Author Topic: NFR: Gun Control  (Read 12381 times)

Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2012, 04:04:33 AM »
I don't buy the incrementalism argument at all.  I see no historic support for that theory.  But I suspect it is part of the regular clap trap propaganda on the Fox network.  I am suspicious of the source of the statistics you cite.  What is the source? We agree that the so-called 'cop killer' armour piercing bullets should be illegal to possess, let alone use.  No legitimate purpose for them other than to commit crimes.  As to the notion that a background check could be quickly done on the computer in a matter of minutes, well, maybe in the future, but we aren't set up for it as of today.  Medical/psychological treatment records haven't been centralized.  They are still siloed.  If I spent more time, I could probably think of other examples as well.  Someone on this thread declared that these mass shootings only occur where there are only unarmed or vulnerable people.  That's not true.  Remember the Arab American psychiatrist in that Texas military base (Killeen?  Ft. Hood?) who mowed down a bunch of soldiers and staff personnel right there on the base?  It doesn't just happen in schools.  I've also heard it said that if school administration were "carrying",then they would have "got him" before he killed all those kids.  That's a nice pipedream when you are in the pocket of the NRA and the gun manufacturing lobby.  Those untrained, scared, individuals would just as likely miss and hit children, become a target themselves.  And just having the gun in the school increases the possibility for an accident to happen.  I don't think the answer is to arm someone at every school in the country.   Every time someone posits we should have registration, the NRA and its lobby extensions trot out that old chestnut about a slippery slope to Nazi Germany, about the government taking away everyone's guns once they know where they all are.  I find that scare theory laughable. 

Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #41 on: December 18, 2012, 04:23:27 AM »

Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #42 on: December 18, 2012, 04:56:11 AM »
"I don't buy the incrementalism argument at all.  I see no historic support for that theory."

How many government agencies can you think of that have relinquished their role and declared 'job done'? How many government agencies can you think that have gradually expanded their defined mission until they are bickering with other agencies over the areas they overlap?

"But I suspect it is part of the regular clap trap propaganda on the Fox network."

I apologize for having roused your suspicions. It seems demonstrably true that government agencies grow often in scope, and rarely shrink in scope.

"What is the source?"

For which statistic? I don't think I've depended very heavily on any statistics, but rather on reason based on observation of history.

"We agree that the so-called 'cop killer' armour piercing bullets should be illegal to possess, let alone use.  No legitimate purpose for them other than to commit crimes."

No we don't. Stopping crimes committed by those wearing body armor would be a legitimate purpose for them. AP rounds are actually notoriously less-lethal.

"Someone on this thread declared that these mass shootings only occur where there are only unarmed or vulnerable people.  That's not true.  Remember the Arab American psychiatrist in that Texas military base (Killeen?  Ft. Hood?) who mowed down a bunch of soldiers and staff personnel right there on the base?"

That was me. By federal law, Fort Hood was a "gun-free" zone at the time of the attack. Which figured in to Al-Awlawki's decision to encourage Hassan to select that target. My point stands, I think. Soft targets are attractive to terrorists of all stripes.

" I've also heard it said that if school administration were "carrying",then they would have "got him" before he killed all those kids.  That's a nice pipedream when you are in the pocket of the NRA and the gun manufacturing lobby."

Active shooters either stop killing when they are engaged with a firearm, or when they choose to stop, it's simply the historical fact of the matter. I assure you I'm not in anyone's pocket, as I hardly think the most effective form of propaganda would be to post on a football forum.

"Those untrained, scared, individuals would just as likely miss and hit children, become a target themselves.  And just having the gun in the school increases the possibility for an accident to happen."

Well, you don't suppose we might also train the individuals we seek to put in charge of protecting our children with lethal force, do you? A biometric safe in the safety officer's office would prevent nearly every accident scenario I can think of.

"I don't think the answer is to arm someone at every school in the country."

Clearly you don't think so, but is there any reason we should agree with you? What do you think the answer is? To disarm everyone that isn't in a school?

" Every time someone posits we should have registration, the NRA and its lobby extensions trot out that old chestnut about a slippery slope to Nazi Germany, about the government taking away everyone's guns once they know where they all are.  I find that scare theory laughable. "

Laughable or not, every oppressive regime in history has sought to disarm the populace they wish to oppress, is it not so? How would gun registration have prevented this or any other mass shooting?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 04:58:12 AM by hesedmedia »


Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #43 on: December 18, 2012, 05:00:49 AM »
I'll not resort to sending you to other links.

