An interesting little factoid has emerged from a new Fox News poll of U.S. voters: Personal sentiments are strong and defiant among many U.S. gun owners.
Question 46 in the wide-ranging survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there is a gun in the household. Overall, 52 percent of the respondents said yes, someone in their home owned a gun. That number included 65 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of conservatives, 38 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of liberals.
But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"
The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.
Click here to see the complete findings.
The poll of 1,008 registered U.S. voters was conducted Jan. 15-17.
Let's flip this around a bit. How many drinkers here would defy a federal ban on alcohol because of the number of alcohol related fatalities(which outnumber criminal gun fatalities by the way).
Relapse wrote: Let's flip this around a bit. How many drinkers here would defy a federal ban on alcohol because of the number of alcohol related fatalities(which outnumber criminal gun fatalities by the way).
Oh you Americans sure do love your alcohol don't you!!!
I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few advocites of banning or sevverely controling guns have driven a car after having a few, endangering others.
Relapse wrote: I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.
Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!
Relapse wrote: I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.
Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!
Exalted.
On topic, I certainly won't be turning in any of my firearms to the government.
I don't own any genetically modified potatoes that scream if you try to peel them... but if the government banned them, I'd keep them, and to hell with you, Mr. Big Government. Because even if those potatoes were totally annoying, and they screamed all the time for, like, no reason in addition to when you try to peel them, you're not my dad, Mr. Government Man. I'm not going to listen to you because next thing I know you're going to say you need to go get a pack of smokes, and then you'll walk out into the rain and never, ever return.
Is that... a Canadian joke? Well, if it is I am English so it doesn't work on me. We are the oppressors after all.
Out of curiosity. Would a federal gun ban be at all possible in the States any more? The sheer quantity of people who own firearms would surely pose a daunting task for the government to impose such a law. I mean, while I would personally be all for it, what would be stopping people from simply sticking their pistol under the bedsheets regardless?
sebster wrote: This whole debate is just ridiculous. Just utterly stupid.
Honest to God, the things people get all worked up about.
"Yeah, I ain't gonna let some government man take my guns!"
"Are they trying to take your guns?"
"No. But if they were I sure wouldn't let 'em!"
The already restrictive gun laws in New York have been made even more restrictive recently. Gun owners there will have to give up their ten-round magazines and switch to seven-round magazines (how they're going to do that I'm not sure, since I'm sure there are plenty of guns for which seven-round magazines don't even exist currently). They have to get rid of property they bought legally, property which is legal in most other states. There are senators supporting an assault weapons ban that is even stricter than the last one. There certainly are politicians who would take away people's guns if they could.
Will the assault weapons ban be successful? Most likely not, thanks to the House of Representatives. That doesn't mean the debate is ridiculous, because people in power are talking about banning a wide variety of popular firearms.
An interesting little factoid has emerged from a new Fox News poll of U.S. voters: Personal sentiments are strong and defiant among many U.S. gun owners.
Question 46 in the wide-ranging survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there is a gun in the household. Overall, 52 percent of the respondents said yes, someone in their home owned a gun. That number included 65 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of conservatives, 38 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of liberals.
But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"
The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.
Click here to see the complete findings.
The poll of 1,008 registered U.S. voters was conducted Jan. 15-17.
Out of curiosity. Would a federal gun ban be at all possible in the States any more? The sheer quantity of people who own firearms would surely pose a daunting task for the government to impose such a law. I mean, while I would personally be all for it, what would be stopping people from simply sticking their pistol under the bedsheets regardless?
You mean like the kind of ban where they actually go house to house to confiscate people's guns, or do some sort of gun amnesty where everyone has to turn in their guns? Yeah, that's not happening.
Is that... a Canadian joke? Well, if it is I am English so it doesn't work on me. We are the oppressors after all.
Out of curiosity. Would a federal gun ban be at all possible in the States any more? The sheer quantity of people who own firearms would surely pose a daunting task for the government to impose such a law. I mean, while I would personally be all for it, what would be stopping people from simply sticking their pistol under the bedsheets regardless?
Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.
Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.
Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.
Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.
Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.
Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.
Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16
Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!
Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.
Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.
Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.
Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16
Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!
Attending a gun safety class might help too, and you wouldn't even have to ban anything.
Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.
Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.
Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.
Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16
Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!
Given that that happened in Canada with severly restricted gun laws suggests a ban would NOT stop such incidences from occuring.
Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime. The same with New York.
The reason such accidents happen is stupidity. Which is just as dangerous with a gun as with kitchen knives. Or any other object. Cars, power tools, electric outlets, potato peelers...
You can't legeslate someone into observing proper safety around guns. Its something that you learn.
We have car accident awareness days in schools. The same with fire safety. Why not have gun safety? Seems to happen often enough to warrent some attention.
Have one day a year where some local law enforcement come in and give safety tips about how to properly store and handle firearms.
Break the mystique about guns. People advocate for a lower drinking age because it would remove the "cool" factor of drinking illegally. You could do a similar thing with guns.
Guns arn't toys, they are tools that need respect. This could be a much more effective way of cutting down on accidents where a kid finds a gun and accidentally shoots someone. If the kid has been taught that the gun is not something to play around with he won't touch it.
More effective than unenforceable attempts to mandate proper storage or have endless red tape for a person to excercise their constitutional rights.
Well naturally a mandatory safety course would be a great idea. I will admit ignorance and ask if there are any such classes that you are forced to take already or is it simply a case of strolling into your local Wal-mart and grabbing a gun that takes you fancy?
Commander Cain wrote: Well naturally a mandatory safety course would be a great idea. I will admit ignorance and ask if there are any such classes that you are forced to take already or is it simply a case of strolling into your local Wal-mart and grabbing a gun that takes you fancy?
In Ohio you have to take a course if you want to concealed carry, and you have to take a course to get a hunting license, but just to buy a gun, there is not required course. There are plenty of optional courses too, and to be honest, you can have someone teach you basic gun safety without having to take an official course. It's really not that complicated or difficult, but it is important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty much the above. Although for certain guns they require a background check and a waiting period while you do.
There are also age restrictions on certain guns too. Namely pistols. A 12 year old could own a shotgun but not a .45 for example.
Some guns don't require an ID check or a waiting period. Like a shotgun at Walmart.
It all depends on the place where you are buying the gun too.
It can also vary by state. In some states you need a permit just to own a handgun.
There are no mandatory gun safety classes, but they are advertised, along with local concealed carry certification instructors usually.
Until recently, meaning within the last 20 years or so, that sort of thing was handled by parents. They would teach their children the proper way to behave around guns, how to use them, and when. More importantly, they would teach them when not to use them. Of course, within the last 20 years, this nation has lost its independent mindedness and become more and more like sheeple.
Anyway, gun safety classes are widely avaliable and affordable. If you are buying a gun you be able to attend one. Those dumb enough not to a playing with natural selection. never a bad thing.
It would be safe to say that a 'finger prying' scenario would end poorly for millions of americans, as well as brave law enforcement officials just doing their jobs.
I'd support gun safety classes being mandatory in schools, so that every American above the age of twelve would already know enough to not accidentally shoot anyone. The problem with making them mandatory to own a gun is that a lightbulb goes off above the head of every anti-gun politician, and they realise that they can just make it impossible to take the class.
Relapse wrote: I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.
Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!
Grey Templar wrote: Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime. The same with New York.
New York doesn't have very high crime, per capita.
Very true. It's also worth pointing out that the New York Police Department is the size of some nations' military. 40,000 Uniformed officers and a budget of $3.9 billion is... a heck of a police department! Larger, indeed, then the military of places such as: Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Norway, etc, etc...
Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16
Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!
Ultimately, the issue is a true cultural divide. Consider the following image;
Whether that image causes one to nod their head, or shake it, depends very much on where you stand.
Relapse wrote: I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.
Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!
Grey Templar wrote: Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime. The same with New York.
New York doesn't have very high crime, per capita.
Very true. It's also worth pointing out that the New York Police Department is the size of some nations' military. 40,000 Uniformed officers and a budget of $3.9 billion is... a heck of a police department! Larger, indeed, then the military of places such as: Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Norway, etc, etc...
Not sure about the others, but Austria's Bundesheer has more than 40,000 soldiers on active duty. Still though, I had no idea the NYPD was so big, and comparing it to Austria and other countries' militaries definitely puts it into perspective.
After enduring hours of derision and mockery by the panelists at a Chicago-area guns “forum” Sunday, one man in the audience stood up and addressed the crowd, identified himself as a veteran, and proceeded to give a straightforward but passionate defense of his support for the First and Second Amendments.
The forum, despite having been marketed by the organizers from the New Trier Democrats as a “space for real conversation,” had until then allowed for anything but discussion.
Countless snide remarks and dubious facts were placed on powerpoint slides as the audience, largely filled with NRA supporters, were repeatedly “shushed” and told to write any questions down for a later Q&A.
Still, as time went on, and especially after speaker Bill Jenkins placed a photograph of Nazi paraphernalia on the screen with the caption, “this is what a gun show looks like,” and after he had put a picture of a chihuahua with the words “this is what I think the NRA really is” up, the crowd had nearly had it.
Finally, when panelist Lee Goodman of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition responded to a question about the original reasons for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights by saying “it didn’t matter [what their intentions were],” it was enough for the combat veteran to speak up:
The exchange:
Veteran: Sir, sir. While you’re standing up. I’ve sat here [inaudible] and I’d like to agree with the professor. Everyone standing in this room right now, especially the veterans in the room right now, know, that we are all Americans. The problem with this country right now is it’s us and it’s f***ing them. We need to stop this crap.
Now, the thing I would like you to answer, sir. And I did go to war for this country. Whether it was for everyone in here’s ability to have oil and gas in their cars, or the banks, or whatever. I went to war for my country.
And I went to war for your ability to have the First Amendment, to say what you stood up there and said today, to write what you want to write in your newspaper, and have whatever opinion you want to have. You can practice whatever religious freedoms you want. I would like you to answer the question, since you just said that one of the rights that I went to war over to defend, that is inalienable, to every American citizen. If this discussion was going on, about your First Amendment rights, would you still have the same opinion that we don’t need that any more either.
Goodman: You didn’t hear my answer….that’s not what I said…I said it doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what matters is whether or not it’s relevant today.
Audience member: It’s an eternal truth, an eternal truth….
Goodman: When they consider any part of the Constitution, any law, they’re going to say, “what does it mean today?”
Audience: NO!
Veteran: The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700!
Ouze wrote: I don't own any genetically modified potatoes that scream if you try to peel them... but if the government banned them, I'd keep them, and to hell with you, Mr. Big Government. Because even if those potatoes were totally annoying, and they screamed all the time for, like, no reason in addition to when you try to peel them, you're not my dad, Mr. Government Man. I'm not going to listen to you because next thing I know you're going to say you need to go get a pack of smokes, and then you'll walk out into the rain and never, ever return.
This is simply the greatest thing I've ever read.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: The already restrictive gun laws in New York have been made even more restrictive recently. Gun owners there will have to give up their ten-round magazines and switch to seven-round magazines (how they're going to do that I'm not sure, since I'm sure there are plenty of guns for which seven-round magazines don't even exist currently). They have to get rid of property they bought legally, property which is legal in most other states. There are senators supporting an assault weapons ban that is even stricter than the last one. There certainly are politicians who would take away people's guns if they could.
Will the assault weapons ban be successful? Most likely not, thanks to the House of Representatives. That doesn't mean the debate is ridiculous, because people in power are talking about banning a wide variety of popular firearms.
Those points you made there, about the switch to seven round magazines that were purchased honesly as legal items... that's a real, substantial point. A sensible claim to be made in this debate.
Now compare that with people saying that they'll totally defy the gun weapon ban... that isn't happening. That is a stupid point, made by people who aren't necessarily stupid, but who have made a very stupid claim because they'd rather play imaginary defy the federal government games than sensibly talk about a political issue.
Frazzled wrote: Try it. We're not Australia. Many would start a guerrilla war at that point. And no I am not joking.
Which is totally relevant to the America in which guns are being banned. But it's got feth all to do with the reality on this Earth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: There are no mandatory gun safety classes, but they are advertised, along with local concealed carry certification instructors usually.
Until recently, meaning within the last 20 years or so, that sort of thing was handled by parents. They would teach their children the proper way to behave around guns, how to use them, and when. More importantly, they would teach them when not to use them. Of course, within the last 20 years, this nation has lost its independent mindedness and become more and more like sheeple.
Exactly what happened in 1992 to begin this horrible rise of the sheeple? Was it the Simpsons? The death of hair metal?
Kovnik Obama wrote: The threat of tyranny is much much less today (in the Modern world) then it was 100, 200 and 300 years ago.
See? I too can affirm things without having any means of backing them up.
Would you consider the times during WW2 "modern"?
What about the 1990s? Is that modern enough? (hint... Bosnian War)
Saying that something is much less likely to happen today doesn't mean that it cannot happens, just that there won't be as many instances as there were before. Something which, even if you were to include other cases of tyranny (Franco, Caucescu, Castro, etc), I think would remain true.
And the point was to balance the absolutely baseless affirmation with an equally baseless affirmation to it's contrary.
Kovnik Obama wrote: The threat of tyranny is much much less today (in the Modern world) then it was 100, 200 and 300 years ago.
See? I too can affirm things without having any means of backing them up.
Would you consider the times during WW2 "modern"?
What about the 1990s? Is that modern enough? (hint... Bosnian War)
Saying that something is much less likely to happen today doesn't mean that it cannot happens, just that there won't be as many instances as there were before. Something which, even if you were to include other cases of tyranny (Franco, Caucescu, Castro, etc), I think would remain true.
And the point was to balance the absolutely baseless affirmation with an equally baseless affirmation to it's contrary.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but on what basis would you say that tyranny is less likely now then in previous times? It would seem that freedom is scarcely on the march, while the enemies of democracy seem everywhere filled with furious energy.
Even if we discount pure totalitarian dictators, elements of tyranny, societal uncertainty and ethnic strife are certainly on the upswing.
Buzzsaw wrote: I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but on what basis would you say that tyranny is less likely now then in previous times? It would seem that freedom is scarcely on the march, while the enemies of democracy seem everywhere filled with furious energy.
Even if we discount pure totalitarian dictators, elements of tyranny, societal uncertainty and ethnic strife are certainly on the upswing.
Re-read my posts.
Then re-read your post.
Then realise that you are making exactly the same type of baseless affirmations that I was denouncing.
Well, if anything, ultimately, is that people want to sell it as a cultural divide with two, overly simplistic sides, when that isn't the case at all.
Not to be persnickety, but when one side: a) views self-defense through arms as a moral imperative, and believes that fundamentally the second amendment exists to be a check on government power (that is to say, that it exists to facilitate armed insurrection), and
It seems, as former President Clinton observes, there "our side" and “A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing,” well, it's a little hard not to see the yawning chasm between the two positions.
Unless you were being exceptionally specific, and quibbling that there are many derivations on the overarching positions with many permutations thereof. Which is correct... but rather goes without saying.
Buzzsaw wrote: I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but on what basis would you say that tyranny is less likely now then in previous times? It would seem that freedom is scarcely on the march, while the enemies of democracy seem everywhere filled with furious energy.
Even if we discount pure totalitarian dictators, elements of tyranny, societal uncertainty and ethnic strife are certainly on the upswing.
Re-read my posts.
Then re-read your post.
Then realise that you are making exactly the same type of baseless affirmations that I was denouncing.
At the risk of a very long aside, I do have actual reasons for my position (hence it being my position); don't you?
Unfettered access to any and all weapons is not the same thing as self defense, and no one is arguing that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.
Buzzsaw wrote: and believes that fundamentally the second amendment exists to be a check on government power (that is to say, that it exists to facilitate armed insurrection)
Which is debatable, and also relies on degrees that having a binary outlook doesn't allow.
