Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Did that address your inquiry?
Yeah. Let's see if we can clear it up.
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I don't see the relevance between shootings on the streets of American cities and shootings by the military during what is defined as "wartime" in the Middle East....unless it was simply used as a means of injecting Muslims into what was heretofore a non-sectarian discussion.
It was not. This whole new barrage of gun ban rhetoric was brought about "because of the children" killed at Sandy Hook. I replaced children with Muslims because I was responding to you. In no way did I bring in a religious thought/argument into this discussion. It would not have become a sectarian discussion with my inclusion of the word Muslims. Perhaps I should not have used it but I thought it would give you pause for thought. The relevance between shootings on the streets of American cities and shootings by the military in authoritarian lands is profound. As we are seeing in Syria, and saw in Libya, the ability of citizens to shoot back at the military can end authoritarian rule we feel is unjust. Which is why our Founding Fathers gave us a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and also why many a gooberment through out time has tried to restrict it.
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: ... shootings by the military during what is defined as "wartime" in the Middle East..
Wartime, ? Gosh, I don't even know where to begin. Who declared war in Libya or Syria ? The people are tired of the gooberment zhit, just as they were in Egypt. The actions of the gooberment response is a great argument for my belief that citizens should be able to respond with like force, thus have fully automatic weapons or whatever is needed. Government needs to fear it's people, not the other way around. Now, if you would answer my question. How do you feel about governments being able to force it's will on it's people with gunpowder ?
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: That usually occurs when it becomes necessary for one to utilize a "fallback" tactic because I've managed to get under someone's skin.
I know what you are talking about. Liberals use that tactic all the time.
IP: Logged
09:37 AM
mptighe Member
Posts: 3321 From: Houston, TX Registered: Aug 2009
Depends on the opinion Ron. The assertions that we are nut jobs, want to cling to our guns and Bibles, etc, and other non logical unsupportive opinions I take offense to.
As I said, we invite this with the way we project our opinions do we not? If you don't like how others see you, it might be time to project yourself in a different light. If you don't care what people think carry on. Either way, problem solved.
Originally posted by avengador1: So...Aus likes stats. Here are some for him.
Those are not stats. It's a graphic based off stats that unnecessarily tries to bring Obamacare into a gun debate as if Obamacare is responsible for medical malpractice prior to it's own implementation date.
Depends on the opinion Ron. The assertions that we are nut jobs, want to cling to our guns and Bibles, etc, and other non logical unsupportive opinions I take offense to.
Hey, weren't you & Ron some of the people that was trying to convince me that we are what people see us as?! I also believe you or him gave me a lecture once on "being offended" is a personal problem.......
IP: Logged
11:02 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36758 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Boondawg: Hey, weren't you & Ron some of the people that was trying to convince me that we are what people see us as?!
Not exactly. I don't know about Ron but I was trying to get you to see that people will see us that way.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: I also believe you or him gave me a lecture once on "being offended" is a personal problem.......
It really is. Not sure if I gave you a lecture or not but I do not get offended. I might take offense to what someone says but I am glad to discuss it. Not refute it. Hmm ... "might take offense" yet "do not get offended". It's true.
IP: Logged
12:33 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36758 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by mptighe: As I said, we invite this with the way we project our opinions do we not? If you don't like how others see you, it might be time to project yourself in a different light. If you don't care what people think carry on. Either way, problem solved.
Nah, problem not solved. The projection of our opinions is important. Heh, after all, the topic is on gun control when everybody knows, or should know, that "the pen is mightier than the sword".
IP: Logged
12:37 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Sharing the shock of his people, the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard — just two months into his eleven-and-a-half years in power — seized the chance to overhaul Australia's gun laws, trampling all opposition to make them among the strictest in the developed world. "I hate guns," he said at the time. "One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates.
