The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-20-2013
bobvela

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

I go away for a few days and clear schizophrenic folks like thombergeron start projecting other peoples views on to me (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Originally Posted by thombergeron

And yet, less than 24 hours later, the gun nuts are out in force, fronting the plainly absurd notion that this never would have happened if Clinton hadn’t disarmed the military.

So really, Bob, who’s dancing on graves here? Who’s misrepresenting the facts in a ham-handed attempt to score political points?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thombergeron

You and your mouthbreather buddy bobvela didn’t come up with the “Clinton-era policy makes military bases gun-free zones” argument on your own. You got your cut-and-paste orders from various right-wing dittohead sources like this

Quote:

Originally Posted by thombergeron

That's fine. But you, bobvela, and hordes of other mouthbreathers didn't even wait for the gunfire to die down before blaming Bill Clinton for turning military bases into "gun-free zones." Which is just a blatant lie.

Thanks for letting me live rent free in your head for so long... or would you like to cite where I blamed Clinton for making military bases gun free zones? Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that because a place is a 'gun free zone' that no one can carry there. Your average K-12 school is a 'gun free zone' and yet your average local police officer doesn't think twice when carrying there... so clearly, a limited # of people are able to carry there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Actually, this virtually never happens. I’m willing to bet that you can’t come up with a single unambiguous case of an armed civilian stopping an armed assailant.

Really? Not a single case? Oh right... you add the needless measure of 'unambiguous' because you will demand a rather impossible level of proof and poo poo any case I provide... shucks for you, this is a topic I've followed for many years.

Does a 'former police officer' count as an armed civilian? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us...ed=print&_r=1&

Quote:

The gunman who killed four people in two church-related attacks on Sunday committed suicide after being shot “multiple times” by a volunteer security guard at a church in Colorado Springs, the El Paso County coroner said.

No? Then we've got a principal in Mississippi: http://content.time.com/time/magazin...136736,00.html

Quote:

Luke Woodham walked into Pearl High's commons, an enclosure created by the school's buildings. He then took a .30-.30 rifle from beneath his blue trench coat and opened fire, wounding seven schoolmates and killing two
...
He was subdued by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who pulled a .45-cal. pistol from his car and ordered the gunman to the ground.

A bar patron: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/th...winnemucca-bar

Quote:

Winnemucca Police Chief Bob Davidson said a man entered Players Bar and Grill and fatally shot two members of a rival family before he was shot and killed by a patron.
...
The patron was in possession of a valid concealed-weapons permit issued by the Washoe County sheriff's office, Davidson said.

A guy visiting a local mall with a friend and the friend's baby: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html

Quote:

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

Or a dance hall owner: http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-2...cience-teacher

Quote:

Yesterday, Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged with fatally shooting John Gillette, 48, a science teacher at James Parker Middle School, as Gillette was chaperoning a prom for Wurst and his eighth-grade class at Nick's Place.
...
Wurst shot and wounded two students and another teacher, police said, then fled from the hall. None of the three was seriously injured.

As the 240 youngsters and teachers ran for cover - some diving into a closet for protection, singing and praying to stay calm - hall owner James Strand grabbed a shotgun and followed Wurst out the door, police said. Strand caught up with Wurst, who lives in nearby McKean, and held him until authorities arrived.

Ending a mass shooting doesn't always involve the police arresting or killing the subject, but come in several different ways:

1. Shooter is killed or subdued by armed response (Navy Yard)
2. Shooter gives up on attack and gives up to armed response (shithead #2 in Boston bombing)
3. Shooter thinks they've done enough and doesn't want to be taken alive without immediate threat to themselves (VT Tech)
4. Shooter offs themselves rather than be taken alive after a perceived immediate threat to themselves (Calacumus Town Center shooting)

There are countless examples of each, and I cited 5 above, would you like me to cite more? Or would you like to admit that you were wrong?
09-20-2013
bobvela

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

Bobvela -maybe the issue here is not to try and 'control firearms for the masses across 50 states' but to take guns away from people who have shown they ought not to have them, because they are on medication, have a record of violence, uncontrollable rage etc

I wish it was that easy... and while many of my posts here can be seen in a sarcastic and/or confrontational way... I mean the following in the most serious way... how do you want to implement such a system?

I doubt you will find many firearm owners, NRA members or leaders who think that every single nut should have the right to a firearm... the issue is about how to we choose or legislate who can and who cannot legally own?

What constitutes 'have shown they ought not to have them'? Who decides that? Is there a process for determination? What of a process for appeal in case of error?

Which medications are on the prohibited list? What happens when the medication taker ceases them because they are no longer needed? What if the medication no longer has the negative effects on the taker due to the length of time it is taken?

When it comes to 'record of violence, uncontrollable rage etc'... what kind of record? Police report? Arrest? Conviction? How many such 'record's?

I was thinking this week... that under such a potential line of thinking... one could make an argument to prohibit just about any transsexual (MTF of FTM) from legally owning a firearm.

Transsexualism (under several different names) is considered a 'mental disorder' by the DSMV-IV: http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/dsm_iv.html

Often those suffering from this 'mental disorder' will pursue medications in the form of hormones to help offset or correct this disorder in some way.

Such medications (hormones) are very powerful drugs which can drastically effect brain chemistry. Estrogen can cause massive mood swings, while testosterone can lead to strong feelings of aggression.

It is also said that transgendered persons have a higher than average rate of suicide, http://www.lauras-playground.com/tra...emorial%20.htm, further suggesting a link to a mental disorder (suicide not generally being a rational response to adversity), and if someone is so susceptible to showing such a blatant disregard for their own life... viewing someone else's life with such a disregard is not far from the realm of possibility (ie murder-suicide).

Note... I am not supportive of any such policy based on the above, nor even the ideas mentioned in the immediate section above, it is simply a thought experiment based on available data which can be used to paint a given picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

-if this man had been deprived of his weapons following earlier incidents, he may still have been able to get hold of weapons illegaly, but it would at least have been harder for him to do so.

Ideally yes, only he passed a background check just a few days before for the single shotgun he purchased and began the attack with, the rest it seems he took from the body(s) of those he killed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

Otherwise you are not going to stop these incidents from happening again, even if people in the location -shop, school, mall, cinema, are armed.

Short of a giant super magnet in space, which is somehow set only to "gun"... you can never fully prevent such acts... at least with a firearm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

Aren't most of the people who have committed these crimes shown to be nutters?

With limited exception yes... the only recent one being that of Anders Behring Breivik (2011 Norway attacks) who it disturbs me to say sounds rather rational in his views, even though I disagree with his actions & motives.

It's easy to say after the fact "clearly so and so was a nutter"... though not all nutters are violent, let alone to this level, and sorting those who are from those who are not is an absolutely herculean task that even the ACLU I think would have a problem with, consider this... While Fox News has focused more on the 'security clearance' angle than the gun angle with regards to the Navy Yard shooting, there is an interesting thing to consider... I have a Concealed Pistol License which enables me to legally carry in 27 states, with my non-resident Utah Concealed Firearms Permit that # expands to 33. While the state I live in only requires a periodic check every 5 years to make sure I'm on the up and up, Utah CFP carriers have their record hit about every 90 days to look for anything that doesn't seem right. The federal government does not automatically do such a routine check for security clearances, nor do they do so for firearms (in the latter case because the ATF & FBI are prohibited from maintaining a list of those who have undergone background checks as a result of an ATF form 4473 for more than a couple of days).

As a first step... shall we start with a master federal database of all firearm owners (which would require outright registration) so that those who are flagged with sufficient issues & known to be owning a firearm can be disarmed?

