Printable View
I only question whether a society that suffers from attention deficit syndrome and hardly hangs on to anything past a news cycle will have a lasting memory of Newtown, since it seems neither VT or Columbine made a dent.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
With respect, that's NOT what the original intent of this thread was about. The intention of the OP was to urge gun owners to stock up on guns and ammunition quickly in the wake of the Newtown horror before the nasty government could prise the weapons from their cold dead fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
And that's why I rather suspect that Obama's defiant declaration will turn into dust and idiots will continue to proclaim their rights to maintain personal arsenals the size of a mountain while massacres of innocents will continue ad infinitum.
America is schizophrenic and paranoid about its mad weapons culture and is seriously, possibly fatally, fucked up because of it.
You are right RL... I forgot a pro gun person started this thread.Whoops.
Okay, we have this shooter, with five dead, and the other recent incidents mentioned in the article. how many dead is that? Can anyone provide documentation that an 'assault' styled weapon that saved lives, where as a 'regular' gun would not have worked in saving the lives? An even if it did, how many lives did it saved versus the number of recent victims? Bottom line is that we are only talking about assault type weapons. The argument is that their potential harm of taking out a large number of people in a few seconds, is greater than it's protective factor in our nation. We have law enforcement and private security professionals who are trained to provide security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
In the past few days here, we have had two children under 6, killed by gun accidents. There was one freak accident at a gun show, where a person was wounded. One adult was killed during an argument at a bar. So far I have not heard any evidence that the person in the bar would have been saved, if more people had guns. This past weekend, I once again went to a friend's house that lives across the street from a house where one pre-teen brother killed his brother, while handling a gun. Everyone describe them as always together, inseparable. The house is very small. What did they have that was more valuable than the lives of their children? What are the chances of a 'home invasion", vs curious children in the same house? It's about safety. It's about safety, vs risk. Every child should have a chance to make it to their seventh birthday. I say more people should evaluate true safety, in terms of probability, not fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
No offence intended and hopefully none taken, P. I just don't feel that all of Obama's sincerity and determination will overcome the innate madness which demands guns and more guns.
Interesting that Bill Gates stated unequivocally in a recent interview that he much preferred the UK's stance on gun ownership and use to that of the USA.
I dunno, RL. Democrats Feinstein and McCarthy reintroduced the assault weapons ban today. It's been a political non-starter for 8 years, so I think that's some progress. It will probably not become law, but it's been proposed and people are talking about it.
On the other hand, many of the measures that Obama outlined last week will likely come to pass. We will see effective and expanded background checks. We will see increased scrutiny of ammo sales. We will see the resumption of federally funded research on gun violence. We will see increased funding for mental health services and interventions.
These days, politics happens very slowly in the United States. The gun lobby has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two decades buying legislators and stoking mouth-breather paranoia. You can't undo that over night. It will take a long time and tens of thousands more people will be killed. But we are moving forward.
Further, less perceptibly but perhaps more significantly, I think we're seeing a shift in the culture, some lessening of the "innate madness" as you call it. From my perspective, it seems that so-called "responsible" gun owners are becoming more and more alienated from the true gun nuts. You saw that when the NRA fell all over itself after Newtown. And keep in mind that, despite impressions, gun owners are a minority of the U.S. population. Most Americans do not own firearms. And polls consistently and increasingly show solid majorities supporting reasonable gun control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Nahhhh....It's hers. Her sincerity wouldn't allow her to post someone else's ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
...(if it isn't her ass...I prefer she lies and says it's hers...lol)
...sorry,back to guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
You have no idea how much I'd love to be proved wrong on this one, Thom. So I await developments with both interest and hope.
Meanwhile, tomorrow, Friday 25 January, is my big national celebration as a Scot, when we gather in pubs, clubs and private houses to honour our national poet, Robert Burns, by reciting his poetry, singing his songs, drinking whisky and eating haggis, our esteemed national dish.
Now, did you know that haggis imported from Scotland is a prohibited foodstuff as far as the US food and drugs agency is concerned, so if you can lay your hands on a genuine Scottish haggis you would be committing a felony?
And you can go down to your local mall and buy an assault rifle and multiple clips without any fuss.
I'll leave you to add your own expression of irony.
The charming nature of the Republican Party.... I mean, someone like Reagan was a liberal compared to this crazy Republican Party. (Even Reagan in '94 wrote to Congress saying they should impose a ban on assault weapons):
Blaming Black People for Gun Violence - YouTube
Only in America. I despair.
