Printable View
My point again is stop blowing gun violence out of proportion.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Gun ownership is a right that can't simply be taking away. With this right, there comes risks. These risks can be mitigated through actions by the government through legislation. However, there wouldn't be a de jure ban or de facto ban. You take away this right, other rights are fair game.
Pathetic and ludicrous comparisons between cars and guns are utterly pointless as Notdrunk surely knows. Owning an automatic weapon has really only one purpose - and the end result if used is death.
So Sandy point and a gig pileup on the freeway are the same?
Again, I am saying people are blowing gun violence out of proportion. I objected to the use of slaughter. I pointed to an activity that has killed and injured more people than firearms in the United States every year. However, do people think of slaughter on road? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
A lot of people do see ownership of a firearm as a benefit with the benefits outweighing the risks. There are enough firearms in this country to almost arm everybody. Yet, the streets of the US aren't the streets of the Mogadishu.
And yet the lawlessness we see in Nevada right now - with an armed militia defending a racist thief - suggests that serious gun violence of an organised kind can and does happen, Notdunk. Or are you fine with right wing militias confronting the Government?
You are vocal in defending the right of Americans to bear arms.
Now what do you feel if instead of right wing peope, like the militias deciding to confront the government, it was American citizens who adhere to extreme radical islamic beleifs and decided to confront the lawmen of Nevada - or new york, or California or wherever. Adherents of the same creed as the Jihadists who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. Are you happy with those who also question the right of the US government to exist as do the folks in Necada to have the sort of deadly arsenals which ordinary american folk can own. And if they take issue over a law of the land, to line up and confront the Government with semi automatic weapons etc....
Maybe you are okay with people armed with guns who are strongly anti-abortion to threaten doctors?
And are you saying that the killing of all those children at Sandy Point was not a slaughter? C'mon now Notdrunk... get real. or do you not care - and see them as necessary sacrifices in defence of the right to be armed to the teeth. Do you seriously equate a motor accident with murder?
One reason for the difference is the word you chose to object to. People think of slaughter as an intentional act. People slaughter animals with knives, and humans are slaughtered in a more figurative sense with weapons. It's a stretch to say someone hitting a pothole and swerving into another car has slaughtered someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by notdrunk
I think we should think of all public health problems in basically the same way. What harm are we preventing and how much harm can we prevent? What utility does the thing we are regulating have? How much do the regulations of that activity diminish its utility? How does that compare to the harm foregone?
Another thing to point out is that guns have not been singled out for harsh treatment but have been treated like a sacred cow. We are not advocating that guns be given special scrutiny because when they cause death those deaths are conspicuous. Instead, guns should be subject to the same analysis as any other article or activity that could be regulated.
In terms of their utility, I also think we can be generous in designating the value they have to some people. Much of that value is psychic, but they can protect people's homes and give them less of a sense of helplessness against potential tyranny. But we also have to assign reasonable probabilities for these values and this cuts against their widespread distribution.
Finally, they can be regulated without being outlawed. For cars, we have a department of transportation to monitor risks and propose safety measures. For drugs we have the FDA that does the same thing and at great expense. We should put in the same effort when it comes to gun safety. What kinds of guns? Who should own them? What sorts of records of ownership should we keep? Unbiased and regulated data collection when guns are involved in injury? What about licensure? Again, there are a lot of people who know better the ways in which guns can be regulated; the important thing is that they not be treated like sacred articles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
I have no problems if they aren't violating the law. If you didn't know the FBI are going after the people in Nevada that were seen pointing weapons at LEOs. I don't have an issue with them going after those people that violated the law. Anyway, most people knew that those militia people were trying to bait LEOs into starting stuff first. Would I feel sorry for those militia people if one of them decided to shoot at those LEOs? Nope, they get whatever comes towards them.
Yes, it was a slaughter at Sandy Hook; however, I don't believe in all the knee-jerk reactions.
