Author Topic: NFR: Gun Control  (Read 12383 times)

Logicalman

  • Guest
NFR: Gun Control
« on: December 15, 2012, 01:42:03 PM »

I have created this thread to allow the debate that has risen in the Ct shooting thread a place to be debated without spoiling the intent of that other thread.

I have moved those points being made about gun control onto here and ask that if you have comments concerning gun control, you put them here.

Note: The same rules concerning Politics apply to ALL threads, so please, make your points without resorting to bi-partisan comments about politicians.


Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2012, 01:42:35 PM »


This is not a time for politics but I can't let one side spout their opinions without responding.
I do not own a gun. There are no guns in my house. I know what guns can do from personal experience and what I can do with a gun. For the later rather then the former is why there are no guns in my house. The only people crazier then gun nuts are those who think government intervention via gun control will do something to prevent insane people doing insane things. Today, in China, a crazy took a knife and slashed 22 children. Before someone says that a gun is more efficient than a knife I would add that confining cars, buses and trains to 20 MPH would drastically cut accident deaths. Yea, I know that statement is crazy. Just as crazy as thinking making an object illegal would eliminate bad people doing bad things. We have a society today that someone once called the "me" society. People have no commitment to anything other than themselves. This fool in Newtown, CT and the one in China are the problem. A problem that our society has created. Does society have a right to regulate guns? Absolutely. Control of large magizines, rapid fire weapons and the like is something I would support. I would add that the city in the US that has the strongest gun laws is Washington, DC. It also has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Chicago also has strong laws and they mow down hundreds a year. The issue is society and only education of that society can reduce horrible events such as this.


Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2012, 01:44:43 PM »
This is not a time for politics but I can't let one side spout their opinions without responding.
I do not own a gun. There are no guns in my house. I know what guns can do from personal experience and what I can do with a gun. For the later rather then the former is why there are no guns in my house. The only people crazier then gun nuts are those who think government intervention via gun control will do something to prevent insane people doing insane things. Today, in China, a crazy took a knife and slashed 22 children. Before someone says that a gun is more efficient than a knife I would add that confining cars, buses and trains to 20 MPH would drastically cut accident deaths. Yea, I know that statement is crazy. Just as crazy as thinking making an object illegal would eliminate bad people doing bad things. We have a society today that someone once called the "me" society. People have no commitment to anything other than themselves. This fool in Newtown, CT and the one in China are the problem. A problem that our society has created. Does society have a right to regulate guns? Absolutely. Control of large magizines, rapid fire weapons and the like is something I would support. I would add that the city in the US that has the strongest gun laws is Washington, DC. It also has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Chicago also has strong laws and they mow down hundreds a year. The issue is society and only education of that society can reduce horrible events such as this.
I normally agree with most of your observations posted on this forum, but not this one.  Just because sensible gun control laws won't stop every nut case from committing heinous acts. we shouldn't b e deterred fromdoing what is right and sensible.  It WILL make a difference if we institute meaningful background checks of would be firearms buyers to make sure they don't have histories of mental illness, severe depression, schizophrenia, etc., or a violent criminal record.  We can and should do that as a bare minimum.  We should close the so-called Gun Show Loophole.  We should require registration of every firearm.  There is no good reason in a civilized world for a citizen to own a machine gun, an automatic rifle, and so on.  You can adequately hunt deer, wild boar, elk, etc., without military-grade weaponry.  How was a deranged individual able to obtain a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, which greatly increased his ability to mow down little children in an elementary school.  Shame on the NRA and Republican legislators who take its lobby money and kiss its fanny.  Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.  There is no perfect solution.  But that doesn't mean we should do so little. Sadly, every time a mass murder of this sort occurs, the public gets outraged for a few days.  Then the TV production crews pack up and move on.  They find a new story to cover.  And nothing changes.   I just don't understand why there isn't a lasting wellspring of public determination to address the issue of easy access, accountability, and registration.  This Second Amendment argument is nonsense, an historic anomaly of Revolutionary period farmer militiamen.  There were no semi-automatic high powered rifles back then, no bazookas, grenades, or tommy guns. 


Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM »
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?

When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.

The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.

This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 08:22:08 PM by YankeeJim »

Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2012, 05:13:54 PM »
I have to agree with you there YJ. I can only cite Hungerford and Dunblane as prime examples of the fact that it does take more than mere gun control, and even after the laws were tightened further, look at Cumbria just 2 years ago.

All of the above were committed in a country that has had one of the tightest gun control laws since 1921, and, when we compare that to those atrocities in the US, you might find that, for a population of some 5 or 6 times that of the UK, the US record is not actually so much worse than that of the UK.

Obviously, the day-to-day gang shootings place a whole different perspective on it, but lets be honest, if the gangs had a killing spree and started taking each other out, it could only be a good thing for society as whole, unlike those that involve schools and members of the public.

In addition, the number of people that believe the President can, alone, change the laws on gun control, obviously need to get with the program. The NRA (weirdly quite silent since the latest massacre don't you think?) happily wield much power behind the scenes, and with their celebrity  spokespersons, and financial backing to political parties and lobbyists, they garner a lot of clout on Capitol Hill.

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2012, 09:06:09 PM »
BTW, there is a report on NBC today that the shooter attempted to buy a gun but was denied. Guess gun control worked.


Offline The Bronsons

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1512
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2012, 01:36:05 AM »
The NRA never comment immediately after a mass shooting. They always wait a couple of days.

A few years ago a man walked into a primary school in England. It's very difficult (not impossible, of course - but very difficult) to get hold of guns in the UK, so this guy had a machete. He attacked children and adults. A teacher stood up to him and was badly injured: but she lived and so did the children he tried to kill.

If that guy had had a gun...

Banning guns won't stop crazy people being crazy. It just makes it more difficult for crazy people to kill so many people. Banning sales won't stop crazy people getting guns, but it will make it harder. Some will still get guns, that doesn't mean it isn't worth making it harder.

There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?

Offline cebu

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3900
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2012, 12:58:04 PM »
The NRA never comment immediately after a mass shooting. They always wait a couple of days.

A few years ago a man walked into a primary school in England. It's very difficult (not impossible, of course - but very difficult) to get hold of guns in the UK, so this guy had a machete. He attacked children and adults. A teacher stood up to him and was badly injured: but she lived and so did the children he tried to kill.

If that guy had had a gun...

Banning guns won't stop crazy people being crazy. It just makes it more difficult for crazy people to kill so many people. Banning sales won't stop crazy people getting guns, but it will make it harder. Some will still get guns, that doesn't mean it isn't worth making it harder.

There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?

I'd just like to make a minor point re UK/gun ownership. Although it is indeed difficult to obtain a gun legally, it doesn't seem to be that hard to obtain one plus ammo illegally.

Furthermore if you take a country like Switzerland, where possession of an assault rifle/ammo is de riguer, incidents such as the tragedy in the US don't seem to be occurring. Are there in fact social issues in some places that are the root cause of the problem?

Having said this, I suspect that gun controls will be introduced in the foreseeable future, but do not really believe that it’s going to save many lives.

Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2012, 02:16:51 PM »

There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?

From living here, arriving from the UK over a decade ago, and speaking with people I have to say it comes from two sources: Independence and Social hunting.

The States in the US are, to all extents, like England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales, they are independent states that are bound by a Federal Government, but each State maintains and fiercely guards it's own rights. As such, any legislation that impacts individual rights is much harder to pass at the Federal level, and requires the States themselves to enact.

In addition to this, there are many more hunters in the UK per head of population than there are in the UK. Hunting is more of a way of life here than it is in the UK, and the first day of any hunting season provides parties and celebrations.

Therefore, basically, to restrict the access to guns is seen as a personal and state infringement, and with the strength of the NRA both at local level and Federal level, the chances of restricting guns much further is slim. Have you noticed the lack of serious debate here following the shootings? There was outrage after Columbine, as that was considered a milestone event, but as each new atrocity rolls by, then the arguments become less and less, the outrage becomes shorter, and the memories (outside of the area affected) fade that little faster.


Mr_Moon

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2012, 04:14:24 PM »
BTW, there is a report on NBC today that the shooter attempted to buy a gun but was denied. Guess gun control worked.

Ridiculous. James Holmes passed background checks when he bought his guns, that didn't end well. Isn't it around 40% of all annual gun sales in the US take place at gun shows where there are no background checks and waiting periods?

Your initial post is equally ridiculous where you compare guns to cars. You can't ban cars, they're used for transport. Guns have one purpose and that's to kill. Granted that a blanket ban on guns will be impossible to implement because of the American conscience that it's your god given right to own one, there should be bans on more powerful weapons which have absolutely no reason to be in a domestic environment. I was reading about Terrell Suggs (Ravens LB) being questioned the other day and he had to hand over his firearm. He handed over 7!

What's the obsession with collecting guns other than machismo vanity?

Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2012, 04:43:50 PM »
Granted that a blanket ban on guns will be impossible to implement because of the American conscience that it's your god given right to own one,

Perhaps you should read my previous reply, then you would have noted that hunting in the US common, and is a national pastime, and as such, a blanket ban would not work. And when you talk about blanket bans, what do you mean? Federal? If so, then you need to read up on the US Constitution and understand that would not work given the manner in which it was framed.

there should be bans on more powerful weapons which have absolutely no reason to be in a domestic environment. I was reading about Terrell Suggs (Ravens LB) being questioned the other day and he had to hand over his firearm. He handed over 7!

.. and therefore by your reckoning, a person should only own one car/cycle/motorcycle, because they all do the same thing? When I was living in OK, and we had a problem with possums, I used a shotgun to kill them, because I could get at reasonably close range. If I had also been a hunter, then the shotgun would have been useless to hunt deer (for so many reasons - including the fact I eat deer meat, but not possum). Thus, that's 2 different guns already. If I were to purchase one for personal protection, it would be a handgun, thus 3 different guns, and I wouldn't even be an enthusiast!!

What's the obsession with collecting guns other than machismo vanity?

Why do people collect cars, football cards, motorcycles, or anything more than one? I have more than one Fulham shirt, that doesn't make me vain, does it? Sorry, that is a very wide-ranging and rather poor argument.


btw, I am not pro-gun at all, since moving north mid-west I have had no need for a gun, especially as I do not hunt, and therefore do not own any at all. I will not have any in the house as our grandchild comes over from time to time, and I would not risk her finding it, and as for personal protection, doesn't wash with me, but that's because I spawn from a non-gun country, and so it's not part of my make-up, but I respect those that were born here, and for whom it is a way of life.

Mr_Moon

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2012, 05:54:49 PM »

Perhaps you should read my previous reply, then you would have noted that hunting in the US common, and is a national pastime, and as such, a blanket ban would not work. And when you talk about blanket bans, what do you mean? Federal? If so, then you need to read up on the US Constitution and understand that would not work given the manner in which it was framed.

.. and therefore by your reckoning, a person should only own one car/cycle/motorcycle, because they all do the same thing? When I was living in OK, and we had a problem with possums, I used a shotgun to kill them, because I could get at reasonably close range. If I had also been a hunter, then the shotgun would have been useless to hunt deer (for so many reasons - including the fact I eat deer meat, but not possum). Thus, that's 2 different guns already. If I were to purchase one for personal protection, it would be a handgun, thus 3 different guns, and I wouldn't even be an enthusiast!!

Why do people collect cars, football cards, motorcycles, or anything more than one? I have more than one Fulham shirt, that doesn't make me vain, does it? Sorry, that is a very wide-ranging and rather poor argument.


btw, I am not pro-gun at all, since moving north mid-west I have had no need for a gun, especially as I do not hunt, and therefore do not own any at all. I will not have any in the house as our grandchild comes over from time to time, and I would not risk her finding it, and as for personal protection, doesn't wash with me, but that's because I spawn from a non-gun country, and so it's not part of my make-up, but I respect those that were born here, and for whom it is a way of life.

I know hunting is a pastime and it's also necessary for wildlife conservation. That's fine. There's perfectly good reasoning for farmers to have firearms to protect livestock and crops. Re: Hunting. Why can't huntsmen keep their rifles at the local nick for them to be checked in and out?

I understand what you mean about consumerism and people wanting things, but you can't compare football shirts and cars to guns. Whilst I do think that having more than two cars is completely unnecessary, they have a completely different use than to eradicate someone or something.

It's sad though. Doesn't America make up 80% of all gun deaths in the 23 richest countries? There's probably going to be another shooting next year, maybe two. And again in 2014 and '15. Whilst there have been tragic incidents in Britain such as Dunblane and Hungerford, I'm happy knowing that there are probably no guns in my area.


Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2012, 07:57:58 PM »
BTW, there is a report on NBC today that the shooter attempted to buy a gun but was denied. Guess gun control worked.

Ridiculous. James Holmes passed background checks when he bought his guns, that didn't end well. Isn't it around 40% of all annual gun sales in the US take place at gun shows where there are no background checks and waiting periods?

Your initial post is equally ridiculous where you compare guns to cars. You can't ban cars, they're used for transport. Guns have one purpose and that's to kill. Granted that a blanket ban on guns will be impossible to implement because of the American conscience that it's your god given right to own one, there should be bans on more powerful weapons which have absolutely no reason to be in a domestic environment. I was reading about Terrell Suggs (Ravens LB) being questioned the other day and he had to hand over his firearm. He handed over 7!

What's the obsession with collecting guns other than machismo vanity?

This is an example of why there is no useful discourse about guns, taxes or religion. People read something, sieze on a few words and then go off on a rant.

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2012, 08:18:16 PM »
The NRA never comment immediately after a mass shooting. They always wait a couple of days.

A few years ago a man walked into a primary school in England. It's very difficult (not impossible, of course - but very difficult) to get hold of guns in the UK, so this guy had a machete. He attacked children and adults. A teacher stood up to him and was badly injured: but she lived and so did the children he tried to kill.

If that guy had had a gun...

Banning guns won't stop crazy people being crazy. It just makes it more difficult for crazy people to kill so many people. Banning sales won't stop crazy people getting guns, but it will make it harder. Some will still get guns, that doesn't mean it isn't worth making it harder.

There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?

Perhaps, (note the word Mr. Moon), it is because we are a nation that was originally settled by persecuted religious people, debtors and criminals (those we now elect to office!) who came from the bottom of society. It took a lot of courage to get on a leaky boat, leave everything they knew to have a chance at being free. They guarded it religiously. They moved west for more freedom and then still further west. Those that came after, often were running from being second class citizens. the Irish & Scots were not treated well by the super power of the day. A persecuted man who has gained his freedom will not easily knuckle under again. Look up Lexington & Concord to see what a bunch of farmers did with hunting guns to the strongest army in the world. This concept of self reliance runs thoughout the American physic and is what sets us apart from the complacent of the world. Many Americnas idea of self protection is not hiding in a closet and waiting for the police to come to their aid but taking matters in their own hands. To be sure, if I lived in an unsafe area, I'd be responsibly armed
« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 08:23:05 PM by YankeeJim »

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2012, 08:25:20 PM »
This is not a time for politics but I can't let one side spout their opinions without responding.
I do not own a gun. There are no guns in my house. I know what guns can do from personal experience and what I can do with a gun. For the later rather then the former is why there are no guns in my house. The only people crazier then gun nuts are those who think government intervention via gun control will do something to prevent insane people doing insane things. Today, in China, a crazy took a knife and slashed 22 children. Before someone says that a gun is more efficient than a knife I would add that confining cars, buses and trains to 20 MPH would drastically cut accident deaths. Yea, I know that statement is crazy. Just as crazy as thinking making an object illegal would eliminate bad people doing bad things. We have a society today that someone once called the "me" society. People have no commitment to anything other than themselves. This fool in Newtown, CT and the one in China are the problem. A problem that our society has created. Does society have a right to regulate guns? Absolutely. Control of large magizines, rapid fire weapons and the like is something I would support. I would add that the city in the US that has the strongest gun laws is Washington, DC. It also has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Chicago also has strong laws and they mow down hundreds a year. The issue is society and only education of that society can reduce horrible events such as this.
I normally agree with most of your observations posted on this forum, but not this one.  Just because sensible gun control laws won't stop every nut case from committing heinous acts. we shouldn't b e deterred fromdoing what is right and sensible.  It WILL make a difference if we institute meaningful background checks of would be firearms buyers to make sure they don't have histories of mental illness, severe depression, schizophrenia, etc., or a violent criminal record.  We can and should do that as a bare minimum.  We should close the so-called Gun Show Loophole.  We should require registration of every firearm.  There is no good reason in a civilized world for a citizen to own a machine gun, an automatic rifle, and so on.  You can adequately hunt deer, wild boar, elk, etc., without military-grade weaponry.  How was a deranged individual able to obtain a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, which greatly increased his ability to mow down little children in an elementary school.  Shame on the NRA and Republican legislators who take its lobby money and kiss its fanny.  Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.  There is no perfect solution.  But that doesn't mean we should do so little. Sadly, every time a mass murder of this sort occurs, the public gets outraged for a few days.  Then the TV production crews pack up and move on.  They find a new story to cover.  And nothing changes.   I just don't understand why there isn't a lasting wellspring of public determination to address the issue of easy access, accountability, and registration.  This Second Amendment argument is nonsense, an historic anomaly of Revolutionary period farmer militiamen.  There were no semi-automatic high powered rifles back then, no bazookas, grenades, or tommy guns.  

I highlighted for you Mr. Moon.


Offline A Humble Man

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1231
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2012, 08:31:45 PM »
I am just a stupid Brit but this is my view.

You have to change your constitution as a right to bear arms is a hangover from your violent past and should play no part in a modern Country that want to set a good example for behaviour to the rest of the World.

Mr_Moon

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2012, 12:03:29 AM »
What a Humble Man said.

This isn't the 1800s.

TonyGilroy

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2012, 09:41:46 AM »

The consitutional right to bear arms was passed in 1791 when that meant single shot muskets.

The problem now is not just the will to change but putting the genie back in the bottle. The weapons are out there. Even a total ban now won't make them disappear.


Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2012, 10:44:32 AM »

The consitutional right to bear arms was passed in 1791 when that meant single shot muskets.

The problem now is not just the will to change but putting the genie back in the bottle. The weapons are out there. Even a total ban now won't make them disappear.

.. and there you have it.

In addition to this, even if we managed to ban guns tomorrow, and then managed to magically make them all disappear the next day from the homes and possession of Americans, within a week we would have millions of more guns back in the States again. The UK is fortunate inasmuch that it is an island, and the natural borders, however insecure they may seem at times, are a lot more secure than our 1,954 mile border to the south with Mexico, and the 5,525 mile northern border with Canada. Both being land borders.

Returning to the argument put forward of even banning guns, the US Constitution is the US equivalent of the Magna Carta, in that is provides certain rights for citizens, and therefore any such changes affect the base of what the US was built on concerning a persons rights and freedoms.

I hear so many people saying about just banning them, or why would a person need a gun, and it becomes obvious that such people either live in a dream world where reality is as remote as us winning the Prem, and are willing to fail to understand there are several cultural differences between the two countries.

To claim that Americans are vain, or act macho, just because of such a difference is naive and insulting. I was born and bred an Englishman, and will always be so in my heart, and when I arrived here I had the same views as those expressed, but having lived in the states for a period of time now, I have begun to understand the psyche a little more, and whereas it is a far from perfect society, it still demands the right and respect of all such societies, just as much as the British culture and society demands that respect.

Sorry to go off on one, but when complex arguments are simplified to insults, then it needs those spouting such crap to be told they are wrong. I will leave you with one thought: If what happened in Ct was so bad, and reflected so bad on the US constitution and society, then how in Gods name, with tightest gun controls in the world, did Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria occur?

Mr_Moon

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2012, 01:37:57 PM »
I can't remember anyone suggesting that a blanket ban would solve all problems.


Yes and those rights in the Magna Carta have changed over time as have some of America's constitutions. Everyone else can see how reluctant America is to change, there's this paranoid element within that society that believes that there is some sort of external enemy that constantly threatens them and their beliefs, hence the need to keep a semi-automatic under the bed in case the Queen, a terrorist or perhaps a communist comes knocking in the night. The same country that has substantial parts of it opposing a health care bill because it has a whiff of socialism to it.

Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria happened because it's near impossible to stop a lunatic. Some of the perpetrators in various American shootings have also had mental problems but the main difference is that Britain doesn't positively promote gun use.