Again, lumping a complex, multifaceted debate down to just 'us and them', which shows a lack of understanding of the myriad of positions on both sides. It isn't freedom loving, tyrant hating, gun lovers versus tyrannical, liberal gun haters. It is like when people think Republicans are ultra-right wing and Democrats are ultra-left wing, when really they aren't that far away from each other. It is all propaganda to push people to vote one way or the other, and this is no different. There are all sorts of people who like guns, hate tyranny, and are for some common sense regulation. You don;t have to be one extreme or the other, and you really don't have to start letting commercials and pamphlets tell you that is the reality of it.
So "you were being exceptionally specific, and quibbling that there are many derivations on the overarching positions with many permutations thereof. Which is correct... but rather goes without saying" then, eh?
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.
Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.
Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.
It's a big task, but it doesn't seem very American to just say "Too hard, not going to bother".
"Too hard, not going to bother, and its against the constitution".
There we go, thats fixed it.
I might have a little more respect for the anti-gun people if their proposed legislation actually targeted problem weapons.
Also if people realized the second amendment was not so people could hunt, it was so people could resist the government with force.
When we take that purpose into consideration, we see that military grade weaponry is exactly what the second amendment intended for the citizens to have.
Of course the writers never would have envisioned a time when there would be a distinction between civilian and military weapons. A gun was a gun. A hunting rifle at the time wasn't all that different from what the army would be issued with, and often they were the same.
The only real difference between a military and civilian gun was a military one might have a bayonet lug.
I am certain that if they had known of fully automatic, assault rifles, and other myriad terms that are tossed around now, they would have made it abundantly clear that ALL weapons were included. Up to include armoured vehicles.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.
Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.
Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.
It's a big task, but it doesn't seem very American to just say "Too hard, not going to bother".
"Too hard, not going to bother, and its against the constitution".
There we go, thats fixed it.
It's against one interpretation of the constitution. So what? Amend that sucker. It wouldn't be the first time.
The founding fathers thought having tanks was a fundamental human right?
Grey Templar wrote: I am certain that if they had known of fully automatic, assault rifles, and other myriad terms that are tossed around now, they would have made it abundantly clear that ALL weapons were included. Up to include armoured vehicles.
Really? Tanks are a fundamental human right, that the founding fathers would have enshrined in your constitution if they'd thought of it?
Hell, why not just jump straight to nuclear and chemical weapons?
However, the point is that the Second's purpose was so that the citizens could overthrow the government in the event of it becoming tyrannical.
And I would assert that to do that the citizens would need weapons up to the task. Which would include machine guns, anti-tank weaponry, and armored vehicles.
That was the purpose of this Constitutional right, and any attempt to infringe it is the Government attempting to make itself unassailable.
Why do you think all oppressive government have restricted civilian ownership of weaponry?
And no, Tanks are not a fundamental human right. But they are a right as a citizen of this country.
I never figured out the BS about "You don't need that type of gun to go hunting." or any of that other crap.
As a Veteran, I have a so called "Assault Rifle". I like it. Sometimes I go shoot it at a range. I do not lie about what its reason for existence. It exists to kill other human beings. I do not want to use it to kill other people, but if the time comes, I am fully trained, prepared and equipped to do such a thing. Just like my car can go faster then the speed limit. It doesn't need to, but if the time comes sometimes I need to get somewhere faster.
This whole gun ban bull doesn't make any sense anyways, most Americans are killed with Pistols, not semi auto rifles. pistols. No anger against pistols though. Just Semi Auto Rifles.... really? Example 2010. There were 9603 gun homicides. Out of those 576 where killed by "Long Guns (Rifles/Semi Auto Rifles) in the same year 19,776 people killed themselves with a gun. yes. more people kill themselves with firearms then kill other people. You are 2 times more likely to kill yourself with a gun then be killed by someone with a gun.
Universal Background checks sound fine, Psychological testing sounds good to, A mandatory safety class I'm good with that, magazine restrictions, weapon bans can suck the end of my barrel.
Grey Templar wrote: "Too hard, not going to bother, and its against the constitution".
There we go, thats fixed it.
There are already constitutionally accepted limits on firearm ownership. You might personally not believe those limits are constitutional, but ultimately in matters of constitutional law the opinions of Grey Templar, internet poster, don't mean a damn thing.
Of course the writers never would have envisioned a time when there would be a distinction between civilian and military weapons. A gun was a gun. A hunting rifle at the time wasn't all that different from what the army would be issued with, and often they were the same.
They also never envisioned a time when global trade was such an incredible force, and material goods in such abundance that arms to supply a revolutionary force could be easily acquired once decent cell structures were in place.
I am certain that if they had known of fully automatic, assault rifles, and other myriad terms that are tossed around now, they would have made it abundantly clear that ALL weapons were included. Up to include armoured vehicles.
I've seen people putting their beliefs onto the founding fathers before, but never quite this obviously.
Take note that the places that have already enacted "assault weapons" bans tend to focus real close on handguns shortly thereafter. Incrementalism works.
I never figured out the BS about "You don't need that type of gun to go hunting." or any of that other crap.
This is because appeasing the Legion of Elmer Fudd has historically gotten a good chunk of opposition to stand down, after all, what does he care? They aren't after his deer rifle (yet..)
Nowadays enough of these people HAVE the type of rifle that they are currently trying to ban, or actually do use them for hunting or target shooting that this particular little trick isn't working so great, hence the rather nasty reaction to the proposed measures (Even excluding arguments of constitutionality, or whether or not the proposals are even worth thinking about. Any time you want to tell a huge group of people who have done nothing wrong that "What you have is bad, give it up nao plzthnx or g2jail" you should prepare to get a VERY poor reception.)
There are already constitutionally accepted limits on firearm ownership. You might personally not believe those limits are constitutional, but ultimately in matters of constitutional law the opinions of Grey Templar, internet poster, don't mean a damn thing.
Right, and your views also "don't mean a damn thing". Just so we are clear.
My views as a citizen do matter however, I vote. I personally think the Judicial branch's powers are far too overextending due to them having no responsibility to the voters. I am not sure on how to curb that, but that is another discussion.
They also never envisioned a time when global trade was such an incredible force, and material goods in such abundance that arms to supply a revolutionary force could be easily acquired once decent cell structures were in place.
And why is this important? The goal is to make the revolution as easy as possable.
I've seen people putting their beliefs onto the founding fathers before, but never quite this obviously.
Do you have anything that would counter that?
The purpose of the Second is so the citizens could resist a tyrannical government.
It is clear that any resistance to a government that is armed with fully automatic weapons, tanks, and an airforce would be nigh impossable to do if you are only armed with pistols and hunting rifles.
Therefor, it is a logical conclusion that the second amendment allows for the ownership of things like fully automatic weapons, anti-tank weaponry, and tanks and that is what the founding fathers intended.
Grey Templar wrote: Why do you think all oppressive government have restricted civilian ownership of weaponry?
Complete and utter myth. Total tosh. Utter fantasy. Generally built around a complete lie on gun policy in Nazi Germany, pretending that the 1938 German Weapons Law restricted guns. It actually repealed or minimised the gun control laws put in place by the previous centre left government. The requirement to register long arms was entirely removed. The legal age for owning a gun was lowered from 20 to 18. Restrictions on the amount of guns and ammo a person could own were dropped.
This would only change when all privately owned firearms were ordered to be collected by the ruling powers. But that was in 1945, and the man who gave that order was Eisenhower.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Right, and your views also "don't mean a damn thing". Just so we are clear.
Absolutely. But the simple fact remains that the Supreme Court has found some limitations on weapons to be constitutional. Just claiming that such things aren't constitutional is meaningless.
My views as a citizen do matter however, I vote. I personally think the Judicial branch's powers are far too overextending due to them having no responsibility to the voters. I am not sure on how to curb that, but that is another discussion.
There remains no possible source of constitutional review other than the judiciary.
And why is this important? The goal is to make the revolution as easy as possable.
Then fight for the civil liberties that make revolution unecessary. Knowing that if it ever becomes needed, it will be a horrendously bloody, ugly affair that would drag on for possibly generations. And understand that owning guns will not make that materially easier.
Do you have anything that would counter that?
Counter it? By putting my thoughts into the heads of the founding fathers? It's a nonsense exercise.
Grey Templar wrote: it is a logical conclusion that the second amendment allows for the ownership of things like fully automatic weapons, anti-tank weaponry, and tanks and that is what the founding fathers intended.
I'm pretty sure that the Jews in the Warszawa ghetto had guns. Not that it did them much good in the end.
I just wish people would stop pretending that it'd be completely impossible to stage an uprising without private firearms. It's not as though the military is some sort of monolith that isn't made up of individuals. And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.
I'd say US v Miller would do that nicely (Though the decision has other points that can be argued for the other side.) One of the implications being that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected under the 2nd precisely because it -wasn`t- a common piece of military equipment.
I think it would take a particular kind of "Gifted" to say that about machine guns at the moment.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pretty sure that the Jews in the Warszawa ghetto had guns. Not that it did them much good in the end.
I just wish people would stop pretending that it'd be completely impossible to stage an uprising without private firearms. It's not as though the military is some sort of monolith that isn't made up of individuals. And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.
Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pretty sure that the Jews in the Warszawa ghetto had guns. Not that it did them much good in the end.
I just wish people would stop pretending that it'd be completely impossible to stage an uprising without private firearms. It's not as though the military is some sort of monolith that isn't made up of individuals. And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.
Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.
That too. "Hey, the government is coming, I'm gonna kill them all, because I'm Rambo!"
And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.
And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.
Have you turned on the news recently by chance?
Bolded the important part. I don't see the US carpet bombing Afghanistan with NBC weapons or al-Assad dropping Sarin on his own people.
And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.
Have you turned on the news recently by chance?
pretty much, modern powerful armies can't defeat a bunch of civilians using home made bombs and using a variety of Small arms. Examples : Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam.
Bolded the important part. I don't see the US carpet bombing Afghanistan with NBC weapons or al-Assad dropping Sarin on his own people.
Because clearly, a nation actively using WMDs/Indescriminate conventional weapons on its people won't have bigger problems than an insurrection.
Just because a government has access to X, doesn't mean it would use X in any remotely plausible battle plan. Otherwise the US would simply glass any country we go to war with.
Cheesecat wrote: Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.
The more puzzling thing is that of the crowd that thinks they need to own guns in case the government suddenly goes tyranical, very few make any noise about any of the various civil rights issues. How many are vocal about the continued operation of Gitmo? Or the use of torture in the war on terror? Or the use of drones to kill people without trial, including Americans.
But they're almost entirely silent on those issues, leaving it up to pinkos like the ACLU. Instead they just buy guns, go out shooting and figure they're ready for the day when they have to start shooting fellow Americans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Bolded the important part. I don't see the US carpet bombing Afghanistan with NBC weapons or al-Assad dropping Sarin on his own people.
And more to the point, Syria shows that when a functioning revolutionary movement forms, then higher end weapons is not that big of a deal. The revolutionary forces have been supplied with weapons to take out tanks, and they've taken so many choppers down the Syrian pilots have been refusing to fly sorties.
If your cause has any chance of succeeding, it will need foreign friends. And if it has foreign friends then there will be all kinds of military gear available. It isn't for lack of gear that revolutions fail.
And even less of a deal when the populace has the capacity at the start of the conflict, which is the point.
On the other hand, who decides what constitutes tyrrany? With everyone armed to the teeth a small set of individuals can cause major damage to society, in exchange of a theoretical revolt being more hi-tech. Is that worth it? That's where our opinions differ.
Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.
But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).
This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.
We wrote: Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.
But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).
This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.
If you can't handle people participating in a thread on a public, international forum without being offended then perhaps you should rethink your priorities. Especially seeing as the US isn't exactly innocent in the department of telling other nations what to do. If you think that the US is unique in achieving independence from a foreign "tyrranical" power you might want to look up the history of Canada, which strangely enough gets away without being anywhere near the level of gun-saturation the US has.
Kovnik Obama wrote: A part of me want things to escalate, just to see how much ''dead finger prying'' will actually take place.
The other part also want things to go 'boom', just because, hey, it's not my country going boom.
Careful what you wish for Canuck. If Texas secedes it will go after the oil countries. Kiss Western Canada goodbye. You can keep Quebec.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gunslingerpro wrote: It would be safe to say that a 'finger prying' scenario would end poorly for millions of americans, as well as brave storm troopers just doing their jobs.
This entire issue is misplaced hostility.
Corrected your typo. At that point they go from "police" to "occupiers."
I had a PM discussion with Frazzled about this a couple of years ago, but the thing I've always thought was the best about the American Constitution is that it can be amended to meet new challenges and situations, it doesn't have to be set in stone. In fact, we are talking about an amendment right now.
Sometimes when arguing online, I've seen Americans using "well, the constitution says!" as a kind of trump card, and it's always confused me, because it isn't some sort of holy writ.
We wrote: Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.
But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).
This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.
If you can't handle people participating in a thread on a public, international forum without being offended then perhaps you should rethink your priorities. Especially seeing as the US isn't exactly innocent in the department of telling other nations what to do. If you think that the US is unique in achieving independence from a foreign "tyrranical" power you might want to look up the history of Canada, which strangely enough gets away without being anywhere near the level of gun-saturation the US has.
Canada had its independence granted once asked for, we didn't achieve independence by the strength of arms, and really we're still subjects of Her Majesty the Queen so formally we haven't achieved independence at all.
But if you really want to get an American riled up you insult their beer for the urine flavoured water it is, not discuss gun policy.
Da Boss wrote: I had a PM discussion with Frazzled about this a couple of years ago, but the thing I've always thought was the best about the American Constitution is that it can be amended to meet new challenges and situations, it doesn't have to be set in stone. In fact, we are talking about an amendment right now.
Sometimes when arguing online, I've seen Americans using "well, the constitution says!" as a kind of trump card, and it's always confused me, because it isn't some sort of holy writ.
Indeed, the Constitution can be amended. It just takes effort. Frankly, it should. It gathers and builds public support, and helps settle the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
We wrote: Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.
But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).
This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.
Yep. Then I realize, my family has more military might than most countries, and it is only because of our Inherent Greatness that restrains us from taking over their country. Then I feel better.
Da Boss wrote: I had a PM discussion with Frazzled about this a couple of years ago, but the thing I've always thought was the best about the American Constitution is that it can be amended to meet new challenges and situations, it doesn't have to be set in stone. In fact, we are talking about an amendment right now. Sometimes when arguing online, I've seen Americans using "well, the constitution says!" as a kind of trump card, and it's always confused me, because it isn't some sort of holy writ.
The constitution is deliberately hard to amend. I suspect amending any of the first 10 amendments, known as The Bill Of Rights would be harder than other amendments to get support for. It would be fun to see the anti-gun crowd attempt to go that route. I honestly don't think they have it in them.
Personally, I'm hoping the next amendment puts term limits on congress critters.
We wrote: Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.
But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).
This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.
We wrote: Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.
But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).
This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.
Offended? No. It's pretty funny.
That's my take too...
Another thing that was funny when I visited Europe... was that bewbs were everywhere. At least they got that right!
My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.
The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.
On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.
I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.
DAaddict wrote: My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.
The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.
On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.
I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.
I'm sorry but what firearm commercially available is belt fed again?
Military grade weapons are illegal now.
Cheesecat wrote: Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.
The more puzzling thing is that of the crowd that thinks they need to own guns in case the government suddenly goes tyranical, very few make any noise about any of the various civil rights issues.
Your honor.. I object to this line of reasoning! Various civil rights infractions doesn't equate to full-bore tyranny.
How many are vocal about the continued operation of Gitmo?
Still vocal here in the states... but, since Obama been president, the MEDIA is quiet on this front (and you still don't think there's bias? )
Or the use of torture in the war on terror?
We don't torture... (okay, we don't know about the black sites)
Or the use of drones to kill people without trial, including Americans.
