A 65-year-old man who was knocked off his bicycle by three teenagers on a Pennsylvania trail shot two of them, killing one, police said according to reports.
The Reading Eagle newspaper said the wounded teen, 16, was taken to hospital and the third, aged 15, was taken in for questioning and was later committed to a youth center.
The paper said the mother of the slain boy, 16, asked officials not to release his name until she had been able to tell other members of the family what happened.
The incident happened on the Thun Trail near a bridge over the Schuylkill River, between Reading and West Reading just after noon Wednesday.
"There was one juvenile who was shot and is deceased [and] another juvenile who was shot and is in surgery," Police Chief Jed Habecker said, according to a report by the WFMZ-TV station.
According to police, the 65-year-old was riding his bicycle when the teens knocked him to the ground, the station said.
Police said two teens then assaulted the man, who drew his gun and shot them.
The man was released by police after they consulted with District Attorney John Adams late Wednesday,
Confronted by several teens who decided to be douche bags and assault the guy. Drops backs pulls out the strizie and comes out blasting. Shoots 2 of them, kills one, severely injures another, gets pulled into the local cop shop and then released later that day.
For every story like this, you can find dozen where a guy pulls a gun in a drunken argument, shoots someone then goes to pound-me-in-the-ass for 20 to life.
I don't think it is possible to reverse US gun-nut culture, so at this point it is generally a good idea to own a gun so you can defend yourself from other people with guns. Ideal situation is when guns are not readily and easily available to criminals and people generally only have hunting long guns.
Lets talk about taking responsibility for your weapon. If you purchase a gun you now have to be responsible for how its get used. Someone gets shot with your gun and you didn't report it stolen and documented all circumstances that go on your permanent file - you are considered accomplice.
Plus gun is a lot deadlier than a car, why is it so much easier to get gun permit than driver license? The very least is you have to be able to demonstrate safety and competence with a gun before you are allowed to "drive it". Just like cars.
Apparently you have never tried to get a concealed weapons permit. You are required by Federal Law to take a weapon safety and owners responsibility class before you even get on the range.
I was going to take the time to explain it beyond this, but quite frankly its a waste of time.
Agreed. I am fairly set in my opinion that current state of gun ownership is dysfunctional and one of the reasons for such high rate of gun violence.
If gun ownership was driving, our roads would be like a bumper car park. Hardly any rules, anyone can get one, everyone jumping in and out without any kind of record and bumper cars changing hands all the time.
For every story like this, you can find dozen where a guy pulls a gun in a drunken argument, shoots someone then goes to pound-me-in-the-ass for 20 to life.
I don't think it is possible to reverse US gun-nut culture, so at this point it is generally a good idea to own a gun so you can defend yourself from other people with guns. Ideal situation is when guns are not readily and easily available to criminals and people generally only have hunting long guns.
Let's see some of these some of these "DOZENS" of Incidents per one story like this!
It's sad you're willing to give up a RIGHT to protect yourself just because some bad apples. With this logic let's give up our vehicles, because drunken idiots get into arguments jump in a car take off and kill innocent people too. In fact a lot more die from these actions rather than guns. So... when are you going to start picketing driving cars because of drunk drivers?
For every story like this, you can find dozen where a guy pulls a gun in a drunken argument, shoots someone then goes to pound-me-in-the-ass for 20 to life.
Lets talk about taking responsibility for your weapon. If you purchase a gun you now have to be responsible for how its get used. Someone gets shot with your gun and you didn't report it stolen and documented all circumstances that go on your permanent file - you are considered accomplice.
Plus gun is a lot deadlier than a car, why is it so much easier to get gun permit than driver license? The very least is you have to be able to demonstrate safety and competence with a gun before you are allowed to "drive it". Just like cars.
IS a gun deadlier than a car? CARS Over 32,000 people died in car accidents in 2010. From what I've seen gun deaths, Including suicide & accidents range about 25-30 thousand. To think we take test's in order to get a license to drive, and even have to show in part of that test that you can drive and handle a car. Yet all those vehicle deaths still occur.
US is only behind South Africa, Colombia and Guatemala.
Even Mexico with all its organized crime problems has less firearm-related deaths.
Yes, being an idiot (dangerous one at that) is your constitution-protected right. If you exercise this right you should be responsible for your actions. Get gun "driving license" and "gun insurance" if you ever plan to take your gun anywhere outside your property line.
Have you read Darwin Awards (stupid ways to kill yourself), specifically gun category? Fun fun
US is only behind South Africa, Colombia and Guatemala.
Even Mexico with all its organized crime problems has less firearm-related deaths.
Yes, being an idiot (dangerous one at that) is your constitution-protected right. If you exercise this right you should be responsible for your actions. Get gun "driving license" and "gun insurance" if you ever plan to take your gun anywhere outside your property line.
Have you read Darwin Awards (stupid ways to kill yourself), specifically gun category? Fun fun
Try the same thing when checking areas where CC is authorized in the US and where it's not.
hint: usually big cities have low numbers of people carrying and have more crimes.
I like the wikipedia source associated with the statement about Mexico : data comes from 1996 while the drug war got crazy batshit insane after the 2000. Also, what I like about Wikipedia and the Mexico numbers is how they give the details while the source paper says : "Mexico is included in the 36 countries even though it did not report on firearm deaths for which intentionality could not be determined, because firearm deaths of undetermined intentionality represent on average <8 % of the total firearm mortality of each country."
Guns are like smoking, there is absolutely nothing good that could possibly come out of it that would outweigh all the negatives, but because of historical situation it is heavily controversial issues that now painted as freedoms.
People who have no problem getting their junk fondled by TSA, a much bigger violation of personal rights, seems to turn around and have huge problem with legislating responsibly for gun.
Guns are like smoking, there is absolutely nothing good that could possibly come out of it that would outweigh all the negatives, but because of historical situation it is heavily controversial issues that now painted as freedoms.
The fact weapons helped your country get out of english hands may have been a good thing. I may be dumb but governments and other mafias have not changed in 300 years I think. A good thing with guns is that a fragile woman, an handicapped or anyone at a physical disadvantage can have a chance to defend himself and his property. And that is a very good thing imo.
Originally Posted By: sinij
People who have no problem getting their junk fondled by TSA, a much bigger violation of personal rights, seems to turn around and have huge problem with legislating responsibly for gun.
Arkh, you must know Sinij is just going to keep pulling up stuff trying to prove how bad guns are. It's ok if you or someone you love get's killed by someone. But you're the bad guy if you want to have a gun to defend you or your family.
We all know without guns crime would drop to nearly zero. People wouldn't die by accidents, or suicides by guns. The world would all the sudden be a batter place and we all would get along.
I don't care about gun homicide rates, the important thing is the global homicide rate. Because if I want to kill someone in France where owning a gun is hard I'm gonna stab, drive over, beat him, poison or use anything which I can get my hands on. Same thing for suicide. Also, what is the percentage of gun homicide in the US where the killer is legally owning his gun?
But one little thing in your study: "the study included [...]Canada, [...] New Zealand, [...] Sweden" in those countries you can carry a gun. And their gun related homicide rate is low. Which means this rate is not only due to gun carry laws.
Also, what is the percentage of gun homicide in the US where the killer is legally owning his gun?
Legal and illegal ownership are tied. You fixate on "criminals with guns" and conveniently forget that all guns started as legally owned. It is just "legally owned gun" in US is such poorly defined and regulated concept that transition to "illegally owned" is so easy.
Quote:
But one little thing in your study: "the study included [...]Canada, [...] New Zealand, [...] Sweden" in those countries you can carry a gun. And their gun related homicide rate is low. Which means this rate is not only due to gun carry laws.
Yes, and I am not arguing that we should ban all guns, period, ever. What I am arguing is that licensing, tracking and registration should follow similar system to car ownership, that is if you plan to take your gun/car outside your property line you have to have a) license b) insurance against negative effects cause by c) have it registered and renewed on a regular basis.
Again, I am not against gun ownership unless we are talking assault and fully automatic weapon ownership.
Arkh, you must know Sinij is just going to keep pulling up stuff trying to prove how bad guns are.
Don't worry, I don't actually expect you to be able to see outside your dogmatic tunnel vision. After all, No True Conservative should be persuaded by "stuff" like facts and data.
Yes, and I am not arguing that we should ban all guns, period, ever. What I am arguing is that licensing, tracking and registration should follow similar system to car ownership, that is if you plan to take your gun/car outside your property line you have to have a) license b) insurance against negative effects cause by c) have it registered and renewed on a regular basis.
I can only agree with that.
Originally Posted By: sinij
Again, I am not against gun ownership unless we are talking assault and fully automatic weapon ownership.
My personal view on automatic weapons is that we are outside of traditional definition of guns and into "tools of war" territory. You shouldn't be able to own such weapons for the same reason you shouldn't be able to own a tank or cruise missile - potential for collateral is too great.
None of those list automatic weapons because they are regulated by the federal government, not the state. However, with the proper license it is legal to own nearly any type of firearm/explosive up to and including a tank.
Edit: Additionally, you made the assertion that all guns owned by criminals were originally legally purchased. That is an inaccurate statement at best. In fact, you need look no further than our own government's ineptitude resulting in the forfeiture of a great many guns to Mexican drug cartels.
I should have known Sinij would make a sweeping claim. As Kaotic mentioned, If you do NOT have a special license you cannot own a fully automatic weapon. There are special licensing for those things and not just any Joe Schmo would be able to acquire such licenses.
If you ever watch the show Sons of Guns, Will Hayden always talks about needing to have a special license for some of the guns, ect that he modifies.
However, with the proper license it is legal to own nearly any type of firearm/explosive up to and including a tank.
How that contradicts anything I said?
For example, can you explain to me why would anyone ever need to own M60. To repel loyalist invasion?
Why would people in a free country with rights to bear arms need anything? How many M60's have you seen used in murders lately?
From what I'm seeing your logic says this... "We don't need guns, we already have our freedom and liberty, so nobody can take those away!"
Believe what you may, an armed society keeps a Government from overstepping it's boundaries! If you don't think it can happen here, then you are sorely mistaken and blinded from the facts of history.
From what I'm seeing your logic says this... "We don't need guns, we already have our freedom and liberty, so nobody can take those away!"
Well, from what I'm seeing you are not reading my posts very carefully. I am saying that we need to license all firearms, to the point where licensing/tracking matches car ownership.
Drive by shooting is much bigger deal than hit and run, yet tracking car is much easier than a gun. Why is that?
From what I'm seeing your logic says this... "We don't need guns, we already have our freedom and liberty, so nobody can take those away!"
Well, from what I'm seeing you are not reading my posts very carefully. I am saying that we need to license all firearms, to the point where licensing/tracking matches car ownership.
Drive by shooting is much bigger deal than hit and run, yet tracking car is much easier than a gun. Why is that?
For starters having a car is a privilege it's not a right like say having GUNS are. You will NEVER put a device on guns that will allow you to track every single one of them unless you FORCE people to do it, even then I promise you there will be guns out there that wouldn't have a tracking device on them. It's just the way it is.
Instead, let's do something wild and crazy. Let's use the laws we have on weapons to control them from getting into the hands of the bad guys as much as we can. We have something like fifteen thousand gun laws, gun laws only are good for the people that follow them. It's just like having a Restraining Order, they work great if the person you have it on is usually a law abiding citizen. But if you have a Restraining Order on someone that doesn't give a shit about the law or is temporarily out of their mind that paper means jack shit if they kick in your door with a gun!
People die in countries that don't have gun rights, or limited rights. Take Norway, one person killed 87 people... ONE. You know what would have stopped at least 85 others from dying? If someone had a weapon themselves. Sure some still may have died, but it would not have been 87 people. Imagine if some douche canoe rolled up to a boy scouts camp ground blasting people. I bet you that at least one person there would have a gun either on them or some place close. I'm not sure about you, but if someone rolls up with a gun firing, I don't want to just have my cock in my hand.
if someone rolls up with a gun firing, I don't want to just have my cock in my hand.
Do you feel that a handgun, registered in your local police department, is sufficient, or do you feel you have to have a M60 in sandbag fort to adequately protect yourself?
if someone rolls up with a gun firing, I don't want to just have my cock in my hand.
Do you feel that a handgun, registered in your local police department, is sufficient, or do you feel you have to have a M60 in sandbag fort to adequately protect yourself?
That's like asking a nerd why they need so many computers.
SO AGAIN... how many times have you heard of a M60 being used in a murder or simply shooting at people? If you have please Indulge!
Just to add, If I could park a tank in my living room and some unlucky soul kicked in the door blasting, I wouldn't have any problem shooting a 120MM cannon directly at their head. Because if someone kicks in my door, they better be bringing some serious heat, because I WILL!
I wasn't attempting to contradict anything. I was merely attempting to educate.
Originally Posted By: sinij
My personal view on automatic weapons is that we are outside of traditional definition of guns and into "tools of war" territory. You shouldn't be able to own such weapons for the same reason you shouldn't be able to own a tank or cruise missile - potential for collateral is too great.
What is the traditional definition of guns? How far back are we going to define "traditional"? It wasn't that long ago that the guns used by the military were the exact same ones used by citizens. In fact, less than 200 years ago the guns the military used belonged to the citizens.
On the surface I can see the merit in Sinji's suggestion that guns be issued some sort of tracking device. However, I have two problems with it, that, if can be sufficiently addressed, will convince me that this idea is ok.
1) You suggested that people would be more careful about their guns if they knew that they would be held responsible if their gun was used in a crime, even if they weren't wielding it. I'm not sure how you're going to reconcile that with our constitution or our current laws. I tried to use your car analogy to get there but failed since, if someone uses my car, even with my permission, and they get in an accident or use it for some malicious purpose, I'm not held responsible.
2) Many people fear that further regulation of firearms will continue down what they consider to be a slippery slope to prohibition of guns. How would you assure people that this won't happen?
What is the traditional definition of guns? How far back are we going to define "traditional"?
I could be an ass about it, and say that since it is constitutional right to own guns, we should go back in time to declaration of independence...
I really don't think handguns are problem. It is when you get into heavy hardware, where police cannot deal with it and has to call for a backup, is when you get into a problem.
Some deranged idiot can unload automatic weapon into a crowd and even if everyone in the crowd packs heat he kills multiple people before anyone can react. I don't understand how can you not see this as a problem.
I am all for gun ownership for hunting or protecting yourself and your home, but not more than that. There isn't any reason to own assault rifle or sniper rifle, but there are very real drawbacks when criminals and deranged individuals get their hands on it.
First, you misunderstood the question. To clarify, the question is, are guns going to be defined as the same ones used by the military (as when the D of I was written), or is there some definition you adhere to that creates a delineation between citizen firearms and military firearms?
Second, I believe that you misunderstand the reason for the 2nd amendment. Or we just fundamentally disagree about it. I believe that the 2nd amendment was written to ensure that the populace has the ability to defend itself against an out of control or oppressive government. Given the time in which it was written I think this is a perfectly reasonable argument. You seem to believe that the 2nd amendment was written with the intention that the citizenry be allowed the ability to hunt for food. While that is a perfectly acceptable use for guns, I don't believe that it was necessary to amend our founding document to address hunting. To wit, the statement you made about not having a problem with guns for "hunting or personal protection" doesn't stand up to the constitutionality test.
Third, your argument that bad things happen when guns fall into the wrong hands and should therefore be more regulated is akin to arguing that breathing causes death because oxygen kills cells, so we should all just stop breathing. Thomas Jefferson said, those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither and will surely lose both. I agree with him.
Fourth, you only attempted to address one of my points. Please feel free to address both.
Second, I believe that you misunderstand the reason for the 2nd amendment. Or we just fundamentally disagree about it.
Lets take this argument to absurd extreme. Why shouldn't you, a private citizen, be allowed to own a briefcase nuke?
Quote:
I believe that the 2nd amendment was written to ensure that the populace has the ability to defend itself against an out of control or oppressive government.
I guess we disagree. I believe it ends at "defend itself" part. After all, how can single individual defend himself/herself against entire government that has tanks, planes, carriers with just a rifle?
Potential civil war is not going to go any differently if population has access to only handguns (and much safer society sans revolution because of that) or automatic rifles and machine guns. Just like in the case of The Civil War, people will divide into camps, implements of war will be manufactured or brought out of military stockpiles and used in a field of battle.
If anything, independence of military and its disengagement from political process is what keeps us from "oppressive government" and not an ability to own automatic machine guns.
I think I should be allowed to own a briefcase nuke. When it comes to firearms or military gadgetry I am of the firm belief that I should be able to hold a LICENSE and own any weapon or device that my tax dollars go towards and that I can afford.
If it isn't guns, it's bladed / club weapons or even fists. Folks kill each other every day, taking away potential weapons will not change that fact. If anyone thinks fist fights don't constitute deadly force, I will say you watch too many movies. A real fight does not typically end with a bloody lip or a black eye. . .
I carry a concealed weapon for the simple fact the world is full of stupid people who seem to think they're allowed to deprive others of their property ( or life ) simply because it is their will to do so.
See the recent story of the teenager who slit her ( 9 year old ) neighbors throat and thought it was " enjoyable " ?
Tip: Unless you're the offspring of Chuck Norris and can take down multiple attackers ( who may be armed with a variety of weapons, not necessarily firearms ) without a scratch, the personal firearm is the ONLY thing that is going to equalize the odds ( and thus increase your chance of survival ).
You think the guy in the story who was riding his bike would have stood any chance of facing down three teenagers ? Nope, the story probably would have ended with his beat down at the minimum, his death a high possibility.
I'll quit carrying a pistol when the world suddenly becomes a safe place to live in.
Afterthought:
Machine Guns are perfectly legal depending on what State you reside in. You simply have to register it with the BATFE, pay your $200 transfer tax and shazam, it's yours. Even a full blown M-60. ( Though only full auto prior to the 1986 ban are legal for citizens to own, which makes them stupidly expensive. The M-60 for example will check in around $30,000 USD )
Similar rules apply for suppressors, short barreled rifles, destructive devices and AOWs.
Oh, btw, there is a stock out there now that is 100% BATFE legal and will turn your typical semi-auto AR15 into a full auto variant. I don't suspect it will stay legal for very long, but as of this writing, it is legal. Check it out:
Typically folks who follow the laws and rules to obtain a legal firearm ( background checked, legal purchase, Conceal Carry Permit, training, etc ) are not the ones you have to worry about. It's the idiots who obtain them illegally that cause the problems.
It's because of those idiots that I carry one at all.
Do you think that availability of illegal guns correlates to availability of legal guns? All guns start as legal guns.
My stance is still - if gun goes above and beyond self defense weapon and into implements of war, risk of it eventually falling into illegal hands by far outweighs marginal, if any, increase of self-defense benefit over a regular gun.
if gun goes above and beyond self defense weapon and into implements of war
I personally require two machine guns, 5 hand guns, a tank and several pounds of explosive ordinance for self defense. Since by your definition "self defense weapons" are clearly subjective I get to have all of that, right?
Do you think that availability of illegal guns correlates to availability of legal guns? All guns start as legal guns.
My stance is still - if gun goes above and beyond self defense weapon and into implements of war, risk of it eventually falling into illegal hands by far outweighs marginal, if any, increase of self-defense benefit over a regular gun.
Of course they do. Those who cannot obtain a weapon legally will find a means to obtain it. Typically through the use of a straw purchase or other methods. That's very bad news for the rest of the folks who DO follow the laws as they will have no recourse to counter it.
You're talking about punishing the legal owners and users of a device for the infractions of a few. A computer can be used to download all sorts of illicit material, yet no one is talking about banning them because, in the average users hands, they are merely a tool. The user decides how it is used.
Would you be willing to give up your system to ensure Evil Bill doesn't download clown porn or information that is considered 'illegal' by the governing body of the country he lives in ?
Cars, alcohol, fast food, hell just about anything can be abused to the point of being detrimental to society as a whole. History shows us how well prohibition did. Trying to ban all firearms would likely have a similar outcome.
Firearms are not the root of the problem here. They are, however, easier targets to ban when the other alternative is going after the criminals themselves.
A long, but interesting video for your viewing pleasure:
"A free people ought not only be ARMED and DISCIPLINED, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."- George Washington
Do you think that availability of illegal guns correlates to availability of legal guns?
Of course they do. Those who cannot obtain a weapon legally will find a means to obtain it. Typically through the use of a straw purchase or other methods.
Would you rather deal with thugs armed with handguns or automatic weapons and assault rifles?
Even as a pro-gun person I don't see how anyone could argue for keeping "implements of war" available to legal and illegal markets. They go above and beyond defend-anything, yet when they inevitably end up making into illegal hands they are used to wage war.
It's pretty simple really to me anyway. Gun types will exist no matter what is done and the US does not manufacture all guns so we cannot control what happens from the moment any gun leaves an assembly floor.
Your question about dealing with thugs armed with handguns or assault rifles would be ideal but the reality of this world is simple and the history of it is as such.
Militaries make weapons. Militaries make more weapons. previous generation of weapons go to public hands.
I understand your point of view but the idea of it is not reality. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. Even if there were no firearms in existence and the world was a primarily peaceful place arms races would still happen.
fists>clubs>knives>staffs>spears>swords
You can't try to make any real sense of it. Just remember that humans as a race are warlike by nature.
Do you think that availability of illegal guns correlates to availability of legal guns?
Of course they do. Those who cannot obtain a weapon legally will find a means to obtain it. Typically through the use of a straw purchase or other methods.
Would you rather deal with thugs armed with handguns or automatic weapons and assault rifles?
Even as a pro-gun person I don't see how anyone could argue for keeping "implements of war" available to legal and illegal markets. They go above and beyond defend-anything, yet when they inevitably end up making into illegal hands they are used to wage war.
In a perfect world there would be no militaries no guns and no violence. Back to reality, in order to get rid of any kind of gun you would have to strip militaries of those weapons as well. If there are any guns around AT ALL they will be stolen or sold and put into the wrong hands. So I think we all can agree that if you have ANY guns at all they will get into the wrong hands at some point.
Again, we have laws. In a perfect world if everyone followed those laws we wouldn't have the problems we have. But we live in a little thing called REALITY GET USED TO IT!
After some thoughts, I changed my opinion, this matter should be handled by each city, or rural region.
There are places that do not have the security or police in a few minutes and you would have the right to protect yourself in the lack of a nearby policy force.
But to capital of states and places with a good police force it is not need to have a gun in a house or cancelead. I would be afraid for example if people could carry it in city of New York,San Francisco and Los Angeles, I do not want be shooted by mistake for example in a metro or bus.
But I realize that in regions that do not have police nearby the citzens would be allowed to protect their homes.
So, in a big city where the average police response time (assuming you're even able to call the police) is 10 minutes, what are you supposed to do until the police arrive? Make tea and biscuits for the person who is assaulting you?
The police are at best a deterrent force who are often able to find perpetrators well after the fact. Very rarely are they able to intervene on anyone's behalf and save them from some tragedy.
So, in a big city where the average police response time (assuming you're even able to call the police) is 10 minutes, what are you supposed to do until the police arrive? Make tea and biscuits for the person who is assaulting you?
The police are at best a deterrent force who are often able to find perpetrators well after the fact. Very rarely are they able to intervene on anyone's behalf and save them from some tragedy.
It's a choice to be made, I do calculate my risks/percentage. In a packed city/ subway/ferry/bus station I do not want everyone with a cancelead weapon.. Imagine everyone in Manhatam with a cancelead gun, too much idiots with a gun is too risk, I prefer only the thugs :P with one, because the percetage of they get me offguard is higher and my weapon will not save me. So I do not want be killed by a crazy wold women or a skiny depresive nerd/high with a gun shoting everyone in a big city, with a fire weapon anyone can be a threat. :P
I'll stipulate your premise if you can find me one instance where a person who applied for a concealed carry permit, received one, was carrying legally, and then went nuts and killed a bunch of people in a crowded area.
The simple fact is that does not happen. What does happen is the psycho you're describing illegally carries a firearm to a crowded area, and unloads it indiscriminately. If someone who was trained and licenced to carry a firearm were there perhaps they would be able to kill the madman and cut his reign of terror short. In fact, I believe you can find instances where someone who was carrying legally has stopped someone trying to kill people.
I understand what you said but,let's hypothetically describe a scenario where everyone above 18 years old would be carrying a firearm gun canceled in a big city with millions of people. I personally would be feeling very unsafe instead of safe, living or visiting that city, because the possiblity of being shoted by mistake would dramatically increase even with the majority of that people had weapon legally, but again this is my personal feeling. :)
It's just math, with million of people carrying one, the chances of something goes wrong increase. To me is a question to weight the advantages and the disadvantages of everyone with a firegun, in a big city with police in a few minutes, I personally prefer everyone disarmed.
I understand what you said but,let's hypothetically describe a scenario where everyone above 18 years old would be carrying a firearm gun canceled in a big city with millions of people. I personally would be feeling very unsafe instead of safe, living or visiting that city, because the possiblity of being shoted by mistake would dramatically increase even with the majority of that people had weapon legally, but again this is my personal feeling. :)
It's just math, with million of people carrying one, the chances of something goes wrong increase. To me is a question to weight the advantages and the disadvantages of everyone with a firegun, in a big city with police in a few minutes, I personally prefer everyone disarmed.
What about the man in Norway that was able to kill 87 people. He was on a remote Island that took time to get to and he knew it. That's why he picked that location, also setting a diversion like the bomb going off helped because law enforcement was focused on that.
Imagine if a couple people had weapons on that Island, do you think he would have been able to systematically walk through and kill that many people if other's had a weapon to take him out? If ONE person had a weapon and was able to at least Injury him, would it have been worth saving all those other lives?
Go to Youtube and look at all the shootouts they have. Check out the robberies they have caught on camera. I remember one in particular where a couple robbers went into a Pawn Shop, one of them fired his shotgun as soon as they walked through the door. As soon as he did that the man behind the counter grabbed his pistol and returned fire. Come to find out the shotgun blast hit a female Employee in the neck, she lived. But when someone walks into someplace guns blazing, what do you think your chances of surviving is? I would bet those two would have been dead if the male employee didn't return fire.
We can sit an argue how bad it is to have weapons. Fact is we have them and there's noway to eliminate them all. I much rather be able to have a weapon of my own and at least have the opportunity to be able to protect myself rather than have nothing and die without having anything to fight back with. There's an old saying, never take a knife to a gun fight!
I understand what you said but,let's hypothetically describe a scenario where everyone above 18 years old would be carrying a firearm gun canceled in a big city with millions of people. I personally would be feeling very unsafe instead of safe, living or visiting that city, because the possiblity of being shoted by mistake would dramatically increase even with the majority of that people had weapon legally, but again this is my personal feeling. :)
It's just math, with million of people carrying one, the chances of something goes wrong increase. To me is a question to weight the advantages and the disadvantages of everyone with a firegun, in a big city with police in a few minutes, I personally prefer everyone disarmed.
You're tilting at windmills. No one is advocating a circumstance where everyone over a certain age is packing heat. All we want is for the lefties to stop trying to make it impossible for us to follow the laws as they are written now and to ease regulations in certain areas where possession has been outlawed. All of that still supposes that we will continue to have to attend courses and interview with the local sheriff in order to carry concealed.
I remember one in particular where a couple robbers went into a Pawn Shop, one of them fired his shotgun as soon as they walked through the door. As soon as he did that the man behind the counter grabbed his pistol and returned fire. Come to find out the shotgun blast hit a female Employee in the neck, she lived. But when someone walks into someplace guns blazing, what do you think your chances of surviving is? I would bet those two would have been dead if the male employee didn't return fire.
I fundamentally disagree with you here. The reason robbers went in guns blazing is because they very reasonably expected people inside to be armed. The fact that in US you expect to deal with armed people is main reason why you don't hesitate to shoot.
You hear someone breaking into your house? Shoot them first, never mind it was drunk next door neighbor confusing the house or teenager after your alcohol cabinet. You are breaking into someone's house to steal a TV and got surprised by an owner? You shoot them first, because you expect to get blown up in turn if you hesitate.
This and nothing else is why US has such ridiculously high number of gun-related violence.
I remember one in particular where a couple robbers went into a Pawn Shop, one of them fired his shotgun as soon as they walked through the door. As soon as he did that the man behind the counter grabbed his pistol and returned fire. Come to find out the shotgun blast hit a female Employee in the neck, she lived. But when someone walks into someplace guns blazing, what do you think your chances of surviving is? I would bet those two would have been dead if the male employee didn't return fire.
I fundamentally disagree with you here. The reason robbers went in guns blazing is because they very reasonably expected people inside to be armed. The fact that in US you expect to deal with armed people is main reason why you don't hesitate to shoot.
You hear someone breaking into your house? Shoot them first, never mind it was drunk next door neighbor confusing the house or teenager after your alcohol cabinet. You are breaking into someone's house to steal a TV and got surprised by an owner? You shoot them first, because you expect to get blown up in turn if you hesitate.
This and nothing else is why US has such ridiculously high number of gun-related violence.
So why don't you find the numbers on gun related deaths by murder, then look-up gun related deaths by some drunk simply going into the wrong house?
You ignorance of how normal people with guns behave is amazing. Seems you think of people with guns as someone that will just start shooting in the dark at anything. Now do ACCIDENTS happen? Yes they do it's sad so do accidents with cars,knives ect.
Usually people don't just go shooting through a door, if someone is trying to get into my house I'm going to check it out and try to get a good visual to see if they have a weapon or not. If they don't have a weapon I will let them know someone is in the house. If they continue inside and are coming at me in a threatening manner well that's their mistake.
To think people just go shooting up anything that moves if pretty fucking dumb on your part. We know you think guns are bad m-kay... arguing that we shouldn't have them should be long but over with. Reality is we do have them, so unless you plan to take every single firearm away from every citizen and military throughout the world, then your going to always have guns.
Just in case you forgot the definition of Reality: re·al·i·ty/rēˈalətē/ Noun: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality". A thing that is actually experienced or seen, esp. when this is grim or problematic: "the harsh realities of life".
What about the man in Norway that was able to kill 87 people. He was on a remote Island that took time to get to and he knew it. That's why he picked that location, also setting a diversion like the bomb going off helped because law enforcement was focused on that.
You're describing a scenario different from what I said like a big city, that event begun wrong with hundreds of people gathering and no security there. If you go to a remote Island or region I agree that would be a good thing to have law abid citzens with guns
Quote:
You're tilting at windmills. No one is advocating a circumstance where everyone over a certain age is packing heat. All we want is for the lefties to stop trying to make it impossible for us to follow the laws as they are written now and to ease regulations in certain areas where possession has been outlawed. All of that still supposes that we will continue to have to attend courses and interview with the local sheriff in order to carry concealed.
What's is wrong with abiding to local rules about weapons regulations? If the elected representative changed the weapon regulation in that region is a signal that the local population wanted that, and you have to respect that :).
What about the man in Norway that was able to kill 87 people. He was on a remote Island that took time to get to and he knew it. That's why he picked that location, also setting a diversion like the bomb going off helped because law enforcement was focused on that.
You're describing a scenario different from what I said like a big city, that event begun wrong with hundreds of people gathering and no security there. If you go to a remote Island or region I agree that would be a good thing to have law abid citzens with guns
617 fatal gun accidents in the US in 2007. There were 300 million guns at that time.
32000 fatal traffic accidents in the US in 2007. There were about 300 million cars in the US.
The "prevent accidents" arguement doesnt work.
What part of the second amendment is so hard to understand? If you lefties want to change it so bad, start on a constitutional amendment. We all know you wont becausr no one will vote for it. Instead, like serpents, you sneakily try to do it by judicial fiat. Your hatred of democracy is never more apparent than with things like abortion, gun control, or gay marriage. You know you cant win with ideas so you head straight to the sort of dictatorship you secretly crave. It is pathetic
Do you think that availability of illegal guns correlates to availability of legal guns?
Of course they do. Those who cannot obtain a weapon legally will find a means to obtain it. Typically through the use of a straw purchase or other methods.
Would you rather deal with thugs armed with handguns or automatic weapons and assault rifles?
Even as a pro-gun person I don't see how anyone could argue for keeping "implements of war" available to legal and illegal markets. They go above and beyond defend-anything, yet when they inevitably end up making into illegal hands they are used to wage war.
