Thread Rating:

Maverick17
Maverick17
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 323
Joined: Mar 4, 2011
January 15th, 2013 at 2:15:24 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

I don't have a problem either with the 2nd amendment. You have to live with it. Just accept that from time to time, there will be mass murders from gun violence. That has to be an acceptable consequence of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.



It is no more "acceptable" than the fact hundreds or thousands of people die in auto accidents or people who have second-hand smoked die of lung cancer.

Acceptable is not acceptable, if it were there would be no cars, no airplanes, hell no high school football, as tragedy happens as a result of all of these things on a minute by minute basis in some cases without people trying to make the process better. There was a time when cars didn’t have seatbelts or airbags or crumple zones, but they do now. The reason cars have the safety features they have now is not because of government regulation, but because that is what consumers want. The amount of lives lost to car accidents was not acceptable in 1950, and it is not acceptable today. The evidence is in the improvements made to the cars.

The US government does not have a right/obligation/duty/whatever you want to call it, to tell me what firearm I can own, or how I can own it. Some people would disagree with that, and if extremist liberals end up taking my rights away from me, I suppose I could lie and say I got rid of my guns, or go down in a blaze of glory, or something in-between, but in reality I would support the group or organization attempting to restore my right to me, and if that failed, I would remain a law-abiding citizen and have my guns stolen from me by my country.

To say I need to accept death as a result of a whack-O shooting kids/people to keep my right to bear arms is ignorant, untrue, and candidly speaking, WRONG.
Statistics don't lie, they deceive.
Maverick17
Maverick17
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 323
Joined: Mar 4, 2011
January 15th, 2013 at 2:26:17 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

The Sandy Hook murder was from legal weapons that the kid had been trained to use, by his mother.



FYI: In America if someone murders a legal gun owner and steals their legal gun, the gun is not "legal" anymore, in fact it is quite "illegal."
Statistics don't lie, they deceive.
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
January 15th, 2013 at 3:24:17 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183760/two-robbers-shot-dead-in-hollywood.html



"Homeless man thwarts robbery?" That's some spin there.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 15th, 2013 at 3:40:17 PM permalink
Like a Gun argument: Since pedophiles will probably get to some kids anyway, why bother the law abiding citizen with hassles about who they are. Probably 99% will not molest a kid anyway even if you don't check their background.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
January 15th, 2013 at 3:56:02 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Like a Gun argument: Since pedophiles will probably get to some kids anyway, why bother the law abiding citizen with hassles about who they are. Probably 99% will not molest a kid anyway even if you don't check their background.



So felonious sexual assault of a minor is the same as a Constitutionally granted right?

C'mon, rxwine. You've been here a while. You're a better poster than that.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 15th, 2013 at 5:15:43 PM permalink
Quote: Face

So felonious sexual assault of a minor is the same as a Constitutionally granted right?

C'mon, rxwine. You've been here a while. You're a better poster than that.



Actually, I meant that 99% (or probably some high portion of the public) won't turn out to have a conviction for child molestation, or probably wouldn't molest children. Does that mean we shouldn't bother screening anyone?

Likewise only a small portion of people will go on a mass shooting. I don't know how many people think they shouldn't be bothered with a background check because there are mostly law abiding people buying guns.

I don't know why we don't require 100% checks everywhere, if there is this "loophole"
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 15th, 2013 at 5:41:16 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

However, had the mother (who was sane) been under a law to lock up weapons and keep them unloaded, perhaps the kid wouldn't have known where the key was for the weapons or the ammo, and wouldn't have been able to pull off what he was intending to do.



Yeah, and if the kids had been home schooled they would not have been there to be in the line of attack.

I ask again, why do you give a pass to the guy who illegally took a gun and illegally entered a "gun free school zone" (wasn't that a law to stop school gun violence? how did it work out?) and want to take away the rights of the gun owner who is not harming anyone? I can tell you this, when I have a gun in my home for protection I keep it loaded in the nightstand so I can get to it in time, not in some safe where I have to look up the combination and load it.

Quote:

I don't have a problem either with the 2nd amendment. You have to live with it. Just accept that from time to time, there will be mass murders from gun violence. That has to be an acceptable consequence of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.



Mexico has a very bad gun violence problem but no Second Ammendment, so I do not understand your point here. And spare me the line of "the guns come from the USA" because if the USA suddenly became gun-free the drug cartels would source elsewhere. Even without the Obama Administration selling them guns as they have in the past (see "Fast and Furious."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 15th, 2013 at 5:52:52 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

"Leadership that encourages society to behave better"... bull.

What does that mean? It's a flimsy argument. Gun homocides decreased from 14,981 in 1993 to about 7,985 in 2000. Who was president then? Clinton. Under Reagan it was stable. Under Bush Sr. it went up from 9,375 in 1988 to 13,158 in 1992. And the rates under Obama are also increasing.



What does it mean? It means perhaps we need leadership that calls out the criminal instead of "not letting a crisis go to waste" to push an ongoing anti-gun agenda. It means a leadership that stresses personal responsibility for one's actions instead of blaming the gun for what happened. It means a leadership that does not reduce penalties for crack-cocaine dealers because penalties for crack are somehow "racist" and instead locks up the dealers who are a large source of shoot-em-up illegal homicides.

I said the same line on the DT site. We are a society with major problems as to what is acceptable behavior. Look at NYC in the late 1990s. Gulliani targeted the squeege men because he believed in the "broken window" theory that if you let little things go bad, big bad things will follow. And he cleaned up NYC, making it a place people actually wanted to live in again.

Today there is no call for personal responsibility on the small level. 99 weeks of unemployment, unlimited welfare after repeal of the 1996 reforms, free birth control, free this, legalize weed, OWS living in tents in parks. On and on. What do we see from our leaders? Regulations on soda sizes, warning labels on everything, blaming "global warming" on anything, bailouts, you name it EXCEPT a call to just plain BEHAVE YOURSELF!

Quote:

The United States has the 2nd highest firearms suicide rate, in the world.



And?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
treetopbuddy
treetopbuddy
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 1739
Joined: Jan 12, 2013
January 15th, 2013 at 6:43:45 PM permalink
relax folks.....nobody is going to take away your guns unless you let them.......
Each day is better than the next
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
January 15th, 2013 at 6:50:32 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I said the same line on the DT site. We are a society with major problems as to what is acceptable behavior. Look at NYC in the late 1990s. Gulliani targeted the squeege men because he believed in the "broken window" theory that if you let little things go bad, big bad things will follow. And he cleaned up NYC, making it a place people actually wanted to live in again.