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/ar...jHAx4.facebook
....
.............
And right there is the biggest problem with your argument. You want people to surrender the right/means to defend themselves to the government. Some people are not willing to do that, in fact it looks like a majority of the populace is unwilling to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
Also, if a semi-automatic rifle is unnecessary, then why do the police carry them? Are we arming law enforcement so that they can engage in killing sprees? Or is it perhaps because those types of rifles are easier to use and more effective when someone's life is on the line?
Murders involving rifles are a very small number of the overall homicides in this country.
In 2010 there were:
12,996 reported murders, of that only 358 were committed using a rifle.
In comparison, 1,704 people were murdered by the use of knives or other sharp objects, 540 by blunt objects, and 745 from being punched/kicked.
Needless to say, killings by the use of semi-automatic rifles have been over-hyped by the media.
LOL good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpower
This is very confused. You're saying law enforcement agencies are unnecessary in the U.S.? And you claim that a majority of Americans are unwilling to give up their assault rifles? Most Americans do not own firearms period, let alone assault rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
We have already surrendered the right to defend ourselves to the government. A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is one of the foundational principles of the modern state.
There is something very wrong in America. Since Newtown, 1,400 have died by firearm. I question your data source NYBURBS because more 358 people died by firearm in Philadelphia, PA alone in 2010.
You ask why law enforcement carry semi-automatic weapons and part of the answer at least in Los Angeles is that they did not as late as 1980's when LAPD was engaged for over 3 hours by two bank robbers armed with assault rifles and multiple magazines.
Why do we have so much death via firearms relative to the rest of the Western World per capita? Now even a left wing extreme voice like Michael Moore points out that other countries have high gun ownership per capita and watch violent movies and play video games.
But the NRA's positions just get too extreme. Today they opposed the idea of background checks. When it is easier to acquire and operate an assault weapon than it is an automobile, something just doesn't seem right.
I don't propose to have all the answers but America's seeming indifference to the obvious issues that guns are posing in our society does not make me proud to be an American.
We must be able to do better as a society than to all "gun up" and put armed guards in every public place all to protect the 2nd amendment which clearly was talking about armed militias not armed citizens paranoid of what their next door neighbor might due.
The NRA exists not to protect the 2nd amendment, they exist to protect the interests of gun manufacturers.
Agony of parents whose daughter, 15, was gunned down a week after she performed at Obama's inauguration:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-Chicago.html
Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p1:
Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p1 - YouTube
Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p2:
Slave Patrols and the 2nd Amendment p2 - YouTube
A survivalist kidnaps boy and shoots school bus driver dead.... having blasted neighbours with a gun over a speed bump dispute. Ongoing....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/child-held-...091633215.html
No it's not confused and people have not surrendered the right of self defense. I'm well aware of the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence," but it's my understanding (or position if you will) that that pertains to violence to enforce laws and mandates or exact retribution, and not violence to defend one's self. Self defense has long been recognized in both common and statutory law, and the notion of fighting back against an aggressor pre-dates any form of law that you might point to.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Btw, I never said that I think law enforcement agencies are unnecessary, only that most people would not accept surrendering the right of self defense. Enforcing laws and court orders are one thing, preserving one's right to their own life when under attack though is about as fundamental a right as can be thought of.
It's not my data, it's the FBI's data:Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8
Though it would seem the chart I linked just now is slightly different from the one I originally looked at, but the numbers don't change much:
2010 Murders total- 13,164
2010 Murders using a rifle- 367
I now see the distinction which is rifle -367 . And I suppose we are to conclude that the FBI's classfication of assault weapons would rifle as opposed to firearms type not stated.
Total homicides- 13,752
Total homicides by firearm- 8,874
So only 65% of the murders recorded were done firearm, not bad....unless you happen tp have been one of those 8,874 poor souls or someone who loved them.
This of course doesn't account for how many people are either permanently maimed, killed themselves by accident or committed suicide with firearms.
Total firearm deaths in 2010 were almost 3 9/11 attacks.