If a man brought a firearm to a political discussion that was bound to be heated, I would regard it as an act of intimidation and would consequently seriously doubt his rationality and self-control. I would definitely regard him as a threat to my life and a threat to the lives of those present. Should I stand my ground and kill him?
No, it depends on his actions. The person might believe in open carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Belief is an action?
SYG seems to depend on whether the shooter "feels" threatened. A man who brings a gun gun to a heated argument is making no other point than, "Disagree with me at your own peril." SYG says you can shoot him, right?
Here are some more thoughts - though, I sadly think many will not read them.
OK - a constitutional clause that permits the keeping of arms, but why allow almost anyone to purchase machine guns? How many unarmed teenagers do you wish to kill at one time? If the "right" is assist in preventing tyranny by an elected government, why stop at machine guns, surely citizens need to ability to match the power of the government -weapons of mass destruction.
In answer to the question, do European nations have a similar U.S. 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms including an individual and collective right ? The summary answer is NO. However, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which predates our Bill of Rights by 100 years, codified an ancient self-protection right with the words, “ … subjects who are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” This gave birth to the English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but the vague wording is a far cry from the absolute wording of our 2nd Amendment: “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.”
In Britain, the possession of most types of arms are strictly controlled for the common good. Criminals, children, and the mentally ill are not allowed to be armed. The UK Firearms Act of 1968 sets rigid requirements for a firearms certificate. A concept of compulsory security for rifles and shotguns is in effect and extends to shotguns. Centre-fire self-loading and pump action rifles are banned as well as automatic weapons. Gun rights and strict rules have culturally evolved to a point where today England has one of the lowest gun ownership levels and gun homicide rates in the world. Further, this has not resulted in high non-gun homicides or violent crime culture as purist anti-gun control believers like to say.
This low gun access approach works for England but probably would never work for the U.S. Our nation is totally saturated in a gun culture – including quasi machine guns that can shoot 30-50-100 bullets in seconds. We are a country where an individual can go into a gun show and walk out with a semi-automatic weapon and no background check … where insane people have easy access to military style weapons! Lanza used three of four semi-automatic weapons belonging to his mother, all easily accessible. This potential from ever more efficiently designed arms to murder many people rapidly makes the case for re-defining U.S. gun law all the more urgent.
Switzerland also has no constitutional guarantee of an individual’s right to bear arms. The national legislature could ban gun ownership anytime. But today Switzerland is a heavily armed nation. This reflects a centuries old Swiss culture to have arms to resist possible invaders or despotic tyrants, like Hitler in WWII. The country’s high gun ownership level comes with a very low gun homicide rate vs. the U.S. All males at 18 join the military and can take their military assault weapon home with them when they leave. Thus, up to 500,000 military assault weapons are estimated to be in Swiss households today. These weapons must be locked up and ammunition is kept in central arsenals. The government supplies bullets for shooting festivals. Canton police may issue special permits for civilians to own assault rifles – typically as licensed collectors—and such weapons may not be fired in full automatic mode. The country hosts some of the largest rifle shooting events in the world. While gun ownership laws have tightened upon handguns and non-military weapons, it is still reasonably easy to get a hand gun. But, it is illegal to carry guns in public.
As stated earlier, social attitudes and discipline concerning guns play a major role in Europe. The Swiss and Norwegian easier gun access cultures illustrate that the ability to possess arms is not necessarily a direct causal link to a greater gun homicide or crime rate. This is true in an opposite way for England where a much more difficult access to guns does not ipso facto translate into much higher levels of non-gun homicides or crime rates as some pro-gun enthusiasts suggest.
Spain enforces strict controls over firearms. The constitution clearly states: “The State shall have exclusive competence over … the regime for the production, trading, holding, and use of weapons.” In Finland, citizens must have a valid reason for a gun license such as hunting, recreation, or gun exhibitions. An amendment to the 1997 Scotland Firearms Act banned private possession of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting purposes. Small bore rifles are not limited. Many types of rifles, shotguns, and black powder pistols and long arms may be privately owned. Luxembourg has a complete ban on guns. In the Netherlands, assault rifles, silencers, and short-barreled shotguns as well as any kind of high capacity magazine are banned for civilian possession unless authorized by the Minister of Justice.