To expand a bit, while it may seem like a simple task to simply have a large database of those under indictment or information in any court for a felony, ever been convicted of a felony, are fugitives from justice, is an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance, has been mentally adjudicated mentally defective, dishonorably discharged from the military, subject to a court order against harassment, stalking or threatening a their child, intimate partner or a child of such a partner, been convicted of domestic violence, renounced US citizenship, is illegally in the US (all items taken from a 4473)... how well can you trust this data?

I come from an extensive IT background and can talk at length about dirty data... it exists everywhere, triply so when you are accepting data from multiple disparate sources which may not have the same quality controls or schema as you and that you do not have the resources to validate every entry in to.

Turn it around... we have a no fly list that will occasionally flag a US Senator as being barred from flying, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-610466.html, we have a congress that wants to require photo id to vote (with the fear that some voters will be disenfranchised because they cannot afford an id or cannot prove their identity to get an id)... we also have a federal government which is less than two weeks away from rolling out the Health Insurance Marketplace as part of Obamacare, and despite several years of lead time, are having massive issues with preparedness & security.

I'd mentioned the ACLU earlier... and While not generally a friend of the second amendment, I could only imagine that the degree of data collection & non-adjudicated data processing & cateorigization would upset even them as once you have a database that contains those who should not be allowed to own a firearm (and so should be checked from time to time to make sure they've not illegally acquired one) would easily be turned to other purposes that they would be staunch opponents of.

Again I say, like many, I do not want nuts who are going to commit acts of violence to own firearms... the issue is preventing them and only them from such acts and not affecting the larger population... something we cannot do reasonably without getting into a degree of profiling that most would find offensive, because that degree of profiling would not just logically apply to firearm ownership but a multitude of other aspects of life.
09-20-2013
Stavros

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobvela

I wish it was that easy... and while many of my posts here can be seen in a sarcastic and/or confrontational way... I mean the following in the most serious way... how do you want to implement such a system?

I doubt you will find many firearm owners, NRA members or leaders who think that every single nut should have the right to a firearm... the issue is about how to we choose or legislate who can and who cannot legally own?

What constitutes 'have shown they ought not to have them'? Who decides that? Is there a process for determination? What of a process for appeal in case of error?

Which medications are on the prohibited list? What happens when the medication taker ceases them because they are no longer needed? What if the medication no longer has the negative effects on the taker due to the length of time it is taken?

When it comes to 'record of violence, uncontrollable rage etc'... what kind of record? Police report? Arrest? Conviction? How many such 'record's?

I was thinking this week... that under such a potential line of thinking... one could make an argument to prohibit just about any transsexual (MTF of FTM) from legally owning a firearm.

Transsexualism (under several different names) is considered a 'mental disorder' by the DSMV-IV: http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/dsm_iv.html

Often those suffering from this 'mental disorder' will pursue medications in the form of hormones to help offset or correct this disorder in some way.

Such medications (hormones) are very powerful drugs which can drastically effect brain chemistry. Estrogen can cause massive mood swings, while testosterone can lead to strong feelings of aggression.

It is also said that transgendered persons have a higher than average rate of suicide, http://www.lauras-playground.com/tra...emorial%20.htm, further suggesting a link to a mental disorder (suicide not generally being a rational response to adversity), and if someone is so susceptible to showing such a blatant disregard for their own life... viewing someone else's life with such a disregard is not far from the realm of possibility (ie murder-suicide).

Note... I am not supportive of any such policy based on the above, nor even the ideas mentioned in the immediate section above, it is simply a thought experiment based on available data which can be used to paint a given picture.

Ideally yes, only he passed a background check just a few days before for the single shotgun he purchased and began the attack with, the rest it seems he took from the body(s) of those he killed.

Short of a giant super magnet in space, which is somehow set only to "gun"... you can never fully prevent such acts... at least with a firearm.

With limited exception yes... the only recent one being that of Anders Behring Breivik (2011 Norway attacks) who it disturbs me to say sounds rather rational in his views, even though I disagree with his actions & motives.

It's easy to say after the fact "clearly so and so was a nutter"... though not all nutters are violent, let alone to this level, and sorting those who are from those who are not is an absolutely herculean task that even the ACLU I think would have a problem with, consider this... While Fox News has focused more on the 'security clearance' angle than the gun angle with regards to the Navy Yard shooting, there is an interesting thing to consider... I have a Concealed Pistol License which enables me to legally carry in 27 states, with my non-resident Utah Concealed Firearms Permit that # expands to 33. While the state I live in only requires a periodic check every 5 years to make sure I'm on the up and up, Utah CFP carriers have their record hit about every 90 days to look for anything that doesn't seem right. The federal government does not automatically do such a routine check for security clearances, nor do they do so for firearms (in the latter case because the ATF & FBI are prohibited from maintaining a list of those who have undergone background checks as a result of an ATF form 4473 for more than a couple of days).

As a first step... shall we start with a master federal database of all firearm owners (which would require outright registration) so that those who are flagged with sufficient issues & known to be owning a firearm can be disarmed?

To expand a bit, while it may seem like a simple task to simply have a large database of those under indictment or information in any court for a felony, ever been convicted of a felony, are fugitives from justice, is an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance, has been mentally adjudicated mentally defective, dishonorably discharged from the military, subject to a court order against harassment, stalking or threatening a their child, intimate partner or a child of such a partner, been convicted of domestic violence, renounced US citizenship, is illegally in the US (all items taken from a 4473)... how well can you trust this data?

I come from an extensive IT background and can talk at length about dirty data... it exists everywhere, triply so when you are accepting data from multiple disparate sources which may not have the same quality controls or schema as you and that you do not have the resources to validate every entry in to.

Turn it around... we have a no fly list that will occasionally flag a US Senator as being barred from flying, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-610466.html, we have a congress that wants to require photo id to vote (with the fear that some voters will be disenfranchised because they cannot afford an id or cannot prove their identity to get an id)... we also have a federal government which is less than two weeks away from rolling out the Health Insurance Marketplace as part of Obamacare, and despite several years of lead time, are having massive issues with preparedness & security.

I'd mentioned the ACLU earlier... and While not generally a friend of the second amendment, I could only imagine that the degree of data collection & non-adjudicated data processing & cateorigization would upset even them as once you have a database that contains those who should not be allowed to own a firearm (and so should be checked from time to time to make sure they've not illegally acquired one) would easily be turned to other purposes that they would be staunch opponents of.

Again I say, like many, I do not want nuts who are going to commit acts of violence to own firearms... the issue is preventing them and only them from such acts and not affecting the larger population... something we cannot do reasonably without getting into a degree of profiling that most would find offensive, because that degree of profiling would not just logically apply to firearm ownership but a multitude of other aspects of life.

You have given an extensive reply to my queries, but it leaves me with a sense of despair about the situation because you are suggesting that in practical terms nothing short of a comprehensive ban on the ownership of weapons would make a difference. Even with tight controls, I assume it would be possible to sell firearms to someone in 2013 who has no history of mental illness or criminal activity but who, a year later, has experienced a breakdown and thinks the world is against him and uses those arms purchased when 'normal' to go ape in a mall, a school, a subway train, or the US Congress.

Not sure about the classification of gender dysmorphia as a 'mental illness' as many/most transexuals believe they are completely normal and that is is their body that is the cause of their unhappiness.
It seems to me that we -because these problems of men going mad with guns does happen in the UK as well- need a cultural shift away from the use of guns as solutions to problems, or the view that guns are an essential personal accessory, like a mobile phone or a handbag. And, indeed, that killing people is a solution. In age of violent video games, forensic or lurid cop and murder shows on tv and in film, and of course the real thing in news reports, I fear that cultural shift is a long way away, though we can do it within ourselves.