Today there is no call for personal responsibility on the small level. 99 weeks of unemployment, unlimited welfare after repeal of the 1996 reforms, free birth control, free this, legalize weed, OWS living in tents in parks. On and on. What do we see from our leaders? Regulations on soda sizes, warning labels on everything, blaming "global warming" on anything, bailouts, you name it EXCEPT a call to just plain BEHAVE YOURSELF!



Hear him, hear him!

We legal citizens are being held to the standards of the criminals, when it's the exact opposite which should be happening. My freedom and my rights have become dependant on the actions of the lawless, and there's just no way I can convince myself to accept that.

The US gun debate is reaching a fervor I've never seen, and nowhere is it reaching as fevered a pitch as my home state of NY. Much of the BS I've outlined in my firearms thread over on DT. It's ridiculous. Does something need to be done? Sure. Has anyone even remotely suggested a halfway decent solution? Not in the slightest. But there's been plenty of knee-jerk, arbitrary bans and legislation to increase revenue. Oh yeah, there's plenty of that.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
January 15th, 2013 at 9:01:30 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

What does it mean? It means perhaps we need leadership that calls out the criminal instead of "not letting a crisis go to waste" to push an ongoing anti-gun agenda. It means a leadership that stresses personal responsibility for one's actions instead of blaming the gun for what happened. It means a leadership that does not reduce penalties for crack-cocaine dealers because penalties for crack are somehow "racist" and instead locks up the dealers who are a large source of shoot-em-up illegal homicides.

I said the same line on the DT site. We are a society with major problems as to what is acceptable behavior. Look at NYC in the late 1990s. Gulliani targeted the squeege men because he believed in the "broken window" theory that if you let little things go bad, big bad things will follow. And he cleaned up NYC, making it a place people actually wanted to live in again.

Today there is no call for personal responsibility on the small level. 99 weeks of unemployment, unlimited welfare after repeal of the 1996 reforms, free birth control, free this, legalize weed, OWS living in tents in parks. On and on. What do we see from our leaders? Regulations on soda sizes, warning labels on everything, blaming "global warming" on anything, bailouts, you name it EXCEPT a call to just plain BEHAVE YOURSELF!



And look at the United States in the late 1990s when homocide deaths dropped by 40%. Do you credit Clinton for that? Read Freakanomics. The reason that homocides were reduced in New York (and nationwide) was due to a change in demographics in the city, not because of Juliani. The availability of abortions in the 70s meant that the people who were most prone to committing murder (young black men between the age of 18-24) was rapidly decreasing in numbers in the early to mid 90s (because black mothers had access to abortions and modern birth control). Juliani just happened to be in the right place in the right time.

Personal responsibility should be assumed. If the mother of that murderer had a sense of personal responsibility, she would have realized that her son had a mental disorder and locked up her guns so that the kid didn't have access to them. They put laws in place not to curtail your freedoms, but because people don't know better or sometimes lose their senses once in a while. Or they grow hopeless. Perhaps they've been unemployed for months on end and the stress overwhelms them. Perhaps they lose their senses.

How many murders and suicides have occurred because someone kept a loaded gun in their nightstand and decided to turn it on their loved ones or on themselves? What will happen to that gun, AZ, when someone breaks into your home, steals that gun, and uses it to kill someone at your local convenience store? Oh well???? How many robberies in progress have been thwarted by a gun owner compared to the number of people who have been killed by that same gun. The answer is a number very close to zero.

There's a great sense on this forum that people should just be responsible for themselves. We're all a part of this great thing called a society. There are people who need to be protected and laws that need to be in place to protect the innocent (ie, children, the lawful) from those who are not (the mentally deranged, the criminals). The penalty for the righteous is that even though they believe and know that they will be safe in whatever the hell they do, there are those who are not. That's what laws are for. For law-abiding citizens, you can own a gun. Take a gun-ownership class. Get a permit. Undergo extensive background checks. Make it a law to keep guns locked up and unloaded at home. Then, you can own a gun. That doesn't break your 2nd amendment rights and might prevent some murders.

America could use an anti-gun agenda. Those children at the school were "behaving themselves". Now they're dead.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
January 15th, 2013 at 10:17:03 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

They put laws in place not to curtail your freedoms...



But that's the thing. Regardless of whether that's their intention, they most assuredly do. And they don't do it because it's "for the greater good", they do it because .085% of the population has a problem.

You also ask how many crimes are stopped by a gun vs how many killings are made with a gun. That's one of those things that just grates my spine. A perp who kills uncontested always racks up a good count. Double digits in Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook... A perp that's dropped before he can get those numbers counts as just one. All these stories about gun toters being in the right place at the right time are never awe inspiring, they're dull, just as they should be. Just BAM!, tragedy averted. If a gun toting LEO had been on property at Sandy Hook, it'd been forgotten about many weeks ago, just a blurb in a paper only the locals would take notice of.

I know that based on my random comments here or my many-page pro-firearm thread on DT, I may be looked as as just another gun nut. And I am, this I don't deny. But I'm not insensible, I do have a young son whose welfare I care deeply for, and I do have concerns. I do want to look into and search for a real solution. But if you look at some of the shit proposed by our leaders of today, and that's what it is - shit, You can't honestly believe it's a viable answer to our problem.

While I may spout off at the mouth about "taking my rights", it's bigger than that. It's taking my rights under the guise that something's actually going to be fixed. Because that's what it is, a guise, a ruse, an end around using a tragedy for their own profit. The fact that they think I or any of my peers would fall for it is an insult to my intelligence, and is mostly what sets me off into rant mode. There's "control" I understand, some of which I, even as a "gun toting kaboom nut", might even support. But this...Obama's plan, NYS's new laws... it's just asinine.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 15th, 2013 at 10:24:25 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo


Take a gun-ownership class.



I teach firearms classes for several state certifications. First, let's quit pretending that accidental firearms deaths are a major problem. Firearms classes do nothing to enhance the safety of people who are just buying a gun.

There is a small argument that classes help gun-carriers, but legal gun carriers are a tiny tiny tiny problem. You are focusing your legislative fire on people that are less than a fraction of a percent of the violence problem.

Basic training does almost nothing.

Quote: boymimbo

Get a permit.



What does this do? Canada had that system for 10 years and solved not one single crime with it. Gun registration is one of those things that is a proven failure yet people keep going back to that well over and over again. What does this do?

Outright bans have at least some effect. Registration? Please. The NFA registration system is one of the most throuough and lengthy registrations systems available in this country and it is still only 2/3 correct--- and it only accounts less than a tenth of a percent of guns in the county.

