Columbus shooter.

[Tonik]

Tough call which forum to put this in. Politics or Firearms. Either way this one has a happy ending. Dude in allegedly crime free Columbus got kidnapped at gunpoint. He blew the asshat away. I hate asshats.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2014/04/man_forced_at_gunpoint_to_driv.html#incart_river_default

 

[mattm]

I hate gun wielding 8 year olds.  

 

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/ohio-8-year-old-boy-fatally-shot-brother

 

I actually don't dislike guns, I just want gun owners to be responsible because I grew up around weapons and don't remember this level of carnage.  My definition of responsible includes fiscal responsibility.  If a gun owner's child gets a gun from their parents, then I expect the parents to be financially responsible for the outcome if their child shoots my child, relative or anybody else's child or relative. That is my only argument on this.  I believe that the CDC should be able to investigate the impact of gun ownership in the household.  Insurance companies already include particular dog breeds in a list of households they will not insure due to the elevated risk.  If gun ownership is as safe as everyone on this backwater of the internet seems to think it is, then there will be no statistical reason for the underwriters to be concerned.  

Edited April 27, 2014 by mattm

[vf1000ride]

For the OP's story.   Boom, badguy gets just deserts.  Nothing better than hearing a CCW holder vindicated for reducing the number of violent asshats on the planet.

 

 

For Mattm, not totally sure how to reply to your post.  You claim to not be anti-gun but the rest of it sounds as if you are or at the very least misinformed about the issue.  You compare gun ownership to owning dogs.  When was the last time a handgun jumped a fence and mauled a child.  Never.  Having a gun in the house does not automatically make that household less safe.  I have two firearms in my house that have been fully loaded with ammo in the chamber.  They have sat in this condition for emergency use for almost 7 years now and there has never been an elevated risk to anybody that has ever been welcome in my home.  The problem with the logic I seen in your post is that you are blaming the shortcomings of "people" with the damages that a gun creates in the hands of said "people".  In this reality (as far as i know) when an inanimate object like a firearm is used, it always takes a person to commit a crime against another person.  Why is the firearm now given a face and called a criminal as if it had a choice or a say in the actions of the person holding it.

 

A child, tween, teen, adult, psycho, depressed, enraged, moron with no respect for another humans life will find a way to harm another person with no regards to the tools they are provided.  It could be a knife, a rope, a baseball bat, skateboard or a firearm and it would not stop them.  A child, tween, teen, adult, psycho, depressed, enraged, moron with no understanding of the consequences of their actions may harm another person with no regards to the tool they use due to the fact that they have never been taught better. 

 

If all of you concerned citizens really want to prevent crime and reduce the violence in society, how about you turn to your children and teach them not to be criminals.  Take your head out of your ass and teach this generation what not to do.  Stop looking towards the government to pass the end all law that will force criminals to obey the system and do something proactive like raise less children to be criminals.  I bet since they are old enough to stand you teach your kids that knives are dangerous, why have you ignored guns.  If you teach them about dangerous things in their lives like sharp objects, poison, tripping hazards, deadly animals, why would you leave something out as important as firearms.  The current crop that has reached their teen years is probably already lost.  Turn to the young ones that you have a chance of fixing, and teach them not to be purse snatching, carjacking, child shooting prison fodder and maybe the issue of gun control will be turned into an issue of criminal control.

 

 

 

 

[Strictly Street]

I hate gun wielding 8 year olds.  

 

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/ohio-8-year-old-boy-fatally-shot-brother

 

I actually don't dislike guns, I just want gun owners to be responsible because I grew up around weapons and don't remember this level of carnage.  My definition of responsible includes fiscal responsibility.  If a gun owner's child gets a gun from their parents, then I expect the parents to be financially responsible for the outcome if their child shoots my child, relative or anybody else's child or relative. That is my only argument on this.  I believe that the CDC should be able to investigate the impact of gun ownership in the household.  Insurance companies already include particular dog breeds in a list of households they will not insure due to the elevated risk.  If gun ownership is as safe as everyone on this backwater of the internet seems to think it is, then there will be no statistical reason for the underwriters to be concerned.  