To be honest, it doesn't matter. Facing off against a thug with a handgun or the insane with a machine gun. The outcome for you is probably going to be the same.
The difference will be if you have the ability to counter by taking an active role in stopping it or leaving your life to the whims of said thug or Mr. Mental.
Do you think that availability of illegal guns correlates to availability of legal guns?
Of course they do. Those who cannot obtain a weapon legally will find a means to obtain it. Typically through the use of a straw purchase or other methods.
Would you rather deal with thugs armed with handguns or automatic weapons and assault rifles?
Even as a pro-gun person I don't see how anyone could argue for keeping "implements of war" available to legal and illegal markets. They go above and beyond defend-anything, yet when they inevitably end up making into illegal hands they are used to wage war.
To be honest, it doesn't matter. Facing off against a thug with a handgun or the insane with a machine gun. The outcome for you is probably going to be the same.
The difference will be if you have the ability to counter by taking an active role in stopping it or leaving your life to the whims of said thug or Mr. Mental.
I will not let someone else decide my fate.
This is the point. If there's a good chance I will not survive an attack like this, I AT LEAST want to be able to fight back and possibly change the outcome in order to save my life or someone else's by having the RIGHT to carry a weapon. If those that don't want to carry a weapon come across that scenario. Then it's their choice to sit there and die by letting someone else take their life.
The whole "we shouldn't have guns argument" should be over with. We have guns, they won't be going anywhere. So the best course of action is for our legal system to use the laws they have and actually ENFORCE them. To many times people with weapons charges get set free, only to use a firearm illegally AGAIN!
It's too easy to blame the tool when, the real problem, is the person. Though, since we can't legislate problem children out of the gene pool, folks try to go after the easy target. The firearm.
In fact, I had my pistol with me today while I was out shooting wildlife with my camera. Wasn't carrying it for the possibility of running into bears, werewolves, or zombie rabbits. I carry it because $5000 worth of camera and lens tends to attract attention from too many folks. Thugs included.
I own firearms for the same reasons I lock my doors at night. The same reason all of my $$$ toys are locked in my safe. The same reason I scrutinize the hell out of any vehicle driving on my street I don't recognize.
Because while most folks are decent enough, there are just enough assholes in the world to require things like locks, safes, alarms, police, and firearms.
When the world becomes nice enough that we no longer need the military or the police, I'll happily hand in my weapon. Until that day happens, I understand my safety ( as well as those whom I live with ) is MY responsibility. As such, I have to ensure the odds are tipped in my favor as much as I possibly can.
Since Fus Ro Da, being a damn ninja, or offspring of Chuck Norris isn't much for me to hope for, I rely on my ability to use a firearm if / when the situation calls for it.
That's a tragic story. I hope one day we get all the facts. Until then the best we can do is make assumptions based on news reporting that is passionately skewed in favor of the young man who lost his life.
For every story like this, you can find dozen where a guy pulls a gun in a drunken argument, shoots someone then goes to pound-me-in-the-ass for 20 to life.
I took your advice and, assuming events unfolded as portrayed in the clearly biased article you posted and forgiving that no one appears to be going to prison, you appear to be short 11 articles.
For every story like this, you can find dozen where a guy pulls a gun in a drunken argument, shoots someone then goes to pound-me-in-the-ass for 20 to life.
I took your advice and, assuming events unfolded as portrayed in the clearly biased article you posted and forgiving that no one appears to be going to prison, you appear to be short 11 articles.
So you support jumping black guys for no good reason and shooting them in "self defense" as a valid use of firearms?
"On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat "
Proof positive the gun isn't the issue here. Rather a disturbed individual. Regardless of the tool used, the results are the same. Is killing ten in cold blood really that much more horrific than killing a single individual the same way ?
This argument never even sees the light of day had he:
1) Ran over a group of them in his vehicle 2) Set off an IED ( or several ) in a crowded area of the school 3) Poisoned / contaminated the food / water 4) Burned the entire facility to the ground 5) Introduce some chemical ( aerosol form ) to the AC air intakes 6) Insert your own creative Improvised WMD here . . . . .
Any one of which would easily kill multitudes of people yet, somehow, we're still trying to blame the gun :|
Eventually, you realize the firearm isn't the problem here. It's just an easy solution for the non-creative problem children that exist within civilized society. Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years and we've become pretty good at it. Take away the gun and our species will simply find another means to make it happen. It's what we have done since we started throwing rocks at each other. Hell, even the games we play are predicated upon killing each other.
Taking away the tool doesn't solve the underlying problem. You have to take it on at the source, which is far more difficult to do. Thus, do so many simply choose what they perceive to be the easy fix of trying to justify the banning of firearms.
The idea is ludicrous. Taking a potential weapon away from a psycho doesn't fix the damaged mind. It simply postpones the carnage until the psycho can find another tool for the job.
Until you start removing psychos from society, your efforts will be in vain I'm afraid.
After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 (95% CI=1.19, 15.13) times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI=1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot.
I promise you if your mugger / assailant / whatever learns you have no means to trump their advantage over you, they will not play fair and put their advantage away. Be it numbers, skill, strength, or a weapon.
Those numbers are also predicated on a single assumption:
That someone who has a weapon pointed at them will curl up into a little ball on the ground while chanting the " Take anything you want, just don't hurt me " mantra.
If you decide you're not going to be the easy victim and decide to go on the offensive ( odds be damned ) then you're just as likely to be shot as you would if you were armed.
Unless you're the baddest ass bad-ass to walk this planet, you need something to tip the odds in your favor because it's likely you're going to be taken by surprise when something happens.
These days, folks will kill you just because they want the shoes you have on, the phone you're carrying, or the car you're driving. They might target your home, your family, or even your neighbors.
Father is ex-police, brother is active duty US Marshall. I get a better than average insight as to just how shitty the world can really be. All you have to do is watch the US News and you'll see story after story of:
X persons were raped X persons were murdered X folks have gone missing X folks were robbed / assaulted / homeinvasion / carjacked X drug smugglers in a shootout at the border
I'll take my chances with being 4x more likely of being shot during an assault. Because with that risk, the assailant also runs a MUCH larger risk to their own life. Odds of their survival go way down if they pick a target who carries a weapon and knows how to use it.
Ever hear of your typical thug trying to rob a police station ? You know why right ? Because GUNS live there. Thugs typically prey on those they think they can bend to their will. If everyone carried a weapon, a criminal career would be nigh-suicidal.
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
in 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24
* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.
* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.
* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.
Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.
* In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.
* In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns
A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends.
On October 1, 1987, Florida's right-to-carry law became effective.
* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a firearms safety/training course.
* As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees,[105] constituting roughly 5.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.
Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
From the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all issued permits. Of these:
• 522 permits were revoked for crimes committed prior to licensure
• 4,955 permits were revoked for crimes committed after licensure, of which 168 involved the usage of a firearm.
* In January 1996, Texas's right-to-carry law became effective.
* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age if a member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces), have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a handgun proficiency course.
* In 2009, Texas had 402,914 active licensees,constituting roughly 2.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.
*Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower
*In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents, constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.
* These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations, constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year
I would personally like to thank a concealed carrier. He saved me from going to jail.
At work this guy started a barfight. After breaking it up and throwing him out he threw several punches at my face which I was lucky enough to dodge and then reciprocate knocking the douche down and stepping on his neck until he could no longer breathe. I was fully intent on killing this man but his brother was kind enough to pull a gun from his truck and quickly show me the error in my logic.
Thankfully he did not shoot me but it was enough to get my attention. He was not however prepared for my rebuttal to having a gun pointed at me.
I shit you not several people told me during my few seconds of hulking out that I yelled at that guy to "Shoot me or I would eat your breakfast" which has to be one of the greatest things I have ever yelled at someone although it was at the worst possible time imaginable.
Edit: I now understand how some may think I am slightly irrational at times.
He didn't get shot because, contrary to how the media likes to twist it, the majority of folks who carry firearms aren't trigger happy. The folks carrying legally know they put that license at risk if they ever have to draw that weapon. ( They better damn well be using the correct judgement )
As a result, they typically only come out as a last resort.
From my local news this morning and an example of why I carry my weapon with me at all times:
HOUSTON -
Houston police arrested a man Tuesday accused of stabbing another man on a METRO bus.
Shortly before midnight Monday, the two men were riding the bus on the East Freeway near Lockwood Drive in northeast Houston.
Investigators said the suspect thought he heard a threat coming from two men behind him. They said the suspect pulled out a screwdriver and stabbed one of the men sitting behind him in the shoulder.
The man with the screwdriver was arrested.
The victim was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital with a minor puncture wound. He is expected to survive.
Just think Sinij, if there were no guns there would be no more homicides or suicides. We would live where everything tastes like Peach Cobbler and we would all get along like loving siblings.
Is it just me that's not seeing a rash of justifiable homicides sweeping the nation? Lots of people are in the wrong place at the wrong time, I would argue that most of them are in the second category of statistics rather than the first.
It's better to be judges by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.
Just think Sinij, if there were no guns there would be no more homicides or suicides. We would live where everything tastes like Peach Cobbler and we would all get along like loving siblings.
/sarcasm
It seems like you are trying to convince a virgin how great sex is, but they just won’t believe you because they read some really scary articles about how some people rape other people, or how sex could result in an STD, or how, maybe, you could break your penis if some fat chick (or dude, I don’t want to offend anyone) sits on it wrong. And because of the negative media attention due to the way some people use sex, the virgin is trying to convince you that no one should be allowed to have anything that resembles sex.
Edit: ...how GREAT sex is... not ...how GRATE sex is... Grate sex would be a bit rough.
If you think a public having the right to bear arms is bad. Please go watch "Third Reich" that plays on the history channel from time to time. Then come back and tell me that having guns is a bad thing.
Meh. I'm taking the opportunity to stock up on reloading supplies early before the election comes around. I recall the last election and you couldn't buy ammo or reloading components to save your life. AR-15's were running $1k-$2k for a bare bones unit and folks were generally in hoarding mode.
Figure I have enough components for 2K rounds of .308. Probably at least that again in .223. Enough to last me a year or two I think.
On the plus side, if Obama gets re-elected gun prices will go right off the chart. I'm holding onto my two big guns and will consider selling them if he's re-elected :D
Wait a minute, what Obama has to do with gun controlling, he's chief of executive branch. I tought that in USA this type of control was to legislative and judiciary branch from separation of powers.
I traded in my 40lb Zombie in a tank killer ( Aramalite AR50 BMG ) for a Desert Eagle .50AE
It takes up less room in my safe :D
Lemme tell you, the amount of counter force you have to put on this gun is crazy. It's ridiculous how much torque the bolt generates. Trying to control this thing is like trying to control a pissed off anaconda ( the snake, not the gun ) on crack . . . .
If you can pick up your gun safe with your shooting hand and vacuum under it, then you can probably safely one hand this thing. . . lol. . . maybe.
I have the .44 barrel on order and should be here tomorrow. See how bad that torque is once the rest of the parts show up.
I'd think that unless the .44 is magnum then the weight of the DE will make the recoil about like a 9mm. If its magnum though, all bets are off. We got my dad a .44 mag blackhawk a couple years ago and that think kicks like a mule.
It is a .44mag. Don't have the magazine yet so can't test it but even with the weight ( nearly 5 pound pistol ) the .50 AE is tough to shoot due to the bolt torque. Have to manhandle the thing to keep it under control.
Once the magazine shows up, I'll put some .44mag through and see how it handles it.
the perceptual affordances offered by gun possession and the transformative consequences of yielding to these affordances. To someone with a gun, the world readily takes on a distinct shape. It not only offers people, animals, and things to interact with, but also potential targets. Furthermore, gun possession makes it easy to be bold, even hotheaded. Physically weak, emotionally passive, and psychologically introverted people will all be inclined to experience shifts in demeanor. Like many other technologies, Ihde argues, guns mediate the human relation to the world through a dialectic in which aspects of experience are both "amplified" and "reduced". In this case, there is a reduction in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as dangerous, and a concomitant amplification in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as calling for the subject to respond with violence.
I didn't see any studies cited in that article so that I could verify the veracity of Mr. Ihde's claims. I did notice, however, that he is a "philosopher." You'd think if someone had actual credentials and studies to back up their claims of the effects that guns have on people, it would be cited in the article. Instead the author appears to have wallowed around on the internet for a few minutes until he managed to find two philosophers who made statements that appeared to corroborate the point he wanted to make about how guns are bad. This is simply more of the same tripe that gets served up in our society of late that attempts to put the responsibility for someone's actions on anything but that person.
Do people do stupid things with guns? Sure. They also do stupid things with cars. Do we blame the car when a drunk driver kills someone? Not yet, we currently attempt to blame the bartender. Sheesh!
I've been around guns my entire life and I can tell you that in that environment a gun is a tool. Now, if you take some kid out of the city and put a gun in his hand, he likely will feel more powerful. I'd say the problem here is not with the gun, but rather with the fact that the child wasn't exposed to these tools in anything other than movies where violence is glorified. If "say hello to my little friend" is the sum total of your gun experience then you've never been taught to treat them with the respect they require. Just like a kid from the city would have no idea how dangerous it is to drive a tractor pulling a hay cutter, an everyday tool for some people and a weapon of considerable destruction in the wrong hands.
Personal responsibility is the key to our system of government. When we take that away or convince people that it doesn't matter or exist, then you'll get the socialist utopia that Marx wrote of, and we'll all get to experience first hand what 20th century Russia/China/N. Korea was like.
We need stronger legal controls on gun ownership, including not only background checks but mental fitness exams and mandatory training. There should be at least as much required to own a gun as there is to obtain a driver's license. Instead, even people on the government's terrorist watch list are legally able to purchase firearms.
There are obvious reasons that firearms in the hands of civilians make less and less sense: denser populations; higher powered weaponry; ever-looser regulation that prevents weapons from being effectively tracked from owner to owner, better enabling sales to criminals. But just as important is the dissolution of the social mores that once corralled the behavior of civilian gun-owners: the knowledge of one's neighbors; a sense of participation in a community; respect for others, even if their political views didn't align with your own.
Quote:
Never mind the drive-bys, the accidental homicides, the random schoolchildren hit by stray gunfire. The statistics began to speak for themselves: Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. As PBS's Bill Moyers points out in an excellent commentary, far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined.
Personal responsibility is the key to our system of government. When we take that away or convince people that it doesn't matter or exist, then you'll get the socialist utopia that Marx wrote of, and we'll all get to experience first hand what 20th century Russia/China/N. Korea was like.
The cat you're quoting has no idea what he's talking about. In order to buy a gun from a retailer you must submit to an ATF/FBI background check. If someone who isn't supposed to own a gun is allowed to purchase one, its not because of too few regulations, rather it's because of a failure of the monstrous bureaucracy that is our federal government.
I had an anecdote here but I decided it was too personal to leave up.
We need stronger legal controls on gun ownership, including not only background checks but mental fitness exams and mandatory training. There should be at least as much required to own a gun as there is to obtain a driver's license. Instead, even people on the government's terrorist watch list are legally able to purchase firearms.
There are obvious reasons that firearms in the hands of civilians make less and less sense: denser populations; higher powered weaponry; ever-looser regulation that prevents weapons from being effectively tracked from owner to owner, better enabling sales to criminals. But just as important is the dissolution of the social mores that once corralled the behavior of civilian gun-owners: the knowledge of one's neighbors; a sense of participation in a community; respect for others, even if their political views didn't align with your own.
Quote:
Never mind the drive-bys, the accidental homicides, the random schoolchildren hit by stray gunfire. The statistics began to speak for themselves: Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. As PBS's Bill Moyers points out in an excellent commentary, far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined.
Murder rates in the US have increased since the 60s (the Gun Control Act.) The minute this nation decided to put harsher restrictions on guns, more people were killed by them.
Remember the westerns you grew up watching? Well, if you do a little research about those times, when people wore guns all the time, and everywhere, you will find that the murder rates, and even crime rates over all, were FAR lower than they are now, even when reconciling the population differences.
There is nothing wrong with the 15,000+ gun laws that we have now, other than our legal system doesn't punish to the full extent when they should. People that want to do harm to others will find a way to get a gun if that's their weapon of choice. There is NOTHING you can do about it!
Remember the westerns you grew up watching? Well, if you do a little research about those times, when people wore guns all the time, and everywhere, you will find that the murder rates, and even crime rates over all, were FAR lower than they are now, even when reconciling the population differences.
Times were different, education were different. People were raised with greater control of their parents. No television, no this widespread drug use. People begun to work to aid their parents as soon were teenagers of even when kids. Overall people behavior were different.
While I would agree that if the bad guys acknoledged that people would have guns to counter-attack, if we put this to a today situation, that doesnt mean that they will not try "steal" something. I personally believe that would cause more casualities than actually save people.
But Right now I also think that people would have the right to defend themselves, even with that raising overall the death toll. So both sides have some good arguments.
Personal responsibility is the key to our system of government.
Apparently I needed to make this bold and larger because everyone seems to be ignoring it.
Everyone seems to forget that the reason for the second amendment isn't personal protection, tradition, hunting, collecting or crime prevention/deterrence. The reason for the second amendment is to afford the citizenry the ability to protect itself against/overthrow a tyrannical government.
"Oh, but we live in a more civilized environment than we did 200 years ago. That sort of thing isn't necessary any longer."
Bullshit. The world is full of tyrants and dictators and the elite on both sides of the political isle in this country firmly believe that they know, better than you, what is good for you and what isn't, and they are chomping at the bit to give themselves the power to take away your freedoms in the name of "progress" or "fairness" or whatever the buzzword of the hour is. If you want to be defenseless if the time ever comes when you need to stand up for yourself and your neighbors against an out of control government, that is your choice but I'll be damned if I sit by silently and allow that right to be taken away from everyone else just so some folks can sleep better at night, nestled snugly in the arms of the delusion that forbidding guns to law abiding citizens some how keeps them out of the hands of criminals.
Michael Bloomberg and the rest of the anti gun leftists can go take a flying leap off the nearest tall building in all their hypocritical glory.
"You can't be trusted to have a gun little person. Besides, you don't really need one. My security team? Oh, well, they have to be able to protect me. After all, if something happened to me, who would be left to look out for you? I say, is that a 20oz soda you're holding? Guards! Arrest that man!"
What a bloviating windbag. I don't care what party he claims to represent. He and his ilk are all big government "doo-gooders" (read as "road to hell construction workers") who believe that the ends justify the means. No thank you.
Oh and just to kick the dead horse a bit, this is for the folks who think banning guns will solve the problem of people killing each other:
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIJING—A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media said Thursday.
The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught but did not describe the circumstances.
The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night in Liaoning province. Media said the 17-year-old suspect is from Fushun city and his surname is Li. The attack happened in Yongling town.
Police in Xinbin County, which oversees the town, declined to comment.
Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.
the perceptual affordances offered by gun possession and the transformative consequences of yielding to these affordances. To someone with a gun, the world readily takes on a distinct shape. It not only offers people, animals, and things to interact with, but also potential targets. Furthermore, gun possession makes it easy to be bold, even hotheaded. Physically weak, emotionally passive, and psychologically introverted people will all be inclined to experience shifts in demeanor. Like many other technologies, Ihde argues, guns mediate the human relation to the world through a dialectic in which aspects of experience are both "amplified" and "reduced". In this case, there is a reduction in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as dangerous, and a concomitant amplification in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as calling for the subject to respond with violence.
"if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" Did I translate that psychobabble well enough?
I respect your response and salute constructive tone of this conversation, but I have not read anything that would change my point of view.
Statements of the Founding Fathers, crime statistics, the Holy Bill of Rights itself... " …[I]t is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire." -Thucydides
I bought the kids a new rifle, a .22 that is light and short. Called the crickett, they love shotting, I am useing subsonic rounds so even the 3 year old can shot and not worry about the kick back force one her.
Nice rush to judgement without knowing what really happened. Its the place of a Jury to decide whether the man was justified in defending himself, not the liberal professional character assassins that somehow get away with posing as legit news media.
Getting the story from the paper / news is one thing. What really happened is likely another.
One or more individuals in the car may have said something they shouldn't have ( Ergo, I'm going to kill you ), may have reached for the glove box, under the seat, etc, etc.
I have my doubts the guy was sitting quietly in his vehicle reading his bible after being asked to turn his music down. :D
Is also a reason you keep your hands on the steering wheel during a traffic stop, so the officer doesn't mistake your actions for a hostile one and shoots you for it :D
I'll wait to form an opinion until after we get the details on what transpired during the event.
I bought the kids a new rifle, a .22 that is light and short. Called the crickett, they love shotting, I am useing subsonic rounds so even the 3 year old can shot and not worry about the kick back force one her.
Curious what flavor of ammo you're using. Specifically, the weight. Not very many folks make subsonic .22lr and most I've seen are in the 60gr range making them tough to stabilize in anything outside of a crazy fast twist barrel. ( At least a 1 x 9 twist rate for 60gr )
For that reason, I use full power .22lr on my rifle since trying to shoot a 60gr through it would likely destroy the suppressor as the round tumbles through it upon exiting the barrel.
I wonder whats more at fault here, guns or stand your ground provisions.
Medical fuck ups kill more people then guns, so where is your rant about how we should get rid of doctors so people don't die from doctors, pills don't kill people doctors kill people.
Sensible liberal is sensible. And I am referring to the author, not some of the people he interviewed on the first page.
I've read and agree with the article. As much as I want to see gun nuts lose their guns, it is not going to happen. The next best thing is to have "license" to "drive" guns. Something I have stated many times in the past.
Licensing guns makes no more sense than licensing vehicles in my opinion. Even with vehicle licensing, they still kill more people every year than guns ever will :D ( And there are more guns out there than vehicles to boot )
If you write laws to limit or outright ban the ownership of a thing, it will only serve to increase demand for it. Guns are pretty much illegal in Mexico without a license, yet they certainly have no issues with obtaining them illegally.
Illegally being the the word I want to stress here.
If you are willing to break the law to obtain them, you certainly will ignore any laws pertaining to their use. When is the last time a bank robber changed their mind because of a " Firearms Prohibited " sign on the front door ?
Folks who kill other folks with firearms do not CARE about the laws concerning it. If not a gun, then a knife. Or a bat, or a crossbow ( was in the news recently ), or a car, or whatever is handy at the time.
Folks who go after guns do so because it is the easier of the two variables to deal with. The tough one being the people who wield them. I merely need to point out alcohol as the perfect example and how well prohibition worked out to prove my point.
Too much work to deal with folks who abused it, easier just to deny everyone. Or so they thought. . . .
Ahh more fun news from China where a KNIFE wielding individual decided to take their frustrations out on some kiddos. Proof positive that the human species does not need a firearm to do a lot of damage.
Ahh more fun news from China where a KNIFE wielding individual decided to take their frustrations out on some kiddos. Proof positive that the human species does not need a firearm to do a lot of damage.
Guns don't kill people, bullets do. A gun is as useless as a paper weight with no bullets. Crazy happens, you will never stop people from killing others. When you take away guns in the name of protecting people, you actually take away the protection people already had. That will leave people less safe.
Even if you only ban semi-auto weapons you can kill multiple people. For instance, if you put a side saddle on a single shot shotgun that holds 6 shells on each side you can have 12 shells on the butt stock of the guns. More shells on a belt, if you practice you can be very accurate and fire at a high rate of fire. Its time to live in the real world and realize there are some very bad people out there, taking guns would only allow those people to roam uncontested. Remember the guy in Norway that killed 80+ people? I'm pretty sure if someone there had a gun that could shoot back, that number wouldn't be eighty.
To bad schools don't allow a couple administrators to carry or at least have a hold area for a weapon or two. I would be willing to bet if someone with a gun were close enough there wouldn't be as many children killed.
So it's okay then to run around knifing folks as long as you don't kill them ? Chuckle. By the same logic, the entire school shooting would be non-news had the shooter shot them all in the knee instead ? :|
The usual Democrat has announced she will put forth legislation that bans everything that even looks like a scary weapon. I find it interesting she waited to announce this until AFTER a mass tragedy ( even though she admits they've been working on it for a year or more ). Guess she figures it's the only way it would ever have a shot of getting passed to begin with. You don't really want to know my thoughts about folks who use tragedy to push their political agenda.
My other thoughts:
One, the idea of punishing millions of law abiding citizens for the actions of a few lunatics is lunacy itself, but then my bar of expectations for those in Congress has never really been very high.
Two, if it DOES pass, ( again, unlikely ) expect the news to be filled with a violence the likes of which you have never seen ( unless you've been an active participant in one of our many wars over the years ) once enforcement begins.
Three, since the law would ban possession completely, millions of formerly law abiding types would instantly be transformed into federal criminals as the majority who own these types of devices are not likely to just hand them over because our Congressional idiots think it's a good idea.
-sigh-
WTB: Mountaintop fortress where I can isolate myself from the rest of the species.
Unsurprisingly you will find zero sympathy from me when you complain about gun control.
As to my personal opinion on the matter, while I'd like to see gun-free society, I know it isn't practical at this point. Guns are so prevalent, that it would be impractical, probably even impossible, to achieve this goal.
I can see absolutely no justification, constitutional or otherwise, why anything deadlier than hunting or handguns should be allowed for personal possession. We don't allow personal ownership of artillery for example, why would we allow something like AK47?
Additionally, gun ownership rules are extremely lax right now. It is far too easy to legally acquire and operate one than it is legally acquire and operate a vehicle.
We as society, when presented with evidence, agree that there is a strong case for licensing drivers and following road rules. Do people still drive unlicensed and break road rules? They do, but nobody uses these outlier cases to argue for scrapping all road rules or driver license system.
First AUTOMATIC weapons are illegal, you will hate life if you get caught with a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon. Although the people that go off on these shootings don't care about laws.
Second, If you have not been in trouble with the law, buying a gun legally is easy. So is getting a divers license unless you have gotten into trouble driving a vehicle without a license.
Some seem to think anyone that has a gun will simply go off shooting up everyone. When was the last time anyone has heard of someone accidentally killing 26 people because they didn't know how to handle a gun? Same goes with drunk driving, cars don't crash themselves, someone has to be driving it before that can happen. Also to note, drunk driving kills more people than guns do. So when are the same people wanting to ban guns going to start calling for the ban of alcohol?
Does anyone that owns a gun know how to use it? I'm not going to be naive, I'm sure there are people that don't, there are also people that don't know how to drive. Yet they still get into a car. If you don't believe people can't drive, then come to Tulsa, Oklahoma I will prove to you in 5 minutes that having a license means jack shit when it comes to knowing how to drive.
But to compare guns & cars are two different issues, one is a privilege the other is a right. We have the RIGHT to keep & Bear arms. I have yet to see an amendment that says we have a RIGHT to keep and bear a car!
"I can see absolutely no justification, constitutional or otherwise, why anything deadlier than hunting or handguns should be allowed for personal possession. We don't allow personal ownership of artillery for example, why would we allow something like AK47? "
The same can be said for just about anything. Computers ( omghackers ), cleaning chemicals ( omgterrorists ), moving trucks ( omgbombers and omghumantraffikers ), and well . . . you get the idea.
For those unfamiliar with firearms, let me clarify something.
There is no difference in lethality between a revolver, a bolt action rifle, or a semi-automatic. None. Nada. Zip. Many firearms shoot the same calibers, only their appearance and / or rate of fire changes. That's it.
A .223 bolt gun used for hunting is every bit as lethal as it's high capacity AR-15 brother. The latter allows you to simply shoot faster than the former. Make no mistake about it, both are equally lethal. The former requires more skill to use than the latter but, in skilled hands, is more effective.
"First AUTOMATIC weapons are illegal"
Not really. Full auto weapons manufactured prior to the full-auto ban are still legal to own. They are considered Class III devices and therefore subject to NFA regulations. In other words, you have to pay the government an extra tax to own one, have the paperwork blessed by the BATFE and adhere to the extra rules governing the weapon in general. Same thing applies to any NFA device. ( Short barreled rifles, suppressors, destructive devices, etc. etc. ) Subject to your own State laws of course but, at the Federal level, they are quite legal.
"So when are the same people wanting to ban guns going to start calling for the ban of alcohol?"
Chuckle. I hear you. Never going to happen, tried it once. Didn't end well. Apparently lesson not learned about banning things for everyone because a few don't know how to handle. Alcohol abuse kills more in this country every year than firearms ever will. Yet, not a peep about banning alcohol again.
Go ahead, someone tell me a legitimate use for an alchoholic beverage outside of getting drunk. Then take the number of people killed / injured by it every year and compare it to firearm deaths and injuries. Last I looked at it, alcohol related deaths were 1.5x that of firearms deaths.
Now sit there and tell me of the two, which is the bigger problem ? I'm all ears.
Even more entertaining, you can get blitzed and plow through a crowd full of Nuns in your car and it's not murder. It's only manslaughter. He was drunk. :|
Yet, get blitzed and grab a firearm of any kind and mow down the same group of Nuns and watch what the charge is. Burn in hell you murderer ! lol Give em the chair !
-facepalm-
"Additionally, gun ownership rules are extremely lax right now"
Did you know, with the exception of private sales, that purchasing a firearm will subject you to the FBI NCIS check prior to your leaving the store with it ? Every. Single. Time. Without exception.
Purchasing a firearm LEGALLY is easy IFF you can pass the background check. If you have never committed a crime and have never been evaluated for psycological problems, you'll easily pass the check. Without a history to work with, it would be nigh impossible to predict who will crack / snap next and what they will do. Even WITH a history, it would be tough to predict.
"I can see absolutely no justification, constitutional or otherwise, why anything deadlier than hunting or handguns should be allowed for personal possession. We don't allow personal ownership of artillery for example, why would we allow something like AK47? "
The same can be said for just about anything. Computers ( omghackers ), cleaning chemicals ( omgterrorists ), moving trucks ( omgbombers and omghumantraffikers ), and well . . . you get the idea.
For those unfamiliar with firearms, let me clarify something.
There is no difference in lethality between a revolver, a bolt action rifle, or a semi-automatic. None. Nada. Zip. Many firearms shoot the same calibers, only their appearance and / or rate of fire changes. That's it.
A .223 bolt gun used for hunting is every bit as lethal as its high capacity AR-15 brother. The latter allows you to simply shoot faster than the former. Make no mistake about it, both are equally lethal. The former requires more skill to use than the latter but, in skilled hands, is more effective.
"First AUTOMATIC weapons are illegal"
Not really. Full auto weapons manufactured prior to the full-auto ban are still legal to own. They are considered Class III devices and therefore subject to NFA regulations. In other words, you have to pay the government an extra tax to own one, have the paperwork blessed by the BATFE and adhere to the extra rules governing the weapon in general. Same thing applies to any NFA device. ( Short barreled rifles, suppressors, destructive devices, etc. etc. ) Subject to your own State laws of course but, at the Federal level, they are quite legal.
"So when are the same people wanting to ban guns going to start calling for the ban of alcohol?"
Chuckle. I hear you. Never going to happen, tried it once. Didn't end well. Apparently lesson not learned about banning things for everyone because a few don't know how to handle.
"Additionally, gun ownership rules are extremely lax right now"
Did you know, with the exception of private sales, that purchasing a firearm will subject you to the FBI NCIS check prior to your leaving the store with it ? Every. Single. Time. Without exception.
Purchasing a firearm LEGALLY is easy IFF you can pass the background check. If you have never committed a crime and have never been evaluated for psycological problems, you'll easily pass the check. Without a history to work with, it would be nigh impossible to predict who will crack / snap next and what they will do. Even WITH a history, it would be tough to predict.
You're right about the full auto. But that's being technical about it. Not many people have a class III license like that because they are not only hard to obtain but are expensive. If you so much as mess up paperwork you can lose it pretty fast.
The reason I didn't mention people have to get a back ground check before buying a gun is that I figured everyone already knew this. So for those that don't, YOU DO have to go through a federal background check before you can buy a gun. Handguns in some states take a couple days for them to do a background check. Some states have what they call a cool off period, where it takes a couple days for gun purchases to be granted.
" Not many people have a class III license like that because they are not only hard to obtain but are expensive."