This is a very useful video to watch to show people what we have to fear from some segments of society. Now this is not to tar all gun owners or even those arguing against gun control generally as there are many here who have made rational and intelligent arguments whether we agree with them or not (NYBURBS etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
However, I do want to point out after watching this video that I now recognize a lot of the more obscure posters here as Alex Jones acolytes who have parroted some of his most dubious arguments. Beandip I think was talking about the mass production of suicide pills. Others such as Jamie Michelle have ranted about how government is the greatest mass murderer of all time and even pointed to the same article referenced by Alex Jones purporting to demonstrate this statistically. Now, I think you already have to be fairly dim and a bit crazy to be a follower of someone like this, but it is nice to know the source of these bizarre hypotheses. This is a man who literally thinks he is being followed in NYC by members of the New World Order, something clinically not very far removed from paranoid schizophrenia.
I think that in choosing to be civilized and to not go out in public armed to the teeth one takes a leap of faith. Yes, there is the risk that others do not take that leap with you! Maybe you are risking your individual safety in the name of public safety and doing so because you aspire not to live in a primitive culture of violence.
A major problem I have with guns is cultural. Those who are obsessed with them are expressing values that are selfish, hostile, and paranoid. They have decided to forego all the refinements of modern living in favor of the false sense of relevance they get from their guns. Instead of accepting the vagaries of life, they've decided to forego living like decent human beings.
Some might think that's a stretch, but if you really think about the value preferences of gun owners who so strenuously object to any gun control it's not. These are individuals who have placed an inordinately high value on something only beneficial in the most extreme and apocalpytic scenario. That doesn't sound very balanced does it? Wouldn't you know it by listening to Alex Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
That's a distinction without a difference. We have laws against assault, trespass, robbery, etc. We have delegated enforcement of those laws to various professional law enforcement agencies. That is why victims of assault, trespass, robbery, etc. generally call the police rather than shooting back, and why those who do shoot back often find themselves facing some legal issues.
It also seems problematic that the only mode of self-defense that you're able to conceive of is by use of a firearm. For one thing, only about 3 in 10 Americans own a firearm. So, by your contention, 70% of the American population is defenseless. For another thing, my own mode of home defense consists entirely of a telephone, a wireless security camera, and a Louisville Slugger. If you own a firearm for home defense, it is an empirical fact that my household is safer than yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
I'm curious about your perceived threshold for policy action. From a public health perspective, all gun deaths are preventable deaths, and most of those 358 (or 367) people would still be alive if this country had a more rational gun control regime. And you cite statistics from a single year, while similar levels of gun violence occur year after year after year.
Thus, in the eight years since the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans have been killed by other Americans with rifles than have been killed by Islamic terrorism, by an order of magnitude. Even starting the clock on Sept. 10, 2001, more Americans have been killed by other Americans with rifles than have been killed by Islamic terrorists.
And yet, to address the former, we can't even get a bill through Congress, while in response to the latter, we have deployed the largest military force in the history of humankind and have spent over a trillion dollars.
Again, and for the umpteenth time, no one is arguing that we can end murder through gun regulation. But saying that we shouldn't bother passing reasonable legislation to prevent 300-some odd deaths a year just because some other people are going to be beaten to death seems nonsensical to me.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Snortwheezezzzhuh?
Oh they're coming to take away everybody's guns again? ...& again? ...& again? ...& again?...ad nauseum... ??? Wake me up if anything ever actually happens.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
There is something attractive to people about guns that cannot be explained even by their potential effectiveness in thwarting harm. The probability that someone needs a gun on a given day when they're out in public must be on the order of one in many million. Yet many people cannot change a tire. Okay, so the consequences of not being able to change a tire are less severe.
But I'm sure many people who carry guns cannot perform CPR. What about the potential that they have a serious allergy they are unaware of? Do they carry shots of epinephrine to prevent their child from having an anaphylactic reaction?
When I said that an individual may be in his own individual capacity safer by owning a gun, it probably is empirically doubtful. But I understand one man believing that's the case and wanting to carry a gun. However, the odds of needing it are so small that anyone who chooses to carry a gun is probably looking to use it. There will be a drive to create the necessity that doesn't really exist. The simple act of buying a military grade weapon should be disqualifying given what it says about a person.
People who desire such weapons both envision and create a society nobody should want to live in.
Yes, semi-automatic rifles are classified under "rifle" as far as I know, though I will try to find a source to back that up. Firearms not stated is because the reports made by local agencies to the FBI are not always complete or accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
People do die from the use of firearms, I don't think anyone has ever tried to deny that fact. Nor would I attempt to diminish the pain someone feels at the loss of a loved one, but all of this still doesn't remove the fact that people have a right to defend themselves from violence. Thinking that the police will come to your rescue is foolish because most times they arrive well after the fact.