Though he'd acquired them illegally, Bryant used guns at Port Arthur that were lawful in Tasmania at the time. Howard argued there was no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons — and under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) these were all but banned. At huge cost, the government bought from their owners some 650,000 of the newly prohibited guns, which police destroyed. It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996.
But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."
Firearm homicides in Australia were declining before 1996 and the decline has simply continued at the same rate since, McPhedran says. (In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate.) Of course, it's possible there might have been a spike in firearm homicides — and one or more Port Arthur-style events — if not for the gun law reforms. "It's very easy to raise what-ifs," McPhedran counters. "The what-ifs are interesting as discussion points. But, ultimately, for policy making, we have to deal with what is."
And suicide by firearm? Here again, rates were falling pre-1996. And while the decline gained speed after 1996, suicide by other methods began declining then, too. McPhedran and coauthor Jeanine Baker say suicide needs to be examined in a broader context that includes growing public awareness of mental health issues and increased use of antidepressants.
Other researchers have focused on mass shootings: there were 11 in Australia in the decade before 1996, and there have been none since. This appears to be a strong argument for gun laws designed to help prevent massacres like Port Arthur. But McPhedran argues that because "mass shootings have been such a rare event historically ... it's incredibly difficult to perform a reliable statistical test on such rare events." Massacres, she argues, are a separate research question.
It won't seem irrelevant to some that McPhedran and Baker are affiliated with the Sydney-based International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting. But it should be, McPhedran argues: their analysis has been peer-reviewed, approved for publication and should be judged on its merits, she says.
The authors are not recommending that the gun law be repealed, though they do write of their hope that their findings might give policymakers "greater confidence" in approaching firearms policy in the future. "We've set out to scientifically investigate what was happening [with gun deaths] before and after 1996," she says. "We are simply presenting the evidence as it stands." The new Kevin Rudd-led Labor government has no plans to review the existing laws.
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.
By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.
After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.
In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29. ***
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.
At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.
With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.
To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.
According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002). http://online.wsj.com/artic...195470446855466.html
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-07-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:29 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32152 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Hey, weren't you & Ron some of the people that was trying to convince me that we are what people see us as?! I also believe you or him gave me a lecture once on "being offended" is a personal problem.......
Lecture, damn I missed that. What I said then is still true, the difference is, in this case, I simply don't care what other nations or their citizens think on this issue.
Call it what you will. In this, if someone is offended by our 2nd Amendment, well tha'st their problem. If they are offended because I don't care about their opinion, well that's their problem also. So you see, I may be what they think but the difference is, I don't care what they think. Where as you refused to accept that what others think might actually define what you were. Kind of different issues but, on this I don't really care either.
The second amendment is our issue whether it's good or bad. I happen to think it's a wonderful amendment and should be left alone.but, that's my opinion ------------------ Ron A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. So, what do ya think, are we there yet?
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-08-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:35 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
For another rebuttal (that I can't take credit for, but I'm going to use it anyway):
"A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
The format and syntax should be familiar to U.S. citizens and anyone studying U.S. law and history. I challenge anyone to stretch that sentence to somehow construe and allow any kind of "reasonable" restrictions on books.
It's funny how when you take the "scary" part out of the law it gets a lot more clear. There has already been a grammatical breakdown of the sentence structure, so I'll not repeat that here, but thought I might toss in this example to help explain the "unlimitedness" of our right to arms.
IP: Logged
02:59 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Yeah, if I remember, it was a gooooood one, too! Naw, I really can't remember.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: Where as you refused to accept that what other think might actually define what you were. Kind of different issues but, on this I don't really care either.
Fair enough. It's true, I will never accept that what others think I am makes me that.
IP: Logged
03:01 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
"A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
The format and syntax should be familiar to U.S. citizens and anyone studying U.S. law and history. I challenge anyone to stretch that sentence to somehow construe and allow any kind of "reasonable" restrictions on books.
Oh, there are completely restricted, if not full-on banned books in the US. I believe The Turner Diaries is, and i'm not sure if The Anarcists Cookbook is or not. You have no "right" to kiddie pron books.