Not really. Most believe this to be the case, but it is an untrue statement. ( Well, partially. Lemme explain )
You're not buying a license, per se. You only need a Class III license to sell or manufacture NFA devices. To purchase a NFA device, you merely need:
An approved Form 4 from the BATFE with your $200 Tax Stamp affixed to it. Most expensive stamp ever :|
A corporation, trust, or CLEO ( Chief Law Enforcement Officer ) card signoff and background investigation by the FBI.
Once those two are satisfied, you are free to go pick up your firearm or device. That's it.
Where the TRUE expense comes into play is the cost of the device. In the case of a full auto firearm, they are easily in the three to five digit range in price. I've seen your typical Mac-10 run about $3000, where a full blown M60 ( belt fed machine gun for you non military types ) will set you back about $30,000. The typical M16 style weapon will run in the ~$15,000 range.
Short barreled rifles / shotguns and suppressors are much cheaper. Same paperwork and rules, just not the silly prices. Why anyone would want a full auto considering the price of ammo these days is beyond me.
You can self-congratulate yourself as much as you want, but there is lot of difference between high-caliber automatic/semi and low-caliber handgun. Deadliness. Getting shot to the chest with AK or hollow point is probably not survivable, getting shot with bird shot hunting rifle is very survivable.
You can self-congratulate yourself as much as you want, but there is lot of difference between high-caliber automatic/semi and low-caliber handgun. Deadliness. Getting shot to the chest with AK or hollow point is probably not survivable, getting shot with bird shot hunting rifle is very survivable.
I don't think you know much about guns and rifles.
You can self-congratulate yourself as much as you want, but there is lot of difference between high-caliber automatic/semi and low-caliber handgun. Deadliness. Getting shot to the chest with AK or hollow point is probably not survivable, getting shot with bird shot hunting rifle is very survivable.
Sinij, no offense man, but if there is one topic I'm positive you have no expertise on, it's firearms.
You hit a vital spot ( organ, artery, brain, etc ) with just about anything ( including bird shot ) and the effect is lethal. The larger calibers exist to take down critters who are tougher than we are ( in the hunting world ) or hardened targets ( in the military world ).
The only difference between pistol and rifles are engagement ranges. The rifle is more accurate and designed for targets at longer range than a pistol is whereas a pistol is ideal for concealment and close range work.
In this context, however, we're talking about kids. Not police in body armor. Not bears in the woods. ANY caliber would be more than sufficient here and a whole list of other devices that could have been used instead.
This guy could have, just as easily, walked into the classroom, barricaded the door behind him and emptied a few gallons of gasoline onto everything in the room and lit it up.
The vapor explosion would have been bad enough, but it would have likely burned everyone to death in the classroom.
Same horrific end result. None of the silly talk about banning gasoline. :|
Hell, in my opinion, if anything should be banned it should be the week long obsession by the media about it. Why the hell do you think these folks do this ? Look at the attention they get from it.
Bottom line being, regardless of the tool used, we are a violent species by nature. Some more so than others. Before you disagree, a quick glance at our history all the way back to the beginning will confirm my statement to even the most skeptical among us. You can't stop lunacy because we can't identify it most of the time until after the fact. The sooner folks realize that WE as a species are the f*cking problem, the better off everyone will be.
“I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” he said. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
So this guy also doesn't know what he is talking about?
The only difference between pistol and rifles are engagement ranges. The rifle is more accurate and designed for targets at longer range than a pistol is whereas a pistol is ideal for concealment and close range work.
Absolutely not true.
Clip size Stopping power Ease of handling (and effective rate of fire).
You can get a handgun that would fire magnum high caliber rounds, but not 20+ at a time, plus only very skilled marksman would be able to shoot such handgun more than one round at a time and maintain any kind of accuracy.
There is absolutely no point denying that semi-automatic rifle is by far more deadlier weapon than any comparable handgun.
The only difference between pistol and rifles are engagement ranges. The rifle is more accurate and designed for targets at longer range than a pistol is whereas a pistol is ideal for concealment and close range work.
Absolutely not true.
Clip size Stopping power Ease of handling (and effective rate of fire).
You can get a handgun that would fire magnum high caliber rounds, but not 20+ at a time, plus only very skilled marksman would be able to shoot such handgun more than one round at a time and maintain any kind of accuracy.
There is absolutely no point denying that semi-automatic rifle is by far more deadlier weapon than any comparable handgun.
Again, no offense, but from your past comments I would wager you do not own any firearms, thus your opinions are based on experiences and information other than your own observations.
A chest shot with a tiny 55gr Vmax .223 round ( regardless of platform type ) will kill anyone just as quickly as a chest shot from a 250gr .50AE Magnum round from a pistol. I promise.
Lets take your points one at a time:
Clip Size: This line of thinking assumes that killing ten is somehow less horrific than killing twenty. How many a lunatic kills ( including their age and/or gender )is irrelevant, the fact that they are killing anyone is the real issue here.
Stopping Power: Range dependent. At close range like this, is a moot point completely. Only becomes an issue as ranges increase beyond pistol caliber capabilities.
Ease of Handling: Application dependent. Indoors in cramped quarters, pistols are the go to device. It tougher to maneuver a rifle within a building than a pistol. Outdoors with plenty of room and where engagement distances are expected to be longer, the rifle is the go to device.
However, you're not going to give in, nor will I. As a result, I will call the argument here just because.
Some final thoughts:
In the right hands firearms can be used to save lives, in the wrong hands, they take them. The tool itself is neutral in application, it's all about the wielder.
Arguing semantics such as caliber, clip capacity, grip types, or appearance is ridiculous and missing the point entirely.
That point being:
The world is full of evil people and there is nothing you or I can do about it. From time to time, they will crawl out from under their rock and wreak havoc on the rest. Regardless of what tools they use to do it or how many they can kill in one go, it's still horrific.
So unless you're ok with applying selective bans to just about anything that can be used to harm someone else ( computers, chemicals, fast food, alcohol, tobacco, etc ) you might want to consider what slippery slope you're standing on before finalizing your decision.
“I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” he said. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
So this guy also doesn't know what he is talking about?
No he doesn't, and not just for his inaccurate/poor use of firearm terminology, but ultimately because of this:
Originally Posted By: Derid
The reason we have the right to keep and bear arms is to prevent a Govt monopoly of force.
The fact that they can be used for hunting and sport is really just a silver lining.
Ask someone that isn't in a position of power in one of the many Middle-Eastern, Asian, South American, or African countries where the government and their army/militia has all the guns how they feel about gun control.
There are many people in this world that are experts with any weapon. Given practice just about anyone WILLING can be very accurate and deadly with just about any gun, not just the semi automatics as you say.
If you don't have a gun on you and someone starts shooting, it doesn't matter if they have a semi-automatic or a single shot, you're pretty fucked either way if you can't defend yourself. Sure you can hope and pray they stop or run out of bullets. Maybe even try to rush the person and hope you get to them before they can reload. One bullet can kill you as fast as any bullets following the first shot.
The shooter that shot up the movie theater in Colorado went to other venues, he chose the one he did because it didn't allow conceal carry. If you know you will be the only one with a gun, you can do whatever you want without any threats. You want all guns to go away, once you realize that's not going to happen the quicker you will learn that arming yourself and having a gun makes you safer than if you didn't have one. Or at the very least allows you to defend yourself if someone else has a gun.
Oh...just to be clear you don't have to have a semi auto to be fast.
“I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” he said. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
So this guy also doesn't know what he is talking about?
Its not about hunting.
Its about Govt monopoly of force, which is the reason for the 2nd amendment.
Plus I consider gun control just a form of collective punishment, and I dont believe in collective punishment.
Clip size Stopping power Ease of handling (and effective rate of fire).
You wrote that blanket-statement with little, to no, knowledge of ballistics. Your second item alone invalidates your claim because "stopping power" is a very subjective (basically marketing lingo) statement: a .22 pistol to the head has more stopping power than a .227 to the torso, and your off-the-shelf hunting shotgun has more short-range stopping power (to almost any part of the body) than both of them.
(Read up on Mafia killings; more people were killed by .22 caliber pistols than all other guns, including the infamous Tommy Gun.)
"Stopping Power" should never be used to compare weapons without specifying conditions, and even then breaks down to so many sub-components: ammunition used, velocity, kinetic energy, etc.
An assault rifle firing a full metal jacket round at a torso has a high probability of completely passing through the body. A .357 magnum pistol firing a hollow-point round into the torso is going to mushroom out and expand in the body, increasing the chances of hitting something major.
Originally Posted By: sini
You can get a handgun that would fire magnum high caliber rounds, but not 20+ at a time, plus only very skilled marksman would be able to shoot such handgun more than one round at a time and maintain any kind of accuracy.
Your statement suggests that only a 'handgun' requires a marksman to maintain any kind of accuracy with sustained firepower; this is completely false.
Have you ever seen the video of an inexperienced insurgent, or gang-banger, shooting an off-the-shelf, cheap, mass-manufactured AK-47 variant? The saying: "couldn't hit the broadside of a barn" wasn't just termed for high-caliber pistols.
If you'd ever attempted to "spray-and-pray" with a cheap mass-manufactured (most commonly found) full-auto assault rifle, you would realize how off your statement is. Your first round could possibly (with luck that any sight adjusting ever happened) be on target, and each successive round would be farther and farther from even being close. Someone taking a second to aim a single pistol round has as much of a chance as the non-experienced, lead-trigger assaulter.
And if you aren't talking about full-auto, then you're "20+ at a time" is way off-base for even the fastest-trigger expert.
Originally Posted By: sini
There is absolutely no point denying that semi-automatic rifle is by far more deadlier weapon than any comparable handgun.
Semi-automatic rifles are only superior in specific conditions, and even then it depends on the actual weapon, as well as the experience of the person wielding it.
In close range, in a building, etc., the cumbersome non-compact, standard assault rifle can become more of a hindrance than an asset. I would probably take a shotgun, or even a quality handgun over an assault rifle in such an example.
You are not going to sell anyone on the blatant falsehood that semi-automatic rifle with a large clip is not any more deadly than hunting rifle or low-caliber handgun.
Thankfully legislators distancing themselves from NRA and the likes. Gun stocks are down. Chances are - new anti-gun regulation is all but done deal.
The only question is how effective such legislation is going to be. I hope it will be combination of limitations of guns and stricter control over legal purchase and resale process as well as increased penalties for failing to properly secure your weapon.
I think car ownership process is an effective model - you have to acquire license to operate, you have to register it with the authorities and you have to have it inspected on a regular basis. If you ever sell it - new owner has to go through the same process. If you ever lose it, you are responsible for it up until you notify authorities it was stolen.
I also hope they will create a list of medical conditions that would make you ineligible for license.
I wonder if when the crazies gravitate back towards making IEDs filled with shrapnel, legislators will start restricting the sale of nails and ball bearings.
Perhaps we will all get to fill out a form and pay a hefty tax before we can shop at Home Depot.
Until people realize that it is the media that creates the problem - hey look, you get instant infamy , the world will focus on your sorry life 24/7 - nothing will change.
People should go watch Natural Born Killers, it highlighted the societal disease pretty well actually.
You are not going to sell anyone on the blatant falsehood that semi-automatic rifle with a large clip is not any more deadly than hunting rifle or low-caliber handgun.
Thankfully legislators distancing themselves from NRA and the likes. Gun stocks are down. Chances are - new anti-gun regulation is all but done deal.
The only question is how effective such legislation is going to be. I hope it will be combination of limitations of guns and stricter control over legal purchase and resale process as well as increased penalties for failing to properly secure your weapon.
I think car ownership process is an effective model - you have to acquire license to operate, you have to register it with the authorities and you have to have it inspected on a regular basis. If you ever sell it - new owner has to go through the same process. If you ever lose it, you are responsible for it up until you notify authorities it was stolen.
I also hope they will create a list of medical conditions that would make you ineligible for license.
WOW Gun Stocks are down? I'm not sure where you get your information but where I live you can go to any gun shop and find empty shelves. Guns are flying off the shelves, I was going to by some more clips and I can't find anyone that has them. One guy told me he had 2000 clips and sold them all just over the weekend. Guns sales have been through the roof.
You are not going to sell anyone on the blatant falsehood that semi-automatic rifle with a large clip is not any more deadly than hunting rifle or low-caliber handgun.
Thankfully legislators distancing themselves from NRA and the likes. Gun stocks are down. Chances are - new anti-gun regulation is all but done deal.
The only question is how effective such legislation is going to be. I hope it will be combination of limitations of guns and stricter control over legal purchase and resale process as well as increased penalties for failing to properly secure your weapon.
I think car ownership process is an effective model - you have to acquire license to operate, you have to register it with the authorities and you have to have it inspected on a regular basis. If you ever sell it - new owner has to go through the same process. If you ever lose it, you are responsible for it up until you notify authorities it was stolen.
I also hope they will create a list of medical conditions that would make you ineligible for license.
More laws always seems to be the answer for progressives.
Why would insurance make this condition of coverage then?
Cause it is at least some sort of indication that someone with authorization to enter a premises (and a key) did not just pawn it off. Insurance typically only wants to cover random criminal behavior, not angry girlfriends.
I think car ownership process is an effective model - you have to acquire license to operate, you have to register it with the authorities and you have to have it inspected on a regular basis. If you ever sell it - new owner has to go through the same process. If you ever lose it, you are responsible for it up until you notify authorities it was stolen.
I also hope they will create a list of medical conditions that would make you ineligible for license.
With conceal carry permits you have to fill out an application and turn it in to the local sheriffs office. You have to pay for the background check which intensely goes through a Federal,State & local background check. If you have ANY mental issues that has been documented and of course any other legal issues, then you will not be able to get a permit. Just so you know, in these shootings that have happened, NONE of the shooters had a conceal carry permit.
About registering guns like cars. First you don't want people to know how many guns you have. If you have to register every gun you might as well put up a yard sign of how many guns you have and what kind they are. This is why conceal carry is a good thing, because if you don't know who has one, then you don't know who would shoot you if your a criminal looking for an easy score.
Just so you know, criminals are looking for people that are unarmed, and that are easy to take from. It's a lot less of a chance they would be shot. IN turn this is why it makes you less safe when you are in a gun fee zone. I'm sure if they could talk, any of those 87 people that were killed by the guy in Norway would agree that having a gun would have helped. But since he was the only one with a gun, well it's painfully obvious who's going to be the victim there.
Why would insurance make this condition of coverage then?
Cause it is at least some sort of indication that someone with authorization to enter a premises (and a key) did not just pawn it off. Insurance typically only wants to cover random criminal behavior, not angry girlfriends.
Incorrect. They make it a condition of coverage because it demonstrates minimal acceptable level of preventative actions/deterrence. If you leave your door open you are a lot more likely to get burglarized.
Incorrect. They make it a condition of coverage because it demonstrates minimal acceptable level of preventative actions/deterrence. If you leave your door open you are a lot more likely to get burglarized.
Right, because criminals just walk through neighborhoods trying everyone's door until they find one that is open...
Why would insurance make this condition of coverage then?
Cause it is at least some sort of indication that someone with authorization to enter a premises (and a key) did not just pawn it off. Insurance typically only wants to cover random criminal behavior, not angry girlfriends.
Incorrect. They make it a condition of coverage because it demonstrates minimal acceptable level of preventative actions/deterrence. If you leave your door open you are a lot more likely to get burglarized.
So if I carry a gun I am demonstrating minimal acceptable level of preventative actions/deterrence.
Why would insurance make this condition of coverage then?
Cause it is at least some sort of indication that someone with authorization to enter a premises (and a key) did not just pawn it off. Insurance typically only wants to cover random criminal behavior, not angry girlfriends.
Incorrect. They make it a condition of coverage because it demonstrates minimal acceptable level of preventative actions/deterrence. If you leave your door open you are a lot more likely to get burglarized.
Poor assumption is poor.
Not that this tangent has anything to do with the topic at hand. Unless you want to make the tired and incorrect " well banning X is better than nothing " act.
There have been people who have said "well if a law even prevented one death, it was worth it" forever. They werent right then, and still arent.
See Ice-T link posted previously for why. Its a strnage occurrence for me to be in 100% agreement with a gangsta rapper, but he is spot on.
Incorrect. They make it a condition of coverage because it demonstrates minimal acceptable level of preventative actions/deterrence. If you leave your door open you are a lot more likely to get burglarized.
Right, because criminals just walk through neighborhoods trying everyone's door until they find one that is open...
Actually this is exactly how most burglaries are done.
Mass shootings aside - this is how most gun crimes are committed, with a gun that is too easily available. Stricter gun laws won't stop planned rampages but it will greatly reduce crimes of opportunity.
Pretending otherwise is just another conservative folly.
Availability and ease of access to gun is not an assumption - it is fact. Guns are way too easy to get for everyone, including mentally unstable individuals. This is big part of the problem.
Just like leaving your front door open - if you don't take minimal effort to safeguard/prevent the crime, then you are leaving yourself unreasonably exposed to it.
Lots of talk on gun banning. We'll see if it happens or not.
If memory serves me correctly, the 1994 Ban still comes to mind of our elected officials considering the transfer of power to Republicans once the ban went into effect. ( Short version is, ban goes into effect, enough people vote out all the folks who voted for it )
This is pretty much the reason Congress tries to stay out of such legislation, especially with their own elections right around the corner. I doubt the legislation will pass without full Senate support ( and that's not going to happen ) and even if it does, expect a Supreme Court showdown over it.
The other way around it would be for the States to implement their own rules about them. As long as the weapon is made IN the State and doesn't leave it, Congress has no say so about the commerce side of things concerning it. I would expect that topic to make an appearance soon.
Reactionary legislation after a tragedy is a piss poor way to run a country. Anyone here think the Patriot Act is a good piece of legislation ?
If all it takes is a tragedy to erode your rights, stand by. Expect to see a lot more of them in the near future.
Afterthought:
I lock my doors because evil people exist in the world. You can't go a single day here without the news telling of yet another home invasion. Group of men gain entry, tie everyone up, then rob everything they can. Your life is at their mercy. Some kill their victims, some don't.
My alarm will trigger the instant it happens. The individuals in question will have approximately two seconds to reach the back bedroom before I have the means to negate their presence permanently in hand and ready to go.
If all it takes is a tragedy to erode your rights, stand by.
Well, the Obama administration is never one to "let a crisis go to waste..."
Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Right, because criminals just walk through neighborhoods trying everyone's door until they find one that is open...
Actually this is exactly how most burglaries are done.
It must be an interesting world you live in, where you're an expert in all things. Locks keep honest people honest and that is all. If someone wants whats in your house, they will get in regardless of your feeble little attempt at security by locking your door.
A much better way to secure your home is what Daye has offered, armed resistance.
Kaotic, insurance companies disagree with you. That why they insist you lock the door, that why they may charge you extra if you have too much firepower in your house. They have to understand risks - that how they make money. Money talks, bullshit walk.
Good luck getting home insurance discount because you own a gun.
Not debating the points with Sini, because it's useless, and I'm not here to feed Trolls.
For those who actually read these forums without fixed bias, and are capable of considering counter-points:
Most illegal gun acquisitions do NOT occur as burglaries from legitimate gun owners; most are from others buying the guns and passing them on, or from illegal sales (either licensed dealers making illegal sales, or illegally smuggled guns sold in black markets.) Here's one PBS Frontline article that talked about this very subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Availability and ease of access to gun is not an assumption - it is fact. Guns are way too easy to get for everyone, including mentally unstable individuals. This is big part of the problem.
Just like leaving your front door open - if you don't take minimal effort to safeguard/prevent the crime, then you are leaving yourself unreasonably exposed to it.
So are cars and machetes and all sorts of things.
When I lived in Columbus, home to Nationwide I knew and worked with some people from Nationwide. I have heard from management that the reason for locked door rules is simply to help filter out trusted parties. Sure, they want you to lock your doors as well - but the fact is a huge amount of doors actually have the bolt knobs within range of glass or other flimsy material. If you know noone is home/looking, shoving a gloved hand through it and turning the knob is pretty much no different than an unlocked door.
Whether they put that on their PR pamphlets or not is a different matter, and sales agents often dont have any official guidance just their own guesses on why a policy is written or adjusted the way it is.
Besides, we all know that - and you have said before yourself that Insurance will do whatever they can to deny a claim for any reason. So are they denying a claim because they have an excuse to do so is what it really comes down to.
- ---------------
I consider it moot anyhow, what you always have to weight any gun problems against is the reason we have the right to carry them. And it isnt to hunt rabbits.
See earlier Ice-T link for full explanation, its only about 90 seconds long but it says everything that needs to be said about the whole topic.
Kaotic, insurance companies disagree with you. That why they insist you lock the door, that why they may charge you extra if you have too much firepower in your house. They have to understand risks - that how they make money. Money talks, bullshit walk.
Good luck getting home insurance discount because you own a gun.
I was never asked if I had a gun in my house when I got insurance. Maybe you should shop for a better company.
Kaotic, insurance companies disagree with you. That why they insist you lock the door, that why they may charge you extra if you have too much firepower in your house. They have to understand risks - that how they make money. Money talks, bullshit walk.
Good luck getting home insurance discount because you own a gun.
I'm not sure what Insurance company you have, but I've never been asked how many guns I have in my home by an Insurance company. That sounds like an out right left wing bat shit crazy lie. That's just dumb
Number one rule when you own guns, YOU NEVER EVER tell people where you keep them. Number two, You NEVER tell someone how many guns you have. You are painfully naive when it comes to knowledge about how the real world works when it comes to guns.
Wolfgang and Helemoto are right Sini. I don't know where you're buying your insurance but my agent has never asked me about firearms, only about the overall value of the contents of my home, nor is there any stipulation in my policy about locked doors.
How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants,courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!
I think this is very well stated and deserves a response, either to refute this or give a reason why it should be dismissed.
How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants,courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!
I think this is very well stated and deserves a response, either to refute this or give a reason why it should be dismissed.
Anyone denying this as truth should gouge their eye's out because they are already blind.
Facts are Facts, you hear about very little shootings nears those places and officials that LaPierre mentioned that have armed security.
So I take it you support and agree with NRA message?
I'm still waiting for the response about Insurance companies not covering people for having guns. I would love to hear the name of the Insurance company(s) that would be stupid enough to do that.
Way I stated my response is that insurance does not give you discount for having a gun for being safer from burglary (you aren't) but will raise your premium if you itemize guns and let them know you have them (because you are less safe).
No, they don't ask if you have guns, just like they don't ask if you are running a meth lab in your basement, but if ether of these are discovered and are a source of insurance claim, you can be sure it will be denied.
No, they don't ask if you have guns, just like they don't ask if you are running a meth lab in your basement, but if ether of these are discovered and are a source of insurance claim, you can be sure it will be denied.
You really are out of your mind. Insurance replaces guns all the time. Every time you post you make yourself less and less legitimate.
How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants,courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security. We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!
I think this is very well stated and deserves a response, either to refute this or give a reason why it should be dismissed.
Anyone denying this as truth should gouge their eye's out because they are already blind.
Facts are Facts, you hear about very little shootings nears those places and officials that LaPierre mentioned that have armed security.
As soon as you respond to this, we'll respond to your incoherent ramblings.
I assume that ample opportunity was given to everyone to distance from the statement. After re-reading this thread and giving people benefit of the doubt, following people appear to support NRA:
Kaotic Wolfgang (confirmed 12/23/12) Helemoto (confirmed 12/23/12) Brutal Daye (sounded support 12/24/12)
Please respond to this thread if you want your name added to the list. Also respond here if you want your name off the list, once I see your post I will cross you name off the list and put a date next to it.
I assume that ample opportunity was given to everyone to distance from the statement. After re-reading this thread and giving people benefit of the doubt, following people appear to support NRA:
Kaotic Wolfgang Helemoto Brutal
Please respond to this thread if you want your name added to the list. Also respond here if you want your name off the list, once I see your post I will cross you name off the list and put a date next to it.
I could give less of a shit about what list you want people on or not. You are going to try to pull the same left wing bullshit and put words in peoples mouths. You will do this by saying since I support the NRA that I am for those children being shot. I already know you little man, it's the typical left wing bullshit you guys spew when you don't know what the hell you are talking about or even care to. Anything that goes against the left wing marxist agenda must go. When you look it up, tell me how that worked out through out history.
Anyway lets educate you a little, you may want to listen closely to what this woman say's. I doubt that you will get it, but hey, let's be a little crazy and give it a try!
I assume that ample opportunity was given to everyone to distance from the statement. After re-reading this thread and giving people benefit of the doubt, following people appear to support NRA:
Kaotic Wolfgang Helemoto Brutal
Please respond to this thread if you want your name added to the list. Also respond here if you want your name off the list, once I see your post I will cross you name off the list and put a date next to it.
I see..... I remember a political party that liked to make lists of people who supported one thing or another......those people tended to disappear. I see your true colors have started to shine thru.
Once again a progressive doesn't care about the Constitution only what they see as right.
So 2 people so far confirmed that they support NRA statement. I will give it a little bit more time and then we can start analyzing what exactly was said.
So 2 people so far confirmed that they support NRA statement. I will give it a little bit more time and then we can start analyzing what exactly was said.
So 2 people so far confirmed that they support NRA statement. I will give it a little bit more time and then we can start analyzing what exactly was said.
I told you I already know what you're going to say. Why wait go ahead and spill the beans.
I assume that ample opportunity was given to everyone to distance from the statement. After re-reading this thread and giving people benefit of the doubt, following people appear to support NRA:
Kaotic Wolfgang (confirmed 12/23/12) Helemoto (confirmed 12/23/12) Brutal
Please respond to this thread if you want your name added to the list. Also respond here if you want your name off the list, once I see your post I will cross you name off the list and put a date next to it.
Man you are one dramatic little queen. wow... just go ahead and spew the left wing BS that your going to spew. I'm pretty sure your words won't cause us to throw our guns away and hope we don't ever need them. /facepalm
So I am curious to hear what local gun nuts think about NRA response?
Key points: a) Video game and media violence to blame, not guns b) Armed guards, TSA-style, in all schools
I assume you all agree with this, because after asking couple times I yet to see any objections.
Pre-point:
Simply owning a firearm or two does not make one a " gun-nut " any more than the ownership of a Bible makes one a religious zealot.
Point A:
If you live within the US, you know we are saturated with ultra-violence in every aspect of our culture. All forms of media can catch the blame here. TV, News, Games, Movies, Books, everything. You have to look pretty hard to get away from it. For the strong minded, this isn't an issue. It's just another aspect of life. We can process and filter out the imagery just as easily as we can any other. For others, this isn't so easy. It's these others whose behavior is shaped by what they are inundated with that become potential issues for society later on.
Point B:
The statement about armed guards just about everywhere except schools makes sense because it's pretty much the truth. In all high profile targets, we have armed guards on site to deal with potential problems that may arise. Once upon a time, schools were not considered a " high profile target ". However, this is the 21st century and apparently that has changed since we have so many massacres on school property in recent years. Problem will be how to fund it. Schools aren't known for their amazing budgets. Will likely see a " Think of the Children " Tax on every firearm sold from here on out :|
Anyone arguing the point against armed guards at any location needs to ask themselves why they would call police ( who will bring guns ) for any issue they believe was necessary.
There exists a critical period of time between your calling the police and their ability to arrive on site and neutralize an event in progress. Putting them on site ( or an equivalent ) greatly reduces this time. As the response time drops, so does the potential for additional casualties or would you argue that an armed guard is more important in a bank or a sporting event instead ?
Since everyone who isn't a VIP, elected official, or any other type who has armed security following them around all day long, your safety falls upon you.
You can either spend the time pleading with the lunatic to spare your ( or anothers ) life during a rampage or, since diplomacy and negotiation seems to be a waste of time during these things, you can have folks on site with a bit stronger power of persuasion than words alone.
So I am curious to hear what local gun nuts think about NRA response?
Key points: a) Video game and media violence to blame, not guns b) Armed guards, TSA-style, in all schools
I assume you all agree with this, because after asking couple times I yet to see any objections.
Pre-point:
Simply owning a firearm or two does not make one a " gun-nut " any more than the ownership of a Bible makes one a religious zealot.
Point A:
If you live within the US, you know we are saturated with ultra-violence in every aspect of our culture. All forms of media can catch the blame here. TV, News, Games, Movies, Books, everything. You have to look pretty hard to get away from it. For the strong minded, this isn't an issue. It's just another aspect of life. We can process and filter out the imagery just as easily as we can any other. For others, this isn't so easy. It's these others whose behavior is shaped by what they are inundated with that become potential issues for society later on.
Point B:
The statement about armed guards just about everywhere except schools makes sense because it's pretty much the truth. In all high profile targets, we have armed guards on site to deal with potential problems that may arise. Once upon a time, schools were not considered a " high profile target ". However, this is the 21st century and apparently that has changed since we have so many massacres on school property in recent years. Problem will be how to fund it. Schools aren't known for their amazing budgets. Will likely see a " Think of the Children " Tax on every firearm sold from here on out :|
Anyone arguing the point against armed guards at any location needs to ask themselves why they would call police ( who will bring guns ) for any issue they believe was necessary.
There exists a critical period of time between your calling the police and their ability to arrive on site and neutralize an event in progress. Putting them on site ( or an equivalent ) greatly reduces this time. As the response time drops, so does the potential for additional casualties or would you argue that an armed guard is more important in a bank or a sporting event instead ?
Since everyone who isn't a VIP, elected official, or any other type who has armed security following them around all day long, your safety falls upon you.
You can either spend the time pleading with the lunatic to spare your ( or anothers ) life during a rampage or, since diplomacy and negotiation seems to be a waste of time during these things, you can have folks on site with a bit stronger power of persuasion than words alone.
Great explanation Daye. I didn't think anyone would have to have this explained to them, apparently I was wrong. The whole banning guns isn't an issue, because that's not going to happen. Even Sini himself has said guns are to prevalent to do such a thing.
NOBODY should ever have to explain WHY they need a weapon to defend themselves, family or a stranger in the case of a "lunatic" going wild with a gun. For some reason people like Sini think someone...anyone with a gun equals BAD! Would it have been bad if an armed security officer was at Columbine when those two boys started shooting, Or would have it been bad If someone in the theater in Colorado had a gun and shot the shooter before he could kill those people? Is one life not Important as 10?
I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. It should be common sense that if you have a bad guy with a gun, you also need a good guy with a gun as well. The video I posted should really set off some common sense. Had that woman kept her pistol in her purse, there could have been a lot more people alive Including her parents.
The goofball who decided to light his home on fire in New York, then shoot the Firefighters responding to it. Managed to kill two I think. That, of course, is not going to be my point but is certainly the basis for it.
This man beautifully demonstrates why putting more laws in place will be a pointless exercise in futility.
This man, according to reports so far, was an ex-con. Felony level ex-con. Killed his grandmother with a HAMMER and served seventeen years for doing so. Hot damn, lets hear it for rehab ! Where's that hammer ban . . . . :D
BY LAW, this man was not allowed to possess firearms of any sort due to his classification as a felon. Yet he had them anyway. Good thing we had the law in place to prevent that from happening :|
Once again, and I do sincerely hope this point eventually sticks for some folks, criminals DO NOT CARE about what laws they are breaking. Thus, the definition of a criminal. Thus the reason I don't rely on laws to ensure my safety. I know the folks who would commit any crime really aren't bothered by what laws they're going to break in doing so. By following the rules, you are already at a disadvantage against those who will not. Police can't protect everyone, the best they can do is pick up the pieces afterwards and try to figure out the who and why of it all.
There are laws on the books for all of the following actions he committed and it didn't seem to slow him down one bit:
Murder ( by hammer ) Murder ( by firearm ) Arson ( he burned down seven frikkin homes ) Assault ( for the folks he shot at but didn't kill )
So, do tell, how anyone can possibly rationalize that yet another law would have somehow prevented this man from engaging in his final rampage ? It's already been stated there are too many firearms out there now for any sort of ban to be effective. Assault rifles or high capacity magazines being irrelevant if you know how to shoot. Substitute a hunting rifle or a frikkin crossbow here and the end result is the same.
So, other than punishing millions of lawful gun owners, how exactly would additional legislation have stopped this ?