Lets get real. There are 300 million guns in the US. To put that a different way--- for every car you see there are two guns. The idea that registration and stiffening ownership requirements is going to curb violence is simply asinine. A significant portion (honestly I would estimate over half) of guns are not registered to anybody currently. These guns can just fall through the cracks.

Quote: boymimbo

Undergo extensive background checks.



It would be nice if this would work. But places like Norway prove that it doesn't. And you can always just steal or procure a gun on the street. There are way too many guns to pretend that these kind of crap would make it harder to get a gun.

Quote: boymimbo

Make it a law to keep guns locked up and unloaded at home.



This is one of the more phenomenally unintelligent things that people spout when they favor gun control. What does that do other than make the gun completely worthless to the owner? I mean you are literally passing a law that says that they cannot use a gun to defend themselves in their own home. And it does exactly jack shit to slow down criminals or others.

Quote: boymimbo

That doesn't break your 2nd amendment rights and might prevent some murders.



Fortunately Heller and a recent appeals court opinion say that the above scheme does break your 2nd amendment rights. It might prevent some murders with guns, but it will certainly prevent gun owners from using the gun do defend themselves.

Quote: boymimbo

America could use an anti-gun agenda. Those children at the school were "behaving themselves". Now they're dead.



And the gun(s) apparently used were in a ban state that requires registration and training. Oh if only the mom was required to lock the gun away, then Mr. Lanza would have had to find the key to get to the guns an ammo! The slight inconvenience would have thwarted him!


Your proposals don't address the sheer number of guns, they don't address the people who are actually using them in crimes, and they are simply a re-boot of proven regulatory failures that have been extensively tried all over their country. These things make you feel like you are in control of guns, but you aren't. It's not even a half measure.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 15th, 2013 at 10:29:12 PM permalink
To add a constructive advancement of the argument:

The problem with gun violence or any other violence is that there are people that are willing to commit these crimes. Attempts to curb violence should be focused on the people that perpetrate these acts. As has been exhaustively proven in Commonwealth countries that restrict guns--if you focus on the tool you will be moving the violence from one category (gun violence) into another (pick your weapon). It doesn't actually slow down the rate of violence.
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 15th, 2013 at 11:01:12 PM permalink
I'm amused, confused and saddened when I read all these posts, and many posts on other news sites from people who can't understand that gun restriction is not a bad thing.

You are restricted from watering your lawn on certain days because the municipal government says so.
You are restricted from building certain rooms or planting trees on you your own property because building and city codes say so.
You may not drive above a certain speed on certain streets because the law says so.
Your automobile must pass certain criteria to be considered "street legal" and must also pass emissions tests.
You may not walk around unclothed in public areas (in most cities).
You may not shout "fire" in a crowded area, such as a movie theater (regardless of your understanding of the 1st amendment).
You can't buy "Bucky Balls" because they have been deemed to be potential hazards to children.
And on, and on...


These are laws or rules or whatever you want to call them that have been put in place for reasons that not everyone may agree with. You must abide by them nonetheless. Some people may feel that these rules infringe on their personal freedoms. I guess that's just too bad.

The most common reasons given for not wanting any kind of gun restrictions:

> The 2nd Amendment! I have the right to keep and bear arms!

No, that's not quite right. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Ignoring the "well regulated militia" portion because that's obviously gone out the window or over people's heads, NO ONE has said that you, as an American citizen may not keep and bear arms. Some are simply suggesting that the types of arms in the context of firearms be restricted to certain weapons. Other certain weapons will not be permitted. So, is it worth crying up a storm when you find out that these certain firearms are being restricted? No, it is not but some choose to do so anyway. "I WANT MY GUNS DAMMIT!" You can have your guns, so long as they are not those which have been deemed restricted. You can't water your lawn on Tuesdays either.

> If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns!

Hmmm. Nobody is going to outlaw guns as you've just read above. You can have your guns for personal protection and for hunting and for collecting - just not certain guns that have been restricted.

> The 2nd amendment exists so that we can overthrow a potentially tyrannical government!

For those who might think that one day your government is going to become a tyranny or that your president is a commie (or worse, a socialist!), get a grip on yourself. It's not going to happen. BUT, let's assume it does. You and your friends, regardless of how many weapons of any kind you may own will not stop an army of any size with the equipment and technology available. By the way, just because the candidate you voted for lost in the election or your party is not in power and you hate, hate, HATE the president, his party and all he stands for... this does not in any way constitute a tyrannical government. It just means that you have to suck it up the way the other 50% of the country did when Dubya was president and go vote again in 4 years. That's democracy in action friends... over 50% of the popular vote and over 330 electoral votes... that's life. If you don't like the policies, the write a letter but please, stop this nonsense about impeachment and secession and civil war and your cold, dead hands... you just sound like a pouting child.

> Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people!

Um, well, it all depends on how skewed your view is. People with guns kill people when they aim and fire those guns at people. See how that works? By reducing the number of guns and limiting the number of rounds that can be fired without reloading, this will make killing people with guns much more difficult. People kill people (unfortunately) but when a killer has a gun that fires 20 or 30 rounds or more it makes his job much easier than if he didn't have that gun (or any gun). Let's make an effort to make sure that NO ONE has access to this kind of weapon and you'll see fewer stories like we've seen lately. Yes, yes, I know, people can still kill lots of people in a short period of time with hand guns and rifles and such but let's start small and while we're regulating guns we can also put more money into mental health, policing, education AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS.

So, to recap: No one is telling you that you can't own guns. No one is crapping on the Bill of Rights. Some people have just had enough of gun-related violence and they are looking at ways to reduce this. This is one way to start and if you don't like it, well then man up and quit your bellyaching. You sound just like a 5 year old who is being told he can't buy the GI Joe with Kung-Fu grip.
Happiness is underrated
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 15th, 2013 at 11:15:22 PM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

These things make you feel like you are in control of guns, but you aren't. It's not even a half measure.




This stuff below is not just failed systems but intentional interference by gun lobbies who apparently don't want things to work.

Quote:

Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.
◦ Crime gun data is the only special industry exception to public disclosure under FOIA, so officials, law enforcement and researchers are kept in the dark.
◦ Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, are prevented from studying guns as a public safety risk, so important public health data on policies and programs to prevent gun injury are unavailable.
◦ ATF is prevented from requiring basic store inventories that would prevent thefts and expose corrupt dealers, and minimal punishment and excessive evidentiary hurdles make it unduly difficult to punish traffickers and corrupt dealers.

There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 12:18:51 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

This stuff below is not just failed systems but intentional interference by gun lobbies who apparently don't want things to work.



