Author Topic: NFR: Gun Control  (Read 12382 times)

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2012, 01:39:53 PM »
Ah! Logicalman strikes a blow for, well, logic. This is a most complex problem and is summed up by an opinion piece in todays Wall Street Journal Hopefully this link will work.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324407504578183392516362534.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Difficult problems are not solved by sweeping generalizations. Guns have, are & will be a part of this society. That is not a good thing except in rare circumstances. 1775 comes to mind and a quote attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after his successful attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."[1]

And of course, when the liberals assault my mountain compound I'll be sitting behind my walls with my shotgun, assault rifle and a cannon to ward off the evils of those who would enslave me.  :53:

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2012, 01:41:53 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.


Actually, gun owners don't fear any of what you mentioned. They fear government.

Mr_Moon

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2012, 02:07:06 PM »

Actually, gun owners don't fear any of what you mentioned. They fear government.

I was told that the other day actually. I'm going to have to consult my David Icke flowchart now.

No doubt Logicalman will want to respond to my reply, so I'll post again if necessary but it might be best to leave it here before posting becomes vitriolic. Also as you said, not a time for politics. I've nodded to some of your points and shook my head to others, so I'm going to have to ask if you agree to disagree as I think we'll go round in circles.


Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2012, 02:22:01 PM »

Actually, gun owners don't fear any of what you mentioned. They fear government.

I was told that the other day actually. I'm going to have to consult my David Icke flowchart now.

No doubt Logicalman will want to respond to my reply, so I'll post again if necessary but it might be best to leave it here before posting becomes vitriolic. Also as you said, not a time for politics. I've nodded to some of your points and shook my head to others, so I'm going to have to ask if you agree to disagree as I think we'll go round in circles.

I wasn't having a go at you; at least I didn't mean to. We are not really all that far apart & an Icke's flow chart would likely apply to gun nuts as well as government & other pie in the sky types. What happened in Newtown is beyond sane comprehension & I think goes to each of our own inner fears. To lose a child like that.........

 :merry christmas:

Mr_Moon

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2012, 02:30:55 PM »

I wasn't having a go at you; at least I didn't mean to. We are not really all that far apart & an Icke's flow chart would likely apply to gun nuts as well as government & other pie in the sky types. What happened in Newtown is beyond sane comprehension & I think goes to each of our own inner fears. To lose a child like that.........

 :merry christmas:

I know you weren't, I just thought that it would be better to leave it there. I don't have children so whilst what happened in Newton is dreadful, I know I haven't been as affected by it as parents have. I feel so much for the families who were looking forward to enjoying the festive period together.

Oh and  :merry christmas: too.

Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2012, 05:11:44 PM »
Mr Moon,

I think you might have me wrong here. I don't disagree with what you say, I don't believe in the gun culture, and it is the very rare lunatic that does these terrible atrocities. My post wasn't meant to verge on the vitriolic, unfortunately I have grown up with the same beliefs that you have expressed, just to find that some of basics are a little different when viewed from the US side of things.

What I vehemently disagree with is the assumption that the base of the US Constitution must be changed because the US culture, that includes guns, does not fit in with that of the UK. My main point is that nobody will disagree with the need to ban guns (in the most part) but to just say 'ban guns' is not a solution, and provides those would have everyone armed to the teeth 'to defend freedom' with an claim that this simply a Government-sponsored assault on personal freedoms.

You're perfectly correct that the Constitution has been altered in an umber of ways, but you will find that the basic thrust of the first 10 have not been actually changed, bar the introduction of some limitations, e.g. gun ownership being banned for convicted felons, etc.

Just to show how complex and wide-ranging this argument becomes, this morning there were two State Governors on national TV, one from Ct and other from Tx. The first, obviously, was calling for tighter gun control, the second however, called for less gun control because it infringes the rights of all Americans to defend themselves. Unfortunately there are just too many of the population that agrees with the latter, and similarly, too many Senators and Representatives that have been provided to by the lobbyists for the NRA.

You and I agree on so many issues here, we just need to understand the finer points of how it is perceived in the US. oh, and especially,  :merry christmas: to you and yours.


Offline McBridefan1

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1429
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2012, 06:36:25 PM »
Let's say for one moment we are able to take every gun ever made and melt it down to build houses for the poor (perfect world)... Now we still have mental patients like this arse hole that killed all them babies, this guy gets so angry he grabs a machette and builds a few bombs... breaks into the school and starts wingin bombs into class rooms... people panic sprint for the doors, now the hallways are full of babies and adults... he tosses another home made bomb into the crowded hallway... more panic, he starts hacking dazed and confused children with his machette like the hootu and the tootsis... AS WE LEARNED ON 911 YOU CAN'T STOP CRAZY PEOPLE FROM DOING HARM TO THOSE WHO CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES. STOP BEING SO QUICK TO GIVE AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS. If we learned anything from the last idiot to inhabit the white house it should be not to allow our government to take away our freedoms... God Bless those poor children and especially their families, my heart bleeds for them it really does.

Offline McBridefan1

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1429
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2012, 06:39:45 PM »
All that said, there is no problem with some well placed gun control. We have no need for assault rifles, I mean come on what is next for the gun toting zombies bazookas and tanks? you know bear hunting... whatever.

MJG

  • Guest
Re: Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2012, 06:47:48 PM »
Do any of the US based posters have any stats on how many Americans have used their guns in self defence?


Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2012, 06:59:46 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.

YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking.  This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods.  Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them.  I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection.  Is that true?   Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle.  She's a school teacher.  Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children.  So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial.  The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us.  Pathetic argument.  You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi.  That's a real argument with merit.  Someone breaking in your back window at night?  You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one.  So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated?  Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many.  Baby steps to sensible practices.   That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.  

Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #30 on: December 17, 2012, 07:49:40 PM »
I'm sure I'm about to invite a flaming, but with so many voices speaking in favor of allowing state agents a monopoly on arms, I feel I have to say something.

Firearms were designed with two purposes, stopping people and stopping animals. That is, at bottom, what they do. And any firearm can do either, with varying degrees of efficiency.

Now, clearly we no longer need to stop animals, as the state, with its agro-subsidy schemes, has graciously allowed for our food-animals to be gathered into one place, raised in their own feces, held in place while their skulls are penetrated, drained of blood, and ground into bits to be fed to both us and the next generation of food-animals. Obviously, this highly sustainable system can never fail, and voluntary abstention from it, or an insistence on harvesting animals that live in congruence with their evolutionary dispositions may all be dismissed as antisocial ravings of the isolationist madman. But, allowing yourself a trip down madman boulevard, imagine that for some reason, be it global climate change or large-scale economic difficulty, some part of this slaughterhouse scheme breaks. Crazy talk, I know.

To the second purpose of firearms - stopping people. It's nigh on impossible to put into words how offensive it is for those that are familiar with arms and their use only through press, movies and narrative television to deign like long-suffered parents to equate my ability to defend my family from threats to life and dignity with the machinations of madmen bent on mass-murder. Meaning this as respectfully as possible: you have no idea what you're talking about.

I could point out that this "Active Shooter" scenario always plays out in areas that are soft targets -- so-called "gun-free" zones where the mad man is assured of little resistance until the police intervene, usually 30 minutes to an hour after the killing has stopped by choice of the mad man, and that turning more places into softer targets does nothing to deter him. I could enumerate thousands of anecdotes of good men and women with arms preventing murders and rapes, and, yes, even mass-shootings. I could relate my own experiences in which a personal firearm saved my life and the life of a friend in one of those countless crimes-that-never-was because good men decided that This Isn't Going Down. We could conduct thought experiments in which we place our loved ones in scenarios that someone else's loved ones were really in -- like the odds you'd put on my 5' 2" 120 lb wife fighting off a 6' 200 lb rapist or three with anything other than a gun. I could direct your attention to the fact that historically, every time an active shooter is engaged with a  firearm, the killing stops.

But those are all reasonable things to say. And you overbearing, condescending parents, as an overbearing state, can countenance no reasoning counter to its presumptions.

If you wish to give up your ability to defend yourself and your family in the last measure, you surely may. But don't for a moment think that your unwillingness to defend your family gives you moral grounding to (using, what else, but threat of the gun in state agent's hands) come and take my ability to defend mine.

Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2012, 08:27:48 PM »
I'm sure I'm about to invite a flaming, but with so many voices speaking in favor of allowing state agents a monopoly on arms, I feel I have to say something.

Firearms were designed with two purposes, stopping people and stopping animals. That is, at bottom, what they do. And any firearm can do either, with varying degrees of efficiency.

Now, clearly we no longer need to stop animals, as the state, with its agro-subsidy schemes, has graciously allowed for our food-animals to be gathered into one place, raised in their own feces, held in place while their skulls are penetrated, drained of blood, and ground into bits to be fed to both us and the next generation of food-animals. Obviously, this highly sustainable system can never fail, and voluntary abstention from it, or an insistence on harvesting animals that live in congruence with their evolutionary dispositions may all be dismissed as antisocial ravings of the isolationist madman. But, allowing yourself a trip down madman boulevard, imagine that for some reason, be it global climate change or large-scale economic difficulty, some part of this slaughterhouse scheme breaks. Crazy talk, I know.

To the second purpose of firearms - stopping people. It's nigh on impossible to put into words how offensive it is for those that are familiar with arms and their use only through press, movies and narrative television to deign like long-suffered parents to equate my ability to defend my family from threats to life and dignity with the machinations of madmen bent on mass-murder. Meaning this as respectfully as possible: you have no idea what you're talking about.

I could point out that this "Active Shooter" scenario always plays out in areas that are soft targets -- so-called "gun-free" zones where the mad man is assured of little resistance until the police intervene, usually 30 minutes to an hour after the killing has stopped by choice of the mad man, and that turning more places into softer targets does nothing to deter him. I could enumerate thousands of anecdotes of good men and women with arms preventing murders and rapes, and, yes, even mass-shootings. I could relate my own experiences in which a personal firearm saved my life and the life of a friend in one of those countless crimes-that-never-was because good men decided that This Isn't Going Down. We could conduct thought experiments in which we place our loved ones in scenarios that someone else's loved ones were really in -- like the odds you'd put on my 5' 2" 120 lb wife fighting off a 6' 200 lb rapist or three with anything other than a gun. I could direct your attention to the fact that historically, every time an active shooter is engaged with a  firearm, the killing stops.

But those are all reasonable things to say. And you overbearing, condescending parents, as an overbearing state, can countenance no reasoning counter to its presumptions.

If you wish to give up your ability to defend yourself and your family in the last measure, you surely may. But don't for a moment think that your unwillingness to defend your family gives you moral grounding to (using, what else, but threat of the gun in state agent's hands) come and take my ability to defend mine.

.. and that reasoned argument is one of the best for why providing legislation to ban guns will never pass over the Presidents desk for signing.

I admit, I cannot agree with owning a gun for that purpose myself, but neither can I see why banning them would change the society we live in either. I am neither skilled in the art of shooting another human being nor in being able to stalk such a person, and therefore a firearm in my hands would not be as efficient as your own (though I did regularly gain scores of 90+ in shooting range matches with the Army whilst serving as a Police Officer - so my marksmen skills were never in doubt).

What is your over-riding view on any gun control then, notwithstanding personal use handguns?


Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2012, 09:38:45 PM »
Logical, I feel about gun control the way I feel about prohibition in general. I will note that I'm something of a political anomaly, what we call a voluntary-ist, but I think these observations are true irrespective of that political bent. It seems to me that every prohibition enacted has a few very predictable effects.

1) Trade in the prohibited good becomes violent, because contracts for trade are no longer enforceable in a predictable way, and largely the realm of those that were previously in the business of trading other prohibited goods.

2) Those individuals that value compliance with the law above possession of the prohibited good abstain from acquiring the good. The corollary is also generally true, that individuals who value possession of the good over compliance with law generally acquire the good.

So, it seems to me that the problem with gun control isn't so much that the intent of removing tools of violence from the world is terribly off-mark (although I think it is naive, for something very like the reasons you point out), but rather that the practical effect of attempting to achieve that goal through the threat of state-sponsored violence will have quite a lot in common with the effects of the prohibition of alcohol or the prohibition of drugs.

I think the heart of the gun-control advocate is somewhere very, very noble; and I always cringe a little at the right wing in this country (I'm in the US, if you hadn't guessed) drawing caricatures of political opponents as irrational ogres or malicious devils (although the Times photo of Napolitano hoisting a Kalashnikov-style rifle with her finger all over the trigger at a press conference is marvelous evidence of the ignorance of which I speak). I just think that it is largely an unfamiliarity with how injurious violence (as opposed to communicative violence, like fist fights or domestic abuse) happens, coupled with a stronger belief in legislation to accomplish real and lasting change than I would find justified that leads to a conclusion with really worrisome ramifications for those of us that have admitted to ourselves the possibility of bad things being done to good people and who are preparing for it through skill at arms.

What I would like to see is some intense internal pressure from groups like the NRA and the NGRA exposing dealers that sell weapons that are used in crimes. Publicly naming such, and listing the crime in which the weapon was used. Also, for perspective, I'd like to see regularly published the number of legally-owned guns that are involved in fatalities next to the number of accidental deaths caused by all government agencies, from drone strikes to we-got-the-wrong-house-but-killed-everyone-anyway warrant-less drug raids. We also are in dire need of reforming the way we handle mental illness in this country - the prison system does not work for cases like this. There's a viral blog post being passed around on facebook and such written by a mother of a mentally-disturbed child that is worth reading for some perspective on the way this is done in the US.

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

I realize I'm not answering the question in the way you're looking to have it answered, but I'm just not comfortable deciding where the line is past which I'm willing to have state agents threaten violence on someone simply because I'm not across that line. Or putting the decision of what someone needs in the hands of a state agent. The state agent will always, on the long-run, choose to expand prohibition - it's in his interest to do so. No one gives him credit for doing nothing, and shrinking the bounds of prohibition only costs government jobs - never a popular idea. So he chooses to champion 'reform', finding new weapons now too dangerous for the public, and here we are again, piling out of our strugglebuggies and into the speak easy, if you get my drift. If I were living in the Naco region in Arizona, with cartel-backed coyotes literally skinning people and putting heads on pikes around my property, I'm not sure I wouldn't want (and wouldn't be justified in wanting) something fairly high on the firepower spectrum with which to protect my family.

Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2012, 10:51:10 PM »
On the contrary, I believe you answered the question in exactly the way I expected, and hoped you would, that is to say that the question is not simply one of ban or not ban - but more one of education, both in regards to organizations such as the NRA and also our badly-in-need welfare providers.

Getting the NRA on board, I feel, might be the hardest obstacle to overcome as, from reading their blogs and speaking to local members, I get the impression that they tend to consider any control as an infringement, though I would hope and pray that the latest carnage might push them more towards a conciliatory line of supporting a partial ban, especially in respect of assault weapons.

Other than the NRA (and related organizations) I can then see the survivalists as being an obstacle, though I have little doubt they may well be dealt with in the same manner as Waco, etc, by a government bent on doing what's right, even if they might have to do wrong to achieve that goal.

As far as the welfare providers, that will take a monumental effort, if the current state of the VA is considered, though it can only be good in the end.

Thanks for the great reply.

Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2012, 11:14:26 PM »
That assault weapons language is incredibly difficult, as well. The definition currently being used would include such antique weapons as the M1 Carbine. True assault rifles (weapons capable of fully automatic fire) are already incredibly difficult to acquire legally, costing tens of thousands of dollars and requiring a unique background check that's really pretty extensive. The AR platform that people refer to is about as ubiquitous in the US as the old lever action .30-30 was in a century ago. The magazine capacity restriction is largely unhelpful in cases like this, as anyone willing to learn can reload most magazine-fed weapons in less than two seconds. And, again, I'd hate for a border farmer to lose his family to cartel thugs bent on sending a message because he hadn't the rounds at hand to deal with the situation, especially as we've just handed those cartels some pretty high-end equipment.

Another thing I'd like to see is some serious security measures taken to harden the target that schools are. Whether that's training and arming select teachers, or installing auto-locking systems, pepper-spray or -foam dispensers in ceilings, ballistic blankets, etc. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman recently pointed out in a speech to police officers, it is denial of the risk that has cost us so dearly. No one looks at the fireman as if he is paranoid for advocating sprinklers, and carrying a fire extinguisher in his trunk. We accept that fire is a risk, we prepare for it, and, as a result, we lose very few children to school fires. We do not, however, realistically admit that schools are targets because they are soft.

In any case, thank you for responding calmly and not launching into vitriol. This is a discussion that, like religion, often devolves into foaming ad hominem :).


Offline A Humble Man

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1231
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2012, 11:14:55 PM »
Because the Supreme Court is the defender of the US Constitution unless the right to bear arms is removed from the constitution they will oppose any attempt to restrict arms.

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2012, 11:45:11 PM »
Do any of the US based posters have any stats on how many Americans have used their guns in self defence?

The National Survey of Criminal Victimization ( a government organization) suggest 100,000 people use a year of guns in self-defense. Most are the simple branishing. I got that from an anti gun interview by Peter Frum on CNN. The other side throughs numbers around such as 2.5 million. Well, if I were selling the idea I'd look for the best number as well. So anti gun people admit to 100,000 people using a gun in a positive manner. I suspect the true figure is somewhere in the middle. Read the following:

http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2012, 12:52:34 AM »
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.

YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking.  This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods.  Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them.  I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection.  Is that true?   Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle.  She's a school teacher.  Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children.  So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial.  The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us.  Pathetic argument.  You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi.  That's a real argument with merit.  Someone breaking in your back window at night?  You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one.  So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated?  Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many.  Baby steps to sensible practices.   That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.  

If you read all my posts, you’ll see that I have twice stated that background checks & such should be implemented. They will not help much but if they stop one of these looney tunes then it is worth it. If I wanted a gun, I have no problems with a background check and or a waiting period. This is the age of computers, it could be done for most people in a matter of minutes. Guidelines could be set so that questionable folks would be subject to additional investigation.
As to the mother, the latest reports are that she was some sort of survivalist. I guess the crazy apple didn’t fall far from the tree there.
My issue is and always has been that gun control has little to nothing to do with crime. The crime rate in the US has been on the decline for years. As the largest generation in our history (baby boomers) has left its teens and twenties which began to happen around 1965, the crime rate has dipped. In 1994 we passed a so called “assault” weapon ban. The crime rate did not decline any faster than it had been doing since the sixties. When the ban expired in 2004, the left went bonkers saying there would be mass slaughter in the streets. The crime rate simply continued dropping. The elimination of the “assault” weapon ban did nothing.
As to the slippery slope argument, incrementalism is and has been a method used by the left in this country for years. So, the paranoia of the NRA probabley is accurate. What I would like to see would be some sort of limitation as to muzzle velocity (less powerful ammo). This would reduce the killing power, range and the speed of fire: lower pressure means a slower rate of fire. Metallurgy could be used to limit lower cost weapons (Saturday night specials) and in turn would raise the cost of guns, further making them not cost effective & less desirable. Magazines could be limited to say 5 rounds. Yes this is the easiest thing for a criminal to defeat since a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring but the penalty could be confiscation of that persons weapons or some other serious penalty. Also, armor piercing shells should be illegal. No earthly purpose for them. Registration would simply provide the government with a list of those that have guns which is the big fear of the NRA. Why not subject each weapon to a ballistic test (further raising the cost) and keeping that record on file. When a gun is used illegaly, law enforcement could then go to the manufacturer who would have a record as to what dealer had the gun who in turn would have a record of who he sold it too and the end user could be required to record who he sold it to. Failure to do so at any step could have penalties. A law enforcement searched would be subject to a search warrant. That should appease the NRA. And when the boogie man government comes for everyone’s guns, patriots along the way could burn their records.

As you said, baby steps to a sensible solutions.


Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2012, 01:01:49 AM »
Because the Supreme Court is the defender of the US Constitution unless the right to bear arms is removed from the constitution they will oppose any attempt to restrict arms.

Correct.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold existing law. Any upholding of the Second Admenment is pretty much required. What it would take would be a Constitutional Admenment which in the end requires approval of 2/3rds of the states. Not in this century, to be sure.

Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2012, 02:39:34 AM »
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.

YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking.  This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods.  Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them.  I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection.  Is that true?   Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle.  She's a school teacher.  Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children.  So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial.  The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us.  Pathetic argument.  You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi.  That's a real argument with merit.  Someone breaking in your back window at night?  You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one.  So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated?  Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many.  Baby steps to sensible practices.   That's what we need, and now is a good time to start. 

If you read all my posts, you’ll see that I have twice stated that background checks & such should be implemented. They will not help much but if they stop one of these looney tunes then it is worth it. If I wanted a gun, I have no problems with a background check and or a waiting period. This is the age of computers, it could be done for most people in a matter of minutes. Guidelines could be set so that questionable folks would be subject to additional investigation.
As to the mother, the latest reports are that she was some sort of survivalist. I guess the crazy apple didn’t fall far from the tree there.
My issue is and always has been that gun control has little to nothing to do with crime. The crime rate in the US has been on the decline for years. As the largest generation in our history (baby boomers) has left its teens and twenties which began to happen around 1965, the crime rate has dipped. In 1994 we passed a so called “assault” weapon ban. The crime rate did not decline any faster than it had been doing since the sixties. When the ban expired in 2004, the left went bonkers saying there would be mass slaughter in the streets. The crime rate simply continued dropping. The elimination of the “assault” weapon ban did nothing.
As to the slippery slope argument, incrementalism is and has been a method used by the left in this country for years. So, the paranoia of the NRA probabley is accurate. What I would like to see would be some sort of limitation as to muzzle velocity (less powerful ammo). This would reduce the killing power, range and the speed of fire: lower pressure means a slower rate of fire. Metallurgy could be used to limit lower cost weapons (Saturday night specials) and in turn would raise the cost of guns, further making them not cost effective & less desirable. Magazines could be limited to say 5 rounds. Yes this is the easiest thing for a criminal to defeat since a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring but the penalty could be confiscation of that persons weapons or some other serious penalty. Also, armor piercing shells should be illegal. No earthly purpose for them. Registration would simply provide the government with a list of those that have guns which is the big fear of the NRA. Why not subject each weapon to a ballistic test (further raising the cost) and keeping that record on file. When a gun is used illegaly, law enforcement could then go to the manufacturer who would have a record as to what dealer had the gun who in turn would have a record of who he sold it too and the end user could be required to record who he sold it to. Failure to do so at any step could have penalties. A law enforcement searched would be subject to a search warrant. That should appease the NRA. And when the boogie man government comes for everyone’s guns, patriots along the way could burn their records.

As you said, baby steps to a sensible solutions.

I think you might find, should you ever undergo training to deal with using a firearm defensively, that 5 rounds, especially in a sidearm, goes very, very quickly, and will quite often, leave you needing a fair few more.