I wonder why this wasn't on the national news 2 days after the CT school shooting? Oh wait, that's because someone with a Gun STOPPED HIM! No juicy details there when the bad guy gets shot. Fucking media blows!
2) Make the world a better place, just they have no idea how to actually accomplish such a difficult thing.
Its the left wing equivalent of right wingers who genuinely think that God hates gays, and is punishing us collectively for tolerating homosexuality.
Somewhere, deep down, the intent is good. Its just obscured by irrational beliefs , twisted by personal emotion, and amplified by unjustifiable confidence in their own correctness and righteousness.
The author seems to understand from experience that the reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect you from the government (not hunting/sporting), but that can't be so because Sini informed us that no government has ever taken arms from their citizenry and then abused the fact that the citizens couldn't defend themselves. What a crackpot!?! ahHAHAHAH...
" Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology."
Seems like law enforcement is doing admirable job.
Well if you didn't live under a Rock, the Off-Duty officer was working as a security guard for the theater. There are people in law enforcement that have second jobs as security guards. They were lucky that theater has an armed guard, so you see it's a good idea to have a good guy with a gun when a bad guy with a gun comes running in.
Wolfgang, you already answered this indirectly by supporting NRA statement, but do you suggest we place an armed security guards at key locations, such a schools? If so, do you suggest they should be government employees or volunteers?
Why does having a view similar to the NRA statement automatically make you an NRA supporter?
I do not support the NRA because I think they are zealots just like everyone else but I did grow up going to a school district where a lot of our teachers and coaching staff were ex military or hunters and there were always firearms in or around the school. We even had training days every few months where students that were doing well could go across the street to the National Guard armory and learn about gun safetey and handling and also get to fire off rounds in the indoor range (with parental permission). For those students not able to attend this we had a yearly presentation put on by both the local Port Neches Police and National guardsman for awareness and handling.
I remember the day after the Columbine shooting we had someone call in a bombthreat to the school and before the students even knew we had teachers, the schools criminal justice students and people that lived in the surrounding neighborhoods of the school all on point alert and armed. Then the students were released in groups under armed escort to the guard armory where you could leave only after signing out.
I think it was well done and the entire time I was going through school we never had to feel like we were in danger but then again it may just be that because we were more educated in usage/prevention that firearms are just a way of life for us.
My next question is this and I ask because with experience in traveling I have seen it with my own eyes.
In knowing that law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time why would you not want to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves or others from crazies?
I have worked in bars and clubs that have armed security. I have worked in ports and refineries that have armed security. Basically most high population social gathering areas here all have some form of armed security and our most highly populated city is Beaumont which is 120 thousand people at the most. I think people that are not willing to take their own precautions for their personal safety are completely insane.
My mother carries, my sister carries, my grandmother at 72 years old is still a crackshot with her 22 purse pistol.
The simple fact is like anything else firearms are tools and without training and respect for the tool the tool become dangerous.
Why does having a view similar to the NRA statement automatically make you an NRA supporter?
It doesn't, but I asked if posters here supported specific NRA statement - including parts of blaming video game violence on shootings and turning schools into TSA-like security theater.
In my mind you don't have to be anti-gun to oppose that statement as illogical.
Quote:
In knowing that law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time why would you not want to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves or others from crazies?
Ability to defend yourself is a concept I support, but you have to weight benefits of that versus increased lethality of crazies. High powered large-clip hollow point semi-automatic rifle is above and beyond what one would need for self-defense, a low-caliber handgun will do just as fine, but a crazies armed with such weapons (as opposed to a simple handgun) are exponentially more deadly than they need to be.
We do we need to turn question of self-defense into MAD with high potential for collateral damage?
Military rifles are needed to provide the general populace with military potential. Its really as simple as that.
Whether it is a local sheriff forming a posse to combat organized criminals, an invading army, or a corrupt govt that turns on its own people - there is an ever present need for the civilian populace to be armed.
When it comes to crazies, low cal handguns at close range are every bit as deadly as high powered rifles. Homemade bombs/IEDs are even more deadly. Heavy vehicles, especially those loaded with fuel and/or explosives are yet again even more dangerous.
Even if crazies were denied some access to simple firearms, I am far more afraid of what they would do if forced to get creative.
Take guns out of the equation. If someone is going to run up and punch you then you better be able to kick them in the nads before they do.
That goes hand in hand with the government disarming citizens...what is to stop them from punching you in the face.
Another guy wanted to disarm the populace as well...his name was Adolf Hitler...remember that guy?
As a person that used to teach martial arts to kids I can say that YOUNG children playing violent games or seeing violent TV programming does affect their psyche. (Ever been in a room full of 6-10 year olds that just watched dragonball Z?
The problems lie in bad parenting and our countries recent laziness in dealing with problems. The ideology of just passing off your problem child to someone else or ignoring them and their growing issues is not good for anyone. If anything I say leave the gun issues where they lie and if you want a real radical agenda then move to not allowing people to have children without a license.
Personal responsibility is and should always be everything to an American citizen. If you are not capable of handling a problem or situation then have the personal wherewithall to not be in those situations.
I mean come on...people can't adopt russian kids anymore so maybe they will adopt the ones we already have hear that need homes.
A simple thing to remember: It does not matter how many laws you make and how many ways you enforce that law. What matters is what you do in a situation where someone else is breaking said laws.
I'll put in terms everyone in KGB can easily understand.
RPK's are RPK's because they are RPK's. As an antiRPK group you know it is impossible to stop RPK's before they strike 100% of the time. I challenge you to pick a single crafter minded player in the guild and be their personal bodyguard for 1 week. Every time that person is logged in you stand there while they harvest and craft and guard them from any and all harm. If they decide to play at 3AM then you wake up at 3AM with them and shadow them.
Now anytime they are attacked no matter how many attackers you HAVE to protect them at all costs and never let them die or have their area overran.
Man it sure is a lot easier to defend your crafter from 2-3 RPK's that have swords and knives if you have a rifle isn't it?
Oh wait, the village you live in now says that noone is allowed to carry anything other than harvesting tools and crafting equipment. (WTFAMIRITE?!?!?) Now only designated members are allowed to carry weapons in the village and those are selected by the village council.
Hey man I just got told I am supposed to be a soldier and always carry my weapons. The leader said you have way too much stuff in your house and all of it needs to go into the guild bank. Now I have a gun and you have a harvesting sickle. Looks like you are handing over all your stuff.
You know I was in your house getting all the stuff to put into the guildbank...I have always been a soldier and never had time to build and decorate this cool of a house...I am going to live here now and you are going to live in the tent outside. Good thing I know you don't have any weapons.
Take guns out of the equation. If someone is going to run up and punch you then you better be able to kick them in the nads before they do.
That goes hand in hand with the government disarming citizens...what is to stop them from punching you in the face.
Another guy wanted to disarm the populace as well...his name was Adolf Hitler...remember that guy?
As a person that used to teach martial arts to kids I can say that YOUNG children playing violent games or seeing violent TV programming does affect their psyche. (Ever been in a room full of 6-10 year olds that just watched dragonball Z?
The problems lie in bad parenting and our countries recent laziness in dealing with problems. The ideology of just passing off your problem child to someone else or ignoring them and their growing issues is not good for anyone. If anything I say leave the gun issues where they lie and if you want a real radical agenda then move to not allowing people to have children without a license.
Personal responsibility is and should always be everything to an American citizen. If you are not capable of handling a problem or situation then have the personal wherewithall to not be in those situations.
I mean come on...people can't adopt russian kids anymore so maybe they will adopt the ones we already have hear that need homes.
A simple thing to remember: It does not matter how many laws you make and how many ways you enforce that law. What matters is what you do in a situation where someone else is breaking said laws.
I'll put in terms everyone in KGB can easily understand.
RPK's are RPK's because they are RPK's. As an antiRPK group you know it is impossible to stop RPK's before they strike 100% of the time. I challenge you to pick a single crafter minded player in the guild and be their personal bodyguard for 1 week. Every time that person is logged in you stand there while they harvest and craft and guard them from any and all harm. If they decide to play at 3AM then you wake up at 3AM with them and shadow them.
Now anytime they are attacked no matter how many attackers you HAVE to protect them at all costs and never let them die or have their area overran.
Man it sure is a lot easier to defend your crafter from 2-3 RPK's that have swords and knives if you have a rifle isn't it?
Oh wait, the village you live in now says that noone is allowed to carry anything other than harvesting tools and crafting equipment. (WTFAMIRITE?!?!?) Now only designated members are allowed to carry weapons in the village and those are selected by the village council.
Hey man I just got told I am supposed to be a soldier and always carry my weapons. The leader said you have way too much stuff in your house and all of it needs to go into the guild bank. Now I have a gun and you have a harvesting sickle. Looks like you are handing over all your stuff.
You know I was in your house getting all the stuff to put into the guildbank...I have always been a soldier and never had time to build and decorate this cool of a house...I am going to live here now and you are going to live in the tent outside. Good thing I know you don't have any weapons.
Why does having a view similar to the NRA statement automatically make you an NRA supporter?
It doesn't, but I asked if posters here supported specific NRA statement - including parts of blaming video game violence on shootings and turning schools into TSA-like security theater.
In my mind you don't have to be anti-gun to oppose that statement as illogical.
Quote:
In knowing that law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time why would you not want to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves or others from crazies?
Ability to defend yourself is a concept I support, but you have to weight benefits of that versus increased lethality of crazies. High powered large-clip hollow point semi-automatic rifle is above and beyond what one would need for self-defense, a low-caliber handgun will do just as fine, but a crazies armed with such weapons (as opposed to a simple handgun) are exponentially more deadly than they need to be.
We do we need to turn question of self-defense into MAD with high potential for collateral damage?
You such a fucking liar. You asked the question then when we responded to your idiot ideas you made a blanket statement that we all supported the NRA statement.
If you don't think violent games or movies can affect people then you are a fucking idiot. The people who do these things are fucking psycho, they do not have the same reality we do, so yes they came be affected by it.
Most of the population can watch and play violent games a watch violent movies and not go out and think it is a good idea to kill. Its backward ass thinkers like you that want to strip the rights of the American people, because you think its how it should be.
I have repeatedly asked a very simple question and nobody on that list raised a single objection to anything that was said.
Fiscal conservatism? Forget it, we going to spend spend spend on guards, guns and more security theater. Because we can armed guard everything, all the time.
Small government? Forget it, we going to turn school into prison colonies and stick armed big brother at the every corner, for the children.
Taking responsibility for your own actions? No way! Licensing, insuring and securing your own weapons is against the Flag, Freedom, and Constitution and you non-gun owning public is there to pay to clean up the mess every time.
Military rifles are needed to provide the general populace with military potential.
Syria just had a gas station bombed with hundreds killed. Somehow I don't think more assault rifles are helping them in any way. This is third-world country with third-rate military.
The main reason why this won't happen in US is because military would refuse to do the same, not because some NRA whackjob has 10 assault rifles in his gun closet that he carcasses every evening to get off.
As much as you like to pretend otherwise, but marching lines of redcoats are not the kinds of threat we have to worry about these days.
Firearms will not provide populace with a military potential and have not done so since WW1 era.
The fact that they are armed is why there is a war in the first place, I think you need to think again. The 20th and 21st centuries are both chock full of examples of relatively poorly armed populations waging war, even successfully against larger powers and even superpowers. Not sure how you could even possibly come to any other conclusion.
The US military *currently* would not likely engage in wholesale slaughter of US citizens.. today.... tomorrow is always a different story. It would take armed insurrection against the internal security services before the military chain of command would start to waver though.
Russians had no guns, yet USSR fell despite having tanks in Moscow. Egyptians had very few guns, yet Mubarak regime fell. Syrians keep dying because Syrian military are willing to kill Syrians.
Personal firearms will not stop any modern military. Taliban had all the assault weapons they wanted, yet its unwillingness of US troops to engage in wholesale slaughter of what could be a civilian population dragged Afghanistan and Iraq on and on. If your theory on armed insurrection was anywhere near true then US would have been soundly defeated by now. Taliban certainly have more and better firearm than civilians in the US population.
Guess you never looked at the Iraqi death toll. Iraq makes a good case study really, things calmed down there due to political manuevering, buying off or otherwise employing the support of large chunks of the populace and etc.. it certainly was not a "military" victory.
Taking control is one thing. Maintaining it in the face of hostile armed populace is quite another.
If you are going for obliteration, then sure - modern WMDs are pretty scary. If you are talking about control, that is still fought out by humans on the ground. In many places, it is hard for a regime to maintain itself if the only way it can maintain control is genocide.
Also the USA has over 300m people. Even 1% of the populace taking up guerrilla arms - thats 3m people. Interspersed with the rest of the populace... for a regime to maintain control in the face of that would be impossible.
You should go read some about modern warfare. Your blanket assertions are quite ill informed.
I have and most of them are IEDs and most of these (e.g. directed charges, EFP) requires very specialized know-how and materials that would not be available to insurgents without outside assistance.
Russians had no guns, yet USSR fell despite having tanks in Moscow. Egyptians had very few guns, yet Mubarak regime fell. Syrians keep dying because Syrian military are willing to kill Syrians.
You are citing situations where the state apparatus turned on itself, belying a lack of understanding of the topic. Just because a regime falls, obviously it is not always due to popular military insurrection. A wiser person would point out that the regimes lasted as long as they did, and tyrannized their people as hard as they did because the populace *wasnt* armed.
It took a *lot* for an unarmed populace to muster the collective courage to take to the streets and stay there.
The Reds massacred and imprisoned millions for decades after disarming the populace. If the Russians had been a bit wiser, they would never have bought the promises of the Bolsheviks, and turned on them as soon as the disarmament started. Countless millions would likely still be alive today, had the Russians simply been a bit more obstinate about never giving up their weapons.
I have and most of them are IEDs and most of these (e.g. directed charges) requires very specialized know-how and materials that would not be available to insurgents without outside assistance.
Quite a few are, but you are mistaken about the outside assistance. The fact that some outsiders assist does not equate into outside assistance being required. Most of Afghanistan that is not a warlords territory, the Capital, or close to a major US military base is still under Taliban control. /shrug
I have repeatedly asked a very simple question and nobody on that list raised a single objection to anything that was said.
Fiscal conservatism? Forget it, we going to spend spend spend on guards, guns and more security theater. Because we can armed guard everything, all the time.
Small government? Forget it, we going to turn school into prison colonies and stick armed big brother at the every corner, for the children.
Taking responsibility for your own actions? No way! Licensing, insuring and securing your own weapons is against the Flag, Freedom, and Constitution and you non-gun owning public is there to pay to clean up the mess every time.
You seem to think small government means not spending money, once again your ideas are small. The difference of small and big government is the amount of liberty that is taken away from the state and individual, not by how much they spend. The simple fact that you don't believe in the Constitution makes most of your arguments big government/Progressive.
Just because no one answers your question doesn't mean they support of don't support it. Its just your progressive biased that makes your tell lies to prove your point. You would make a good pet for your leaders. Like your leaders, if you keep telling a lie then one day it becomes true in your mind.
Taking responsibility for your own actions? No way! Licensing, insuring and securing your own weapons is against the Flag, Freedom, and Constitution and you non-gun owning public is there to pay to clean up the mess every time.
We have already seen what happens when people are required to hold govt licenses.
Since Newton massacre. Chapel Hill ISD in Mt. Pleasant, Texas where my kids go to school has been armed. All three prinpals from the elementry to highschool walk around with a 9m on thier person. Every door is locked. A new alarm system has been installed, if something happens then an alarm will sound, three quick beeps, then a long one, followed by the same pattern. Each classroom has installed a metalplate on the inside of the door, along with a deadbolt that can only be accessed inside the class room. Also the police force has set up a safe word with the teachers, that will be used to let them know that yes it is safe to unlock the doors and get the kids out.
This was done not on the school budget but by local bussinesses paying for it. The steel plates came from US steel, donated, the slide bolt locks, McCoys, donated, alarm system was paritial paid for by donation from local banks, and the installer. For my part, I bought a box of 9m rounds and gave them to the school. The superindent said that over 500 rounds have been given sofar. The conceal and carry teacher in town is giving all teachers a discount for classes.
This is what happens when parents and a community care. When we dont wait for someone else. Local bussinesses stepping in, teachers stepping up, people understand what it takes, and do what needs tobe done.
If this was done by the goverement then it would cost 10x times as much and would be subpar.
5000 years of recorded history, 500 years of gun powder combat, 150 years of repeating firearm technology and not one single instance of juveniles perpetrating a massacre like those that have happened in the last 20 years, until the last two decades. The first ever instance of a juvenile committing a multiple murder with a firearm was in the late 70's, a couple more in the 80's and then it blossomed in the 90's.
What caused the change?
Below are Col Grossman's qualifications. He is also the former professor of psychology at West Point.
LT. COL. DAVE GROSSMAN, U.S. Army (Ret.) Director, Warrior Science Group, www.killology.com: Member, American Board for Certification in Homeland Security; Member, American College of Forensic Examiners Institute
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime.
The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all testified before both houses of congress that 30 years of research and 1,000 studies have shown media violence causes violence in our society.
I don't know if this guy is right, but he sure makes a compelling case.
My personal opinion is a lack of discipline and the break down of the family unit. 2 parents (gender not important) and discipline keep kids on the right track. In my opinion, children today are out of control. I have grown up with all kinds of violence and games to boot and I never got the urge to go shoot children. Even young men coming home from WW2 with heavy PTSD did not do the kind of crap we have seen recently.
I also have to say easy access to fire arms is a factor. I don't think we should take guns away, but I have to say that it should at least me as hard to get a gun as it is to get a drivers license.
My personal opinion is a lack of discipline and the break down of the family unit. 2 parents (gender not important) and discipline keep kids on the right track. In my opinion, children today are out of control. I have grown up with all kinds of violence and games to boot and I never got the urge to go shoot children. Even young men coming home from WW2 with heavy PTSD did not do the kind of crap we have seen recently.
I also have to say easy access to fire arms is a factor. I don't think we should take guns away, but I have to say that it should at least me as hard to get a gun as it is to get a drivers license.
I... agree with just about everything you said here. wtf?
Clearly, Rock n Roll rotting our children's brains.
What happened? Population density increased, plus a whole bunch of weapons are now easily accessible.
Canada, for example, has tons of guns, but mostly hunting rifles and shotguns. Handgun license is possible to get but not likely unless you lead squeaky-clean life. No concealed carry whatsoever. No large-clip or semi-automatic rifles. They also don't have US problem. Why? Because when someone blows the top off, they can't easily get a mass-killing tool and go on a killing spree with it.
What absolutely nuts is having to turn schools, churches and libraries into armed forts and still not realizing we have a problem. With guns.
Sinij, the right to be armed *is* a core principle.
It is *the* most important right, because without armed force willing to protect them - we have no other rights.
People decided not to revolt when the 4th amendment rights were taken away, now we have no 4th amendment rights for example.
The regime has no morals. The regime cares not about you, or me, or anything but power and prestige and money. Gun control is not about, and has never been about creating a better society. Gun control started, back when the NRA supported it - as a measure to disarm Negroes. Yeah, those uppity blacks decided now that they ostensibly had right - that they should exercise them, some groups did so publicly. Well, Jim Crow didnt much care for that and thus the modern gun control movement was borne.
The new proposed gun registration database is a prime example.
Please tell me how registering legal gun owners is a crime deterrent. Perhaps the suicide gunman wont perpetrate a crime, because they are afraid the police might catch them eh? I mean, just imagine if the Sandy Hook shooter had been confronted with a Govt Database. He would have stolen someone elses gun, killed them, then gone on his rampage, then shot himself.
Registering legal gun owners is just a form of intimidation, which will lead to harassment, and ultimately give the goons a good place to start when it comes time to formally disarm the populace.
----------------- As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution:
The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. --------------------------
Registering legal gun owners is just a form of intimidation, which will lead to harassment, and ultimately give the goons a good place to start when it comes time to formally disarm the populace.
Please tell me how registering legal gun owners is a crime deterrent.
The same way registering your car is a deterrent against hit-and-run.
I guess it would make sense if NOBODY ever hit and ran. However people still do it. Also, Driving is a privilege, having a gun is a right. At least that's what that little document called the Constitution says. Your chances of getting killed in a car wreck are FAR greater than getting shot!
Fine, tell you what, forget the school guards idea. Clearly that's a crazy idea, because what we need to do is get rid of armed guards everywhere. Remove the mall cops, theater guards, sporting arena guards, post office guards, bank guards, airport guards, celebrity guards, and elected official guards. Seriously, let's see if we can hash out a plan where this will work. Go.
Don't get upset when your ideas are taken to their logical conclusions, but next time you advocate for the small government, or complain about getting finger-fucked by TSA, remember you were in the camp asking for more of that.
I hope you enjoy taking shoes off on the way to a movie theater.
Canadians still hunt and own guns for self-defense, but don't have US problem with gun violence. Why? Because if you are irresponsible you are in a serious trouble.
I guess if you reject The Constitution, then you will never understand the idea of freedom and god given rights. Your progressive views only allow for what you want not what other have the right to. Your progressive views are based on taking away rights and only allowing the few to have power. You should really read up on what you support.
Don't get upset when your ideas are taken to their logical conclusions, but next time you advocate for the small government, or complain about getting finger-fucked by TSA, remember you were in the camp asking for more of that.
I hope you enjoy taking shoes off on the way to a movie theater.
Why in the hell would small Government want you to take your shoes off t go to a theater? I really don't how you come to that conclusion. All you need to do is get rid of gun free zones. Since you don't have any common sense, gun free zones means jack shit for someone that doesn't care about the law. You might want to write that down, you keep forgetting that.
As far as TSA goes they simply need to do what Israel has been doing. Yes, profiling... if some white guys ran planes into the fucking towers I wouldn't have a problem if they checked me based on whatever suspicion they had. When you have little kids & old people getting groped in the name of security, then something is fucked up with that system. Unless there is a legitimate threat or suspicion from that particular profile. So far it's working pretty good for Israel. People need to stop being sensitive little pussies and suck it up. If they aren't doing anything wrong, then they shouldn't have a problem. The last I checked Old People and little children weren't flying those planes. That's just Ignorance run a muck. There's a huge difference in having measures of security in certain places where you don't get groped in the name of making you safer. That's fucking dumb!
I'm sure you seen the article I posted where two days after the CT school shootings someone shot up a restaurant and a movie theater in Texas. They had a security guard at that theater, that guard also happened to be a sheriffs deputy. That person shot the shooter that went into that theater. Now tell me why in the fuck do you need to take your shoes off if you have a licensed armed guard?
Don't get upset when your ideas are taken to their logical conclusions, but next time you advocate for the small government, or complain about getting finger-fucked by TSA, remember you were in the camp asking for more of that.
I hope you enjoy taking shoes off on the way to a movie theater.
Dude? Did you not realize that what I was doing was showing you what your views would lead to when "taken to their logical conclusions?"
I'm not quite sure how you draw links between armed guards and the extreme rights violations that occur at TSA-run airport security. Don't know about the rest of the guys around here, but I'm not a fan of TSA at all. There's a big difference between having a presence of threat and stopping people to strip-search them. When was the last time mall security stopped you and made you take off your shoes?
Registering legal gun owners is just a form of intimidation, which will lead to harassment, and ultimately give the goons a good place to start when it comes time to formally disarm the populace.
Funny, I have already posted links of radical "news" orgs posting interactive maps for gun owners. And you have the temerity to use a "foil" ?
I must say you have one of the highest degrees of intellectual dishonesty of anyone I have ever seen.
Please tell me how registering legal gun owners is a crime deterrent.
The same way registering your car is a deterrent against hit-and-run.
Actually legally sold/imported guns can be easily traced already via ballistics. Instead of a master goonsquad database, it requires law enforcement to get subpoenas, track point of sale and subpoena sales records at the shop level. Do some detective work.
If you use guns from the general legal market to commit a crime, they will find you.
You are showing your commitment to your religion, and your disregard of science again.
Please tell me how registering legal gun owners is a crime deterrent.
The same way registering your car is a deterrent against hit-and-run.
Actually legally sold/imported guns can be easily traced already via ballistics. Instead of a master goonsquad database, it requires law enforcement to get subpoenas, track point of sale and subpoena sales records at the shop level. Do some detective work.
If you use guns from the general legal market to commit a crime, they will find you.
You are showing your commitment to your religion, and your disregard of science again.
Not quite. Ballistics can tell you if any given gun matches the bullet that was fired. There is no ability to look at the bullet and determine what gun it was fired from if you don't already have the weapon.
I would think the leftists would be all over this - why arent people required to get a govt license to buy a hammer or crowbar?
The same reason torrent programs are not illegal even when most of the people use them to break copyright laws - there are legitimate purposes for these tools.
Guns, specifically the kind that we are discussing, have no legitimate purpose. There are no circumstances where you need to have one unless you want to have an ability to go on a mass killing spree. There are only two types of gun owners - ones that went on a killing spree, and ones that are still contemplating it.
The population of concealed-carry permit holders in the U.S. now exceeds 9 million, and this group is responsible for very little crime -- they commit crime at a rate lower than the general population, and lower than police officers, and they certainly, as a rule, don't open fire on anyone who looks threatening. They are not the problem, and concealed-carry generally is not the problem.
On Sunday morning, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, told the world that armed guards stopped school shootings in Israel. Israel begs to differ. "We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism," Palmor told the New York Daily News. "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years."
The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides with guns among advanced countries. But, again, those are statistics and not demonstrative of a causal relationship.
But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”
Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”
Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states.
Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns.
Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings.
A majority of the killers were mentally ill—and many displayed signs of it before setting out to kill.
The same reason torrent programs are not illegal even when most of the people use them to break copyright laws - there are legitimate purposes for these tools.
Guns, specifically the kind that we are discussing, have no legitimate purpose. There are no circumstances where you need to have one unless you want to have an ability to go on a mass killing spree. There are only two types of gun owners - ones that went on a killing spree, and ones that are still contemplating it.
Please tell me you're joking. That's just about the most offensive bit of drivel of yours that I've read so far. I happen to own one of those "scary weapons" that you people are so afraid of and I assure you that I have never once contemplated using it for anything illegal. I own it for one reason: To defend my property and my life and the lives of the people I live with. That's a pretty fucking legitimate purpose. If you want to live in shiny happy people land and hope noone tries to take your life or the things you own, that's fine. Best of luck to you. But don't dare try to demean me because I can see reality and choose to be prepared for the worst.
Just to make clear, because I know one of you will try it, I am not talking about low caliber handguns or anything that is primarily used for hunting.
Because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. The round (that's the bullet with casing and load of powder) used in an AR-15 is the iddy bitty tiny one on the far left, everything else in this picture is used for hunting. As a reminder from physics, force is equal to mass times acceleration. Oh, just as an aside, the numbers below the rounds are the diameter of the bullet, so you can see that they get bigger (and more massive) as you move from left to right. You might also notice that the cartridge also gets bigger. That's because they have progressively more gun powder in the cartridge.
To be clear, what I'm showing you is that the AR-15 round is the one of the lowest caliber rifles you can buy.
Guns, specifically the kind that we are discussing, have no legitimate purpose. There are no circumstances where you need to have one unless you want to have an ability to go on a mass killing spree.
You still don't get it, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It's about having rights to protect ourselves from others, Including our Government if need be.
Quote:
There are only two types of gun owners - ones that went on a killing spree, and ones that are still contemplating it.
This is actually pretty funny, because this proof I have seem someone spew some of the most ridiculous bullshit I've ever read.
More than three weeks after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, annoyed NRA president Wayne LaPierre told reporters Monday that while he understands the seriousness of the tragedy, he had only assumed the senseless murder of 20 first-graders and six educators by a mentally unstable gunman would have blown over by now.
The fact that Sini gets his news from The Onion should tell you everything you need to know about his deranged mind.
Originally Posted By: The Onion
Look, I get it: A bunch of kids died, and it’s really fucking sad or whatnot, and blah blah blah, but it’s not the end of the world here, people—the beat goes on,
They cannot even manage to make up a "quote" that sounds remotely like something LaPierre would say.
Do you own AR-15 or any similar large-clip semi-auto rifle?
I don't own any weapons that utilize a "clip," nor have I ever seen an AR-15 that does.
It is worth mentioning, since what Sini says we should ban are high capacity magazines and scary looking guns, that until after WWII the the standard round capacity for soldiers was 5-10 rounds, their rifle looked much like a modern hunting rifle and they managed to kill lots and lots of people. Amazing huh? They must have been super human to be able to pull that off.
Also, I didn't look to see if this is still the case, but as of a couple of years ago the M-1 Garand was still the most widely used military rifle in the world. Oh, it looks like this: Scary huh?
More than three weeks after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, annoyed NRA president Wayne LaPierre told reporters Monday that while he understands the seriousness of the tragedy, he had only assumed the senseless murder of 20 first-graders and six educators by a mentally unstable gunman would have blown over by now.
Really you're quoting from "THE ONION"? LMAO I hope you realize the Onion is like a hoax news site.
Really? The Onion? You really should read from these sites are you posting. lol
Remember that story about the man that went to a school with a gun? Yeah I'm sure you never heard about it, because the man with the gun was the only one that got shot.
So a co-worker was telling me about this video that came from the Mexican Drug Cartel. It showed two men with their hands bound. After seeing the video, I can tell you getting shot up would be a lot better than what those two suffered.
One guy was decapitated by means of a chainsaw, the other had his head cutoff with a large knife. To think our Government allowed sending guns to those cartels that do such a thing really leaves a bad taste. For those that want guns to be taken away, You can go fuck yourselves. Because having shit like I seen just across our southern border isn't making me all warm and fuzzy inside. I'm living as close to that shitty border as I'm getting.
Do you think our gun culture is what preventing Mexican drug cartels from terrorizing large parts of US population?
I used to live in Texas driving distance away from the border, and I can tell you that there were areas on our side that were no-go. Even police wouldn't respond to 911s from there.
Do you think our gun culture is what preventing Mexican drug cartels from terrorizing large parts of US population?
I used to live in Texas driving distance away from the border, and I can tell you that there were areas on our side that were no-go. Even police wouldn't respond to 911s from there.
I'm sure us having gun right's isn't scaring the cartels to much. At least we have the 2nd amendment where we have the rights to own a gun so we can protect ourselves. I prefer that rather than rolling over and getting killed.
I personally think the fact that we don't have Mexican Cartel problem has nothing to do with 2nd and everything to do with strong government and rule of the law.
No you fool, it's because they make a shit load more money off of selling drugs to us while we're weak and rich than they would if they came across the border and started trying to strong-arm people.
I generalized. There is still enough money in the country for them to be able to sell their wares unabated. And yes, we are weak. If we weren't they wouldn't even be able to get their stuff over the border.
I personally think the fact that we don't have Mexican Cartel problem has nothing to do with 2nd and everything to do with strong government and rule of the law.
The same strong government and rule of law that illegally sent guns across the border to Mexican Cartels and resulted in numerous deaths including members of our own police force.
There are only two types of gun owners - ones that went on a killing spree, and ones that are still contemplating it.
You should remove yourself from this discussion after saying something like that. Someone with such extreme views on gun control in my opinion have nothing to offer in a debate about gun control. This includes extremist on both sides of the fence.
I am in favor of some changes to our current laws on firearms. I think a few changes could fix a lot of the problems for both sides of this arguement.
I think anyone purchasing a firearm from now on should be required to take a safety course on firearms and qualify for their weapons. I have taken countless safety courses and advanced firearm courses in my time so I know the true benefit of such courses. Most responsible gun owners would be more than happy to teach people and help them through such a process.
If you want to own a firearm then you should want to know how to operate such a tool. If someone wants a semi automatic rifle then we should properly train them on the use of such a tool and how to safely operate it.
I have spent most of my life around firearms and know for a fact that not everyone should own one.I have had people point guns at me more times than I can remember and do completely unsafe things with their firearm because they were never taught how to safely use one.
Also people should be required to document firearm sales or go through a FFL dealer to sell their firearms to another person. I know for a fact a lot of felons and people who should not own firearms aquire them this way. I have seen it plenty of times in gun show parking lots and firmly believe such sales should require basic background checks. What is the purpose of a FFL dealer if such a loophole exist.