 

Sounds like a good idea, but...

 

The political availability of insurance companies to be manipulated by special interests in the government is not to be discounted. By this I mean sudden insurance increases that make gun ownership so expensive as to be impossible, legally. This of course would be accompanied by "Common Sense" laws to have all firearms insured.

 

Once you start down that slope the ending seems pretty obvious.

 

Edit:

Come to think of it I'm pretty sure you are liable for your kid shooting another kid already. If not criminally I'm pretty sure you can be sued in civil court for it. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure there would be criminal charges as well as a civil action should you be unfortunate enough to have this kind of thing happen to you.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Strictly Street

[Tonik]

Personally, I would rather we address the issue of backyard pools first. They kill FAR more children than guns. CDC already did a study on that, so we are good to go.

[oldschoolsdime92]

Lol@tonik!!! Made my day!!

[BadTrainDriver]

Personally, I would rather we address the issue of backyard pools first. They kill FAR more children than guns. CDC already did a study on that, so we are good to go.

 

I'd be willing to be trampolines do too.

[Tonik]

Nah..they fixed those with fishing nets. Now, instead of hitting the dirt and gettin a goose egg on your head, you get wrapped up in fishing net and dislocate your arm.

 

 

Ahh yes, those pesky untended consequences.

[mattm]

Personally, I would rather we address the issue of backyard pools first. They kill FAR more children than guns. CDC already did a study on that, so we are good to go.

People with pools are already assessed as a higher risk just like teenagers with corvettes, homes with Rottweilers etc etc.

[Tonik]

People with pools are already assessed as a higher risk just like teenagers with corvettes, homes with Rottweilers etc etc.

So it's ok to drown kids as long as you have the proper insurance? That's pretty retarded even by internet message board standards.

[mattm]

Not at all what I said but good for you for knocking down that strawman. I am just pointing out cases that are allowed to be researched that resulted in actuarial table changes. One of the items we have been discussing is specifically called out and any research is disallowed. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers the Rottweiler example. Why are guns different? If we allow a discount for a locked gun safe in the home, why should guns be different as far as research?

I fully support responsible gun owners, I am very tired of those that are not responsible and can hide behind the lack a research on the topic and the 2nd amendment. I happen to believe that too many 5 year olds are shooting people today compared to my childhood where it appeared as though guns were more prevalent. Too many ex cops or military "didn't know the gun was loaded." My upbringing says that that is not a valid excuse. I just want the responsibility placed on the parties that cannot secure their weapons and I am not satisfied with state minimum insurance coverage because we cannot appropriately asses the risk.

Nothing radical here. Unlike your statement about drowning.

[vf1000ride]

So it's ok to drown kids as long as you have the proper insurance? That's pretty retarded even by internet message board standards.

I don't think that's the point he is trying to make.  He wants gun owners to pay extra insurance money to cover the cost of criminals and undereducated people that let their 8 year old kids play with loaded guns.  He is using the examples that pool owners paying extra insurance money due to the risk of injury, muscle car owners pay extra due to the increased cost of repairs and that owners of heathen devil Rotties pay extra because they scare people (never met a Rottie I didn't like).  Only make sense to have law abiding gun owns foot the bill for criminals.  Kinda funny because I figure we already do from all the asshats in prison that I support with my tax dollars.

 

 

Something that had me thinking after my first rant was about the concept of a gun being inherently bad.  If in some twisted corner of reality came to bear and the inanimate object that is a firearm could somehow infect it's owner and make a normal person more likely to commit a crime, be less responsible, or possibly do something to harm another with a firearm, I would be screwed.  I currently own over 20 guns, most of which are vintage military firearms.  I would assume many of them when still in military service have killed people.  Take this rifle for example.  Lee Enfield No1MkIII, manufactured in 1911.  Most likely saw service in WWI, WWII, and several other smaller battles Britain could have been involved with between 1911 and the late 1940's.