These problems you list are at most a drop in the bucket. Corrupt dealers that the ATF can't reign in? Yeah... that's the problem. $3 million a year in study funds denied? Yeah... that's the problem. Eliminating bizarre theories of vicarious liability? Yeah.. that's the problem. These tiny tiny things defeated the entire gun control scheme that totally would have worked without them!

You might try not copying and pasting from the least effective lobbying group in existence. These are just half-assed talking points for media regurgitation. It's embarrassing for you to pretend these items matter.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 12:35:55 AM permalink
Let's go through your straw men, for fun!

Quote: TheNightfly



The most common reasons given for not wanting any kind of gun restrictions:

> The 2nd Amendment! I have the right to keep and bear arms!

No, that's not quite right. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Ignoring the "well regulated militia" portion because that's obviously gone out the window or over people's heads, NO ONE has said that you, as an American citizen may not keep and bear arms.



Who are the militia? Was does the world 'regulated' mean in that sentence? Have you read Federalist 46?

Fortunately, and regardless of your condescension ere, asinine abuses of that clause have been curbed by the Supreme Court.

Quote: TheNightfly

Some are simply suggesting that the types of arms in the context of firearms be restricted to certain weapons. Other certain weapons will not be permitted. So, is it worth crying up a storm when you find out that these certain firearms are being restricted? No, it is not but some choose to do so anyway. "I WANT MY GUNS DAMMIT!" You can have your guns, so long as they are not those which have been deemed restricted. You can't water your lawn on Tuesdays either.



At what point does restricting certain weapons infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? What are 'arms'?

Your point seems to be that these restrictions don't infringe because they don't eliminate the right entirely, just curb it. Okay... that isn't a compelling counterpoint on your part.

Quote: TheNightfly


> If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns!

Hmmm. Nobody is going to outlaw guns as you've just read above. You can have your guns for personal protection and for hunting and for collecting - just not certain guns that have been restricted.



Oh I get it. You will just take the most effective guns for various uses away, then laugh about how it doesn't outlaw ALL guns. Cute!

Worth noting here that these 'certain guns' you are so enamored with restricting will still be in criminal circulation in the millions. So we just have to deal with criminals being better armed than us because our second amendment rights haven't been entirely eliminated! Sounds like the recipe for success!

Quote: TheNightfly

> The 2nd amendment exists so that we can overthrow a potentially tyrannical government!

For those who might think that one day your government is going to become a tyranny or that your president is a commie (or worse, a socialist!), get a grip on yourself. It's not going to happen. BUT, let's assume it does. You and your friends, regardless of how many weapons of any kind you may own will not stop an army of any size with the equipment and technology available. By the way, just because the candidate you voted for lost in the election or your party is not in power and you hate, hate, HATE the president, his party and all he stands for... this does not in any way constitute a tyrannical government. It just means that you have to suck it up the way the other 50% of the country did when Dubya was president and go vote again in 4 years. That's democracy in action friends... over 50% of the popular vote and over 330 electoral votes... that's life. If you don't like the policies, the write a letter but please, stop this nonsense about impeachment and secession and civil war and your cold, dead hands... you just sound like a pouting child.



You did a pretty poor job maximizing the attempt to make gun owners look like nutjobs. And yes, a well-regulated militia ensures the integrity of a free state. Among other things. Think about it.

Quote: TheNightfly

> Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people!

Um, well, it all depends on how skewed your view is. People with guns kill people when they aim and fire those guns at people. See how that works? By reducing the number of guns and limiting the number of rounds that can be fired without reloading, this will make killing people with guns much more difficult. People kill people (unfortunately) but when a killer has a gun that fires 20 or 30 rounds or more it makes his job much easier than if he didn't have that gun (or any gun). Let's make an effort to make sure that NO ONE has access to this kind of weapon and you'll see fewer stories like we've seen lately. Yes, yes, I know, people can still kill lots of people in a short period of time with hand guns and rifles and such but let's start small and while we're regulating guns we can also put more money into mental health, policing, education AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS.



A miniscule portion of gun murders involve more than 10 rounds fired. An even smaller number involve these 'assault weapons' (a misnomer). These magical restrictions were tried and were completely ineffective at doing anything. Why focus on proven ineffective reforms?

You also ignore the significance of the maxim. The point is that removing guns from the equation does not remove the person wanting to kill. As has has been proven in the commonwealth countries, limiting guns just increases deaths in the stabbings column. The overall violence level is stable.

Quote: TheNightfly

So, to recap: No one is telling you that you can't own guns. No one is crapping on the Bill of Rights. Some people have just had enough of gun-related violence and they are looking at ways to reduce this. This is one way to start and if you don't like it, well then man up and quit your bellyaching. You sound just like a 5 year old who is being told he can't buy the GI Joe with Kung-Fu grip.



Yeah, it generally upsets people when you want to curb their hobby and ability to defend themselves in order to accomplish nothing. These proposals are tailored toward demonizing weapons that the average person views circumspectly, not toward any real change that will impact violence.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 12:38:56 AM permalink
What's even more unlikely is finding a gun advocate that ever thinks anything works. Your "nothing works" talking point is also tiresome.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 12:41:04 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

What's even more unlikely is finding a gun advocate that ever thinks anything works. Your "nothing works" talking point is also tiresome.



I'm sorry that I am unable to pretend that the proven failures being advocated in this thread would work to achieve any of the goals stated. Does the truth often tire you out? Were you often tired between 1994-2004 when people that said the original 'assault weapons ban' wouldn't work were daily proven correct?

ETA: something that HAS proven effective is increased incarceration of violent persons. Also, better police investigations for violent crimes. You know. Makes sense.... there's a certain type of person who is willing to kill. Don't worry, your proposed reforms will make it slightly harder for these criminals to procure guns. I am sure your paltry reforms will inconvenience them enough that they will just give up on killing.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 12:54:05 AM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

I'm sorry that I am unable to pretend that the proven failures being advocated in this thread would work to achieve any of the goals stated. Does the truth often tire you out? Were you often tired between 1994-2004 when people that said the original 'assault weapons ban' wouldn't work were daily proven correct?

ETA: something that HAS proven effective is increased incarceration of violent persons. Also, better police investigations for violent crimes. You know. Makes sense.... there's a certain type of person who is willing to kill. Don't worry, your proposed reforms will make it slightly harder for these criminals to procure guns. I am sure your paltry reforms will inconvenience them enough that they will just give up on killing.



We have the highest incarceration rate in the world already.

As to things that don't work, most scientists, engineers know experiments and projects need tweaking. Thomas Edison failed a thousand times.

Your proven failures, are just a speed bump.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 1:00:16 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world already.



By filling prisons with drug offenders, not violent criminals. It's quite myopic to say were shouldn't focus on incarcerating violent people (those most deserving of prison) because there are already so many prisoners. Release the non-deserving prisoners. Or are you shooting for a thousand failures here as well?