Our country should start educating themselves and others before they start outlawing firearms and demonizing responsible citizens. Sadly most of the people who are against firearms dont know a damn thing about them.
I have spent most of my life around firearms and know for a fact that not everyone should own one.I have had people point guns at me more times than I can remember and do completely unsafe things with their firearm because they were never taught how to safely use one.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"Don't get upset when your ideas are taken to their logical conclusions, but next time you advocate for the small government, or complain about getting finger-fucked by TSA, remember you were in the camp asking for more of that."
The TSA was born of the last knee-jerk legislation that also brought us the brilliance known as the Patriot Act. Proof positive that quick fix legislation based on emotional response is an overall bad idea.
"There are no circumstances where you need to have one unless you want to have an ability to go on a mass killing spree."
There exists no Facepalm big enough to cover that statement.
Actually, what I NEED to do is quit reading this thread. Because, obviously, this thread exists solely for the NEEDS of some folks to just annoy the hell out of the rest. . . :|
Cartels power is certainly a result of disarmed Mexicans, the populace there is at the total mercy of their govt or any armed faction. If they arm themselves and defend themselves, the govt attacks them. If they do not, cartels or corrupt govt attacks them. It is a lose-lose no matter how you slice it.
There have been plenty of armed groups who used to terrorize the USA out in the badlands in the history of the country. Typically they were resisted and put an end to by local law enforcement calling up a militia to deal with them. Known most often as a "posse". Even where this did not put a direct end to a criminal or corrupt enterprise - the threat was always there, which attenuated large scale criminal behavior. The knowledge that committing an atrocity would lead to a large portion of the local population grabbing their rifles and coming for you was in fact the only real deterrent in many areas for many generations.
Of course thats not the whole story, as the US FedGov has extensive contacts and deals with various cartels - in addition to infiltration by undercover agents. Utilizing at times both carrot and stick, the FedGov does play a large role in keeping cartel violence mostly out of the USA - at least on a large scale.
Still, if the good guys in Mexico were allowed their natural right to arm themselves the situation would be much different. Today the impetus behind the rampant criminality is drugs... but it could be anything. The fact that a disarmed population is nothing but prey to whichever armed gang decides to victimize it, whether those armed gangs wear badges or balaclavas, will never change.
I think governments focus on banning firearms for reasons other than preventing violence within their population. History will show you why governments feel the need to disarm their citizens.
Trust me, it isnt because they are worried little Timmy might get shot in school. Consider little Timmy has about the same chance of getting hit my lightning as he does being killed in a school massacre.
I think there are some common sense things we can do in America to curb gun violence but none of them involve the word "ban". All they have done with this talk about banning things is caused a massive influx of gun sales caused by fear.
Compare the number of children killed by overdosing on legal drugs to that of school shootings. You may wonder why we are not trying ban some of the pharmaceutical drugs that are so over prescribed and resulting in these deaths. I guess you can’t defend yourself by throwing a pill bottle so the government turns a blind eye.
When was the last time you heard someone say they trusted the American government or had faith in them making decisions with our best interest in mind? Why would we let them ban the purchase of certain types of firearms? The whole purpose of that right is to defend yourself from them.
The modern version of a musket is the semi automatic rifle. Shove that ole *when they made the 2nd amendment all they had were muskets* arguement up your ass. All the government had then were muskets too. If they had only gave us the rights to bronze swords and shields while they had muskets then that might be a valid point.
The modern version of a musket is the semi automatic rifle. All the government had then were muskets too. If they had only gave us the rights to bronze swords and shields while they had muskets then that might be a valid point.
Would you then support private ownership of predator drones, fighter jets or tactical ballistic missiles?
The modern version of a musket is the semi automatic rifle. All the government had then were muskets too. If they had only gave us the rights to bronze swords and shields while they had muskets then that might be a valid point.
Would you then support private ownership of predator drones, fighter jets or tactical ballistic missiles?
Absolutely not...Lets not try to play cat and mouse either. You knew the answer to that question before you even asked it.
So let me ask you Sini. What new changes would you like to see happen to curb gun violence in America? This is not a trick question and I have no intention of belittling your opinion if I don't agree with it.
Actually it depends on what you want to consider private ownership. If you are talking about local govt / municipalities owning heavier weapons then my answer is yes. Even in the colonial days, the general populace had small arms - but local authorities which were often converted into militia at need had heavier weapons. The British were marching to confiscate the heavier weapons when the local militias at Concord and Lexington impeded them to buy time for the cache to be moved to safety.
NYC is something of a modern example of this. NYC actually has quite a large stock of heavy weapons including anti aircraft missiles, armored vehicles, etc. Of course NYC is currently led by a fascist, who only wants people under his own authority to be armed and no one else. But many other cities and some Sheriffs actually have some sort of heavy weapons.
History has also shown that a populace with small arms, can in turn use small arms to acquire heavier weapons at need. So the general public carrying small arms during peacetime , with local authorities having the capability to stock heavier weapons is a decent paradigm that does not deny the natural right of humans to arm themselves but also does not encourage everyone to own a personal anti-tank or Stinger missile.
Gun nut equivalent to Amish movement. In 50-80 years they will get too inbred to hold a gun.
I don't think they mean to walk in and lock the doors, no one in or out type of community like the movie The Village. I am sure they have to leave to do business outside the walls. Communities like this seem like a good idea at first, and you would have to be an extremist to want to live in a place like this, but the limited mindset would get old after awhile.
We register cars and pay highway taxes via registration stickers and gas surtax. I think it is time to register guns and pay ammunition taxes.
As a gun owner, why do you expect others to pay for your harmful and socially expensive hobby?
Cars are a not a right. Guns and ammunition are taxed.
Gun owners don't expect others to pay for their hobby, they pay for it themselves.
You think its a harmful and "socially expensive" (not even sure what that means). If you show me how the guns in my house are harmful to the general public I may consider your argument 1% reasonable.
We register cars and pay highway taxes via registration stickers and gas surtax. I think it is time to register guns and pay ammunition taxes.
As a gun owner, why do you expect others to pay for your harmful and socially expensive hobby?
Gun owners don't expect others to pay for their hobby, they pay for it themselves.
Not according to the Forbes article. Basic argument is that gun violence costs US taxpayers ~500$/year regardless if they own any guns or not. I think it is only fair that these costs be extracted only from gun-owning population.
Quote:
If you show me how the guns in my house are harmful to the general public I may consider your argument 1% reasonable.
Average gun owner is more likely to cause self-inflicted injury that injure an intruder. So you accidentally shooting yourself in the foot may result in taxpayer costs. These costs skyrocket when you consider taking guns out of your house.
We register cars and pay highway taxes via registration stickers and gas surtax.
How much of that money is spent on healthcare costs for vehicle related injuries?
Vehicles are net gain for the economy even outside of manufacturing-sales aspect - transportation of good, people is undeniable gain. Our way of living will all but collapse if not for vehicles.
The same cannot be said for guns - outside of manufacture and sales they do not produce any meaningful economical input. Hunting for food being the only gun application that interfaces with economy and is negligible.
Well, you just said guns are bad so we should get rid of them. By your definition of good and bad, a $500 cost per taxpayer would be a negative outcome, making guns bad. Which is it?
You know this is a faulty argument, why do you even try it? Let me turn it around on you - you think guns are good, so lets have the government give everyone who doesn't own a gun a 500$ to compensate for those that do.
What I actually said:
Quote:
outside of manufacture and sales they do not produce any meaningful economical input.
Guns are nether good or bad, they are tools. What I said is that gun ownership is a net economical loss.
There are a few things wrong with using this as a justification for the religion of 2nd Amendment suppression.
First and most glaringly obvious: "PIRE includes both homicides and suicides in its fatality estimates, a total of more than 30,000. In 2010, PIRE figures show there were 11,078 deaths caused by guns and 19,382 suicides. Suicides carried greater financial consequences."
So for this line of thinking to play out, you have to make an assumption that the vast majority of suicides via firearm only killed themselves because they could do it with a gun. Which is obviously a nonstarter. So first thing that needs doing is reducing the claimed figure by approx 2/3
Secondly, according to the FBI data in 2010 there were 12996 homicides - 8775 of which were caused by firearms.
So right there the PIRE report credibility went out the window.
Also, if you look - ~75% victims were male and 50% were black. Combined with other available mapping/demographic data, it is quickly clear that the murder rate is far higher in "gun-free" zones in urban areas that are plagued with organized crime that suffer the bulk of homicides. Perhaps instead of looking at weapons, perhaps we should look at crime?
Furthermore, the study nor any legit study concludes that guns are the source of crime. Therefore punishing law abiding owners in manners that would not preclude criminal activity is immoral. Collective punishment is simply wrong. Right minded people refuse to be held accountable for the actions of others. Leftists may love collective punishment, and forcibly arranging society to cater to the lowest common denominator but people with a grasp on ethics reject that.
Furthermore, no comparison is made between crimes using guns and other crimes.
There are also several other issues I could take with this "report" , and I highly suspect several wways I could further eviscerate its credibility if I spent the time to dig a little deeper.
The bottom line, is I find it sad that elements at Forbes are conforming to the propaganda campaign currently being aimed at the 2dn Amendment. The same propaganda machine I will note, that let us into needless wars and has led us into subsidizing the corrupt crony financial sector.
The Statist shills will have to try a lot harder to find a legitimate reason to suppress the natural rights of US Citizens.
He's attempting to make the case that all the gun banning talk is a product of the NRA and gun manufacturers who are making money from the ramp up of the sale of firearms.
Obviously he's right because either Joe Biden or Barrack Obama are on the TV every single day talking about how to eliminate the threat of "assault weapons" to our children, and everyone knows they are shills for the NRA and Big Gun...
I am still not sure what Sini would like to see done to curb gun violence. I politely asked and never got an answer.
I clearly stated what changes I would be willing to accept. So can I get a "no bullshit" answer on what you honestly think would help out this situation?
I actually want to know what your view from the other side of this arguement is. If you want to send this in a private message so it isnt attacked then I am fine with that too.
Where is the money trail in this? Who profits from it?
Most government do not demonize gun owners or control firearms for profit. If they wanted money they will just print some.
Most governments do control firearms. US has by far most lax gun laws in the world and can proudly show by far most violent gun deaths in a civilized world. You have to look at places with a raging civil wars to find more gun deaths than US.
So can I get a "no bullshit" answer on what you honestly think would help out this situation?
I stated it number of times, but here it is one more time:
1. Comprehensive database of all legal gun owners - just like cars every gun has to be registered. Just like with your tax returns, this database doesn't have to be public. Comprehensive database of all manufactured guns and all guns in the dealership - this should include ballistics but only for new guns. 2. Mandatory insurance for all gun ownership covering any and all public and third-party costs associated with gun use. If you accidentally discharge your gun into the ceiling and cops have to check up on you - your insurance will get a bill. This will create financial pressures on owners to secure and safely operate their guns and on gun manufacturers to improve weapon safety. If your gun is stolen - you still on the hook for up to N (~5ish) years for any crime. 3. Mandatory gun operator license that has to be renewed - safety course, criminal background check, and medical condition exclusion list. No license, no legal guns. 4. Any transaction, person to person, gun show or dealer, has to be registered with both parties demonstrating license and proof of coverage and registering with #1. 5. New government service that allows citizens dispose of the unwanted guns free of charge. (many states already have this) 6. All gun insurance includes % contribution to victim's fund, if gun is past stature of limitation you can recoup costs from here. Government initializes this fund with initial registration fee imposed all new and existing firearms.
Last but not least - if a crime committed with your gun, you are automatically considered an accessory, unless you can demonstrate that you had not way to notify police of a theft and/or was unaware of it (e.g. house got broken into while on vacation).
With this in place - I wouldn't even oppose private ownership of machine guns, that is if you can afford to pay insurance premium and have a gun operator license.
Overall - if I walk on the street and get hit and mangled by the car, I have insurance and owner to go after for damages. If I get shot by a gun, then I am SOL. This should change.
1. Agreed 2. Disagree, You shouldnt have to pay to insure your right to bear arms. Also I don't want someone's Grandpa getting arrested because some thug stole his gun. 3. Agreed 4. Agreed 5. Agreed 6. Disagree, Refer to #2.
Keep in mind I own a lot of these *scary* firearms, have attended numerous firearm training/safety courses, a CHL holder and have competed in shooting competitions for several years. I can probably out perform most police and military personal in shooting and safety. I say this because I shoot along side a lot of them at the range and in competitions.
So most people would label me a gun nut and apply a lot of negative stereotypes to me. I know for a fact that most of the people in my community of gun owners are not opposed to some changes. They are some of the most responsible, safe and patriotic people I know.
The Solution = Responsibility and Accountability
I see the result of lax gun laws on a first hand basis. I see people come out with small arsenals of weapons and have no freaking clue what they are doing with them. They are unsafe, a danger to me and a walking accident waiting to happen. That is why I firmly believe in educating gun owners on safety and how to operate their firearms.
My opinions do not come from some political forum or mass media news channel. I grew up in Texas surrounded by guns and have used them since I was a little kid.
I think educating gun owners prior to purchase and holding them accountable is a excellent solution.
Most governments do control firearms. US has by far most lax gun laws in the world and can proudly show by far most violent gun deaths in a civilized world. You have to look at places with a raging civil wars to find more gun deaths than US.
Bad facts are bad The US isn't the worst by a very long shot guy, get your shit right.
"this should include ballistics but only for new guns."
Pointless. Easy to modify. Contrary to what CSI likes to portray, matching a round to a specific gun is nigh impossible. Change or modify the barrel, extractor or firing pin and the ballistics DB becomes moot.
Mandatory insurance for all gun ownership ? lol no
I'll agree to it when you get special insurance for owning exotic cars, alcohol, tobacco or fast-food purchases. After all, don't want everyone else paying for any potential health issues that may arise due to their use . . .
"If your gun is stolen - you still on the hook for up to N (~5ish) years for any crime"
LOL. Really ? Someone steals your car and mows down a dozen folks while running from the police you still think this is a good idea ? -facepalm-
"Mandatory gun operator license that has to be renewed"
It's called a CHL in most States. In addition, when you actually purchase a firearm you have to answer a set of potentially disqualifying questions. Answer yes to any of them and your purchase will be denied. These include mental health questions as well as potential criminal history. ( both pending and historical )
"Last but not least - if a crime committed with your gun, you are automatically considered an accessory"
It would be easier if you just locked up everyone. If I break into your home and download gobs and gobs of vegetable porn ( hot corn on corn action ! ) should you be charged with a crime for failing to prevent me from breaking into your house ? Maybe you left the garage open ? Or failed to lock a window ? See how slippery this slope gets ?
"With this in place - I wouldn't even oppose private ownership of machine guns, that is if you can afford to pay insurance premium and have a gun operator license."
So, with all of that in place, Meet Joe.
Joe is a perfect citizen. No criminal history, no mental illness.
Joe goes and buys a scary gun. He registers it, keeps it in a safe, pays his new insurance premiums, and keeps his new license up to date like he is supposed to.
Joe takes his firearm to the range and enjoys it for many years.
Then, one day, Joe is let go from his job. Maybe Joe has some marital issues as well and his wife leaves him with the kids due to his inability to find a new job. Joe starts drinking.
Joe gets a little too hammered and decides his life, as he knows it, is over. He pulls the weapon from the safe, drives down to his former employers office and opens fire, killing a dozen before police can bring him down in a hail of gunfire. ( The irony of relying on men with guns to fix this notwithstanding )
At no point did any of the "new" rules or regulations do a damn thing to stop this event from happening. All you did was add layers of bureaucracy to the system and, in the end, the result was the same.
The great-big-point being:
RULES only work for folks who are willing to abide by them. Once you cross that line and decide you are NOT, the entire system implodes and becomes a waste of time.
2. Disagree, You shouldnt have to pay to insure your right to bear arms. Also I don't want someone's Grandpa getting arrested because some thug stole his gun.
Why not? Grandpa should go into PYITA prison if he is too senile to secure his guns and too senile to report them stolen. They don't let senile seniors drive cars, why guns should be any different?
You don't pay to insure your right to bear arms, you pay to ensure your potential misuse of this right.
Most governments do control firearms. US has by far most lax gun laws in the world and can proudly show by far most violent gun deaths in a civilized world. You have to look at places with a raging civil wars to find more gun deaths than US.
Bad facts are bad The US isn't the worst by a very long shot guy, get your shit right.
Yes, because we should be on the list next to countries like:
El Salvador Jamaica Honduras Guatemala Swaziland Colombia
On a positive note, I don't think any of the countries you mentioned are in danger of imploding economically. So they're actually better off than we are atm :D
2. Disagree, You shouldnt have to pay to insure your right to bear arms. Also I don't want someone's Grandpa getting arrested because some thug stole his gun.
Why not? Grandpa should go into PYITA prison if he is too senile to secure his guns and too senile to report them stolen. They don't let senile seniors drive cars, why guns should be any different?
You don't pay to insure your right to bear arms, you pay to ensure your potential misuse of this right.
It goes a lot further than Grandpa getting locked up for leaving his guns in the closet. Shits happens...Things that are properly locked up get stolen everyday. There are already enough criminally negligent storage of a firearm laws on the book that we dont need to go writing anymore.
I see where you are going with the insurance on firearms situation but I still do not agree with it at all. That opens the door for all kinds of abuse on your 2nd amendement rights. It may sound innocent at the start but will become a tool to abuse your right to bear arms. I could use some extreme examples like having to ensure your freedom of speech since it can get you punched in the nose or killed for saying the wrong thing.
"this should include ballistics but only for new guns." Pointless. Easy to modify. Contrary to what CSI likes to portray, matching a round to a specific gun is nigh impossible. Change or modify the barrel, extractor or firing pin and the ballistics DB becomes moot.
You can also file off serial number. So how would you make it harder? A RFID chip in the gun that would take hard drilling to get out?
I will agree that this is "better than nothing" plan.
Quote:
Mandatory insurance for all gun ownership ? lol no I'll agree to it when you get special insurance for owning exotic cars, alcohol, tobacco or fast-food purchases.
Cars - you already do. Alcohol and tobacco already have sin tax (they are consumable) applied to sales, and lots of second-hand smoking regulation that prevents you from inflicting damage on others. The same on fast-food.
Conceptually - if you manufacture the gun that could only be used to blow your own brains out, it won't have to be insured.
Quote:
"If your gun is stolen - you still on the hook for up to N (~5ish) years for any crime"
LOL. Really ? Someone steals your car and mows down a dozen folks while running from the police you still think this is a good idea ?
If your car is used for any kind of crime you get to answer questions about it, and if it can be shown that you knowingly made the car available, then you are responsible.
The intent of this rule is to make owners responsible for not securing the gun and failing to report it stolen. "On the hook" = your insurance pays and you have to keep making your monthly payments. We are not talking PYITA, not unless you also failed to report it and can be shown negligent in other ways (history of failing to secure or you can be shown to knowingly made available for illegal use).
Quote:
"Mandatory gun operator license that has to be renewed"
It's called a CHL in most States. In addition, when you actually purchase a firearm you have to answer a set of potentially disqualifying questions.
Answer a set of Yes questions? I am amazed you think this is an effective measure to prevent sale of a gun to the wrong kind of people. I am done taking your post seriously.
I see where you are going with the insurance on firearms situation but I still do not agree with it at all. That opens the door for all kinds of abuse on your 2nd amendement rights. It may sound innocent at the start but will become a tool to abuse your right to bear arms. I could use some extreme examples like having to ensure your freedom of speech since it can get you punched in the nose or killed for saying the wrong thing.
I understand your concerns, but how else could you force average clueless Joe to be responsible in ownership, storage of guns and ammunition? How would you make gun industry design safer products? Guns can be made safer, but there is zero incentive to do so and we can't legislate safety into guns. The only feasible way I see it happening - if there is a demand for safer product because it is cheaper to insure. It worked for cars, why not try it with guns?
Have you ever purchased a firearm before Sini? Not a loaded question, I just want to know if you have been through the process before.
I do not currently own any guns, and do not plan to own any in the future. With that said, while I lived in Texas and worked for the military I have been to a numerous shooting ranges, gun shows and had opportunity to buy "tailgate" guns.
When I go hunting (not something I especially enjoy, but I do like my venison) I borrow guns for the occasion. I have not went through a formal civilian gun training/safety process or hold any kind of permits. I had guns and training issued to me in my line of work, but it was never my primary job responsibility to use them.
I see where you are going with the insurance on firearms situation but I still do not agree with it at all. That opens the door for all kinds of abuse on your 2nd amendement rights. It may sound innocent at the start but will become a tool to abuse your right to bear arms. I could use some extreme examples like having to ensure your freedom of speech since it can get you punched in the nose or killed for saying the wrong thing.
I understand your concerns, but how else could you force average clueless Joe to be responsible in ownership, storage of guns and ammunition? How would you make gun industry design safer products? Guns can be made safer, but there is zero incentive to do so and we can't legislate safety into guns. The only feasible way I see it happening - if there is a demand for safer product because it is cheaper to insure. It worked for cars, why not try it with guns?
I don't know if I have the answer for average clueless Joe. Average clueless Joe really pisses me off and makes us all look bad in more areas of life than just firearms. This is the same Joe who crashes his jacked up SUV into a McDonalds while driving drunk and trying to buy a Big Mac with a diet Coke.
My point is you cannot punish responsible people because clueless Joe is a fucking retard who doesnt follow the rules.
The industry already makes a tool that will remain safe 100% of the time if you follow their guidelines. It is rare to find a gun that harmed someone because of a mechanical failure. Even with a mechanical failure, 100% of gun accidents would be prevented by following the 4 rules below.
1.All guns are always loaded. 2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. 3.Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. 4.Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
"Answer a set of Yes questions? I am amazed you think this is an effective measure to prevent sale of a gun to the wrong kind of people. I am done taking your post seriously."
At no point did I state it was effective, I merely pointed out they are there and your answers to them are REQUIRED before you will be allowed to purchase a firearm. You can choose to lie on the form all you wish, but that is, in itself, a crime. Recall my thoughts on what criminals think of rules and laws . . . .
"Alcohol and tobacco already have sin tax (they are consumable) applied to sales"
And has that tax been effective at deterring people from smoking or drinking at all ? Considering about 10k deaths from alcohol related crashes in 2010 ( latest statistics ) I would say probably not. Especially sobering ( no pun intended ) to compare it to 11k deaths via homicide with firearms the same year.
Yet, I see nothing about folks discussing banning certain types of alcohol based on silly criteria . . . .
To top it off, tobacco DWARFS alcohol and firearms deaths COMBINED. According to the CDC, it estimates the number of tobacco related deaths to be in the 440,000 range per year. Secondhand smoke accounting for roughly 50k of that number.
Yet, we're not limiting sales of cigarettes to specific types or amounts are we . . . . :|
Why ?
Because it's death over time. ( DOTS DOTS more DOTS ! ) We're cool with it as long as it isn't a dozen kiddos all at once that invades the news for weeks at a time.
It's also because any attempt to ban cigarettes and alcohol outright would result in the majority of America going into ape-shit poo-flinging mode since those two " sins " as you put it are enjoyed by a much larger audience than firearms are.
Seriously though, if this was about " Protecting America ", guns would be down the list a bit from the other major killers. Since this is not the case, we know it's not about protecting the children from evil shooters. Rather it's about pushing a political agenda some have been trying to get away with for years. They simply waited for the latest tragedy to emerge before trying it again.
If you disagree with this, can you give me any reasonable explanation as to why alcohol and tobacco are still very much legal to use considering how much they contribute to the overall death toll in this country on a yearly basis ?
"A RFID chip in the gun that would take hard drilling to get out?"
Won't work either, I would just hit it with a high voltage pulse to destroy the RFID circuitry.
From what I can tell, you're trying to track the tool used in the commission of the crime instead of focusing on the reason behind the crime itself. I know why, because it's a potentially easier fix than trying to identify and / or fix the mentally unstable committing the crimes to begin with.
Somehow you believe that folks with traceable firearms would refrain from criminal behavior. Which is about as far from the truth as you can possibly get. In each of the massacre scenarios that has brought the whole "omgevilblackassaultguns" into the spotlight, the shooters have died. Either by their own hand or by the police. I assure you they don't CARE that you know it was their gun ( or not ) that was used in the crime. There is no one left to charge with a crime because the criminal(s) is(are) dead. Thus the frustration and the silliness that comes about every time something like this happens.
OMG-DO-SOMETHING !!!!! :D
So it boggles my mind how anyone could possibly think that implementing more tracking rules could do anything to prevent or deter future crimes of a similar nature from happening.
If you disagree with this, can you give me any reasonable explanation as to why alcohol and tobacco are still very much legal to use considering how much they contribute to the overall death toll in this country on a yearly basis ?
Alcohol and tobacco are mostly self-inflicted. Bad moonshine aside, you never hear of alcohol killing multiple people.
Guns fatalities cannot be compared to alcohol and tobacco deaths because volunteer self-inflicted vs. violent attack by others categorical distinction.
The coming of the Third Reich to Austria. Hitler voted in.
Quote: "He did not sound like a monster then... he sounded like an American politician."
First they made everyone register their guns, because they cited crime and safety reasons. Then they said it didnt work, it wasnt enough - so they confiscated them.
Lets run for a moment with your theory that this is a directed campaign to undermine second amendment and disarm population.
Where is the money trail in this? Who profits from it?
On other hand, you can clearly see where NRA is getting paid.
Power. Its pretty simple. Currently the elites of society and Govt can get away with a lot.
Once the people are disarmed, they can get away with anything.
While I doubt that the elections would become totally rigged, and the mass abuses would start tomorrow - 10,15, 20 year timeframe is a completely different story.
Just look how much liberty was lost, how tattered our Constitutional protections have become in just the past decade compared to what they were 15 or even 20 years ago.
If this trend continues, and there is no reason to believe it will not.. in another 2 decades anything we will be in an extremely bad place indeed.
Liberty is hard to gain, and easy to lose. We never gain anything by giving up our liberty. No matter how much the media and govt mouthpieces claim we will gain beforehand.
If the silliness starts and they make owning certain firearms or accessories illegal, I guess I'll just become a criminal. ( Like most of the residents of my State and adjoining states )
I'm not registering or removing said items regardless of anyone elses thoughts on the matter.
If you disagree with this, can you give me any reasonable explanation as to why alcohol and tobacco are still very much legal to use considering how much they contribute to the overall death toll in this country on a yearly basis ?
Alcohol and tobacco are mostly self-inflicted. Bad moonshine aside, you never hear of alcohol killing multiple people.
Guns fatalities cannot be compared to alcohol and tobacco deaths because volunteer self-inflicted vs. violent attack by others categorical distinction.
Just look how much liberty was lost, how tattered our Constitutional protections have become in just the past decade compared to what they were 15 or even 20 years ago.
Yes, coincidentally some guns laws lapsed/were repealed and overall control was lessened. I know this is not an evidence of correlation, but it can be considered as evidence against negative correlation (lack of guns due to control <-> personal freedoms).
I stated and restated my position, if government is set to forcibly and violently oppress us, then simple handguns won't cut it.
Extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens and indefinite detention should be much bigger concern here than unjustified fear that government want to take away your arms to oppress you.
I stated and restated my position, if government is set to forcibly and violently oppress us, then simple handguns won't cut it.
Which is part of the reason all of us are advocating against a society where citizens are only allowed to own handguns...
Originally Posted By: sini
Extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens and indefinite detention should be much bigger concern here than unjustified fear that government want to take away your arms to oppress you.
You don't think that a government that will do this will also attempt to oppress us? Hmm.
In that case, I am on board with you. I always wanted to buy one of these:
I probably can't afford it, but do you think they'd do zero down lease?
Plus your side keep telling me there is no deadliness difference between a handgun and a semi-auto rifle, so what can you do with one that you can't with a handgun?
Quote:
Originally Posted By: sini
Extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens and indefinite detention should be much bigger concern here than unjustified fear that government want to take away your arms to oppress you.
You don't think that a government that will do this will also attempt to oppress us? Hmm.
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
Now wave your tinfoil hat at this all you like, but if history has proven anything to be absolutely true, it is that people that don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
Now, it has become popular for people to point fingers at and demonize the gun control put in place in Nazi Germany, but many people get it badly wrong. Just as egregious though are the people that defend Nazi Germany's gun control laws by saying things like they "actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews." While this statement appears true on the surface, all you have to do is actually read the highlights of the 1938 German Weapons Act and then see what followed to know exactly why many people in the U.S. (should) fear such regulations.
Yes, the 1938 Act did make it easier for German citizens to own firearms, especially long arms, compared to how difficult it was in the 1920's, but it still placed heavy restrictions on the purchase, sale, manufacturing, and ownership of said firearms. As well, it specifically exempted "trusted" party members and government workers. Once the act was revised to disarm the Jews, it became very clear what the goal was. And if you need to know what happened the very next day, go ahead and read about Kristallnacht.
So, if you want to let the murder of these children, which was a tragedy, be the catalyst that sparks the government into sweeping gun regulation or outright bans, so be it. Just beware that you are doing exactly what history warns us never to do.
Sini, every time you make a post you display your complete lack of knowledge concerning firearms. I'm not sure if it's feigned ignorance, willful ignorance, or actual ignorance, but it's getting pretty stale. If you honestly can't think of a use for a rifle that is outside the bounds of what a pistol can do, then I really have nothing else to say to you in the matter.
And lest you forget, the men and women behind the controls of all that high tech military hardware are U.S. citizens, many with families at home, and many who likely share the opinions some of us have expressed here. The simple fact is that the government cannot definitively count on a majority of the military to carry out acts of force on the population, so that argument falls flat on its face. And if you don't think the government is afraid of an armed populace, just have a look at the long list of revolutions and rebellions, many of which were successful, throughout history. 300 million Americans with guns scares the shit out of any political figure with aspirations of total control.
edit: Just so we're clear, I hope you don't believe that all of this vitriol towards the proposed gun legislation is centered only on the fact that it's coming from a Democratic administration. Political party makes no difference when those in power start trying to take away our constitutional rights.
Brutal, just FYI for anyone of my political leaning you'd come across as completely insane. Keep this in mind if you keep in touch with such people IRL.
edit: Just so we're clear, I hope you don't believe that all of this vitriol towards the proposed gun legislation is centered only on the fact that it's coming from a Democratic administration. Political party makes no difference when those in power start trying to take away our constitutional rights.
If you said that proposed measures are not guaranteed to be effective - I'd agree with you. If you pointed at examples and statistics, proposed alternatives - I'd consider your opinions. When you start invoking Holocaust and suggest we put armed guards in every school is when I start offering to buy you a one-way ticket to a nuthouse.
Problem with current round of gun control is that one side mistakenly believes that do nothing is ideal approach and another side does not understand issue well enough to propose effective measures.
Yeah the Government would never do such a thing...
Wolfgang, they are coming for you. You better get your grab bag, pack your 20 guns and ammunition and run. You can winter at your uncle's moonshine shack in the hills.
Yeah the Government would never do such a thing...
Wolfgang, they are coming for you. You better get your grab bag, pack your 20 guns and ammunition and run. You can winter at your uncle's moonshine shack in the hills.
Not sure why this makes Wolfgang a crazy hillbilly either...Read some history when you get a chance. It is full of exactly what he is portraying in that photo. To ignore the fact that just about every government in the history of mankind has turned on their citizens is ignorance on your part.
Sethan, in a hypothetical situation where National Guard is going door to door rounding up people to put them into concentration camps, do you think you'd be able to fight them off with your superb marksmanship and easy access to rifles (as opposed to just handguns and shotguns) ?
Sethan, in a hypothetical situation where National Guard is going door to door rounding up people to put them into concentration camps, do you think you'd be able to fight them off with your superb marksmanship and easy access to rifles (as opposed to just handguns and shotguns) ?
I expect I am walking into a trap by answering this but I will entertain you with a fake scenario. It is kind of troubling to even write about harming our military personal and I have not given it much thought but this is how I imagine it will go down.
I would not be able to fight them off by myself anymore than a single National Guard soldier would fight a large group of me off. Hypothetically though this will not be a small scale situation and they will be rounding up thousands of people like me.