Our neighbor, Canada, has no constitutional right to bear arms. Gun ownership is strictly regulated and certain gun models are prohibited by the Firearms Act. Canada’s crime rate is lower than that of the U.S.
Conclusion
Unlike America, the European individual right to bear and keep arms is NOT entrenched in constitutional law. The U.S. gun culture inherited from England and Switzerland of protecting ourselves against tyrannical government was expanded on by Thomas Jefferson with his remarks:
“The 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 to prevent homicides, for an unarmed may be attached with greater confidence than the armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson, Common Place Book , 1774-1776 (quoting from “On Crimes and Punishment” by criminologist Cesare Beccaria 1764).
It should not be surprising that the right to bear arms has remained closely and jealously guarded in America. Our constitution has left the 50 states free to regulate the private possession of weapons in whatever way deemed appropriate to them. Today 43 states have some kind of right to bear arms provisions which are far more relevant to proposed state and local gun controls than the 2nd Amendment. However, in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, potentially weakening state and local gun control laws.
The fundamental purposes of the 2nd Amendment have come to represent: (a) the individual right to protect oneself against other individuals and (b) the collective right to protect oneself against a tyrannical government. Both U.S. 2nd Amendment protections are seen to be rather anachronistic by European standards for a number of reasons. BUT, these rights are steadfast, virtual “emotional” realities for many Americans. In Europe, having guns – except for hunting and shooting festivals and except for well-controlled Swiss assault weapons as a retired civilian-militia protection against invaders – is simply NOT built into the psyche of Europeans who in general have little interest in nor see the necessity of owning guns as a defense against criminals or their governments.
The challenge for America is where to draw the line between the rightful, normal gun means to defend oneself as opposed to the use of modern multi-murderous weaponry and magazines. U.S. anti-gun regulation paranoia abounds in the thought than any restriction is the first step to the total banning of guns, ultimately making citizens more unsafe against criminals who will never give up guns. This is further supported by NRA’s false claim that there is no statistical evidence the 1994-2004 semi-automatic assault gun ban had a measureable effect in reducing violent wide-scale shootings.
Complete gun control in America is never going to happen given the 2nd Amendment and fact there are too many guns already out there. We have created a climate of gun protection and resort to gun violence by criminals and non-criminals (e.g., crimes of passion) that is deeply cultural and self-perpetuating… that is leap years worse and ingrained than in Europe and Canada by any statistical measure.
Frank Thomas
The Netherlands
December 30, 2012
Interesting cross-cultural comparison. Some good points. Sadly some people would read this and take Switzerland as an example to say: if they don't have a high murder rate, it shows that guns alone don't cause a high murder rate. Yet, the more salient interpretation might be that many factors contribute to a murder rate, but guns increase that rate within any given society (to a varying degree).
A couple of additional thoughts:
-The most generous view of the protection against tyranny argument goes like this I think (I don't know why I'm in such a generous mood). Maybe if you have certain weapons you cannot match the artillery of your country's military, but you make it so their persecution of you is not cost-free. They know that they will be subject to guerilla warfare, or if they round people up for internment camps that they are liable to lose their storm-troopers in the process. It's all very apocalyptic I know and does reflect a deep-seated mistrust of government. But that is the line of thinking. To be honest if our government were rounding people up for labor camps I'd probably prefer to become a guerilla fighter than hand myself over willingly but I'd rather not live my life as though that's a likely possibility.
-The other thing is that a correlate of gun ownership in our country seems to be a mistrust of other people and a mistrust of government. You could almost set up a regression equation mapping it. The fact that the right is anachronistic might also reflect an unhealthy nostalgia some gun-owners have. In other cultures, gun ownership might be more ceremonial or based on entry into the military, but for us it's a way of expressing dissatisfaction and alienation.