Quote: rxwine

As to things that don't work, most scientists, engineers know experiments and projects need tweaking. Thomas Edison failed a thousand times.



Says the guy suggesting a proven failure in lieu of a proven success (the tweaking has already been done for you!).

You seem to presuppose that a gun-focused plan just needs tweaking to reduce murders, but you are fascinatingly ignoring other the experience of other countries. Namely that the murder rate does not change.

A gun-focused approach to reducing murders is going to need those thousand failures.

Quote: rxwine

Your proven failures, are just a speed bump.



No doubt. I am sure we will find ourselves in Australia's shoes one day. No guns except for criminals, illegal to defend yourself, and exactly the same murder rate as prior to the gun 'reforms.'
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 1:09:16 AM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

No doubt. I am sure we will find ourselves in Australia's shoes one day. No guns except for criminals, illegal to defend yourself, and exactly the same murder rate as prior to the gun 'reforms.'



Well, you know what's interesting, is you gun rights people can't seem to keep the perception war in your favor. If they showed the Newton shooting security footage you'd have to go hide in your spider holes from an outraged public.

I just wait around for the next shoe (shooting) to drop. Then the next. I don't have to work on working up public fever, that's for sure.

Maybe you should go after freedom of the press.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 1:15:10 AM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

I'm sorry that I am unable to pretend that the proven failures being advocated in this thread would work to achieve any of the goals stated. Does the truth often tire you out? Were you often tired between 1994-2004 when people that said the original 'assault weapons ban' wouldn't work were daily proven correct?

ETA: something that HAS proven effective is increased incarceration of violent persons. Also, better police investigations for violent crimes. You know. Makes sense.... there's a certain type of person who is willing to kill. Don't worry, your proposed reforms will make it slightly harder for these criminals to procure guns. I am sure your paltry reforms will inconvenience them enough that they will just give up on killing.



You'll notice that in my last paragraph I mentioned a few other ways that we might be able to make the USA a little bit safer from bad people, whether they have guns or not. I actually emphasized the prosecution of criminals - it's better to keep people off the streets who have proven themselves to act in a criminal manner.

These aren't "straw man" arguments in the least. I'm simply saying that you and others who think like you cry like spoiled children at the thought of someone forbidding you to do or have something you want... and for it to be GUNS of all things... is just insane. It's a GUN. It's used to shoot things and KILL people. At what point in the history of humanity did this kind of device become a GOOD thing?

You can't really, honestly tell me that you are afraid of burglars. Are you telling me that you are afraid that a burglar is going to come to your home with a fully automatic assault weapon? Are you telling me that you wouldn't be able to protect your home and your family with a couple of handguns and a rifle or two? Puh-lease.

Just admit the truth. You and others just want to have what you want to have because you want to have it and you'll scream bloody murder and whine like a child if you think that someone might forbid you from doing just that. How about those who want to speed or do cocaine or play loud music after 2:00am. There are some things that your government (municipal, state and federal) will not permit. Owning an assault weapon is one of these things and one day this restriction may include other weapons.

You may not shout "FIRE" in a movie theater. Does that infringe on your right to free speech? Why is it that you're not pushing for your right do this? Because you don't want to and you know the law makes sense. The fact that you don't think this proposed law makes sense doesn't make any difference. It's like saying a Hyundai drives like a sports car because you think you know what a sports car is like, even if you haven't driven one. Your opinion has been noted as have the opinions of many other people. Now, the people who have been democratically elected by the majority of the citizens of the USA will continue to propose and pass laws, some of which you may not like or agree with.
Happiness is underrated
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 1:19:00 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Well, you know what's interesting, is you gun rights people can't seem to keep the perception war in your favor. If they showed the Newton shooting security footage you'd have to go hide in your spider holes from an outraged public.

I just wait around for the next shoe (shooting) to drop. Then the next. I don't have to work on working up public fever, that's for sure.

Maybe you should go after freedom of the press.




The media is as free to be in the bag for gun control as they would like. At least they aren't pretending to be objective this time around.

Increases in support for restriction of particular guns are just an irrational responses to these shootings, which should be expected from people that don't understand causation.

Honestly I have been surprised about how little movement there has been in the public opinion polls. You had a major shift between 1995 and 2012, with the public basically flipping and coming over to support guns... by huge margins by the end of it. The idiotic Newtown coverage might erase some of those gains, and so far it looks like a 10 point swing. Not the watershed that was being predicted.

Support for the assault weapons ban has always been high... around something like 2/3. That it is 3/4 now is not surprising, but public support for something so deceptively branded and harped on for so long is to be expected. By the way its treated you would actually think these 'assault weapons' are more dangerous than your typical semi-automatic.... but you'd be wrong. I am glad the focus is on something so idiotic... you know... those horrible guns used in 1.5% of gun crimes. It's handguns that are used the most, but with public support for concealed carry through the roof it is hard to get support for that these days.

Anyway, this was a ramble. But this public fever is not breaking as hard as you wish. A 10 point bump doesn't even erase the gun-rights gains from 2005-2012 in polling.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 1:27:18 AM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

No doubt. I am sure we will find ourselves in Australia's shoes one day. No guns except for criminals, illegal to defend yourself, and exactly the same murder rate as prior to the gun 'reforms.'



I decided to check that, and murder rate dropped afterwards from 1995 on in both non-gun suicides and homocides.

See chart B & F

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

edit "death rate" in above sentance, not murder rate
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 1:45:13 AM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

You'll notice that in my last paragraph I mentioned a few other ways that we might be able to make the USA a little bit safer from bad people, whether they have guns or not. I actually emphasized the prosecution of criminals - it's better to keep people off the streets who have proven themselves to act in a criminal manner.



Congratulations then. You have half a plan!

Quote: TheNightfly

These aren't "straw man" arguments in the least.



I'm sorry. Raising cherry-picked bad arguments from the other side then ranting about them is the very essence of a straw man argument. You score on all the points.

Quote: TheNightfly

I'm simply saying that you and others who think like you cry like spoiled children at the thought of someone forbidding you to do or have something you want... and for it to be GUNS of all things... is just insane. It's a GUN. It's used to shoot things and KILL people. At what point in the history of humanity did this kind of device become a GOOD thing?



It's a tool. It doesn't carry good or bad properties within it. And it is definitely a good thing both as a hobby and as a means of defense.

Quote: TheNightfly

You can't really, honestly tell me that you are afraid of burglars.



Why not? People entering your house with a criminal intent? No, I should be totally ok with that! It's unlikely after all. Like a car wreck. Why do I wear my seatbelt anyway? What a waste of time.. its so unlikely.