 

 

This gun could possible have a body count attached to it that may reach into the hundreds, who knows the full history it could tell.  Is this firearm somehow more evil than a brand new one that has never been fired?  Will owning and using this firearm somehow turn me into a criminal or a murderer?  Does owning a firearm that has very likely been used to kill in the past make me want to go knock over a convenience store? I would freaking think not!  At some point starting very early in my life, I had parents that gave a shit about my well being and my education and they taught me not to be a criminal.  I have no want to go to jail and make best friends with Bubba.  I keep my guns out of the hands of children, out of the hands of crazy people and I obey the laws already in place.  I do the job that a responsible gun owner should do and I resent the idea that I should have to pay money out of my pocket to support somebody less responsible.  Educate the misinformed and uninvolved, educate the youngsters, reduce the need for people to turn to crime.  These are the quick and successful ways to make guns safer.  Not taxing and forcing insurance policies to empty the pockets of the people who already have these upstanding attributes and value for life.

 

Edit;

MattM, you posted while I was typing.  I apologize if I have misconstrued your post as well, I will leave my original reply intact to promote discussion.

Edited April 29, 2014 by vf1000ride

[mattm]

I don't think that's the point he is trying to make. He wants gun owners to pay extra insurance money to cover the cost of criminals and undereducated people that let their 8 year old kids play with loaded guns. He is using the examples that pool owners paying extra insurance money due to the risk of injury, muscle car owners pay extra due to the increased cost of repairs and that owners of heathen devil Rotties pay extra because they scare people (never met a Rottie I didn't like). Only make sense to have law abiding gun owns foot the bill for criminals. Kinda funny because I figure we already do from all the asshats in prison that I support with my tax dollars.

Something that had me thinking after my first rant was about the concept of a gun being inherently bad. If in some twisted corner of reality came to bear and the inanimate object that is a firearm could somehow infect it's owner and make a normal person more likely to commit a crime, be less responsible, or possibly do something to harm another with a firearm, I would be screwed. I currently own over 20 guns, most of which are vintage military firearms. I would assume many of them when still in military service have killed people. Take this rifle for example. Lee Enfield No1MkIII, manufactured in 1911. Most likely saw service in WWI, WWII, and several other smaller battles Britain could have been involved with between 1911 and the late 1940's.

Edit:

mattm

You posted while I was typing. I apologize if you feel I misconstrued the intent of your post as well. I will leave my original reply for now for discussion purposes.

This gun could possible have a body count attached to it that may reach into the hundreds, who knows the full history it could tell. Is this firearm somehow more evil than a brand new one that has never been fired? Will owning and using this firearm somehow turn me into a criminal or a murderer? Does owning a firearm that has very likely been used to kill in the past make me want to go knock over a convenience store? I would freaking think not! At some point starting very early in my life, I had parents that gave a shit about my well being and my education and they taught me not to be a criminal. I have no want to go to jail and make best friends with Bubba. I keep my guns out of the hands of children, out of the hands of crazy people and I obey the laws already in place. I do the job that a responsible gun owner should do and I resent the idea that I should have to pay money out of my pocket to support somebody less responsible. Educate the misinformed and uninvolved, educate the youngsters, reduce the need for people to turn to crime. These are the quick and successful ways to make guns safer. Not taxing and forcing insurance policies to empty the pockets of the people who already have these upstanding attributes and value for life.

Edit;

MattM, you posted while I was typing. I apologize if I have misconstrued your post as well, I will leave my original reply intact to promote discussion.

People who don't own any weapons pay the same amount that you do. Whether you own 100 guns or 0 guns all of us pay insurance. What I find most interesting about your statement is that you assume that gun owners would pay more. If guns make you safer and it could be proven. Your rates should go down. Why does everybody assume rates would go up? Aren't we all responsible gun owners?