If you can't express an argument clearly, then you don't really understand the argument. Until then, it's only an appeal to authority to say, "This person says X, so it's true".

Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #44 on: December 18, 2012, 08:17:48 AM »
Let's take your responses in turn.  You originally wrote incrementalism is used by the left, but when challenged you abandoned attributing it to the left and instead insinuated that all government programs inevitably grow beyond what was originally envisioned.  That may be so, but it doesn't validate the claim that gun registration will inevitably lead to government confiscation, especially not when there are some 300,000,000 guns in the U.S.  There is also nothing particularly "left" about administrative branch incrementalism.  Example: The TSA, which was greatly expanded under Bush's two terms.  What is your support for your claim that crimes with assault weapons did not increase when the ban on assault weapons was lifted?  So you would allow the continued manufacture and sale of cop killer bullets because they could be used to shoot at criminals wearing armour.  That's your argument?  Everyone should be able to buy them  because law enforcement might need them to shoot at bad guys wearing armour.  Hmmm.  I looked up the Ft. Hood shootings on Wikipedia (which admittedly isn't always entirely reliable).  The entry reports that though personal weapons aren't worn on the base, security details there carry guns, and guns are used there for training.  So contrary to your assertion, it wasn't a gun free zone.  But my source is Wikipedia.  If you have superior sources, share them and I'll revise my thinking accordingly. 

Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2012, 08:23:54 AM »


Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2012, 10:24:00 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.


Defending the Constitution, or upholding it, is too simplified. According to the US Government Citizenship, the role of the Supreme Court is to Interpret the Constitution, advise Government and lower courts when their actions are in contravention of the Constitution.

The Court is just one of three branches that can affect the Constitution, and how it is enacted. Unfortunately the second amendment, like much of the Constitution, was written in language of the time, and can be ambiguous, this the separate interpretations, thus the constant and never-ending discussion.

What is interesting is that, in some circumstances, State Law actually affects the 2nd Amendment, rights of possession by felons being one of them.

Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2012, 10:47:18 AM »
From all these shootings, what I do see are soft targets. In the Fort Hood shootings, I believe the killings were perpetrated upon unarmed personnel. Had they been armed it is likely the perp would have been shot dead following his first shot.

If you look at when/where these shootings have occurred, I would proffer that very few were in the presence of armed persons, e.g. it is very rare for any crime to occur in the presence of an authority capable of stopping it. Thus, had there been armed guards in each hallways of each school in the country, then we might well see a reduction, but that is not feasible.

As for the sale of AP rounds. If we accept that citizens are required to defend themselves, then they need to ability to do so. Criminals are not as stupid as some people tend to think, they will adapt. Think back to ned kelly, and you will see that ballistic armor used by criminals is not a modern phenomena.

I am not a paid-up member or defender of the NRA, in fact I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I try to understand why they say it, and why gun control in the US is not a simple matter.

News this morning that Dick's Sporting Goods is withdrawing certain weapons is a good start, and it requires a grass-roots movement to get changes made. I can only hope that this continues for such weapons.

Offline A Humble Man

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1231
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2012, 03:27:23 PM »
From all these shootings, what I do see are soft targets. In the Fort Hood shootings, I believe the killings were perpetrated upon unarmed personnel. Had they been armed it is likely the perp would have been shot dead following his first shot.

If you look at when/where these shootings have occurred, I would proffer that very few were in the presence of armed persons, e.g. it is very rare for any crime to occur in the presence of an authority capable of stopping it. Thus, had there been armed guards in each hallways of each school in the country, then we might well see a reduction, but that is not feasible.

As for the sale of AP rounds. If we accept that citizens are required to defend themselves, then they need to ability to do so. Criminals are not as stupid as some people tend to think, they will adapt. Think back to ned kelly, and you will see that ballistic armor used by criminals is not a modern phenomena.

I am not a paid-up member or defender of the NRA, in fact I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I try to understand why they say it, and why gun control in the US is not a simple matter.

News this morning that Dick's Sporting Goods is withdrawing certain weapons is a good start, and it requires a grass-roots movement to get changes made. I can only hope that this continues for such weapons.


Would you really want a machine gun sitting on the desk of each teacher in every school in every state.  How would that help against smoke bombs and hand grenades.


Logicalman

  • Guest
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2012, 05:16:17 PM »
From all these shootings, what I do see are soft targets. In the Fort Hood shootings, I believe the killings were perpetrated upon unarmed personnel. Had they been armed it is likely the perp would have been shot dead following his first shot.