Granted I live in Texas and hypothetically if that does happen then I am 100% confident as a state my fellow citizens would fuck the National Guard up and send them packing. Modern warfare has drastically trended in the favor of those on the defense. Going on the offense against loosely organized guerrilla fighters on the defense is a next to impossible task using even the most modern technology.
If our *real* army and all of its infinite resources cannot beat back a mostly illiterate bunch of poor guerilla fighters in over 10 years then the National Guard doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell coming to Texas and trying to round people up.
You give our government's army way too much credit in this fake scenario. It comes down to motivation really. The young National Guards they will be sending in this made up situation will be very unmotivated to go capture their own citizens. The people they are rounding up will quickly become motivated to the degree of a zealot. Also the south makes up of a large percentage of our military forces so they would be rounding up their own parents, friends and relatives.
Hypothetically after rounding up the first batch of Texans the word would spread rapidly and people would organize and go on the defense within days. The first batch would be easy but the second batch would result in heavy casualties.
So to answer your question.... Yes, I believe my right to bear arms gives me a good chance of defending myself in such a scenario.
Brutal, just FYI for anyone of my political leaning you'd come across as completely insane. Keep this in mind if you keep in touch with such people IRL.
Completely false. I know a LOT of extremely liberal people, and only a handful of them are so far gone that they think the government is completely magnanimous as you seem to.
Originally Posted By: sini
If you said that proposed measures are not guaranteed to be effective - I'd agree with you. If you pointed at examples and statistics, proposed alternatives - I'd consider your opinions. When you start invoking Holocaust and suggest we put armed guards in every school is when I start offering to buy you a one-way ticket to a nuthouse.
Problem with current round of gun control is that one side mistakenly believes that do nothing is ideal approach and another side does not understand issue well enough to propose effective measures.
Not guaranteed to be effective?! So now, what you're telling me is that these new gun laws are guaranteed to reduce gun violence? You've gone completely off the reservation with this one. In what reality can you ever say with a straight face that any piece of legislation is guaranteed to be effective at anything other than advancing the agenda of the politician that proposed it?
edit: I got carried away and submitted too fast!
I have proposed an alternative: Leave the 2nd amendment alone. Yes, that is an alternative, and the only one currently that is constitutional. That word still means something.
And there's absolutely no reason for me or anyone else to not 'invoke the holocaust' as you put it. Walking around with blinders on so you can't see anything that has happened before may work out swell for you, but it hasn't ever helped me or anyone else much.
"Plus your side keep telling me there is no deadliness difference between a handgun and a semi-auto rifle, so what can you do with one that you can't with a handgun?"
Minor differences at SHORT RANGE. At long range, it's a different story. There is a reason Charles Whitman chose a rifle vs a pistol for his event.
For the younger folks who just said " Charles Who ? ", this link is for you:
In reality, in close quarters a rifle is actually a poor choice due to its maneuverability issues in tight spaces, over-penetration hazards and the difficulty in concealing said weapon.
"in a hypothetical situation where National Guard is going door to door rounding up people to put them into concentration camps"
Didja know, during a recent high profile hurricane in Louisiana, Law Enforcement ( local and Federal ) as well as the National Guard were going from house to house rounding up all firearms ( illegally ) from all the citizens because someone ( illegally, but in a position of power ) decided that only Law Enforcement should be armed at that point. :|
To preempt those who want citations, this link is for you:
Oh and for everyone who thinks the might of the US Military cannot possibly be defeated / thwarted by small groups of individuals armed with basic weaponry and home made devices, I merely need point you to the following conflicts:
Problem with current round of gun control is that one side mistakenly believes that do nothing is ideal approach and another side does not understand issue well enough to propose effective measures.
Not guaranteed to be effective?! So now, what you're telling me is that these new gun laws are guaranteed to reduce gun violence?
New gun laws are bad , because they were written badly. Simple enough for you to understand?
Quote:
I have proposed an alternative: Leave the 2nd amendment alone. Yes, that is an alternative, and the only one currently that is constitutional.
So you support gun violence, including madman murdering small children in cold blood?
OK, this is not a fair question to ask. Existing situation is clearly problematic. Gun violence and gun murders is something I want to see reduced. I know that by keeping things as-is it won't happen. Mass shootings will keep happening.
Sethan, your assumption that people around you raise up is based on faulty perfect information assumption. Are you familiar with fog of war concept?
If I suspected government is rounding up people and they are coming for me I'd grab satellite phone (hide it if I have to) plus my laptop (if possible) and go along with it, not grab a gun and try fight other Americans who likely were told a bunch of BS about me and the situation.
If I was evil government trying to take away your shit I'd follow roughly following course of actions:
1. Declare national emergency, probably biological. Plaster news with pictures of guys in hazmat suits and small town somewhere choke-full of gruesome corpses. 2. Declare fake emergency and start forcible evacuation in your area. Anyone resisting declared sleeper agent and/or infected and forcibly detained.
You have your guns in the house. National Guard is on your doorstep telling you to leave everything behind and get into the evacuation bus on the corner. Now tell me how you going to resolve this situation with a gun. Make a last stand?
Granted I live in Texas and hypothetically if that does happen then I am 100% confident as a state my fellow citizens would fuck the National Guard up and send them packing.
In a hypothetical case of all-out welfare, you are probably wrong. Drones, tanks, communication satellites giving tactical real time maps while all you have is a bunch of semi-automatic rifles and dead phones is a no-win situation.
None of this would happen, because as soon as US citizens (who are National Guard) realize they are told to attack and kill fellow US citizens they will tell the chain of command to go pound sand.
Your access or lack of access to a rifle makes ZERO difference in the above scenario. What makes difference is access to information. Instead of worrying about gun restrictions targeted at mitigating social ills you should be much more concerned about access and freedom of communication, government accountability and other things like that.
Guns as a means to resist hostile government is a bogus argument.
Sinij, your opinions - or anyones - on whether armed resistance to tyranny could be effective in this day and age are not relevant to the topic.
Unless you want to say that the First Amendment is also subject to restriction, because sometimes people say irresponsible things that end up badly.
For example, our news media helped spread lies that more or less directly resulted in the deaths of over 100k Iraqis as just one example (though a large one) out of infinite possible examples. I could literally spend a day rattling off examples of irresponsible speech leading to bad things happening just off the top of my head.
Also, in many bad scenarios regarding govt - speaking out does not change anything. You can hold up as many signs as you want, or write as many "letters to the editor" as you want - it really makes no difference if armed thugs bash your skull with a rifle butt, or bomb your house. As has been demonstrated many times the world over (think Tienanmen Square as 1 ex)just exercising "speech" does not necessarily mean squat.
So by your logic, since it might not (even probably wont) help anyway, and is often abused in ways leading to the deaths of many many people, at great cost to society... why not restrict freedom of speech as well? Perhaps if people were restricted in what they said, fewer irresponsible things would be said.. and society would be much better off right?
Unless you want to say that the First Amendment is also subject to restriction, because sometimes people say irresponsible things that end up badly.
There are limitations on 1st Amendment - shouting fire in a crowded theater or lying under oath are couple examples. Personal responsibility, greater good of society and so on are/were considerations when limitations were established. Now why shouldn't there be limitations on 2nd?
I see what you are saying Sini but don't have the time to type out another long scenario. It would be a messed up situation and a lot of bad decisions would be made.
Can't we at least agree that the American people would be better off in all of these evil government scenarios you are thinking up if they have access to a firearm to defend themselves?
Also, in many bad scenarios regarding govt - speaking out does not change anything. You can hold up as many signs as you want, or write as many "letters to the editor" as you want - it really makes no difference if armed thugs bash your skull with a rifle butt, or bomb your house. As has been demonstrated many times the world over (think Tienanmen Square as 1 ex)just exercising "speech" does not necessarily mean squat.
You are confusing and mixing couple issues here. First, I assume "armed thugs" refers to actual thugs (and issue of self-defense against criminals) and not your view of US military. Second, I categorically disagree with your "speaking out does not change anything". Just Tienanmen alone is huge thorn in Chinese totalitarian government side, I am surprised you'd even try this argument when it is so demonstrably false.
Can't we at least agree that the American people would be better off in all of these evil government scenarios you are thinking up if they have access to a firearm to defend themselves?
I don't know, but lean toward "don't think so". From recent events: Egypt was largely peaceful so guns didn't play a big role, Syria isn't and perfect example of armed citizens vs. government going nowhere.
Give an assault rifle to every North Korean, are they any freer or safer?
Give an assault rifle to every North Korean, are they any freer or safer?
Absolutely....
You may want to pick another country. That is a bad example.
Surely you can't believe if NKoreans were all armed they would continue putting up with the NKorean version of Augustus Gloop.
I don't think so. Otherwise solving problematic countries like Iran and N.Kore would be as simple as airlifting and parachuting crates with rifles and ammunition into all urban areas.
Information and ideas are by far stronger. Give every North Korean access to unfiltered internet and regime will fall in a year. Give them all guns - and they just turn them in to authorities.
Information and ideas are by far stronger. Give every North Korean access to unfiltered internet and regime will fall in a year.
I agree with you on the unfiltered internet part.
Sadly no one including ourselves have unfiltered internet anymore. We lost that right a long time ago and a majority of people did not even realize it happened. They pretty much monitor all forms of communication as they please now a days. Slippery slope huh....Funny how when you give them an inch they take a mile.
Unless you want to say that the First Amendment is also subject to restriction, because sometimes people say irresponsible things that end up badly.
There are limitations on 1st Amendment - shouting fire in a crowded theater or lying under oath are couple examples. Personal responsibility, greater good of society and so on are/were considerations when limitations were established. Now why shouldn't there be limitations on 2nd?
There limitations on the second amendment - nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, machine guns, etc.
The prior example + many more that could be cited.. are examples of people utilizing the 1st amendment with impunity. You talk about accountability, but where is the accountability for all the misuse of speech?
On the opposite end, people who do misuse guns are already prosecuted. Seems like speech is a far bigger danger than guns. Certainly many more people have died due to its misuse. Since it doesnt necessarily help vs tyranny (as one ex: Syrians recently found out. ) .... why not put more restrictions and accountability on it?
Can't we at least agree that the American people would be better off in all of these evil government scenarios you are thinking up if they have access to a firearm to defend themselves?
I don't know, but lean toward "don't think so". From recent events: Egypt was largely peaceful so guns didn't play a big role, Syria isn't and perfect example of armed citizens vs. government going nowhere.
Give an assault rifle to every North Korean, are they any freer or safer?
Egypt was a result of the military abandoning the leader. If you look at the current state of affairs there, it is hard to say the change ended up being for the better. Though time will tell. Tunisia was the same way.
If you look at the historical examples, people were disarmed before tyranny went into full effect. From Syria to Jordan to Myanmar to Tibet and etc... there has been plenty of unrest quashed by internal security apparatus.
The key though, is things dont get that bad where people refuse to give up their arms. Mobs in the street can be a danger to a regime if not handled correctly. Especially if it might give the USA or other powers a pretext to insert themselves.
Mass armed uprisings of a large percentage of your populace is extremely dangerous and can rob you of the control needed to continue exerting influence, extracting money, and paying/rewarding your thugs.
There are limitations on 1st Amendment - shouting fire in a crowded theater or lying under oath are couple examples.
But we don't gag each person walking into a theater to prevent them yelling "fire." Nor do we hook folks under oath up to lie detectors. We prosecute them afterwards for the crime. I think that's the biggest rub with most of these massacres. The perpetrator invariably kills himself or is killed by police (or gets declared mentally unfit to stand trial, whatever in the name of the giant spaghetti monster that means) and the public doesn't get to slake their blood lust/righteous indignation by watching the criminal stand trial on TV. So, lacking the means to explain an event they cannot comprehend, the media lashes out at something else they don't understand, the tool used.
New gun laws are bad , because they were written badly. Simple enough for you to understand?
What does this statement have to do with your earlier assertion that gun laws would be guaranteed to be effective?
Originally Posted By: sini
So you support gun violence, including madman murdering small children in cold blood?
OK, this is not a fair question to ask. Existing situation is clearly problematic. Gun violence and gun murders is something I want to see reduced. I know that by keeping things as-is it won't happen. Mass shootings will keep happening.
Your obscene accusations aside, you make an assumption with this line of thought that you have presented no evidence to be true: More gun laws will reduce mass shootings. In case you haven't gotten this message the last 9000 times it was stated, criminals don't give a fuck about laws. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the correct course. Other options should be explored first, and the two that come to mind immediately are 1) doing more to identify and help the mentally unstable and 2) putting more armed police/guards in high security threat areas that we want protected. We already guard our politicians and movie stars, why not our children?
Yeah the Government would never do such a thing...
Wolfgang, they are coming for you. You better get your grab bag, pack your 20 guns and ammunition and run. You can winter at your uncle's moonshine shack in the hills.
Your attempt of humor fails, now go ahead and wash your mouth out with a revolver.
Gun violence and gun murders is something I want to see reduced. I know that by keeping things as-is it won't happen. Mass shootings will keep happening.
Perhaps the right thing to do is just to model the federal laws after the laws in Connecticut, which are some of the most restrictive in the country. After all, those restrictive gun laws worked so well in Newtown...
Holder pushes the court to stop the document release on gun-running scandal.
Oh the hypocrisy is just too much sometimes... They are pushing for gun control over a school shooting that resulted in 20 deaths while trying to cover up their illegal gun walking operation that killed over 300 innocent people.
We already guard our politicians and movie stars, why not our children?
Because it is not practical to arm-guard everything of value from otherwise low probability threats, plus no matter how much effort you put into securing and guarding they have to succeed only once. Even presidents get shot, what chance does average person has?
Any given school is extremely unlikely to suffer a shooting. At the same time, school shootings on a national level are impossible to prevent. The only logical conclusion is to lessen impact of the shootings. Reducing deadliness of guns available to everyone is one approach to meet this goal.
The only logical conclusion I can come up with is to lessen impact of the shootings. Reducing deadliness of guns available to everyone is one approach to meet this goal.
I am not on the bandwagon for armed guards at schools. I think that just sets up your kids mentally to believe being searched, monitored via video cameras and guarded constantly is a normal part of life. Plus it will turn into a TSA for schools within a few years.
If local communities want to have a few more local cops patrolling the school then by all means they know what is best for their community. I would hate to see a federal approach to guarding schools though. I think it will turn into another expensive failure similiar to what happened in our air ports.
Child obesity 99% of school shootings ( that crazy guy did shoot up a military base recently ) gang problems teaches firearm responsibility no more rich vs poor school districts bullying goes away etc, etc
Child obesity 99% of school shootings ( that crazy guy did shoot up a military base recently ) gang problems teaches firearm responsibility no more rich vs poor school districts bullying goes away etc, etc
Worked for a lot of countries but will never work in the US. We have too many lawyers, politicians and entitled youth.
I know a lot of kids would probably have fun and benefit from doing some military type schooling but its those overweight kids that would die from running a mile that you have to worry about.
I would pay good money to see some of the schools in our area go through a basic boot camp though. I bet if it came to a vote you would see a lot of parents from all kinds of school districts opt in to send their kids to a youth boot camp.
it is not practical to arm-guard everything of value from otherwise low probability threats
why then are we putting so much focus on this instead of focusing on something that can have significant impact?
I mentioned low probability, you misunderstood it as low impact. Mass murder of small children is high impact event in my book and I think most of the country agrees with me.
Passive security (like armed guards) against low probability high impact events is hugely expensive and over long enough time frame is not successful.
I think it is successful in terms of prevention, I have to agree on cost though.
More kids have died of the flu this year than mass shootings, effort would be better spent engineering better flu defenses as opposed to any sort of 2nd amendment suppression or armed security.
Simple solution for schools - better doors/locks, pay for qualified staff to get CCC/CCL with ongoing refresher training + a small raise for having one.
Of course then, the crazies would just switch to mowing over kids waiting at a bus stop with a pickup truck or something. Just like better airline "security" leads people to start blowing up bombs in crowded airports instead of on planes. /shrug
Mass murder of small children is high impact event in my book and I think most of the country agrees with me.
Now that you've clarified your position as an emotional reaction rather than a rational logical argument, I think we all better understand where you're coming from.
You forget the :) .. can't even follow your own rules.
He wasn't joking. He reads The Onion daily for news and commentary. What he's doing is avoiding addressing salient objections to his rationale and deflecting. He's very practiced at that. It's his go-to tactic for when he doesn't have a response other than, "na-uh" or "well, well, your mom dresses you funny."
Gun Sales Up, Crime Down... What the Fuck is the problem?
To be fair, most of the spike in gun sales was between November and the end of the year. However, the fact that gun crimes/injuries were down regardless of sales does fly in the face of all of the current arguments for more gun laws.
Among the more far-reaching proposals is a bill by freshman Republican Sen. Nathan Dahm that says the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It calls for prison time for any federal employee who attempts to regulate firearms in Oklahoma.
Yeah I saw that - good example of cherry picking, and elitist paranoia that proles who dont agree with the "party line" might be armed and cause problems.
Also, many arguments in addition to being poorly rooted in *contextual fact are also disingenuous. Ex: Talking about Jews and the 3rd Reich - its not German Jews that are typically being referred to but Austrian and especially Polish Jews. Most notably the Warsaw Ghetto Jews which in fact performed a failed uprising once they were able to obtain some weaponry - of course the weaponry obtained was insufficient and too little too late.
Another major failing of this silly article is the unfounded assumption that future resistance would not have any underlying political or support structure. The author "claims" that such would not be the case in the future and violence would be random, and cites historical examples of inappropriate violence as if making those citations furthers any particular point.
The fact is the Founders were pretty clear in why people had the right to bear arms. There really is not any serious historical debate on the topic, as long as you do not consider silly liberal historical revisionists attempts as serious - which I do not.
I find it interesting that the Atlantic reached *across the Atlantic to Moscow and found an elitist Russian 1%er to launch this broadside on the rights and capabilities of Americans.
Originally Posted By: The Scientologists at The Atlantic
The second pillar has fewer scholarly pretensions, but it employs even more historically dubious arguments. It suggests, for example, that the Holocaust could have been avoided if Germany's miniscule Jewish population had been better armed. It also argues that Ukrainian peasants could have defeated the Stalinist regime, backed by the NKVD and the Red Army, if they had possessed individual firearms. But these counterfactual interpretations of history are wildly speculative -- and downright implausible.
And yet each of these governments found it necessary to round up all of the civilian weaponry before applying the government boot to their neck...
I thought arguments were presented well. I agree that it is by far more likely that couple of you gun nutters watches one too many FOX "breaking news", go completely deranged, and go pillaging and raping those filthy 'lieberals' than actual militia forming to stop the army of a tyrannical government from taking over the country.
Not that any of you would change your minds about this even if founding fathers would personally tell you that not what they meant with 2nd.
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively. • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
This thread would have been so much more politer if all the armed folks had a chance to shoot me, amiright?
It seems that your problem is that you actually believe that people who disagree with you are the scum of the earth and have no business breathing. Also that you assume those that disagree with you spend every waking moment jacked into conservative media sources. Just for the record, I spend an average of 0 hours a week watching or listening to any media source other than reading headlines on google news.
I thought arguments were presented well. I agree that it is by far more likely that couple of you gun nutters watches one too many FOX "breaking news", go completely deranged, and go pillaging and raping those filthy 'lieberals' than actual militia forming to stop the army of a tyrannical government from taking over the country.
Not that any of you would change your minds about this even if founding fathers would personally tell you that not what they meant with 2nd.
Hah! Well you have aptly demonstrated in the past that your analytic abilities are worse than poor, despite your pretensions - so no surprise here. I noted in another thread your claim that you never got pushed into red territory with some amusement, since you tread there frequently. It just manifests itself in a slightly different fashion, but is functionally the same. Kudos I guess for keeping enough presence of mind not to deteriorate into vulgar language.
You are probably right that I would not change my mind if the Founders did contradict me. The thing is - they would not. Have you ever actually independently researched the founding era, and the people involved? Of course you haven't, or else you just take the piss and continue talking out your bunghole hoping noone else actually has. The only reason I even give you enough credit to think you might have, is because you have been honest in the past about your disregard for their abilities and intent.
I will give you a free life hint just because I am feeling charitable: Despite your inference elsewhere that you believe the contrary - debates cannot typically be "won" by "dirty" means. Mostly everyone realizes that you are just behaving badly, because you do not know enough about enough to put up an intellectual fight. /shrug
Please, what intellectual fight? I am not into discussing best way to secede or sharing paranoia about Obama's taking away my guns or government turning into dictatorship and trying to violently oppress me. You are once again confusing participation in your echo chamber with intellectualism.
Everything there is to say about guns was said in this thread. Overwhelming evidence and precedences are against your side, objections you raise are ridiculous and demonstrably wrong. I understand that you see my position in exact same light, but that doesn't make your delusions any less wrong.
There were 8,583 homicides by firearms in 2011, out of 12,664 homicides total, according to the FBI. This means that more than two-thirds of homicides involve a firearm.
How do mass shootings differ from other types of gun violence? * Killers used a semi-automatic gun in 75% of incidents, which is about the same percentage as the 72% in overall gun violence. * Killers used an assault weapon in 40% of incidents. This is much higher than overall assault weapon use in crimes, estimated at less than 2%.
Would fewer guns result in less gun violence? Economist John Lott did extensive work on this question in the late 1990s, culminating in his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime. He studied the effect of right-to-carry laws by examining violent crime rates before and after they were implemented in various states, up until 1992, and concluded that such laws decreased homicides by an average of 8%. Lott's data and methods have been extensively reviewed since then. A massive 2004 report by a 16-member panel of the National Research Council found that there was not enough evidence to say either way whether right-to-carry laws affected violence. In 2010, different researchers re-examined Lott's work, the NRC report, and additional data up through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce crime.
How often are guns used in self-defense? There are no comprehensive records kept of incidents where guns are used in self-defense, so the only way to know is to ask people. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest that a gun is used in self-defense about 60,000 to 120,000 times each year. Several other surveys confirm this estimate. By comparison, each year about a million violent crimes involve guns. This means guns are used to commit a crime about 10 times as often as they are used for self-defense.
Won't criminals kill with other weapons if they don't have guns? In 1968, Franklin Zimring examined cases of knife assaults versus gun assaults in Chicago. The gun attacks were five times more deadly. Moreover, the two sets of attacks were similar in all other dimensions: age, sex, race, whether the victim knew the assailant beforehand, and so forth. A few years later, he repeated his analysis, this time comparing small and large caliber guns. As expected, the victim was much more likely to die from larger caliber guns.
Please, what intellectual fight? I am not into discussing best way to secede or sharing paranoia about Obama's taking away my guns or government turning into dictatorship and trying to violently oppress me. You are once again confusing participation in your echo chamber with intellectualism.
Everything there is to say about guns was said in this thread. Overwhelming evidence and precedences are against your side, objections you raise are ridiculous and demonstrably wrong. I understand that you see my position in exact same light, but that doesn't make your delusions any less wrong.
lol
Your continued demonstration of analytical abilities gives me the giggles. I am glad I am not one of those people who lives entirely in a bubble of self delusions where reality needs to continually filtered , lest some glimmer of insight permeate and damage an ego entirely too wrapped up in a malformed worldview.
*Hint: the only person demonstrably wrong here is you, it is also demonstrable that you lack the knowledge and power to form meaningful conclusions from fact, even where you might cite a fact and rely entirely on straw men , false continuum and sophist non sequitur to maintain a wall of ego. *
I see it is time to go back to mocking you for your irrational position on gun control. I thought article I linked above was interesting, but unsurprisingly you went ahead and just pretended it was never linked.
I see it is time to go back to looking silly by mocking you for your rational position on gun control. I thought article I linked above was interesting, but unsurprisingly I am trolling again because you did not immediately take time to respond to what *I* wanted to talk about.
Well, how silly of me. I forgot about your priorities - ad hominem attack?
Originally Posted By: sini
This thread would have been so much more politer if all the armed folks had a chance to shoot me, amiright?
Hmm. Hypocrisy is ever the domain and livelihood of the modern "Progressive".
Besides, in my case I was not actually attacking you - just pointing out your behavior. If you take that as an attack, perhaps you should consider your behavior.
I am glad to see you are still keen on sticking your head in the sand on this issue. While I find back-and-forth enjoyable, I'd rather have you address the issues I have raised for a change. I am curious to see your mental gymnastics while you are trying to rationalize it away.
Byron David Smith taunted the teen as she lay dying, shooting her again and again, according to a prosecutor who said an audio recording shows Smith went beyond self-defense in the Thanksgiving Day shootings of two cousins trying to burglarize his home.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone that gets injured or killed during the commission of a crime. Had the pair elected NOT to break into this guys house, they would very likely be alive today. Somehow, the anti-gun types always seem to overlook this fact and focus on the "omgheshottehchildren" angle.
That said, he'll likely get justified jail time for it. You can't keep shooting them once they're down unless they continue to pose a threat to you or others. ( Eg, they're still armed and trying to get to you ) He has no defense against it.
Believe it or not, there are RULES the law-abiding types actually have to follow ( unlike their criminal counterparts ) in situations like these.
I am glad to see you are still keen on sticking your head in the sand on this issue. While I find back-and-forth enjoyable, I'd rather have you address the issues I have raised for a change. I am curious to see your mental gymnastics while you are trying to rationalize it away.
Hmm, opposite day or something? Noone told me? As you are well aware I am not the one known for dancing and dodging.
Also, since it has somehow escaped your notice despite being pretty obvious and consistent: I typically decide post response order using 2 metrics. 1) order it was posted in 2) degree of silliness
Answering first your previous posts, then the silliness you quickly posted in response has distracted me from paying much attention to new stuff. I will get around to it when I get around to it.
Sini you can link articles about how often guns are used in crimes all you want. The simple fact of life is that even if there were ZERO guns, people would still kill each other with other things. You could replace those gun statistics with knives, poison, golf clubs, or whatever else and say those things should be regulated. The old saying "Guns don't kill people.." may be pretty trite, but it doesn't make it wrong.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone that gets injured or killed during the commission of a crime.
I incline to agree with you, especially when we can give the benefit of the doubt to homeowner. In this case - we can't audio tapes clearly show that wasn't purely home defense and he went above and beyond steps necessary to defend himself and his house.
So it boils down to this - does someone get a right to murder you just because you are on their property? I'd say no, there has to be a limit to this.
Looks like he was a older man that lived by himself and had his house broken into several times recently. He had probably been dwelling on what he would do next time it happened. They would have hurt the old man if given the chance too. Two meth heads breaking into a home are not going to think twice about kicking some old man around the floor and possibly killing him before stealing everything.
It sounds like he went far beyond the point of *stopping* the threat though. The old guy had probably been dreaming about defending himself for a long time and when it finally happened he couldnt control himself with all that adrenaline flowing. A perfect example would be from A Christmas Story when Ralphie finally snapped and beat the hell out of the school bully.
I would rather the old man be alive and in court for overkill then killed by 2 aggressors. No matter how you spin the scenario they were the aggressors and he just happen to get the drop on them.
They were not just on his property. They busted out his window and entered his home. Those meth heads walked into the trap of an guy pushed to the edge by previous break ins and people violating his home. The old man just snapped and couldnt control himself. Maybe the local dope heads will learn they shouldnt smoke meth and go break into homes. Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly...
I would hate to see them make an example out of this old man and make other citizens second guess their decision to defend their homes in fear of ending up in prison themselves.
He will get punished just like all the other people who defend themselves legally and then illegally go into overkill after the threat has been stopped. He knew he had messed up and that is why he sat on it for so long before calling someone to ask about a lawyer.
So I read your Atlantic article, was more sensible than some. It jumped the shark when it described Obamas initiative as "plausible" though.
--- Quote: "" Here are some approaches that don't seem to work, at least not by themselves, or in the ways they've been tried so far:
Stiffer prison sentences for gun crimes. Gun buy-backs: In a country with one gun per person, getting a few thousand guns off the street in each city may not mean very much. Safe storage laws and public safety campaigns.
We don't really have good enough evidence to evaluate these strategies:
Background checks, such as the Brady Act requires. Bans on specific weapons types, such as the expired 1994 assault weapons ban or the handgun bans in various cities.
These policies do actually seem to reduce gun violence, at least somewhat or in some cases:
More intensive probation strategies: increased contact with police, probation officers and social workers. Changes in policing strategies, such increased patrols in hot spots. Programs featuring cooperation between law enforcement, community leaders, and researchers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods. ""
This is a pretty good summation, its only mistake is that it is known (and common sense) that bans on guns with certain cosmetic features would not impact crime.
Also, with regard to high capacity mags - even if none were available reloading a modern firearm takes a few seconds tops, in the context of a one sided shooting it is illogical to think it makes a material difference.
The summation regarding things known to work is however, correct. In a nutshell: members of a community working to combat crime combined with law enforcement that works with the local individuals as opposed to against them.
Which is why I find it hard not to see ulterior motives in these who want to disarm the populace. It has been well known for a long time, that if you want to combat violent criminal behavior - a civic minded populace with properly functioning law enforcement agency makes it extremely difficult for crime to thrive.
Most gun violence occurs is the poorest areas, where guns are banned , law enforcement is scarce and considers itself at odds with the population and civic thoughts are far from foremost among the locals concerns. Even taking the fact that guns are effectively banned out of the equation, its still a recipe for social disaster.
If you want to reduce crime and violence, including gun violence - especially in the hardest hit areas that account for the bulk of the statistics - the recipe is well known. You clean up the local police depts , kick out the old cronies and good ole boys, put more badges actually on the beat, and reach out to the locals.
The above method has been reasonably if not very successful in pretty much every serious implementation.
As the article notes, mass shootings are extremely rare. Ofc what the big event is differs on year. Last year it was a mass shooting. I remember a few years before that, some old geezer moved down a few dozen people with his car at a farmers market. Which is why I dont think firearm access will ever address the "crazy" problem. Even though the geezeer mentioned wasnt crazy, if guns werent available someone bent on making headline news by causing mass carnage can look to any number of other extremely easy means and methods - from homemade bombs to hijacking a fuel truck at a gas station to simply grabbing a beater car and playing crazy taxi IRL.
Looks like he was a older man that lived by himself and had his house broken into several times recently.
Clearly there is no reason for this man, or anyone for that matter to own guns, the police are there to protect you write reports each time your life is threatened.
"Property, no. Breaking into a home...absolutely."
Donk hit it perfectly.
However, the property part depends on what the individual is doing there. Don't go all commando on the Jehova's Witness folks leaving books on your front porch. However, finding your neighborhood thugs trying to force your back window at 2am is another story completely.
Use a suppressor if you want to be considerate of your neighbors :D
The lesson here is: Don't tresspass with stupid intentions. Especially if you're beligerant about it ( you want to be hostile ), carrying anything that can be used as a weapon, or are there in numbers.
It WILL get you killed.
The official version: ( TEXAS )
§ 9.41 : PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Everyone has the right to own firearms. Granted some limits are put on certain people, felons, mental.... The Feds are the last people who should be putting in laws(if they only enforced the ones on the books new laws would not be needed). Each city in each state has the right to ban guns in city limits. Most of the problems would be solved if the city with problem banned guns, ask New York City they banned them and they now have no gun problems.
Yep, when I lived in Texas I was always extra careful not to go onto anyone's property, even when invited. With laws like these, judging intentions of your dead carcase would be left to fellow gun-nut-friendly jury.
Shooting someone to protect yourself - yes. Shooting someone who is not a threat to you - no. There are some gray areas in between these, but executing someone in cold blood has to be avoided at all costs.
I would rather the old man be alive and in court for overkill then killed by 2 aggressors. No matter how you spin the scenario they were the aggressors and he just happen to get the drop on them.
You are confusing aggressors as perpetrators in the burglary and aggressors as to out to kill him. It wasn't even established that these two teenagers were armed, and from how article presented this story - it was clear that old man had no time to assess the situation, he simply shot to kill from an ambush.
Armed or not, when you are a criminal and breaking into someones home
No argument up to this point.
Quote:
you should expect that if the resident is home you will probably die.
Couple problems with this.
If this is expectation, then as an armed intruder you have an incentive to shoot to kill if surprised by a homeowner. It turns burglaries into burglaries and homicide. This situation puts homeowners in more danger than a situation where homeowner is known to be unarmed.