IP: Logged
03:10 PM
GT-X Member
Posts: 1506 From: Crestwood, KY Registered: Feb 2003
its a self feeding circle jerk. you will get nowhere with this. those who wants guns will have guns. that is it.
when you are uneducated & obese - you gotta compensate somehow.....
Interesting observation there...
I'm 5'11", 155lb cut athletic build and am an EE by trade. I also love guns and have many. Explain that.
As for compensating, yes I am compensating. If I could kill something at 100 yards with my dick, I wouldn't need a gun would I? As soon as I learn how, I promise I will hand in all my guns and never wear pants again!
~Tyler
[This message has been edited by GT-X (edited 01-07-2013).]
IP: Logged
03:20 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
. If I could kill something at 100 yards with my dick, I wouldn't need a gun would I? As soon as I learn how, I promise I will hand in all my guns and never wear pants again!
I may admire your choice in targets, hell, we may even share targets someday, but I will never admire your gun!
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-07-2013).]
IP: Logged
03:28 PM
J-Holland Member
Posts: 708 From: Norman, OK USA Registered: Nov 2010
"The Turner Diaries" is highly overated. You would have to smoke copious quantities of a prohibited substance to take this book seriously. I think I obtained my copy in the early 80s. There was some kind of fuss over it and I got curious. It is nothing more than a poorly disguised KKK anti Jewish rant. I would personnally be more afraid of some these critters finding a copy of the Improvised Munitions Handbook. That will do a whole lot more damage. Yep, I had that one as well.
IP: Logged
03:40 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
"The Turner Diaries" is highly overated. You would have to smoke copious quantities of a prohibited substance to take this book seriously. I think I obtained my copy in the early 80s. There was some kind of fuss over it and I got curious. It is nothing more than a poorly disguised KKK anti Jewish rant. I would personnally be more afraid of some these critters finding a copy of the Improvised Munitions Handbook. That will do a whole lot more damage. Yep, I had that one as well.
Oh, I agree. I felt the same way about "The Catcher In The Rye".
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-07-2013).]
IP: Logged
03:42 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32152 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
I may admire your choice in targets, hell, we may even share targets someday, but I will never admire your gun!
You say that now.
------------------ Ron "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.
IP: Logged
04:26 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I almost posted precisely the same response but, held back. Didn't want Boonie thinking I was trying to define his interests.
------------------ Ron "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.
As for compensating, yes I am compensating. If I could kill something at 100 yards with my dick, I wouldn't need a gun would I? As soon as I learn how, I promise I will hand in all my guns and never wear pants again!
~Tyler
Oh my! You left me speechless there for a minute. I am so using that one day.
We can better understand the European attitude toward gun ownership if we consider how differently society evolved there and here. Europe has a long, even perpetual, history of social stratification. That is, Europe today has descended from a history of kings, barons, lords and so forth who initially claimed ownership of all land, and everyone else was subject to them, working as serfs who lived at bare subsistence. The king or lord of the manor owned everything. To found with a deer taken in desperation to feed a hungry family meant a public execution in a horrific fashion as a lesson. Even today, titles still exist in Europe. Although Europeans will tell us these titles don't mean anything today, Europe still clings to idea of them and what that idea implies. However, because of this history, Europe still retains the idea of " one's betters, " and clings to the subservience to them. It is no surprise then that disarming England, and Australia, which descended from England, has been no problem whatsoever. Europeans have been conditioned throughout their history to serve and tip the hat to His Lordship.
This has never been the case in America. There were those who wanted to refer to George Washington as His Royal Highness, and he immediately stopped that because he saw himself as serving the country, not controlling it. While the United States has a social diversity, it is linked to wealth and not to subservience. Someone may be richer than I, but he isn't any better a man than I just because his name is whatever. Until recently, we held to the idea that anyone willing to work could become whatever he wanted to be. Not so in Europe. One could never become a duke or earl or whatever because that required being born into the right family.