If you look at when/where these shootings have occurred, I would proffer that very few were in the presence of armed persons, e.g. it is very rare for any crime to occur in the presence of an authority capable of stopping it. Thus, had there been armed guards in each hallways of each school in the country, then we might well see a reduction, but that is not feasible.

As for the sale of AP rounds. If we accept that citizens are required to defend themselves, then they need to ability to do so. Criminals are not as stupid as some people tend to think, they will adapt. Think back to ned kelly, and you will see that ballistic armor used by criminals is not a modern phenomena.

I am not a paid-up member or defender of the NRA, in fact I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I try to understand why they say it, and why gun control in the US is not a simple matter.

News this morning that Dick's Sporting Goods is withdrawing certain weapons is a good start, and it requires a grass-roots movement to get changes made. I can only hope that this continues for such weapons.


Would you really want a machine gun sitting on the desk of each teacher in every school in every state.  How would that help against smoke bombs and hand grenades.

.. If you read on, I said that wasn't feasible. Please try to keep my quotes on context.

The simple answer is there is no simple answer. You appear to believe that it's just a case of changing the Constitution because its just a hangover from the violent past, it isn't, as many posts here testify, it is very much ingrained into the social fabric of the US, in the same way and alcohol consumption is in the UK (and before anyone tries the comparison about alcohol to guns, it was a reference to the social fabric), so what would be the result of banning alcohol in the UK then? Might be a great idea, but not feasible.


So, as you seem to prefer to tell us how it shouldn't be done, how would you tackle the problem sensibly?

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 05:18:02 PM by Logicalman »

Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2012, 05:22:03 PM »
"You originally wrote incrementalism is used by the left, but when challenged you abandoned attributing it to the left and instead insinuated that all government programs inevitably grow beyond what was originally envisioned."

I don't think I attributed incrementalism or mission creep to left-leaning agencies at all. Where did I do that? And where did you challenge it? I've consistently maintained that mission creep and general expansion in scope is a feature of government agencies.

"That may be so, but it doesn't validate the claim that gun registration will inevitably lead to government confiscation, especially not when there are some 300,000,000 guns in the U.S.  There is also nothing particularly "left" about administrative branch incrementalism.  Example: The TSA, which was greatly expanded under Bush's two terms."

Well, if it were so, it seems like it would validate the claim that the prohibitive agency or legislation would expand in scope. How long it would take to arrive at confiscation is another matter, but my point wasn't that confiscation is inevitable, necessarily. But rather that the notion that oppressors seek to disarm those they would oppress is just a matter of historical fact, and to claim that it is paranoid to acknowledge history is, er, thick. Again, I never claimed that mission creep is a particular feature of agencies staffed by leftists, and the TSA is a perfect example of what I meant.

"What is your support for your claim that crimes with assault weapons did not increase when the ban on assault weapons was lifted?"

I didn't make that claim. But, if I were to make that claim, I would direct you to the Federally-funded study published in July 2004 titled "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003", in which the authors state, "Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement…" and "”We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” The study also notes that use of so-called 'assault weapons' in crimes was pretty rare to begin with, something like 2-8% of guns used in crimes.

"So you would allow the continued manufacture and sale of cop killer bullets because they could be used to shoot at criminals wearing armour. That's your argument?  Everyone should be able to buy them  because law enforcement might need them to shoot at bad guys wearing armour."

Er, there are a wide variety of bullets that will pierce a variety of armors. There are no bullets that are cop killers, any more than there are cars that are drunk drivers. If you'll note, the last three mass-shooting attempts (not counting the one thwarted by an armed woman in San Antonio), involved shooters wearing body armor. Your attempt to reduce this to a straw man argument - "because law enforcement…" is obvious and ineffective. The very point is that police are not everywhere, and historically arrive AFTER the killing has stopped at the shooter's whim. What the police have is immaterial to the discussion, as the police are not there.

"The entry reports that though personal weapons aren't worn on the base, security details there carry guns, and guns are used there for training.  So contrary to your assertion, it wasn't a gun free zone.  But my source is Wikipedia.  If you have superior sources, share them and I'll revise my thinking accordingly. "

Sure. What I mean be 'gun-free zone' is that it is a location in which the personal possession of defensive arms is prohibited: "The suspect is believed to have used two handguns in the shooting, one a semiautomatic, Cone said. And in responding to a question, “As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood,” he said."