Fatally shooting someone in your house. We do not execute for burglary even after criminals were convicted by a jury, what is the justification for letting homeowner do this?
How do you establish criminal intent after intruder was shot dead on sight? It could have been confused drunk neighbor or some other unlikely but valid reason.
Here is scenario where I wouldn't have objected:
Two teenagers break into the house, held at a gun point until police arrives. Two teenagers break into the house, shot after giving a verbal warning and warning shot and making threatening moves (anything other than surrendering).
My problems with the scenario from the story:
1. At no point intruders were given a chance to respond - they were simply shot. 2. At no point threat to life was clearly established 3. After clearly disabling any possible threat (by shooting them) home owner continued aggression (repeated shooting to finish off) 4. Police and Ambulance were not called for 24h, denying whatever chance to survive was there
Way I see it: Based on 1-2, couple years in jail for reckless use of firearms. Based on 3-4 second degree murder charges.
As a homeowner, you have no idea what their intentions really are.
Here's a hint: If anyone breaks your window or kicks in your door to gain entry to your home, they're likely not there for a friendly chat.
Once inside and in control, you're at their mercy. Following your logic, you now have to hope they don't do something that will put you or your family on the news later on and into the FBI crime statistics database.
There isn't a day that goes by where the local news here runs yet another story about some home invasion somewhere in the area. Typically anywhere from 2-5 armed men force the door, tie everyone up and take everything. Sometimes they kill the folks inside, sometimes they don't. Hell, sometimes they even like to dress like the police so the homeowner will open the door themselves.
It is not my job to establish criminal intent. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that they are standing in my home via illegal entry tells me they have no problems with breaking any laws to begin with. I'm not about to guess what their next plan of action is. I'm not going to give them the opportunity to put it into play.
It is my job to protect my home and those that live within it.
The safety of myself or my family trumps any rights or considerations for anyone who would illegally enter my home regardless of their intent.
So Daye, would you sit in the dark basement armed to the teeth then repeatedly shoot unarmed teenagers while they are down, then proceed to drag their dying bodies into garage? Is this kind of a situation you can see yourself in?
This is a pretty good summation, its only mistake is that it is known (and common sense) that bans on guns with certain cosmetic features would not impact crime.
I agree with you here, I think limitation on WHAT is not a very effective approach. By far better approach is limiting WHO. I don't think you'd disagree that certain kinds of people who currently have access should not be allowed access to guns. Unfortunately this approach is a political dead-end due to "take away our guns" hysteria.
So question remains - are limitation on clips effective or not? If I had to guess - I'd say marginal at best.
Safe storage laws? I think this is good idea. You keep reading about kids dying to unsecured guns all the time. Why is this even controversial?
Universal background check. Why is this even controversial? This is necessary to enforce existing guns laws, or do you think they shouldn't be enforced?
Quote:
if guns werent available someone bent on making headline news by causing mass carnage can look to any number of other extremely easy means and methods - from homemade bombs to hijacking a fuel truck at a gas station to simply grabbing a beater car and playing crazy taxi IRL.
Are these methods as easy to implement, and more importantly as deadly? Sure, crazies will do crazy things, but when one goes on a stabbing spree in China casualty toll is much lower.
Cars arent quite as available in China. They are also typically smaller. Here in the US, you can wander around a few minutes and find at least one 2-ton SUV with 300HP that is relatively unsecured.
Plus China is a poor example, we have no idea what level of crazy exists there - they keep things hush-hush. Except of course, for the govt-conducted crazy. China is actually the second strongest argument on the planet *for the second amendment, after North Korea.
When it comes to background checks and such, it depends on how its conducted, and who manages it. Plus that and "safe storage" open up all sorts of legal issues that could be used to persecute lawful people.
The country did fine for two centuries without any of this crap, and the guns available had not substantially changed in lethality or capacity for at least one century. (Auto weapons were effectively banned- with some caveats - back in the teens).
If you want to look for what went wrong, look elsewhere than availability of weapons. The whole topic is a red herring.
The country did fine for two centuries without any of this crap, and the guns available had not substantially changed in lethality or capacity for at least one century.
Wrong. Gun murders in the US easily 10x other first-world countries. While everyone else evolved and improved, we are still at 1900-level of gun crime.
How do you establish criminal intent after intruder was shot dead on sight?
They are in your house.
Originally Posted By: sini
I wouldn't kill over 30$ (or $300 or $3000). I would kill over defending myself from the armed muggers.
The problem is, when someone has broken into your home you don't know if they are after your stuff or your life. You have to assume the worst or risk death.
Originally Posted By: sini
Self-defense is one of the few valid applications of a firearm. It is also less frequent that use for crime.
You cannot accurately make that claim as there are vastly fewer legitimate statistics for crime preventative use of a firearm. Many times using a firearm to prevent a crime doesn't even get reported.
Not much difference in sitting in a dark basement or sleeping in a dark bedroom when the event unfolds. Besides, you're working from what the prosecution is claiming happened. I highly doubt the guy sits up every night waiting for someone to break in laying on his living room floor in a ghillie suit :|
Make no mistake, there are at least TWO firearms in my bedroom. Both loaded and ready to go.
Any entry to my home will trigger the alarm. Within 2-3 seconds I will be up, armed and begin room clearing. My other half will stay in the bedroom with instructions to shoot anyone that enters the bedroom other than myself.
Anyone I encounter will likely get shot at least twice with no warning. I don't care if they're obviously armed or not. I don't care what their intentions are.
If a target goes down I will move to the next target and repeat. If the downed target still poses a threat, they will likely be shot again until that threat is gone.
While the police will already be enroute due to the alarm, my other half will be calling them anyway to make sure they announce their presense prior to entering the home. ( for their safety and mine )
I wouldn't kill over 30$ (or $300 or $3000). I would kill over defending myself from the armed muggers.
Self-defense is one of the few valid applications of a firearm. It is also less frequent that use for crime.
Chuckle. So as long as they're not (obviously) armed, they can beat the hell out of you without fear of putting their own life at risk ? How does your theory work when you face off with several of them ? Or when one realizes you can identify them later on ?
You're completely ok with simply handing over everything you worked for to anyone who might use force to take it from you ?
Why yes, here are my keys, wallet and phone. Within you'll find my home address, keys to the house and car and all sorts of private info on me in the phone. Even photos of my family in case you wish to pay them a visit too. I look forward to seeing you or your friends at my home sometime in the near future. Of course that's my debit card in my wallet. Let's drive to the nearest ATM so I can withdraw the max limit for you this evening.
If so, that attitude is what enables today's criminals. I call it the " Take anything you want just don't hurt me " defense. :|
Sinij: I come from a family who is mostly law enforcement. I have been (un)fortunate enough to see just how evil folks can be towards one another for most of my life. As a result, I don't see the world through the same rose colored glasses that you do. You're delusional if you think removing scary looking firearms from the equation will solve or even help the problem of human violence.
We've been killing each other for millennia, most of which without firearms. As a species, we've become pretty damned good at it I think.
Speaking of the War on Drugs: Is there any greater source of “gun violence” in America? “ Most of the nonsuicide gun deaths in this country happen in densely populated, lower-income urban environments, [where] gangs and poverty are the proximate causes of the violence.“ You know, the Drug War Theater, where “addressing the incentives that lead young people in our inner cities to gravitate toward crime—incentives like the ability to gain money and status by trafficking in drugs when few other opportunities are available—would do more to begin to address the gun violence endemic in America than any of the well-intentioned but likely ineffectual ‘gun control’ laws that could be passed.” Liberals all know and talk all the time about the horrors of the War on Drugs. Is there peep one in any of the gun control proposals from liberal politicians or pundits about ending this disastrous crusade, arguably the greatest single source of gun violence in America? Silly me for asking.
Not much difference in sitting in a dark basement or sleeping in a dark bedroom when the event unfolds. Besides, you're working from what the prosecution is claiming happened. I highly doubt the guy sits up every night waiting for someone to break in laying on his living room floor in a ghillie suit :|
Make no mistake, there are at least TWO firearms in my bedroom. Both loaded and ready to go.
Any entry to my home will trigger the alarm. Within 2-3 seconds I will be up, armed and begin room clearing. My other half will stay in the bedroom with instructions to shoot anyone that enters the bedroom other than myself.
Anyone I encounter will likely get shot at least twice with no warning. I don't care if they're obviously armed or not. I don't care what their intentions are.
If a target goes down I will move to the next target and repeat. If the downed target still poses a threat, they will likely be shot again until that threat is gone.
While the police will already be enroute due to the alarm, my other half will be calling them anyway to make sure they announce their presense prior to entering the home. ( for their safety and mine )
Interesting to see your perspective.
I was in the accident outside your house, my wife is bleeding out but my phone is broken. I am very desperate to save her life. I knocked on the door but you were asleep and didn't hear it. I broke into your house to get to the phone and to stop bleeding in my hand. You just shot me on sight.
I can't say that I would never shoot anyone without a warning, I too can be startled, misread the situation and so on... but my intention is to never under any circumstances to shoot anyone without giving them a warning and opportunity to disengage from the situation that I find threatening.
I was genuinely starting to think that there was not a true liberal progressive left in this country, let alone one with two brain cells to rub together.
I have been proven wrong. The author is spot-on, and efficiently separates the signal from the noise in modern US politics.
My apologies for shooting your hypothetical avatar in need, but the safety of MY family trumps all others. Especially within my own home.
A tragic outcome for sure, but it will not change my approach.
As for your links where home defense ended tragically, if I put some effort into it, I'm sure I can scrape up far more examples where the homeowner and / or family members owe their life to my line of thinking.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
— Cesare Beccaria, Essay on Crimes and Punishments, 1764
""The hunt led to two errant shootings in the pre-dawn darkness Thursday.
LAPD officers guarding a target named in the manifesto shot and wounded two women in suburban Torrance who were in a pickup truck delivering newspapers. Investigators said Maggie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were in a Toyota Tundra, similar to Dorner’s Nissan Titan. Carranza had minor hand injuries. Hernandez was hospitalized with a gunshot wound in the back. A lawyer said they had no warning.
Minutes later, Torrance officers responding to a report of gunshots encountered a dark pickup matching the description of Dorner’s, police said. A collision occurred and the officers fired on the pickup. The unidentified driver was not hit and it turned out not to be the suspect vehicle, they said.""
Perhaps instead of focusing on civilians owning weapons, we should be focusing on disarming the police.
I wonder if we will see charges for attempted murder brought against the officers involved in these incidents. I bet not. The State and its progressive allies (which other allies would it have in Cali? ) do like to protect their armed thugs.
I can't help but imagine how Sini's break in plays out.
Wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of windows being broken out. Sini grabs tactical rubber chicken and grandma's wooden spoon from night stand.
Sini "ARE YOU HERE TO HURT ME OR JUST STEAL STUFF?!?!?!?!" Pause........ Intruder "Ugh I just need to use your phone man" Processing........... Sini "oh...you just need to use the phone? It is in the kitchen" Intruder "Thanks man" After Phone Call.... Sini and Intruder sit down for a nice glass of warm milk. Sini " Man I was close to hitting you with my rubber chicken" Intruder "So glad we talked it out before you did anything drastic." Moments later.... Sini packs up a brown bag lunch for intruder and sends him off with a pleasant wave.
I can't help but imagine how Sini's break in plays out.
Wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of windows being broken out. Sini grabs tactical rubber chicken and grandma's wooden spoon from night stand.
Sini "ARE YOU HERE TO HURT ME OR JUST STEAL STUFF?!?!?!?!" Pause........ Intruder "Ugh I just need to use your phone man" Processing........... Sini "oh...you just need to use the phone? It is in the kitchen" Intruder "Thanks man" After Phone Call.... Sini and Intruder sit down for a nice glass of warm milk. Sini " Man I was close to hitting you with my rubber chicken" Intruder "So glad we talked it out before you did anything drastic." Moments later.... Sini packs up a brown bag lunch for intruder and sends him off with a pleasant wave.
The End
Okay, I had to muster some considerable will power to keep from spraying my drink all over my monitor when I read the " tactical rubber chicken and grandma's wooden spoon " line :D
Thought of you Sinij, after reading this story. Pay particular attention to the final sentence.
This kind of crap is why I have a CHL. This kind of crap is why any police officer worth a damn will tell you not only to obtain a CHL, but to carry it with you anytime you go out and why I have one close by when at home.
You don't do it all at once, you do tiny pieces at a time.
A restriction here, a ban there, over time your entire right to own a firearm is effectively whittled down to nothing.
Why we can't allow ANY sort of ban on ANY weapon is simple:
If you allow it once, this sets the precedence to allow it again in the future. If we allow a ban on ( insert scary item of the day here ) today, when the violence continues afterwards, ( and it most assuredly will ) they'll simply go after the next scary item on the list. Wash, rinse and repeat.
In the end there will be nothing left to take.
I get a chuckle out of the gun manufacturers refusing to do business with State governments if they adopt completely ridiculous gun control laws. I fully agree with them.
If the law abiding citizens cannot own them, then neither should law enforcement or government employees. If they protest that the criminals will still have them so the police should too, then they make my point perfectly. Gun laws don't impact criminals in the slightest bit. The laws only serve to restrict legal owners.
You either stand up for your rights, or they will simply take them from you. It's your choice.
You don't do it all at once, you do tiny pieces at a time.
A restriction here, a ban there, over time your entire right to own a firearm is effectively whittled down to nothing.
Why we can't allow ANY sort of ban on ANY weapon is simple:
If you allow it once, this sets the precedence to allow it again in the future. If we allow a ban on ( insert scary item of the day here ) today, when the violence continues afterwards, ( and it most assuredly will ) they'll simply go after the next scary item on the list. Wash, rinse and repeat.
In the end there will be nothing left to take.
I get a chuckle out of the gun manufacturers refusing to do business with State governments if they adopt completely ridiculous gun control laws. I fully agree with them.
If the law abiding citizens cannot own them, then neither should law enforcement or government employees. If they protest that the criminals will still have them so the police should too, then they make my point perfectly. Gun laws don't impact criminals in the slightest bit. The laws only serve to restrict legal owners.
You either stand up for your rights, or they will simply take them from you. It's your choice.
This. The only problem I see here Daye, is really simple. You're argument can make perfect logical sense, and it will still be ignored.
As someone new to long term relationships, I am just discovering the amazing way that arguments can happen over anything. I'm also learning that I could have a perfect, logical, well reasoned argument and "lose" because she says so.
Its the same in this arena. The two parties are like a married couple. Only now instead of only someone that's ignorant you have to deal with people who know and don't car, because there is no way a person with even just a high school education could think that any law at all could stop a criminal from hurting you.
Hey folks, all I can say is that I am for universal background checks. Like I said before, it should be as hard to own a gun as it is to get a credit card or drive a car.
As many of you know, Reagan signed on to a note to the Congress way back in 1994. He is credited to helping pass the assault weapons ban. As a darling of the right, his ghost is undermining your position.
I am not a pro-ban person, but it sure is and interesting battle.
Quote:
May 3, 1994 To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.
Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.
The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.
While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.
Jet, background checks are one thing. You could check me all day and night and when you're done I'd expect my gun to be ready to go home with me. Checks aren't a problem. A limit, preventing someone from going from NY to Virginia and buying 15 pistols and coming back and reselling them on the street for triple the value to shady peoples would be welcome.
My problem is on bans. A criminal, by definition, doesn't give a fuck about what the gun laws are. If he wants to have an AK47 he can find a way to get one. The ONLY people that a ban hurts are the law-abiding citizens. Any law that is supposed to hinder crime but really just hinders my rights is a law I will fight.
Let's pretend all scary guns are banned tomorrow. We magically wave a wand ( Repealo Amendimus ! ) and all the " assault " style weapons are gone from the land. Democrats cheer, everyone gives each other a big hug, and all is well in the Land of Oz.
For today.
Some time passes. Maybe a day. A week, or even a few years goes by. Then some nutjob shows up and guns down another school, a bus full of nuns, or a whole bunch of still singing Democrats. They'll either use a weapon that wasn't on the original ban list, or obtain a black market banned device.
I'll take "Guess what Congress does next" for $500 Alex. . . .
You guessed it. More bans. More legislation. What do you mean you don't support it ? You supported the LAST one so what's the difference ? ( you Nun-Slayer you ! )
See a pattern yet ? Where does it stop ?
Hell, they've done the same thing to the First Amendment already with the creation of " Free Speech Zones "
Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing, but if no one can hear you, what's the point ?
Sure they haven't taken away your right, they've just modified it to the point where your freedom has the least amount of impact possible. May as well pass out the gags now. :|
It's kind of like a game of Chess. Those who only see one move ahead are not going to win. Gain the ability to see several moves ahead and you become a formidable opponent.
Here's some slippery slope for you. Who in their right mind would have thought this would be the result of a government agency that was supposed to protect air traffic from terrorists?
Yep, you're right. Things are never ever taken to their most ridiculous extreme by our government. Slippery slope indeed.
Jet, background checks are one thing. You could check me all day and night and when you're done I'd expect my gun to be ready to go home with me. Checks aren't a problem. A limit, preventing someone from going from NY to Virginia and buying 15 pistols and coming back and reselling them on the street for triple the value to shady peoples would be welcome.
My problem is on bans. A criminal, by definition, doesn't give a fuck about what the gun laws are. If he wants to have an AK47 he can find a way to get one. The ONLY people that a ban hurts are the law-abiding citizens. Any law that is supposed to hinder crime but really just hinders my rights is a law I will fight.
This is an old argument that some cannot get their minds around.
They also like to compare gun rights to drivers permits. When they do this you can already tell they do not understand Constitutional Rights.
They also like to compare gun rights to drivers permits. When they do this you can already tell they do not understand Constitutional Rights.
I understand that reading is difficult for you. I mean you are a republican. Please see the word SHOULD, as in SHOULD be as hard. I know the difference between a right and a privilege.
Well, its not really difficult to get a drivers license, I mean LOOK at some of the people out there driving these days. My grandma still gets hers renewed and she's 85 extremely arthritic and blind in one eye.
All they need is background checks and yearly limits. Say 1 long gun and 1 handgun a year. That won't infringe on anyone's rights to hard and it will impact the flow of illegal weapons. It should also make it so a gunshow is mostly just gun enthusiasts and admirers looking, except the few who haven't reached their limit, while dealers buy from companies.
Just step out of your preconceptions for a minute and tell me how that suits you? I think it will be 100% better than 50 different bans.
Background checks are already universal as long as the seller is a firearms dealer. Regardless of where the sale is made, at the store, at a gun show, wherever. If you're a dealer selling to a non-dealer, then a background check is done each and every time. Hell, even if you're selling to another dealer, you have paperwork to process.
The only time background checks are NOT done is private sales. Eg: Private party to private party transactions.
Guess what ? Forcing all sales to go through a licensed FFL won't do much either. Recall the event that put all this silliness in motion: The weapons used were STOLEN from a person who purchased them legally to begin with.
Create all the rules you like, but the criminal mind WILL find ways around them.
There are only two ways to prevent gun violence against people.
1) Remove all guns from the world 2) Remove all people from the world
There are only two ways to prevent gun violence against people.
1) Remove all guns from the world 2) Remove all people from the world
Both are about as likely as the other.
False dichotomy.
We are not trying to prevent any and all gun violence against people, we are trying to reduce it.
Similarly: The only way to prevent obesity is to remove all food, the only way to prevent testicular cancer is to castrate everyone, the only way to prevent speeding is to ban the cars...
"Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates. "
ROFL
Yeah, because folks who are hell bent on killing as many people as possible give two sh*ts about purchasing insurance :D
Awwww man, I can't shoot up the bus full of Nuns because my insurance premiums would go up ! :D
IMO, insurance is nothing more than a tax in disguise.
It's interesting to note that anytime anti-gun types use cars to compare with guns, they use the insurance and license requirements as an argument. If we do it for cars why not guns ?
Yet, when the pro-gun types point out how many people die from cars every year, we get a non-stop ration of sh*t from the same folks stating it's an apples vs oranges argument.
Yea, I know this Daye, but we have to give them something otherwise they won't leave over. Its common sense that making laws doesn't stop law breakers...because they don't care about the law. We just have to make our opposites understand that, and im strictly talking about the ignorant ones who don't realize, before they all screw us over hard.
Background checks help, but like you said...only so much. They won't do much if someone decided to kill their parents and steal their guns and go on a shooting spree. However, where the left sees this as a reason for no one to have guns, that just makes us all more vulnerable to those who prey on the weak. I'm in the process of getting myself a permit for NYC. If you ever lived here then you know, for all their vaunted "first responder" accolades, more often then not they just show up to take notes and find the perp after the fact. I'd prefer to be able to protect myself, not give a victims statement.
There's a country song that addresses this, I believe the title is A Country Boy Can Survive. Listen to it.
" I'm in the process of getting myself a permit for NYC. "
You have my sympathies. Friend of mine recently moved up to New York State and had to leave many of his firearms behind because of the " scary gun " laws in effect up there.
New York and California are permanently off my list of places to move due to nanny-state tendencies. :D
Yeah, I want out for many reasons. Stupid high cost of living, and stupid nanny tendencies among them. My problem is the girlfriend doesn't want to. I've got time before I could leave anyway but im saving and in the next 5 years or sp I could have enough for a nice place for us somewhere south, sunny and much more red leaning.
IMO, insurance is nothing more than a tax in disguise.
Insurance is protection from liability. It is a form of responsibility for damages your actions cause.
Do you not believe in assuming personal financial responsibility for your actions? Do you expect to continue offloading it on society?
Quote:
It's interesting to note that anytime anti-gun types use cars to compare with guns, they use the insurance and license requirements as an argument. If we do it for cars why not guns ?
Yet, when the pro-gun types point out how many people die from cars every year, we get a non-stop ration of sh*t from the same folks stating it's an apples vs oranges argument.
So which is it ?
A lot of people die from diabetes, more then from cancer, so we should ignore cancer until diabetes are cured, right?
They also like to compare gun rights to drivers permits. When they do this you can already tell they do not understand Constitutional Rights.
I understand that reading is difficult for you. I mean you are a republican. Please see the word SHOULD, as in SHOULD be as hard. I know the difference between a right and a privilege.
Same for you I am not a Republican.
But yet another example of how a liberal deflects the logic with insults.
And you're a liberal puppet. You don't have your own opinions just those that you get spoon fed so you can regurgitate them in a manner that makes it seems as if you actually have the ability to think and process information.
Can we try to just have a debate and not get into flaming because that easy for all of us and serves no one.
Helemoto's denial is amusing, if for no other reason but anticipation of him coming to terms with his political leanings. Plus I never disputed that I am liberal-leaning in my political views. I also mostly vote Democrats.
"Insurance is protection from liability. It is a form of responsibility for damages your actions cause.
Do you not believe in assuming personal financial responsibility for your actions? Do you expect to continue offloading it on society?"
Uh-huh.
Insurance is a business. A profitable one at that. Insurance companies are not there to help you assume personal financial responsibility as you put it, they are there to make a profit by charging you more than the risk they think you are.
To date I have never filed a single insurance claim for my vehicles nor my home. I have, however, paid thousands and thousands of dollars in premiums over the same time period.
So tell me again how I've offloaded anything onto society again ?
Hell, under your line of thinking, we should have insurance premiums for absolutely anything we may own that might accidentally injure someone else.
Lawnmowing insurance. Pet insurance. Cutlery insurance. Don't-trip-on-my-sidewalk insurance. Child insurance. ( In case they do anything stupid to injure another )
LoL. The list can go on and on.
Gun insurance ? Really ?
Like we don't pay enough: Fees, taxes, licenses, premiums and penalties already :|
"A lot of people die from diabetes, more then from cancer, so we should ignore cancer until diabetes are cured, right?"
No, you shouldn't model diabetes treatment after cancer treatment since they're not even remotely the same disease. Kinda like cars and guns. They're both unique killers which require unique approaches to each. You don't try to use chemo to cure diabetics any more than you give insulin to cancer patients.
Unsurprisingly, you show complete lack of understanding of how/why insurance works.
Insurance pools the risks from a large group of people and protects individuals within this group from large, but unlikely, liabilities they might incur.
Lets say you have X% chance to have adverse action happening in your life. This adverse action is a liability, if it involves others, then it is also your responsibility to others. In 1-X cases nothing happens, you pay into the insurance pool and see nothing back. So why do you pay? Because nobody could predict future and know who from this pool going to end up X and who 1-X.
In car insurance case - you are paying insurance to protect others from potential harm your actions could cause. If you are wealthy individual - you have an option to self-insure (demonstrate that you have enough money to cover any liability). Carrying insurance is your responsibility to society, because if you cause harm but do not have insurance, you are likely won't be able to adequately compensate for the harm you caused.
Now in your examples, there is no clear averse action that can result from it (e.g. lawn mowing isn't known for causing harm to others).
Guns are more like cars - there are many examples when irresponsible (or just unlucky) behavior can cause harm to others. It is reasonable that owners assume responsibility and purchase insurance.
In closing, stop freeloading of society, man up and pay for your toys. Your guns incur very real cost on society, it is unreasonable to ask others, especially gun-free people, to pay for irresponsible behavior or your fellow gun nuts. If everybody is responsible and law abiding gun owner, well then insurance will be dirt cheap.
Insurance is nothing more than mandatory gambling.
I have been driving since I was 15 via hardship license and will be turning 29 this April. I have never had a single traffic ticket or accident.
29-15= 14 (years driving)
14x12= 168 (months driven)
168x50= 8400 (figure of months driven multiplied by average personal cost of basic liability insurance)
So in this example I have been forced over the years to spend $8,400 of my earnings with no return.
If you truly believe that insurance is necessary then I will sell you some right now.
For the low price of 50$ a month I guarantee that I will never punch your face. But wait...there's more. For a one time payment of $10,000 you will receive a LIFETIME guarantee of me not only not punching your face, but also not committing any untowards action of any kind towards you.
Hey folks, all I can say is that I am for universal background checks. Like I said before, it should be as hard to own a gun as it is to get a credit card or drive a car.
As many of you know, Reagan signed on to a note to the Congress way back in 1994. He is credited to helping pass the assault weapons ban. As a darling of the right, his ghost is undermining your position.
I am not a pro-ban person, but it sure is and interesting battle.
Making the gun ban issue a right vs left one is an error. It is a liberty vs state control one. The right and left in the US and a lot of old republics are pro government control.
Helemoto's denial is amusing, if for no other reason but anticipation of him coming to terms with his political leanings. Plus I never disputed that I am liberal-leaning in my political views. I also mostly vote Democrats.
Once again you show how liberal you are, keep telling the same lie over and over and you think they are truth. My political leanings have nothing to do with any party you think I maybe in. If I keep saying your a Nazi over and over does not make it true, unless I am a Liberal.
I have to say I have never held a discussion with someone so far out of touch with reality and the way the World is in my life.
From your perspective, I'm an idiot who knows nothing about anything apparently and is a drain on society ( your freeloading comment ).
You know what ? I don't even care anymore. Outside of the forums, I have little business even being with KGB any longer. The only thing posting in here does is keep the door open for more bullshit to piss me off. I will remedy that shortly.
I have to say I have never held a discussion with someone so far out of touch with reality and the way the World is in my life.
From your perspective, I'm an idiot who knows nothing about anything apparently and is a drain on society ( your freeloading comment ).
You know what ? I don't even care anymore. Outside of the forums, I have little business even being with KGB any longer. The only thing posting in here does is keep the door open for more bullshit to piss me off. I will remedy that shortly.
-Daye
I've came to the conclusion a long time ago that Sini would much rather live In in the following countries... Stalins Soviet Russia, Hitlers Germany, Mao's China, Pol Pot- Cambodia, Idi Amin Uganda... and the Ottoman Empire of Turkey.
He would rather live in those states, than live in a free society where you have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS and you're able to protect yourself from others, Including a tyrannical Government if necessary.
Insurance is nothing more than mandatory gambling.
Yes, only you don't get a choice of not buying the ticket and when you win you have to pay. Plus, mandatory part applies to "paying up", not the fact that you "gamble" - that part is life.
Quote:
For the low price of 50$ a month I guarantee that I will never punch your face.
From purely insurance point of view, getting punched in the face is low-chance low-damage occurrence. My life insurance cost a bit less, so chances of you punching me in the face must be higher and more damaging than a piano getting dropped on my head, then it would be a good deal.
Meanwhile I will cover expenses of potential damages of such situation of the pocket.
Now, do you think you could out of pocket cover a cost of hydroplaning and accidentally killing a family or your gun getting stolen and used to murder said family? If not, then who should?
Now, do you think you could out of pocket cover a cost of hydroplaning and accidentally killing a family or your gun getting stolen and used to murder said family? If not, then who should?
I have lived and driven in southeast Texas most of the years of my driving and have dealt with the roads during many thunderstorms, tropical depressions and I even drove through hurricanes Rita and Ike and not once have I even had a hydroplaning scare as I am aware of how to properly drive in those conditions so I should not in any way have to pay for something that has a less than 1% chance of happening.
To answer your 2nd question... This is less than a 0% chance of happening as I do not own any guns. In the event that I did own a firearm and it was STOLEN in order to kill a family then I would be just as much of a victim as the ones killed so why should I once again have to pay for something that I have nothing to do with?
Making the gun ban issue a right vs left one is an error. It is a liberty vs state control one. The right and left in the US and a lot of old republics are pro government control.
People in the US have, all too often, become political fans instead of participants. Pick a team and rah rah.
Donk, do you think only bad drivers that are irresponsible that get into accidents?
My view is that even good drivers can get into accident. That why I am happy to pay insurance even if my spotless driving record.
Bad drivers that are irresponsible are the causes of accidents. Responsible good drivers do not get into accidents unless previous mentioned bad drivers are involved.
I agree a good driver can get into an accident but they should still not be forced into gambling.
On a side note here is something I came across today. Just take from it what you will.
“How does rendering me defenseless protect you against violent crime?” Collins asked.
“What we are trying to do here tonight is not to protect ourselves from violent crime. What we are trying to do here tonight is prevent students and teachers from feeling uncomfortable by you carrying a gun to protect yourself,” Harvey said.
Everything you ever needed to know about the gun people control debate is in bold in the quote.
Yea, that makes me angry. If she were my kid and a Senator told her sorry but it's more important for people to feel comfortable, then for her to be able to defend herself, I'd make it my life's mission to ruin that persons career. That is some nerve right there.
No ones feelings should ever override someone's right to self defense.
And if you want to keep relying on anecdotes rather than research, google "NRA road rage" for numerous posts about NRA president David Keene's son, who was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for shooting at another motorist in 2002.
More than half of the killers we studied in our investigation of 62 mass shootings over the last three decades possessed weapons that would be banned by Feinstein's bill, including various semiautomatic rifles, guns with military features, and handguns using magazines with more than 10 rounds.
The new legislation aims to outlaw weapons that let a shooter fire a large number of bullets quickly without having to reload. Law enforcement officials we consulted generally considered that to be a reasonable approach for distinguishing between firearms used for sport or self-defense and military-style weapons designed to maximize body counts.
Ultimately, "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" are political terms—there is no official or widely accepted definition for either, and different legislation has treated them differently.
I never said I refused to read it, just that they are, at best, an unreliable news source.
I'm showing you how a responsible citizen does his part to help those that he thinks may not be able/willing to help themselves. Rather than start screaming for the government to shut down Mother Jones because stupid people might believe it, I just want everyone to recognize MJ for what it is, and then let the market decide...
Interesting, what if "the market" decides for Mother Jones for illogical or irrational reasons and cause politicians to start legislating according to the letter and spirit of this publication?
Interesting, what if "the market" decides for Mother Jones for illogical or irrational reasons and cause politicians to start legislating according to the letter and spirit of this publication?
You mean, like they already do with the stub-nosed lake trout, the spotted owl, the snark minnow, the river grouse, the shell-backed turtle, the racing lizard, deforestation, turtle tunnels, wetlands preservation (if you've ever had a puddle in your field, it can be called a wetland), global warming, etc., etc.? Oh wait, that's government, not the market.
Then I'll move to some place that better aligns with my view of how the world works. In the mean time, I will continue to do what I can to promote critical thinking among those people I can impact and hope things work out for the best.