Btw, I've seen several suicide scenes, some were done by hanging, some by train, some by fire, some by pills. I won't argue that a firearm makes it easier in a moment of desperation, but people that are intent on ending their lives will find another way even if firearms are removed from the picture. I don't think that is a sufficiently justifiable reason to attempt to remove another person's right to keep and bear arms.
You make some good points but I think there's a larger picture. Rights can be tempered by collective concerns. And this is the conflict we're dealing with.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
In my personal experience I have gone 31 years and never touched a gun. I'm not saying that makes me superior. But I have never seen someone brandish a gun. It's not that I live a sheltered existence either. This possibility we're talking about is remote. The right we're discussing is based on such exigency.
If someone pulls a gun on me and I have no way of defending myself, I accept the risk. All of these risks are not really diminished that much by carrying around a weapon everywhere you go. It's like wearing a bicycle helmet on an airplane. Or sleeping with a stuffed animal. You can never buy total security.
You continue to tilt against windmills. No one is proposing that firearms be removed from the picture. No one is proposing repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of firearms in the U.S..Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
The measures being proposed are attempts to improve public safety within the context of a guaranteed right for private citizens to own firearms. Universal background checks do not ban the private ownership of firearms, they enable it. Universal firearm registration does not ban the private ownership of firearms, it enables it. The assault weapons ban targets a specific class of weapons that are a demonstrable threat to public safety and which have no civilian application.
This is not an all or nothing proposition. Most civil rights described in the Bill of Rights have limits under certain circumstances. Felons generally see their First Amendment right to free assembly limited. The Ninth Amendment's right of privacy is still being hashed out. And despite the "simplicity" of the Second Amendment's language, the private ownership of firearms is, to a certain degree, regulated. No court has affirmed a citizen's unlimited right to bear arms.
Hey look, that guy's got a gun. Let's go shoot him & steal it.
On the news tonight they said more people are shot in Chicago alone than all of Afghanistan. If the NRA wants to spout bullshit, fine. All that means is they're full of shit. Self proclaimed protectors of the second ammendment. Jefferson is spinning in his grave.
Great post. The paranoia that the NRA has created around Obama since his election is silly really. In his first 4 years in office he avoided even touching the issues we face in the US with responsible gun ownership. In fact the only measure involving guns Obama signed in his first term gave people the right to carry firearms in National Parks.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
The NRA has turned the conversation into any change is a deal breaker.
Nobody has advocated for the prohibition of guns and only NRA pretends that threat exists because it serves their purposes.
What are the measures we can take to not infringe on citizens who wish to own firearms while addressing the carnage we see today?
The 2nd Amendment taken literally means every citizen can own H-Bombs, F-10 fighters, drones, tanks, subs etc. Now while idea is ridiculous, so is prohibition. So what can we do to make the existance of firearms within our society safer.
This is the conversation that needs to place and the sooner the better. If somebody with an Arab name had attacked that school in Newtown many parts of the Bill of Rights would be flushed down the toilet jsut like they were on 9/11. Let's try to not go to the extreme of the Patriot Act but try and mitigate in some way the 11,000 plus deaths that happen every year via forearm in our nation.
We can't end every one of those deaths bt shame on us if we don't find sensible ways to mitigate them.
I hope that you realize that someone can own a gun without necessarily going about being armed day in and out. It's a judgement decision, but there is something to be said for having the option available. I knew plenty of cops who didn't carry off-duty because they viewed it as a potential headache waiting to happen. However, they would carry if going to a dangerous neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Moreover, a lot of people keep banding about how they only want some reasonable restrictions, but I think the issue is their definition of reasonable. Some call for only 7 bullets, some for 5, I've even heard the fringe talking about 1 bullet. Yet the police typically carry 46 rounds on them at any given time, 2 fifteen round clips in a belt pouch, 1 fifteen round clip in the weapon and 1 round already chambered. These are people that train several times a year with their weapon, but typically need multiple shots to hit someone during an actual shooting.
Most people I know don't have an issue with background checks and some other provisions such as people that have been committed or deemed mentally defective from owning a weapon (so long as their is a way to receive judicial review of that determination).
Well, I think the issue is that people see some of the proposed or instituted measures as a back door means to effectively disarm people. Background checks don't seem to be opposed by many people that I converse with, though registration is more contentious due to historical issues. The definition of an assault weapon is also contentious for good reason. Many of the features used in the New York law to define what is an assault weapon appear to be rather arbitrary, designed to make a broad list of weapon prohibited. As I've said before, if these weapons are really so destructive than why do we arm the police with them?Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
I have actually fired many types of weapons, and all in the service of either the United States or as a cop. Machine guns, grenade launchers, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are all weapons that I have actually trained on, so I am coming at this debate with first hand knowledge of how each works and what they are capable of. On the other hand, it has been my experience that the majority of people that favor strict gun controls have never even held a weapon, and perhaps that is part of the problem here.
PS- Felons generally do not have their right to free assembly limited after they have served their sentence, and if you mean during their incarceration then that is a horrible comparison. Privacy is still being hashed out because it's an unenumerated right, so it's going to require a lot of hashing out. The best analogy in my opinion would be the laws that sought to "regulate" the handing out of political pamphlets and restrictions on small groups assembling in public, laws that were very popular during the late 1800's and early 1900's. Many of them were eventually struck down as a backdoor attempt to ban unpopular speech.
I think this is an interesting comment and gets to the core of how I feel. Life is inherently risky so I go out into the world and make decisions almost every day that weigh that risk and reward balance. The # of Americans with guns is something like 35% of the population. The # of those who carry is an even smaller figure. So I really feel the risk of venturing out into the world unarmed is pretty low, and if I am caught in an altercation that involves guns, my survival instincts will kick in and lower the odds of harm even further.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I'm an engineer, by education. I'm constantly computing things in my head on the fly. On balance, it keeps me healthy and alive. The sad thing to me about opinions aired from gun proponents is how little computation, logic, or even common sense thinking lies behind their boldly proclaimed opinions. This is just one of those arguments where emotions rule the day.
Well I would assume because the police should be able to bring greater firepower with them to altercation with a bad guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
You are right that many gun owners and even some gun advocates do not object to background checks, though in a moment of either shear flex of NRA power or tone deafness (or both) Wayne LaPierre just testified before congress that background checks are ineffective.
As for registration, if the owners of guns are worried about the government will come to their homes with 18 wheelers and take away their guns, it is a theoretical argument, but when the government decides to squash the citizens, their power is far greater than the guns held by citizens. And if you have to register a car, a dog, why not a gun.
You are right at least in my case that I have never owned a firearm, though I have held and operated firearms, both shot guns as a civilian and an M-16 in basic training in USAF, though my service never called for me to operate the weapon again.
I respect the fact that there are hunters (though I would never hunt). I respect that people collect weapons like stamps or coins or sport memorabilia. And I accept that some folks actually feel more secure having a firearm in their homes even though many studies show that far more tragic consequences come from a weapon being in a home than are prevented by that weapons presence.
So I am not suggesting we eliminate guns, simply that we make weapons harder to acquire and that we limit the firepower that the average citizen can walk around with.
In no way this is pointed at you but I do find it troubling that so many citizens that feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment applauded the trashing of other parts of the Bill of Rights from internment of Japanese Americans, to Red Scare of the 50's, to Patriot Act.
And what frustrates me the most is that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment if you read all 27 words certainly indicate that intention was for states to have a militia, what we today call the National Guard. It is quite debatable that they thought that every American should be have the fettered right to own weapons that were unimaginable in the 1790's.
And most of the NRA makes me puke. If the actual were dedicated to rights of gun owners and not gun industrialists, they never would have endorsed Romney over Obama. Obama had no record of adverse gun actions, in fact his only action as President was to allow firearms to be carried in National Parks (gun rights v. gun control). Romney OTOH as Governor had signed very strict gun control legislation. They are a manipulative group that makes themselves a pretty penny appearing to represent Average Joe when in fact they are a pro Capitalist PAC with a winning wedge issue.
I live in a country where the police are unarmed. Do I feel safer? You can bet your life on it.
I envy you but that very fact probably makes it hard to understand just how complex this issue is in the US any more than I ever got what the heck was going on in Ireland all those years and why it tok so long to resolve...Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
There is no way that our police officers can be armed with rubber bullets and pepper spray at this stage of the Republic's history. It is something I am not proud of as an American but I accept as part of having been born and raised here and a trade-off for the very many wonderful things about the US.