This... I kinda do have a problem with in principle. To me, the current administration is treating these sorts of things as if they're "police actions"... which is a very bad precedent in my opinion. If we're going to use these sorts of weaponary, then we need to be in a "Declared War" state with the full backing of Congress. As to American citizens in the Warzone? Sorry, they're fairgame.... they should've been aware of the risks.
But they're almost entirely silent on those issues, leaving it up to pinkos like the ACLU.
There's plenty of other groups very vocal about certain policies.
Instead they just buy guns, go out shooting and figure they're ready for the day when they have to start shooting fellow Americans.
DAaddict wrote: My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.
The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.
On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.
I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.
I've got a Remington .22lr that has an integral tube magazine that holds more than 20 rounds. I also have a .22 that looks like an M4 and uses detachable magazines that hold more than 20 rounds. Should both those require gov't permission and an additional cost to me to own? If not both, which one, or neither?
I also have a black rifle that is semi-automatic and uses magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. It was created as a civilian version of a military rifle (the mil version is capable of full auto fire, the civlian version is not). It has a bipod and a bayonet lug. Do you consider it "military purposed' though it clearly was NOT purposed that way? Define 'military grade'? The US army issues 9mm pistols, are 9mm pistols now to fit the "military grade" rules? I also own a Mosin which WAS created as a military rifle over 50 years ago. It holds less than 10 rounds (but does have a cool bayonet). Is this what you are trying to cover?
And again, you have proposed new rules that limit freedom I currently enjoy.
1. What is your goal? 2. How do your proposed rules enable that goal?
DAaddict wrote: My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.
The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.
On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.
I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.
I'm sorry but what firearm commercially available is belt fed again?
Military grade weapons are illegal now.
Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.
Ninjacommando wrote: No they are not you just need the proper license for them. An Example being that a Barret m82a1 cost ~$11k (.50 cal bmg semi auto).
You have to go through a special licensing process, including monitoring. Good luck finding someone who has one. Further and more importantly, has anyone with such a license ever beein involved in a crime with one? (I'll answer that for you-no)
DAaddict wrote: My problem is the radicals on both sides... while I own a 22 LR rifle for fun, I do not own any other firearm.
The radical liberals seem to be shooting <pun> for total ban on gun ownership. To that I say screw you. For one thing, the government would be crying to lose all its money from hunting licenses. For another I do believe that the Constitution has guaranteed the right to bear arms for a reason.
On the other hand, it is too easy to obtain a firearm. There is no reason a private citizen needs belt fed, more than 10 round capacity mags.
I would hope for some restrictions like restrictions on mag capacity and mandatory (no matter who sells) waiting periods for firearms. Finally a licensing (and therefore) registration on ownership of military-grade weapons. I say let anyone own whatever they want but let the government make someone pay for the priviledge of owning high capacity mags, military purposed weapons. Then toughen the laws to include fines and confiscation for any unregistered firearms.
I'm sorry but what firearm commercially available is belt fed again?
Military grade weapons are illegal now.
Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.
So..you're basing your knowledge on... a tv show?
OT are those those Red Jacket jerkwads that make the horrifically bad Saigas? CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!
Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.
So your own definition of 'military grade' is something that is not really military grade. Nice.
No one can justify owning a car or motorcycle capable of going more than 75mph except for fun and/or breaking speeding laws. Yet no special restrictions on the ownership of these exists (compared to other cars).
How about you answer the questions:
1. What is your goal? 2. How do your proposed rules, which limit freedoms I currently hold, meet your goal?
Just because YOU deem it ludicrous is no reason to infringe on my freedoms.
Ninjacommando wrote: No they are not you just need the proper license for them. An Example being that a Barret m82a1 cost ~$11k (.50 cal bmg semi auto).
You have to go through a special licensing process, including monitoring. Good luck finding someone who has one. Further and more importantly, has anyone with such a license ever beein involved in a crime with one? (I'll answer that for you-no)
you don't need a license for that rifle i linked. anything larger than a .50 cal requires ATF registration.
Ninjacommando wrote: No they are not you just need the proper license for them. An Example being that a Barret m82a1 cost ~$11k (.50 cal bmg semi auto).
You have to go through a special licensing process, including monitoring. Good luck finding someone who has one. Further and more importantly, has anyone with such a license ever beein involved in a crime with one? (I'll answer that for you-no)
you don't need a license for that rifle i linked. anything larger than a .50 cal requires ATF registration.
SO its already taken care. Whats your point then Buckaroo?
@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?
no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.
@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?
no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.
Oh... I see.
There's a bunch of weapons that the Military gets that ARE illegal to own. I think that's was Fraz was referring to...
You're referring to FULLY AUTOMATIC (which can be military issued) which we can own provided licensing and local law enforcement official's sign off.
Hence my earlier point... we're talking in circles.
@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?
no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.
It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.
Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?
Ninjacommando wrote: You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.
You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."
Ninjacommando wrote: You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.
You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."
They've made it almost impossable to aquire these weapons, and they know where you live if you do own one.
@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?
no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.
It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.
Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?
Military grade staplers should be banned. After all, who needs a military grade stapler?
Ninjacommando wrote: You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.
You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."
yes and we have had this chat about in the mid section of the last page.
Ninjacommando wrote: You mean fully automatic weapons? you can own those to as long as the weapon was made and registered before may 1986.
You also have to have a $200 tax stamp and a class three federal firearms license, which is a months-long process that entails completing tons of paperwork, having a complete background check and having any legally-owned fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF. The kind of firearms we're talking about also cost in the neighborhood of probably $10,000 to $20,000 and up, depending on what it is. It's a little more complicated than just "you can own those as long as the weapon was made and registered before 1986."
yes and we have had this chat about in the mid section of the last page.
Yeah, sorry I was late to the party. I took too long to write my reply and saw your other posts right after I posted.
Have you watched Sons of Guns? They have the license but I clearly recall them having some "fun" with M1917, M2. MG42 etc... Let me qualify my military grade weapons.... I am talking AR15 and AK47 (semi--automatic versions of military grade) No body can justify ownership of these other than for fun or producing mayhem. Again let them be licensed and no problems on my part but to go to a gun show and walk away with an AK47 and 2 or 3 30 round clips without a waiting period or special licensing seems a bit ludicrous.
So your own definition of 'military grade' is something that is not really military grade. Nice.
No one can justify owning a car or motorcycle capable of going more than 75mph except for fun and/or breaking speeding laws. Yet no special restrictions on the ownership of these exists (compared to other cars).
How about you answer the questions:
1. What is your goal?
2. How do your proposed rules, which limit freedoms I currently hold, meet your goal?
Just because YOU deem it ludicrous is no reason to infringe on my freedoms.
My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.
So that idiots who own such weapons and don't take precautions then have them taken are held accountable for having a killing machine left available to their off-balance kids.
I own a vehicle that is capable of doing 100+ mph, but I don't do it. And if I did I don't punch the gas and aim it at a congregation of people either...
You can own whatever you want but don't tell me it is an unbearable infringement to make you license and register such a firearm and perhaps not allow you to buy it on a spur of the moment. (heat of the moment) I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.
To quote the NRA - Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I am not niave enough to think that forbidding gun ownership is desirable but a little control and oversight is not bad. Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.
@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?
no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.
It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.
Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?
Military grade staplers should be banned. After all, who needs a military grade stapler?
Our staplers are automatic. I can staple non-stop until I run out of staples. No civilian should have those powers.
@ninjacommado... What is your point though? Are you saying that we shouldn't have them?
no, I think a person should be able to own any firearm they want. Again I was just responding to the "military grade weapons are illegal" you can get them it just requires time and money.
It also has to do with "military grade" weapons not being well defined.
Is the Beretta M9 a military grade weapon because its used by the military?
Military grade staplers should be banned. After all, who needs a military grade stapler?
Our staplers are automatic. I can staple non-stop until I run out of staples. No civilian should have those powers.
And all staplers with a capacity of more than 10 staples need to be banned.
LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.
I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.
I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.
DAaddict wrote: LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.
I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.
I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.
Someone can get a single shot shotgun, and still kill someone every 3 seconds. Furthermore, the damage they do with that shotgun would be harder to repair, and will more likely kill the person it hits. Capacity has no real merit on killing power.
DAaddict wrote: LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.
I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.
I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.
An AR-10 has a multiround magazine and would be excellent against deer.
You've not expressed a benefit, but have expressed multiple costs: violation of the Second Amendment, costs to acquire new magazines, etc.
DAaddict wrote: LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.
Yeah, less than 5 seconds. Actually less than 3 seconds with practice and anticipation of reloading.
You don't shoot till your out, say "I'm out", unload the empty mag, reach for the new one, and put it in.
Its more like, 3 shots left, reaches for new mag, uses last 3 rounds, drops empty mag and immediatly inserts new mag.
On a semi-automatic they will likely not be any lull in firing.
DAaddict wrote: LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.
I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.
I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.
An AR-10 has a multiround magazine and would be excellent against deer.
You've not expressed a benefit, but have expressed multiple costs: violation of the Second Amendment, costs to acquire new magazines, etc.
In addition, an AR-15 is a great varmint gun and works well for hunting things like coyote and wild boar.
DAaddict wrote: LOL... okay I understand that 2 15-round clips equals a 30 round clip. I also understand that we are talking less than 5 seconds to reload a new clip.
I am talking about perception. No deer hunting rifle has a banana clip. Now it seems most of the latest wave of derainged have little or no clue of what they are doing with a weapon... So lets make them work a little to kill people.
I have 25 rnd clips of 22 rimfire and it is fun to just pull the trigger. All that I am saying is perhaps making it a little more regulated and a pain or costly to own, it might make it more of a thought to own. Increased liability for misuse might cause someone to be more responsible.
An AR-10 has a multiround magazine and would be excellent against deer.
You've not expressed a benefit, but have expressed multiple costs: violation of the Second Amendment, costs to acquire new magazines, etc.
In addition, an AR-15 is a great varmint gun and works well for hunting things like coyote and wild boar.
I wish someone had an AR 15 and taken out the coyote that leaped out in front of my car (before he leaped out in front of my car).
DAaddict wrote: My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.
Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?
DAaddict wrote: So that idiots who own such weapons and don't take precautions then have them taken are held accountable for having a killing machine left available to their off-balance kids.
The most recent incidents involved the parent(s) being murdered by the off-balance kids so I don't know how you plan on holding them accountable.
DAaddict wrote: I own a vehicle that is capable of doing 100+ mph, but I don't do it. And if I did I don't punch the gas and aim it at a congregation of people either...
Maybe you should turn in your car so that some teenager doesn't steal it during the night and kill some children while drunk driving.
DAaddict wrote: You can own whatever you want but don't tell me it is an unbearable infringement to make you license and register such a firearm and perhaps not allow you to buy it on a spur of the moment. (heat of the moment). <snip> Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.
Tell me how - EXACTLY - having an AR-15 registered with the state would have prevented any of the killing sprees that have happened recently. Seriously, I want specific details.
I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.
Actually, gun shows (at least in the Northwest) require a membership before you can buy from any of the dealers there. That membership involves the standard background check done as part of buying a firearm. So, except for the five day wait, you're not skipping anything. Oh, and the gun club people really like to look you over just to make sure you aren't some crazy jack-hole or activist trying to make trouble.
DAaddict wrote: My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.
Virginia Tech involved more lives lost, and involved pistols. Why the focus on guns that account for less than 1% of criminal homicide?
I am not niave enough to think that forbidding gun ownership is desirable but a little control and oversight is not bad. Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.
Is a Glock inherently more deadly than a Smith & Wesson?
phantommaster wrote: The government would be better off putting money into education and mental health.
Almost everyone who owns guns in America would agree. The problem is that you run into a different area of civil rights when you start looking at mental health. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson
Breotan wrote: Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?
So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?
To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.
Breotan wrote: Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?
So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?
To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.
Except of course, its the crazies shooting people.
Breotan wrote: Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?
So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?
To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.
Breotan wrote: Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?
So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?
To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.
Except of course, its the crazies shooting people.
Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?
I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.
Breotan wrote: Why would a gun ban be more effective than a reworking of how we identify and (involuntarily) commit people for psychiatric care?
So you don't trust the government with gun laws but you trust them to come up with a system to decide who involuntarily needs to be committed and who doesn't?
To me thats even scarier than gun restrictions. Way way way scarier.
Except of course, its the crazies shooting people.
Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?
Someone going in an shooting up an elementary school. How's that for ya?
sebster wrote: This whole debate is just ridiculous. Just utterly stupid.
Honest to God, the things people get all worked up about.
"Yeah, I ain't gonna let some government man take my guns!"
"Are they trying to take your guns?"
"No. But if they were I sure wouldn't let 'em!"
But they are trying to take their guns. People in California had to ship guns to another state because as of an arbitrary date, they were illegal and must be turned over for destruction. (without compensation, I might add.) Folks in New York will be forced to do the same thing before March 1st, or be breaking the law.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?
I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.
Except that when they say "crazies" and are pushing for mental health reform instead of gun reform they mean something different from what your saying here. Yes everyone is talking about spree killings, that's media gold. But the "crazies" are a slipperier slope than gun laws IMO. I'd gladly trade the freedom to buy a certain rifle to ensure I wont be locked up in a psych ward for having "crazy" thoughts anyday.
My goal? So I don't have to hear about another wingnut who goes into a school/public place with a 30-round AK47 or similar where I hear about massive loss of life and that it would have been worse had it not been for a fortuitous gun jam.
So that idiots who own such weapons and don't take precautions then have them taken are held accountable for having a killing machine left available to their off-balance kids.
I own a vehicle that is capable of doing 100+ mph, but I don't do it. And if I did I don't punch the gas and aim it at a congregation of people either...
You can own whatever you want but don't tell me it is an unbearable infringement to make you license and register such a firearm and perhaps not allow you to buy it on a spur of the moment. (heat of the moment) I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.
To quote the NRA - Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I am not niave enough to think that forbidding gun ownership is desirable but a little control and oversight is not bad. Perhaps we won't have gun enthusiast mothers leaving AR 15 and Glocks in unlocked locations where their slightly unbalanced kids can readily grab them.
So, your goal is NO MOAR SANDY HOOKS!!!
And how did you think your proposals would accomplish that? (I did ask that of you twice before).
Your stated proposals, if in place, would not have prevented Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Aurora theater shooting.... And yet you consider your proposals valid solutions to enable your goal? Do you also not understand that the weapons your proposal covers are rarely used in any murders? When you add in the fact that your proposals would not prevent the ones that they are used in, your proposals, as a solution to achieve your stated goal, are asinine. They fall into the "WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" category. You feel good doing 'something' and care nothing about addressing the actual problems, nor do you care about the rights folks currently enjoy. Your Feeling Good is all that matters. Frankly that is a common but disappointing aspect we see a lot of in this type of proposal.
Any infringement of my rights is unbearable when that infringement does not help you achieve your stated goal. If you could demonstrate how the infringement met your goal, then we can discuss if it is worth giving up my freedom. As many here have demonstrated, there are a lot more easily controlable ways to prevent kids from being killed that do not violate the Bill of Rights.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?
I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.
Except that when they say "crazies" and are pushing for mental health reform instead of gun reform they mean something different from what your saying here. Yes everyone is talking about spree killings, that's media gold. But the "crazies" are a slipperier slope than gun laws IMO. I'd gladly trade the freedom to buy a certain rifle to ensure I wont be locked up in a psych ward for having "crazy" thoughts anyday.
OK you do that. I'm sane and your tradeoff won't keep the crazies from killing people.
Further I'm not saying all the crazies have to be locked up. I'm saying: 1. People who are taking psychotropic drugs and are potentially dangerous should have firearms removed. 2. People who are dangerous to themselves, and others, and after extensive reivwe includingmultiple doc signoff, can be temporarily constrained. Lets get real we can put safeguards in for the truly crazy. 3. Access to medical care for mental health needs to be greatly expanded: PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE HELP THEY NEED. mental illness is a disease. treat it like that.