Although the English Bill of Rights of 1689 set out that no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law ( synopsis from wikipedia ), we must take note of the deference to the nobility, " suitable to their class ", and legal limits, " as allowed by law." The right of the people to own weapons and defend themselves is still limited to what the king decides is good for them. So it is even today. The king, in the form of Parliament and the Prime Minister, gave Britain the Firearms Act ( Amendment ) of 1997. So Englishmen today defend themselves with what is good for them, baseball and sticks, but not guns.
The United States has been different from the beginning. This settling to this country required individual self-defense, so it was common from the beginning from for a man to own a firearm. On top of that, the Founding Fathers worked from the idea that rights are the province of men because they are given by God, not by a government. It is the right of man to be free because he is a man, and it is the right of a man to defend himself from those who would deny him his freedom or his life if he has broken no law. So George Mason insisted, and James Madison wrote, articles specifying the limitations on government's ability to limit man's natural rights. As a result, the 2nd Amendment specifies the right of the people, that is, the individual citizen to keep arms and, when necessary, bear arms in defense as part of a militia. The state having taken over the defense country in no way mitigates the right of the people to keep arms.
How do we know the right of the people is an individual right? The Constitution says so. Amendment 4 says the The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Only one person can be secure " in their person, houses, papers, and effects . . ., :" so the right has to be an individual right. Amendment 5 says No person shall be held to answer for a capital . . .crime . . .[i] Person is singular, one. Amendment 6 says [i] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, . . . Once again, an individual right. All of these rights, especially the right to keep arms, are individual rights.
I have gotten a little carried away, but the point is that the Europeans have agreed to limitations on their rights because they are used to having some titled authority tell them what their rights are, so they give them up willingly. But from the beginning we Americans placed limits on government's right to interfere with our natural rights, and we continue to see ownership of a gun as necessary for self-defense and not subject to limitation by government except for special circumstances such as mental incapacity. This is why Europeans don't understand us, and never will. Even more importantly, however, we don't care what you think.
I sat and talked with a 60 year old Afghan Pashtun about two weeks ago. He was crying because he had been arrested for carrying an AK. The Afghan government has begun requiring that permits be issued for gun owners in certain areas. Expensive permits that are often given to friends of the government.
He said that when the U.S. invaded, it no longer was illegal to keep a rifle inside his home to protect his family. He no longer had to sit by and watch armed government thugs take his food, water, and money while his children starved. He could tell the Taliban to stay away from his area, because he would fight them.
Now that a new corrupt government has replaced chaos, he will again suffer the abuse of police and military, with no means to discourage them from taking his livelyhood.
The more I think about it, the more relevant it seems considering the Constitutional crisis in America.
AusFiero, you may have "traveled the world" and seen how things work - but you have only seen the middle ground. What the founding fathers intended was to discourage the slippery slope that may not lead to that "Afghan Extreme" this generation or even the next one, but to keep it from ever happening in our great nation. It is irrelevant what America finds popular right now, this country is NOT a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. If enough Americans want something else, they can fight the rest of us for it or leave. it sounds like the are great places for them in this beautiful world you have traveled.
I dont think taking guns away will fix the amount of people shot every day in the us (approx 30) just like I dont think taking away booze or cars will fix the amount of folks killed in DUI type accidents every day (approx 30). Americas problem is with personal accountability.
IP: Logged
09:45 AM
mptighe Member
Posts: 3321 From: Houston, TX Registered: Aug 2009
Why is it that any time someone mentions "gun control" everyone freaks out and says "They're taking our guns!"? Is it strictly an all or none option? I would be all for better enforcement when it comes to keeping guns out of certain people's hands. Take the Sandy massacre, if the government makes it harder (harder not impossible) for people to get their hands on a gun, especially if there's any potential of a mentally challenged individual getting their hands on it, then wouldn't it possibly have an affect on how many of these incidents happen? Yes, here's where the common response of "They can get a gun illegally" comes in. However, how many would? How many disturbed individuals would have the capacity to accomplish this? If there were at least obstacles for them to get through it may discourage them enough to not follow through with their inclinations.