-I am also glad that he interpreted the UK murder rates the way we have been. I know UK does not have the same culture or history as we do but the statistics do indicate that lower rate of gun homicide does not translate into a similar increase in deaths by other means. It goes against logic to think that it would.
Nope, that is not how SYG work.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
SYG works?! It's killed more people than it saved.
I think this is true. It's the mistrust of government by a sizable fraction of the US that amazes me. Sure, I don't like the Tories and UKIP are a load of loonies; but in the States there seems to be a deep-seated hatred of government. Not healthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The People have spoken. People vote with their wallets, and with millions of dollars of gun sales, Congress is on recess. I don't have more guns than books, but I don't have a small Law Library on my shelves, either.
The last approval rating of Congress is something like 19%
I think when they poll the approval rate of Hitler it always comes in at like 15%
Common sense, the Police, even the people want tighter restrictions on the obvious loopholes in gun sales, but the Republicans are too busy talking about Obamacare and Benghazi. I haven't seen an article about gun reform in the newspaper for weeks. It's an ice cold topic.
Don't expect Hillary to propose giving little boys Princess Outfits and Tiaras for Christmas, either. A Woman running for President is going to do everything She can to show that her Opinions are not Estrogen-laden.
Embrace the Chaos. Strap on a pair of Colt Peacemakers, Pard. Cause in the USA, Guns are here to STAY.
This one's from today's paper of record. http://nyti.ms/1jaVEBTQuote:
I haven't seen an article about gun reform in the newspaper for weeks. It's an ice cold topic.
Not much of a problem for a post menopausal candidate. "...anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."____Hillary Rodham Clinton (April 30 2014....13 days ago... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...paign-23600038) I'm hoping to vote for Elizabeth Warren. Speaking of estrogen vs testosterone you should take a look at the attack ads John Oliver designed... http://www.mediaite.com/tv/you-need-...political-ads/Quote:
A Woman running for President is going to do everything She can to show that her Opinions are not Estrogen-laden.
Mistrust of the government.. hmm..Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Well.. consider the USA goverment is made up 99.99% people that are well to do and never had to actually work for a living.. Born silver spoon in mouth.. went to yale, havard.. yadayada..
These aren't regular people.. they have no concept of being poor.. they don't have any clue to be under the pressure of the next paycheck being their last and loosing their car, their home, their family..
They are cleptocrats.. in league with the Banksters and Corpirates that try to run the world.. #1 USA export.. weapons..
The only way to get them out and put real people in is by revolution..
Why do you think these people spend 3 million on advertising their campaign for a position that pays $125k a year?? It's because they're gonna fuck you for 10 million while they're in office..
The global financial picture is changing fast.. next year China will be at par with the USA for GDP.. the year after they will leave the USA in the dust as they become the biggest and richest nation in the world for the next 40 years..
The USA has a way out.. the easy way to maintain control is destabilize the whole world, anarchy, global unrest.. WW3..
Option #2 Revolution..
I'm just worried about the 50 million USA refugees that will flood Canada..
I hope americans wake up some time soon and realized they're being royally fucked over bareback.. and that the rest of the world is also getting fucked over and being forced to feltch the cum out of the asshole of the USA..
Can you guarantee revolution won't bring real tyranny instead of the pretend tyranny gun nuts are always fantasizing and whining about? Instead try increasing the size of the electorate; i.e. campaign with reasoned argument and vote. If you can succeed in getting a majority of eligible citizens to vote (rather than suppressing the vote), then I'll believe that maybe that revolution isn't just a fleck of gunpowder in your eye.Quote:
The only way to get them out and put real people in is by revolution..
OK, Trish, You were right when you said that gun ownership has to REVERSE to significantly reduce gun violence and death. When do you expect sweeping gun reform to be a reality and not a dream? Over.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
So am I. Clinton vs Jeb Bush would be like the choice between these two.