You mean, like they already do with the global warming, etc., etc.? Then I'll move to some place that better aligns with my view of how the world works.
You seem to forget, gun rights do not mean only for hunting. No matter how much a liberal likes to ban things they personally do not like, we live under a Constitution that protects us from Nazi like determination that the left seems to have. When you come across someone that doesn't like, believe in, or even acknowledge The Constitution there is hardly a reason to even argue simple differences.
Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey unveiled a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for commercial gun purchases — including those at gun shows and online
These people are such morons. Or, they think we are. Background checks are currently required for both gun show and online sales. The only time a check is not required is if I, as a non dealer, sell to you, a private citizen. This is nothing more than political posturing.
Since the vast majority of guns being used in these crimes are obtained illegally, exactly how will this help prevent anything?
At the risk of having one of my questions ignored, I'm going to ask two in one post.
Can anyone here tell me for what purpose the NRA was founded?
The NRA was founded to get extreme high capacity super upper deck assault rifles into the hands of insane Tea Party members so they can go shoot little kids. DUH!!! Everyone knows that.
"NEGROES WITH GUNS" by Dr. Michael S. Brown December 28, 2001 The year was 1957. Monroe, North Carolina, was a rigidly segregated town where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were subject to brutal, sadistic violence. It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of racist anger. In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams. Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side. Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of the NAACP and founded a 60-member, NRA-chartered rifle club, described the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in 1998 by Wayne State University Press. According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed. Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence. It is important to note that the guns were not used offensively. They were part of an overall strategy that relied primarily on peaceful protest like picketing or entering whites-only establishments. Williams demonstrated that the dignified and responsible use of firearms for selfdefense was an important method to achieve justice for those denied fair treatment by all institutions of government. The civil rights movement was deeply divided between those who espoused a pacifist, non-violent approach and those who believed that human beings had a right and a duty to use force in selfdefense. Williams was the most influential leader of the self-defense wing of the movement. His effort to provide guns and training to African-American civil rights supporters was alarming to white politicians. Most state gun control laws, not just in the South, were blatantly designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities. Those with racist beliefs were not pleased when blacks claimed the right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed to all Americans.
The whole gun control debate that is taking place now is completely missing the point. All they have done is passed some petty bullshit legislation while causing every gun store in America to sell out.
Both sides are obviously fear mongering...I think the gun and ammunition manufactures are the only people benefiting from this.
Glad it didnt pass, hopefully nothing ever will. Its all political theater, nothing that would actually make any sort of positive impact on society. Just more excuses and ways for the govt to fuck with people.
The ironic part is, its already easy to machine up a gun in any rudimentary machine shop. Just doesnt happen a lot, because of the relative quality and low cost of professionally made firearms.
Not really true. Also have to consider political aspect of exposing NRA to "they want undetectable guns" and all that BS.
I do find it funny that the statists so frequently bring up NRA collusion with gun manufacturers. Its not like its a big secret... rather, the rest of us EXPECT the gun manufacturers to support the 2nd amendment. Statists somehow think that knowing the NRA takes huge support from the gun industry will somehow turn off the rank and file.
They couldnt be more wrong. In fact, its quite the opposite. Gun manufacturers that dont support the NRA and 2nd amendment get punished severely by non-statists.
Why are you mad Sini, Obama and his cronies in congress are the ones making gun manufacturers all this money. See what happens if they start talking about banning knives,chainsaws or anything else that can be used to kill with and I would venture to guess those would be flying off the shelves as well. Then you have Obama's ignorant ass up their talking about "they will warn you tyranny is around the corner, you should reject those voices" When you hear utter fucking filth like that come from a President, you better be on your toes. This guy wants nothing more than MORE Government. Until the dummy in the White House stops talking bullshit like that along with banning things or adding more Government red tape then you will have people buying this. Everyone wants to think it could never happen to us, but it can.
So who wants to bet that Jet & Sini would have lost their fucking minds if Dubya would have came out and said... " They will warn you Tyranny is around the corner, You should reject those voices" A fucking sitting President SAID THAT!
Black Helicopters are coming to take away your guns Wolf!
I chalk this reply up to as, " I don't have anything else that I can say so I'll say something stupid" on your behalf.
It's OK to admit that if the public were to have guns that at least there could have been a chance that someone with a gun could have shot those mother fuckers before they beheaded the man.
That not how it actually works Wolfgang, but we talked about this at length so you are clearly not open to internalizing the fact that armed civilians are extremely unlikely to stop any bad guys. They are by far more likely to blow their brains, accidentally shoot their own relatives and children and so on.
The only way "good guys with guns" could work is if you conscript and train every single man and women in the country, like Israel.
That not how it actually works Wolfgang, but we talked about this at length so you are clearly not open to internalizing the fact that armed civilians are extremely unlikely to stop any bad guys. They are by far more likely to blow their brains, accidentally shoot their own relatives and children and so on.
The only way "good guys with guns" could work is if you conscript and train every single man and women in the country, like Israel.
Even trained people mishandle weapons...besides the video below haven't you ever seen police shootouts in point blank range where several shots have been fired yet NOBODY was hit? Just so you know, in order to get a conceal carry permit you have to go to a class, where you have to prove you know how to handle and shoot a handgun. Oklahoma has an open carry law, but in order to be able to open carry a handgun you have to have a conceal carry license. Just some facts I'm sure you have no clue about. please continue...
Now onto the rest... I would be willing to bet if someone that was present with a gun they would have done something, people that carry guns legally are usually those that will doing something in an event like this one. If you carry a gun and never plan to use it you are a fucking retard. If that were in a place where you could own a gun and carry one things wouldn't have went so well for that piece of shit that beheaded that guy. However if you were say, in Chicago where you cannot legally carry a gun the likely hood of something like this beheading being pulled off in public there would be high.
I just love how you think it's far better to have someone beheaded in front of you without having the right to protect yourself with a firearm because someone commits suicide or accidentally shoots someone. So does this mean we should ban other things that someone could use to commit suicide or accidentally kill someone? This would include cars, knives any blunt object... even bleach. So nest time you have a thought, just let it go.
Getting beheaded in public is astronomically unlikely event, accidentally or maliciously discharging your legal weapon and causing injuries and fatalities is commonplace.
If you add guns to UK situation, you still have beheading, only now perps are armed and much harder to apprehend (e.g. Chicago).
Its not commonplace. Far less commonplace per capita than vehicular related death by an order of magnitude.
Guys in UK did have gun apparently. Regular police showed up first and did nothing, until "armed police" were able to show up and shoot them. If you think guns or bombs are *hard to get in the UK you would be severely mistaken. They are less common, but even the criminals have less need for them. Most police arent even armed, let alone opposing citizenry.
UK is also has a far far higher rate of violent crime in general than the US.
Getting beheaded in public is astronomically unlikely event, accidentally or maliciously discharging your legal weapon and causing injuries and fatalities is commonplace.
If you add guns to UK situation, you still have beheading, only now perps are armed and much harder to apprehend (e.g. Chicago).
I'm going to pray for you Sini, I'm going to pray that you are never in a situation that you would need a gun to defend yourself or a loved one.
And I am going to pray that your guns are never accidentally misused and that you and people you hold dear are not unintentionally injured in the process.
And I am going to pray that your guns are never accidentally misused and that you and people you hold dear are not unintentionally injured in the process.
Yeah because everyone that owns a gun just wildly goes around shooting up shit... amirite? /facepalm
I dont think we are yet to the level of the pre-war Syrian regime.
But each decade, we take a big leap in that direction. Without a drastic change in direction, we will arrive there in one, maybe two decades.
One day students of history are going to look back on a people filled with such hubris that they honestly thought there was nothing untoward about politicians and govt apparatchiks that simultaneously worked to build unaccountable "security" institutions and disarm the lay citizenry. And much facepalming will be had by said students.
I just find it Ironic that Obama wants to give out weapons while trying to pass laws that will reduce ours. I don't think Obama is on assads level. As Derid said, we seem to be going in that direction with each step.
I think it's very naive to think the Government at some point could go in the direction where citizens would have to take up arms. This is why we need to keep this bullshit in check. You can reduce a boulder into small rock over time by chipping away at it. you can do the same with liberty and freedom, if you allow them to keep chipping away at it.
Without a drastic change in direction, we will arrive there in one, maybe two decades.
As I post, I am eating bacon as part of my breakfast. If bacon eating trend continues at this rate, within one, maybe two decades, I will consume all the bacon in the world.
I just find it Ironic that Obama wants to give out weapons while trying to pass laws that will reduce ours.
I don't. Obama is not concerned about reducing peacetime gun violence in Arab world, so giving out guns to Syrians is not considered in the same light as gun ownership in US.
Left concern with guns is about domestic peacetime abuse. We don't object to police or military having them. We wouldn't even object to "well regulated militia" , if one existed today, having them.
It is Right's complete unwillingness to take basic steps to keep the guns out of hands of violent criminals and nutters that even makes whole thing controversial.
I just find it Ironic that Obama wants to give out weapons while trying to pass laws that will reduce ours.
I don't. Obama is not concerned about reducing peacetime gun violence in Arab world, so giving out guns to Syrians is not considered in the same light as gun ownership in US.
Left concern with guns is about domestic peacetime abuse. We don't object to police or military having them. We wouldn't even object to "well regulated militia" , if one existed today, having them.
It is Right's complete unwillingness to take basic steps to keep the guns out of hands of violent criminals and nutters that even makes whole thing controversial.
Your country has a constitution which states that everyone has the right to possess weapons. I don't understand why you would want to fuck this instead of emigrating to a country where citizens don't have weapons around.
Without a drastic change in direction, we will arrive there in one, maybe two decades.
As I post, I am eating bacon as part of my breakfast. If bacon eating trend continues at this rate, within one, maybe two decades, I will consume all the bacon in the world.
Sorry, your ignoring of historical precedent is laughable. Never in history has a country built unaccountable internal security apparatus and disarmed the citizenry and had it end well. Never.
Now, you could say that past performance may not be a predictor of future events which would be technically true. But your silly attempt to categorize current power trends in the USA as absurd extrapolation simply belies a willful ignorance, not an educated attempt to apply logic to an analysis.
I don't think he's arguing that we ARE going to end up the USS. Rather, we WILL end up the USS if we allow events as they are currently piling up to continue unabated. So, he's advocating for doing something now to stop the proliferation of government overreach before the road to the USS is unavoidable.
Since we all seem to agree that this is the case. What do we do about it?
I don't think he's arguing that we ARE going to end up the USS. Rather, we WILL end up the USS if we allow events as they are currently piling up to continue unabated. So, he's advocating for doing something now to stop the proliferation of government overreach before the road to the USS is unavoidable.
Since we all seem to agree that this is the case. What do we do about it?
This.
And United Stasi of America is a closer analogy than Somalia, but yeah.
I just find it Ironic that Obama wants to give out weapons while trying to pass laws that will reduce ours.
I don't. Obama is not concerned about reducing peacetime gun violence in Arab world, so giving out guns to Syrians is not considered in the same light as gun ownership in US.
Left concern with guns is about domestic peacetime abuse. We don't object to police or military having them. We wouldn't even object to "well regulated militia" , if one existed today, having them.
It is Right's complete unwillingness to take basic steps to keep the guns out of hands of violent criminals and nutters that even makes whole thing controversial.
You have surpassed the illogical limit. Please show me where the Right is taking steps to keep guns in the hands of criminals? The only nutters seem to be in your camp.
The militia is us. Sinij your use of terms, is in contradiction with the usages and intent of the Framers and time period in general. Its revisionism , and neologisms pure and simple.
Sorry, my bad - well regulated militia. I am not part of it. Nether is 99% of gun owners. Not even if you ignore "militia" part could you claim "well regulated" to anything resembling gun ownership.
Sorry, my bad - well regulated militia. I am not part of it. Nether is 99% of gun owners. Not even if you ignore "militia" part could you claim "well regulated" to anything resembling gun ownership.
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.
You seem to have trouble with English and sentence structure.
This accounts for the state to have its own militia and gives the people the right to bear Arms.
Here’s how the game works. Criminals manipulate people with clean records -- cash-strapped students, vulnerable women, drug addicts -- to buy guns for them in states with minimal oversight, like Virginia. The criminal transports the guns to New York, then resells them or trades them for drugs that he’ll take back to Virginia to sell. This was the hustle when I was out in the ‘90s. I’m sure some form of it still continues.
Engulfed in an orgy of violence, my last month of freedom was chaos. Home invasions, robberies, murder -- at the center of it all were guns: They would be disposed of, tossed after shoot-outs, then bought again. Easily. And I always bought new guns, so the notion that criminals just use stolen guns, acquired from a neighborhood burglar, is absurd. (The paper trail may suggest that, because the people making straw purchases also file false reports claiming the guns stolen.) Like most criminals, I created an extraordinary demand for the gun sector.
Well, I'm sold. I for one always take advice from people who so clearly have a good bead on life. And, who has a better choice making paradigm than an inmate? If you can't trust a murdering drug dealer, who can you trust?
Gun violence rising there despite all the laws and bans.
You are correct that basic steps to mitigate it are not done - the thing you willfully ignore, is that none of those aforementioned basic steps have anything to do with laws regarding guns themselves. Which do exactly jack and shit.
I mean seriously, if you think the inner city drug war frontlines where most of the gun violence occurs is going to be somehow mitigated because lawful owners get databased or insured or wtf ever I also have a piece of a famous bridge to sell you.
The actual areas that suffer the most gun violence have the strictest anti gun laws. To no effect. Its pure fantasy to think that infringing on the right of the rest of the country to be armed is going to alter that. So what if internal supply would become somewhat more constrained? If that is even possible, it just means more guns would be illegally imported alongside all the illegal drugs and illegal humans.
Sure, the street value of weapons might go up a little. Im sure the fact that illegal weapons cost a little bit more is going to make a huuuge difference. /sarcasm
That there are still people who buy into the vague and facile emotional arguments regarding guns never ceases to amaze me. All they are doing is standing shoulder to shoulder with the fascists and corporatists in their quest to disempower the citizenry in favor of big govt and big money.
Whats even funnier is its apparent that guy was only even there in the first place because of the glorification the leftist media has heaped on people who shoot up schools. If it furthers the political agenda, they have no qualms about heaping attention and adulation on pretty much anyone. "Please, go commit an atrocity - we will feature you every night for a month, make sure everyone knows exactly who you were, incessantly speculate on every facet of your existence and shift blame from you to those who dare prattle on about rights."
This has nothing to do with gun control, and is appalling overreach of authority. No idea why you decided to bring this up in here. Off topic other than the fact that suspected gun ownership by a convicted felon (unless you think felons should be allowed unrestricted gun ownership?) were used as an excuse to raid anti-government journalist's home.
I brought it up in here because it's relevant to the gun control debate. The fact that they are using some trumped up gun charge to raid the reporter's files is exactly the kind of abuse of power that these violations of the constitution lead to. Maryland already has the kind of unconstitutional gun laws that allow for this kind of abuse that you want all over the country.
To your felon point, I think that once someone has paid the price for their crime they should have their rights reinstated.
The fact that you think a site other than the one the reporter works for has better info on what happened tells us a lot about your decision making paradigm. Oh, and your guy also wasn't referencing the original site, he was pulling his data from the Daily Caller.
It is not relevant to the gun control debate, abuse of power (that has nothing to do with gun ownership) is relevant.
Speaking of shooting, I heard there was another school shooting. One couple people died, so I don't think it made to the national news. Sadly, we are getting used to these.
The effort to rewrite/remove the second amendment is about power and control. Just because they've hoodwinked a bunch of rubes into believing that taking guns from law abiding citizens will make everyone safer, doesn't mean that their agenda is actually to keep people safer.
It did make the national news. Apparently it just didn't make what you call the news. It was two weeks ago, and I'd bet that the army veteran who died defending the children could have put an early end to the entire thing if he'd been armed. For the record, its not a shooting, that's what I do on the weekend, its a MURDER. More specifically two of them in this case.
Yes, because Forbes is such progressive rag known for liberal hit pieces.
You see, I don't even expect you to acknowledge good articles from neutral or left-leaning sources. So I frequently link very conservative sources. Yet they are not conservative enough for you.
Kaotic, you are probably too far gone to be ever let back into civilization. Keep this in mind and don't ever talk politics in real life or you will be know as "that uncle".
And you wonder why Red lost his shit with you, you condescending ass. Clearly anyone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong. You are so hung up on "sides" that you just assume that any writer must agree with the general tone of his employer. Thanks for putting your lack of discernment and critical thinking skills on display.
I don't care what Forbes' reputation is, this writer clearly has a bias. If you can't tell that from the wording of the article, then I don't think even Rosetta Stone will help you. It probably shouldn't but it continually amazes me that you, who so obviously know nothing about guns and likely cry a little every time you see one (much like the author of this piece), think you know everything about the intentions of someone who confidently owns and carries a gun.
This article portrays everyone in the restaurant as being frightened for their lives because there are a bunch of folks parading around outside with long guns (which if you read the law you'd know are legal to carry openly). How does he know? It is much more likely that only the MDA that got their panties in a bunch. I'd like to see what the owner of the restaurant actually said instead of the two word quote that this author used, likely out of context.
In fact I find that most folks who talk politics in real life tend to agree with me. You are in the minority of actual thinking people. Take away the ability to buy votes and the socialists that you support lose every time.
Your definition of bias is converging on "things I disagree with". You didn't even consider the information presented in the article, you just directly went into LIEBERAL MEDIA BIAS* knee-jerk! And somehow pointing this set of events is grievous insult to your ancestor's honor that could only be cleansed by ritual pissing on my grave.
*
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
Lefty slanted hit pieces
Ether way...
Originally Posted By: Kaotic
In fact I find that most folks who talk politics in real life tend to agree with me.
Your continued unwillingness to acknowledge the writer's bias only emphasizes your own bias, or demonstrates your blindness to the bias of those who agree with you.
For the record, shooting was done by a private citizen in a public place. It was a unilateral escalation by an armed person of otherwise non-violent confrontation.
Of all the states that now have concealed carry in high volumes, the story that comes out of one person acting like lefties were afraid of.. turns out its actually a retired agent of the State who spent his adult life lording over people with his badge and gun.
My reaction only comes across as strange to the extremely intellectually dishonest.
Such willful ignorance in pursuit of disarming a citizenry is utterly appalling.
You dont think a lifetime of impunity when using force to lord over people as an armed agent of the State had anything to do with this guys decision to just up and shoot someone who pissed him off? Ex Swat member at that apparently.
You lefties spend so much time talking about how environment tends to mold worldview and behavior, then it all flies out the window the second its politically inconvenient. How typical.
You dont think a lifetime of impunity when using force to lord over people as an armed agent of the State had anything to do with this guys decision to just up and shoot someone who pissed him off?
No I think Alzy visited old geezer couple years back and in that instance something shorted in his head particularly hard.
You lefties spend so much time talking about how environment tends to mold worldview and behavior, then it all flies out the window the second its politically inconvenient. How typical.
You just sold your "you generalize too much" argument down the river. Who is "you lefties"? It just me in this thread.
What does "environment trends" have to do with anything? Are you just randomly blowing dog whistles in hopes that "the cavalry" going to rescue you from your intellectually bankrupt corner?
If you are here to just troll, Ron Paul thread is that way ---->
"Environment tends" not trends. Have you, or have you not stated in the past that a persons environment and circumstances plays a large role in their worldview and behavior?
We both know the answer to this, just like we both know you were trolling in the first place.
Because, increased citizen carry has coincided with a decrease in violent crime overall. So at very best, your little "heres an armed society" comment was seizing on a statistical outlier at best which you also undoubtedly were aware of when you posted it.
Yes, circumstance play a role in forming worldview, but I do not agree with your irrational "fuck the police" view. Anything that flows from it is your typical attempt to re-frame the argument.
I personally don't think police are the nicest people, but claiming that "ex-cop" is necessary and sufficient explanation for the incident is not a credible argument.
Still, during this argument you implied two unsupported claims:
a) increased carry somehow connected with a decrease in violent crime
b) lifetime of police service somehow makes you more prone to violence
I want you try reconcile these in case of concealed carry by a retired cop.
So apparently the guy had been going around intimidating other people. Seems to me like a cop who couldnt quit being a cop after he retired.
as for your points
a) I did not try to make a positive correlation here between increased carry and decrease, but rather that prior of assertions of other parties in the past that claimed increased carry would result in a drastic increase in violence as a result have obviously not panned out.
b) Probably more accurate to say a lifetime of police service, particularly in SWAT type units makes you more prone to being a bully and having a sense of impunity. In this case that led to violence, but usually probably does not.
The takeaway was that even in a society where peons are disarmed, this guy would still have been armed and this guy still would have felt entitled to harass and intimidate people.
It is an effect being a police officer has on many people. No, it is not something that every police officer becomes. Just like some people who drink become alcoholics, but most people are fine. Some people who spend their life as a cop become this guy.
The takeaway was that even in a society where peons are disarmed, this guy would still have been armed.
First, you are trying to dog whistle here "society where peons are disarmed". Eyeroll.
Second, you have difficulty understanding that the shooter in no way was part of establishment (government men with guns). He was a private citizen with a concealed carry.
So any limitation to private gun ownership would have also limited perpetrator's access to guns.
Now question you really should be asking where I would have trouble answering is what kind of gun ownership limitation would have prevented this situation.
Instead you chose to dogwhistle and throw red meat. Eyeroll.
Still, of all kinds of innocent victims, the movie texter is the least innocent kind.
First, dog whistle for what/whom? I just answered your troll with something that I admittedly knew you would make incorrect assumptions on and run wild with.
Second I have no difficulty understanding that he was retired and no longer active - you just keep bringing it up even though it is irrelevant to the point (as usual)
Third, no private limitations on ownership would likely have had zero effect unless you also assume 1) no exceptions are allowed for those affiliated/retired from service , which is unlikely - and 2) that police departments would cross the "Blue line" and start forcibly searching the person/property of their own retirees.
As usual you arent able to see the larger picture, or factor in anything that might be inconvenient to the conclusions you find socially comfortable to hold. In this case, the human element.
The correct answer with how to have prevented this.. is frankly better monitoring, and evaluation of public servants.
The correct answer with how to have prevented this.. is frankly better monitoring, and evaluation of public servants.
While I am not against more monitoring and accountability, current situation does not support this conclusion.
Perp was log since retired and would not be monitored.
Again, senile old man lights someone up over an argument. You conclusions is that we should monitor public servants.
Why did you not conclude on-the-spot gun license revocation by all mentally-impacted patients and mandatory reporting by doctors? Oh, I know why... "from my cold dead hands" is why.
Guy had a pattern of behavior. I find it hard to believe that a cop and swat guy who had a behavior of bullying and intimidating behavior along with unjustified use of force after retirement suddenly picked up those traits at the age of 65 when he retired.
You seem to be trying to say that since he was technically a civilian and had been for several years that his work history and conditions are irrelevant. Which I obviously wont buy into.
As for your last sorry attempt, the "mandatory reporting" by doctors was about doctors being able to politicize their practice.. or fear of such actually discouraging people who need help from seeking it. Who is going to seek help when doing so carries a risk of being very publicly stigmatized and losing your rights as a citizen? Even mental health orgs were leery of some of the things you seem to be saying are a good idea.
Your are unsupported in your claim that pattern of behavior is a) long-standing b) due to his past career in law enforcement.
Much simpler explanation is that the guy has lost his marbles. The whole "mentally incompetent" part that comes with mental disease where you no longer capable of acting rationally. Unfortunately, while he was going mad nobody took away his gun. Similarly to how nobody took away your keyboard.
Is there any, even circumstantial, evidence that pattern of behavior is not recent?
I read the shooter is in mid-70s, couple decades since retirement. If this was pattern of behavior, why only recent incidents are reported?
I fully suspect all of these issues will be brought up during a trial. You might as well be right, but going on currently available information your views are unjustified.
Its supported by a general body of knowledge regarding behavioral patterns in humans. Barring losing his marbles for one reason or another, behavior patterns and world perspective dont change in most people after early 20's let alone 60's or 70's.
While it is also possible he just simply cracked for one reason or another, it seems like it must have happened a while ago.
As far as retirement age, I did not see a number. Many people retire when they can take SS, however it is possible in his case he retired around 50 if he joined up at 20 or so and had a 30 year pension.
His response to the incident seemed lucid enough, and he tried to articulate a defense of his actions. One that actually would have flown more likely than not was he still wearing blue. Or in other words, his post-incident behavior and demeanor fits my model much more closely than yours. Your "justification" is just a rhetorical hand-wave for things you dont want to consider.
Of course it is also possible, and even likely that a combination of the two factors (worldview + marble lossage) was at work. This I would accept as reasonable, its entirely possible that a decade ago he would have been a codgety old intimidating asshat, but had enough self control not to up and shoot someone for little reason.
One that actually would have flown more likely than not was he still wearing blue.
While I still don't agree with your arguments, I think this specific point deserves attention.
Yes. It is likely than not, that he would have gotten away with the murder is he was on-duty copy responding to a theater disturbance call. There would likely still be disciplinary hearings and termination for a cause, but not jail time.
I do agree that police has mostly unchecked power over you and as a private citizen you are not on the even playing field with them in the justice system. All of this is highly problematic.
Still, the above has nothing to do with the old codger with lose marbles who decided to go off the deep end with guns blazing.
In no way shooter's behavior is an example of police abuse.
The footage the group posted was not the first such effort to intimidate by exposing someone's personal information: As I reported recently, in April members of Open Carry Texas outed a concerned schoolteacher who had called police in Plano, Texas, and she was soon hit with a barrage of harassment and violent threats by phone and email. James faced similar treatment this week.
Not sure which is more ridiculous, that you post something from MJ or that you read MJ
Even if the story is legit (huge IF)...
Inserting it into any type of gun rights debate is like saying we should also strike freedom of religion as a political right because of the Westboro Baptists.
Now just as soon as you can explain how Obama has been better in any regard than Romney..... with the possible exception that Obama only had 4 more years, Romney could have had 8.
That statement should not be construed as an endorsement of Romney. But functionally, they are almost identical. Same pig, different colored lipstick - as your other favorite politican might put it.
Now just as soon as you can explain how Obama has been better in any regard than Romney..... with the possible exception that Obama only had 4 more years, Romney could have had 8.
That statement should not be construed as an endorsement of Romney. But functionally, they are almost identical. Same pig, different colored lipstick - as your other favorite politican might put it.
You have got to be kidding. I'm going to leave out the economy, the Wars, and other things. I am going to focus on the social issues. Buy now, if Romney was president, all the social issues I hold dear would be a disaster.
Now just as soon as you can explain how Obama has been better in any regard than Romney..... with the possible exception that Obama only had 4 more years, Romney could have had 8.
That statement should not be construed as an endorsement of Romney. But functionally, they are almost identical. Same pig, different colored lipstick - as your other favorite politican might put it.
You have got to be kidding. I'm going to leave out the economy, the Wars, and other things. I am going to focus on the social issues. Buy now, if Romney was president, all the social issues I hold dear would be a disaster.
LOL
You and sini actually seem think it would be a major difference.
Can we stick to the topic of this thread before someone gets shot.
Incidentally, Romney would have been worse for gun rights than Obama. Romney doesnt think societies peons have any more right to be armed than Obama does. Other than skeet shooters and people who guard rich people Romney doesnt care for armed private citizens at all. So he could have gotten away with all sorts of things.
The GOP, even the Establishment has to at least pretend to care about gun rights while Obama is in office.
The myth of widespread defensive gun use is at the heart of the push to weaken already near catatonic laws controlling the use of guns and expand where good guys can carry guns to bars, houses of worship and college campuses—all in the mistaken belief that more “good guys with guns” will help stop the “bad guys.”
But the evidence clearly shows that our lax gun laws and increased gun ownership, spurred on by this myth, do not help “good guys with guns” defend themselves, their families or our society. Instead, they are aiding and abetting criminals by providing them with more guns, with 200,000 already stolen on an annual basis.
Zzzzz thats crap and you know its crap. Were it even true its not like it would matter.
For an open society to function there has to be a balance of power between the populace and the rulers, in real terms not paper terms.
End of.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
For an open society to function there has to be a balance of power between the populace and the rulers, in real terms not paper terms.
I actually agree with the above, but at the same time I don't see guns solving money in politics or wealth distribution. These are real "balance of power" issues. Having a freeman on the land nutter hole up on their ranch in a standoff with a local sheriff does not impact "balance of power" in any meaningful way.
For example, Orange Revolution in Ukraine happened without armed population and against armed government. Patriot Act and civil forfeiture happening in a most guns per civilians country in the world.
For an open society to function there has to be a balance of power between the populace and the rulers, in real terms not paper terms.
I actually agree with the above, but at the same time I don't see guns solving money in politics or wealth distribution. These are real "balance of power" issues. Having a freeman on the land nutter hole up on their ranch in a standoff with a local sheriff does not impact "balance of power" in any meaningful way.
For example, Orange Revolution in Ukraine happened without armed population and against armed government. Patriot Act and civil forfeiture happening in a most guns per civilians country in the world.
How do you explain that?
As you well know breaking down those situations is rather complicated. Armed power is not the sole factor in any equation, obviously. It is however *another* major factor, and unbalanced physical power is certainly no less detrimental than unbalanced monetary power.
Though I would be the first to say, that weapons alone are not sufficient to solve anything. Weapons are the last option, however once the weapons are gone your options are much fewer.
One of the biggest problems with lack of weaponry, is actually the dependence it then breeds. Weapons are always needed in society, but in a well functioning society they are typically used solely by the State. But what happens when the State withdraws its protection from people, groups, or even entire areas?
Its a decidedly vicious form of control where the State abdicates its duties and leaves a disarmed populace at the mercy of the local criminal element (occasionally state sponsored or sanctioned) who somehow never seem to lack for arms, no matter the time, place, or laws against weapons.
Interestingly, Ukraine where presently personal firearms are illegal, are in the process of legalizing most of the firearm types for private ownership.
Writing for Mic.com, Mathew Rodriguez has helpfully offered “6 Surprising Ways to Curb Gun Violence That Have Nothing to Do With Gun Control.” His solutions include prison reform, addressing structural racism and correcting income inequality. Those are colossal ambitions, and yet they are somehow more plausible than a universal background check requirement or a magazine capacity restriction passing the 114th Congress.
While we pursue long-term social reforms, people are dying, and for the families directly affected by gun violence, this is unacceptable.
This right here encapsulates much of what is wrong with the media and left wing groupthink. In the face of "difficult" social and legal reforms, lets go with a "bereaved parent" emotional argument to avoid working for something meaningful and instead argue for something meaningless that might make a few people feel better about themselves.
I mean, magazine capacity? If you argue for that restriction you are literally either a stupid person or simply do not care about solving any problems and are cynically trying to make yourself look good in the eyes of those who hate people who own weapons.
Same with the constant demonization of those who collect firearms. As if the fact that someone owns "many" guns is somehow a bad thing. I mean seriously, think about it. So what if someone owns 10 guns or even 100 guns. What are you going to do, even if you are a psychopath - grow 100 extra arms and wield them all simultaneously?
I actually know quite a few people who have "arsenals". Mostly they are just affluent sport shooters. Some are collectors and/or history buffs who enjoy the artistry of weapons, typically shotguns, or the historical significance of various other long and short arms. That many media and political segments are trying to demonize collectors just shows the depth of their hate and bias.
If people would stick to things like closing certain background loopholes regarding the sale of commercial firearms (I dont think private individuals should be prohibited from transferring or loaning weapons on a personal level, though giving or loaning weapons to someone known to have a violent and or severely mental history should obviously be punishable)
I mean, magazine capacity? If you argue for that restriction you are literally either a stupid person...
There are a lot of stupid people out there. Just because a specific point is being crudely argued by any given idiot, doesn't mean that the underlying point is necessary wrong.
![[stars]](/images/graemlins/default/m1809.gif "[stars]"){kind=small}
![[yes]](/images/graemlins/default/89.gif "[yes]"){kind=small}
![[surprise1]](/images/graemlins/default/26surprise.gif "[surprise1]"){kind=small}