I'm just saying it would be nice if we could at least discuss this without people freaking out and assuming the worst about the situation. It's getting old.
IP: Logged
10:54 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32152 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Why is it that any time someone mentions "gun control" everyone freaks out and says "They're taking our guns!"? Is it strictly an all or none option? I would be all for better enforcement when it comes to keeping guns out of certain people's hands. Take the Sandy massacre, if the government makes it harder (harder not impossible) for people to get their hands on a gun, especially if there's any potential of a mentally challenged individual getting their hands on it, then wouldn't it possibly have an affect on how many of these incidents happen? Yes, here's where the common response of "They can get a gun illegally" comes in. However, how many would? How many disturbed individuals would have the capacity to accomplish this? If there were at least obstacles for them to get through it may discourage them enough to not follow through with their inclinations.
I'm just saying it would be nice if we could at least discuss this without people freaking out and assuming the worst about the situation. It's getting old.
I'm just guessing here but, I have to assume you've never heard of that slippery slope? Once a movement starts, it builds momentum. We do not intend to let that happen. I say we and I don't even own a weapon. But, I'll be damned if I'm going to let you or anyone else start us down that slope. (Don't take that personally unless you intend to go there then, it does apply to you.) I am currently trying to purchase a firearm that I do not intend to tell the authorities about. I may never even fire the damn thing but, that's not the point and we both know it.
My guess is, you'd be much happier in Europe or Austrailia. Not a love it or leave threat, just offering up possible options for you to consider.
------------------ Ron "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-08-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:25 AM
PFF
System Bot
J-Holland Member
Posts: 708 From: Norman, OK USA Registered: Nov 2010
I am not a member of the NRA. I am in favor of the enforcement of all current laws pertaining to firearms and I have no problem having a background check run on me when I purchase something. What I have issues with, is with organizations like HCI and the Brady Organization, both of whom are going for confiscation based upon past statements. I have major issues with Congress Critters like Feinstein who want to ban weapons simply because they don't believe that I or anyone else should be able to possess them or because the politico believes that they look too threatening. Did you know that serving Congree Critters can be appointed as Deputy US Marshals and are then able to carry a firearm(although not in the House or Senate Chambers). If they feel that they need to be armed and/or have armed bodyguards, we should be entitled to the same, but thereare plenty on the hill that do not feel that way. I have issues with people that do not know a 22 rifle from a fully automatic M4 or AK-47. And I have a severe case of heartburn with news people that sensationalize the situation when ever a firearm is used illegally but seldom if ever give favorable airtime when a citizen uses their gun in self defense or in the defense of others. Sorry for rambling. Jim
I've oft wondered why that "slippery slope" canard only gets applied to something one supports. If it's something one is holding opposition to, the slope goes by and large ignored.
Why is it that any time someone mentions "gun control" everyone freaks out and says "They're taking our guns!"? Is it strictly an all or none option? I would be all for better enforcement when it comes to keeping guns out of certain people's hands. Take the Sandy massacre, if the government makes it harder (harder not impossible) for people to get their hands on a gun, especially if there's any potential of a mentally challenged individual getting their hands on it, then wouldn't it possibly have an affect on how many of these incidents happen? Yes, here's where the common response of "They can get a gun illegally" comes in. However, how many would? How many disturbed individuals would have the capacity to accomplish this? If there were at least obstacles for them to get through it may discourage them enough to not follow through with their inclinations.
I'm just saying it would be nice if we could at least discuss this without people freaking out and assuming the worst about the situation. It's getting old.
