are practicing killing

@Strangerland - Prove it.

Again all your doing is just being lazy by conflating that if a hobby improves the proficiency of someone to be able to murder or assault someone that it means the motive behind why they enjoy that hobby is because they want to maliciously murder or assault people.

Nope. Just pointing out an argument you don't like to hear, because there is no argument against it, as shown by your lack of an argument against it.

@Strangerland - Of course it is grandstanding, in order for it to be not be grandstanding you have to be claiming that you don't own any products or engage in any activities that either directly or indirectly don't increase other people's risk, much less your own, from injury or death. Which we both know isn't true, and not only do we know it isn't true we also both know that you don't consciously make sure that every single decision or action that you take every single day isn't minimizing the risk to yourself or other people from injury or death to its absolute fullest.

Correction, hundreds of millions of people pretend that they are using guns as something other than tools for murder.

@Strangerland - Statistics prove your conjecture to be false.

A lie is a mistruth spoken with intent to deceive. I'm simply pointing out the truth. You don't like it.

@Strangerland - No you are not pointing out any truths, what you are doing is speaking in conjecture that is based off of lazy conflation and small mindedness.

Sorry, but all your arguments fail, because there is one point that they cannot counter:

Guns are made to kill. Guns kill. Guns are anti-societal and have no place in a modern society (which is why they are still allowed in the US).

@Strangerland - I don't have to change the fact that guns were originally designed to kill nor do I have to refute that. All I have to do is show that there are other non-killing uses for firearms and that people use them for those other non-killing uses. I can show you right now hundreds of millions of people around the world use firearms and don't murder nor assault anyone on an annual basis. I can show you right now that literally over 99.9% of gun owners in the USA don't kill or assault anyone on an annual basis.

Then adding the danger of being shot by a criminal/looney/someone in a bad mood/someone afraid of strangers is surely irrational.

@Cleo - How much is the added danger? is one hundredth of one percent? Is it one percent? I would say if it is like 1% increase annually I would say it is irrational. If the only acceptable increase in risk for people to own anything is zero then we are all going to live very boring lives.

Would you argue that each year tens of thousands of families in the US hold irrational funerals?

@Cleo - Absolutely YES! Just like I would argue those that are afraid to get into cars because of the fear of being injured or killed by a car is irrational or those that refuse to get on Airplanes are being irrational. Heck I would say that those that refuse to engage in casual sex because they are afraid of getting HIV even though they have condoms are irrational as well. I would say that those who refuse to drink Alcohol solely because they are afraid of the two hundredths of one percent increase in risk of being killed because of their or someone else's intoxication is irrational.

If the aim is sincerely target shooting, they could use BB guns or paint guns or even water pistols. It's the thrill of shooting real bullets that they get off on, that makes them want lethal weapons.

@Cleo - Yes it is the thrill of using the real thing that they get off on, nothing wrong with wanting to use the real thing for recreational target shooting.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Need to make a correction, it should be the below:

@Strangerland - Of course it is grandstanding, in order for it to be not be grandstanding you have to be claiming that you don't own any products or engage in any activities that either directly or indirectly increase other people's risk, much less your own, from injury or death.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Would you argue that each year tens of thousands of families in the US hold irrational funerals?

@Cleo - Absolutely YES! 

You've gone right over the top and fallen out of the pot.

Let's take just the families of those killed in the recent Las Vegas shooting. You're saying the families of the 58 dead were irrational to hold funerals? They should ignore the deaths? Because the chance of dying at an open-air concert at the hands of a gun-totin mass murderer is (in your mind) slightly less than the chance of dying in some other, totally avoidable, way? They should just shrug their shoulders and move on?

Apparently 20 to 30 people die each year from dog bites in the US. Far, far less than the number who die from gunshots. I'm a diehard dog lover, no one in their right mind would call me 'irrationally afraid' of dogs, yet I would not walk up to a strange dog and attempt to pet it without the owner's permission. It might be a biter.

The chance of being shot and killed in America is way, way higher than the possibility of being attacked and killed by a pet dog. Being afraid of getting shot by a looney with a gun (the pro-gun people keep telling us, it isn't the guns, it's the mentally-ill people, who apparently inhabit the US in much greater numbers than they do any other developed country) is not irrational. It's the desire to own and use lethal weapons that is irrational. Totally irrational.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Strangerland - Prove it.

They are shooting guns. Guns are made to kill. They are practicing to kill. Proved.

in order for it to be not be grandstanding you have to be claiming that you don't own any products or engage in any activities that either directly or indirectly increase other people's risk, much less your own, from injury or death.