I know a brick and mortar shop has to fill out a registration tell me why I can go to a gun show and assuming I have the cash, can buy anything.
Actually, gun shows (at least in the Northwest) require a membership before you can buy from any of the dealers there. That membership involves the standard background check done as part of buying a firearm. So, except for the five day wait, you're not skipping anything. Oh, and the gun club people really like to look you over just to make sure you aren't some crazy jack-hole or activist trying to make trouble.
Here in AZ if you go to a gun show (and anybody can), if you buy from a dealer there's the normal paperwork involved. However buying from a private citizen requires no paperwork (in or outside of a gunshow). This is due to the fact that a private citizen can't legally call the FBI and ask them if a person can legally buy a firearm like a business can. That, I believe, is due to privacy laws (as only a convicted felon is restricted from purchasing a firearm). So, in the belief that less government interference is better than more, AZ does not register firearms, permits private sales, and instead tries to punish those that commit crimes instead of hassling the majority that do not. Note that it is still a crime to knowingly sell a firearm to an illegal posessor, but with no real way for a private citizen to check there's no real way to prove the knowledge.
CptJake wrote: And how did you think your proposals would accomplish that? (I did ask that of you twice before).
I asked him that, too. It seems that people don't really care if it would have actually done anything, they just want "something" done and this is the easiest thing they can think of. It's your classic kneejerk reaction on parade.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Exactly the attitude espoused by the NRA. Define "crazies". Any murderer is a "crazy" now?
I believe he meant it's the crazies that're going on the big spree killings that gain media attention. That's what people actually care about. Nobody gives a gak about your ho-hum everyday homicides in this country, but something done with a scary-looking black rifle that two-thirds of the country thinks is identical to what killed bin Laden? That gets attention.
Except that when they say "crazies" and are pushing for mental health reform instead of gun reform they mean something different from what your saying here. Yes everyone is talking about spree killings, that's media gold. But the "crazies" are a slipperier slope than gun laws IMO. I'd gladly trade the freedom to buy a certain rifle to ensure I wont be locked up in a psych ward for having "crazy" thoughts anyday.
OK you do that. I'm sane and your tradeoff won't keep the crazies from killing people.
Further I'm not saying all the crazies have to be locked up. I'm saying:
1. People who are taking psychotropic drugs and are potentially dangerous should have firearms removed.
2. People who are dangerous to themselves, and others, and after extensive reivwe includingmultiple doc signoff, can be temporarily constrained. Lets get real we can put safeguards in for the truly crazy.
3. Access to medical care for mental health needs to be greatly expanded: PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE HELP THEY NEED.
mental illness is a disease. treat it like that.
So anyone that's ever taken Zoloft should be barred a gun? Who decides who is a danger? The doctors? Lawyers making statutes on what defines a danger? The government? Oh wait you don't trust them with your Constitutional right to own a gun, but are willing to hand them the keys to decide your mental health?
Until liability laws change I won't support these vague "mental health reforms". Too many doctors are going to just sign people off because nobody wants to take the liability if the person turns out to be a danger at a later point.
Guess I should note that I have a very low opinion of mental health providers in the US strictly from my own personal experience, so that does cloud my judgment.
In Canada at least if you've suffered from mental health issues in the last 4 years or are taking prescription drugs for them I beleive you aren't allowed to be given a gun license. That said there are ways to get around that, if you had a gun license and then lose it I don't believe you have to give up your firearms. Also, if you live on a farm you are allowed to own guns for the protection of livestock or for the killing of pests. However, you still need an ammunition license for purchasing amuunition, but you can legally purchase all of the requisites to load your own without an ammo requisition license.
That said, if you go around buying quantities of explosive powder for your casings you can expect a call from CSIS in the near future.
So intestead of saying someone who is taking Zoloft shouldn't have a gun while they are taking Zoloft you're just going to ban all the guns (so again the person taking Zoloft wouldn't have a gun).
Note: Frazzled doesn't know what Zoloft is. Frazzled does know know that TBone takes Class 3 Narcotics or some such because I have to give 27 forms of ID and take a freaking lie detector test to get the prescription for him.
"Are you TBone Frazzled?"
"No."
"Well he'll have to sign for it."
"he can't write."
"Sure he can."
"well if you'd like I'll come back and he'll leave his mark. Better have a bucket handy though because he pees like a racehorse."
"?"
"He's a wiener dog."
"Ooooooooh"
As to that law proposed in Missouri, the school notification thing is dumb, but the ability to be charged with negligent storage of a firearm is actually a decent idea as long as the execution is done correctly. ie, they don't nail you if someone broke into your safe and took it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Zoloft is an anti depressant/anti psychotic prescription drug if memory serves.
Frazzled wrote: So intestead of saying someone who is taking Zoloft shouldn't have a gun while they are taking Zoloft you're just going to ban all the guns (so again the person taking Zoloft wouldn't have a gun).
Note: Frazzled doesn't know what Zoloft is. Frazzled does know know that TBone takes Class 3 Narcotics or some such because I have to give 27 forms of ID and take a freaking lie detector test to get the prescription for him.
"Are you TBone Frazzled?"
"No."
"Well he'll have to sign for it."
"he can't write."
"Sure he can."
"well if you'd like I'll come back and he'll leave his mark. Better have a bucket handy though because he pees like a racehorse."
"?"
"He's a wiener dog."
"Ooooooooh"
Wait... what meds are you giving that dog? o.O
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: As to that law proposed in Missouri, the school notification thing is dumb, but the ability to be charged with negligent storage of a firearm is actually a decent idea as long as the execution is done correctly. ie, they don't nail you if someone broke into your safe and took it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Zoloft is an anti depressant/anti psychotic prescription drug if memory serves.
Yup:
Zoloft (sertraline) is an antidepressant in a group of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Zoloft affects chemicals in the brain that may become unbalanced and cause depression, panic, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
Zoloft is used to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).
Oh wow ok. A bunch. Some of these are several a day. *med for seizures (thats the weird one) *laisec (sp) for heart *another heart medicine thats expensive *pregnazone (sp) to help stabilize his blood sugar because of the tumor.
Zoloft is one the most commonly prescribed anti-depressants in the US, similar to Prozac its an SSRI. If I recall exactly its around 30 million or more Americans currently on anti-depressants. This is because its the first line of offense used by mental health professionals, most often along with therapy.
So Frazz again, should anyone who's had mental health issues be banned from owning firearms? Only certain firearms? No firearms? Depends on the drugs? See its tricky. I understand why people want to blame all these shootings on "crazies" because its just more shifting the blame.
The truth is its normal, everyday people committing these murders, and that scares people. So we blame guns. We blame video games. We blame mental health. Instead of blaming ourselves. And then we go ahead and pass a bunch of gakky laws that don't help anyone.
Oh wow ok. A bunch. Some of these are several a day.
*med for seizures (thats the weird one)
-Phenobarbital and/or bromide... possibly the class 3 narc you're referencing... 'umies can take those too.
*laisec (sp) for heart
Lasix (furosemide)(Salix)... we 'umies take that too
*another heart medicine thats expensive
Might be Enalapril? There's a bunch...
*pregnazone (sp) to help stabilize his blood sugar because of the tumor.
Not sure what that is... Prednisone? It's a steroid...
Any hoo... I'll send some extra prayers for those mighty-mites
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Zoloft is one the most commonly prescribed anti-depressants in the US, similar to Prozac its an SSRI. If I recall exactly its around 30 million or more Americans currently on anti-depressants. This is because its the first line of offense used by mental health professionals, most often along with therapy.
So Frazz again, should anyone who's had mental health issues be banned from owning firearms? Only certain firearms? No firearms? Depends on the drugs? See its tricky. I understand why people want to blame all these shootings on "crazies" because its just more shifting the blame.
The truth is its normal, everyday people committing these murders, and that scares people. So we blame guns. We blame video games. We blame mental health. Instead of blaming ourselves. And then we go ahead and pass a bunch of gakky laws that don't help anyone.
.
Truth be told... you can't ban the crazies... there's too many guns.
Oh wow ok. A bunch. Some of these are several a day.
*med for seizures (thats the weird one)
-Phenobarbital and/or bromide... possibly the class 3 narc you're referencing... 'umies can take those too.
*laisec (sp) for heart
Lasix (furosemide)(Salix)... we 'umies take that too
*another heart medicine thats expensive
Might be Enalapril? There's a bunch...
*pregnazone (sp) to help stabilize his blood sugar because of the tumor.
Not sure what that is... Prednisone? It's a steroid...
Any hoo... I'll send some extra prayers for those mighty-mites
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Zoloft is one the most commonly prescribed anti-depressants in the US, similar to Prozac its an SSRI. If I recall exactly its around 30 million or more Americans currently on anti-depressants. This is because its the first line of offense used by mental health professionals, most often along with therapy.
So Frazz again, should anyone who's had mental health issues be banned from owning firearms? Only certain firearms? No firearms? Depends on the drugs? See its tricky. I understand why people want to blame all these shootings on "crazies" because its just more shifting the blame.
The truth is its normal, everyday people committing these murders, and that scares people. So we blame guns. We blame video games. We blame mental health. Instead of blaming ourselves. And then we go ahead and pass a bunch of gakky laws that don't help anyone.
.
Truth be told... you can't ban the crazies... there's too many guns.
yep those are the meds. Fortunately TBone has no problem with meds.
SOFDC wrote: You might be surprised at how many of us support those "pinkos" on issues OTHER than gun control.
I wouldn't. I've seen the polling numbers. The cross over is incredibly small.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
We wrote: Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.
But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end
This is a US issue to be decided by the people of USA.
But information is information no matter the geography of the person who holds it. Knowledge it knowledge no matter the geography of the person who holds it. And the lack of knowledge on both sides of the gun debate in the US is so glaring, I think you guys really ought to welcome anyone who comes bringing information of some kind of substance to the debate.
So maybe instead of just looking at the little flag icon, read the post. Think about the information given. Accept or dismiss based on the quality of the argument, no the geography of the poster.
(edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).
Injuries from firearms may already be covered by your policy depending on the circumstances.
Another reason having gun insurance is a bad idea is because the Insurance Company could use you owning a Fire Arm as a reason to jack up your other insurance policies. Bad idea all around.
Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.
Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.
whembly wrote: Your honor.. I object to this line of reasoning! Various civil rights infractions doesn't equate to full-bore tyranny.
No, but the slide to tyranny is a slippery slope. It's why it is important to, for instance, ensure that even a serial rapist gets his day in court, because once he's denied the right it becomes a little easier for anyone else.
Still vocal here in the states... but, since Obama been president, the MEDIA is quiet on this front (and you still don't think there's bias? )
There isn't a media bias, at least not in the MSM are all lefties style you're implying.
Obama is getting away with that because lefties can do right wing stuff easily... but it is just as easy for righties to do left wing stuff. Consider the gak storm that was Obamacare - that was a leftie putting across a left wing bill. No consider Bush passing the pharmaceutical bill - that was a massive unfunded spending bill, and it scored moderate news interest for a few weeks.
It's just how the system works. Because when a leftie does something rightwing, who's going to complain about it? The Democrats aren't going to go on the news media and complain against their own guy, and the conservatives aren't going to complain about Obama doing something they want. Same thing when a right winger does something left wing.
Another example is immigration. Bush's policy was, if anything, more progressive than Obama's. But Bush's efforts flew entirely under the radar, while Obama copped an absolute gak storm over the issue.
We don't torture... (okay, we don't know about the black sites)
You did. Waterboarding is torture. And you also delivered captives to friendly blackhole countries for the express purpose of having them tortured.
This... I kinda do have a problem with in principle. To me, the current administration is treating these sorts of things as if they're "police actions"... which is a very bad precedent in my opinion. If we're going to use these sorts of weaponary, then we need to be in a "Declared War" state with the full backing of Congress. As to American citizens in the Warzone? Sorry, they're fairgame.... they should've been aware of the risks.
Either that, or each action needs full and proper judicial oversight before happening.
There's plenty of other groups very vocal about certain policies.
Groups like that exist, but are a scarce minority of the overall gun rights movement. On the whole concern over other elements of civil liberties, and concern over gun rights are strongly negatively correlated.
Which we have every right to do so!
You have the right to cover yourself in honey and jump into beehives. The question is whether or not it is sensible to do so.
And loading up on guns in case you one day have to overthrow your government... but doing nothing about protecting your rights today is, in my opinion, not sensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: And now more interesting legislation from "fringe groups." Its like they woke up and wiped their ass with the Bill of Rights
AndrewC wrote: Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.
Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.
Cheers
Andrew
So then only the rich get to enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd amendment? Only people who can afford the insurance get to have a weapon for self-defense? Yeah, everyone is going to love that idea.
AndrewC wrote: Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.
Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.
Cheers
Andrew
It's already not exactly an inexpensive pursuit, at least if you want to reliably hit what you aim at.
Tye_Informer wrote: But they are trying to take their guns. People in California had to ship guns to another state because as of an arbitrary date, they were illegal and must be turned over for destruction. (without compensation, I might add.) Folks in New York will be forced to do the same thing before March 1st, or be breaking the law.
Read the thread. The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban. That is not happening.
People are declaring their opposition to a fantasy in their own heads.
Hordini wrote: So then only the rich get to enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd amendment? Only people who can afford the insurance get to have a weapon for self-defense? Yeah, everyone is going to love that idea.
Isn't that the norm these days? How many things are there that have now become the domain of the rich? Gas, up. Insurance, up. Property, up.
I have no say in what's happening to you all, just tabling an idea.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: So anyone that's ever taken Zoloft should be barred a gun? Who decides who is a danger? The doctors? Lawyers making statutes on what defines a danger? The government? Oh wait you don't trust them with your Constitutional right to own a gun, but are willing to hand them the keys to decide your mental health?
Reading about a lot of cases that ended in one or more deaths, I couldn't help but notice that none of them came out of the blue. There were always warning signs, always a trend of escalating behaviour.
Building better systems that pick up those trends and respond before disaster happens could prevent a lot of deaths.
I get what you're saying about the decision making of healthcare professionals now, and that's part of the above reforms shouldn't just be more systems of intervention, but better systems.
whembly wrote: Your honor.. I object to this line of reasoning! Various civil rights infractions doesn't equate to full-bore tyranny.
No, but the slide to tyranny is a slippery slope. It's why it is important to, for instance, ensure that even a serial rapist gets his day in court, because once he's denied the right it becomes a little easier for anyone else.
Well sure... we may be paranoid as all get out. Be we only need to be wrong once.
Still vocal here in the states... but, since Obama been president, the MEDIA is quiet on this front (and you still don't think there's bias? )
There isn't a media bias, at least not in the MSM are all lefties style you're implying.
Obama is getting away with that because lefties can do right wing stuff easily... but it is just as easy for righties to do left wing stuff. Consider the gak storm that was Obamacare - that was a leftie putting across a left wing bill. No consider Bush passing the pharmaceutical bill - that was a massive unfunded spending bill, and it scored moderate news interest for a few weeks.
It's just how the system works. Because when a leftie does something rightwing, who's going to complain about it? The Democrats aren't going to go on the news media and complain against their own guy, and the conservatives aren't going to complain about Obama doing something they want. Same thing when a right winger does something left wing.
Another example is immigration. Bush's policy was, if anything, more progressive than Obama's. But Bush's efforts flew entirely under the radar, while Obama copped an absolute gak storm over the issue.
That's true... isn't that what the "bias" I'm talking about though? Maybe, "bias" is the wrong choice of words... maybe... um, the "narrative" is driven in large part of the Media in order to elicit response?
We don't torture... (okay, we don't know about the black sites)
You did. Waterboarding is torture. And you also delivered captives to friendly blackhole countries for the express purpose of having them tortured.