I don't know if this chart has been seen in the USA but it offers an interactive map of gun violence in the USA -doesn't work on an iPad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-by-state.html
09-20-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

To get a background check and then buy a gun in the U.S. takes under five minutes. What kind of background check is that? Currently, any information gathered during a background check must be destroyed within twenty four hours. It cannot be shared with any government agency or law enforcement. There is no electronic record available to law enforcement of who bought what gun. When investigating a crime, agents must track the gun to the manufacturer, hope to find out from the manufacturer which group of stores might have been sent that gun, and then question individual store managers and clerks in hopes that they might have a record or a memory of who bought that firearm. The NRA pretends to be anti-crime, but this sort of obstruction to criminal investigations exists only because of NRA lobbyists.

Who should decide who shouldn’t have guns? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course. We don’t need a message from God or orders from SkyNet; we decide. If you’re legally blind Iowa, the Legislature and Governor have granted you the right to carry. Sweet, right? There is simply no danger that any regulation is going to be so sweeping as to curtail the intented freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. The only additional regulatory measures that have been seriously proposed are those in the bill recently voted down (in April 2013) not long after the Sandy Hook tragedy where 27 people were killed, most of them primary school children. That modest proposal (voted down by 41 Republicans and 5 Democrats) would have limited the capacity of magazines and expanded background checks at gunshows and elsewhere.
09-20-2013
bobvela

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

You have given an extensive reply to my queries, but it leaves me with a sense of despair about the situation because you are suggesting that in practical terms nothing short of a comprehensive ban on the ownership of weapons would make a difference.

Even an outright ban would be ineffective as building a firearm is trivial in the form of a zip gun, and with a little machining experience a far more complicated & deadly weapon can be built in the garage... but this still assumes that an outright ban did still collect all firearms (hence the giant super magnet in space) and people were left only to build their own. Even in nations that have high bars limiting personal ownership, illegal guns can often be found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

Even with tight controls, I assume it would be possible to sell firearms to someone in 2013 who has no history of mental illness or criminal activity but who, a year later, has experienced a breakdown and thinks the world is against him and uses those arms purchased when 'normal' to go ape in a mall, a school, a subway train, or the US Congress.

Again, which mental illnesses do you want to put on the prohibited list? More so, are you prepared to have a federal database not just of firearms and who their owners are, but the entire mental health history of all US persons whether they own a firearm today or not (just in case they opt to purchase one in future)?

When one seeks help for mental issues, they are struggling with something and looking for a way try to get better, should they automatically fear that they will end up on a federal mental health watch list that could haunt them for the rest of their lives?

We do have a limited system today where those who adjudicated as mentally deficient are prohibited from ownership, however a whole slew of privacy laws prevent a massive database of them... and those are just those who have a court order to that effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

Not sure about the classification of gender dysmorphia as a 'mental illness' as many/most transexuals believe they are completely normal and that is is their body that is the cause of their unhappiness.

I am simply playing devils advocate with that analogy, you do not have to accept it, just consider how easy it is to lump it in with other mental illnesses the suffers of you wish to prohibit from lawful firearm ownership.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

It seems to me that we -because these problems of men going mad with guns does happen in the UK as well- need a cultural shift away from the use of guns as solutions to problems, or the view that guns are an essential personal accessory, like a mobile phone or a handbag.

But they do happen in the UK, just not as frequently admittedly: Hungerford massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Monkseaton shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dunblane school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More so, you focus on the culture of the firearm vs the cultural in general. While we share a common language and legal system, Brits & Americans are quite different culturally. Here in the US there are about as many firearms as there are persons... yet the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of them are never used to harm other people.

To repeat an old line "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

And, indeed, that killing people is a solution. In age of violent video games, forensic or lurid cop and murder shows on tv and in film, and of course the real thing in news reports, I fear that cultural shift is a long way away, though we can do it within ourselves.

There we agree. I too am saddened to see the degree which in many forms violence is seen as an acceptable or normal outcome, but another part is that of poor parenting in many cases where children are not taught healthy ways to deal with adversity or stresses.

At the end of the day the gun is just a tool, without it, someone who is keen on doing evil will find another tool, be it a blunt object, a sharp object or even an flammable or explosive one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stavros

I don't know if this chart has been seen in the USA but it offers an interactive map of gun violence in the USA -doesn't work on an iPad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-by-state.html

Charts like that don't work well at the state level, instead digging into the city & even block levels are telling.

While there is certainly a great deal of gun violence in this country, the distribution is not equal between or within states, instead are often contained in very specific areas, like certain parts of the war zone that is called Chicago, and then with largely random blips elsewhere across the larger map.
09-20-2013
bobvela

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

To get a background check and then buy a gun in the U.S. takes under five minutes. What kind of background check is that?

Um, an instant one? Hence the name 'National Instant Criminal Background Check System' (NICS)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Currently, any information gathered during a background check must be destroyed within twenty four hours. It cannot be shared with any government agency or law enforcement. There is no electronic record available to law enforcement of who bought what gun.

You realize that is by design right? It was one of the conditions of the pro-gun lobby agreeing to the mandatory background checks at FFLs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

When investigating a crime, agents must track the gun to the manufacturer, hope to find out from the manufacturer which group of stores might have been sent that gun, and then question individual store managers and clerks in hopes that they might have a record or a memory of who bought that firearm.

Again, are you actually this ignorant or are you just pretending? Because what you said above is a big ole whopper of a lie.

As a type 7 or 10 FFL, the manufacturer knows EXACTLY which distributor or store a given firearm was sold to.

As a type 9 FFL, the distributor or store knows EXACTLY which customer purchased which gun and on which day.

The form 4473 that the buyer fills out as part of the background check MUST be retained (physically, not digitally) by the FFL for at least 20 years, while the manufacturer or importer must permanently keep records of their transfers... both of which must be available to the BATFE or other law enforcement on request.

In the case of used guns you do not necessarily have such a clean path from A to B to C... however FFL record keeping requirements do not discriminate between new & used guns and sales information can still be found with some searching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

The NRA pretends to be anti-crime, but this sort of obstruction to criminal investigations exists only because of NRA lobbyists.

At last check... the ACLU is against the FBI doing undercover operations in Mosques. Does this mean we can label them as not actually being anti-crime because they are obstructing tools which are useful in criminal investigations in the name of privacy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Who should decide who shouldn’t have guns? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.

Always fun when an ignorant liberal not thinking through their arguments... now to play a typical Trish card and play the part of a parrot:
- Who should decide who should be able to marry? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.
- Who should decide who should be able to vote? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.
- Who should decide who should be able to own slaves? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.
I'm sorry to hear/see that you think that fundamental rights are subject to the whim of the voters. Clearly then you agree with the voters in most states which have prohibited same-sex marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

There is simply no danger that any regulation is going to be so sweeping as to curtail the intented freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

Liar. Absolutely false. Or would you like provide a time machine with which we can see that a law/regulation that is passed today is never altered or made unduly restrictive in the future... after all, no law has ever been ratcheted up in the history of this nation, no abuses of freedoms at all, never.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

The only additional regulatory measures that have been seriously proposed are those in the bill recently voted down (in April 2013) not long after the Sandy Hook tragedy where 27 people were killed, most of them primary school children.

Do note how you failed to cite the specific bil, as well as ignored all of the other measures seriously proposed (and in some cases passed see CO & NY) in different states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

That modest proposal (voted down by 41 Republicans and 5 Democrats) would have limited the capacity of magazines and expanded background checks at gunshows and elsewhere.

You keep pointing to these so called 'modest' proposals and yet fail to even suggest how they would stop ANYTHING. The Navy Yard shooter legally bought his shotgun (clearly taking advice from Joe Biden) after a background check from an FFL, while you seek to expand laws which would not have prevented this or most other shootings in the name of making yourself feel good and attempting to create a false sense of security.
09-20-2013
broncofan

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela

Always fun when an ignorant liberal not thinking through their arguments... now to play a typical Trish card and play the part of a parrot:

Who should decide who should be able to marry? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.
Who should decide who should be able to vote? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.
Who should decide who should be able to own slaves? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.

I'm sorry to hear/see that you think that fundamental rights are subject to the whim of the voters. Clearly then you agree with the voters in most states which have prohibited same-sex marriage.

Liar. Absolutely false. Or would you like provide a time machine with which we can see that a law/regulation that is passed today is never altered or made unduly restrictive in the future... after all, no law has ever been ratcheted up in the history of this nation, no abuses of freedoms at all, never.
The Supreme Court has not recognized that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the 14th amendment due process analysis. They have said that the federal government should not super-impose its own definition on the states when it struck down portions of DOMA.

The passage of the 13th amendment meant that there did not have to be any due process analysis for slavery under the 14th amendment. I imagine a simple due process analysis would come to the same conclusion you seem to regarding slavery, that it's both a violation of due process and equal protection.

This last paragraph beginning with the sentence liar is also illogical. You are saying that a law should not be passed in the present because in the future there is a risk that more restrictive laws will be passed by the legislature. Or that because of the risk of abuse in the enforcement of the law, it should not be passed. Clearly there shouldn't be work safety laws because the Department of Labor might enforce them in such a way that shuts down all business.

If you are saying that placing some restrictions on the sale of guns in order to curtail gun violence is unconstitutional shouldn't you be citing District of Columbia v. heller or McDonald v. City of Chicago?

Heller makes clear that permissible restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

According to the existing precedent, the American people through their legislatures should be able to decide who gets to own guns. There is no Constitutional conflict with placing qualifications on the commercial sale of arms as Heller and McDonald make clear. BTW, it wasn't until McDonald that the 2nd amendment was even considered incorporated into the 14th amendment due process analysis.
09-20-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

You realize that is by design right?

Yes, designed by the NRA.

Quote:

Again, are you actually this ignorant or are you just pretending? Because what you said above is a big ole whopper of a lie.

Thanks again for your thoughtful invective, but it's not a lie to claim "When investigating a crime, agents must track the gun to the manufacturer, hope to find out from the manufacturer which group of stores might have been sent that gun, and then question individual store managers and clerks in hopes that they might have a record or a memory of who bought that firearm."

Quote:

The form 4473 that the buyer fills out as part of the background check MUST be retained (physically, not digitally) by the FFL for at least 20 years

Exactly. To track down any information about a gun's record of ownership the investigator has to wade through boxes and boxes of paper. An electronic data base is by law unavailable.

Quote:

At last check... the ACLU is against the FBI doing undercover operations in Mosques. Does this mean we can label them as not actually being anti-crime...

Unlike the NRA, the ACLU doesn't claim that it's actions manifestly makes life tough for criminals. The ACLU supports Miranda rights, it presses for due process, and yes the free practice of religion. But how one chooses to characterize the ACLU is a side issue; i.e. a distraction.

Quote:

Who should decide who should be able to marry? The American people through their State and Federal legislatures of course.

Who else is there to decide? It's people who make all the decisions, guided by past practices, law, precedent etc. Yes, sometimes we make the wrong decisions. That's why no decision is ever set in stone.

Quote:

Liar.

Really? We were discussing who right now (not five hundred years in the future) has the right to say who should and who shouldn't be allowed to have guns. I pointed out that blind people in Iowa can now carry. In that context I concluded, "There is simply no danger that any regulation is going to be so sweeping as to curtail the intented freedom guaranteed by the Constitution." Your response is, "Liar." Once again, our laws are human laws. They are constantly in flux. That's why there are legislatures and amendment procedures. Suppose I jump into a time machine and discover that five hundred years in the future blind people will be able to "see" using implanted quantum sensory technology. Does that mean we can't prevent them from carrying a concealed firearm in the present day?

Quote:

You keep pointing to these so called 'modest' proposals and yet fail to even suggest how they would stop ANYTHING.

They obviously will make it harder to legally acquire firearms. Otherwise, why are they so vociferously opposed? One might make less modest proposals, but why bother when gun-radicals won't even agree to the gentlest suggestions.
09-20-2013
Stavros

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobvela

Even an outright ban would be ineffective as building a firearm is trivial in the form of a zip gun, and with a little machining experience a far more complicated & deadly weapon can be built in the garage... but this still assumes that an outright ban did still collect all firearms (hence the giant super magnet in space) and people were left only to build their own. Even in nations that have high bars limiting personal ownership, illegal guns can often be found.

Again, which mental illnesses do you want to put on the prohibited list? More so, are you prepared to have a federal database not just of firearms and who their owners are, but the entire mental health history of all US persons whether they own a firearm today or not (just in case they opt to purchase one in future)?

When one seeks help for mental issues, they are struggling with something and looking for a way try to get better, should they automatically fear that they will end up on a federal mental health watch list that could haunt them for the rest of their lives?

We do have a limited system today where those who adjudicated as mentally deficient are prohibited from ownership, however a whole slew of privacy laws prevent a massive database of them... and those are just those who have a court order to that effect.

I am simply playing devils advocate with that analogy, you do not have to accept it, just consider how easy it is to lump it in with other mental illnesses the suffers of you wish to prohibit from lawful firearm ownership.

More so, you focus on the culture of the firearm vs the cultural in general. While we share a common language and legal system, Brits & Americans are quite different culturally. Here in the US there are about as many firearms as there are persons... yet the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of them are never used to harm other people.

To repeat an old line "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns"

There we agree. I too am saddened to see the degree which in many forms violence is seen as an acceptable or normal outcome, but another part is that of poor parenting in many cases where children are not taught healthy ways to deal with adversity or stresses.

At the end of the day the gun is just a tool, without it, someone who is keen on doing evil will find another tool, be it a blunt object, a sharp object or even an flammable or explosive one.

Charts like that don't work well at the state level, instead digging into the city & even block levels are telling.

While there is certainly a great deal of gun violence in this country, the distribution is not equal between or within states, instead are often contained in very specific areas, like certain parts of the war zone that is called Chicago, and then with largely random blips elsewhere across the larger map.

Reading your reply does not lighten my sense of despair, because it seems to me that you take it as an immutable fact that Americans have a Right to own firearms and that no law will prevent someone who wants a gun from getting one. You place an awesome weight on the judgement of salesmen whose interest is primarily, perhaps solely in making a profit, rather than public safety. And you also can't deal with the 'reality' that there are bad people out there who want to, and will continue to kill. But your refusal to introduce any kind of limiting mechanism because of a violation of 'rights' or because it creates layers of regulation and government which soak up tax dollars and are a restriction on freedom offers a green light to all the wackos out there who can't tell the difference between Grand Theft Auto and Grand Central Station.

Even if you think Americans have an inalienable constitutional right to own firearms, clearly none of them have a right to use them to threaten or injure or kill, and if you see 'gun ownership' as a public health issue, then yes, an individual must accept that his or her privacy is not absolutely protected from the law -just as checks (I hope) are made on people who want to adopt children, to ensure that they meet a set of reasonable requirements and are not adopting a child who is going to sleep in a metal box in the basement and be fed dog biscuits. Absolute freedom does not exist, and ought not to exist, because individuals for all their quirks, are part of a social network they can't get out of, unless they live alone in a cave or on a desert island -it's part of the bargain which means if you live in society, you abide by the rules society makes, and as you indicate, most Americans, most of the time never use their firearms to threaten, kill or injure others, because most people most of the time feel secure in a society protected by the rule of law.

So it isn't just cultural attitudes towards violence it is also a deep acculturation to the values associated with the rule of law in general. You might object to specific laws, but the rule of law as an organising principle in society has been fundamental to social peace for a very long time, and where it is absent, or is abused, social conflict often erupts and let's be honest, for all the bluster of Alex Jones, the USA does not resemble the USSR, North Korea or present-day Syria.

If you are taking the libertarian argument then you are faced with the dilemma of enabling acts as a commitment to freedom which have the potential to deprive others of that same freedom. I find it hard to believe that the USA cannot develop legal and social mechanisms that will lead to fewer people being allowed to own firearms, because it has happened in your past before, such as the origin of restrictive legislation which was passed after the Civil War when there was a panic over the volume of arms (allegedly) being used by 'free slaves' (ie Black Americans) to (allegedly) rob and kill -in those days it was simple enough -if a person is Black, they don't get sold a gun; yet what was couched in the language of crime, was more likely a fear of retribution for past wrongs rather than an actual crime spree by newly free Americans. The same problems of post-war gun-related crime erupted in the UK after the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, and particularly after the Second World War -for a society supposedly not used to guns, there was an 'epidemic' of gun-related crime in the UK in 1946 climaxing in the Craig-Bentley murder trial of 1953 when a policeman was shot dead and one of the accused hanged as a result (although the hanged man, Derek Bentley did not actually fire the weapon).

If you look at the history of the NRA, you will find that they consistently supported the creation of laws to limit the availability of firearms, and that it is only since the 1980s that they have become such an aggressive opponent of controlling laws, and I feel much of that has more to do with a 'libertarian' or 'anti-Big government' agenda, than it has to do with firearms as such. It seems to me that much of this debate gets skewed because of the confusion of two different agendas. Meanwhile, the guns go off, and lives are wasted. You really can do better than this.
09-20-2013
maddygirl

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

School shooting after school shooting, but you still need guns? Yeah, makes sense.
09-21-2013
thombergeron

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobvela

Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that because a place is a 'gun free zone' that no one can carry there. Your average K-12 school is a 'gun free zone' and yet your average local police officer doesn't think twice when carrying there... so clearly, a limited # of people are able to carry there.

Perhaps the core of the problem is that you are using English in a non-standard way. You seem to be saying that a “gun-free zone” will nonetheless still feature numerous individuals armed with guns. From where I’m sitting, this definition renders the term “gun-free” meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobvela

Does a 'former police officer' count as an armed civilian? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us...ed=print&_r=1&

No? Then we've got a principal in Mississippi: http://content.time.com/time/magazin...136736,00.html

A bar patron: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/th...winnemucca-bar

A guy visiting a local mall with a friend and the friend's baby: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-ma...183593571.html

Or a dance hall owner: http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-2...cience-teacher

Again, it appears that you and I are using standard English vocabulary in completely different ways. In each of the cases you’ve cited here, numerous innocent people were killed by a gunman. If an assailant sets out to shoot a victim to death, and then does shoot that victim to death, I would not say that the assailant was “stopped.”

Matthew Murray shot four people to death in two different locations over the course of 12 hours before being “stopped,” ultimately by his own hand.

Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death before driving to his high school with a .30-.30 rifle and shooting nine children, two of whom died. Do you think that those girls’ parents would agree that Woodham was “stopped”?

Ernesto Villagomez shot four people in that bar in Winnemucca, killing both of his intended victims, before he was “stopped” by an active-duty Marine.

Jacob Tyler Roberts killed two people and wounded a third in Clackamas Town Center before his rifle jammed. Concealed carry permit holder Nick Meli fired no rounds, but claims that the mere sight of his .40 pistol was enough to convince Roberts to turn and run down a corridor, descend a flight of stairs, clear the jam in his rifle, and then kill himself in a completely different part of the mall.

And as I pointed out in my post one page back, Andrew Wurst shot the four people that he set out to shoot, killing one, before he ran out of ammunition and left the scene. The dance hall owner, armed with a shotgun, followed and detained Wurst, but since Wurst was 14 years old at the time, it is unclear to where he might have escaped had he not been detained by an armed citizen. The only thing that “stopped” Wurst was that he was finished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobvela

Ending a mass shooting doesn't always involve the police arresting or killing the subject, but come in several different ways:

1. Shooter is killed or subdued by armed response (Navy Yard)
2. Shooter gives up on attack and gives up to armed response (shithead #2 in Boston bombing)
3. Shooter thinks they've done enough and doesn't want to be taken alive without immediate threat to themselves (VT Tech)
4. Shooter offs themselves rather than be taken alive after a perceived immediate threat to themselves (Calacumus Town Center shooting)

There are countless examples of each, and I cited 5 above, would you like me to cite more? Or would you like to admit that you were wrong?

Ahhh… I see. So we’re not as concerned with preventing gun deaths as we are with making certain that episodes of gun violence at least end with the death of the shooter, as well. It’s fine to have armed maniacs in our midst, so long as they’re always put down after doing their worst. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17, but then he shot himself, so problem solved!

I have to admit that I was prepared for all 5 of your examples, since gun nuts refer to them constantly. Your buddy notdrunk brought up Andrew Wurst a page or two ago. So by all means, offer up some more of your “countless examples.” But it seems as though if there were, indeed, “countless examples,” these same five wouldn’t keep coming up, and you wouldn’t have to include incidents that took place 15 and 16 years ago.

Better cut-and-paste please…
09-21-2013
broncofan

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Perhaps the core of the problem is that you are using English in a non-standard way. You seem to be saying that a “gun-free zone” will nonetheless still feature numerous individuals armed with guns. From where I’m sitting, this definition renders the term “gun-free” meaningless.
…

It is literally a zone where not every individual present can carry a gun, so to them it's now a gun-free zone. In their little gun fetish fantasy world they have become completely divorced from the literal meaning of phrases they use. But who was the first Republican dunce who decided that a limit to something is an absolute restriction? Well, actually that's what most of their arguments seem to boil down to.

Bobvela says he's put a lot of thought into the right to bear arms. What about other fundamental rights? Have you thought about the freedom of speech and how preposterous it would be if a free speech advocate argued that speech could never be regulated no matter what interest was being protected? I don't want to get into a discussion about the nuances of 1st amendment law but I assure you state governments can and do regulate speech.

And would any sane person argue that regulating guns is less compelling an interest for states than regulating speech? Having a fundamental right does NOT mean limits can never be placed on it. The different levels of scrutiny applied by the courts are determined by the countervailing interests the states have in that sort of regulation. For Republicans, the only fundamental right that is sacrosanct is the right to bear arms.

But is Bobvela the Republican everyman? Arguing that maps of the states don't take into account the sort of stratification we see from one neighborhood to the next. That large multi-cultural urban centers are war-zones. That wanting to place sensible limits on gun ownership is as much a violation of fundamental rights as the ownership of people. Is this the Republican party? In a nutshell, yes.
09-21-2013
broncofan

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

But of course Bobvela is not being completely serious when he argues that those with gender dysphoria may be precluded from owning guns.

If limits are placed on gun ownership based on psychiatric diagnosis don't you think that they would be a little bit more closely tailored to the symptoms of the disorder and whether it pre-disposed an individual to violence?

Having gender dysphoria means that a person has a dissonance between their assigned gender and their experienced gender. Why would the legislature see fit to consider this relevant?

Would a background check for particular psychiatric disorders require all psychiatric disorders to be disqualifying? The obvious answer is no. Perhaps certain neurotic disorders will be considered completely irrelevant to gun ownership. But maybe the government does want to preclude a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks someone is reading his thoughts from carrying around a weapon.

So what does Bobvela's argument boil down to? More slippery slope nonsense. A total and utter red herring.
09-21-2013
broncofan

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

And let me just point out that even though the Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership can be restricted based on psychiatric illness, if state legislatures used this as a green light for invidious discrimination against anyone who's ever been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition it probably would not pass Constitutional muster. I didn't read anything but a summary of Heller, but let's assume the Court applied strict scrutiny. In order for the Court to say that the right to bear arms can be excepted in the case of mental illness the state laws would have to be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. The types of mental illnesses that could be considered disqualifying would be subsumed within this analysis.

Edit: my point is that the Constitutional analysis actually depends on how necessary the restriction is to improve public safety. This is one of the reasons the public policy and constitutional arguments run together. If gun control does not improve public safety, it probably could not be constitutional. This also forecloses any possibility of an arbitrary regulation, because insofar as it is random and unlikely to be effective (like restricting transsexuals from owning guns), it would probably be unconstitutional.
09-21-2013
notdrunk

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by thombergeron

The first person Aaron Alexis shot was armed with a handgun. DC and park police officers were on scene within 2 minutes. SWAT entered Building 197 within 7 minutes. Aaron Alexis was not "stopped" for another 30 minutes. Is it your contention that the American public needs to be prepared to endure 30-minute firefights in populated areas in order to be "safe"?

That's fine. But you, bobvela, and hordes of other mouthbreathers didn't even wait for the gunfire to die down before blaming Bill Clinton for turning military bases into "gun-free zones." Which is just a blatant lie.

Is Andrew Wurst supposed to be the "mass shooter"? Andrew Wurst shot all four people he set out to shoot, ran out of ammunition, and left the scene. In what sense was he "stopped"?

The assailant in San Antonio was armed with a knife, and went ahead and stabbed the person he intended to stab. He was arrested, but again, not stopped.

The other two were robberies, so again, I'm not clear how they're relevant to the issue at hand. In the United States in 2013, if someone wants to obtain a firearm and shoot 1, 2, or 20 people, there's really nothing to stop them from doing that.

We don't know if he shot the security guard first. That hasn't come out. He probably didn't shoot the security guard first. It wasn't a two minute response time. Additionally, police have to clear rooms and floors.

The military base reply was in reply to one of Trish's post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Perhaps we should arm all U.S. Naval officers. Oh wait! We already do that. :(

Your post said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Actually, this virtually never happens. I’m willing to bet that you can’t come up with a single unambiguous case of an armed civilian stopping an armed assailant.

I gave you examples of armed civilians stopping armed assailants. Don't try to adjust the goal posts. It is relevant because it shows that armed civilians have stopped "bad" people before. We don't live in the world of the Minority Report. Therefore, it is ridiculous to ask for examples of armed individuals "stopping" armed assailants using your definition of "stopping." The armed individual has to know at the exact time and moment when an assailant is going to strike. As you know, that is impossible. An armed individual can't just pull out their gun because somebody is sweating and shaking. Additionally, the states have various laws on concealed carrying.
09-22-2013
yodajazz

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by notdrunk

We don't know if he shot the security guard first. That hasn't come out. He probably didn't shoot the security guard first. It wasn't a two minute response time. Additionally, police have to clear rooms and floors.

The military base reply was in reply to one of Trish's post:

Your post said:

I gave you examples of armed civilians stopping armed assailants. Don't try to adjust the goal posts. It is relevant because it shows that armed civilians have stopped "bad" people before. We don't live in the world of the Minority Report. Therefore, it is ridiculous to ask for examples of armed individuals "stopping" armed assailants using your definition of "stopping." The armed individual has to know at the exact time and moment when an assailant is going to strike. As you know, that is impossible. An armed individual can't just pull out their gun because somebody is sweating and shaking. Additionally, the states have various laws on concealed carrying.

The government is not about to ban all civilian guns. It's not even possible at this point. What I would like, is just to see a greater amount of the public, convinced that these weapons are not practical for them to own. Yes you can site examples of of someone stopping an armed person with a gun. However, it is more statistically probable that a person would use that same weapon to kill a spouse, or commit suicide, etc. When I was a young man someone borrowed $50, and never repaid me. I let it go for a while, but when other things turned bad for me at the time, I decided it was a point of honor that the person had taken advantage of me. I got one of my father's guns, and went looking for him. I caught up with him eventually, but decided it wasn't worth it. OK, so theoretically I could find an instance to protect someone, but that is remote compared to times I have been very angry. I would like to believe that I would not use a gun, if it was available to me, but I don't take that chance. For example, I have been in a ltr for a long, long time. We have had many serious disagreements over the years. Plus, she has had her own issues, and we have younger relatives that visit occasionally. Some are young men, who look at those gangster rap video, as a definition of manhood. They are young, and have to define for themselves, what it means to be a man in today's world, just like we did.

To be honest, my father used a gun, and shot someone who was attempting to rob him. But He was a grocery store owner, in a poor neighborhood, and he was over 70. So I'm not saying all guns are bad.
09-22-2013
Wanderer1

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Americans: Do you think your criminals will listen?
09-22-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer1

Americans: Do you think your criminals will listen?

Hey, let's make murder legal. While we're at it, let's make it easier to murder. Let's manufacture and sell everything one might need to murder as many people as one possibly wish to murder. Make it all legal. Why? Because the murderers won't listen anyway!!!
09-24-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/op...?smid=pl-share
09-24-2013
martin48

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/op...?smid=pl-share

A small voice, I'm afraid
09-26-2013
Silcc69

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

We have another one.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/25/man-on-...g-island-mall/

So how long before the next shooting?
09-28-2013
Ben

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Piers Morgan Battles S.E. Cupp, Van Jones Over Guns for the Blind: 'You've Gone Stark Raving Mad!'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6hGGJwApE
09-28-2013
robertlouis

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

As I tend to point out every three months, this thread is called The FAST Approaching Gun Ban.

So far, almost twelve months, god only knows how many multiple shootings, to say nothing of the daily toll of gun deaths, whether deliberate or by accident, and what has actually happened to curtail the bloody tide?

Not a single fucking thing. And the gun advocates here and elsewhere continue to react hysterically as if all their guns are somehow going to be taken away and they'll have to find another penis substitute.

Get a grip, get real. Your ownership of guns is even less under threat than it was before. Just look at the past year.

Carry on killing. :pissed::pissed::pissed::pissed:
09-28-2013
volkov2006

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

If you go by the FBI mass shooting rates of more than 4 or more killed in one instance I believe the number of mass shootings this year to be about 6.

Although if you change that to 4 or more wounded not killed in one instance that number jumps to around 250 around the time of the Navy yard shooting.

Also from December 8 1980, John Lennon was shot and killed since then till March 22, 2013 at least 1,057,000. I have also heard that since then the number of killed in this country by guns out weighs the number of US soldiers killed in all foreign wars combined. I personally think that something must be done.

I understand that the number of people killed by cars, cigarettes, cancer, and other non weapons is much higher. Although none of these were designed as weapons. Cigarettes causes cancer but not everyone who smokes dies because of it, same can be said of cancer, cars, and other items that have high death rates. Guns were designed for one purpose killing, whether for war or for hunting that is what they are for nothing else.

People are so scared that if we restrict certain weapon types that no one will be able to own a gun, but I believe that around the 1930's the US banned the sale and ownership of automatic weapons, specifically machine guns. Has that stopped anyone from owning a gun. After the shooting of Regan and Brady we started to have background checks did that stop people from owning guns, yes some, the ones that could not pass those tests. If you can't pass a drivers test you do not get a drivers license and not legally drive a car, why should that be different for a deadly weapon.

Also for the people that don't like having gun registries because they think that is what the government needs to take your guns away, and the NRA cried bloody murder over it. Well guess what the NRA has a gun registry and was using it and adding to it at the same time they were opposing a national registry. Also we all have to register our cars and trucks here in the US and when we sell them we have to sign over the registry and that gets sent to the government so if it is used to commit a crime they know who to look for or at least start looking, yet for guns we should just be able to sell them to who ever and if they are used in a crime well I guess we can not use the gun evidence to do an investigation.

Since December 14, 2012 there have been 8,789 gun related deaths reported on TV. According to a CDC study roughly 25,679 have died since 12/14/12. In the last war Iraq/Afghanistan there was less than 6,000 US soldiers killed in combat. Please someone explain how in a country that prides itself on being civilized how can the domestic gun death rate be 25,679 to 6,000. Are people in the US just homicidal or what?
09-29-2013
notdrunk

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by volkov2006

Since December 14, 2012 there have been 8,789 gun related deaths reported on TV. According to a CDC study roughly 25,679 have died since 12/14/12. In the last war Iraq/Afghanistan there was less than 6,000 US soldiers killed in combat. Please someone explain how in a country that prides itself on being civilized how can the domestic gun death rate be 25,679 to 6,000. Are people in the US just homicidal or what?

It is a touchy subject. For example, a white person is more likely to kill himself/herself with a firearm than being murdered by another individual using a firearm. A black person is more likely to be killed by somebody using a firearm than commit suicide using a firearm. According to the CDC, from 2008 to 2010, the firearm homicide rate for blacks age 10 to 24 was 48.4 per 100,000. During the same time period, the firearm homicide rate for whites age 10 to 24 was 2.4 per 100,000. In 2007, the homicide rate for white males was 3.7 per 100,000. And, the homicide rates for black males and hispanic males? 41.1 per 100,000 and 12.1 per 100,000.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

So, the attitude of NIMBY develops when it comes to firearm: Gun-related crime tends to plague the minority communities. So, why should the majority be punished because the actions of some in minority communities are causing negative attitudes towards firearms? Most members of the NRA and other pro-gun groups are apart of the majority. So, NIMBY.
09-29-2013
hippifried

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Yeah, real touchy. So I suppose if it wasn't for all that extra pigmentation, we wouldn't be having schools & theaters shot up... But wait a sec. isn't it a bunch of white guys who've been doing that kinda crap? Well, except for the military bases. If memory serves, I think this is the first by a black dude. Hmmmm... Must be something wrong with the stats. I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation on the klan blogs somewhere, if anybody wanted to waste the time looking.
09-29-2013
robertlouis

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

And the underlying message is, as long as it's only blacks shooting each other, why the hell should we care? SMH.
09-29-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share
09-29-2013
notdrunk

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippifried

Yeah, real touchy. So I suppose if it wasn't for all that extra pigmentation, we wouldn't be having schools & theaters shot up... But wait a sec. isn't it a bunch of white guys who've been doing that kinda crap? Well, except for the military bases. If memory serves, I think this is the first by a black dude. Hmmmm... Must be something wrong with the stats. I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation on the klan blogs somewhere, if anybody wanted to waste the time looking.

I guess you forgot about people like Colin Ferguson, Omar Thornton, Hastings Wise, and others. According to Mother Jones (a secret klan site), from 1982 to now, there have been 11 mass shootings in which the perpetrator is black compared to 44 mass shootings in which the perpetrator is white. How many mass shootings since 1982? 67 mass shootings. There should be more white mass shooters than black mass shooters because majority of this country is white. The vast majority of murders in this country aren't caused by mass shooters. Gun-related homicide and crime tends to plague some communities more so than others. So, individuals that are from communities that aren't plagued by gun-related homicide and crime develop a NIMBY attitude when it comes to firearms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robertlouis

And the underlying message is, as long as it's only blacks shooting each other, why the hell should we care? SMH.

Wrong. A firearm is simply a tool. Why do some individuals belonging to one group are inclined to use a firearm for nefarious reasons more so than other individuals? Is it environment, heredity, or a combination of both?
09-29-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

A firearm is a tool designed for killing. It shouldn't be surprising to find that they tend to be used for that purpose. Environment? Yes, guns are a part of the American environment. Not surprisingly Americans get shot and killed more than their counterparts in civilized Western nations. Heredity? Beyond the hereditary fact that we have an opposable thumb that allows us to both grasp the handgrip and pull the trigger, it's doubtful gun violence and gun accidents have a particularly hereditary explanation unique to Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share
09-29-2013
notdrunk

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

A firearm is a tool designed for killing. It shouldn't be surprising to find that they tend to be used for that purpose. Environment? Yes, guns are a part of the American environment. Not surprisingly Americans get shot and killed more than their counterparts in civilized Western nations. Heredity? Beyond the hereditary fact that we have an opposable thumb that allows us to both grasp the handgrip and pull the trigger, it's doubtful gun violence and gun accidents have a particularly hereditary explanation unique to Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share

There are over 300 million firearms in this country. There are almost enough firearms in this country to give almost every single person a gun in this country. Yet, compared to other times in our history, we aren't in a violent time.

Lets escape the fact that those other civilized Western nations are a lot more homogeneous and have different histories (including gun crimes). It is an apple and oranges comparison.
09-29-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

There are almost enough firearms in this country to give almost every single person a gun in this country.

Yet over the approximately the last two decades the number of U.S. households with a gun is down from 50% to 30%. More guns, but in the hands of fewer people. Collectors and stockpilers.

Quote:

we aren't in a violent time.

Are you forgetting 20 first and second graders and 6 adults were killed in a school shooting just this year? Are you forgetting Gabrielle Giffords? The children in the article I linked above? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share )How many people have to be severely injured, disabled or die of gunshot wounds before you call it a violent time?

There is a big difference between the U.S. and other civilized Western nations. They don't have an NRA (and organization of Nuts, Racists and Assholes).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fJFuZpYWr-k
09-29-2013
notdrunk

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Yet over the approximately the last two decades the number of U.S. households with a gun is down from 50% to 30%. More guns, but in the hands of fewer people. Collectors and stockpilers.

Are you forgetting 20 first and second graders and 6 adults were killed in a school shooting just this year? Are you forgetting Gabrielle Giffords? The children in the article I linked above? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share )How many people have to be severely injured, disabled or die of gunshot wounds before you call it a violent time?

There is a big difference between the U.S. and other civilized Western nations. They don't have an NRA (and organization of Nuts, Racists and Assholes).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fJFuZpYWr-k

From the mid-80s to the mid-90s, United States averaged over 20,000 murders a year. The peak year was in 1991 with 24,700 murders. In 2012, there were 14,827 murders in the United States. Our murder rate for 2012 was the lowest since 1962. What was going on in the 80s and 90s? The illegal drug trade was in full force. I don't think the drop in legal (keep word) ownership affected our homicide number to the point of causing a massive drop in numbers.

Even countries that have strict gun control experience homicides. For example, the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...cal-crime-data

If you notice, the UK historically had low homicide numbers even before that country introduced strict gun control.
09-29-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

What was going on in the 80s and 90s? The illegal drug trade was in full force.

And household gun ownership was at 50% compared to today's 30%.

Quote:

I don't think the drop in legal (keep word) ownership affected our homicide number to the point of causing a massive drop in numbers.

It would be inconvenient for you to think that.
09-29-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Nevertheless, you can't say we in the U.S. don't live in violent times in the same year 20 first and second graders are gunned down and the NRA doesn't blink an eye. Homicide are down over the past couple of decades (but we still have ten times as many homicides as comparable nations). Firearm accidents and suicides are up. A gun in your home (or the home of relative or the home of your child's friend) increases the probability that someone in your family will die of a gunshot wound.
09-29-2013
martin48

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Even countries that have strict gun control experience homicides. For example, the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...cal-crime-data

If you notice, the UK historically had low homicide numbers even before that country introduced strict gun control.

Your view on the UK is very simplistic. There is general public consensus against ownership of handguns, which is enforced under strict legislation. Guns for sport are more readily accepted, but are controlled by a strict licensing regime. This regime was strengthened after the Dunblane Massacre (A former boy-scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, shot dead 16 young children and their teacher at Dunblane Primary School before turning the gun on himself). Strangely we seem to take notice of mass killings sprees in the UK!

The combined impact and subsequent public outcry motivated the Conservative government at the time to amend the existing legislation on gun ownership. The Firearms Amendment of 1997 completely banned handguns from private ownership.

Despite the handguns ban imposed under the 1997 Firearms Amendment, research carried out following the implementation of the Act saw a 40 per cent increase in the number of gun crime incidents in the UK.
While the number of homicides from gun crime remained largely static for over a decade, 2007 proved a decisive year for this issue. A wave of gang related incidents were committed by teenagers against other teenagers, with some high profile cases ending in fatalities. London, Manchester and Nottingham were most notably affected.

In August 2007, these attacks culminated in the murder of an 11-year-old Liverpool schoolboy, Rhys Jones, hit whilst playing football outside his local pub. Following a lengthy police investigation and a trial lasting over two months, an 18 year old youth, Sean Mercer, a member of the 'Croxteth crew' gang, was convicted in December 2008 of the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The then prime minister, Gordon Brown, came under constant pressure to resolve the issues driving these murders. Following mass killings in Cumbria in June, 2010, the Home Secretary Theresa May confirmed that two weapons had been recovered by police, a shotgun and a .22 rifle, and that the gunman, Derrick Bird, had held a shotgun licence since 1995 and a firearms licence (for the .22 rifle) since 2007.
Ms May pledged that when the police had completed their investigations, the Government would lead a debate on the country's gun laws, engaging with "all interested parties" and allowing MPs to contribute to the debate.

Firearms offences are geographically concentrated in London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
At the same time young people are disproportionately the victims of gun crime: 15 to 29-year-olds comprise 20 per cent of the population but were victims in 45 per cent of firearms offences in 2010/11.

Concerns also continued to increase about the use of illegal firearms by street gangs and organised criminals. In February 2012, the Home Secretary launched a consultation on strengthening the law in this area, in particular whether the penalty should be increased for illegal importation of firearms and also whether there was a need for a new offence of possession of illegal firearms with intent to supply.
The consultation was set to run for 12 weeks and sought the views of the public, the police, the CPS, victims groups, the judiciary, and voluntary organisations.
In its response to the consultation published in October 2012, the Government stated that it was clear there was “strong support for taking a tougher stance on control of prohibited firearms.”
It had been decided, therefore, to increase the maximum penalty for illegal importation of firearms to life imprisonment and to create a new offence of 'possession with intent to supply' The changes would be implemented as soon as a legislative opportunity arose.

In summary – the rare mass killings are carried out loneers with legally held shotguns and other sporting rifles. Killings using handguns are among young gangs in a limited number of inner cities. There is some pressure from a very small minority that restrictions on handguns should be relaxed.
09-29-2013
broncofan

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Why do some individuals belonging to one group are inclined to use a firearm for nefarious reasons more so than other individuals? Is it environment, heredity, or a combination of both?

I highly doubt it's heredity. Why is it that so many of these NRA supporters are not only brain-dead when it comes to policy but brain-dead when it comes to American history too? The treatment of African-Americans in this country hasn't exactly been standard has it?

But now it's the minorities who through some pre-disposition to violence are responsible for taking your guns away? What about Bloomberg and his campaign for gun control? He's a Jew you know. Why don't you throw a little blame his way? Clearly Mexican-Americans must be partly to blame for this campaign to take your guns away (I haven't thought of a reason yet but I'm sure we can invent one). And women? You know they're slightly more than half the population now.

And how many times have we heard this comment about homogeneous countries being less violent? I'm sure he's not talking about countries where everyone dresses the same way, but rather racially homogenous countries. I'm sorry to tell you that you live in a pluralistic country. We have people from many backgrounds practicing many different religions. It doesn't account for the gun violence. A lot of the violence can be attributed to people without much brains or ability owning firearms. That's you.

Unable to understand precedent from Supreme Court cases on their favorite civil right, unable to read the dates on documents they post, but steadfast in their dislike of people different from them. Pathetic.
09-29-2013
broncofan

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Lets escape the fact that those other civilized Western nations are a lot more homogeneous and have different histories (including gun crimes). It is an apple and oranges comparison.

Hilarious! Apples and oranges!!! How fruity. Reminds me of that scene in the movie Lone Star (IMDB 7.5) where the bartender says he just doesn't like his cinnamon and sugar in the same jar.

"If you mixed your drinks as badly as you mix your metaphors you'd be out of business"

"Hey I'm as liberal as the next guy"

"If the next guy's a redneck"
09-30-2013
notdrunk

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Nevertheless, you can't say we in the U.S. don't live in violent times in the same year 20 first and second graders are gunned down and the NRA doesn't blink an eye. Homicide are down over the past couple of decades (but we still have ten times as many homicides as comparable nations). Firearm accidents and suicides are up. A gun in your home (or the home of relative or the home of your child's friend) increases the probability that someone in your family will die of a gunshot wound.

Yes, I am stating that. It is hard to grasp the realization that the 1980s and 1990s were a lot violent compared to now. A couple of incidents don't decide the year. But, it is alright to knee-jerk to an incident because it is shocking. The NRA did blink an eye but their solution wasn't acceptable to you (apparently).

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin48

Your view on the UK is very simplistic.

Nope. My point was stop comparing the United States to other countries. Even before the introduction of strict gun control, murders caused by firearms was extremely low compared to the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncofan

I highly doubt it's heredity. Why is it that so many of these NRA supporters are not only brain-dead when it comes to policy but brain-dead when it comes to American history too? The treatment of African-Americans in this country hasn't exactly been standard has it?

Oh please. Thanks for injecting emotion and innuendo! So, I will just dance..:dancing:
09-30-2013
trish

Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

It is hard to grasp the realization that the 1980s and 1990s were a lot violent compared to now.

And yet now if very violent. Why else to you think you need a gun to protect yourself? Why else are you stockpiling? Oh, that's right, patriot...for the coming revolution!

Quote:

A couple of incidents don't decide the year.

Twenty first and second graders lying dead in pools of their own blood I should think counts as more than a couple of incidents. There are people shot, injured, permanently maimed or killed by gunfire in the U.S. every day.

Not to mention the children who die from firearm accidents (which I notice you persistently and deliberately not mentioned... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share .

Quote:

My point was stop comparing the United States to other countries.

That's not a point, you're just asking us wear blinders. Don't look across the Atlantic where things are better. We're oranges and they're apples.

We're just people on both sides of the pond. Arizona isn't more diverse London, nor Connecticut more diverse Paris. The only difference is we have a problem with guns (because the NRA and their zombies cockblock all attempts to regulate them) and they don't.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:24 AM.