Revolutions can happen in many ways..Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
No I don't want the gun toting whackos in office..
Like I said.. 10's or 100's of millions using social media.. gotta be organized tho..
The current fascist like regime that rules the USSA won't go out without a multi-trillion dollar fight tho and it is impossible for the average american to make a difference..
Wall Street will destroy anyone who tries to get them out of the White House..
Here in Canada our leaders are just whitehouse puppets since the 70's when Nixon used economic blackmail to make the Canadian government complicit to their will..
Nice people with nice habits....the gun toting NRA thugs who threaten women
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...men-moms-texas
Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threatening, Racist, Cowardly, Gun-Fetishist Fuck-holes make me want to puke. They should stand in a circle, stroke their barren barrels and shoot themselves.
Further proof, as if it were really necessary, that too large a part of the US population is certifiably mad. The dicks are unbelievable.
And the comments below are just as worrying.
Any of the usual suspects care to defend this?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...en-carry-texas
Here's a recent opinion piece.
The United States of America died on April 2, 2014. It expired in a silence that was earsplitting. It did not disappear because of an attack from another country. It did not end at the hand of terrorists. It self-destructed in a form of suicide predicted by its founders, and executed by its own government.
A few quotes from our founding fathers, and our greatest president:
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
John Adams
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
Thomas Jefferson
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
What was the cause of our beloved country's death? Greed. It was hidden behind organizations with titles such as "Citizens United," and "Citizens for Prosperity." What they actually are composed of are lobbyists representing the one percent of America; its wealthiest citizens.
The Supreme Court of the United States was established as the third of the check and balance systems to insure that none of the three would be able to exercise dictatorial power. It was not intended to be controlled by a political party. Today, 4/2/2014, that all changed, and democracy died a quiet but irreversible death.
In a partisan vote of five to four, Republican controlled justices decreed that individuals can contribute as much money as they wish to a political party. In other words, the wealthy can buy elections, and they alone will decide who governs our country.
Unfortunately men and women of my age group who have been involved and are knowledgeable regarding the political structure of our country have foreseen this as a definite possibility. The emergence and growing power of lobbies has changed the effectiveness of our government to make decisions which affect all of the nation's people. Corruption is the norm, and morality does not exist in our Nation's Capital.
From this day forward, votes have no meaning in elections. Because most voters believe the blatant lies they see on television ads, they will vote for the person who most effectively ministers negative and fallacious commercials. Democracy no longer exists. Money and money alone will decide who wins elections.
The Supreme Court has become a tool of the Republican Party, and therefore the wealthiest one percent in our nation. I hate to be this negative, but I see no hope for the working class. Minimum wage will never be raised. Corporations will continue to make outrageous profits, while those who work for them live in poverty with minimal or no benefits.
Our founding fathers had a wonderful idea. Now they see its failure, as they predicted. America is no longer the greatest nation in the world. It's not even in the top twenty five.
James Turnage
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
There is a right way to do something, there is a wrong to do something. They chose poorly in excising their right under the law. I like to think elements of OCT fall into the same category as Code Pink with their style of protesting; however, they don't get arrested as much.
We studied American History in the sixth grade, so all Americans start with the PG-13 rating facts, and really, unless you're a History Buff or something, or hang out with people that enjoy talking about that stuff, that's where it ends. Our Founding Fathers, you could probably find heavier Law Minds at a good first year University. Franklin was a perv, Jefferson knocked up his Slavegirl, Washington owed London Banks some heavy coin he defaulted on. So these guys didn't have a Crystal Ball, basically they just didn't want to pay King George taxes.
But the time and the place was right, a brand new continent, lots of brand new ideas and opportunities. However in reality it wasn't til a hundred years ago that we even got all our 48 States on the Flag.
Same old story: people under certain unique circumstances.
I am not sure how much of America is actually controlled by the evil ONE PERCENT, If they all belong to the Skull and Bones Club, or rig the Stock Market. Maybe fucking up the Government is all you need to do to stay on top. I know that For, of, and By the People is a lot of that PG-13 stuff, nobody looks of for the little guy and goes unpunished.
Guns and Freedom are a dangerous mix. You can own a gun before the age of consent, before you can vote, before you can drink a beer. (If Daddy springs for it)
Thank you, thank you very much.
American LAW is restricted by logic, but the American Mindset is to the Moon.
Actually, the head of Moms Demand Action strikes me as a bit of a loon and histrionics queen, too. Each side in this debate has its far fringes.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Regardless of what side you sit on, this debate won't be settled until at least the 2014 mid-terms and more likely the 2016 presidential elections. There are several justices that are unlikely to last past the next president, and who gets to appoint their successor will likely determine how broadly the second amendment is interpreted.
I would tend to agree that openly carrying rifles and pistols into most public places is not the best way to go about things. On the other hand, if people are really so frightened of the open display of a weapon then states should ease the restrictions they have on obtaining concealed carry permits.Quote:
Originally Posted by notdrunk
I believe much of this goes back to the mid-1800s when states began to forbid concealed carry and left only the option for openly carried firearms.
I believe the main goal of OCT is to get the legalization of open carry pistols in Texas. As well, there was an incident in which an individual was arrested for open carrying a rifle that led to unnecessary drama between the police and the individual. So, there is an educational aspect to their protesting too.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
I would be shock if Texas restricted instead of loosen their gun laws.
It would be great pleasure if they DID restrict weapons but not much chance.
When it come to the law challenging those who openly carry the law must take precedence. Why would some sick gun obsessed morons feel carrying deadly weapons around was nececessary.
"I heard the bullets whistle, and believe me, there is something charming in the sound"...
and the source of the quote is...
George Washington?
Indeed -but in what context?
Being from the other side of the pond, I have some difficulty with the abbreviations - OCT, for example.
So it's about being able to carry openly in public your complete range of assault rifles, automatic weapons, etc. It seems to me that most of the nerds who demand their rights to do this are attempting to make up for other shortcomings in their personality and the relative size of some of their body parts (big bellies, small cocks).
Here's thought. Let them openly show off their weapons but make them expose their tiny cocks in public as well. We might well have a laugh while feeling threatened.
Except for those whose job requires it (e.g. military, police etc.) every single man who carries in public (openly or furtively) knows himself to be deeply unsatisfied and personally deficient. Many will deny it vociferously, but they are the one's most inextricably caught up in their own inadequacies and most feel the need to express in public that it is not so. If their collective attitude wasn't such a hazard to public health, I'd feel sorry for them.
Man (using the word loosely)...is rejected by woman, then goes on a Second Amendment rampage to compensate for his inadequacies. Her fault, right? Couldn't be that the gun culture in this nation has gone totally bonkers.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rbara/9532405/
Of course nothing will happen here. Not when 20 second graders are murdered by a crazed gunman along with 6 adults and Congress is so obsessed with their obstructionist agenda they refuse to pass one single jot of firearm regulation. They call this a Christian nation. Yeah, right. Suffer the little children.
It's Politically Correct to blame the toothless old redneck for the Nation's gun woes, but don't forget about the teen gangstas in the hood that account for half of the fatalities, including kids playing, and even people sleeping in bed, these ghetto gunslingers aren't very good shots. And when they do kill somebody, there is a "don't snitch" policy, which is every bit as stupid as inbred morons eating at Dennys with hunting rifles.
Trish said it, the only real solution is to get rid of the guns somehow. Just like cigarettes are still completely legal now, they cost 5 bucks a pack. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
The guy was a loon toon, too bad there weren't armed citizens around to put a bullet in his head:Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
LiveLeak.com - Pyscho Virgin Elliot Rodger Driving his Car a Few Days Before his Killing Spree
LiveLeak.com - Six Dead in Isla Vista Shootings - Alleged Killers Video Threat