Nobody is saying that owning a gun makes you more likely to commit a crime. Some people are tired of seeing 3-8 year olds or ex-cops shoot shoot somebody with a weapon that nobody knew was loaded. That is unacceptable, and if one of my kids get shot or killed due to your negligence you can be sure that I will send every lawyer I can find in your direction.

Right now, gun owners effectively get a subsidy from the rest of the taxpayers who do not own guns. I am also ok with that reality. I am not ok with the lack of research into the reality of this situation. What are gun owners exempt from the actuarial tables?

Edited April 29, 2014 by mattm

[vf1000ride]

What I find most interesting about your statement is that you assume that gun owners would pay more. If guns make you safer and it could be proven. Your rates should go down.

 

When has anybodies rates ever gone down after a "Safety Study"?  I figure that once you get the government involved to waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars in studies and research.  The insurance companies spend hundred of millions in lobbying the government to get their way.  The price that every single person gets to pay out will increase a fair amount and the unsafe people that own guns will not be any safer than before the studies.  Everybody from the lawyers to congress to the research and insurance companies get rich but little Johny still gets shot because some uneducated buffoon left his gun unlocked and in reach.  All the bar graphs, pie charts and talking heads on CNN will not have saved a single persons life.   If we could take that 200 million dollars and put it into gun safety, education and reducing the criminal element, wouldn't that actually make the country safer?  You wouldn't need lawyers and insurance payouts and studies about how dangerous life can be if the event was prevented in the first place and the kid was still breathing. 

[Pokey]

I am just sick and tired of irresponsible people regardless of what they are irresponsible for. And I do not want the government to intervene by making more laws that cannot be enforced anyways, we have too many of those kind of laws already. People have always been the reason for fucking up everything, and I mean everything.

[mattm]

When has anybodies rates ever gone down after a "Safety Study"? I figure that once you get the government involved to waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars in studies and research. The insurance companies spend hundred of millions in lobbying the government to get their way. The price that every single person gets to pay out will increase a fair amount and the unsafe people that own guns will not be any safer than before the studies. Everybody from the lawyers to congress to the research and insurance companies get rich but little Johny still gets shot because some uneducated buffoon left his gun unlocked and in reach. All the bar graphs, pie charts and talking heads on CNN will not have saved a single persons life. If we could take that 200 million dollars and put it into gun safety, education and reducing the criminal element, wouldn't that actually make the country safer? You wouldn't need lawyers and insurance payouts and studies about how dangerous life can be if the event was prevented in the first place and the kid was still breathing.

If your kid is killed due to the direct negligence of a lifetime NRA member, what kind of compensation would you desire? Are you telling me that you would refuse a settlement? I know that if a child of mine is shot at school and some idiot didn't keep their gun and ammo under control, I will sue for every dollar that they have. I will include any dollar their relatives have as well. Unless these people have to pay for negligence how can we start to eliminate this.

Before you freak out, what kind of punishment do you expect from driving while using a cell phone or OVI? Why is a certain type of negligence more special than the others?

Edited April 29, 2014 by mattm

[vf1000ride]

I don't have kids so I can't say I would ever be asking for compensation as it has no weight in my life.  How is being an NRA member going to have any bearing on how compensation is determined and why even mention it, is there a point to that statement or was it just to take a jab? 

 

What I am asking in this entire deal is that the death have never even happened in the first place.  Let me flip your comment right back around at you and ask you a question.  Would you prefer 5 or even 15 million dollars in a wrongful death payout or would you prefer your child to still be alive and uninjured?  This whole friggin country is too worried about how much money they are going to make from the lawsuit after something bad happens and not nearly concerned enough about saving that life in the first place.  Why continue to spend 100's of millions to Billions of dollars in payouts to lawyers and the wronged individuals every single year and continue to ignore the fact that it's never going to bring the dead back to life.  Stop throwing good money on top of bad.  Fix the root cause of the issue and you will never need compensation to ease "the pain".  Our kids will go back to outliving their parents and life can get back to those good old days that everyone seems to remember but can't seem to figure out how it got lost. 

 

Lets say negligence/crime/accident happens and you successfully sue an entire family into the poor house, how does this educate anybody else in this country so that they won't make the same mistake.  Are you going to take your winnings and spend the rest of your life educating the rest of the population to be sure that it doesn't happen to anybody else.  Do you truly think that making one family destitute will cause the whole of the country to stand up and notice.  I think the reality is that the country is going to go about it's business being ignorant and dangerous regardless of the payout because they truly don't give a flying "F" about the situation.  These huge payouts happen daily in this country and it hasn't fixed a darn thing so far, the media rarely even gives it airtime because even those fact twisting glory hounds realize that regardless of the crime and regardless of who got rich, the average person is too complacent to care. We as a society are tired of hearing the "what about me" generation.  How about we give up on the status quo and try something new for a change.

 

 

As for the issue of punishments.  That's a whole different thread that would require the thickest pair of fireproof undies you would have ever seen. I would love to get into that argument because I truly feel that it is at the core of this discussion but for me that conversation will only go in a bad direction very quickly so I will leave my true feelings for that issue on the back burner.

[Steve Butters]

I think a lot of people are mistaking increased gun violence for increased awareness of gun violence... You guys keep talking about back in the day like there didn't used to be gun violence... People aren't changing, the reach of the media is just carrying stories farther than before, and all the gun grabbers are blowing up every story they hear

www.thenation.com/blog/171838/gun-violence-american-schools-nothing-new

[magley64]

I think a lot of people are mistaking increased gun violence for increased awareness of gun violence... You guys keep talking about back in the day like there didn't used to be gun violence... People aren't changing, the reach of the media is just carrying stories farther than before, and all the gun grabbers are blowing up every story they hear

www.thenation.com/blog/171838/gun-violence-american-schools-nothing-new

 

So the question remains... Why not allow studies to track this information?

 

If shootings are unrelated to the number of firearms, then the science would show that.

 

I think it has to do with politics, and one particular political party, and their general lack of understanding of how science works.

[Pokey]

Yeah many democrats and most die-hard libs are very confused.

[Strictly Street]

So the question remains... Why not allow studies to track this information?

 

If shootings are unrelated to the number of firearms, then the science would show that.

 

I think it has to do with politics, and one particular political party, and their general lack of understanding of how science works.

 

Studies have been done.

 

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

[magley64]

Studies have been done.

 

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

Yes gun lobbyists have funded studies, but the federal government has laws restricting the use of federal funding to do studies RE: health risks of guns.

[Strictly Street]

Yes gun lobbyists have funded studies, but the federal government has laws restricting the use of federal funding to do studies RE: health risks of guns.

 

John Lott isn't a gun lobby person. He is/was a scholar trying to prove that guns caused crime. The data proved him wrong. Interesting story behind his book.

 

Although it is true that govt studies have been limited by the legislature. As to why, I think it had something to do with who was doing the studies if I recall. Both sides of the debate charged the other with rigging the studies so in the end the idea was abandoned. Paying a person with a bias to do a study seemed like a bad idea to everybody, as they wouldn't get the answer they wanted, so just don't do it at all.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Strictly Street

[magley64]

John Lott isn't a gun lobby person. He is/was a scholar trying to prove that guns caused crime. The data proved him wrong. Interesting story behind his book.

 

Although it is true that govt studies have been limited by the legislature. As to why, I think it had something to do with who was doing the studies if I recall. Both sides of the debate charged the other with rigging the studies so in the end the idea was abandoned. Paying a person with a bias to do a study seemed like a bad idea to everybody, as they wouldn't get the answer they wanted, so just don't do it at all.

 

 

Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years.

[Strictly Street]

Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years.

 

Restating the statement