The difference being that the products and activities I engage in have some benefit to society, and their primary goal is not anti-societal. Guns provide no benefit to society, and their primary goal is anti-societal.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Let's take just the families of those killed in the recent Las Vegas shooting. You're saying the families of the 58 dead were irrational to hold funerals? They should ignore the deaths? Because the chance of dying at an open-air concert at the hands of a gun-totin mass murderer is (in your mind) slightly less than the chance of dying in some other, totally avoidable, way? They should just shrug their shoulders and move on?

@Cleo - No one is irrational to hold a funeral for someone who has recently died, I took your statement of "irrational funeral" as a euphemism to mean irrational fear. Which I stand by and the answer to your question is yes, if they can tolerate the other causes of death that have a higher risk of causing injury and or death, then yes they should tolerate this death. If they can't they need to come up with practical reasons for why a person killed by a gun is worth more or is more important than people who die from other causes of death to such an extent that they want resources to be diverted to the point where that diversion of resources gets more people killed then the amount of lives saved by going after gun deaths.

I'm a diehard dog lover, no one in their right mind would call me 'irrationally afraid' of dogs, yet I would not walk up to a strange dog and attempt to pet it without the owner's permission. It might be a biter.

@Cleo - That is not the same as never approaching a strange dog. If you were to say you would never ever approach a strange dog under any circumstances that would be an irrational fear.

The chance of being shot and killed in America is way, way higher than the possibility of being attacked and killed by a pet dog.

@Cleo - Relatively yes but then again the odds of being shot and killed in the USA on an annual basis is one hundredth of one percent. Either you believe a one hundredth of one percent chance of being killed in general is too high to own a product for recreation and or enjoy a hobby or you don't. I would argue that those who claim a one hundredth of one percent chance of being killed by something that 32-50% of the adult population owns is too high of a risk are being irrational.

They are shooting guns. Guns are made to kill. They are practicing to kill. Proved.

@Strangerland - Nope you haven't proved it. Again all you are doing is lazy conflation and being small minded. You are conflating that if a product is designed to do X that everyone who owns and uses that product must mean that the motive behind the ownership and usage is always X. Again products have multiple uses outside of what they were originally designed for, guns are no exception. Denying that is just small mindedness on your part.

Are you claiming that Japanese tourists who go to gun ranges in Hawaii or in Las Vegas are there so they can practice killing? If you are then I don't agree with that.

The difference being that the products and activities I engage in have some benefit to society, and their primary goal is not anti-societal. Guns provide no benefit to society, and their primary goal is anti-societal.

@Strangerland - Facts say other wise, civilian ownership of firearms provides jobs in manufacturing, retail, and gun ranges. They generate tax revenue for the government and at the same time provide a relatively safe hobby for people to enjoy and they provide opportunities for people to socialize, especially at gun ranges.

Target shooting also offers a sport that people with physical disabilities can directly compete against people that don't have such disabilities. There are not exactly a lot of sports that allow people with disabilities to directly compete against those that don't have disabilities.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I took your statement of "irrational funeral" as a euphemism to mean irrational fear. Which I stand by

So you give a perfectly straightforward expression a weird twist that totally changes the meaning to what you want it to mean, then say you 'stand by' it? Do you often argue against yourself when you cannot answer the arguments of others?

they need to come up with practical reasons for why a person killed by a gun is worth more

Again, you're making up meaningless arguments. Would you suggest that a person who is upset because a loved one was killed by a gunman at an open-air concert is perfectly happy with (e.g.) drunk-driving, second-hand smoke and all the other ways which some folk find to have an adverse effect on the lives of others? It is possible to be against more than one means of killing, you know.

That is not the same as never approaching a strange dog.

Mmm, yes it is. Only a fool approaches a strange dog expecting it to react in the same way as their own sweet puppy.

If you were to say you would never ever approach a strange dog under any circumstances that would be an irrational fear.

'Under any circumstances' covers a myriad of scenarios. In the normal run of things, yes, never approach a strange dog. In real life, there might be a need to approach, e.g. to help a dog trapped in flood waters, or injured, or abandoned in a natural disaster. Care is still needed.

a one hundredth of one percent chance of being killed by something that 32-50% of the adult population owns is too high of a risk

In civilised countries that '32-50% of the adult population' is 'next to nobody, and even then strictly regulated'. And that 'one hundredth of one percent' is ten times higher than the chance of being shot dead in Australia: nearly three times higher than in Finland, which has the second-highest rate among high-income countries: 51 times higher than in the UK: and no comparison at all with Japan and South Korea, where the gun-death rate is zero. It don't look so 'irrational' when you see that the chance of being shot dead in one country is incomparably higher than in another.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This thread is now closed for discussion.


Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites