Shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple

[Wyn6]

My fiancee' is Sikh and thankfully none of the victims were friends or family members of hers. Once again it's tragic to see what destruction a nutcase can cause. I want to attempt to clarify a few things said in this thread as well as share my opinion.

First of all, the whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a truism. That is certainly the case. But, while this may be true, guns, while not the most efficient or devastating means of murdering someone, do enable people to kill quickly and in numbers.

Again, they're not the most efficient means of killing. But, they are the most efficient means which are readily available to the general populace. The two sides of this debate have valid points. However, for the pro-gun side not to admit that homicides would be drastically reduced were there no guns, is being willfully na?ve.

Now, I said if there were no guns. That is, if guns didn't exist. People WILL find a way to kill each other. It's part of being a primitive, and far too often, barbaric species. But, I can say with almost no equivocation that there would be nowhere near 16,000 murders in the U.S. if guns didn't exist.

Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146

That's 60 some odd percent of all murders in the US via firearm. Is there a possibility that without guns we'd still kill this number of people? Sure. But, in my opinion, I'd say it's not very probable.

Just from these statistics alone, wouldn't most critically thinking individuals acknowledge something needs to be done? Or, are you content with the status quo? Is that something an outright ban? Probably not. I'd say no. It would take decades upon decades to attempt to do this plus many, many other factors would have to come into play as well.

So, perhaps a different sort of firearm regulation needs to be looked at as what we're doing now has no effect whatsoever. Now, there are those making the arguments that criminals will still have guns no matter what. And, you are correct... some criminals would. And, there's been talk about gunrunners etc. here. This is one of the main misconceptions that I won't to clear up.

First of all... the vast majority of violent criminals obtain their guns indirectly through legal means. Now, I say indirectly because most don't go and buy them at your local gun shop (some actually do). Allow me to explain to you how the majority of violent criminals get their guns and no, it's not from gunrunners as you might think. More on that later.

Gun Shops/Dealers - Most guns that are currently in the hands of violent criminals originated from legal sources which includes gun shops and/or other dealers. These guns were either stolen from their original sources or sold by those original sources. Yes... some dealers do sell their stock to criminals who never fill out weapons transfer sheets or undergo any sort of background check. Trust me when I say this happens.

Gun Shows - this is a big one. Here in Texas there's a gun show somewhere every weekend. There are many collectors and private sellers there who rent booths and sell off their weapons. There are also "dealers" (people with FFLs) that have no shops, but instead sell their merchandise at these shows.

Many gangs, or other would be criminals will send a proxy in to these shows with cash to purchase multiple weapons. Again, no checks, no paperwork.

Legal Gun Owners - these people, also, sell their weapons. However, these guns are often times stolen obviously without any paperwork. ;)

I can tell you for a fact that the above three avenues are how most violent criminals in this country come by their firearms.

Gunrunners - now to address this myth. I know people here watch a lot of TV and movies. And, to a degree, some of that stuff is true. But, gunrunners are people who usually operate in bulk and they are relatively few in number.

The weapons they sell come from three different sources: Military, Law Enforcement Agencies, and Gun Manufacturers. These weapons are usually surplus stock which is set to be destroyed. In some instances, these weapons have slight imperfections. While functional, they do not meet the standards of whatever agency they're going to or whatever manufacturer is producing them.

Another source for gunrunners' stock is theft. These guns are stolen from the above group or made to seem as though they were stolen. This seldom happens for several reasons I won't get into.

For the most part gangs and common criminals do not have guns sold to them by real gunrunners. Has it happened? Sure. But, most of these guns are going toward cartels, and various wars and skirmishes around the world.

It was suggested that the Aurora shooter, if he wanted to get a gun and they were illegal, could roll on down to the hood and hit up some gangbangers and buy himself a gun. A more likely scenario would be to rob this guy flat out, or take his money and leave him hanging. He's not a source for consistent revenue, he's out of his element, and these individuals have no incentive to part with a GOOD gun when they can keep the gun and his money.

I'm a gun owner, but I don't count myself in the pro-gun camp or the anti-gun camp as I see validity for both sides. But... the status quo CANNOT continue as is. Something needs to be done.

TL;DR Guns don't come from where you think they come from, if guns were banned most people couldn't get them even common criminals would have a hard time, a outright ban isn't the answer, something must be done the status quo cannot continue.

P.S. I know people on the internet always say, trust me I know what I'm talking about. But, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. There is no source that I could or would be willing to post. So, take it as you will.

[Richteralan]

TL;DR Guns don't come from where you think they come from, if guns were banned most people couldn't get them even common criminals would have a hard time, a outright ban isn't the answer, something must be done the status quo cannot continue.

Glad to see some people in USA still knows how to think.

[Skin]

It's good to see guns protecting more lives... oh wait. :whistle:

it's good to see people express sadness at the lost lives before they go into partisan rhetoric... oh wait. :whistle:

I am sorry that people lost their lives. This is sad,

[KingCracker]

Wasn't an AR15 used in the Aurora massacre? OK, you got me. Automatic, semi-automatic, I'm not a gun expert. My mistake for not using proper terminology.

Still doesn' really answer the question of why anyone needs one or wants one.

Something that is useless if you have an individual who has an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder. Which I imagine a lot of people do.

And if you don't have a uniform laws across the country couldn't someone just go to a neighbouring state which don't require background checks and procure firearms?

AR-15's can be used to hunt and are often used in varmint hunting as well. It was used in the Aurura shooting yes but it jammed quickly after he tried using it. He used a shotgun and a glock .40 for the majority of the shootings. It looks military to you so that means we can't have them right?

Any criticism of any part of American culture gets one labelled as anti-American these days. Just ignore it ;)

And you seem to do a lot of it. Wasn't I told that it was your choice to have restrictions on guns? Yes, well we don't want restrictions on ours. If you want me to respect your decision them I'd suggest you respect ours but in all likelihood you wont respect that and continue you're bashing at any opportunity you can.

[Richteralan]

And you seem to do a lot of it. Wasn't I told that it was your choice to have restrictions on guns? Yes, well we don't want restrictions on ours. If you want me to respect your decision them I'd suggest you respect ours but in all likelihood you wont respect that and continue you're bashing at any opportunity you can.

Hilarious as usual.

USA doing this to plenty of other countries, but it is never reciprocal.

P.S. look up dictionary if you don't know reciprocal.

[KingCracker]

Hilarious as usual.

USA doing this to plenty of other countries, but it is never reciprocal.

P.S. look up dictionary if you don't know reciprocal.

Oh its always our government. Is the people doing it? How can you blame citizens for what the government does? If you want the honest truth I think the majority of Americans disapprove with how our country is run both from a domestic and foreign policy stand point. A lot of people would change what the government is doing. But they go ahead and dig on the American people as always.We're either too fat or too skiny, we're too religious, we're blood thirsty gun owners obsessed with death. We eat nothing but fast food and are hill billy rednecks. There's nothing that we can do to get them to stop. They will find some excuse to trash us.

[Richteralan]

Oh its always our government. Is the people doing it? How can you blame citizens for what the government does? If you want the honest truth I think the majority of Americans disapprove with how our country is run both from a domestic and foreign policy stand point. A lot of people would change what the government is doing. But go ahead use that as an excuse to dig on the American people..

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

[KingCracker]

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

I don't know. Probably not. But I do know there's a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns willingly and by willingly I mean will go down in a hail of gun fire. Once the contract with the American people is broken and that contract is the bill of rights. Once that contract is broken the U.S will cease to be the U.S. Are you from the U.S? Because I noticed you said your founding fathers. I notice it says your from Wisconsin is that correct?

[chrisj1968]

this just in. Reports by multiple eye witnesses state it was multiple gunmen and in a "well coordinated" attack. Me thinks this wasn't an incident that was perpetrated by a crazy wild eyed gunman as we are led to believe

An eyewitness to the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin says that a team of four men dressed in black carried out the massacre, contradicting the official narrative that a lone gunman was the culprit.

http://youtu.be/zYCurbSAsd4

and:

http://youtu.be/9ecdSKi9_fs

[Richteralan]

I don't know. Probably not. But I do know there's a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns willingly and by willingly I mean will go down in a hail of gun fire. Once the contract with the American people is broken and that contract is the bill of rights. Once that contract is broken the U.S will cease to be the U.S. Are you from the U.S? Because I noticed you said your founding fathers. I notice it says your from Wisconsin is that correct?

So to put it simply: you love your gun more than your country and your people.

Case closed.

Gun nut identified.

this just in. Reports by multiple eye witnesses state it was multiple gunmen and in a "well coordinated" attack. Me thinks this wasn't an incident that was perpetrated by a crazy wild eyed gunman as we are led to believe

An eyewitness to the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin says that a team of four men dressed in black carried out the massacre, contradicting the official narrative that a lone gunman was the culprit.

http://youtu.be/zYCurbSAsd4

and:

http://youtu.be/9ecdSKi9_fs

Well of course the media wants to downplay it...blame it on everything but twisted America culture.

[KingCracker]

So to put it simply: you love your gun more than your country and your people.

Case closed.

Gun nut identified.

Well of course the media wants to downplay it...blame it on everything but twisted America culture.

I love my country just as much as I love my guns.

[chrisj1968]

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

a solicitation by DHS to order riot gear: https://www.fbo.gov/...b=core&_cview=0

and: another agreeing article: http://rt.com/usa/ne...-riot-gear-431/

It?s more than just stockpiling surveillance drones to spy on US citizens: the United States Army is attempting to procure an arsenal of riot gear in case the military must go toe-to-toe with civilians on US soil.

Richteralan, on 05 August 2012 - 22:35, said:

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

so yes, the government is expecting civil unrest.

[Eddo89]

I don't know. Probably not. But I do know there's a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns willingly and by willingly I mean will go down in a hail of gun fire. Once the contract with the American people is broken and that contract is the bill of rights. Once that contract is broken the U.S will cease to be the U.S. Are you from the U.S? Because I noticed you said your founding fathers. I notice it says your from Wisconsin is that correct?

"Over my cold dead hand"? Probably there are some. But I won't for a second believe that a significant portion of people will going to go down in a shower of bullets, And anyone with half a brain would realise taking away guns would be a terrible idea anyway. A lot of countries are plotting towards being smokefree (as in smoking), but none of them go and went "no more tobacco for sale". As for an effective way, now that is the better question but it would be a generational thing.

As for US cease to be the US. Just reeks of paranoia there I'm sorry.

Side track Rant: Way too many people treat founding papers way too importantly. Maybe I'm not religious and never had an all-conquering document to abide to like a bible or a koran. But surely a country is held together by more than mere amendments written by people who probably never envisioned the future as what it is today. I can't pretend I know American history much, but I assume the amendments were written at a time that is still pretty lawless and British presence was still fresh in their minds. America back then is not America now. The whole "Founding" document thing just seem to handcuff progress, and very often ends debate without even pursuing the issue just because it is "in the constitution". It is really backwards thinking.

And I'm sure there are much more holding the country together than some mere words. A country won't become not the same country in a blink of an eye, a country where it may be always evolve.

[chrisj1968]

"Over my cold dead hand"? Probably there are some. But I won't for a second believe that a significant portion of people will going to go down in a shower of bullets, And anyone with half a brain would realise taking away guns would be a terrible idea anyway. A lot of countries are plotting towards being smokefree (as in smoking), but none of them go and went "no more tobacco for sale". As for an effective way, now that is the better question but it would be a generational thing.

As for US cease to be the US. Just reeks of paranoia there I'm sorry.

Side track Rant: Way too many people treat founding papers way too importantly. Maybe I'm not religious and never had an all-conquering document to abide to like a bible or a koran. But surely a country is held together by more than mere amendments written by people who probably never envisioned the future as what it is today. I can't pretend I know American history much, but I assume the amendments were written at a time that is still pretty lawless and British presence was still fresh in their minds. America back then is not America now. The whole "Founding" document thing just seem to handcuff progress, and very often ends debate without even pursuing the issue just because it is "in the constitution". It is really backwards thinking.

And I'm sure there are much more holding the country together than some mere words. A country won't become not the same country in a blink of an eye, a country where it may be always evolve.

No it's patriotism. he loves his country and the ideals it has had for the last roughly 235 years. He and I both care about our country and the freedoms we enjoyed.

[theyarecomingforyou]

it's good to see people express sadness at the lost lives before they go into partisan rhetoric... oh wait. :whistle:

If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting here. But my position is that restricting access to guns would reduce the number of tragedies like this occurring. You simply don't see shootings like this occurring in the UK and the last time we did - back in 1996 with the Dunblane massacre, in which 18 people were killed - we responded by tightening gun control laws, including the outright ban of handguns. That was 16yrs ago and thankfully we haven't seen anything like that since. That's not to say we don't have gun crime and that's not to say that there won't be shootings in the future - I'm not that naive - but we have taken sensible safeguards to minimise the risk.

The US response is the opposite. Rather than restricting guns we see groups and politicians pushing for more weapons, for more access and large increases in the number of people buying guns. So yes, I won't apologise for being critical of the US position - I think it's moronic. It flies in the face of common sense. This is the second high profile mass shooting in less than a month and yet is anything going to be done? Of course not. Politicians will put on their sad faces for a few days and then continue on as if nothing has happened.

PS - I've said it before but I have several shotguns in my house, including a semi-automatic. I go out shooting with them and was a member of a local rifle shooting club for a while. I'm not an anti-gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm a strong believer in strict firearms restrictions.

[KingCracker]

"Over my cold dead hand"? Probably there are some. But I won't for a second believe that a significant portion of people will going to go down in a shower of bullets, And anyone with half a brain would realise taking away guns would be a terrible idea anyway. A lot of countries are plotting towards being smokefree (as in smoking), but none of them go and went "no more tobacco for sale". As for an effective way, now that is the better question but it would be a generational thing.

As for US cease to be the US. Just reeks of paranoia there I'm sorry.

Side track Rant: Way too many people treat founding papers way too importantly. Maybe I'm not religious and never had an all-conquering document to abide to like a bible or a koran. But surely a country is held together by more than mere amendments written by people who probably never envisioned the future as what it is today. I can't pretend I know American history much, but I assume the amendments were written at a time that is still pretty lawless and British presence was still fresh in their minds. America back then is not America now. The whole "Founding" document thing just seem to handcuff progress, and very often ends debate without even pursuing the issue just because it is "in the constitution". It is really backwards thinking.

And I'm sure there are much more holding the country together than some mere words. A country won't become not the same country in a blink of an eye, a country where it may be always evolve.

There would be quite a few that would indeed go down fighting believe me. I don't just say that to sensationalize it. The founding fathers knew what an all powerful government could do. The idea's the founding fathers had back then are still very relevant today.They didn't write the documents based on lawlessness they based it on ideals they found to be self evident. Back then as today governments if given the chance would love to rule over its people with as much power as possible. Look no further than North Korea for instance. They wrote those documents to keep us from becoming countries like North Korea.

[chrisj1968]

If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting here. But my position is that restricting access to guns would reduce the number of tragedies like this occurring. You simply don't see shootings like this occurring in the UK and the last time we did - back in 1996 with the Dunblane massacre, in which 18 people were killed - we responded by tightening gun control laws. That was 16yrs ago and thankfully we haven't seen anything like that since. That's not to say we don't have gun crime and that's not to say that there won't be shootings in the future - I'm not that naive - but we have taken sensible safeguards to mitigate the risk.

The US response is the opposite. Rather than restricting guns we see groups and politicians pushing for more weapons, for more access and large increases in the number of people buying guns. So yes, I won't apologise for being critical of the US position - I think it's moronic. It flies in the face of common sense. This is the second high profile mass shooting in less than a month and yet is anything going to be done? Of course not. Politicians will put on their sad faces for a few days and then continue on as if nothing has happened.

PS - I've said it before but I have several shotguns in my house, including a semi-automatic. I go out shooting with them and was a member of a local rifle shooting club for a while. I'm not an anti-gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm a strong believer in strict firearms restrictions.

I disagree. case in point. There's a HUGE push for control or banning going on. mix with that the fast and furious government gun running, Aurora and now this along with the UN gun treaty to remove the 2nd amendment.

as for you being in the UK. do you see the bad in that? when a government has guns and the people can't defend themselves if the government gets out of hand, you'll wish you had arms to protect your loved ones.

[KingCracker]

If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting here. But my position is that restricting access to guns would reduce the number of tragedies like this occurring. You simply don't see shootings like this occurring in the UK and the last time we did - back in 1996 with the Dunblane massacre, in which 18 people were killed - we responded by tightening gun control laws, including the outright ban of handguns. That was 16yrs ago and thankfully we haven't seen anything like that since. That's not to say we don't have gun crime and that's not to say that there won't be shootings in the future - I'm not that naive - but we have taken sensible safeguards to minimise the risk.

The US response is the opposite. Rather than restricting guns we see groups and politicians pushing for more weapons, for more access and large increases in the number of people buying guns. So yes, I won't apologise for being critical of the US position - I think it's moronic. It flies in the face of common sense. This is the second high profile mass shooting in less than a month and yet is anything going to be done? Of course not. Politicians will put on their sad faces for a few days and then continue on as if nothing has happened.

PS - I've said it before but I have several shotguns in my house, including a semi-automatic. I go out shooting with them and was a member of a local rifle shooting club for a while. I'm not an anti-gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm a strong believer in strict firearms restrictions.

Yet you criticize me for talking about your gun laws and the response was. We voted for it, its freedom... We want to keep our guns so let us alone.

I disagree. case in point. There's a HUGE push for control or banning going on. mix with that the fast and furious government gun running, Aurora and now this along with the UN gun treaty to remove the 2nd amendment.

as for you being in the UK. do you see the bad in that? when a government has guns and the people can't defend themselves if the government gets out of hand, you'll wish you had arms to protect your loved ones.

The U.N gun treaty wasn't signed by the u.s thankfully. The high cap magazine ban failed too. But I see that coming up again because it was tied in with a cyber security bill. Wait till its tied to something more relevant to guns and it'll be passed probably.