Your argument is somewhat invalid when applied to Sandy Hook though. The Government does make it plenty difficult for mentally or criminally insane people to get ahold of. The Sandy Hook shooter was himself unable to buy a firearm and murdered his mother to get hers. The problem is that there is no personal accountability. The shooters mother was responsible. She should not have owned firearms, or had them accessible to a mentally handicapped and potentially violent child. There has been no solution to this irrisponsiblility voiced EXCEPT for "take away the assault weapons." This is not a solution, this is a distraction from the real problem. Criminals kill people, often with significant violent crime backgrounds who have been released due to overpopulation of U.S. prisons. The popular solution is the same "take away firearms." This is a distraction from a real problem.
The problem is that this distraction also happens to be a Constitutionally protected right of Americans. It doesn't matter if they like it or not. A drunk who gets in a car and kills someone, or three people, or ten isn't even responsible anymore. Now its depression, or medication, or alcoholism. But no one blames the cars. Some people use them for work, some people use them for sport, some for a hobby, but you gas them up, turn the key and get out into the world and if you have some screws loose you may end up hurting someone. You may end up killing alot of people.
IP: Logged
11:50 AM
mptighe Member
Posts: 3321 From: Houston, TX Registered: Aug 2009
Your argument is somewhat invalid when applied to Sandy Hook though. The Government does make it plenty difficult for mentally or criminally insane people to get ahold of. The Sandy Hook shooter was himself unable to buy a firearm and murdered his mother to get hers. The problem is that there is no personal accountability. The shooters mother was responsible. She should not have owned firearms, or had them accessible to a mentally handicapped and potentially violent child. There has been no solution to this irrisponsiblility voiced EXCEPT for "take away the assault weapons." This is not a solution, this is a distraction from the real problem. Criminals kill people, often with significant violent crime backgrounds who have been released due to overpopulation of U.S. prisons. The popular solution is the same "take away firearms." This is a distraction from a real problem.
The problem is that this distraction also happens to be a Constitutionally protected right of Americans. It doesn't matter if they like it or not. A drunk who gets in a car and kills someone, or three people, or ten isn't even responsible anymore. Now its depression, or medication, or alcoholism. But no one blames the cars. Some people use them for work, some people use them for sport, some for a hobby, but you gas them up, turn the key and get out into the world and if you have some screws loose you may end up hurting someone. You may end up killing alot of people.
Sorry, but you lost me when you said the word invalid. When you seek to discredit an entire viewpoint based on debatable points, then it's not going to be a productive conversation.
IP: Logged
11:56 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32152 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
I've oft wondered why that "slippery slope" canard only gets applied to something one supports. If it's something one is holding opposition to, the slope goes by and large ignored.
Doni, Obviously, if one wishes to go down that slope one would use the effect to further their agenda, if one does not wish for the issue to be changed then that slope would be one would want to avoid it.
And here I was all shook up thinking that great minds things you eluded to earlier. Whew, that was close.
------------------ Ron "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.
Sorry, but you lost me when you said the word invalid. When you seek to discredit an entire viewpoint based on debatable points, then it's not going to be a productive conversation.
An open mind could easily get past that. Just say'n. He had some very valid points that you apparently choose to ignore. I'm not flaming you, I'm just stating the obvious.
------------------ Ron "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.
IP: Logged
12:01 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
I've oft wondered why that "slippery slope" canard only gets applied to something one supports. If it's something one is holding opposition to, the slope goes by and large ignored.
Like The Patriot Act. Cheered when sold as a "monster-catcher", supporters never questioned how easily the deffinition of "monster" could be changed. But they are beginning to see.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-08-2013).]
? Gosh, I don't even know where to begin. Who declared war in Libya or Syria ? The people are tired of the gooberment zhit, just as they were in Egypt. The actions of the gooberment response is a great argument for my belief that citizens should be able to respond with like force, thus have fully automatic weapons or whatever is needed. Government needs to fear it's people, not the other way around.
He had some very valid points that you apparently choose to ignore. I'm not flaming you, I'm just stating the obvious.