I ain't going to sugar coat it. If you claim that's "torture", fine... we waterboarded folks (tortured that is) in order to get information. Do I have a problem with it? Nope. And I'm not getting involved in any holier than thou discussion because of this... because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. (my idea of torture is much worst than waterboarding).
This... I kinda do have a problem with in principle. To me, the current administration is treating these sorts of things as if they're "police actions"... which is a very bad precedent in my opinion. If we're going to use these sorts of weaponary, then we need to be in a "Declared War" state with the full backing of Congress. As to American citizens in the Warzone? Sorry, they're fairgame.... they should've been aware of the risks.
Either that, or each action needs full and proper judicial oversight before happening.
Sure...
There's plenty of other groups very vocal about certain policies.
Groups like that exist, but are a scarce minority of the overall gun rights movement. On the whole concern over other elements of civil liberties, and concern over gun rights are strongly negatively correlated.
Really? How so? From my perspective in the "trenches" here in the states, the "gun rights movement" is quite large... albeit disorganized.
Which we have every right to do so!
You have the right to cover yourself in honey and jump into beehives. The question is whether or not it is sensible to do so.
And loading up on guns in case you one day have to overthrow your government... but doing nothing about protecting your rights today is, in my opinion, not sensible.
The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban. That is not happening.
Oh, you mean like the one being proposed tomorrow? The one that was based on the one we actually had from 1994-2004? The same one that is already in place in a few states? The same kind of ban that has been proposed almost every year since 2004?
I truly wish I could agree with your statement, but if it DOESN'T happen, it will be precisely because people wish to continue keeping a federal AWB a fantasy or a memory of the bad ol times, not because our politicians just up and decided to have a change of heart on the matter.
Isn't that the norm these days? How many things are there that have now become the domain of the rich? Gas, up. Insurance, up. Property, up.
Well this WAS why the NFA tax was so ridiculously high. After all, them rich folk are the only ones who can be trusted.
Seaward wrote: Opposition to a fantasy in the heads of committed leftists in this country, actually.
Which is a bit like asking if you will oppose the seizure of the means of production by the state. I mean sure, that's something that is in the head of some small number of 'committed leftists'. But its relevance to politics on the whole is just non-existant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Well sure... we may be paranoid as all get out. Be we only need to be wrong once.
I'm not saying its wrong. I believe it's important to protect our rights and freedoms from the state, not only to oppose tyranny but to oppose the well meaning nanny state as well.
I just think that people who believe strongly in having guns so they are ready and capable of overthrowing their government, but who are indifferent to or even supportive of government encroachment on civil liberties are entirely in the wrong.
That's true... isn't that what the "bias" I'm talking about though? Maybe, "bias" is the wrong choice of words... maybe... um, the "narrative" is driven in large part of the Media in order to elicit response?
Oh there's all sorts of narratives in the media. They're just all over the shop, left wing here, right wing there, based on whatever the simple, explain in 30 seconds or less story ends up sounding like.
And no doubt there's a lot of stupidity in the media when it comes to guns. It's a different country, I know, but a guy on the news this morning mentioned the drive to ban military weapons like AK-15 used at Sandy Hook. I could even look past the AK part as a slip of the tongue, but it isn't a military weapon, it's the civilian version.
I ain't going to sugar coat it. If you claim that's "torture", fine... we waterboarded folks (tortured that is) in order to get information. Do I have a problem with it? Nope. And I'm not getting involved in any holier than thou discussion because of this... because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. (my idea of torture is much worst than waterboarding).
Which is fine, to some extent. When it comes to the security of the state I'm more and more inclined to think, well, gak has to be done. What matters is really strict processes and authorisations.
But it is torture. It is referred to as simulated drowning... but it is actual drowning. The whole point is to put water into the lungs of the victim. They put Navy Seals through it because experiencing that makes them much more likely to survive any other kind of torture. It was one of the three methods authorised for use by the Spanish Inquisition.
Really? How so? From my perspective in the "trenches" here in the states, the "gun rights movement" is quite large... albeit disorganized.
That's true. But groups that are active in both forwarding gun rights and advancing other civil rights are pretty scarce on the ground. And then when you read surveys asking people about all kinds of matters of policies, and start seeing that strong importance in gun rights negatively correlated with importance in other civil liberty issues like due process, and it becomes clear why those groups are rare.
? how are we NOT protecting our rights?
What I'm saying is that there are people who are full on for protecting their right to own a gun because they think they might one day need to overthrow the government... but who are otherwise indifferent to or even in support of government encroachment on other matters of civil liberty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SOFDC wrote: Oh, you mean like the one being proposed tomorrow? The one that was based on the one we actually had from 1994-2004? The same one that is already in place in a few states? The same kind of ban that has been proposed almost every year since 2004?
You don't see the difference between a ban on guns, and a ban on a very specific type of gun?
Don't get me wrong, the AWB is a stupid, stupid piece of law, and if passed it will jerk around some lawful gun owners and achieve little else, but that really wasn't what that FOX piece in the OP was talking about.
Hordini wrote: So then only the rich get to enjoy the rights granted by the 2nd amendment? Only people who can afford the insurance get to have a weapon for self-defense? Yeah, everyone is going to love that idea.
Isn't that the norm these days? How many things are there that have now become the domain of the rich? Gas, up. Insurance, up. Property, up.
I have no say in what's happening to you all, just tabling an idea.
Cheers
Andrew
Even if other things that should be accessible to everyone (gas, health insurance, etc.) have become more accessible to the rich and less accessible to the poor, that doesn't make adding one more thing to the list right.
Everyone has the right to bear arms, and guns and ammunition, and gasoline, and health insurance are expensive enough. We don't need to add more bs taxes to keep people in low income brackets from getting firearms. Better education and job opportunities would do a lot more good and be a much longer term solution.
You don't see the difference between a ban on guns, and a ban on a very specific type of gun?
A very specific type of gun....that encompasses half the guns currently on the market? I don't think you fully realize how far reaching the bans proposed are. This also assumes that the efforts to ban and control firearms and ammunition will STOP with an AWB...which...doesn't take much looking to prove wrong.
if passed it will jerk around some lawful gun owners and achieve little else
If by "Some" you mean "millions"...yes. "Some" of us will get jerked over.
sebster wrote: Which is a bit like asking if you will oppose the seizure of the means of production by the state. I mean sure, that's something that is in the head of some small number of 'committed leftists'. But its relevance to politics on the whole is just non-existant.
Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.
AndrewC wrote: Just a thought, insurance is on my mind because of the recent legislation that came through about using sex (as in males are a higher risk as opposed to females, stop sniggering at the back) as a premium lever.
Making the ownership of a gun expensive may work better than trying to ban them.
Cheers
Andrew
What is your goal for that proposal?
It sure wouldn't stop the majority of gun violence which is done by gangs and other criminals who I suspect would laugh at an insurance requirement. So, is your goal to make law abiding citizens have a harder time getting guns? If so, your goal isn't worth being achieved at the cost you want to inflict upon us.
Seriously folks, before you propose stuff like this, think about HOW your proposal addresses the problem. If you honestly think gun ownership being legal IS the problem, just stop. If that is the case then you fuel the 'They're gonna take our guns' thoguht process because it actually IS your goal. If that is your goal, fine, but do not expect the millions of legal gun owners to think it is worth achieving.
It sure wouldn't stop the majority of gun violence which is done by gangs and other criminals who I suspect would laugh at an insurance requirement. So, is your goal to make law abiding citizens have a harder time getting guns? If so, your goal isn't worth being achieved at the cost you want to inflict upon us.
Seriously folks, before you propose stuff like this, think about HOW your proposal addresses the problem. If you honestly think gun ownership being legal IS the problem, just stop. If that is the case then you fuel the 'They're gonna take our guns' thoguht process because it actually IS your goal. If that is your goal, fine, but do not expect the millions of legal gun owners to think it is worth achieving.
From my position, the majority of the outrages commited in the US at the moment, not crime, has been commited by individuals who had access to guns via a legally recognised owner. If people are made more responsible in the care and storage of firearms, wouldn't it reduce access? Ie Mom has to lock away her pistol when she's out ergo junior can't then play cowboys and indians with it and shoot his friend.
Thats the problem as I see it, not ownership, but the fact that they have now become so commonplace that the respect that was once held for what they are and can do has been lost. As I wrote on another thread, ownership aint the peoblem, the number owned is.
AndrewC wrote: From my position, the majority of the outrages commited in the US at the moment, not crime, has been commited by individuals who had access to guns via a legally recognised owner. If people are made more responsible in the care and storage of firearms, wouldn't it reduce access? Ie Mom has to lock away her pistol when she's out ergo junior can't then play cowboys and indians with it and shoot his friend.
Thats the problem as I see it, not ownership, but the fact that they have now become so commonplace that the respect that was once held for what they are and can do has been lost. As I wrote on another thread, ownership aint the peoblem, the number owned is.
Cheers
Andrew
So the number owned is the issue... What limits do you think you should be able to impose on that? How does forcing insurance onto ownership either limit number owned or force the owners to store their weapons differently? If the problem as you state is number owned, you must feel that taking guns out of the 'currently owned' category is worth doing.
And you feel the 'outrages' committed with guns, and NOT crimes committed with guns are the issue? If so, why can't you face the fact that the gun or access to the gun or quantity of the guns is not the problem. The problem is identifying and helping the folks who need it before they snap and commit the atrocity. The number of people killed in these types of 'outrages' is so tiny compared to deaths via accident or intentional killing that even if you were to prevent every single one you save about 100 people a year. Is the cost (reduced freedom/infringement of rights/monetary costs) worth it? If you truly think it is, are you also an advocate of filling in every swimming pool in America? By doing that you can save over 3500 people a year in the US. Where does your inflicting cost and infringing on rights end? Why go for the small stuff like preventing these 'outrages' when you can do easier things that prevent more deaths? How about go after a big one like deaths caused by medical errors in hospitals? Maybe if you forced doctors and hospitals to have insurance you could prevent the 10's of thousands (most sources say between 40k and 90k) of those each year.
My point is, your proposal, and those from folks like you, don't really have much of a chance of doing anything worth while, and WILL limit current freedoms and impose costs on law abiding citizens. They tend to all be proposals designed to Do Something For The Children!!!! without any real thought as to how effective they may be for the costs they impose.
I also find it humorous that the 'If it saves even one child it is worth doing argument' is likely to come up. I again point to the fact there are easier ways to save way more children. I also point out that some solutions which potentially save children, like allowing teachers to carry on school property, are dismissed by the same folks who want to impose very restrictive measures on a large group of law abiding Americans. In several actual incidents, the presence of a armed good guy, be it a cop or civilian, has lessened the number of deaths and stopped an 'outrage' from continueing. Why is it that restricting freedom and imposing costs on law abiding citizens is the Go To reaction, especailly when the proposals almost never have a chance of addressing the actual issues?
CptJake wrote: So the number owned is the issue... What limits do you think you should be able to impose on that? How does forcing insurance onto ownership either limit number owned or force the owners to store their weapons differently? If the problem as you state is number owned, you must feel that taking guns out of the 'currently owned' category is worth doing.
And you feel the 'outrages' committed with guns, and NOT crimes committed with guns are the issue? If so, why can't you face the fact that the gun or access to the gun or quantity of the guns is not the problem. The problem is identifying and helping the folks who need it before they snap and commit the atrocity. The number of people killed in these types of 'outrages' is so tiny compared to deaths via accident or intentional killing that even if you were to prevent every single one you save about 100 people a year. Is the cost (reduced freedom/infringement of rights/monetary costs) worth it? If you truly think it is, are you also an advocate of filling in every swimming pool in America? By doing that you can save over 3500 people a year in the US. Where does your inflicting cost and infringing on rights end? Why go for the small stuff like preventing these 'outrages' when you can do easier things that prevent more deaths?
Interesting. You take offence at a suggestion that neither removes your ability to own or use guns and then compare an item designed to kill with a swimming pool? The two are not comparable. Work out a man/hour ratio for each and then we can compare them.
As has been pointed out, by yourself among many, gun crime can not be controlled by introducing new legislation that is why I chose to ignore it. And I'm sorry to break it to you but reduced freedom/infringment of rights/monetary costs are all requirements of living in a cohesive society. Your rights are no less nor greater than everybody elses' rights.
You have also quoted out of context, the full quote to paraphrase was 'familiarity breeds contempt'. IE If you own too many you no longer respect them. Not that people shouldn't be able to own so many.
If people dont have the common sense to look after something responsibly then they should lose the right to own something. What suggestions do you have for solving the issue?
Cheers
Andrew
Automatically Appended Next Post: Does anyone know the ownership ratio for firearms?
Andrew, there is at best guess about 310,000,000 legally owned fire arms in the US. That's nearly one for every person.
Exact ratio is impossible to determine, because a lot of people have multiple. I currently own 4, and plan on buying more. I know people who have more then a dozen.
Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.
djones520 wrote: Andrew, there is at best guess about 310,000,000 legally owned fire arms in the US. That's nearly one for every person.
Exact ratio is impossible to determine, because a lot of people have multiple. I currently own 4, and plan on buying more. I know people who have more then a dozen.
Thank you, I tried to have a look elsewhere but got nowhere. The nearest I got was a Gallup Poll of 1005 individuals in 2011 which suggested that 47% (or was it 53% I may have the figure the wrong way round) of households had a gun. Like a survey of 1000 people in the US was a significant control number.
While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population. I see from recent news reports that there are 88 guns per 100 population in America. While this would suggest that there is overwhelming support, "88% of Americans own guns!", actually if every gun owner owned 10 guns (on average) then ownership is less then 10%.
A vocal minority is carrying this debate.
Cheers
Andrew
Automatically Appended Next Post: CPtJake, has anyone actually asked the teachers if they want to carry?
Knowing some teachers myself, giving them guns may actually raise the numbers of kids shot at schools....
(Bad taste I know, but some teachers are actually that close to breaking point in the lack of respect for their authority and position, and the frustrations of not actually being able to take meaningful action against children who deliberately provoke them, knowing that they have more rights than the teacher.)
AndrewC wrote: While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population. I see from recent news reports that there are 88 guns per 100 population in America. While this would suggest that there is overwhelming support, "88% of Americans own guns!", actually if every gun owner owned 10 guns (on average) then ownership is less then 10%.
Past research has shown that people own one firearm, around 5 or dozens. This is typically because of the different roles people use firearms for, self defense, hunting or collecting. California has a population of 38MM people and issued 255K hunting licenses. Assuming all hunting licenses were issued to CA residents, less than 1% of the population of California hunts. By contrast, Georgia is about 4%. Let's average that to 2% of the total US population hunts which accounts for people hunting in multiple states and licenses for family members which access the same 6 firearms.. That's 36 million firearms from hunters. Assume collectors collect 50 firearms and account for 100MM firearms (2MM people). That leaves 174MM firearms and we'll say it's 2 to 1 for arguments sake. 87MM people for personal defense, 6MM hunters and 2MM collectors for a totla of 95MM people or at least 33% of the population owns at least one gun. If we back to 1 to 1, it's 182MM or around 60%. I think the survey is pretty accurate at 47% of people own guns.
If people dont have the common sense to look after something responsibly then they should lose the right to own something.
Yea....About that....That's exactly what happens, but here you have to do something wrong -BEFORE- we beat you around the head and neck.
While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population.
Arguments to the truth of the last part of the statement aside, are the words "Tyranny of the majority" familiar to you at all? What other infringements magically become "OK" because the group being stepped on is perceived to be small?
Invoking the danger of the tyranny of the majority cannot be understood except in terms of the majority holding the opinion that is in danger of becoming a tyranny.
Invoking the danger of the tyranny of the majority cannot be understood except in terms of the majority holding the opinion that is in danger of becoming a tyranny.
Tyranny doesn't require deliberate action, it only require apathy.
AndrewC wrote: While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population. I see from recent news reports that there are 88 guns per 100 population in America. While this would suggest that there is overwhelming support, "88% of Americans own guns!", actually if every gun owner owned 10 guns (on average) then ownership is less then 10%.
Past research has shown that people own one firearm, around 5 or dozens. This is typically because of the different roles people use firearms for, self defense, hunting or collecting. California has a population of 38MM people and issued 255K hunting licenses. Assuming all hunting licenses were issued to CA residents, less than 1% of the population of California hunts. By contrast, Georgia is about 4%. Let's average that to 2% of the total US population hunts which accounts for people hunting in multiple states and licenses for family members which access the same 6 firearms.. That's 36 million firearms from hunters. Assume collectors collect 50 firearms and account for 100MM firearms (2MM people). That leaves 174MM firearms and we'll say it's 2 to 1 for arguments sake. 87MM people for personal defense, 6MM hunters and 2MM collectors for a totla of 95MM people or at least 33% of the population owns at least one gun. If we back to 1 to 1, it's 182MM or around 60%. I think the survey is pretty accurate at 47% of people own guns.
Counting hunting licenses might not be the best way to judge the number of hunters. At least in Ohio, you don't need a hunting license to hunt on your own property or your family's property, so there could be many more hunters who simply don't buy licenses. A lot of bow hunters also gun hunt, but I know there are some bow hunters who only bow hunt and don't own guns (although I'm guessing this is probably rare).
If people dont have the common sense to look after something responsibly then they should lose the right to own something.
Yea....About that....That's exactly what happens, but here you have to do something wrong -BEFORE- we beat you around the head and neck.
While this has a significant/excessive impact on those who own guns, I don't think it actually affects a significant portion of the American population.
Arguments to the truth of the last part of the statement aside, are the words "Tyranny of the majority" familiar to you at all? What other infringements magically become "OK" because the group being stepped on is perceived to be small?
Three comments on that;
1; 'One bad apple to spoil the barrel' I'm sorry, but if something has happened once, people will fear it to happen again. 'It only takes one to spoil it for all' would be another suitable comment.
2; No I'm not familiar with that phrase and I would appreciate more info, because it sounds interesting.
2; Taking the words at their face value, it sounds like a working democracy. And I wont go into other infringments simply because that then becomes more political elsewhere.
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.
Its actually the very reason the Bill of Rights exists.
Ahtman wrote: Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.
And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, edited by Mannahnin?
Ahtman wrote: Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.
And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, Edited by Mannahnin?
Edited by Mannahnin
As for the number of course I made it up, as it is quite clearly and educated guess and presented as so. Using other numbers, such as those presented even in this thread, I would estimate that out of all 310,000,000 Americans about 1 in 4 own firearms, if not slightly higher. Since we don't keep complete databases of every person who does and doesn't own a firearm, and how many weapons each has, the best we can do is to estimate it at this point.
djones520 wrote: Gallup reported in 2011 that it's around 47% of Americans who own firearms.
I remember there being something off about that, though off the top of my head I don't remember what it was.
*shrugs* All I know is that the numbers seemed to line up. Those who described themselves as liberal were in the majority of not having guns. The Eastern portion of the US had the lowest ownership (NE US). Basically everything that was measured lined up with conventional thought on the matter.
djones520 wrote: Gallup reported in 2011 that it's around 47% of Americans who own firearms.
I remember there being something off about that, though off the top of my head I don't remember what it was.
I think someone mentioned that poll in another thread, or earlier in this one. Something to do with a small sample size or poor sampling or something? It was in the neighborhood of 1,000 people if it's the poll I'm thinking of.
Ahtman wrote: Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.
And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, Edited?
Edited
As for the number of course I made it up, as it is quite clearly and educated guess and presented as so. Using other numbers, such as those presented even in this thread, I would estimate that out of all 310,000,000 Americans about 1 in 4 own firearms, if not slightly higher. Since we don't keep complete databases of every person who does and doesn't own a firearm, and how many weapons each has, the best we can do is to estimate it at this point.
Edited by Mannahnin. Im a gun guy, always have been. I go shooting at the very least, monthly, and do shooting drills every other month usually. I shoot, A LOT. So when I see a thread on firearms, yes, Im going to look into it. Go ahead and look at my posts in the OT in the past 3 months if youre feeling paranoid enough, OR if you want to actually fact check for once, youll notice most my posts in the OT will be the in the gun threads. Weird. Edited. And Im not posting strange at all, Im passionate about firearms, I read debates, and watch reviews and talk with other gun owners. I wouldnt say Im an expert on the topic, but Im for damn sure not some random guy that typed something in a wiki page and went to town.
So when someone just BLATANTLY makes up statistics and doesnt bother to fact check a thing in a discussion or debate on the topic in question, specially one Im active in, you bet I will get "pissy" If youre going to stick your nose in it and make your opinion heard on it, you might want to take a moment and half ass google something more then "That means more like 23% of Americans actually own guns"
I mentioned it earlier, 1005 people inteviewed to illustrate the gun ownership % in the states. Whats the population of the USA? I wasn't happy using it as a basis of debate, but there was no point in pretending it didn't exist.
Gallup Poll Methodology; Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
SOFDC wrote: A very specific type of gun....that encompasses half the guns currently on the market? I don't think you fully realize how far reaching the bans proposed are. This also assumes that the efforts to ban and control firearms and ammunition will STOP with an AWB...which...doesn't take much looking to prove wrong.
I have read it. And what you just said is poppycock. Twaddle. Nonsense. Half the guns on the market... not even close. That's so far from the mark that I honestly wonder if I should be more disappointed in whoever told you that lie, or in you for believing it so eagerly.
The bill only looks at rifles, and they make up 40 to 45% of the market so we're already a under half. And of those weapons, it is only looking to ban semi-auto, bolt action, lever, pump or other mechanisms remain.
Now, once again, I do not agree with that bill. It is going after weapons that simply are not commonly used in murder. It is bad law.
But it isn't going to pass. Even if the Republicans didn't control the House, it wouldn't pass. This is a good thing, because it is a bad law.
But that doesn't justify the great outflow of stupid we've seen from the pro-gun people. Seriously, you guys and the mindset you take on, and the way you approach this debate are absolutely your own worst enemy.
If by "Some" you mean "millions"...yes. "Some" of us will get jerked over.
Well yeah. In a country of 300 million then 'millions' is some. That's how words work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.
And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.
Seaward wrote: Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.
And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.
Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?
Seaward wrote: Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.
And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.
Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?
Because a State doesn't have actual borders like a country does? So bans are pretty much useless because you can smuggle whatever you want pretty easily? See dry laws and things like that.
Seaward wrote: Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.
And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.
Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?
Because a State doesn't have actual borders like a country does? So bans are pretty much useless because you can smuggle whatever you want pretty easily? See dry laws and things like that.
Eh... still... how practical could that be done nowadays?
Seems like most state laws are passed for either political purposes or because states like to pretend that they are actual countries.
Let's face it, even though they likely would not admit it (especially the conservatives), lots of politicians would love for us to be like the European Union.
d-usa wrote: Seems like most state laws are passed for either political purposes or because states like to pretend that they are actual countries.
Let's face it, even though they likely would not admit it (especially the conservatives), lots of politicians would love for us to be like the European Union.
Sure... I can see that... at least the career politicians.
Ahtman wrote: Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.
That's the long term trend. The number of households owning a gun has dropped from over 50% in the 50s, to about 30% now. But the number of guns per capita has increased because the people owning guns have significantly increased the number of guns they're likely to own.
Ahtman wrote: Most gun owners I know own more than one firearm; I don't know to many that just have one. I'd bet that while there are enough for nearly every person, I'd bet only 25%-33% of the population actually (legally) own a firearm.
And where are you getting that statistic from? Did you actually read that somewhere, or are you just pulling figures out of your ass?
"The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns."
"The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?
Border controls.
I mean, it'd be like trying to keep weed out of, like, Nebraska, now that it's legal in Colorado. Everyday there's thousands of cars crossing the border with no checks, any one of them could be carrying stuff legally owned in Colorado that's illegal in Nebraska.
Whereas with a federal ban you wouldn't have that problem. The only concern of guns crossing the border would come from Mexico* and Canada, and those borders are manned and cars are inspected. Stuff still gets smuggled in, but it becomes a much riskier proposition, and that totally changes how the market works.
*And when you add that most of the Mexican guns crossing in to the US were US manufactured in the first place...
sebster wrote: And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.
Your (wholly inaccurate) statement was that the complete ban movement was irrelevant to politics on the whole.
Ironically, that's the exact same thing social conservatives were telling us about early gay marriage victories in key states. Maybe it's your lack of living here, but it's actually very important what states do from time to time.
whembly wrote: Eh... still... how practical could that be done nowadays?
Well it isn't practical at the state level. That's why single state bans on things like guns aren't going to work. But on a national level, where there already exists border controls, they're a lot more practical.
Here in Australia the number of guns available to criminals has dropped considerably since the weapons ban. They still exist, because no border control system will ever be perfect (and ours is far from perfect anyway), but the difficulty and expense in getting a gun has skyrocketed.
sebster wrote: Here in Australia the number of guns available to criminals has dropped considerably since the weapons ban. They still exist, because no border control system will ever be perfect (and ours is far from perfect anyway), but the difficulty and expense in getting a gun has skyrocketed.
How many guns did you have per capita prior to the ban?
Seaward wrote: Your (wholly inaccurate) statement was that the complete ban movement was irrelevant to politics on the whole.
"The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban."
That's three times I've had to point out to you the distinction of state and federal. I refuse to believe you aren't getting the difference. Are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me? Or are you like that guy in Memento, and by the time you post a new reply you've completely forgotten any posts that happen before?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: How many guns did you have per capita prior to the ban?
A lot less than you. Which would reduce the impact in the medium term in your country, for sure.
Not that there's any point talking about a complete ban, because that is not going to happen. The point was simply that picking out the effect of gun bans in single states is meaningless, because the borders are not secured and guns can easily flow in from other states. On a Federal level, as the borders are secured, that flow is a lot more limited.
sebster wrote: "The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban."
That's three times I've had to point out to you the distinction of state and federal. I refuse to believe you aren't getting the difference. Are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me? Or are you like that guy in Memento, and by the time you post a new reply you've completely forgotten any posts that happen before?
Again, sebster - and I'll explain this as many times as needed - numerous movements start out at the state level, learning how to organize and win in the various state legislatures before taking the strategy national. Numerous political ideologies start with only regional support and begin to spread. Pretending that the complete ban movement is irrelevant to politics in the US just because it suits you doesn't pay any attention at all to the whole picture.
Ok, So I know this is something we can all agree on. Guns should stay out of the hands of criminals and the mentally Ill right?
But the question is how do we go about implementing this. Licenses only keep honest people honest. We still have plenty of people who drive without a license.
The question is. How do we regulate guns to keep them out of the hands of those who should not wield them. Without infringing on the rights of those who do.
Seaward wrote: Your (wholly inaccurate) statement was that the complete ban movement was irrelevant to politics on the whole.
"The question asked in the survey from the OP was on a federal gun ban."
That's three times I've had to point out to you the distinction of state and federal. I refuse to believe you aren't getting the difference. Are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me? Or are you like that guy in Memento, and by the time you post a new reply you've completely forgotten any posts that happen before?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: How many guns did you have per capita prior to the ban?
A lot less than you. Which would reduce the impact in the medium term in your country, for sure.
Not that there's any point talking about a complete ban, because that is not going to happen. The point was simply that picking out the effect of gun bans in single states is meaningless, because the borders are not secured and guns can easily flow in from other states. On a Federal level, as the borders are secured, that flow is a lot more limited.
I understand your point-of-view... I just don't think it would ever be practical in this day age...
Had to edit some posts. Let's not make things personal or unpleasant, okay? Keep it friendly, guys.
AndrewC wrote: I mentioned it earlier, 1005 people inteviewed to illustrate the gun ownership % in the states. Whats the population of the USA? I wasn't happy using it as a basis of debate, but there was no point in pretending it didn't exist.
Gallup Poll Methodology; Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 6-9, 2011, with a random sample of 1,005 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.
Seaward wrote: Again, sebster - and I'll explain this as many times as needed - numerous movements start out at the state level, learning how to organize and win in the various state legislatures before taking the strategy national. Numerous political ideologies start with only regional support and begin to spread. Pretending that the complete ban movement is irrelevant to politics in the US just because it suits you doesn't pay any attention at all to the whole picture.
And I'll point out to you that any belief that state level movements, which aren't even banning all guns, could somehow expand out to a complete ban at the national level is an absolute flight of fancy. There is, right now, only the scarcest of majorities in support of bans on assault weapons. And that's assault weapons - expand it out to all guns and that slight majority becomes a very small minority. And that's just at the popular level, without factoring in the structural advantage Republicans hold in the house or the amount of gun lobby funding spread across the whole of US politics.
So by all means, continue to believe that you have to fight because just around the corner there really could be a total ban on guns. Just realise that when you're fighting that fight, those of us who understand the basic arithmetic of politics will think you're exactly as sensible as the people fighting to stop the USA being taken over the by the UN.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I understand your point-of-view... I just don't think it would ever be practical in this day age...
Sure, it isn't politically practical in your country. Feinstein's bill is currently marching its way to inevitable defeat in the House of Reps. Talking about a bill that bans all guns is a thing that just will not happen in the forseeable future.
The only point I was making was that a Federal ban would work in a way that a state ban won't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: 1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.
In the wake of the last election 538 completed a study, showing how in the last decade Gallup's method had seen them produce increasingly unreliable figures, as more and more of the population isn't accessible by landline. Which is a problem, and one that becomes a really big problem when the population you aren't reaching are largely centred in one demographic.
The end result was that, despite Gallup being a respected name in polling and an organisation with a strong record of results, their accuracy in the last 3 federal elections was mediocre, with each worse than the one before it.
sebster wrote: And I'll point out to you that any belief that state level movements, which aren't even banning all guns, could somehow expand out to a complete ban at the national level is an absolute flight of fancy. There is, right now, only the scarcest of majorities in support of bans on assault weapons. And that's assault weapons - expand it out to all guns and that slight majority becomes a very small minority. And that's just at the popular level, without factoring in the structural advantage Republicans hold in the house or the amount of gun lobby funding spread across the whole of US politics.
So by all means, continue to believe that you have to fight because just around the corner there really could be a total ban on guns. Just realise that when you're fighting that fight, those of us who understand the basic arithmetic of politics will think you're exactly as sensible as the people fighting to stop the USA being taken over the by the UN.
And, as ever, we'll continue to care about the opinion of people who do not influence the politics of this country exactly as much as we do now. The fact of the matter is, the anti-gun movement has been using the exact same playbook as the anti-abortion movement for years; lies, ignorance, and, most importantly, a state approach involving incrementalism. When we have states like New York going from a 10-round cap to a 7-round cap - after trying for a 5-round cap with two mag limit - and it appearing as though several states are going to follow suit, that's not a non-issue simply because it didn't happen at the federal level.
Honestly, sebster, if that weren't the case, no one would particularly care what abortion laws Mississippi chooses to write unless they actually lived in Mississippi.
Seaward wrote: [ The fact of the matter is, the anti-gun movement has been using the exact same playbook as the anti-abortion movement for years; lies, ignorance, and, most importantly, a state approach involving incrementalism.
That's an interesting parallel to draw, between anti-gun and anti-abortion. I agree on incrementalism, and won't adress the other 2 - we won't agree so why bother - but it's interesting for another reason, in that the anti-abortion movement has been, by and large, losing.
Ouze wrote: That's an interesting parallel to draw, between anti-gun and anti-abortion. I agree on incrementalism, and won't adress the other 2 - we won't agree so why bother - but it's interesting for another reason, in that the anti-abortion movement has been, by and large, losing.
Well, the anti-gun movement had, by and large, been losing prior to 2012, too.
It's not a perfect analogue, but I find it useful. The main difference, I think, is that despite the pro-abortion lobby being just as dedicated to a "No compromise!" position as the pro-gun lobby, the pro-abortion lobby has managed to mainstream itself.
Seaward wrote: And, as ever, we'll continue to care about the opinion of people who do not influence the politics of this country exactly as much as we do now.
You shouldn't care about any individual opinion. Afterall, your own opinion is just 1/300,000,000 of the sum total of US opinions. And 1/300,000,000 is incredibly close to 0/300,000,000, which is the amount that my own opinion . So, basically, your own opinion is almost exactly as worthless as mine when it comes to contributing to the overall US political opinion, and should be just as readily ignored.
What you should care about are the numbers. And whether those numbers are posted from someone in the US or someone outside, they remain true. And recognising those numbers and using them to inform your understanding of the political environment is how you go from 'thinking stuff about politics and just expecting it's true because I think it' to 'having an informed opinion of the state of US politics'.
It's how for instance, despite living all the way over here, my statements about the US presidential election came true, while yours did not.
The fact of the matter is, the anti-gun movement has been using the exact same playbook as the anti-abortion movement for years; lies, ignorance, and, most importantly, a state approach involving incrementalism. When we have states like New York going from a 10-round cap to a 7-round cap - after trying for a 5-round cap with two mag limit - and it appearing as though several states are going to follow suit, that's not a non-issue simply because it didn't happen at the federal level.
They're not as bad as the anti-abortion movement, which has an vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis, but they certainly share a few things in common, that's true. And that's a large part of why the bill put forward is focussed on things that just don't make any real world sense.
But you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the NRA works on a playbook with any less lies or ignorance. Which is why they sell their members on this fantasy of 'just around the corner, it's coming, they're going to ban all guns'.
Honestly, sebster, if that weren't the case, no one would particularly care what abortion laws Mississippi chooses to write unless they actually lived in Mississippi.
No, because people care about the welfare of human beings other than themselves. Its what we humans call empathy.
sebster wrote: They're not as bad as the anti-abortion movement, which has an vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis, but they certainly share a few things in common, that's true. And that's a large part of why the bill put forward is focussed on things that just don't make any real world sense.
Oh, I profoundly disagree. I think they're just as bad, and they certainly have a vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis. At least on the abortion issue, the pro-abortion side has a sympathetic media that won't hesitate to learn some basic facts and discredit the opposition, which is unfortunately not the case with guns.
But you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the NRA works on a playbook with any less lies or ignorance. Which is why they sell their members on this fantasy of 'just around the corner, it's coming, they're going to ban all guns'.
I don't think at any point that I've said the NRA represents everything good and rational, simply that they're the only lobby with the potential power to actually stand up to this, "Why on earth would anyone ever need more than two bullets in a gun?" nonsense. It'd be great if we could drop the rhetoric from both sides, but that's not happening, so I find the notion that I shouldn't support the side that most closely represents my views - even if they don't do it perfectly - unsound at best.
No, because people care about the welfare of human beings other than themselves. Its what we humans call empathy.
So it would seem there's at least some reason to care about state movements to incrementally ban guns, despite the fact that it's not a federal proposal yet.
I have read it. And what you just said is poppycock. Twaddle. Nonsense. ...
...The bill only looks at rifles...
Except that it is not. I strongly suggest you go back, and ACTUALLY read the text of the bill, rather than imagining that you did so. Here, I will make it easy for you:
While you are correct it only (Currently) targets semi-autos, the statement that it only engages rifles is factually incorrect... at least according to the author of the bill. Everything from AK clones, most of the competition shotguns i've seen since I began shooting, to a competition .22 target pistol is hit by this. (Many of which either have a magazine outside of the grip for balance, and/or have a threaded barrel for a compensator or counterweight....as do many target pistols regardless of caliber.) Heck, some .22 rimfires were specifically banned, regardless of what "military features" it may or may not have.
Pretty much the ONLY people who won't be hit by this in some way are the folks who have a "dare" rifle, take it out once a year to shoot a deer five times, and then put it away again until the season comes back in, and of those a big portion just got hit because the Mini-14s were specifically banned by name.
I say again, I don't believe you understand how widespread this will be. I am however willing to consider your thoughts on the matter based on your experience with the shooting community over here, which I can only assume is extensive.
The AWB definitely does not cover only rifles. I'm not even sure how someone could get that impression.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally, New York's newly-passed AWB and mag capacity laws kind of forgot to exempt police officers from the seven-round restriction.
I don't understand what the guy at the end of the article means, though. You can't let criminals have more bullets? Isn't that what this law's for?
Seaward wrote: Except for places like New York, California, Chicago, and, currently it seems, quite possibly all of New England.
And once again you've wandered back into state laws when the question was about federal law. For feth's sake, I pointed that error out about three posts ago and then you've just gone and done it again.
Seb...to be fair, the point is that if it doesn't work at the state level, why would it be any different at the federal level?
Because a State doesn't have actual borders like a country does? So bans are pretty much useless because you can smuggle whatever you want pretty easily? See dry laws and things like that.
We should try a federal ban on heroin and cocaine and illegal immigrants!
Oh wait...
At the state level, if someone brings guns (or any other comodity) into a state where they are illegal, they are obviously willing to break the law. That does not change when you make it a federal law. All it does is increase the burden on the tax payers and infringe on the rights of the people.
Kilkrazy wrote: So you admit that a majority is against guns!
The majority is generaly against freedom of speech and for free government stuff. The most popular Twitter account is Justin Bieber.
Its utterly irrelevant.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, So I know this is something we can all agree on. Guns should stay out of the hands of criminals and the mentally Ill right?
But the question is how do we go about implementing this. Licenses only keep honest people honest. We still have plenty of people who drive without a license.
The question is. How do we regulate guns to keep them out of the hands of those who should not wield them. Without infringing on the rights of those who do.
If you use a gun in a crime then we put you away...forever.
So I take it you don't like the fact federal borders are not sacrosanct?
No, I just ignore the whole "blah blah blah nothing will work we should not do anything cause blah blah blah" argument.
If it doesn't stop 100% then we shouldn't do anything, I get it. Borders don't stop all heroin so we are just going to pretent that there wouldn't be even more drugs without borders. Because guns.
Seaward wrote: Oh, I profoundly disagree. I think they're just as bad, and they certainly have a vast number of professional hucksters and charlatans posting incredible stupidity on an almost daily basis. At least on the abortion issue, the pro-abortion side has a sympathetic media that won't hesitate to learn some basic facts and discredit the opposition, which is unfortunately not the case with guns.
Yeah, I agree that media knowledge about guns is terrible and they don't check the anti-gun claims anything like they should. Whereas they have some kind of medical knowledge and so pick up the crazy anti-abortion stuff... which is why the anti-abortion hucksters do all their best work outside of the mainstream media.
I don't think at any point that I've said the NRA represents everything good and rational, simply that they're the only lobby with the potential power to actually stand up to this, "Why on earth would anyone ever need more than two bullets in a gun?" nonsense. It'd be great if we could drop the rhetoric from both sides, but that's not happening, so I find the notion that I shouldn't support the side that most closely represents my views - even if they don't do it perfectly - unsound at best.
Which is fair, especially when it comes to the assault weapon ban - the NRA's desired outcome is the best outcome - no awb.
But the mistake would be to do just that and nothing else. To keep accepting the dodgy NRA stats, and to say nothing when they state their craziest nonsense. It is possible to work with a group and lobby for it to improve. And if guns are to end up with good legislation it may well be necessary.
So it would seem there's at least some reason to care about state movements to incrementally ban guns, despite the fact that it's not a federal proposal yet.
Absolutely. 'They ought to have guns in NY' is a perfectly sensible thing. I was just saying 'if they ban a gun then we're on the path to all guns being banned' is not.
1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.
I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.
1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.
I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.
They needed to phone more people.
Cheers
Andrew
Almost all polling is done on relatively the same sample size. The sheer logisitics involved in contacting tens to hundreds of thousands of people to produce a daily poll (such as the presidential tracker) would be redonkulous.
Oh I agree, a poll on that scale would probably be so expensive as to make the poll not worth the effort. I just don't want to pin any debate on those figures are anything other than very broad strokes of the paintbrush.
SOFDC wrote: A very specific type of gun....that encompasses half the guns currently on the market? I don't think you fully realize how far reaching the bans proposed are. This also assumes that the efforts to ban and control firearms and ammunition will STOP with an AWB...which...doesn't take much looking to prove wrong.
I have read it. And what you just said is poppycock. Twaddle. Nonsense. Half the guns on the market... not even close. That's so far from the mark that I honestly wonder if I should be more disappointed in whoever told you that lie, or in you for believing it so eagerly.
The bill only looks at rifles, and they make up 40 to 45% of the market so we're already a under half. And of those weapons, it is only looking to ban semi-auto, bolt action, lever, pump or other mechanisms remain.
Now, once again, I do not agree with that bill. It is going after weapons that simply are not commonly used in murder. It is bad law.
But it isn't going to pass. Even if the Republicans didn't control the House, it wouldn't pass. This is a good thing, because it is a bad law.
But that doesn't justify the great outflow of stupid we've seen from the pro-gun people. Seriously, you guys and the mindset you take on, and the way you approach this debate are absolutely your own worst enemy.
Then obviously you haven't read the bill.
It specifically mentions pistols, and shotguns as well. It targets all handguns that have detachable magazines that can hold more then 10 rounds. That hits a large portion of the handgun market since many 9mm semiautomatic pistols have 15 round capacities. The Beretta 90 Series is a prime example. It names 152 specific fire arms to be banned, a good portion of them being shotguns and handguns.
So either, you cherry picked through the bill, like they did with their facts in it, or you just didn't read it at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I'd just like to add a gripe about how Feinstein was referencing Harvy Milks assassination as part of the reasoning for this bill.
Harvy Milk and George Mascone were shot by a police issued service revolver that had a 6 round capacity. None of the weapons that she is targetting are in any way related to that event.
So she needs to shut up about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also found this, and thought it was relevant to the discussion about banning weapons.
Homeland Defense stating that a 5.56 NATO weapon(or .223) with a 30 round capacity magazine is a suitable weapon for the use of close quarter personal defense. They also argue that the weapon should have select fire capability, ie semi-auto, 3 round burst, or full automatic even.
So, it's good enough for the members of Homeland Defense, but not good enough for the everyday American to have.
djones520 wrote: And I'd just like to add a gripe about how Feinstein was referencing Harvy Milks assassination as part of the reasoning for this bill.
Harvy Milk and George Mascone were shot by a police issued service revolver that had a 6 round capacity. None of the weapons that she is targetting are in any way related to that event.
So she needs to shut up about that.
Fienswine is one of the biggest hypocrites on the face to the planet. She has a CACCW permit, carries a pistol and has armed bodyguards, yet sees no reason for people have the firearm of their choice to defend themselves. When she gives up her CCW, turns in her firearms and tells her bodyguards to carry stun guns, I think about listening to her. Until then, I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.
1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.
I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.
They needed to phone more people.
Cheers
Andrew
You have absolutly no clue how a random sample works. And never taken a statistics class either.
1000 people is a good size for a poll, provided your sample gathering techniques are sound.
but not good enough for the everyday American to have.
That's kinda the point. In their view it is TOO good for the everyday American. The peasantry doesn't have the stability (even if they do) or the training (Even if their experience and skill far exceeds the average officer or soldier, or were at one time one of the two) to be trusted with such power!
Sarcasm aside, It's nothing more than an attempt at making a disparity of force greater. Feinstein is, judging by her voting record and stated opinions, a statist. The end. It's only natural that she wants the people holding HER guns to have the best ones.
She's not going after handguns and cheap shotguns, which are being used with a lot more frequency in crimes. This I would still oppose, but I could certainly understand the thinking.
She's not attempting to find the source of what social ills are causing us to want to freaking shoot each other and solve them.
She's spending her time and zeal on this, and in the process wasting a lot of time, money, and really ticking a lot of good people off.
1000 isn't a small sample size, if your sampling methodology is good. The only knock I've heard recently on Gallup's general methodology is that they only call land lines, IIRC, which means their polls skew old/technophobic, since so many younger Americans just have cell phones.
I think it is when you look at the pool size. 1005 out of 315,000,000 (+spare change). So basically thats 1 out of every 300,000 individuals.
They needed to phone more people.
Cheers
Andrew
You have absolutly no clue how a random sample works. And never taken a statistics class either.
1000 people is a good size for a poll, provided your sample gathering techniques are sound.
I stand outside of Wall Street, major bank corporations, and country clubs to get my pulse of the nations, that's sound gathering techniques right?
I lived around guns all my youth, everyone had one, or 100
now it is getting insane. Not long before I went to HS there were kids with trucks with gun racks full of guns in the parking lot. There were never any gun shootings at schools then, seems odd.
IMO BULLYING is to blame for all this gack. We need to teach all the kids that we are all equal, what some are good at others are not so good at, but they are better at things those others aren't. We all have our own gifts to add to this thing we call life. There has always been gentle teasing, but this bullying thing is fething terrible. When kids would rather die than go back to school we have a serious problem. We need to stop turning our schools into factories and turn them back into halls of education, or the US of A is as they say, " Up a gak creek with a turd for a paddle."
I lived around guns all my youth, everyone had one, or 100
now it is getting insane. Not long before I went to HS there were kids with trucks with gun racks full of guns in the parking lot. There were never any gun shootings at schools then, seems odd.
IMO BULLYING is to blame for all this gack. We need to teach all the kids that we are all equal, what some are good at others are not so good at, but they are better at things those others aren't. We all have our own gifts to add to this thing we call life. There has always been gentle teasing, but this bullying thing is fething terrible. When kids would rather die than go back to school we have a serious problem. We need to stop turning our schools into factories and turn them back into halls of education, or the US of A is as they say, " Up a gak creek with a turd for a paddle."
That's actually a good point...
However, there will always be bullys... but, we do need to create a mechanism to address it.
Mine solution? If my kids were bullied... I'd tell them this:
a) First, tell me
b) Secondly, tell teacher
c) Thirdly, if that doesn't work... tell principle
d) Fourthly, if that doesn't work... feth it, just beat the gak out of him in class in front of everyone and I'll have your full support against the authorities.
whembly wrote: However, there will always be bullys... but, we do need to create a mechanism to address it.
Mine solution? If my kids were bullied... I'd tell them this:
a) First, tell me
b) Secondly, tell teacher
c) Thirdly, if that doesn't work... tell principle
d) Fourthly, if that doesn't work... feth it, just beat the gak out of him in class in front of everyone and I'll have your full support against the authorities.
Having direct experience with this after A, it goes like this:
I call the teacher and tell them it needs to stop. When that does not work I call the principal/dean and inform them I am telling my child to go to D, and to hurt the other kid as badly as possible as quickly as possible so that the fight is short and brutal. Usually the principal takes care of it when given that warning...
whembly wrote: However, there will always be bullys... but, we do need to create a mechanism to address it.
Mine solution? If my kids were bullied... I'd tell them this:
a) First, tell me
b) Secondly, tell teacher
c) Thirdly, if that doesn't work... tell principle
d) Fourthly, if that doesn't work... feth it, just beat the gak out of him in class in front of everyone and I'll have your full support against the authorities.
Having direct experience with this after A, it goes like this:
I call the teacher and tell them it needs to stop. When that does not work I call the principal/dean and inform them I am telling my child to go to D, and to hurt the other kid as badly as possible as quickly as possible so that the fight is short and brutal. Usually the principal takes care of it when given that warning...
Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (SeeExpanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
Total Murders per 100,000 population per year USA = 4.2 Canada = 1.9 UK = 1.2 France = 1.1 Holland = 1.1 Australia = 1.0 Switzerland = 0.7 Norway = 0.6 Japan = 0.4
Gun Murders per 100,000 population per year USA = 3.7 Canada = 0.76 Switzerland = 0.52 France = 0.22 Australia = 0.09 UK = 0.04 Holland = 0.04 Norway = 0.04 Japan = 0.02
Total gun deaths per 100,000 population per year USA = 10.2 Canada = 4.78 Switzerland = 3.5 France = 3 Norway = 1.78 Holland = 1.1 Australia = 1.05 UK = 0.25 Japan = 0.07
Crime up a lot since 1960s, despite proliferation of guns.
CptJake wrote: And the decrease actually started a little earlier...
So basically, they started falling before the first assault weapons ban was introduced, and continued to fall after it expired. It's almost as if the assault weapons ban had little to no effect on murders at all...
d-usa wrote: Are we accepting the previous assault weapons ban as an indicator of future effects?
Well, that's a good question. Should we be? Some people think the reason the old one didn't do anything is because it wasn't strict enough, and the new one is a lot stricter.
But of course, some people think it was just stupid to begin with since only a fraction of gun murders are committed with what would be considered "assault weapons" under the ban.
d-usa wrote: Are we accepting the previous assault weapons ban as an indicator of future effects?
We are accepting that the first was a crap law and should never have been passed, and that the new version is worse and hopefully will die in committee, though it would be fun to see a no amendment floor vote so we know who to primary.
So the argument is that the last one didn't work, and we should accept that this means a new one will not be effective. Since history should be guiding is.
So can we stop arguing that a new ban will be the first step in taking all our guns away? Since the last one didn't result in total disarmament after all, and history should be our guide...
I think it's more like CptJake said. The first one was a bad law and the second one is a bad (worse) law. The fact that the first one didn't achieve the goals it was intended to doesn't change that.
A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.
At least six of the 55 senators who caucus with Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.
Like Senator Reid said (paraphrasing) this bill's DOA.
You have absolutly no clue how a random sample works. And never taken a statistics class either.
1000 people is a good size for a poll, provided your sample gathering techniques are sound.
No, I think I have a fairly good idea on how random sampling works, I also know that for the outcome to have any basis, the base sample size must in some way correlate to the pool size of the original source. So according to you a ratio of app 1:300,000 is an acceptable ratio to ensure no bias or sheer fluke can possibly intrude into the results. So I can phone 10 people in Chicago and ask if they own guns and that will give me an accurate % of the population that owns guns?
No. They needed to phone more people.
Cheers
CptJake, still no suggestions?
And to everyone, has anyone actually asked teachers/principles if they are willing to CCW?
And to everyone, has anyone actually asked teachers/principles if they are willing to CCW?
There are already voluntary training programs for armed teachers starting up. And there are certainly teachers who already have a CCW. I don't think people are saying to give every teacher or require every teacher to have a CCW. The idea seems to be more to allow the teachers who already have CCWs or choose to get CCWs to carry in school.
I was under the impression that the answer the gun lobby put forward was a blanket mandatory carry for principles/teachers in all schools to prevent such a thing from happening again.
Actually, a good frind of my wife's is a teacher in New Mexico just north of El Paso, and she has a conceal carry permit and wishes she could carry at school.
She (the teacher) posted the following to facebook soon after Sandy Hook:
As for further suggestions, why?
My goal is to keep my freedoms I currently have and ensure my kids enjoy the same freedoms. Enforce current laws, and address the mental health issues. I don't see a gun issue that can prevent Sandy Hook type events, and won't come up with solutions that compromise my current rights with no real gain for anyone but politicians.
If people REALLY care about The Children, they'll take actual measures that save more than 100 or so a year (and that is assuming you could prevent every Sandy Hook type incident, and you cannot). Again, fill in all the swimming pools and outlaw inlfatable pools and you save several thousand kids a year. Surely that is as reasonable as taking draconian gun control measures that won't prevent even 100 children from being capped?
Considering that the same people also freak the feth out if the evil government tells them that the kids have to wear helmets or the parents have to pay a fine, I don't really care what they think.
Pilots got armed and they have had more negligent discharges in the cockpit than prevented hijacks, so keep armed teachers away from my kids. If teachers get the right to be armed at work then I better get the right to have my kids bused at school expense to a gun free school. I will decide which people I trust to be armed while they are in charge of my kids.
d-usa wrote: Considering that the same people also freak the feth out if the evil government tells them that the kids have to wear helmets or the parents have to pay a fine, I don't really care what they think.
Pilots got armed and they have had more negligent discharges in the cockpit than prevented hijacks, so keep armed teachers away from my kids. If teachers get the right to be armed at work then I better get the right to have my kids bused at school expense to a gun free school. I will decide which people I trust to be armed while they are in charge of my kids.
d... I know you and I disagree on many things...
But you keep referencing the armed pilots... do you think that it's now known that the pilots are armed, that it deters would be hijackers?
These things aren't necessarily there to actually stop the bad guys, but also DETER future nutso... am I comletely wrong in this?
I asked because everytime someone suggests something you shoot it down, and this gives the impression, or at least gave me the impression of someone who didn't care what happens so long as you aren't disturbed. Or as the UK would put it "I'm all right Jack!"
My goal is to keep my freedoms I currently have and ensure my kids enjoy the same freedoms. Enforce current laws, and address the mental health issues. I don't see a gun issue that can prevent Sandy Hook type events, and won't come up with solutions that compromise my current rights with no real gain for anyone but politicians.
This explains your position better, but then if you don't engage, you wont get a compromise. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Which is it cheaper for the Govt to do, legislate (and pay) against gun owners or legislate (and pay) for the entire population of America?
If people REALLY care about The Children, they'll take actual measures that save more than 100 or so a year (and that is assuming you could prevent every Sandy Hook type incident, and you cannot). Again, fill in all the swimming pools and outlaw inlfatable pools and you save several thousand kids a year. Surely that is as reasonable as taking draconian gun control measures that won't prevent even 100 children from being capped?
You know that this isn't about caring for the children, this is about legislating against guns. 'Children' is merely the excuse that politicians will use.
d-usa wrote: Considering that the same people also freak the feth out if the evil government tells them that the kids have to wear helmets or the parents have to pay a fine, I don't really care what they think.
Pilots got armed and they have had more negligent discharges in the cockpit than prevented hijacks, so keep armed teachers away from my kids. If teachers get the right to be armed at work then I better get the right to have my kids bused at school expense to a gun free school. I will decide which people I trust to be armed while they are in charge of my kids.
d... I know you and I disagree on many things...
But you keep referencing the armed pilots... do you think that it's now known that the pilots are armed, that it deters would be hijackers?
These things aren't necessarily there to actually stop the bad guys, but also DETER future nutso... am I comletely wrong in this?
Considering that we have had how many instances of people storming the door since 9/11, and that they cannot get past the secured doors anyway, and that there are Marshall's on board with guns as well to stop non-cockpit attacks, and considering that the marshals have not stopped anything either and that all attacks since arming pilots and adding more Marshall's were stopped by unarmed passengers and flight staff...
I don't think that a guy with a gun behind a door you cannot get past anyway and who have managed to shoot the airplane they are flying has proven to be much of a deterrent.
d-usa wrote: Pilots got armed and they have had more negligent discharges in the cockpit than prevented hijacks, so keep armed teachers away from my kids. If teachers get the right to be armed at work then I better get the right to have my kids bused at school expense to a gun free school. I will decide which people I trust to be armed while they are in charge of my kids.
d-usa wrote: Considering that the same people also freak the feth out if the evil government tells them that the kids have to wear helmets or the parents have to pay a fine, I don't really care what they think.
Pilots got armed and they have had more negligent discharges in the cockpit than prevented hijacks, so keep armed teachers away from my kids. If teachers get the right to be armed at work then I better get the right to have my kids bused at school expense to a gun free school. I will decide which people I trust to be armed while they are in charge of my kids.
d... I know you and I disagree on many things...
But you keep referencing the armed pilots... do you think that it's now known that the pilots are armed, that it deters would be hijackers?
These things aren't necessarily there to actually stop the bad guys, but also DETER future nutso... am I comletely wrong in this?
Considering that we have had how many instances of people storming the door since 9/11, and that they cannot get past the secured doors anyway, and that there are Marshall's on board with guns as well to stop non-cockpit attacks, and considering that the marshals have not stopped anything either and that all attacks since arming pilots and adding more Marshall's were stopped by unarmed passengers and flight staff...
I don't think that a guy with a gun behind a door you cannot get past anyway and who have managed to shoot the airplane they are flying has proven to be much of a deterrent.
If we were doing tag team gunfights and you gave me a choice of partner between your average cop and your average concealed weapon permit holder, I'd choose the latter every time.
If we were doing tag team gunfights and you gave me a choice of partner between your average cop and your average concealed weapon permit holder, I'd choose the latter every time.
The best shots in the US are civilians. Hands down. The average permit holder probably gets more range time then the average cop. I know I do and I don't get to shoot near as much as I'd like to. The average LEO shoots once a year to qualify and that's it. Just being a cop does not make you a "gun guy" or even a decent pistol shooter.
You guys are missing the point. Someone posted a sign that obviously endorses arming school "staff"; presumably teachers (and hell,maybe janitors). Since police are the closest analogue of "civil servants the government arms, when their primary function is not warfare", and Seward insists on reminding us (accurately) that LEO's are notoriously bad shots, why would you think teachers would be better shots? Are they going to be required to qualify more often then the police?
More to the point, is this really in the wheelhouse of teachers to begin with? If you guys want to argue about putting a LEO in every school, that's a different plan, and we can talk about that, but this talk of arming teachers is just laughable.
I think there's a big difference between the state arming teachers and allowing teachers who already have a CCW or choose to get a CCW to carry in school.
Hordini wrote: I think there's a big difference between the state arming teachers and allowing teachers who already have a CCW or choose to get a CCW to carry in school.
There is. Though, minimally, I think most parents would favor some form of additional (and ongoing) certification.
Hordini wrote: I think there's a big difference between the state arming teachers and allowing teachers who already have a CCW or choose to get a CCW to carry in school.
There is. Though, minimally, I think most parents would favor some form of additional (and ongoing) certification.
I think it's a sensible idea, if we actually decide to let teachers with CCWs carry in school. Maybe they could standardize these teacher CCW courses that are popping up, and if teachers want to carry in school, they have to take the course and re-qualify every year. If the school district has money to burn on it, they can reimburse the teacher, and if not the teachers who want to carry can pay for the training themselves.
I don't think I've ever heard of a teacher snapping and hitting a child before... and I've certainly never heard of someone working in a school doing the same...or worse.
So yeah, lets allow teachers to carry guns to protect children.
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't think I've ever heard of a teacher snapping and hitting a child before... and I've certainly never heard of someone working in a school doing the same...or worse.
So yeah, lets allow teachers to carry guns to protect children.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Teachers obviously aren't intelligent or responsible enough to be expected to handle something like a firearm safely. Even if they had proper training I'm sure they'd find a way to screw it up. That's why we can only entrust them with things that allow them to do the least amount of damage to society, like educating kids. Really, after seeing the evidence you've provided, I think it's clear that teachers are the real danger. We should pull all the children out of school to protect them from the violent teachers! If every parent home-schooled their kids, maybe we'd have fewer school shootings.
Hordini wrote: I think there's a big difference between the state arming teachers and allowing teachers who already have a CCW or choose to get a CCW to carry in school.
There is. Though, minimally, I think most parents would favor some form of additional (and ongoing) certification.
Then let them address that with their local school board and county gov't. It isn't a federal gov't issue.
As someone who recently moved to the US from Ireland just before the debate over firearms kicked off I can say that this thread is the most civil and informative one that I've read to date.
SilverMK2 wrote: I don't think I've ever heard of a teacher snapping and hitting a child before... and I've certainly never heard of someone working in a school doing the same...or worse.
So yeah, lets allow teachers to carry guns to protect children.
U
Yeah, I know what you mean. Teachers obviously aren't intelligent or responsible enough to be expected to handle something like a firearm safely. Even if they had proper training I'm sure they'd find a way to screw it up. That's why we can only entrust them with things that allow them to do the least amount of damage to society, like educating kids. Really, after seeing the evidence you've provided, I think it's clear that teachers are the real danger. We should pull all the children out of school to protect them from the violent teachers! If every parent home-schooled their kids, maybe we'd have fewer school shootings.
I 've seen enough idiot teachers to know I wouldn't want a wholesale arming of them. In my own experience, I was thrown over some desks after forgetting to sign my name on a science test by a teacher that went on to beat up a couple of other 6th graders at later dates I have also seen other teachers stressed out to the point where they physically attack students.
My wife's older sister had a teacher that fixated on her and threatened to kill her family if she left him. Add in the incompetence factor and chance of a student getting a gun away from a teacher and you have a good argument for not wanting teachers to have guns.
I 've seen enough idiot teachers to know I wouldn't want a wholesale arming of them. In my own experience, I was thrown over some desks after forgetting to sign my name on a science test by a teacher that went on to beat up a couple of other 6th graders at later dates I have also seen other teachers stressed out to the point where they physically attack students.
My wife's older sister had a teacher that fixated on her and threatened to kill her family if she left him. Add in the incompetence factor and chance of a student getting a gun away from a teacher and you have a good argument for not wanting teachers to have guns.
Seems you are making one of my points for me, it is NOT a gun issue but a mental health issue. Thanks.
Jake
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting take on gun control:
Yes, I know the Daily Kos is not a politician/elected official and is close to the fringe. Having said that, I would be willing to bet that Sen Feinstein and her ilk would absolutely LOVE to see the above play out but is politically savy enough not to admit that anywhere near a camera or microphone.
I 've seen enough idiot teachers to know I wouldn't want a wholesale arming of them. In my own experience, I was thrown over some desks after forgetting to sign my name on a science test by a teacher that went on to beat up a couple of other 6th graders at later dates I have also seen other teachers stressed out to the point where they physically attack students.
My wife's older sister had a teacher that fixated on her and threatened to kill her family if she left him. Add in the incompetence factor and chance of a student getting a gun away from a teacher and you have a good argument for not wanting teachers to have guns.
Seems you are making one of my points for me, it is NOT a gun issue but a mental health issue. Thanks.
Jake
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting take on gun control:
Yes, I know the Daily Kos is not a politician/elected official and is close to the fringe. Having said that, I would be willing to bet that Sen Feinstein and her ilk would absolutely LOVE to see the above play out but is politically savy enough not to admit that anywhere near a camera or microphone.
The writer doesn't want his or her kids "being shot at by a deranged NRA member." How precious.
I like the part where people who own multiple guns who are NRA/GOA members are the people who warrant raids. I mean, lets not worry about all the firearms in the hands of gangs and drug dealers. NRA and GOA members are the people we should be worried about!
I would imagine that most people wouldn't want deranged NRA members shooting at their kids, but then I would think most people wouldn't want deranged people who aren't members of the NRA to shoot at their kids either. Come to think of it I doubt they would want anyone shooting at their kids regardless of lobby membership or mental state.
"He seemed calm, and he wasn't a member of the NRA, so I was ok with the killing spree at the playground."
Ahtman wrote: I would imagine that most people wouldn't want deranged NRA members shooting at their kids, but then I would think most people wouldn't want deranged people who aren't members of the NRA to shoot at their kids either. Come to think of it I doubt they would want anyone shooting at their kids regardless of lobby membership or mental state.
"He seemed calm, and he wasn't a member of the NRA, so I was ok with the killing spree at the playground."
You know, that's what I would think too. I certainly wouldn't want a deranged person shooting at anybody. That's why I'm not sure why the writer thought it was important enough to specifically mention NRA and GOA members, as if members of those groups are more likely to be deranged and start shooting people.
)