[SupportGeek]

And yet now Germany has a very low rate of firearms fatalities. Even if the US were to introduce proper restrictions on guns tomorrow it would take years, if not decades to start to make a difference. Nobody is claiming that this is an overnight fix.

Good plan, lets sacrifice more people now so that it MIGHT be better later, no thanks, I choose to be responsible for my own safety.

Last time gun control worked in Germany, a genocide occurred because no one could stop it.

Stop watching Fox News.

Thats hilarious, I ve never watched fox news. good try though.

You know nothing about me, so making bad assumptions about me only serve to discredit your own already poor arguments.

Seriously. If there were adequate gun restrictions in place you wouldn't need to worry about such attacks, so you wouldn't have anything to defend yourself from.

Are you that disconnected from reality?

The ONLY way to create a place where these attacks couldn't exist would be to create a big-brother police state similar to path the UK is taking, and the thought police clamp down on you for even thinking "gun". Something like that would cause a second American Revolution.

Guns exist, what has been made, cannot be unmade. Even in a country with massively restrictive laws like Norway bad people can and DO still get guns, and all that the gun laws did was to create an easy to slaughter population. You cannot even point to "the police will protect you" because Brevik was able to slaughter an unprecidented number of people and children before law enforcement could even react at all. With more people able to carry, it may have given him pause, or at least given them more of a chance than cows being led to slaughter.

It's really bizarre that people would advocate more guns and more places to allow them as a solution. That's not addressing the problem - that's contributing to it!

I disagree, in fact its more bizarre that you think the idea that "Laws" will prevent gun crime when things like Norway happen, highlighting the fact that restrictive laws only allow greater numbers of people to be slaughtered.

Laws havn't exactly stopped drugs or murder have they?

Why do you think James Holmes chose a "Gun free zone"? He could have gone to a gun show and tried the same thing, but I would imagine that would not have worked out so well in his favor.

Let me repeat it since you are not getting it: Gun control ONLY punishes the 187 million gun owners that are not murdering anyone and following the law already

[KingCracker]

Good plan, lets sacrifice more people now so that it MIGHT be better later, no thanks, I choose to be responsible for my own safety.

Last time gun control worked in Germany, a genocide occurred because no one could stop it.

Thats hilarious, I ve never watched fox news. good try though.

You know nothing about me, so making bad assumptions about me only serve to discredit your own already poor arguments.

Are you that disconnected from reality?

The ONLY way to create a place where these attacks couldn't exist would be to create a big-brother police state similar to path the UK is taking, and the thought police clamp down on you for even thinking "gun". Something like that would cause a second American Revolution.

Guns exist, what has been made, cannot be unmade. Even in a country with massively restrictive laws like Norway bad people can and DO still get guns, and all that the gun laws did was to create an easy to slaughter population. You cannot even point to "the police will protect you" because Brevik was able to slaughter an unprecidented number of people and children before law enforcement could even react at all. With more people able to carry, it may have given him pause, or at least given them more of a chance than cows being led to slaughter.

I disagree, in fact its more bizarre that you think the idea that "Laws" will prevent gun crime when things like Norway happen, highlighting the fact that restrictive laws only allow greater numbers of people to be slaughtered.

Laws havn't exactly stopped drugs or murder have they?

Why do you think James Holmes chose a "Gun free zone"? He could have gone to a gun show and tried the same thing, but I would imagine that would not have worked out so well in his favor.

Let me repeat it since you are not getting it: Gun control ONLY punishes the 187 million gun owners that are not murdering anyone and following the law already

They don't understand. They don't have to deal with gang members willing to kill you over the things you own or kill you just because you're on their turf. They don't have the same problems we do.

[The Guvnor]

The people who did this will have to pay in blood. Sikh community wont let them get away with this.

[theyarecomingforyou]

as for you being in the UK. do you see the bad in that? when a government has guns and the people can't defend themselves if the government gets out of hand, you'll wish you had arms to protect your loved ones.

What utter nonsense. A few handguns and automatic weapons aren't going to do anything against a government willing to use tanks, jets, helicopter gunships, chemical weapons or drone strikes against its citizens. Yet firearms restrictions do reduce the number of firearms fatalities... dramatically.

[Solid Knight]

Here's the truth: You'd kill more people trying to ban guns than you'd save. Banning guns would be civil war.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Here's the truth: You'd kill more people trying to ban guns than you'd save. Banning guns would be civil war.

And here was me thinking that the US was a civilised country. My mistake.

[Solid Knight]

And here was me thinking that the US was a civilised country. My mistake.

Because civility means letting your government revoke rights and being happy about it.