That's Army Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, commanding officer of the base.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56558

Also note that the killing stopped when the shooter was engaged with a firearm and not before. Many of the unarmed in the room attacked Hasan with chairs and tables, but the killing ended when Hasan was shot at. Do you think that maybe there's a reason Hasan/Al-Awlaki chose to start the shooting in a location on the base in which he knew no one carried personal weapons, instead of, say, at the MP security office?

Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2012, 05:37:46 PM »
Humble, I love your avatar, by the way.

There are a lot of ways to harden school targets without necessarily arming the teachers. I would reiterate Dave Grossman's recommendation about automated security systems (link below).

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 05:46:45 PM by hesedmedia »


MJG

  • Guest
Re: Re: Re: Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #52 on: December 18, 2012, 05:39:26 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
cheers for that. Its almost 20 years old but I find those numbers amazing.

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #53 on: December 18, 2012, 05:42:45 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. 

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.

The ones I learned on and used had at least twenty and a few times I wished there were more. I threw up the number five because that is far too many for some, usually those that have never handled a fire arm.

Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #54 on: December 18, 2012, 05:48:53 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. 

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.

The ones I learned on and used had at least twenty and a few times I wished there were more. I threw up the number five because that is far too many for some, usually those that have never handled a fire arm.

Ah! I misconstrued you, fair enough. People only familiar with firearms from film and television are invariably shocked at how fast rounds start going in a gunfight.


Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2012, 02:59:08 PM »
 
December 19, 2012
The N.R.A. Protection RacketBy RICHARD W. PAINTER
Edina, Minn.

FOR years, protection rackets dominated dangerous urban neighborhoods. Shop owners and residents lived in relative security only by paying off or paying homage to organized criminals or corrupt cops. Anyone who dared to stand up to these “protectors” would not be around for long.

The Republican Party — once a proud bastion of civic and business leaders who battled Southern racism, Northern corruption and the evils of big government — has for the past several decades been itself the victim of political protection rackets. These rackets are orchestrated by fringe groups with extremist views on social issues, which Republican politicians are forced to support even if they are unpopular with intelligent, economically successful and especially female voters. Their influence was already clear by the time I joined the Bush White House staff in 2005, and it has only increased in the years since.

The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.

The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”

For decades, Republican politicians have gone along with this racket, some willingly and others because they know that resisting would be pointless. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the N.R.A. spent almost $19 million in the last federal election cycle. This money is not just spent to beat Democrats but also to beat Republicans who don’t toe the line.

But the last election showed the costs to Republicans of succumbing to the N.R.A. and to other groups with extremist views on issues like homosexuality and stem cell research. The fringe groups, drenched with money and the “free speech” that comes with it, have stood firm, and become even more radical, as the population as a whole — including many traditional Republican voters — has moved in the opposite direction.

Gun violence in particular frightens voters in middle- and upper-income suburbs across the country, places like my hometown, Edina, Minn. These areas, once Republican strongholds, still have many voters who are sympathetic to the economic platform of the Republican Party but are increasingly worried about their own safety in a country with millions of unregistered and unregulated guns. Some suburban voters may keep a hunting rifle locked away in a safe place, but few want people bringing semiautomatic weapons into their neighborhoods. They also believe that insane people should not have access to guns.

A few clicks on the N.R.A. Web site lead you to the type of weapons the group wants to protect from regulation. Many are not needed for hunting pheasants or deer. They are used for hunting people. They have firepower unimaginable to the founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment, firepower that could wipe out an entire kindergarten classroom in a few minutes, as we saw so tragically last week.

This is not the vision of sportsmanship that soccer moms and dads want or will vote for, and they will turn against Republicans because of it. Who worries about the inheritance tax when gun violence may kill off one’s heirs in the second grade?

Republican politicians must free themselves from the N.R.A. protection racket and others like it. For starters, the party establishment should refuse to endorse anyone who runs in a primary with N.R.A. money against a sitting Republican. If the establishment refuses to support Republicans using other Republicans for target practice, the N.R.A. will take its shooting game somewhere else.

Reasonable gun control legislation will then be able to pass Congress and the state legislatures. Next, Republicans should embrace legislation like the proposed American Anti-Corruption Act, which would rid both parties of their dependence on big money from groups like the N.R.A. The Republican Party will once again be proud to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And voters will go back to feeling that their children are safe, their democracy works, and they will once again consider voting Republican.

Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.


Offline hesedmedia

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 516
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #56 on: December 20, 2012, 06:58:41 PM »
FF, that is the way lobbying works in the U.S. It is of course a diabolical system, but it's the same system that every lobby participates in.

I'll assume that since you've abandoned the other arguments, this is now the one you feel most compelling -- that the business of lobbying is evil. I agree. I think the whole system of politics is evil.

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with the gun control debate. The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the people were comparably armed to the state. So talk about sporting use is just irrelevant to your advocating men with guns go about further disarming the US populace.

Also, again, I could post someone else's arguments for you to deal with, but, if you really understand an argument, you can articulate it concisely.

Offline YankeeJim

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 5119
  • Bring on the Championship!
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #57 on: December 20, 2012, 08:07:30 PM »
To clear up one thing, I am the one who attributed incrimentalism to the left. Its a Sol Alinsky (Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals) thing. The idea being that you get what you want a bit at a time. The TSA is a silly comparison since it is a government program and government programs have a life and growth of their own. However, point taken.

 The following is a article by  an LA writer, teacher, speaker & radio talk show host Dennis Prager. He voices some of my opinions about the matter, using the so called war on drugs as a prime example. I'm sure this will draw more rants then gun control since morality has become a word that has ceased to mean decency but know seems to be associated more with censorship.

Mr. Prager:


Conscience, Not Guns

 Tuesday, December 18, 2012

ShareThis

 From the moment Americans learned of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre last Friday, the entire left -- editorialists, columnists, broadcasters, politicians -- used the occasion to promote one idea: gun control.

 For the left, the primary reason for just about all American gun murders is the availability of guns.

 I have no interest in debating gun control here. I only wish to ask the left one question: We have a massive system of drug control laws. Yet, the left is the first to argue that the war on drugs has been a failure. And whether or not one deems it a failure, the war on drugs surely hasn't prevented tens of millions of Americans, including teenagers, from obtaining drugs illegally. Why, then, does the left believe that a war on guns would be any more effective than the war on drugs?

 That question aside, what matters most here is the left's preoccupation with guns as the root of the murder problem in America.

 It explains a great deal about the left's worldview. The moral values and the conscience of nations as well as individuals seem to play almost no role in the left's understanding of human behavior.

That is why the left wants all nations, including the United States, to destroy their nuclear weapons. The problem for the left is not the moral values nations hold, it is the weapons nations hold. American nuclear weapons were just as troubling to the left as Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War and just as troubling as Iran having nuclear weapons today. So, too, the problem of gun violence in America is not the moral values of gun owners, it is gun ownership.

 And because leftist thinking dominates American society -- from elementary through graduate school and in virtually all the print and electronic news media -- there is one view that almost never gets a hearing: that the primary reason for gun violence in America is not gun ownership, but the lack of a functioning moral conscience.

Lack of conscience is the problem both for individuals and for nations. Among nations the problem is nuclear (and all other) weapons in the hands of bad regimes. And among Americans the problem is guns in the hands of bad people.

 This is so obvious that one has to be propagandized his whole life by leftism not to immediately understand it. But leftism is the religion of the west, the most dynamic religion in the world for the last century. It is as hard to reject leftism in the west as it was to reject Christianity in Europe during the Middle Ages or Islam in the Arab world today.

Does one reader of this column -- including individuals on the left -- fear being massacred by a decent person? Of course not.

 Then why isn't our emphasis on character development and the teaching of right and wrong?

 Why is this never mentioned on the left? Why are guns, not the conscience, the root issue for the left?

 We are lead to believe after almost every massacre that the murderer "snapped" or had mental problems. Why? Because it implies that the murderer was not morally responsible for what he did. We are told, for example, that Adam Lanza, who by all accounts was a brilliant student, suffered from a form of autism. Even if true, why is that important? Statistically, I would bet that those with autism commit far fewer violent crimes than the rest of population. Autistic people, like everyone else, can be taught the difference between right and wrong. My stepson is autistic, and is not capable of attending regular school (much less honors classes) or driving a car, things that Adam Lanza did fully normally. But my stepson is keenly aware of right and wrong, and believes that God punishes people who commit evil.

 On some rare occasions mental illness may be the only possible explanation for evil. But when American schools emphasized character development, and when nearly all Americans believed that there is a God who forbids and punishes murder, such massacres rarely took place. When people "snapped" during the Great Depression some of them did kill ... themselves. Surely some European Jews who survived the Holocaust "snapped" after seeing their families murdered. Yet I know of no survivor of the Holocaust who massacred innocent Germans or Poles or Hungarians, or Frenchmen, let alone Americans. Why not?