And why limit it to burglars? You've by definition eliminated robbers and other criminals who are more likely to kill or injure.

I live in an area with significant numbers of home invasions and such due to the fucking drug war that this country insists on fighting. These aren't cat burglars we are talking about (which interestingly don't exist in states with high rates of gun ownership).

I don't know why we are limiting this discussion to the home, but I will play.

Quote: TheNightfly

Are you telling me that you are afraid that a burglar is going to come to your home with a fully automatic assault weapon?



No, I think they would use a semi-automatic rifle or pistol, as they often do in home invasions. Your comrades often mistakenly call these semi-automatic rifles 'assault weapons.' Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated, and have never been a significant force in american crime.

Quote: TheNightfly

Are you telling me that you wouldn't be able to protect your home and your family with a couple of handguns and a rifle or two? Puh-lease.



Now you are a gun-fighting expert?

Handguns suck ass. What kind of rifle are you talking about? A semiautomatic rifle with a decent size magazine? Yes, I would have a good chance with such rifle. A bolt action hunting rifle? I guess I could hope the bullet goes through multiple people?

And yes, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and eliminating semi-automatic carbines via an AWB would absolutely undercut your ability to defend yourself.

Quote: TheNightfly

Just admit the truth. You and others just want to have what you want to have because you want to have it and you'll scream bloody murder and whine like a child if you think that someone might forbid you from doing just that.



The psychology if your children analogies are very interesting. Yes, however, I don't like it when people seek to regulate my possession of objects that do no harm.

Quote: TheNightfly

How about those who want to speed or do cocaine or play loud music after 2:00am. There are some things that your government (municipal, state and federal) will not permit. Owning an assault weapon is one of these things and one day this restriction may include other weapons.



This is not a compelling argument. First of all because there already are such restrictions on guns, but more importantly because one bad law doesn't justify another.

But particularly they aren't convincing to me because I am libertarian. The government has no right to restrict anything other than conduct harmful to the rights of another.

Quote: TheNightfly

You may not shout "FIRE" in a movie theater. Does that infringe on your right to free speech? Why is it that you're not pushing for your right do this? Because you don't want to and you know the law makes sense.



You don't appear to understand why yelling 'fire' is restricted, making this a piss-poor analogy. There it is the behavior that is restricted. You may use the word fire, but not if it incites panic and harms people. Similarly, you may own these evil assault weapons but you may not use them to harm people.

If your analogy made sense for your argument about guns you would be banning the use of the word fire for fear that someone might use it inappropriately in a movie theater.

You are attempting to make the argument that no right is completely unrestricted. Sure, but it shouldn't be restricted until it actually harms others. Please note the word 'actually' there and don't make the stupid argument that guns as a class harm people.

Quote: TheNightfly

The fact that you don't think this proposed law makes sense doesn't make any difference. It's like saying a Hyundai drives like a sports car because you think you know what a sports car is like, even if you haven't driven one. Your opinion has been noted as have the opinions of many other people. Now, the people who have been democratically elected by the majority of the citizens of the USA will continue to propose and pass laws, some of which you may not like or agree with.



What a non-statement. But fortunately these proposals are going nowhere legislatively.
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 1:52:43 AM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

I'm sorry. Raising cherry-picked bad arguments from the other side then ranting about them is the very essence of a straw man argument. You score on all the points.



I'm sorry. These are the only arguments I've heard. What are the good arguments?
Happiness is underrated
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 1:53:37 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I decided to check that, and murder rate dropped afterwards from 1995 on in both non-gun suicides and homocides.

See chart B & F

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

edit "death rate" in above sentance, not murder rate




Please look at page 368 and note the completely stable graphs of deaths. You are doing it wrong. Also, it took 10 years for the overall homicide rate to return to pre-1995 levels.

In the US and other commonwealth countries that decline was seen year-over-year.

Also, this was essentially a total gun-ban. The most effective that can be hoped for... and it slowed the overall homicide rate and had completely level decline (what would have been expected without the reforms) in every other category including gun-deaths.
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 2:01:54 AM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

I'm sorry. These are the only arguments I've heard. What are the good arguments?



1. That the government lacks the legitimate authority to regulate non-harmful behavior

That is the only one that matters and I refuse to treat guns as anything other than a property right the government should not touch. There are policy arguments as well, which I generally decline to make because it partially concedes the government should be evaluating if my right to act as I please as long as I don't harm anybody else is good enough for them.
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 2:11:59 AM permalink
Quote: bbvk05

1. That the government lacks the legitimate authority to regulate non-harmful behavior

That is the only one that matters and I refuse to treat guns as anything other than a property right the government should not touch. There are policy arguments as well, which I generally decline to make because it partially concedes the government should be evaluating if my right to act as I please as long as I don't harm anybody else is good enough for them.



Good point. If that's your argument, how about finding compromise? Is it really necessary for you or anyone to own specific guns? Are you saying that you should be able to own any firearm or armament that has ever been built? I don't own a gun so I don't understand why this is so important to some people.

Seeing as you are a level headed and intelligent person, can you explain why it is that you have decided that you must own guns? We both know that self defense inside your home is a minor point as I'm sure you've never had your home broken into by anyone while you've been at home. We can both agree that the likelihood of your government turning on you is also very slight. So, the need is not the thing. It just seems to me that so many people are banging the "2nd amendment" drum simply because they want to have guns - not because they feel the need to have guns. And yes, I'm talking about the typical redneck, Red State yahoos I see on TV, although I don't put you in with that crowd.
Happiness is underrated
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
January 16th, 2013 at 5:09:39 AM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

...the likelihood of your government turning on you is also very slight.


One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government--no matter how popular and respected--is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This isn't to say that firearms shouldn't be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution shouldn't be taught & enforced. But the right to bear arms is just one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote, but which historically has proved to be always possible. Also, keep in mind that gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 5:40:23 AM permalink
Quote: Beethoven9th

One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government--no matter how popular and respected--is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This isn't to say that firearms shouldn't be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution shouldn't be taught & enforced. But the right to bear arms is just one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote, but which historically has proved to be always possible. Also, keep in mind that gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.


I won't speak to the need for a safeguard against tyranny from the United States government because I think it is plainly just so silly. There are so many people blowing so much smoke in today's America about tyranny and treason. Another name for it would be "sour grapes". If you don't like the democratically elected government in the country in which you live and if you don't like the laws of the land, there's a border to the north and one to the south (and water on either side if you really want to make a statement).

As far as the criminals having firearms that are illegal, I would propose a simple solution. Anyone caught with a banned firearm outside of their own property is given a mandatory sentence of 10 years in prison. Anyone caught using a banned firearm in a criminal act receives a mandatory life sentence. No parole for either crime.

I find that the justice system we have in place is much too harsh on "soft" crimes and MUCH too lenient on hard crimes. I blame the lawyers and the system in place. If you asked someone if they thought a convicted rapist or killer should ever be let out of prison I imagine that most, if honest, would say no. The prison system is too easy on criminals which is why many are in and out again and again and continue to offend. There's got to be a better way and I don't care what Dostoevsky has to say about society and prisons.

So, reduce the number of firearms available anywhere, increase the penalties for gun-related crimes and without a doubt the rate of gun-related killings/shootings/accidental deaths/suicides goes down. Nobody needs a gun. They might be nice to look at and fun to shoot at the range (or the back 40) but no one needs them. Lots of people seem to want them and seem to think that owning a gun is as necessary as food, shelter and clothing but nobody needs a gun.
Happiness is underrated
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
January 16th, 2013 at 5:58:13 AM permalink
TheNightfly,

Looks like you took the bait.

You've made your opinion quite clear about defenders of the 2nd Amendment, but guess what? Those are not my words. They are the words of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, neither of whom were "redneck, Red State yahoos". Here are the full quotes:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." --Hubert Humphrey

"Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." --Walter Mondale
______________________________________________________

Basically, what we need are citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 7:01:43 AM permalink
Quote: Beethoven9th

TheNightfly,

Looks like you took the bait...

You've made your opinion quite clear about defenders of the 2nd Amendment, but guess what? Those are not my words. They are the words of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, neither of whom were "redneck, Red State yahoos". Here are the full quotes:


Um... the bait? I commented on how silly it is that an American would think that one day he will have to defend himself bodily from his own government in a situation where he has done no wrong. I said it is silly that a person can imagine being holed up in their home with a cache of weapons at hand as they fend off uniformed soldiers of the US army.

I couldn't care less as to the opinions of Mondale or Humphrey, two politicians from 40 some odd years ago. It makes no difference to me that they are (were) members of the Democratic party. I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I hold neither party in particularly high esteem. I am a person who has seen people killed by guns; just average, everyday people doing no harm and going about their lives not knowing that they were living their last day on earth. I have seen men walk around with guns on their hips and over their shoulders in broad daylight like it is a badge of honor.

Men who feel the need to have a gun are men who lack something. These are people who need the bulk and heft of a gun to be a man. No one needs to have a gun and anyone who says they do is no man. You like to have one? Fine. You like to feel the power at the range? Fine. You like the craftsmanship? Fine. But to need one and to point to an archaic line of text as your support for this need is nothing less than weak and feeble.
Happiness is underrated
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
January 16th, 2013 at 7:48:59 AM permalink
Words aside, how are guns working out in the United States?

Americans have two choices... continue to allow the status quo, and let gun deaths rage on, or pursue something different. Perhaps this forum hasn't come up with any decent suggestions. There is a direct link between gun ownership and gun deaths, in pretty much every country, but of course, there are exceptions (Mexico, where an ineffective police force and a drug war rages on).

Demographics show that the perpetrators of gun crime are getting younger and younger, and I think it's fair to suggest that parenting and violent influences (video games, TV, movies) and the ability to live a parallel life on the Internet are issues that need to be resolved.

These attitudes are not easy to change. The United States has always been a country wrapped up in violence with a healthy dose of paranoia.

Government has been locked in a stalemate for a number of years, even among members of the same party who are just too afraid to make changes because it will alienate a few of its donors or a portion of its electorate. That's why the laws coming at the federal level have been absolute crap (and yeah, I'm including Obamacare in that heap of shit).

I offered a number of suggestions (that have been offered before) to reduce gun deaths. Each of these will have a negligent effect, but adding it all together might have something more than an negligent effect. All of these items do not take away the right to bear arms.

If you are a liberatarian, you are NEVER going to go along with more regulations, and nothing will convince you otherwise (until it is you that needs help that is).
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 8:10:46 AM permalink
Quote: Maverick17

..There was a time when cars didn’t have seatbelts or airbags or crumple zones, but they do now. The reason cars have the safety features they have now is not because of government regulation, but because that is what consumers want. The amount of lives lost to car accidents was not acceptable in 1950, and it is not acceptable today. The evidence is in the improvements made to the cars...

Oh what people think they know makes my laugh sometimes:

In 1968 that the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in the front outboard seats of all new cars sold in the United States except convertibles.

In 1973, federal regulators upgraded the safety belt standard to require three-point lap and shoulder belts with inertia reels that lock the belt during a rapid deceleration. Lap and shoulder belts were mandated in the rear seats of cars sold in the U.S. starting in model year 1990, and in pickups, passenger vans, and SUVs starting in model year 1992. A requirement for three-point belts for inboard rear seating positions was phased in between Sept. 1, 2005, and Sept. 1, 2007.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 8:18:27 AM permalink
Not to mention air bags and, for motorcyclists, helmets.
Happiness is underrated
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4300
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
January 16th, 2013 at 8:50:57 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

And look at the United States in the late 1990s when homocide deaths dropped by 40%. Do you credit Clinton for that? Read Freakanomics. The reason that homocides were reduced in New York (and nationwide) was due to a change in demographics in the city, not because of Juliani. The availability of abortions in the 70s meant that the people who were most prone to committing murder (young black men between the age of 18-24) was rapidly decreasing in numbers in the early to mid 90s (because black mothers had access to abortions and modern birth control). Juliani just happened to be in the right place in the right time.


A quick point on the Freakonomics/abortion/crime connection - I recently read this article about how the drop in lead poisoning (from leaded gasoline) may in fact be the underlying cause for the drop in crime in the 90s...not saying it's true, but they mention some problems with the Freakonomics/abortion theory and posit the lead issue (with additional supposed proof) is the real cause. Very interesting, at the least.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
vert1276
vert1276
  • Threads: 70
  • Posts: 446
Joined: Apr 25, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 10:53:57 AM permalink
Sometimes I really do think...Pro gun control people who are all for making it harder to buy weapons....longer waiting periods, tax stamps, licensing, banning of certain guns ect ect...have never opened a history book....These are the people who really do believe "it could never happen here"....like they don't understand human nature and history....and put complete trust in their government

Somehow they have been lead to believe making it harder and more of a hassle/pain in the ass for law abiding citizens to buy a gun and limiting the guns they can buy, somehow makes them safer....its really hard for me to wrap my head around this....why do they think this way?
vert1276
vert1276
  • Threads: 70
  • Posts: 446
Joined: Apr 25, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 10:58:27 AM permalink
are you implying that there were not lap or and shoulder belts available in cars prior to 1968?....