 Because until the contemporary period, religion and/or conscience development were ubiquitous.

 Instead of teaching young Americans self-control, thanks to leftist influence, we now teach them self-esteem -- which has been worse than morally useless. It has been morally destructive. According to professor of psychology Roy Baumeister, one of the leading criminologists in America, few Americans have the high self-esteem that violent criminals have.

 Want to know a major cause of criminal violence in America? Try leftism's denial of the importance of moral values among nations and individuals; its systematic destruction of character education; and its elimination of God as the source of moral law.

Not guns.


Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2012, 04:35:06 PM »
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 20, 2012
National Rifle (Selling) AssociationThe National Rifle Association is scheduled to hold a news conference on Friday where it says it plans to provide details about its promise of “meaningful contributions” to prevent another a massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn.

We would like to believe that the N.R.A., the most influential opponent of sensible gun-control policies, will do as it says, but we have little faith that it will offer any substantial reforms. The association presents itself as a grass-roots organization, but it has become increasingly clear in recent years that it represents gun makers. Its chief aim has been to help their businesses by increasing the spread of firearms throughout American society.

In recent years, the N.R.A. has aggressively lobbied federal and state governments to dilute or eliminate numerous regulations on gun ownership. And the clearest beneficiary has been the gun industry — sales of firearms and ammunition have grown 5.7 percent a year since 2007, to nearly $12 billion this year, according to IBISWorld, a market research firm. Despite the recession, arms sales have been growing so fast that domestic manufacturers haven’t been able to keep up. Imports of arms have grown 3.6 percent a year in the last five years.

The industry has, in turn, been a big supporter of the N.R.A. It has contributed between $14.7 million and $38.9 million to an N.R.A.-corporate-giving campaign since 2005, according to a report published last year by the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates greater gun control. The estimate is based on a study of the N.R.A.’s “Ring of Freedom” program and very likely understates the industry’s total financial support for the association, which does not publicly disclose a comprehensive list of its donors and how much they have given.

Officials from the N.R.A. have repeatedly said their main goal is to protect the Second Amendment rights of rank-and-file members who like to hunt or want guns for protection. But that claim is at odds with surveys that show a majority of N.R.A. members and a majority of American gun owners often support restrictions on gun sales and ownership that the N.R.A. has bitterly fought.

For instance, a 2009 poll commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that 69 percent of N.R.A. members would support requiring all sellers at gun shows to conduct background checks of prospective buyers, which they do not have to do now and which the N.R.A. has steadfastly argued against. If lawful gun owners are willing to subject themselves to background checks, why is the association resisting? Its position appears only to serve the interest of gun makers and dealers who want to increase sales even if it means having dangerous weapons fall into the hands of criminals and violent individuals.

Businesses and special-interest groups often cloak their profit motives in the garb of constitutional rights — think Big Tobacco and its opposition to restrictions on smoking in public places and bold warnings on cigarette packages. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to regulations and controls. Yet the N.R.A. clings to its groundless arguments that tough regulations violate the Second Amendment. Many of those arguments serve no purpose other than to increase the sales of guns and bullets.


Offline Forever Fulham

  • The Bard/Corked Hat
  • *
  • Posts: 3261
Re: NFR: Gun Control
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2012, 04:53:06 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. 

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.

hesedmedia, I haven't abandoned any of my arguments.  Rather, it's tiring to go back and forth with a sophist.  This is, after all, a Fulham fan board. It's an unusual departure for me (and I suspect for you as well) to carry on about an issue so removed from the team, the players, and the game as a whole.  I shall make a few further observations though and then get off my box.   1. The shooter got the semi-automatic Bushmaster military-grade rifle from his mother.  Had she been unable to possess such a gun, perhaps more would have had time to slip away and avoid death.  2. The shooter, like most recent mass shooting incidents, operated far too quickly for any armed teacher or guard to have prevented the deaths.  20-30 seconds...  If the armed protector is but down the hall, he or she wouldn't have had time to do anything save perhaps eventually shoot the sick killer, provided they don't kill more innocents with a poor aim, shaky hand, or kids running in front of the line of fire in the process.  I have a mental image of my Second Grade teacher, Sister Mary Ivo, armed and pressed into service when the first pops go off.