LOL@you
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 16th, 2013 at 11:13:02 AM permalink
Quote: vert1276

Sometimes I really do think...Pro gun control people who are all for making it harder to buy weapons....longer waiting periods, tax stamps, licensing, banning of certain guns ect ect...have never opened a history book....These are the people who really do believe "it could never happen here"....like they don't understand human nature and history....and put complete trust in their government

Somehow they have been lead to believe making it harder and more of a hassle/pain in the ass for law abiding citizens to buy a gun and limiting the guns they can buy, somehow makes them safer....its really hard for me to wrap my head around this....why do they think this way?



Liberals don't let facts and history bother them. It is all about feelings and the latest cult of personality. They confuse making a speech or passing a law with actual results. They never measure results of the laws they passed. And they refuse to accept that life has risks preferring to be shielded and taken care of as children. It never ends.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 11:31:12 AM permalink
For what it's worth (and I know, it's not worth much), here's a story about a man who probably takes good care of his guns and his child. Most of the time anyway.

link to the New York Daily news

One more death that would not have happened but for a gun. Something tells me that he believed strongly in his need to own a gun, his careful attention to the safe use of his gun and how this gun was something that offered protection to his family - up until at least this morning. It's just sad.

It's a lot more likely that you shoot yourself or a loved one by accident than your government goes rogue. I suppose that if it could possibly happen, someday, maybe, then it's worth it. Ask Joseph Loughrey how important his right to own a gun is now.
Happiness is underrated
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
January 16th, 2013 at 11:32:27 AM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

I commented on how silly it is that an American would think that one day he will have to defend himself bodily from his own government in a situation where he has done no wrong.


Step 1) Please read a history book.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 11:33:10 AM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

Good point. If that's your argument, how about finding compromise? Is it really necessary for you or anyone to own specific guns? Are you saying that you should be able to own any firearm or armament that has ever been built? I don't own a gun so I don't understand why this is so important to some people.



Yes, but compromise would be regulating something like nuclear weapons and explosives. You can make the case that harmful behavior is so likely as to be imminent with those items. You can pretend that the same is true about guns, but it's not even close.

Quote: TheNightfly

Seeing as you are a level headed and intelligent person, can you explain why it is that you have decided that you must own guns?



To protect myself and my family. Also, marksmanship is fun as a hobby and I happen to be quite good at it.

Quote: TheNightfly

We both know that self defense inside your home is a minor point as I'm sure you've never had your home broken into by anyone while you've been at home.



I don't think its a minor point. It is an unlikely occurrence that becomes a VERY MAJOR point if i happens to you. Additionally, the relatively low level of home break-ins while the person is home is an outgrowth of how many guns there are in this country. In states and countries with fewer guns 'hot' burglaries and home invasions are quite common.

In any case, a my needing to use the gun to defend myself is considerably more likely that I will use the gun to harm another person that wouldn't have been similarly harmed if I lacked the gun. This is true for 99%+ of gun owners.

I don't know why this is limited to the home. I think it lines up with the liberal dream that the 2nd amendment and rights to possess inanimate objects only accrue in the home? As I live one of the freer states I carry a gun with me daily.

Quote: TheNightfly

We can both agree that the likelihood of your government turning on you is also very slight. So, the need is not the thing.



As analyzed above, this is a tortured analysis. I don't know if I will NEED a gun. I do know that people similarly situated as myself need guns daily. Hopefully I don't find myself among those number, but I hope to be ready if I do.

Quote: TheNightfly

It just seems to me that so many people are banging the "2nd amendment" drum simply because they want to have guns - not because they feel the need to have guns. And yes, I'm talking about the typical redneck, Red State yahoos I see on TV, although I don't put you in with that crowd.



Well, this is an outgrowth of your crappy definition of need. I don't need a seatbelt on 9999 of 1000 car trips either, but I wear it in case I do need it--- which is a very small risk but quite deadly when it happens. Would you tell the person that has never been in a wreck that their wearing their seat-belt is necessary... after all... they've never been in a wreck?
bbvk05
bbvk05
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 382
Joined: Jan 12, 2011
January 16th, 2013 at 11:37:03 AM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

For what it's worth (and I know, it's not worth much), here's a story about a man who probably takes good care of his guns and his child. Most of the time anyway.

link to the New York Daily news

One more death that would not have happened but for a gun. Something tells me that he believed strongly in his need to own a gun, his careful attention to the safe use of his gun and how this gun was something that offered protection to his family - up until at least this morning. It's just sad.

It's a lot more likely that you shoot yourself or a loved one by accident than your government goes rogue. I suppose that if it could possibly happen, someday, maybe, then it's worth it. Ask Joseph Loughrey how important his right to own a gun is now.




Accidental deaths play to the heart strings but, along with other freak accidents, are not a serious societal problem that justifies new legislative intervention.

Same with all deaths from rifles and shotguns. More people were bludgeoned to death with a hammer or blunt object than were killed with all rifles and shotguns combined in the US in 2011.
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
January 16th, 2013 at 11:37:19 AM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

One more death that would not have happened but for a gun.


Here's a better link. If she was your wife, she would have been raped or killed.

One more crime that would have happened but for a gun. Ask Sarah McKinley how important her right to own a gun is now.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
Joined: May 21, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 11:52:14 AM permalink
Quote: Beethoven9th

Here's a better link. If she was your wife, she would have been raped or killed.

Ask Sarah McKinley how important her right to own a gun is now.


Good for her. I have not once said that gun ownership should be denied. She had a 12 gauge and a pistol and seemed to handle herself pretty well against 2 intruders. Once again, good for her. She was within the law to do what she did. Those two intruders were breaking the law and one is dead, the other hopefully facing many, many years in prison.

I'll repeat what I've said before. If you want a gun for self defense or because you collect shiny things or items of historical value or if shooting or hunting is a hobby (or perhaps necessity in the case of hunting) then go right ahead. I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they hear that certain weapons may be restricted. It makes no sense to be bothered by it except for one of two reasons: 1) you can't stand the idea of being told what to do or what you can or cannot have or 2) you just have an infatuation with guns. Either way, suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
Happiness is underrated
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
January 16th, 2013 at 11:53:52 AM permalink
edited
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
January 16th, 2013 at 11:58:44 AM permalink
TheNightfly, if that's true, then I don't see why you'd even bother posting that link along with your commentary. In any case, have you even read the 2nd Amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? We already know that you "couldn't care less" about the opinions of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Humphrey, JFK, or Mondale on guns, but you need to suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
  • Jump to: