Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not Gun Control  
User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

This seems to be a rather controversial subject on this forum recently; It's a subject that I think about a lot; and almost always, anything I think about a lot, I read about a lot, and I study a lot. I have read several books on the subject recently, done some "research", (google, wiki, and a few WW 2 history books) I have even gone to a few gun shows to see how people there think about gun control. I have talked at length with our county sheriff who is a good friend of mine, and now I'm willing to hear what people all over to world have to say about this matter.

I picked up some really good ideas on the subject recently from a fellow selling posters and calendars;
More about them in a minute..............

In reviewing threads dealing with gun control, one thing "stands out"............many people on the forum seem to always refer to people who have guns, as "nuts"........or just "gun nuts";

I have guns, and I can assure you, I'm not "nuts", nor am I a "nut"; If I, (or anyone else who owns a gun) is "nuts", then there's a tremendous number of "computer nuts", "car nuts", "guitar nuts", "camera nuts", "cell phone nuts", "iPod nuts", and many more kinds of "nuts" on Airliners ! But I really don't think people can be considered to be "nuts" because of what things they own. I think a better understanding of people can be had, by looking at WHY they own these things. Forgetting all of the other stuff, let's look at WHY people own guns; they vary from person to person, but mostly it's because people want to feel "safe"; (wanting to feel safe shouldn't make one a "nut", IMHO)

Here's a question for everyone on this forum; Have YOU ever been robbed, at gun-point, late at night, in a "bad" neighborhood ?

I have ! At midnight, downtown Louisville, Ky. while unloading a load of new cars at a "get ready" place. I used to go to this place all the time at night; never had any trouble before..........but this time, two "thugs" decided to see what they could steal out of my truck while I was driving a unit into the building; as I came back out, there stands two "perps", one with my suitcase, and one with a gun in his hand ! Oddly enough, my first thought was, "this can't be real" ! No one with any brains commits armed robbery over a damned suitcase full work clothes ! My next thought.........ANGER ! I became VERY angry ! As I approached, meaning to get my tie-down bar, the perp with the piece started shooting ! In my direction !

Being familiar with guns, I'm thinking........it's just a .22 (from the sounds), and either the perp is the worst shot in town, or else he's shooting blanks ! ( To this day, I never found out which ) As they headed towards an alley, I retrieved my tie-down bar, and gave chase, down a dark alley; after maybe 50m yards, it hit me..........I'm out of breath, and I can't see my hand, (which is white), and it's a foot from my face ! The perps would have been much harder to see, even if I could have caught up with them, which I definitely couldn't.

On the way out of downtown I stopped at the main Police Station; what did they tell me ? ( unloading at night, un-armed ? you're lucky you're not dead ! Better get yourself a piece !

For the next few weeks I thought and thought.......finally, I talked to a guy who was a brother-in-law to my then wife; he was a Hamilton cop; He: You gotta get you a piece, bro! So we went to a gun show, and I was about to buy me a model 66 S&W 357; then I thought some more.........it was just a damned suit case ! almost no problem replacing it; but if I'd had that 357, there would have been at least one, possibly two dead perps ! Think of the lost work, the lawyer fees, the bad publicity.........plus, my company didn't allow us to "carry" ! I would have been fired ! So I changed my mind; (but I also changed my "tactics"; next time I unloaded at night in Louisville, I was "prepared" !

Now, 30 years later, things have changed; and NOT for the better ! Now things are MUCH worse ! So now, at least I have a CC permit ( which is only good in Indiana ) when I go to Chicago, it's back to square one. ( Obama's buddy, Rahm Dead-Fish
don't allow no no citizens protecting themselves in HIS town; (which has a murder rate higher than Mexico City, BTW)

OK, enough about why I want to feel safe; back to the posters & calendars at the gun show.............
I didn't buy one, and I didn't take photos; but I have a descent memory; here's what was on just a few of them;

1. Guns don't make you a killer; killing people makes you a killer; you can kill people with a ball bat or a car but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game !

2. When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns..........between 1900 and 2000, fifty six million people were murdered by their own governments; gun control is a prerequisite to genocide.

For all you young guys, I remember almost all of this happening ! Stalin murdered millions of his own people; So did Hitler;
I found a photo in a book that showed a Chinese Officer shooting a young girl in the back of the head, just above a ditch full of dead bodies. This is a REAL photograph folks ! This really happened !

3. A poster depicted a similar scene, with the caption: "Gun control works great as long as you are the one controlling the guns" !

4. To me, gun control means a balanced stance and a smooth trigger pull.

5. This is probably the best one of all..........(because it's so very true)............We cannot replay history but we can learn from it; if every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and 20 rounds of ammunition, and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would be a little known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic. By Aaron Zelman

6. these two are going to be on my front door and my back door..........

"Have an EMERGENCY ? Use 1911
Average 911 response time........................around 15 minutes

Average 1911 response time....................... 2 seconds

( For those unfamiliar with weapons 1911 refers to the model 1911 Colt semi auto 45 cal. pistol. (the most widely copied design of all time )

And lastly..........."My alarm tells me you are in my house; my gun tells me "not for long"

So.........all of the above, over quite a few years, is why I choose to be able to defend myself and mine; you may think that makes me a "nut"; the U.S. Constitution thinks it makes me a law abiding citizen.


It's easy to think a great Army is a "waste" if you can never remember a war...........

It's easy to think a fire extinguisher is a "bother" if you've never had a fire............

It's easy to think all of that insurance is a "waste" if you've never had a tornado demolish your home.........

Hell.......Miss Arlie thinks it's a "waste" for me to have $...........in my new Glock when we've never even had a home invasion !

But if we ever do have, I can assure you, there will be one less "perp" to invade homes !

Do you think that makes me a "killer" ? I think it make me a very healthy 79 year old, law abiding citizen who intends to become at LEAST 100 !


And your thoughts on gun control were.....?

Charley


Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
148 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
Have YOU ever been robbed, at gun-point, late at night,

Knife point, back in '84 or '85, but that hardly makes a difference.
Dad was mugged in the early '80's, by someone using a gun (heavily regulated in NY, then and now).
Mom was the victim of an attempted home invasion back in '86 or so.

[Edited 2012-08-11 01:30:22]

[Edited 2012-08-11 01:32:04]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5437 times:

Good lord, what is wrong with your country that you're all so fearful of each other that you don't feel safe going anywhere without a gun.

Forget about gun control (or lack thereof), you guys need a serious, nation-wide attitude adjustment. Last week, a Michigan police officer wrote our local newspaper about how he was walking through a park with his wife here in Calgary when he was "aggressively approached" by two men, who asked them if they'd gone to see the Calgary Stampede (a glorified county fair, to be honest). When he ignored them the first time, they asked him again, prompting the man to step between them and his wife, saying "I have nothing to talk to you about". He then went on and on about how he felt threatened by these two people (who, it turned out later, were handing out complimentary passes to the Stamepede) and how he was outraged that he couldn't carry his gun to "protect" himself because of our laws here in Canada. Sure, it might seem like a reasonable response to some, but to the vast majority of Canadians, pro- or anti-gun, it's utterly absurd in every way.

From where I'm sitting, this fear of everything and everyone gripping the US is spiraling out of control and if it isn't addressed soon, will surely become self-perpetuating.



Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1341 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):

Here's a question for everyone on this forum; Have YOU ever been robbed, at gun-point, late at night, in a "bad" neighborhood ?

I've had two such incurences, one in a home, one at a light rail stop. Perpetrators were armed with a pistol and a rusty, broken knife, respectively.

I solved the first one with a fire extinguisher, and in the second incident I simply took the knife out of that particular junkie's hand and offered to have a nearby police officer examine it.

Things got a little messy the first time, and a little awkward the second, but in no case did I need a firearm, nor would having one have made things any better. Plus, I figure I've now used up about six lifetimes' worth of home invasion probability (for me and virtually everyone I know). Which is why I do not buy the "protection" bullshit. There are simply too many other ways to skin that cat.

For the record, that fire extinguisher did a bit more damage than I would have done with a firearm. Just saying...

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
I think it make me a very healthy 79 year old, law abiding citizen who intends to become at LEAST 100 !

Hopefully you will do just that. But I don't see how having guns around will do anything for that...

Quoting MrChips (Reply 3):

Good lord, what is wrong with your country that you're all so fearful of each other that you don't feel safe going anywhere without a gun.

I can assure that we're not all like that. In fact, an inexorably growing number of Americans are fed up with the gun lobby's exploitation of events like what we've seen over the last month, and it will lead to removal of the hardware involved sooner or later. The real question is how hard it's going to be fought.

And yes, you're right about our 'fear' outlook, but again it isn't everybody, or even a majority. Trust me when I say I'm not the only one who'd be embarrassed that one of our citizens felt like pulling a gun on a promoter. I'm not sure whether that's silly or sad, but it isn't a good thing.


Edited to reply to MrChips' comment

[Edited 2012-08-11 02:38:58]


Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5423 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 4):
For the record, that fire extinguisher did a bit more damage than I would have done with a firearm. Just saying...


So, you carry a fire extinguisher around???   

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 4):
I can assure that we're not all like that.


You're right, we're not all 'that'. I'm really not fearful of much. I carry a firearm to provide an additional set of options in the remote chance that I may need those options. In fact, I feel better when I know that I'm in a community where others, who have passed a background check and have passed a competency test, are similarly armed.

It's not a matter of being scared, it's a matter of being prepared. Much like insurance, I hope to never have to use it, but if I need to, I'm glad I have it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

I agree that possessing a gun does not make one a killer. However, I think the comparison with a car is false.

A gun is by its very nature designed to kill. It is not intended purely for decoration, digging pastures or playing music: it is meant to be used to kill.

A car is designed as a means of transportation. Yes, it can be used to kill deliberately and it can result in accidental homicide but its primary function is to convey the driver and passengers from one physical location to another.

People may argue that a gun may act as a deterrent, but it is only so because of its primary purpose and the willingness of its owner to use it for that purpose.

Do I believe that people in general should not have the right to bear arms? No but I do think that reasonable limits on the type and quantity, together with appropriate training and character assessments are called for. Safe storage is a must but I am not too sure about being allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe carrying it openly would be better.

But whatever laws are in place, there will always be those that wish to break them either for profit or because they think the laws shouldn't apply to them.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1341 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5392 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
So, you carry a fire extinguisher around???   

Lol, no, that was the home invasion. I do, for the record, keep a fire extinguisher on every floor of my dwelling.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):

It's not a matter of being scared, it's a matter of being prepared.

But prepared for what, exactly? There's really nothing that you're going to able to do with a gun (and not go to jail for anyway) that's going to save the day. People have this illusion that they can be heroes when a bad guy breaks out a (legally bought in all cases thus far) rapid fire weapon, and use their own CC weapon to save the day. But the reality is that that never happens. Even in cases like AZ (The Tucson/Giffords) event, where there were people in the crowd with guns, no one fired back. There were good reasons for that, all of which completely negated the value of 'defensive' weapons.

The reality is that the wannabe heroes are actually much more likely to end up like Zimmerman, who shot an unarmed citizen, then ever helping anyone out. And that's a problem that requires dealing with.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5380 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 7):
Lol, no, that was the home invasion. I do, for the record, keep a fire extinguisher on every floor of my dwelling.


Same here, because I want to be prepared in the unlikely event of a fire. Hope I never need it.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 7):
But prepared for what, exactly?


For the unlikely event of needing to use a firearm. Like, say a

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 7):
home invasion
Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 7):
There's really nothing that you're going to able to do with a gun (and not go to jail for anyway) that's going to save the day.


If the firearm is used within the law, you will not go to jail.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 7):
People have this illusion that they can be heroes


I am under no illusion that I will be a hero. All my training is range training (though, it is the range used by the local police forces and has all sorts of 'distraction' options that are available to the public) and have never been under the stress of combat. I have no idea how I may react. Those I know that also carry, feel the same way. We talk about these things.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 7):
But the reality is that that never happens.


Do yourself a favor if you have a Facebook account: 'Like' NRA News for a week or so. They post 'armed citizen' reports almost everyday. You'll be better informed on this particular subject.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 7):
Even in cases like AZ (The Tucson/Giffords) event, where there were people in the crowd with guns, no one fired back.


Because if there were armed citizens, they acted responsibly and did not fire into a crowd. They paid attention to what they were doing and their surroundings.

All I want is to have additional options should I ever find my self in a bad situation. That's all.

Much like insurance or a fire extinguisher, I hope I never have to use a firearm to defend myself, but I feel better knowing that option is available to me.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

It sounds like downtown Kabul, not the US!

I come from a country were guns are highly regulated - you can get a gun but only with a hunting licence, the Police do a home check to make sure you are keeping it in a locked cabinet with the ammo separate etc but guns are starting to become the weapon of choice (although nowhere near the amount of knife crime there is).

My feeling on the situation is this - if you have a gun, then you must be prepared to use it (and kill with it if the situation calls for it). If you are not prepared to kill somebody then you should not have a gun, simple as that. I personally am glad that I live in a country with highly regulated guns (for Christ's Sake, the Team GB shooting team isn't even allowed to train here as their weapons are illegal! They have to go to Switzerland to train).

Lack of gun control has led to events like Columbine and Virginia Tech happening and while we have had similar events here (Dunblane for instance) it is good to have some sort of gun control.

That being said, an example of why gun control is a good idea is gun crime in the US. I'm not bitching about the US - I love it as a country - but there is a horrendous amount of gun crime there, and it's so easy to get a gun provided you aren't a convicted felon and have a week to wait for a background check.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4895 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

One good thing about gun related homicides in the US is that you don't have the petty happy-slapping and chav stuff going on here. You touch someone here and you never know if he has a gun and then its all over for you.   

Personal Space, man, is where its at.


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11473 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5289 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
many people on the forum seem to always refer to people who have guns, as "nuts"........or just "gun nuts";

Just the ones who arm themselves to the teeth for no reason. I understand people who own one or two pistols or shotguns. People hunt for their food, people live in bad neighborhoods. That's fine. But why do people *NEED* automatic and semi-automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo? That should send up a HUGE red flag to the feds.

Also, if people are not "allowed" to have guns in Chicago but the murder rate is one of the highest in the world, could it be people simply ride over to Indiana or Wisconsin and stock up on guns? Or are people too stupid to do that?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5269 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
many people on the forum seem to always refer to people who have guns, as "nuts"........or just "gun nuts";

Don't know how you can have missed how often it is used to describe anyone suggesting there should be requirements on those who have guns.

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
Here's a question for everyone on this forum; Have YOU ever been robbed, at gun-point, late at night, in a "bad" neighborhood ?

No, and not for lack of spending times in bad neighborhoods. If we expand a bit i have experience from several burglaries. Once at one of our homes and twice at my grandfathers place. Several times at warehouses, including where we have had guards.

All of that is minor compared to the too many women I know who have been raped.

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
1. Guns don't make you a killer; killing people makes you a killer; you can kill people with a ball bat or a car but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game !

Guns make it easy for people to become killers.

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
2. When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns..........between 1900 and 2000, fifty six million people were murdered by their own governments; gun control is a prerequisite to genocide.

I don't think people having guns at their homes or on them would have made much difference.

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
But if we ever do have, I can assure you, there will be one less "perp" to invade homes !

Do you think that makes me a "killer" ?

I think that between you and the "perp", you are the one most likely to end up dead or injured. If not you then someone among your family or friends. Most likely without any "perp" showing up.

I'm not against people owning guns. I have absolutely no problem with hunting and I have just as little problem with people using them at a range.

I do have a problem with people having them for protection without proper training. Police is supposed to have proper training but last year they shoot over a hundred rounds in to a car and the people behind it here in Miami beach. With the training I have received there is no way you open fire just because a car doesn't stop. You follow it until it stops. If someone in the car had been shooting it would be different.

I also have problems with the amount of accidents there are because they are not stored properly. Too often with the excuse to have them available for protection.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5266 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
In reviewing threads dealing with gun control, one thing "stands out"............many people on the forum seem to always refer to people who have guns, as "nuts"........or just "gun nuts";

Gun nuts are defined by me as the people who fawn over guns and get a high off them, it is joked that they are compensating for something   

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
2. When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns..........between 1900 and 2000, fifty six million people were murdered by their own governments; gun control is a prerequisite to genocide.

This was true in the 1800's but can the US populace really defend themselves against their own government with the high tech weaponry that the US military has, using citizen organized militias as the 2nd amendment is written. If the US government wanted to take out US citizens with unmanned drones there is nothing stopping them and the fact that people have guns would be useless.

What would prevent this is that the individuals in the military likely wouldn't fire upon their own people but that is a different discussion that has nothing to do with guns and its all about democracy. Also last time I checked countries like Canada, Australia, most of Europe, Japan etc. enjoy the same freedoms as Americans (in some cases we have more) with gun control.

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
Here's a question for everyone on this forum; Have YOU ever been robbed, at gun-point, late at night, in a "bad" neighborhood ?

I have ! At midnight, downtown Louisville, Ky. while unloading a load of new cars at a "get ready" place. I used to go to this place all the time at night; never had any trouble before..........but this time, two "thugs" decided to see what they could steal out of my truck while I was driving a unit into the building; as I came back out, there stands two "perps", one with my suitcase, and one with a gun in his hand ! Oddly enough, my first thought was, "this can't be real" ! No one with any brains commits armed robbery over a damned suitcase full work clothes ! My next thought.........ANGER ! I became VERY angry ! As I approached, meaning to get my tie-down bar, the perp with the piece started shooting ! In my direction !

I am sorry for your unfortunate experiences, and haven't been in that situation myself.

However if held at gunpoint any remotely competent mugger I would assume would shoot if you went for your gun. They have the advantage unless the one being mugged has some serious training in the ability to disarm at gunpoint, which is a skill I would think few have.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
Because if there were armed citizens, they acted responsibly and did not fire into a crowd. They paid attention to what they were doing and their surroundings.

Good on them!!

In the gun debate I wish people would see the problem with the "More Guns" side. I cannot see that if people were packing In Aurora that they would have been able to take down James Holmes without adding to the death toll.

Here are the reasons I see it this way.

- He had weapons that cops don't have easy access too.
- He was armored so it would be very difficult to take him down.
- It was dark and he used a smoke grenade.
- I simply do not trust the marksmanship of the average gun owner.

In fact in the case of this shooting the fact that assault weapons are so easy to get

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
Also, if people are not "allowed" to have guns in Chicago but the murder rate is one of the highest in the world, could it be people simply ride over to Indiana or Wisconsin and stock up on guns? Or are people too stupid to do that?

Same thing in DC, people buy in the neighboring states, people in Canada buy guns illegally in the US also. All this argues is that any gun control has to be federally mandated or it won't work. The reality as Michael Moore has even said its not really about the guns. There is merit that gun control would have done nothing to stop a shooting like Aurora however easy access to guns makes it much easier and raises much less red flags than had James Holmes been in say the UK.

People other countries play the same violent video games and see the same movies as Americans do but we don't kill each other with guns at the same rate, not even close per capita. As said in reply 3 the issue with gun violence in the US is more about the culture of fear and aggression than what exists in other countries.

That is the first question and gun control is the second one, figure out why you are more likely to kill each other with guns.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 3):
Things got a little messy the first time, and a little awkward the second, but in no case did I need a firearm, nor would having one have made things any better.

And what if you were a diminutive female, or worse, someone with a disease that makes you very weak?

A gun makes the weakest person as strong as the strongest. It's a great power equalizer.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12):
As said in reply 3 the issue with gun violence in the US is more about the culture of fear and aggression than what exists in other countries.

The high crime rates in the US come from a much lower tolerance of drugs use. You want to take on the drug gangs, they will push back.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5246 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
The high crime rates in the US come from a much lower tolerance of drugs use. You want to take on the drug gangs, they will push back.

Then makes those gangs and cartels irrelevant by legalizing drugs, but that is a discussion for another thread.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5386 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
And your thoughts on gun control were.....?

First off, there are two types of guns:

Guns for hunting and guns for interpersonal assault.

Guns for hunting are fine in book, they have a fine tradition a heritage of care, education, family values being passed down from one generation to another and of course are used for "life" i.e. human sustenance. People care greatly for their hunting firearms and how and when they are used. The education that goes along with hunting is relatively very good.

Interpersonal assault guns, handguns and assault rifles are used for killing people. They are all about fear, either instilling fear in others or addressing your fears of others. The education that goes along with them is not the same, is not caring and loving. They are "remote control off switches". They are often owned by people who have next to no training on their use. They are owned for a reason of "fear" (as I noted above) and so the mindset of the person carrying them is already an issue. I am not saying that ever person carrying a handgun is bad, but the mindset is different.

My family is a hunting family, I personally do not hunt but have gone hunting with them and have fired my family's guns in a controlled setting. Some of my family also owns handguns but again the mindset is different and you can see it, when they are teaching, and showing their skills during a hunt vs when they are firing their handguns at the range. A hunt is careful, planned, and patient. The time you would use a handgun is not (generally).

So for me I say control interpersonal assault firearms and not hunting firearms. Of course "the gun lobby" (you know, dislike "lobbies" of almost anything in general) "if you let them control one, in time they will take away the other! No gun control!" I am all for serialized ammunition, I am all for some forms of control on the ownership of guns (based on what I noted above) and for controls on sales of guns (too many end up in other countries, in the "criminals hands, no not all and it is a smaller percentage than are used legitimately here but it still needs to be addressed). Fewer guns are not a bad thing and the ability to trace them is not terrible, it will not embolden the government to "take over the people".

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1341 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5209 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):

And what if you were a diminutive female, or worse, someone with a disease that makes you very weak?


What if you're a convicted felon? Imagine that for second, you're Martha Stewart, being assaulted by someone with a legally bought semi-auto who while being a total psychopath, has a clean enough background to have been enabled to attack you in this way. How does that fit into your universe?


To answer your question, I had a broken arm at the time. That good enough? A fire extinguisher is a great home defense article. As I learned at the time, it's actually two weapons. You have step 1, discharge contents at assailant, step 2, it's a decently heavy & solid object, you do the math.

Also, they're really good at putting out actual fires. I do not know of anyone who's ever been saved from being burned to death or smoke inhalation from a P-90.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5183 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 10):
Also, if people are not "allowed" to have guns in Chicago but the murder rate is one of the highest in the world, could it be people simply ride over to Indiana or Wisconsin and stock up on guns? Or are people too stupid to do that?

No, they are not too stupid. In fact, I'm sure criminals, that are able to get guns because they haven't been convicted, do it all the time. Where does that leave the law-abiding citizen that lives in those cities? Unarmed and defensless waiting on a police force that has no duty to protect them.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12):
- He had weapons that cops don't have easy access too.
- He was armored so it would be very difficult to take him down.
- It was dark and he used a smoke grenade.
- I simply do not trust the marksmanship of the average gun owner.

Police have plenty of access to the AR-15 platform and shotguns. Two of my good friends are police officers and both have shotguns in their vehicles and one of them has an AR-15 since he's a member of the tactical team.

While he may have been armored, getting shot would have distracted him. Get hit by a big enough round and you're going to get knocked down.

Fair enough, it was dark and he used a smoke grenade. That does work both ways. It also means that he would not be able to see people moving on him. He was wearing a mask for God's sake. Ever wear one? Your vision is retricted to what's in front of you.

Neither do I. I trust my markmanship, but would question it under a stressful situation. Someone firing back at this lunatic would still have been better than waiting for him to run out of ammunition.

Like I said, I have no clue how I would behave under similar circumstances, but it certainly is comforting to know that I may have options other than "I hope he doesn't get me...or my family". I hope to God I never have see how I react.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5156 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):
I think that between you and the "perp", you are the one most likely to end up dead or injured. If not you then someone among your family or friends. Most likely without any "perp" showing up.

I understand what you are saying, and I partially agree with you; But here's what YOU don't understand; there are exactly two adults in our house, myself and Miss Arlie; no children, no friends, no "family" except for when they come to visit a few times a year. You have been reading about all of the "accidents" caused by un-trained people shooting family members; That's the part I agree on; no one should keep a loaded gun for any reason, UNLESS he / she has been properly trained, and actually has a "plan" to prevent such accidents. I didn't just run out and take a quick course on how to shoot a pistol..........I have been shooting pistols since I was 15 years old; but just knowing how to "operate" the gun is only the beginning; you must also be VERY familiar with the law where YOU live; I constantly read about that all the time; That's where my friendship with our county sheriff has been invaluable.

I'm not against people owning guns. I have absolutely no problem with hunting and I have just as little problem with people using them at a range.

About "hunting"........I live in a very rural area; we have a very large deer population, squirrels all over the place, and I could shoot wild turkeys anytime if I so desired, as they are quite common around here. But I'm NOT a "hunter"; I love animals; I buy my "meat" at the grocery store, and I eat my "steak" about 3 times a week at Ryan's in Terre Haute. ( I don't even like venison ) If I wanted to kill a deer, I could do it any morning from inside my front door, as they always come out of the woods across the road about daybreak to forage in the field. But I have no interest in killing any kind of animal; (the possible exception being the few starlings which make such pests of themselves at my bird feeders in the back yard  so far I have even refrained doing that, as I don't wish to frighten my woodpeckers and chickadees !

Now........about my pistols;

[quote=seb146,reply=10]I do have a problem with people having them for protection without proper training. Police is supposed to have proper training but last year they shoot over a hundred rounds in to a car and the

The key words here being "without proper training"; Not only do I have "proper training", I regularly go to a indoor / outdoor range only 5 miles from here and shoot targets; I ENJOY shooting targets, and I enjoy meeting and interacting with like-minded individuals who regularly come to the range, including many LE officers.

Fire extinguishers; I'm very BIG on them; I have several different kinds, from a 5 lb CO2 bottle with horn, and about five 40 lb Ansul dry chemical units. When I was in the Navy, as I was a ship fitter / metalsmith, I received a lot of intensive training on damage control; from the time I was a small child, (with a brother-in-law who was on the Cincinnati Fire Dept) until I went into the Navy in 1951, I learned a LOT about fire fighting; But I have a few more things that are even more "effective" for deterring criminal intent; one of the best, easy to carry, easy to use, easy to obtain "perp" control items, (even better than pepper spray), is an aerosol can of wasp & hornet killer; ( I get mine at Menard's for $3 a can ); shoots a 32 foot concentrated stream, very easy to aim, and VERY "effective"! One alert citizen with one can could have drastically reduced the fatalities at the recent theater incident; ( I personally wouldn't have been any help though, as I never go to movie theaters any more. )

About Chicago (and their gun control law); I love to go to Chicago; we always ride the Metra to Union Station; until just 2 or 3 yrs ago, we even occasionally WALKED over to Lake Shore Drive, but no more ! Now, you risk being "set upon" by gangs of teen-age thugs ! (see recent headlines, Chicago Tribune) So now we take a cab; however........anyone attempting to harass, rob, or otherwise molest me or Miss Arlie.........will be getting a face full of wasp & hornet killer; and while they are trying to regain their sight, they very well may receive a thrashing from my tactical baton !

See, what law abiding people who don't care to fight back, don't understand is.........street criminals do what they do because they don't expect victims to fight back ! I may be 79 yrs old, I may only be 165 lbs/ 5' 8", but I STILL fight back ! And I AM trained ! I can still give a very good account of myself if I'm attacked; it's really not just about size, or age.......it's also about "will"; I'm the type of person that while I never meet a stranger, and I love people, I also REFUSE to be anyone's victim. The older I become, the more dangerous I become to anyone with criminal intent; while I was still working for a living, I defended myself with my hands, and I did a pretty good job of it; now, I'm at the point in life now where society no longer expects me to fight back with my hands; now I use my experience, my "wits", and anything else necessary to prevent me from becoming a victim.

Gun control is just one more attempt to make me a victim.

Charley

(P.S. Sorry it took so long to say all that, but it's not something you can say in a few words )



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2414 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5125 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
Why Not Gun Control 

It needs to be people control, not gun control.

Quoting MrChips (Reply 2):
Good lord, what is wrong with your country that you're all so fearful of each other that you don't feel safe going anywhere without a gun.

Because we are fearful of wackos like James Holmes.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5117 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
Because we are fearful of wackos like James Holmes.


You know, there always has been, and there always will be wacko's, however, when I was a kid things were a lot different than they are today; we didn't have any computers, so there were no computer or video games encouraging young kids to murder people, and most kids had two parents, and usually only the father worked at a job.

Also, we didn't have movies showing people having sexual intercourse, talking like trash, and back then, you could actually believe most of what you saw on NBC, ABC, & CBS; but those days are long gone ! It's far too complex to really get into, but it's really obvious why we have so many more nut-jobs like this Holmes creep. But we do have them, and not all of them are "home grown", as the British found out when their trains were blown up.

I never imagined I'd see the day that I would be reluctant to walk from Chicago's Union Station to Lake Shore Drive either; but just three or four weeks ago, a 40 yr old man in Chicago on business was attacked and very nearly beaten to death by a gang teen agers, all within an hour of a lady and her husband nearly being killed while exiting the "elevated". If you think about this for just a minute, it's very clear; these "sidewalk criminals" know everyone is un-armed, and thereby quite defenseless; so they run amuck ! If a few of them tried this crap on someone who pulled out a (legal) weapon, and "ventilated" their skulls with a few well placed shots, the incidence of street crime would go WAY DOWN !

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days ago) and read 5116 times:

Quoting MrChips (Reply 2):

Good lord, what is wrong with your country that you're all so fearful of each other that you don't feel safe going anywhere without a gun.

Of course you'd also have to wonder what is wrong that we're all so fearful of each other that we'd feel the need to take everyone's guns away.

Personally, I neither feel the need to own and carry a gun nor do I feel the need to ban others from owning or carrying guns.

[Edited 2012-08-11 18:19:54]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5080 times:

I just did a bit more research; (mainly to make sure I spell the names right)

Remember Elian Gonzalez ? Go to google and type in his name; you will shortly be looking at...........Elian as he looks today, 10 yrs later. and you'll also see a photo of Janet Reno, Bill Clintons famous Attorney General. Miss Reno is a prime example or "government power run amuck"; she is the Government bureaucrat who, due to a complete lack of judgement, common sense, (and who knows what else), ordered ATF agents in helmets and full combat dress, and armed with automatic weapons,
(yes, real machine guns) to break down the door, (without knocking), barge in and stick their machine guns in the faces of family members of this young Cuban boy, who was at the heart of an immigration dispute at the time.

(You will also see the ATF guy with his automatic weapon sticking in a frightened citizen's face)

This is the SAME Janet Reno who ordered the ATF to attack a bunch of wacko "religious nut-jobs" with automatic weapons, a battle tank, and burn down the whole building, and thus cremating several dozens of idiot men, women and little children ! (The little kids weren't idiots, only victims)

Still think YOUR government would never "do such things" ?

I'm certainly not supporting the fools who got this fiasco started; I AM pointing out, a liberal President, Bill Clinton, appointed such an idiot as Janet Reno to a position of power that was about 39 pay grades over her head ! I'm NOT a seditionist, I DO NOT advocate the violent overthrow of our government, I merely advocate electing a president capable of appointing people of sufficient common sense to be able to handle these jobs of tremendous responsibility !

Neither Bill Clinton nor B. Obama has been able to do that; and they BOTH advocate gun control................

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offline3DoorsDown From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5072 times:

Why Not Gun Control?

Gun control is hitting the target.
Enough said.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5145 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 23):
Remember Elian Gonzalez ? Go to google and type in his name; you will shortly be looking at...........Elian as he looks today, 10 yrs later. and you'll also see a photo of Janet Reno, Bill Clintons famous Attorney General. Miss Reno is a prime example or "government power run amuck"; she is the Government bureaucrat who, due to a complete lack of judgement, common sense, (and who knows what else), ordered ATF agents in helmets and full combat dress, and armed with automatic weapons,
(yes, real machine guns) to break down the door, (without knocking), barge in and stick their machine guns in the faces of family members of this young Cuban boy, who was at the heart of an immigration dispute at the time.

Remember it very well. A bunch of idiots ignoring every rule there is to keep a kid from being returned to his father because he is in Cuba. If he was from Haiti it wouldn't have made two paragraphs in Miami Herald unless people started to complain about the government wasting money by giving them days and days to come out.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 23):
This is the SAME Janet Reno who ordered the ATF to attack a bunch of wacko "religious nut-jobs" with automatic weapons, a battle tank, and burn down the whole building, and thus cremating several dozens of idiot men, women and little children ! (The little kids weren't idiots, only victims)

No doubt a lot went wrong but I think your description of facts is very selective.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 23):
I'm certainly not supporting the fools who got this fiasco started; I AM pointing out, a liberal President, Bill Clinton, appointed such an idiot as Janet Reno to a position of power that was about 39 pay grades over her head ! I'm NOT a seditionist, I DO NOT advocate the violent overthrow of our government, I merely advocate electing a president capable of appointing people of sufficient common sense to be able to handle these jobs of tremendous responsibility !

You actually advocate she should not have approved it? Seems to me the problem was in how it was executed, not in the order.


User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5122 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
No doubt a lot went wrong but I think your description of facts is very selective.

No doubt a lot went wrong ? Are you kidding ? Listen.......no battle is any better than the person commanding it; ever hear about "the buck stops at the top" ? Janet Reno was at "the top"; that's my point ! The woman was totally incompetent for the task at hand. Under the circumstances, I can see having the tank; even busting down the wall with it; but that's when it went "haywire".............using incendiary munitions in a frame structure, containing women and children ? Janet Reno should have been HANGED !

[quote=cmf,reply=25]Remember it very well. A bunch of idiots ignoring every rule there is to keep a kid from being returned to his father because he is in Cuba. If he was from Haiti it wouldn't have made two paragraphs in Miami

So.... now family members who love this child, are taking excellent care of him, are IDIOTS ? Because they don't want this child to return to what...........Castro's brutal communist regime ? But again, that's not my point; my point is.......you don't NEED a damned swat team to remove a child from un-armed, law abiding relatives ! That's my point ! (And your mention of Haiti is a feeble attempt to speculate about "race", is idle speculation on your part, and has absolutely NO relevance to the subject being discussed.

I'm making the point here that our own government sometimes makes unbelievably stupid "mistakes"! Want yet another example ? How about Ruby Ridge ? No doubt Randy Weaver was a nut-job; but the point being........he wasn't hurting anyone ! He wasn't blowing anything up, wasn't killing anyone, he was just "getting away from it all"; so in comes the FBI; a perfectly fine organization; ( 99% of the time ) So now we have a supposedly "highly trained" agent, scoped sniper rifle in hand, has his cross hairs on............an un-armed woman with a toddler in her arms ! And said highly trained agent then proceeds to squeeze off a round, killing the woman instantly ! Speaking of "nut-jobs"..............Remember Timothy McVey ?

His big contribution to society came a few years later; but WHY did he do such a depraved thing as blow up the Federal Building in Okie City ? mainly because he was so "pissed", so outraged by the two incidents above; plus, he was "nuts" to begin with. When government "screws up" to this extent, there will always be repercussions to the screw ups.

That's why a population of law abiding citizens needs to be armed, because would-be dictators KNOW there's a lot of fire power "out there" if the government decides to "run amuck". If you can't understand that, god help you, and I rest my case.

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
You actually advocate she should not have approved it? Seems to me the problem was in how it was executed, not in the order.

I'm advocating that Reno should have been FIRED, then replaced with someone with experience and common sense, two qualities she was totally lacking in.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7126 posts, RR: 13
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

I don't own guns, and sure it would be nice if the gun laws were made stricter as to the type/quantity of weapon one can own, but the fact is the horse has bolted - if they changed things today, they would just force those who already possess certain weapons legally to hide the fact and force them underground, but ultimately the guns would still be out there in society with no problems solved..

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12284 posts, RR: 47
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Of course you'd also have to wonder what is wrong that we're all so fearful of each other that we'd feel the need to take everyone's guns away.

It's the same thing - paranoia. Other "First World" countries manage perfectly well without the 2nd Amendment and their murder and gun-crime rates are way lower that those of the US.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
Castro's brutal communist regime ?

Have you actually been to Cuba?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5078 times:

There is a direct correlation between the prevalence of guns in an area, gun-related crimes and gun-related accidents. The tiny number of lives that have been saved by liberal gun possession laws does in no way justify the inconceivably high number of preventable gun-related tragedies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLuKJd0yqdA

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 3):
I can assure that we're not all like that. In fact, an inexorably growing number of Americans are fed up with the gun lobby's exploitation of events like what we've seen over the last month, and it will lead to removal of the hardware involved sooner or later. The real question is how hard it's going to be fought.

Mothers and intellectuals are the only two groups of people that I have found to advocate for stricter gun control in the USA. As long as you keep the weaker minded portions of society believe that a gun will protect them, and that violence or force are somehow socially acceptable in whatever context, nothing is going to change.

People don't believe Obama is not a muslim. How are you going to make people take comfort in scientific findings and statistics?

Edit and P.S. To preempt possible cases of panty-bunching due to my characterization of gun-advocates as 'weak minded': Renouncing what irrefutable science suggests because one's baser, primitive drives overpower one's rationality is on par with my definition of being weak-minded.

[Edited 2012-08-12 03:38:09]


..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5069 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
So.... now family members who love this child, are taking excellent care of him, are IDIOTS ?

I'm sure that if Cuba wasn't involved you would condemn anyone who suggested the kid should be brought up by relatives instead of his father. And yes there were idiots. Not because they loved and how they took care of him. For how they refused to return him to his father in defiance with court orders and the circus they created because of their hate for Castro.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
.you don't NEED a damned swat team to remove a child from un-armed, law abiding relatives

Your memory must be failing. They were not law abiding. They were kidnappers who got an insane amount of chances to do the right thing. If it wasn't for the politics in regards to Cuba all of them would be in jail.

You may also have forgotten the statements made by the Miami relatives and many of the Cuban community. There was constantly a large crowed in front of the house with many of them very outspoken and several of them with concealed weapons permits. As it turned out no shots were fired but they did interfere.

If you feel you need to be armed for your protection without direct threats what do you think the agents tasked with carrying out the court order felt in that situation?

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
(And your mention of Haiti is a feeble attempt to speculate about "race", is idle speculation on your part, and has absolutely NO relevance to the subject being discussed.

Race? That is your fabrication. The difference between Cuba and the rest of the islands is about politics. If Castro had been a local dictator as Papa Doc instead of becoming a pawn in the cold war the Elian story would have been very different.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
How about Ruby Ridge ?

How about it? What else do you need to make it clear that gun usage in this country is insane?

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
So now we have a supposedly "highly trained" agent, scoped sniper rifle in hand, has his cross hairs on............an un-armed woman with a toddler in her arms ! And said highly trained agent then proceeds to squeeze off a round, killing the woman instantly ! Speaking of "nut-jobs"

Why the rewrite? He did not aim at her. He was aiming at Weaver who was opening the door and she stood behind it.

I'm not defending what they did. It is against all training I have received and there are many other problems with the rules they got but why did you rewrite the event so dramatically?

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
That's why a population of law abiding citizens needs to be armed, because would-be dictators KNOW there's a lot of fire power "out there" if the government decides to "run amuck". If you can't understand that, god help you, and I rest my case.

What you need to understand is that you do not fix the kind of situation you're describing with weapons. It is a recipe for failure you're advocating.

Don't you see the fallacy when you use McVey's actions to justify your position?

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
I'm advocating that Reno should have been FIRED, then replaced with someone with experience and common sense, two qualities she was totally lacking in.

So you hate Reno but what actions should she had taken?

You had a rant about how the First Lady's office is too costly. How much did the circuses you use to justify your position cost? The only consistency I see in your argument is your hate for government.


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5056 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
Remember Timothy McVey ?

His big contribution to society came a few years later; but WHY did he do such a depraved thing as blow up the Federal Building in Okie City ? mainly because he was so "pissed", so outraged by the two incidents above

McVeigh was so pissed off by the Elian Gonzalez affair, which occurred in the year 2000, that he blew up a building in Oklahoma City in 1995? Excellent.   



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4998 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 17):
What if you're a convicted felon? Imagine that for second, you're Martha Stewart, being assaulted by someone with a legally bought semi-auto who while being a total psychopath, has a clean enough background to have been enabled to attack you in this way. How does that fit into your universe?

What difference does it make if a convicted felon is trying to kill Martha Stewart and he shows up without a firearm? She will still end up dead.

And what if the above situation happens, but Martha is the one with a semi-auto? How does that fit into your universe?

[Edited 2012-08-12 10:34:53]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4998 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 17):
To answer your question, I had a broken arm at the time. That good enough?

If you are able to attack an assailant with a fire extinguisher using only one arm while the other is broken, that makes you a pretty physically capable person, which isn't going to help your argument in any way.

[Edited 2012-08-12 10:33:52]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 32):
And what if the above situation happens, but Martha is the one with a semi-auto? How does that fit in your universe?

Martha is the convicted felon...


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4949 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 8):
Lack of gun control has led to events like Columbine and Virginia Tech happening and while we have had similar events here (Dunblane for instance) it is good to have some sort of gun control.

Tell that to the people of Chicago and DC some of the most gun controlled cities in the US where an avg. of 8 people die a day. The research shows where there is little or no gun control there is little crime and vice versa.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12):

The AR15 is not an 'assault' weapon. Your average deer/elk/moose hunting rifle is more poweful than an AR15.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 35):
Tell that to the people of Chicago and DC some of the most gun controlled cities in the US where an avg. of 8 people die a day. The research shows where there is little or no gun control there is little crime and vice versa.

Explain how that applies to Chicago and DC but not the rest of the industrialized world.


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4916 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 35):
Tell that to the people of Chicago and DC some of the most gun controlled cities in the US where an avg. of 8 people die a day. The research shows where there is little or no gun control there is little crime and vice versa.

The murder count for Chicago was 433 in 2011, or 1.19 a day, or 85% lower than you claim.
The murder count for Washington, DC was 108 in 2011, or 0.30 a day, or 96% lower than you claim.

And while I don't doubt that somewhere in this magical place called the Internet you will find statistics that show that US states with higher gun ownership are less crime ridden, believe you me that I can find some that will show especially gun-related crime increasing in those same places. However, what you present as a "fact" is just plain wrong.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4860 times:

[quote=scbriml,reply=28]Have you actually been to Cuba?

As a matter of fact, yes I have! However it was sometime before the "bearded one" took over...........all, of which is completely irrelevant of course, as there are millions of people who have NEVER been to Cuba, but they certainly realize what a brutal tyrant Castro is / was.


[quote=TransIsland,reply=31]McVeigh was so pissed off by the Elian Gonzalez affair, which occurred in the year 2000, that he blew up a building in Oklahoma City in 1995? Excellent.   


Gee, I sure hate to burst your bubble, (thinking, I've got him now), but you'd better go back and look at what I wrote; McVey was pissed off about "Waco" & "Ruby Ridge"; ( I'm fully aware of when the Elian Gonzalez bru-ha-ha took place, and I'm just as capable of going to google when my memory for dates lets me down.)


[quote=cmf,reply=30]So you hate Reno but what actions should she had taken?

First of all, I never said anything about "hating" anyone; that's Your attempt to put words in my mouth; as another matter of fact, I actually felt somewhat "sorry" for the poor, pathetic old maid; Janet isn't a bad person, but she WAS totally incompetent to be the Attorney General; And she was even LESS competent to be in charge of a ridiculous situation such as the Waco situation presented. To answer your question "what action should she have taken", that's an easy one; they should have taken David Koresh into custody during the many opportunities they passed up while he was away from his "compound". Reno wasn't the only one who "screwed up" at Waco, but she WAS however at the top of the chain of command.

You had a rant about how the First Lady's office is too costly. How much did the circuses you use to justify your position cost? The only consistency I see in your argument is your hate for government.


Spoken like a true liberal ! A taxpaying citizen complains about "Queen Michelle" blowing millions on dozens of highly paid "flunkies", and is called "a rant"; Let me tell you something...........there are a hell of more tax-paying citizens in this country who are considerably more pissed off by her arrogant abuse of our tax dollars, even though YOU may be "just fine" with it ! Frankly, I'm not too terribly concerned about how "consistent" you think my "arguments" are; And BTW.........there you go again, tossing around the "H" word ! I'm beginning to think you must have read Alinsky's book ! Your "rants" sound like they were taken from it !

What you need to think about is...........the mere fact that someone else's opinion doesn't jive with yours, doesn't necessarily make THEM wrong, but more often, just the opposite.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1341 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4835 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 38):

What you need to think about is...........the mere fact that someone else's opinion doesn't jive with yours, doesn't necessarily make THEM wrong, but more often, just the opposite.

What? So if you disagree with someone, you're automatically wrong about something? Is that what you're saying?



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

It's more than just the 'right to bear arms' (which incidentally doesn't specify firearms)


The issue for many is a feeling of being helpless without a gun.



That combined with a love of the weapon itself is a large part of the problem.

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 37):

The murder count for Chicago was 433 in 2011, or 1.19 a day, or 85% lower than you claim.
The murder count for Washington, DC was 108 in 2011, or 0.30 a day, or 96% lower than you claim.

And while I don't doubt that somewhere in this magical place called the Internet you will find statistics that show that US states with higher gun ownership are less crime ridden, believe you me that I can find some that will show especially gun-related crime increasing in those same places. However, what you present as a "fact" is just plain wrong.

Please don't try to confuse a gun lover with facts.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11473 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 35):
The research shows where there is little or no gun control there is little crime and vice versa.

Sweden, Norway, Canada and Japan must be like hell. Whereas Somalia and Sudan are paradise.

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.

Where does it say every man, woman, and child can own as many automatic/semi-automatic weapons and as many rounds as they want?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4724 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
Where does it say every man, woman, and child can own as many automatic/semi-automatic weapons and as many rounds as they want?

Where does it say they can't?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
Whereas Somalia and Sudan are paradise

You always bring up that specious comparison. We don't advocate for 'no government'. We advocate for smaller, more efficient government. One that does the job that is spelled out in The Constitution.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 40):
(which incidentally doesn't specify firearms)

I guess we could carry swords, but they're so much harder to conceal.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 35):
The AR15 is not an 'assault' weapon. Your average deer/elk/moose hunting rifle is more poweful than an AR15.

You're incorrect. An AR-15, most definetly fits the definition of assault weapon (rifle), both in common terms and under the lapsed Assault Weapons Ban. You are also correct, that your average big game rifle packs a more powerful punch.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4698 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
Neither do I. I trust my markmanship, but would question it under a stressful situation. Someone firing back at this lunatic would still have been better than waiting for him to run out of ammunition.

Fire back at him all you want to, but if your's or anyone else shots add to the body count you should be held responsible.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 23):
This is the SAME Janet Reno who ordered the ATF to attack a bunch of wacko "religious nut-jobs" with automatic weapons, a battle tank, and burn down the whole building, and thus cremating several dozens of idiot men, women and little children ! (The little kids weren't idiots, only victims)

Still think YOUR government would never "do such things" ?

No government is perfect but do you really think that owning a gun even a military grade one is going to prevent this kind of raid from happening. If any of these people had drawn a weapon on that ATF team all that would have happened is a bunch of dead Cuban ex-pats and one or two ATF members.

The second amendment is valid for 1785 and not 2012 because then actually being able to seize control of the government through force was plausible now its a death wish.

If you don't like what your government does then make your voice clear at the ballot box like every other democracy in the world.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4697 times:

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 37):
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 35):
Tell that to the people of Chicago and DC some of the most gun controlled cities in the US where an avg. of 8 people die a day. The research shows where there is little or no gun control there is little crime and vice versa.


The murder count for Chicago was 433 in 2011, or 1.19 a day, or 85% lower than you claim.
The murder count for Washington, DC was 108 in 2011, or 0.30 a day, or 96% lower than you claim.

His quote says the average in gun controlled cities not in each of those two individual cities. And I am sure he forgot the . before the .8 which would fit in. So Chicago is actually way higher that then the average and DC is below it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
Where does it say every man, woman, and child can own as many automatic/semi-automatic weapons and as many rounds as they want?

Where does it say they can't?

They always forget that part.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4687 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 43):
but if your's or anyone else shots add to the body count you should be held responsible.

I never said I shouldn't be held responsible. Everyone should always be held responsible for their actions or inactions. There should be accountablility.

But, you think it's better that a shooter be allowed to continue his rampage? It's better that all the victims just lay there and cringe in terror? With the futile hope that he loses interest in the killing before he gets to them? That's a better scenerio?

I know, your scenario includes that this killer never gets a gun. And, that would be a nice utopian outlook, but even in some of the strictest gun contolled societies, the sociopaths have gotten their weapons. When you take them away from the populace, you just ensure that the killer is the only one with a gun.

[Edited 2012-08-13 10:49:36]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4690 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
shall not be infringed.

Let's start with that.

Chicago murder rate will probably exceed 500 this year.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/cri...ers-for-2012-likely-to-exceed-2011

And Rahm Emmanuel's most important policy decision is keeping Chick-Fil-A out of Chicago.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11473 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 46):
Chicago murder rate will probably exceed 500 this year.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/cri...ers-for-2012-likely-to-exceed-2011

And Rahm Emmanuel's most important policy decision is keeping Chick-Fil-A out of Chicago.

I see. So, just keep giving everyone guns and that will make the problem go away?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42):
We advocate for smaller, more efficient government. One that does the job that is spelled out in The Constitution.

Exactly. Somalia and Sudan have small governments. That's what the right-wing in the United States wants: small government.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42):Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
Where does it say every man, woman, and child can own as many automatic/semi-automatic weapons and as many rounds as they want?

Where does it say they can't?
They always forget that part.

I can not make the connection between "well regulated militia" and private citizens stockpiling hundreds of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. What does massive firepower held by one person have to do with a well regulated militia?

Again, as I said in a previous post: I don't care that people own guns. I do believe there should be limits as to who and how many. At least red flags sent up for one person stockpiling military grade artillary.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
But, you think it's better that a shooter be allowed to continue his rampage? It's better that all the victims just lay there and cringe in terror? With the futile hope that he loses interest in the killing before he gets to them? That's a better scenerio?

Here is the issue with that logic, you are not going to be the only person that thinks this way and unless you prove otherwise this will likely add to the body count of a massacre if you have dozens of people shooting guns, many not knowing who the suspect is.

In the case of Aurora, how would you not know that Holmes didn't have an accomplice in the theater??

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
I know, your scenario includes that this killer never gets a gun. And, that would be a nice utopian outlook, but even in some of the strictest gun contolled societies, the sociopaths have gotten their weapons. When you take them away from the populace, you just ensure that the killer is the only one with a gun.

That is putting words in my mouth.

I have never said that and I do not agree to take away guns from cops and perhaps private security, the latter is a much better method to prevent public shootings but people wouldn't stand for it.

People I know are far more trained with firearms that average civilians, saying that if you want a gun to protect your home that is fine but to have everyone packing in public is a recipe for disaster.

I would actually advocate that a person who decided to own a gun should attend training to show that they can operate a gun effectively, but I reckon for some that would be unconstitutional.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6567 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 46):
Let's start with that.

Chicago murder rate will probably exceed 500 this year.

And the follow up question is: were all those murders performed with the types of weapons that are banned?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4612 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
Exactly. Somalia and Sudan have small governments. That's what the right-wing in the United States wants: small government.


I won't debate this point with you. You know it's specious and disingenuous.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
I can not make the connection between "well regulated militia" and private citizens stockpiling hundreds of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. What does massive firepower held by one person have to do with a well regulated militia?


You shouldn't try to make a connection. Shall we read the Supreme Court decision again pertaining to the wording and structure of The Second Amendment in The Heller Decision? The Supreme Court held:
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
So, you really don't need to make a connection between the militia and the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
I do believe there should be limits as to who


Agreed.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
and how many.


Not so agreed.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
At least red flags sent up for one person stockpiling military grade artillary.


A little hyperbole on your part. An AR15 is not artillery. A shotgun is not artillery. A private citizen can own artillery, but it is beyond the means of most and the transfer and possession of such weapons are tightly regulated and frightfully expensive.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 48):
Here is the issue with that logic, you are not going to be the only person that thinks this way and unless you prove otherwise this will likely add to the body count of a massacre if you have dozens of people shooting guns, many not knowing who the suspect is.


That didn't happen in Arizona, and you can be sure several folks in the crowd were carrying (it is Arizona, after all). Why didn't it happen? Because those folks probably evaluated the situation and decided that shooting into or above a crowd was probaby not a good idea.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 48):
In the case of Aurora, how would you not know that Holmes didn't have an accomplice in the theater??


You can't know that, and what difference would that make? A shot in the back of the head while engaging the first shooter, instead of being shot by the first shooter?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 48):
I have never said that and I do not agree to take away guns from cops and perhaps private security, the latter is a much better method to prevent public shootings but people wouldn't stand for it.


I didn't say anything about taking guns away from the police. But, the chances of the police being where you need them, when you need them are pretty low, don't you think? Too many people fail to realize that the police, except in very narrow circumstances, have no duty to protect.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 48):
People I know are far more trained with firearms that average civilians, saying that if you want a gun to protect your home that is fine but to have everyone packing in public is a recipe for disaster.


I'm not quite sure I'm unique in this case, but I number 2 police officers as good friends, and I can assure you, my 'gun nut' buddies and I put more rounds downrange, any given year, than most police officers do. That, in of itself, doesn't mean better trained, but, it implies better accuracy.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 48):
I would actually advocate that a person who decided to own a gun should attend training to show that they can operate a gun effectively, but I reckon for some that would be unconstitutional.


I have no real problem with that, so long as the training does not become an arbitrary barrier to obtaining the firearm.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 49):
And the follow up question is: were all those murders performed with the types of weapons that are banned?

And, the other follow-up questions:

How many of those were (will be) slime on slime?
Of those that aren't slime on slime, how many may have been prevented (or the attacker killed) if the victim had a legally owned and carried firearm? It does happen, even in Chicago. Now, of course, his gun wasn't legally owned in Chicago, because that is just about impossible, but the city did decline to prosecute, didn't they?

[Edited 2012-08-13 13:58:14]

[Edited 2012-08-13 13:59:41]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11473 posts, RR: 15
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):and how many.

Not so agreed.

Really? So, people can own as much firepower as they want? One person? Why? Why does one person need 100 automatic rifles?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):
you really don't need to make a connection between the militia and the people's right to keep and bear arms.

They are two different things. A militia is completely different than an individual. I know the right like to believe that abstract concepts are the same thing as people.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4563 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...near-texas-m-campus-183653265.html


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4524 times:

Its paranoia & insecurity gone mad into a vicious circle which now cant be broken.

Here in Vancouver (and we are connected to the US border) we have guns and they are considered to be a problem. However, the guns are largely used by gangs (drugs) and they shoot each other. Im happy enough with that as long as they do it in their "hood". I make sure I dont go there. Elsewhere like Richmond where I live by YVR and downtown and most of the lower mainland, we dont need to carry guns because there is nothing to protect outselves from - why? Because no one else has guns either.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 26):
That's why a population of law abiding citizens needs to be armed, because would-be dictators KNOW there's a lot of fire power "out there" if the government decides to "run amuck". If you can't understand that, god help you, and I rest my case.

Seriously, if you had a pistol handy, what do you really think you will achieve "if" the government decides to get you?

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
between 1900 and 2000, fifty six million people were murdered by their own governments; gun control is a prerequisite to genocide.

For all you young guys, I remember almost all of this happening ! Stalin murdered millions of his own people; So did Hitler;
I found a photo in a book that showed a Chinese Officer shooting a young girl in the back of the head, just above a ditch full of dead bodies. This is a REAL photograph folks ! This really happened !

We should be sobered by these facts. But there is absolutely no comparison between any US government and the regimes of Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR or communist China.

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
We cannot replay history but we can learn from it; if every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and 20 rounds of ammunition, and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would be a little known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic

And again, what if a Jewish, gypsy or gay person pulled out a gun on an SA officer? Due to the brutality of the regime, the rest of the whole family would be top of the priority list to be history very quickly. I would like to think that such events will never happen again in the Western world. And even if they did, your 1911 wont be able to do anything about it.

Arguments like this for owning guns is what does it for me. A home invasion like Fr8mech talks about if you are in a rough area I can see, but the right to bear arms against the government in case they decide overnight to become a dictatorship and form the Gestapo and send them to your house the next morning is plain insecurity at best, if not insanity which requires medical help. It-is-not-going-to-happen!

Meanwhile, we have yet another shooting in Dallas.

Back to Vancouver. Keep your nose clean, you should have no worries about guns or the authorities bothering you. I dont, nor do the vast majority of the 3 million people who live here.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):
so long as the training does not become an arbitrary barrier to obtaining the firearm

Why not? Not competent? You cant own one. Just as you cant drive a car if you cant pass the test, fly a plane if you dont get your PPL, get your diploma without doing the exams and so on, You want a priveledge - prove you are competent to have it.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days ago) and read 4503 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 51):
They are two different things. A militia is completely different than an individual. I know the right like to believe that abstract concepts are the same thing as people.


I know they are different, but The Supreme Court says you don't need to draw a connection. The preamble: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" does not in any modify or limit the operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".

Quoting seb146 (Reply 51):
Why does one person need 100 automatic rifles?


Maybe he's a collector. Maybe he has a gun fetish. Maybe he wants to be prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse. Unless that person does something wrong, there isn't mush we can or should do. The person may bear visit from the ATF to ensure he's not doing business with out a license, but someone with a 100 (semi-)automatic rifles probably already has the appropriate level of FFL. Makes it easier.

Personally, I think I've reached my limit. One in/one out. This is an expensive hobby.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 53):
Why not? Not competent?


Define competent. Is it hitting the target 10 out of 10? 100/100? 1000/1000? Field strip, re-assemble and fire a perfect string in 10 secs? 20 sec?

A would cautiously support competency testing so long as the standards are not a barrier.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 53):

Arguments like this for owning guns is what does it for me. A home invasion like Fr8mech talks about if you are in a rough area I can see, but the right to bear arms against the government in case they decide overnight to become a dictatorship and form the Gestapo and send them to your house the next morning is plain insecurity at best, if not insanity which requires medical help. It-is-not-going-to-happen!

This is a standard NRA line and it appeals to the most paranoid of gun lovers (ie most of them) it is also the most ridiculous.


The US Government has F16's, Nuclear Weapons and Seal team six. If they want to come in your house they are going to.



I have learned through long experience though that arguing with a gun lover is pointless. Their love for the weapon eclipses all reason over and above the value of human life.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 55):
This is a standard NRA line and it appeals to the most paranoid of gun lovers (ie most of them) it is also the most ridiculous.


The US Government has F16's, Nuclear Weapons and Seal team six. If they want to come in your house they are going to.



I have learned through long experience though that arguing with a gun lover is pointless. Their love for the weapon eclipses all reason over and above the value of human life.

I think after reading your posts you are a liberal in regards to gun control and thats fine. I am actually pretty far from a gun nut. I do not hunt and pretty much never owned a gun until I was held up at gunpoint right in front of my house 2 yrs ago. So I actually have a gun now and a permit to carry although I don't carry and even if I did have a carry permit it most likely would not have changed things that night since I was stupid enough to offer help to a car load of young black men (which I will never do again black or white) and they got the drop on me. But the fact remains I feel since that incident that I have a right to own and carry a weapon if I choose to. I keep a loaded 9mm on my night stand and I think I have to right to do that. Its a shame it has to be that way I think it is more than just gun laws. Even if they had uniform gun laws across all states it might help but criminals will always get them and as long as that is the case I as a law abiding citizen demand that I be able to equal the score and give me a fighting chance.



NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 53):
Why not? Not competent? You cant own one. Just as you cant drive a car if you cant pass the test, fly a plane if you dont get your PPL, get your diploma without doing the exams and so on, You want a priveledge - prove you are competent to have it.

Most of what you say is accurate. Owning a firearm in the United States is not a privilege - it is a right. Rights do not come from men but from God and government is instituted to protect those rights from infringement. This is a different concept than how guns are viewed in most countries in the world. The USA has a different culture and set of traditions. I hope the world can realize that.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 57):

Most of what you say is accurate. Owning a firearm in the United States is not a privilege - it is a right. Rights do not come from men but from God and government is instituted to protect those rights from infringement. This is a different concept than how guns are viewed in most countries in the world. The USA has a different culture and set of traditions. I hope the world can realize that.

Rights coming from god eh ?


Where was your god the other night in Colorado ?


Your so called 'culture' is destroying this great country of ours. The world doesn't understand and a growing number of rational people in this country don't understand and won't tolerate endless, senseless gun violence.


It's time to rein in this insanity.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4443 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 58):
Rights coming from god eh ?


Where was your god the other night in Colorado ?


Your so called 'culture' is destroying this great country of ours. The world doesn't understand and a growing number of rational people in this country don't understand and won't tolerate endless, senseless gun violence.


It's time to rein in this insanity.

I suggest you read about the founding of your country. The answers are all there. Freedom isn't free and living in a free society has its consequences and risks. The actions of a handful of crazies should not be used to infringe or curtail the God-given rights of hundreds of millions. Perhaps Australia would suit your fancy?


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7126 posts, RR: 13
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 59):
God-given rights of hundreds of millions

Rights apply to all law abiding citizens, whether they believe in God or not. They are in fact Civil privileges which can be added to/taken away at any time by a government to suit the society of the time - what applies in 1792 does not apply to 1870, 1962, 2001 or 2012 - people and society change and laws SHOULD be changed to suit the time, technology and conditions. They cannot be "God given" if a human wrote them down according to their convictions rather than the clouds parting in the sky and delivered on winged chariots. What happens if it turns out God doesn't exist, or that the Founding fathers were Athiests and didn't believe in God at all, does that mean the 'god given' rights don't exist either???


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 59):

I suggest you read about the founding of your country. The answers are all there. Freedom isn't free and living in a free society has its consequences and risks. The actions of a handful of crazies should not be used to infringe or curtail the God-given rights of hundreds of millions. Perhaps Australia would suit your fancy?



GMAFB, As much as you don't like it that Constitution you habitually misquote gives me the right to free speech.


Your relentless pursuit of guns and their accompanying violence infringes on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Sound familiar ?


Perhaps you should think about leaving..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 60):
Rights apply to all law abiding citizens, whether they believe in God or not. They are in fact Civil privileges which can be added to/taken away at any time by a government to suit the society of the time - what applies in 1792 does not apply to 1870, 1962, 2001 or 2012 - people and society change and laws SHOULD be changed to suit the time, technology and conditions. They cannot be "God given" if a human wrote them down according to their convictions rather than the clouds parting in the sky and delivered on winged chariots. What happens if it turns out God doesn't exist, or that the Founding fathers were Athiests and didn't believe in God at all, does that mean the 'god given' rights don't exist either???

Perhaps things are different in Rwanda. Rights, in the United States, are not privileges and for all intents and purposes cannot be 'taken away at any time by a government to suit the society of the time'. That is exactly the purpose of the U.S. Consitution - these rights are eternal and unchanging. That is what the founders of the United States understood so well - times may change but the human animal does not. Of course God himself did not write the U.S. Constitution. The Founders interpreted the enumerated rights in the U.S. Constitution as being given from God, nature's God, i.e. from a higher power, and thus are more concrete and less changeable than normal laws or ordinances. In essence, the Consitution is the framework on which American society is built. I hope this enhances your understanding regarding the differences in our government and society.


User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 61):
GMAFB, As much as you don't like it that Constitution you habitually misquote gives me the right to free speech.


Your relentless pursuit of guns and their accompanying violence infringes on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Sound familiar ?


Perhaps you should think about leaving..

I support your right to free speech. I never suggested otherwise. Nothing I've ever done has ever effected you. A gun is an inanimate object. I doubt it has ever done anything to interfere with your life. Crazy people or criminals, perhaps they could impact your life. I've never misquoted the Consitution. Bring facts next time. Cheers.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7126 posts, RR: 13
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 62):
or all intents and purposes cannot be 'taken away at any time by a government to suit the society of the time'

Right to a civil trial by your peers (sure unless you're deemed a terrorist)
Right to your freedom (unless you're one of 110000 law abiding Japanese Americans in 1942, or an African person pre 1865)

As I said, if you can take a 'right' away from some, you can take it away from all...


User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4409 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 64):
Right to a civil trial by your peers (sure unless you're deemed a terrorist)
Right to your freedom (unless you're one of 110000 law abiding Japanese Americans in 1942, or an African person pre 1865)

As I said, if you can take a 'right' away from some, you can take it away from all...

Those are/were mistakes made in the U.S. No doubt. We have rectified two out of the three of your examples. Regardless, I believe it is the most perfect form of government we've come up with thus far. Our challenge will be to maintain it in the decades and centuries ahead.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 57):

Most of what you say is accurate. Owning a firearm in the United States is not a privilege - it is a right.

In the Philippines owning a firearms is also a right (under the current constitution, under both Spanish and American colonial rule as well as under the dictator Marcos ownership of firearms was restricted to the ruling class and the military and police, which were enforcing the rules of the governing class) , but (at least on paper, due to the big amount of corruption) any citizen who wants to own a gun, needs a licence. This licen ce HAS to be issued unless there are valid reason against the issue, like a criminla conviction or mental issues.
I find this rule sensible, unlike the German system, where it is up to the local civil servant to decide if he should issue a gun licence or not. E.g. you have people like the now thankfully retired Staatssekretär im Bundesministerium für Inneres (state secretary, a high ranking civil servant, in the federal ministery for the interior) Brennecke, who issued orders to interpret the laws as strictly and restrictively as possible because, as he said multiple times, he doesn´t like civilians to have firearms.

Jan


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 53):
Why not? Not competent? You cant own one. Just as you cant drive a car if you cant pass the test, fly a plane if you dont get your PPL, get your diploma without doing the exams and so on, You want a priveledge - prove you are competent to have it.

Driving a car, flying a plane, etc. is not a right it is a priviledge. Owning an arm is a right.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4390 times:

My co-worker as others here are from the Dominican Republic. They are constantly trying to get me to vacation there. One of my co-workers just went back there to visit his family, (he was born there). He brought his wife and children. They were held up and robbed at gunpoint in his own neighborhood. He said he trembled all the way to the ticket counter, prematurely terminating the vacation. I quote him "America is so great!...I feel so safe in New York". " couldn't wait to get back". Upon his return he volunteered to me that "I will never be caught like that again"!. Enough said...I've been around guns my entire life, have never shot anything that breaths, never would unless I had to. Like anything else...they are as safe as you make them. Anything can be used to kill another. The most dangerous weapon is a dangerous mind...g

User currently offlinerara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

I think the cause for gun control is lost in America. Even if you guys wanted to, the cat is truly out of the bag on that one. It's become a prisoner's dilemma - in a society with an abundance of guns, the first one to give them up is invariably the loser.

I just wish you guys would stop fooling yourselves about the possibility to end those shootings. In a country where every moron can arm himself to the teeth with automatic weaponry, mass-killings will happen. There's nothing you can do about it. That's how you, or rather the people shot, pay for the right to bear arms - there is, after all, no such thing as a free lunch.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 53):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):so long as the training does not become an arbitrary barrier to obtaining the firearm Why not? Not competent? You cant own one. Just as you cant drive a car if you cant pass the test, fly a plane if you dont get your PPL, get your diploma without doing the exams and so on, You want a priveledge - prove you are competent to have it.

Because unlike some of the others mentioned gun ownership is a right not a privilege.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 58):
Your so called 'culture' is destroying this great country of ours. The world doesn't understand and a growing number of rational people in this country don't understand and won't tolerate endless, senseless gun violence.It's time to rein in this insanity.

That so called culture is what created and made this country great.

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 59):
The actions of a handful of crazies should not be used to infringe or curtail the God-given rights of hundreds of millions.

Correct

Quoting Max Q (Reply 61):
Your relentless pursuit of guns and their accompanying violence infringes on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Sound familiar ?

That would be totally incorrect. It is the nut-job or the criminal that infringes up your God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The person legally owning and using a firearm does none of that.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 64):
Right to your freedom (unless you're one of 110000 law abiding Japanese Americans in 1942, or an African person pre 1865)As I said, if you can take a 'right' away from some, you can take it away from all...

You sorely misunderstand the Constitution and what it's creation did to start the unravelling of slavery. It was something that they could not settle at the time but it set the foundation for it's ending in time.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4346 times:

Quoting rara (Reply 69):
In a country where every moron can arm himself to the teeth with automatic weaponry, mass-killings will happen

FFS, AUTOMATIC WEAPONS have been regulated in the US since 1934 (National Firearms Act, introduced after the Mafia gun battles and the gangsters like Jon Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde etc. of the 1920s, early 1930s) and are NOT easily available. You need a clearance by the FBI and get heavily checked by the BATF. Also, since 1968 there are no NEW automatic weapons allowed to get into civilian hands (manufactured or imported), only for police agencies and sheriff´s departments.
The existing ones have been grandfathered and can only be sold from one licence holder to another one via a licenced gun dealer (who needs to have a licence for automatic weapons, which is very expensive). At the same time there is a transfer tax due.
Due to this LEGAL, civilian owned AUTOMATIC weapons have become very expensive collector´s items, only available to people who can afford them. The guns get registered and the holders of a licence for automatic weapons waive their right to get their house only entered by police / BATF / FBI with search warrent. In fact, physical checks on these guns can and have been carried out at about any reasonable time (Police appearing outside your house stating that you have to let them in, so that they can check that they are properly locked away).

Any possession of an illegal AUTOMATIC gun has a prison penalty of 10 years and carries a $ 100,000 fine as well.
This also means "possession with constructive intend", like having a blue print of a fully automatic gun, access to a machine shop and some parts, which can be converted into a fully automatic gun.

As I have said before, there has to my knowledge been no criminal act carried out in the US with a civilian, legally owned FULLY AUTOMATIC gun for the last 40 years.

The fully automatic guns criminals use in the US are either illegal modifications of formerly legal semi-auto weapons or have been smuggled in and bought on the black market.

Jan


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 71):
Quoting rara (Reply 69):In a country where every moron can arm himself to the teeth with automatic weaponry, mass-killings will happen
FFS, AUTOMATIC WEAPONS have been regulated in the US since 1934 (National Firearms Act, introduced after the Mafia gun battles and the gangsters like Jon Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde etc. of the 1920s, early 1930s) and are NOT easily available. You need a clearance by the FBI and get heavily checked by the BATF. Also, since 1968 there are no NEW automatic weapons allowed to get into civilian hands (manufactured or imported), only for police agencies and sheriff´s departments.

And no automatic weapons have been used in any of these mass killings.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

One of the greatest weapons meetings in world. If you have never been to Knob Creek you should try it.

Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot Night Shoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU

Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jsr0TjQLKU



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11473 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 56):
I keep a loaded 9mm on my night stand and I think I have to right to do that.

And that's fine. If people want to have two or three or four shotguns for hunting, that's fine too. I understand the need for multiple hunting rifles.

My question still remains: why does one person need more than 20 semi-automatic weapons? I am not talking about collectors. I am talking about people who fear everything and live in a small cabin in the mountains of Idaho or who walk into a shopping mall and just start firing. They had to pass tests and get liscences in order to purchase those weapons.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinerara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 73):
Knob Creek

Sounds about right.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

Quoting rara (Reply 69):
every moron can arm himself to the teeth with automatic weaponry

As MD11 said it is very difficult for the average Joe to get an automatic weapon. All fully auto guns have been banned for a long time in the USA. What are you going to do when a flash mob comes to your house?

We should all follow the example of Kennesaw, Georgia (pop. 30,000).

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][18]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

From 1992 to 2007 the Kennesaw crime rate is half the national average.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineglobeex From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 76):
We should all follow the example of Kennesaw, Georgia (pop. 30,000).

You mean a town with 30.000 people where, in the last 30 month, 5 people were deliberately killed by fire weapons (accidents and suicide not included)?

Just throwing in such an argument doesn't make any sense... A small city with an average household income 25% over the US average. What else but a low crime rate would you expect, with or without guns.

FYI: Scientific (Oh "god"!) studies showed that the gun policy of Kennesaw had now influence on the low crime rate.

[Edited 2012-08-14 10:13:26]


As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 76):

Bjorn, according to your profile you are a Norwegian and between 46-55 years of age. Based on what you have expressed in this thread, I am willing to bet money that at least one of that isn't true. If you're indeed Norwegian, you're 12 years old tops. If you are in fact 46-55, there is just no way you are from Norway.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack. But it takes years of heavy indoctrination, or the naïveté of a child to not see the flaw in these theories you promote.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4270 times:

Quoting something (Reply 78):
If you are in fact 46-55, there is just no way you are from Norway

I guess the 8 years I spent in Chicago and DC being educated was a total waste of time. The fact that English bobbies now have to carry guns should be of concern to you.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 58):
Where was your god the other night in Colorado ?

God was right there, but the right of the patrons to carry guns was taken away by the movie theater (as is their right).



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4246 times:

Quoting rara (Reply 75):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 73):
Knob Creek

Sounds about right.

Did you ever shoot (at cardboard targets)? You should try it.

I know, it is almost impossible for me here in Germany, since I´m not a "Vereinsmeier" type the kind of person who enjoys being a member of a club or association) and find German "Schützenvereine" (marksmanship organisations, which started as home guards during the 19th century) with their 19th century paramilitary uniforms and ultraconservative attitudes horrible and ridiculous, but I enjoy shooting on a firing range, including with military weapons, even machine guns (in Germany you´ll need to be a member of a gun club to get a gun licence unless you are a hunter). My Missus discovered a talent with the .45 pistol.
I´ve never shot at anything living, but I like to collect historical military weapons and I´m looking forward (as does my girlfriend) to a day on the Philippine National Police range in Bukidnon to puncture some paper targets together with my future brother-in-law, who is a police officer there. I hope my BIL os going to bring his M16A1 rifle.
In the past I´ve fired some British Army WW2 weapons, like the .303 Bren light machine gun, the Lee Enfield No.4 rifle and the Sten submachine gun in the Netherlands during living history events with the Dutch military.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 76):
Quoting rara (Reply 69):
every moron can arm himself to the teeth with automatic weaponry

As MD11 said it is very difficult for the average Joe to get an automatic weapon. All fully auto guns have been banned for a long time in the USA. What are you going to do when a flash mob comes to your house?

In the US this is not a totally weird attitude. Both in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots as well as during the post Katrina weeks armed gangs of criminals used the opportunity of lacking police presence to loots, rob, murder and rape. People had to defend themselves, their families and their property.
Even here in Europe we had situations where the police lost control and mobs of criminals and opportunists took over, like in Berlin during the 1st of May riots of 1987 and, more recently, during the riots in London.
Fortunately guns were not involved in both cases, but people were forced to defend their neighbourhoods, in London Turkish, Pakistani and Indian shop owners were using sticks, cricket bats and traditional weapons like swords to keep the looters out of their streets. Similar scenes were seen during the recent unrest in Egypt.

In the US a similar situation could easily lead to a platoon strength attack of armed people, which to stop would require the use of small units tactics and semi-automatic weapons (of course, the neighbours would have to get organised for a proper defence).

Jan


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4235 times:

Quoting globeex (Reply 77):
Just throwing in such an argument doesn't make any sense... A small city with an average household income 25% over the US average. What else but a low crime rate would you expect, with or without guns.

From Wiki:

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.[20]

Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw][21][22], even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23]

The city's website[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

Quoting globeex (Reply 77):
Scientific (Oh "god"!) studies showed that the gun policy of Kennesaw had now influence on the low crime rate.

The ordinance is not enforced. Though it is a city where one would expect gun ownership to be fairly common, but I have absolutely no idea if it's to the point of being higher or lower than national average.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinerara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4220 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):
Did you ever shoot (at cardboard targets)? You should try it.

Yeah, I've shot alright. In America. Not my thing. I get the attraction of it - it makes you feel powerful. It also makes me feel like I'm wielding a power that I shouldn't have, that's beyond what my human brain can comprehend. For instance, I can't imagine choking someone to death, drowning someone, or sticking a knife into someone's chest. I can, on the other hand, very much imagine pulling a trigger and killing someone 5 meters away in an instant. That thought makes me uncomfortable, but I understand why someone would enjoy the feeling.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):
People had to defend themselves, their families and their property.
Even here in Europe we had situations where the police lost control and mobs of criminals and opportunists took over, like in Berlin during the 1st of May riots of 1987 and, more recently, during the riots in London.

You make it sound like in an armed society, people should be noticeably safer, while in reality the opposite is the case. The more guns you have, the more likely it is you will be shot. Again, I understand that having guns also carries some advantages - people may enjoy it, and it may make them feel safer, as evidenced in this thread. If a society is willing to pay the price (of lots of firearm victims), then so be it. I just don't want it in the society I live in myself.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif

In other words, I want Germany to stay at the bottom left of the graph, and I'm totally okay with America staying at the top right, if they so choose.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

Quoting rara (Reply 84):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):
Did you ever shoot (at cardboard targets)? You should try it.

Yeah, I've shot alright. In America. Not my thing. I get the attraction of it - it makes you feel powerful. It also makes me feel like I'm wielding a power that I shouldn't have, that's beyond what my human brain can comprehend. For instance, I can't imagine choking someone to death, drowning someone, or sticking a knife into someone's chest. I can, on the other hand, very much imagine pulling a trigger and killing someone 5 meters away in an instant. That thought makes me uncomfortable, but I understand why someone would enjoy the feeling.

I explicitely mentioned PAPER TARGETS. I´m not running around getting a hard on about the though of having an excuse to kill somebody or something. I could imagine to hunt for food or for a cull (as a job that has to be done, if necessary), but I´m quite sure that I will not enjoy killing something. I know that some weirdoes like this exist, but I´m not one of them.
E.g. the whole big game hunting thing and hunting for trophies passes me completely.

Jan


User currently offlinerara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 87):
but I´m quite sure that I will not enjoy killing something. I know that some weirdoes like this exist, but I´m not one of them.

I wasn't implying that. But we both know that firearms weren't invented to shoot paper targets. I know shooting can be a sport (and it's part of hunting as well), but if you look at the Knob video from above, it's just people shooting gleefully into the night causing stuff to explode. Some of the Youtube comments are right in the spirit, by the way. I particularly liked this one: "All we need to do now Is to convince our congress if we could do this in our southern border. I think we could atleast slow the flow of people coming in illegaly. God Bless The United States of America!!!"



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

Quoting rara (Reply 84):
I get the attraction of it - it makes you feel powerful.

Tired of debating in these gun threads, but I'll throw it out there, that's NOT what I feel... If I felt the way you did I probably wouldn't like guns and be creeped out. Just because you did something doesn't mean everyone else in the world feels the same way...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4143 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
Tired of debating in these gun threads, but I'll throw it out there, that's NOT what I feel... If I felt the way you did I probably wouldn't like guns and be creeped out. Just because you did something doesn't mean everyone else in the world feels the same way...


I agree. I feel satisfaction when I hit a target 600 yards away with my rifle. Or I fire a 3 inch group at 7 yards with a pistol. But, feeling "powerful"? No.

Quoting rara (Reply 84):
I can, on the other hand, very much imagine pulling a trigger and killing someone 5 meters away in an instant. That thought makes me uncomfortable, but I understand why someone would enjoy the feeling.


Like DeltaMD90 pointed out, I wouldn't be a fan of shooting if it provided me a sense of power, that I could end a life and enjoy it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Quoting globeex (Reply 90):
I don't get how people try to defend gun laws (in the US) on the basis of claiming that the right to carry guns saves lives (in the big picture) while there is overwelming evidence that it doesn't. If you'd say "Okay, the right to carry arms costs lives, however I'am willing to accept that in order to be able to carry my own gun" that would be okay (not that I would really share that opinion).

Whatever the reason, gun control is not a serious debate in the United States. Public support for it has declined over the last 20 years and gun ownership continues to increase. People realize that people are the problem - not the guns. Either way, the right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution and after the USSC decisions of Heller vs. D.C. and McDonald vs. Chicago, that right has been reaffirmed. Its settled law.


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4107 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 57):
Owning a firearm in the United States is not a privilege - it is a right. Rights do not come from men but from God and government is instituted to protect those rights from infringement. This is a different concept than how guns are viewed in most countries in the world. The USA has a different culture and set of traditions. I hope the world can realize that.

I do realize that, but the USA needs to realize they have a problem to a far greater degree than the rest of the western world doest. They need to fix it. Im not for an out right ban, but I cant see how people think it is OK the way things are and that nothing needs to be done, because its sure not going to get better.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 70):
Because unlike some of the others mentioned gun ownership is a right not a privilege.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 67):
Driving a car, flying a plane, etc. is not a right it is a priviledge. Owning an arm is a right.

Maybe that is the issue, perhaps people should not have a right they are not equal to. That, and the reason you have the right (if it ever existed in the first place) is well past its sell by date. I think my examples are fair, there is absolutely no reason why anyone of age and with no physical or mental disability to prevent them from doing so can drive a car. They can be dangerous. They can kill. But most just cant get in and operate one, you need practice under supervision to handle one properly. Guns should be no different and IMO the constitution is flawed, but you are now way too far down a slippery slope to come back up.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Define competent. Is it hitting the target 10 out of 10? 100/100? 1000/1000? Field strip, re-assemble and fire a perfect string in 10 secs? 20 sec?

I honestly dont know as I am not a gun person (nothing against them, just no personal interest and I have no need for one). I dont think that perfection is required, as it is not in most exams, but there needs to be a fairly high standard to attain to. You for example are clearly going to have no issue and also those who share your hobby in a genuine way. But the one shot wonder who will use it on that one off occasion - Im sure you will agree, particularly in the adrenalin of the moment - that they will be pretty ineffective and in fact more likely have the opposite effect than desired. At least have that little bit of training to fall back on should you need it if faced with that home invasion or thug holding you up to make a difference.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
A would cautiously support competency testing so long as the standards are not a barrier.

You make a case for owning a gun, you are responsible and willing to counter the subject - you deserve respect for that and is the attitude that needs to be encouraged. I cant quite quantify this - Im sure there are professional organizations that can - but the standards need to be a barrier to those who should never have a gun. Unfortunately there are just some people who are ham fisted and lack of coordination. My wife is one, she knocks over and breaks something on a near daily basis through clumsiness & lack of awareness and coordination, there are those kids who are super brainy at school but could not get a ball in a basket if their life depended on it - it would be dangerous for such to have a gun, regardless of the fact it is their right to do so.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 93):
Im sure there are professional organizations that can - but the standards need to be a barrier to those who should never have a gun.

I'd like to be a little more clear on what the standard would be in my world, because we are dealing with a right and to deny someone that right, the state would have to show a compelling reason.

Of course, you should not be a felon (that includes DUI) or under a protective order. You should not have been found to have a mental illness (and quite frankly, I don't care if it's controlled by medication).

You should be able to hold the firearm, correctly. You should be able to manipulate and operate the firearm. You should be able to show you can handle the firearm safely. You should be able to see. You should be able to hit a target 5 yards away.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 93):
My wife is one, she knocks over and breaks something on a near daily basis through clumsiness

I also, can be fairly clumsy. But, with a firearm in my hands, I steady up quite a bit. Actually, it's rather strange, when working on something mechanical or when dealing with a firearm (one in the same really, just making the point), I find I'm not clumsy at all. But, dealing with everyday stuff....



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineGEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 64):

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 62):
or all intents and purposes cannot be 'taken away at any time by a government to suit the society of the time'

Right to a civil trial by your peers (sure unless you're deemed a terrorist)
Right to your freedom (unless you're one of 110000 law abiding Japanese Americans in 1942, or an African person pre 1865)
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 53):
Seriously, if you had a pistol handy, what do you really think you will achieve "if" the government decides to get you?

OK, it's real clear that you two don't believe citizens should have guns ! Let me tell you what I "don't believe...........

I "don't believe" anyone from another country has any business telling me, or any other American citizen what we should ( or shouldn't ) be "allowed" to "do", or to "own"; in other words, I think you should worry about the laws in YOUR country, and I'll worry about the laws in MY country. )

I wonder how far I'd get if I drove up to Ottawa and announced..........hey, all you Canadiens.......I think you should redesign your coins............I think coins with tree leaves on them look kind of silly !

I'm thinking I would get a rather "chilly" reception !

Hey.........I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinion; you are certainly entitled to your opinion; but you're not a citizen here, you don't pay any income tax here.........so why do you feel so "entitled" to rant on and on about U.S. laws ? Here in Indiana they call that "sticking your nose where it doesn't belong".

Here's the bottom line; apparently the laws relating to gun ownership are somewhat different here than they are in most other countries; I don't see the NRA running around all of these other countries, trying to convince them that they should change their laws to be more like our laws, do you ?

Unless I'm very badly mistaken, I think it's likely that there are quite a number of people in other countries around the world who "wish" some of their laws WERE more like our laws; I also think one wouldn't have much problem finding citizens in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, (and any number of other countries) who would just LOVE to have the right to own guns like we are in the U.S. As a matter of fact, I would wager that some are actually a bit jealous of us !

Hey........I just gave you YOUR opinion, so that's MY opinion.

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7126 posts, RR: 13
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4080 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):
OK, it's real clear that you two don't believe citizens should have guns ! Let me tell you what I "don't believe...........

Actually you are wrong about me, as I said in my first post on this thread I believe that changing the laws from what they are now to restrict guns more will not solve anything and that they should be left as they are, because it is only ever a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone gets shot that goes away once the hoohaa and grief falls off the media radar.

I certainly don't believe that no citizens should have guns, and as you say it is certainly up to an individual country to make up their own mind about what is right and wrong. I have never had guns, but I'm open to learn how to use one and own one for myself.

What I am disputing is purely the ridiculous terminology on a modern society "God given rights" whenever anything like this issue is brought up in conversation and I am disputing the fact that God has any place in decision making for a country. If "God given rights" were rights that could not be changed/amended to suit we would still have black slaves. It is a privilege to own and operate a weapon, not a right. Same as in 1830 it was a privilege to have a field full of slaves there to make money for your cotton business. Society deemed that unacceptable and so it was duly changed. I would add that I certainly do not categorize gun owners with slave owners, merely just want to illustrate that sometimes "rights" do change from the status quo as society changes.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4070 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 53):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):
so long as the training does not become an arbitrary barrier to obtaining the firearm

Why not? Not competent? You cant own one. Just as you cant drive a car if you cant pass the test, fly a plane if you dont get your PPL, get your diploma without doing the exams and so on, You want a priveledge - prove you are competent to have it.

What about the level of competency of gun safety and shooting you´ll need to pass military basic training in your respective country?
Over here all gun licences require successful participation in a gun safety course. Applicants for a hunting licence also have to prove certain minimum shooting standards, especially at moving targets, on the shooting range, to ensure that they can kill an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Jan


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Thread starter):
When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns

.....or outlaws



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3993 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):

I "don't believe" anyone from another country has any business telling me, or any other American citizen what we should ( or shouldn't ) be "allowed" to "do", or to "own"; in other words, I think you should worry about the laws in YOUR country, and I'll worry about the laws in MY country. )

Well, I'm an American and I'm telling you its time to do something about this gun insanity.


Maybe you should start listening to other people.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 96):

Shoot first ask questions later!


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3936 times:

I've had this debate too many times before, and don't feel compelled to jump in again. But really. Are we still holding onto the "we might need to overthrow our government" excuse? Are we that incredibly callous? Turn on a news broadcast. Chances are they'll mention Syria. Or Libya. These are places where people are or have been trying to overthrow their government with guns. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. But what's inarguable is that we actually have live examples of citizenry rising in armed revolt against a government, in our generation. And it's many things, but it sure ain't pretty. Listen, all you would-be tyrant-slayers. If you start taking shots at the oppressors in your town or whatever, what's going to happen when the oppressors come looking for you and find all the other people who live in your town but don't have guns? This is what erases the distinction between soldier and civilian.

Final note: There are other reasons for owning guns. I'm not talking about them right now, so don't jump down my throat saying I want to take everyone's guns away. I mean, I do, but that's not the point I'm making at the moment- there are much more valid justifications for civilian firearm ownership, is all.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days ago) and read 3921 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 98):


I don't espouse the belief that the reason to own and carry firearms is to keep a tyrannical government at bay, though the Founders and signatories of the US Constitution did. The way to fend off an ever expanding, rights diminishing, intrusive government is at the ballot box. Most recently, we saw it in 2010 and we'll see it again in 2012.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 98):
but it sure ain't pretty.


It really isn't supposed to be pretty. That's the point. The anti-tyrannical argument for The Second Amendment does not, in my opinion, rest with the people somehow overthrowing the government. It rests with a hostile (and, currently, non-existent) US government not having the stomach, on the domestic and world stage, to fight its citizens in the streets of NY, St. Louis, Dallas, Pasadena, New Albany, Fargo, etc. Libya & Syria get away(?) with it, because it is expected of those governments. An armed populace would force a hostile US government to violently subdue the people and fend off insurrection at every turn.

It's much easier for a democratically elected government to slowly erode liberty through regulation and legislation than it is through armed conflict.

But, that's not the point of The Second Amendment in the modern times. The Second Amendment confers the right of the individual to arm himself for defense, for pleasure and/or for sustenance. It is not a tool for insurrection...if anything, it's a tool of deterrance.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days ago) and read 3909 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):

It really isn't supposed to be pretty. That's the point. The anti-tyrannical argument for The Second Amendment does not, in my opinion, rest with the people somehow overthrowing the government. It rests with a hostile (and, currently, non-existent) US government not having the stomach, on the domestic and world stage, to fight its citizens in the streets of NY, St. Louis, Dallas, Pasadena, New Albany, Fargo, etc. Libya & Syria get away(?) with it, because it is expected of those governments. An armed populace would force a hostile US government to violently subdue the people and fend off insurrection at every turn.

What on earth are you talking about ?


That literally makes no sense at all !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
I don't espouse the belief that the reason to own and carry firearms is to keep a tyrannical government at bay, though the Founders and signatories of the US Constitution did.

Fair enough. I'm kind of wondering what the vision was for who would be carrying out such anti-tyrrany measures and how, given the connection with militias and their relation to state governments at the time. I don't know enough about that. I suppose if you're considering "armed rebellion" as a failsafe against abuse of government power you're not going to write exactly how to conduct such a rebellion into the constitution though.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
The way to fend off an ever expanding, rights diminishing, intrusive government is at the ballot box. Most recently, we saw it in 2010 and we'll see it again in 2012.

Yes, this is the way the system is supposed to work and still largely is. I suppose it's a matter of priorities but I'm much more worried about the creep of executive power, which is kind of structurally unstoppable, or at least really difficult, because it kind of depends on the executive himself deciding he needs less of it, or Congress creating a structure of laws such that it's possible to exercise oversight through while still giving the president the tools he needs to do the job we expect of him/her. A subject for another thread.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
It really isn't supposed to be pretty. That's the point. The anti-tyrannical argument for The Second Amendment does not, in my opinion, rest with the people somehow overthrowing the government. It rests with a hostile (and, currently, non-existent) US government not having the stomach, on the domestic and world stage, to fight its citizens in the streets of NY, St. Louis, Dallas, Pasadena, New Albany, Fargo, etc. Libya & Syria get away(?) with it, because it is expected of those governments. An armed populace would force a hostile US government to violently subdue the people and fend off insurrection at every turn.

Whether the people are trying to subdue the government, or the government is trying to subdue the people, wasn't really the point I was attempting to get across. The point is that the human cost would be unpredictable and probably very high, whether the original tyranny was defeated or not. The "deterrent" potential was something I hadn't fully considered, but I'm inclined to think it kind of has a pretty narrow set of circumstances to work in the way you describe. You'd have to have a government that is tyrannical enough to consider taking measures that would make a sizable portion of the public take up arms, but isn't tyrannical enough to implement them without thinking about the possibility of blood in the streets and so on. In addition, there's plenty of tyranny that goes on that can't be directly opposed with force of arms. Still, like I said, I hadn't fully considered it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
It's much easier for a democratically elected government to slowly erode liberty through regulation and legislation than it is through armed conflict.

Actually it's much easier through armed conflict. You'll put up with more crap when you think there's an existential threat to your country.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
But, that's not the point of The Second Amendment in the modern times. The Second Amendment confers the right of the individual to arm himself for defense, for pleasure and/or for sustenance. It is not a tool for insurrection...if anything, it's a tool of deterrance.

So a narrower reading of it than currently stands would be reasonable?

Anyway, please forgive any snide sarcasm in my post. I'm trying to work from a position of intellectual honesty since you seem to be doing the same.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 101):
You'd have to have a government that is tyrannical enough to consider taking measures that would make a sizable portion of the public take up arms, but isn't tyrannical enough to implement them without thinking about the possibility of blood in the streets and so on.


That's the point I'm trying to make. It's the deterrence argument. We are, literally, at a point where a potentially tyrannical government can not make an overt violent move. Not because they fear that the people will coalesce and march on Washington, but because anywhere that government moved, they would meet resistance. Hence, the deterrence.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 101):
Actually it's much easier through armed conflict. You'll put up with more crap when you think there's an existential threat to your country.


Easier in the sense that it can be quick and violent and you are willing to deal with the aftermath. But, if you subscribe to a long view and are working towards 'a greater good', what's a couple of generations when you can lead the people willingly?

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 101):
So a narrower reading of it than currently stands would be reasonable?


I'm not sure I understand. You really can't narrow "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" without infringing on the right. Remember, that's the operative clause; you can discard anything that comes before it.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 100):
What on earth are you talking about ?


That literally makes no sense at all !


Newark727 seemed to get it right away.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
That's the point I'm trying to make. It's the deterrence argument. We are, literally, at a point where a potentially tyrannical government can not make an overt violent move. Not because they fear that the people will coalesce and march on Washington, but because anywhere that government moved, they would meet resistance. Hence, the deterrence.

I think we're talking past each other or I don't quite understand you, at least when you say we are literally at a point. As in right now? Because there's a lot of things on our government's collective mind besides sparking an armed rebellion. Or are you talking about the level of gun ownership as it stands were a more hypothetical tyrannical government to exist at this moment?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
Easier in the sense that it can be quick and violent and you are willing to deal with the aftermath. But, if you subscribe to a long view and are working towards 'a greater good', what's a couple of generations when you can lead the people willingly?

That's not quite what I meant. It's much easier to justify measures, even through legislative means, that curtail individual freedoms in times of national crisis. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in the middle of the Civil War. It made quite a bit of noise at the time. I'm fairly sure it would have made more if James K. Polk had done it. (Actually, bad example, he fought a war too, but I think you get the idea.)

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
I'm not sure I understand. You really can't narrow "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" without infringing on the right. Remember, that's the operative clause; you can discard anything that comes before it.

So maybe narrow was a bad choice of words then. The point is, what level of regulation on the buying, selling, and manufacture of firearms is acceptable when the 2nd Amendment is viewed as you state it above, as a "tool of deterrence." Most of our Bill of Rights has nitty-gritty when it comes down to implementation- freedom of speech as constructed with regard to public airwaves, for example, or libel and slander laws. I don't think it's practical or desirable to remove firearms from American life. But simply reducing the killing power of things that are available to civilians, for example. Everyone shouts about the spree killers, with good reason. Most of them seem to have been determined enough to get their hands on a weapon regardless though, and probably a lot of criminals are, but if we simply reduce the number of shots they can fire before reloading, would that constitute infringement?


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):
OK, it's real clear that you two don't believe citizens should have guns

You didnt read my post carefully enough then as I said

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 90):
nothing against them, just no personal interest and I have no need for one

And

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 90):
Im not for an out right ban

But then I said

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 90):
but I cant see how people think it is OK the way things are and that nothing needs to be done, because its sure not going to get better.

Bury your head in the sand if you want, maybe next time it will be you or your family or friends who is the victim.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):
I think you should redesign your coins............I think coins with tree leaves on them look kind of silly !

Im not Canadian for the record   But at least our coins wont deliberatly or accidentally kill me, so Im OK with your rather strange counter argument.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 91):
Of course, you should not be a felon (that includes DUI) or under a protective order. You should not have been found to have a mental illness (and quite frankly, I don't care if it's controlled by medication).

So that Page guy should never have legally had a gun as he did then. If the tests carried out on the Aurora guy had been done prior to getting a permit, he would not have been allowed to have had one either. This is gun control I am talking about, not bans.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 91):
You should be able to hold the firearm, correctly. You should be able to manipulate and operate the firearm. You should be able to show you can handle the firearm safely. You should be able to see. You should be able to hit a target 5 yards away.

I honestly doubt a sizeable percentage of gun owners can do this - these things at the very least should be an obligatory requirement to be an owner.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 93):
What I am disputing is purely the ridiculous terminology on a modern society "God given rights"

The same God that said thou shalt not kill and turn the other cheek if someone smites you      Great post Rob.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 103):
Or are you talking about the level of gun ownership as it stands were a more hypothetical tyrannical government to exist at this moment?


Yes. Right now, a hypothetical, nascent, tyrannical government would have no choice but to move first against The Second Amendment and then onto its broader agenda. There are "too many" guns out there for said government to move openly.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 103):
That's not quite what I meant. It's much easier to justify measures, even through legislative means, that curtail individual freedoms in times of national crisis.


Ah, the old Rahm Emmanual "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste..." form of governing. And, yes, to be fair, it's been used before.

I still feel it's easier for a government to move against its people through legislation and regulation, over time, exploiting a crisis here and there, than out right armed conflict. It's the old frog in the pan analogy.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 103):
The point is, what level of regulation on the buying, selling, and manufacture of firearms is acceptable when the 2nd Amendment is viewed as you state it above, as a "tool of deterrence."


But, I say the deterrence factor is no longer a primary motivator. I suggest that:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
The Second Amendment confers the right of the individual to arm himself for defense, for pleasure and/or for sustenance.


Too me, if deterrence was the prime objective, there would be no limits on the type of weapon and/or ammunition that could be transferred. As it stands, we are limited through the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 104):
So that Page guy should never have legally had a gun as he did then.


Near as I can tell, Page was never declared mentally ill, nor had he been convicted of anything. Hate speech is not a crime. Someone like that may bear watching, but there was no compelling reason to stop him from buying a gun. Unfortunately, people were killed. But, at what arbitrary point do we deny a person his Constitutional right?

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 104):
If the tests carried out on the Aurora guy had been done prior to getting a permit, he would not have been allowed to have had one either.


Are you suggesting a psychological battery before acquiring a firearm? Let me ask you this: I have no doubt that right now, I could pass a reasonable psychological test. What about 2 years from now? Ten years from now? Should I be required to submit to one every year?

I'll concede that anyone who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that makes them a danger to themselves or the general public should be barred from owning a firearm until such a time as that diagnosis is withdrawn. And. I don't mean because the person's condition is controlled by medication, I mean cured.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 104):
I honestly doubt a sizable percentage of gun owners can do this - these things at the very least should be an obligatory requirement to be an owner.


I believe you are incorrect.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
Yes. Right now, a hypothetical, nascent, tyrannical government would have no choice but to move first against The Second Amendment and then onto its broader agenda. There are "too many" guns out there for said government to move openly.

Eh, I'd say it depends on what type of tyranny we're talking, here. But it's all hypothetical, anyway.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
Ah, the old Rahm Emmanual "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste..." form of governing. And, yes, to be fair, it's been used before.

I still feel it's easier for a government to move against its people through legislation and regulation, over time, exploiting a crisis here and there, than out right armed conflict. It's the old frog in the pan analogy.

Don't attribute to Rahm Emmanuel, what's been happening for decades before the Obama administration. Granted, Obama has continued a lot of the trends that have emerged regarding executive power in particular. Like I said, I think it's a structural problem as much as anything. We've had our government for a long time now, and that's a good thing- it speaks to it being designed well to begin with. But it also means that the people we elect are more and more capable of finding the oversights, whether by choice or not. George Washington didn't have to decide the legal circumstances surrounding, say, a drone strike. And in the current political climate sometimes the loopholes and oversights are the best weapon.

As for a government that's out to get you? I suppose it's as you said, a little out of column A and a little out of column B. But given the particular circumstances of American politics, it's much easier to make a lot of change in a little time during a crisis situation than to enact a vast right (or left) wing conspiracy, because we seem to be awfully fond of divided government and political deadlock. As for change via actual violence, that's never actually what I was talking about. I must say that form of governance has an extremely mixed track record.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
But, I say the deterrence factor is no longer a primary motivator.

Reasonable enough, given what we've been over so far. I suppose I was trying to figure what your views on guns were if it was, then, which you've helpfully provided. Since rights do have to be translated into policy, on some level.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
But, at what arbitrary point do we deny a person his Constitutional right?

Well, there's always the old "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" chestnut. The problem with that is that it's a bit ex post facto for people like this. To elucidate though, the pro-gun argument around mass gun killings often relates to the perpetrator usually being determined enough to find a weapon anyway. Which is probably true. But just because we can't outright stop them short of massive privacy invasions, mind reading, or what have you, doesn't mean we can at least try to limit the amount of lethality they can possess. If it makes them work harder to get their killing spree started, that's still a good thing, as it gives anyone who knows the guy more time to find out something's wrong.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3857 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):
Hey.........I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinion; you are certainly entitled to your opinion; but you're not a citizen here, you don't pay any income tax here.........so why do you feel so "entitled" to rant on and on about U.S. laws ? Here in Indiana they call that "sticking your nose where it doesn't belong".

Then don't post your opinions on guns in a forum that has international members who you know will disagree with you.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):
I "don't believe" anyone from another country has any business telling me, or any other American citizen what we should ( or shouldn't ) be "allowed" to "do", or to "own"; in other words, I think you should worry about the laws in YOUR country, and I'll worry about the laws in MY country. )

We do but you asked people in an international forum their opinions and if you don't like what non-Americans have to say (also some Americans) then suck it up!!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 102):
That's the point I'm trying to make. It's the deterrence argument. We are, literally, at a point where a potentially tyrannical government can not make an overt violent move. Not because they fear that the people will coalesce and march on Washington, but because anywhere that government moved, they would meet resistance. Hence, the deterrence.

That applies in most democracies, you piss off the populace you aren't keeping your job.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
Yes. Right now, a hypothetical, nascent, tyrannical government would have no choice but to move first against The Second Amendment and then onto its broader agenda. There are "too many" guns out there for said government to move openly.

Trust me if you are serious about protecting freedom in the US protect the first amendment over the second. You cannot fight off the US military even if every citizen was armed, what you would hope for is that the military dissented against the government which is a hell of a lot more likely.

With the first amendment you are able to openly be critical of your government and make changes which is much more important.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107):
That applies in most democracies, you piss off the populace you aren't keeping your job.


But, if you're intent on keeping power, what prevents you from seizing power 'undemocratically' if the populace is unarmed?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107):
With the first amendment you are able to openly be critical of your government and make changes which is much more important.


I'm a staunch defender of The First Amendment. Though I loathe the one issue voter, I'll admit that I will vote against anyone who seeks to limit The First Amendment. I can't, in truth, say that about The Second Amendment.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107):
You cannot fight off the US military even if every citizen was armed,


No one said anything about fighting off the US military, but 300,000,000 privately held firearms, in the hands of over 100,000,000 will certainly turn any attempt to create a tyrranical government into a protracted insurrection, at best, and a full-blown civil war at the other end. Hence, it can be argued that The Second Amendment had or has a deterrent effect.

But, again, this is a hypothetical exercise. My opinion is:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
The Second Amendment confers the right of the individual to arm himself for defense, for pleasure and/or for sustenance
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 106):
Well, there's always the old "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" chestnut.


As you've pointed out, until I hit your face, the government does not have a compelling reason to retract my (or anyone else's) rights.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 9
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3809 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 38):
Gee, I sure hate to burst your bubble, (thinking, I've got him now), but you'd better go back and look at what I wrote; McVey was pissed off about "Waco" & "Ruby Ridge"; ( I'm fully aware of when the Elian Gonzalez bru-ha-ha took place, and I'm just as capable of going to google when my memory for dates lets me down.)

Then way I read reply 26, it refers to Elian Gonzalez, but whatever.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):
I "don't believe" anyone from another country has any business telling me, or any other American citizen what we should ( or shouldn't ) be "allowed" to "do", or to "own"; in other words, I think you should worry about the laws in YOUR country, and I'll worry about the laws in MY country. )

So... you are suggesting that American citizens should not tell Iran what weapsons it can or cannot own?

Most of the gun violence committed in MY country is committed with guns owned illegally in the Bahamas but purchased legally in the United States.

Your government does not hesitate to tell my government to suppress drug trafficking here as it affects there, or what kind of changes they'd like to see to our banking laws; I do not hesitate to encourage the US to have a look at its stupid second amendment. (But if you want the 18th amendment back, by all means... we could use an economic boost.)

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107):
Then don't post your opinions on guns in a forum that has international members who you know will disagree with you.

Bingo. Welcome to the age of globalization.

[Edited 2012-08-16 04:21:38]


I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3796 times:

Posted this on another thread (we currently have three threads running about the same subject):

As I have stated before, gun ownership should be available, but only for qualified people. This means not just a background check (to be repeated e.g. every two years) on criminal and mental issues, but also on weapon safety (e.g. up to the standard required in the military after passing basic training). Let´s call this a "weapons ownership qualification licence", which one has to present to carry, own or purchase a firearm.
In many countries certain infectious diseases are reportable for epedemic prevention. Why not make a (confidential) database of dangerous mental conditions?
Getting caught with a firearm and no such licence should carry heavy punishment (e.g. like getting caught with an automatic weapon without licence, ten years in a federal prison plus a bankruptcy threatening fine).
But then it should be open to the licence holder what and how many weapons he owns (maybe except fully automatic weapons, keep the legislation as in the previous laws).
This would already weed out a lot of the nutcases and criminals, who should have no access to firearms.
And make this licence a "must issue", this means the authorities HAVE to issue one, unless the applicant shows proven reasons why he shouldn´t be issued one.
And make proper storage mandatory. E.g. if you think you need a handgun ready for home defense (there exist places where I would defintely have a firearm in my house for this purpose), have several number code (keypad activated) safes around the house, each with a pistol and a magazine inside. This way the homeowner can always get quick access if needed, but children or even a burglar, won´t be able to get at the guns. Unless used, guns should be kept in a safe.
You will never be able to erradicate illegal weapons, they are too easy to manufacture and there are too many around, but you will make it more difficult for a nutter or smalltime crook to get access to a gun.

As for a government turning into a dictatureship, it can happen in any country. I don´t trust ANY government.
Also many soldiers and cops think that they should be the only ones armed, since they consider themselves to be some kind of elite, but civvies should never be trusted with guns.

Jan

[Edited 2012-08-16 01:31:34]

[Edited 2012-08-16 04:45:21]

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12284 posts, RR: 47
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3790 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 108):
But, if you're intent on keeping power, what prevents you from seizing power 'undemocratically' if the populace is unarmed?


So how does a US government keep power against the wish of the people? An incumbent president loses the election and decides he doesn't want to go - the only possible way to stay in power would be with the help and agreement of all branches of the armed forces, CIA, FBI and police forces.

Do you seriously think the only thing stopping that from happening is the fact that you have a gun?   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 112, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3782 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 111):
Do you seriously think the only thing stopping that from happening is the fact that you have a gun?

I think that enough like-minded people could start an assymetric (guerilla) war, gradually extending the scope. I also think that individuals or even whole units of the armed forces and police would join the rebels. What happens afterwards is anybody´s guess. I think after such a civil war (and it would be nothing else) the US could be as fragmented as Libya after the revolution of last year. Most people agreed that Ghadaffi had to go, but everybody had different ideas what the place should look like afterwards.

Syria started small (with almost no direct Western involvement, unlike Libya), but the rebels gradually became stronger, with more and more government units changing sides.

Jan


User currently offlinerara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3781 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 111):
So how does a US government keep power against the wish of the people? An incumbent president loses the election and decides he doesn't want to go - the only possible way to stay in power would be with the help and agreement of all branches of the armed forces, CIA, FBI and police forces.

Do you seriously think the only thing stopping that from happening is the fact that you have a gun?  

I think the main mistake people make is that they think of a "them versus the government" scenario, in which the government is put at a disadvantage because "the people" have guns. In reality, that never happens. It's always one group in society against another. Without fundamental backing in the population (not necessarily by the majority), a government can't even stay in power for a single day.

That means, if you really use your guns against the government one day, you're really using them against other citizens. And then you have a civil war.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 112):
the US could be as fragmented as Libya after the revolution of last year.

I think so too... with all their weaponry, Americans could stage a civil war of sorts, but it would still be just a civil war.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 114, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3728 times:

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 38):
First of all, I never said anything about "hating" anyone

True, you did not use the word hate. You did use poor, pathetic old maid, incompetent and a fair number of statements that she failed to do things as per your idea how they should be done.

Pretty amazing words after your "nut" tirade.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 38):
A taxpaying citizen complains about "Queen Michelle" blowing millions on dozens of highly paid "flunkies", and is called "a rant"; Let me tell you something...........

Queen, flunkies, nut. I notice inconsistency in application.

Anyway, it was a rant because you: 1) Have no idea how the money is spent. 2) Good part of the data you used was blatantly wrong. 3) You'r objection is largely based on that it is under the office of the First Lady. 4) You claim your objections is about the office of the First Lady but you sprinkle everything with your disdain for Michelle Obama.

As long as you fail to use facts it is rant.

Quoting GEEZER (Reply 38):
What you need to think about is...........the mere fact that someone else's opinion doesn't jive with yours, doesn't necessarily make THEM wrong, but more often, just the opposite.

I guess this is a rule you do not apply to yourself.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42):
We don't advocate for 'no government'.

You do however advocate that you need weapons so you can overthrow it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42):
One that does the job that is spelled out in The Constitution.

Red haring argument. Any change would be in line with the constitution. The constitution does not prevent changes.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42):
I guess we could carry swords, but they're so much harder to conceal.

If you carry for defense why do you need it to be concealed? Better to deter and avoid a confrontation.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
I know, your scenario includes that this killer never gets a gun. And, that would be a nice utopian outlook, but even in some of the strictest gun contolled societies, the sociopaths have gotten their weapons.

Are you prepared to take your argument all the way? If you set the bar at no killer be able to get a gun why don't you set the bar at no killings happening when people have access to guns?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
When you take them away from the populace, you just ensure that the killer is the only one with a gun.

The only people I see arguing "remove all guns" is from the side you represent here. I have not seen even the most restrictive gun control arguers suggest removing them from police, security, etc.

The vast majority of gun control proponents argue for requirements on gun owners. Requirements in understanding how to handle it. Understanding in how to store it. What I don't see too often but in my mind is the most important is training in tactics. Too many of the people talking about self defense have no idea.

Far too much talk about taking out the perp. Reality is that the purp has the upper hand and thinking you can pull out a weapon and come out on top is unrealistic in most situations. With few exemptions a safe room will provide you more protection during an invasion than any weapon and training.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 50):
So, you really don't need to make a connection between the militia and the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Yet that was done even at the time the second amendment was created. It was clear you could have guns to form a militia but it was not clear if you maintained the right to hunt on your own land.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 54):
Define competent. Is it hitting the target 10 out of 10? 100/100? 1000/1000? Field strip, re-assemble and fire a perfect string in 10 secs? 20 sec?

This is an example of the attitude that scares me. When talking about competent you talk about hitting a lot of targets. You talk about disassembling and putting it together and hit targets in a fixed time period.

When I think competent the very first though is about handling the gun. Knowing how to make sure there is no accidental firing. Where to point the gun even if you're not aiming at a target and you're 100% certain it isn't loaded. Learning to scan background and surfaces for what may accidentally be hit. Knowing when to use the gun and when to back off even when you see a crime in progress.

I do not care if you can put every single one of the 1,000's of rounds you shoot on the range through the same hole from 1,000m. If you don't understand the above you're still unfit to handle a gun.

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 57):
Owning a firearm in the United States is not a privilege - it is a right.

Rights are not free of requirements.

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 57):
Rights do not come from men but from God and government is instituted to protect those rights from infringement.

I think we have to give the credit for this to governments. God failed pretty dramatically before them. Not that every government has been successful.


Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 57):
The USA has a different culture and set of traditions. I hope the world can realize that.

I hope USA can realize that it is failing horrendously in this area. Time to stop making excuses and do something about it.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 72):
And no automatic weapons have been used in any of these mass killings.

Seems control work....

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 76):
From 1992 to 2007 the Kennesaw crime rate is half the national average.

It is amazing how people find one isolated situation and try to make it justify going against the total.

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 89):
Whatever the reason, gun control is not a serious debate in the United States. Public support for it has declined over the last 20 years and gun ownership continues to increase. People realize that people are the problem - not the guns.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 91):
I'd like to be a little more clear on what the standard would be in my world, because we are dealing with a right and to deny someone that right, the state would have to show a compelling reason.

Of course, you should not be a felon (that includes DUI) or under a protective order. You should not have been found to have a mental illness (and quite frankly, I don't care if it's controlled by medication).

You should be able to hold the firearm, correctly. You should be able to manipulate and operate the firearm. You should be able to show you can handle the firearm safely. You should be able to see. You should be able to hit a target 5 yards away.
Quoting GEEZER (Reply 92):
I "don't believe" anyone from another country has any business telling me, or any other American citizen what we should ( or shouldn't ) be "allowed" to "do", or to "own"; in other words, I think you should worry about the laws in YOUR country, and I'll worry about the laws in MY country. )

If you can defend your position it doesn't matter where people objecting to it are from.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 98):
But really. Are we still holding onto the "we might need to overthrow our government" excuse?

The "problem" is that a large part of the second amendment is about that and since the second amendment is the justification for the rest they need to keep it up.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
The way to fend off an ever expanding, rights diminishing, intrusive government is at the ballot box. Most recently, we saw it in 2010 and we'll see it again in 2012.

And the ballot box also give us the right to change things, even if you do not agree with those changes.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
But, that's not the point of The Second Amendment in the modern times. The Second Amendment confers the right of the individual to arm himself for defense, for pleasure and/or for sustenance. It is not a tool for insurrection...if anything, it's a tool of deterrance

Happy to see you acknowledge there is a difference between then and now.




Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 104):
The same God that said thou shalt not kill and turn the other cheek if someone smites you      Great post Rob.

  


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12284 posts, RR: 47
Reply 115, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 112):
I also think that individuals or even whole units of the armed forces and police would join the rebels.

That's exactly my point - the US military is not going to turn on the American people. That's what's stopping a rogue US government, not the fact that some citizens have guns. For a mature democracy in the 21st century, claiming that armed citizens are required to prevent a despotic regime taking over is patent nonsense, regardless of current interpretations of a 220 year old document.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 116, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 115):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 112):
I also think that individuals or even whole units of the armed forces and police would join the rebels.

That's exactly my point - the US military is not going to turn on the American people. That's what's stopping a rogue US government, not the fact that some citizens have guns. For a mature democracy in the 21st century, claiming that armed citizens are required to prevent a despotic regime taking over is patent nonsense, regardless of current interpretations of a 220 year old document.

Um, from 1933 to about 1944 a majority of Germans were actually quite supportive towards an authoritarian dictatorial and criminal regime. The armed forces supported the "Gröfaz" as well as long as he lead them to victory. Only when his meddling caused battles to be lost did somed turn against him. Quite a few soldiers still kept supporting him (like my paternal grandfather. For him the officers, who tried to kill Hitler in June 1944 were traitors. He always said that you don´t change a government in the middle of a war you sort out internal issues when the war is over and won).

Jan


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12284 posts, RR: 47
Reply 117, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 116):
Um, from 1933 to about 1944 a majority of Germans were actually quite supportive towards an authoritarian dictatorial and criminal regime.

Yes, they supported it. The exact opposite of what I'm talking about - claiming that US citizens need be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government is patently absurd in the 21st century. It may have made reasonable sense in a new-born country over 200 years ago, but not now.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 118, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 117):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 116):
Um, from 1933 to about 1944 a majority of Germans were actually quite supportive towards an authoritarian dictatorial and criminal regime.

Yes, they supported it. The exact opposite of what I'm talking about - claiming that US citizens need be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government is patently absurd in the 21st century. It may have made reasonable sense in a new-born country over 200 years ago, but not now.

Just BTW, I know at least one case where, during the "Night of the Long Knives" in 1934, when after Hindenburg´s death Hitler crashed down on his inner party rivals, an intended victim, a former officer of the Kaiser´s Navy, who during the unrests of 1919 ran a rightwing militia and was an early supporter of Hitler, but later fell out with him, being warned about an SS execution commando coming to his place, took, together with some friends, his hunting rifles and went into the extensive forests on his estate. The city slicker SS thugs wisely figured that they would be well out of their depth if they would follow the guys into the forest and would be picked up one by one, sniper style.
He survived the purge and the war.

Jan


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3705 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
With few exemptions a safe room will provide you more protection during an invasion than any weapon and training.

Source?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 115):
the US military is not going to turn on the American people

Tell that to the Jews and Germans who opposed Hitler.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 120, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 111):
Do you seriously think the only thing stopping that from happening is the fact that you have a gun?

No, it's my opinion that, absent a major crisis (say a nuclear weapon being detonated in the US), it would be near impossible for a sitting president or the sitting government to "take-over" in one fell swoop. You'll notice my argument has been that I don't believe, that in this point in history, the deterrent effect of The Second Amendment is really operative. I'm just explaining why I feel The Second Amendment does have a deterrent effect.

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
You do however advocate that you need weapons so you can overthrow it.

You need to read closer:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
The anti-tyrannical argument for The Second Amendment does not, in my opinion, rest with the people somehow overthrowing the government.

I argue the The Second Amendment can provide a deterrent to the government.

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
Red haring argument. Any change would be in line with the constitution. The constitution does not prevent changes.

When The Constitution is changed via the process set out in The Constitution. What we are dealing with now, in The US, is governmental mission creep. They slowly and insidiously take more and more power from the people.

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
If you carry for defense why do you need it to be concealed? Better to deter and avoid a confrontation.

There are plenty of gun rights advocates who want just that. It's not my preference.

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
The only people I see arguing "remove all guns" is from the side you represent here. I have not seen even the most restrictive gun control arguers suggest removing them from police, security, etc.

You're putting words in my mouth. I assumed, that it was assumed that the state entities (police) would always have weapons. So, I guess my statement should have read: "When you take them away from the populace, you just ensure that the killer and the police are the only ones with a gun."

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
Yet that was done even at the time the second amendment was created. It was clear you could have guns to form a militia but it was not clear if you maintained the right to hunt on your own land.

Read all of Reply 50. The prefatory clause in no way expands or limits the operative clause. The prefatory clause just states a reason for the operative clause, not all the reasons. The authors probably just chose the one that was forefront at the time the amendment was written. The need to maintain militias throughout the country, because there was a small standing army and there was still a distrust of a strong central government.

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
Happy to see you acknowledge there is a difference between then and now.

Of course there's a difference, but that doesn't change the operative wording of The Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Just like the invention of mass produced books and newspapers, the invention of the Internet and communications satellite, the invention cell phones, fax machines, etc; do not change the meaning of The First Amendment.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineglobeex From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 121, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3684 times:

Really? Using the argument that you need firearms in order to be prepared to overthrow a president that unrightfully takes over power? If that really is an arguement for someone here to argue against gun control you should really get yourself checked, because you seem to have developed some serious paranoia. On the other hand that would explain why some of you are so heavily against a mental health check in order to posess a weapon.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
Of course there's a difference, but that doesn't change the operative wording of The Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Just like the invention of mass produced books and newspapers, the invention of the Internet and communications satellite, the invention cell phones, fax machines, etc; do not change the meaning of The First Amendment.

While this is true, don't you think that a progressive nation, as the US see themselves, should be able to change laws that might have had their justification 100 or 200 years ago but aren't really timely anymore?



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 122, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3678 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119):
Source?

How many people staying in a safe room have been shot compared to people confronting with a weapon.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
I argue the The Second Amendment can provide a deterrent to the government.

I.e., so you can overthrow them.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
When The Constitution is changed via the process set out in The Constitution. What we are dealing with now, in The US, is governmental mission creep.

Whatever is done within the legal framework is legal.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
They slowly and insidiously take more and more power from the people.

Increasingly abusing isn't any better.

Just the number of accidental shooting should make it clear to everyone the current system isn't working. Add the very high number of criminal shootings compared to otherwise comparable countries and it should be even more evident.

How many people will be injured or die before the gun lobby pull their heads out of the sand and accept it is time to find a better solution.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
You're putting words in my mouth. I assumed, that it was assumed that the state entities (police) would always have weapons. So, I guess my statement should have read: "When you take them away from the populace, you just ensure that the killer and the police are the only ones with a gun."

There is that take away again. Most people advocating stricter gun control do not advocate removing guns from society. Rather they advocate a better proficiency in how they are handled. Often combined with restrictions that do not limit the ability to hunt, sports or self defense.

I notice you have not addressed the difference between how I measure proficiency compared to what you suggested.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
Read all of Reply 50. The prefatory clause in no way expands or limits the operative clause. The prefatory clause just states a reason for the operative clause, not all the reasons. The authors probably just chose the one that was forefront at the time the amendment was written. The need to maintain militias throughout the country, because there was a small standing army and there was still a distrust of a strong central government.

Go back and read the discussions from the time. I provided a starting point earlier.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
Of course there's a difference, but that doesn't change the operative wording of The Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Requiring proficiency isn't infringement. It is common sense.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12284 posts, RR: 47
Reply 123, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119):
Tell that to the Jews and Germans who opposed Hitler.

As was pointed out above, the majority supported the actions of Hitler's government.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
The prefatory clause in no way expands or limits the operative clause. The prefatory clause just states a reason for the operative clause, not all the reasons. The authors probably just chose the one that was forefront at the time the amendment was written. The need to maintain militias throughout the country, because there was a small standing army and there was still a distrust of a strong central government.

That's what the Supreme Court ruled, but even then there were four dissenters who argued against that interpretation of a document written over 220 years ago, in entirely different circumstances.

Out of interest, in what way are you part of a well regulated militia?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 124, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3652 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 123):
Out of interest, in what way are you part of a well regulated militia?


I am not, and I don't need to be, according to the US Supreme Court.

Quoting cmf (Reply 122):
I notice you have not addressed the difference between how I measure proficiency compared to what you suggested.


If you look at my post in reply 91, I think our standards of competency and/or are about the same.

Quoting cmf (Reply 122):
Requiring proficiency isn't infringement. It is common sense.


Assuming that you don't set the bar at some arbitrary level that infringes on the right.

You know, it's the same argument for requiring ID when registering to vote and voting. So long as the requirement for the ID isn't an undue burden, it is not an infringement.

In this state, in order to get my concealed carry permit, I had to:
-pass a background check (my dime)
-take a class (my dime)
-the class covered firearm safety, handling, loading/unloading and the law
-hit a target 11 out of 20 times (my ammo)

Quoting cmf (Reply 122):
How many people staying in a safe room have been shot compared to people confronting with a weapon.

My designated safe room (just a closet with a lock in the back of another closet in the bedroom) has a gun (stored in a locked box) in it. The door is an interior wood door, set in a wood frame surrounded by sheetrock. Not real safe.

Quoting cmf (Reply 122):
I.e., so you can overthrow them.


No, there is a difference between marching on Washington to overthrow the government and holding weapons as a deterrent.

[Edited 2012-08-16 17:51:36]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day ago) and read 3632 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119):
Quoting scbriml (Reply 115):
the US military is not going to turn on the American people

Tell that to the Jews and Germans who opposed Hitler.

Obama is not going to turn into Hitler. I can not see such an occurence as the rise of the Nazi party happening again in the western world and certainly not in the USA with all the layers and layers and layers of government infrastructure, lawyers et al in place. And if it did, a Hitleresque character is not going to give a rats ass about honoring some 200 year old amendment! And your Glock wont help you against the SA, SS or Gestapo.

Quoting globeex (Reply 121):
Really? Using the argument that you need firearms in order to be prepared to overthrow a president that unrightfully takes over power? If that really is an arguement for someone here to argue against gun control you should really get yourself checked, because you seem to have developed some serious paranoia. On the other hand that would explain why some of you are so heavily against a mental health check in order to posess a weapon.

     

Quoting cmf (Reply 122):
Requiring proficiency isn't infringement. It is common sense.

Thank you. Just like driving a car.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
nor had he been convicted of anything

He had DUI's. You yourself said that is enough to be banned.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):

Are you suggesting a psychological battery before acquiring a firearm? Let me ask you this: I have no doubt that right now, I could pass a reasonable psychological test. What about 2 years from now? Ten years from now? Should I be required to submit to one every year?

I honestly dont know as there is no size fits all and often there is an emotional trigger to make someone do something wacko which can take an undeterminable time to build up. I guess you think annual would be too harsh...?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 105):
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 104):
I honestly doubt a sizable percentage of gun owners can do this - these things at the very least should be an obligatory requirement to be an owner.


I believe you are incorrect

Again I dont know as I have no statistics an dI dont even though there are any. Sizeable doesnt mean majority. I dont think 1 in 20 is an unreasonable guess. In terms of percentage of gun owners, thats a sizeable amount of people. If you can prove otherwise, Im happy to see some stats.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 110):
As I have stated before, gun ownership should be available, but only for qualified people. This means not just a background check (to be repeated e.g. every two years) on criminal and mental issues, but also on weapon safety (e.g. up to the standard required in the military after passing basic training). Let´s call this a "weapons ownership qualification licence", which one has to present to carry, own or purchase a firearm.
In many countries certain infectious diseases are reportable for epedemic prevention. Why not make a (confidential) database of dangerous mental conditions?
Getting caught with a firearm and no such licence should carry heavy punishment (e.g. like getting caught with an automatic weapon without licence, ten years in a federal prison plus a bankruptcy threatening fine).
But then it should be open to the licence holder what and how many weapons he owns (maybe except fully automatic weapons, keep the legislation as in the previous laws).
This would already weed out a lot of the nutcases and criminals, who should have no access to firearms.
And make this licence a "must issue", this means the authorities HAVE to issue one, unless the applicant shows proven reasons why he shouldn´t be issued one.
And make proper storage mandatory. E.g. if you think you need a handgun ready for home defense (there exist places where I would defintely have a firearm in my house for this purpose), have several number code (keypad activated) safes around the house, each with a pistol and a magazine inside. This way the homeowner can always get quick access if needed, but children or even a burglar, won´t be able to get at the guns. Unless used, guns should be kept in a safe.
You will never be able to erradicate illegal weapons, they are too easy to manufacture and there are too many around, but you will make it more difficult for a nutter or smalltime crook to get access to a gun.

Thanks Jan - this is on the right track. No bans - this is controlling who can have guns = gun control.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 126, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 125):
He had DUI's. You yourself said that is enough to be banned.

I didn't know he had a DUI. Then yes, under my critrea, he would not be allowed to own a firearm until such a time as that DUI has lapsed. Now, I know that the conviction never goes away (normally), but at some point, it should not count against a person. Say 5 years, no repeat? Maybe 10?

Once again, I'm not opposed to reasonable conditions to owning a firearm. As long as they are not overly intrusive and prohibitive, hence, reasonable.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 125):
I guess you think annual would be too harsh...?

Yeah. Who would pay for it? And who sets the standards?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 126):
And who sets the standards?

Most hobbies and industries that require regulation generally adopt some minimum level of standards for their members, if only to raise the entry barrier for competitors. Why not gun organizations? A year might be too often, but nevertheless, I think there's a reasonable case to be made for making sure that people who qualified for the possession of deadly force in the past, still qualify today.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13945 posts, RR: 63
Reply 128, posted (1 year 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 126):
Say 5 years, no repeat? Maybe 10?

Depending what you were convicted of, over here in Germany criminal convictions are generally disregarded (means they still appear in some police database, but they won´t appear in a normal criminal records check) ten years after the person has finished his sentence and has kept himself clean (not new convictions added).

Jan


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 129, posted (1 year 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 3592 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 125):
Obama is not going to turn into Hitler.

Maybe not Obama but the US is already seeing it at the local level with SWAT teams and "no knock" warrants in which deadly mistakes have been made (i.e., wrong house)



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 130, posted (1 year 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 3571 times:

.......and then there is this

US Police Chiefs Adopt Drone Code of Conduct

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...e-chiefs-adopt-drone-code-conduct/

Ir's not a big leap from criminal to innocent citizen.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 131, posted (1 year 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 124):
If you look at my post in reply 91, I think our standards of competency and/or are about the same.

I would be happy if they are but from what I see you focus on the technical part. I think that part is required but in my mind it is 10% and knowing when to use it and when not to use it is 90%.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 124):
Assuming that you don't set the bar at some arbitrary level that infringes on the right.

Arbitrary is never good. High level is.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 124):
In this state, in order to get my concealed carry permit, I had to:
-pass a background check (my dime)
-take a class (my dime)
-the class covered firearm safety, handling, loading/unloading and the law
-hit a target 11 out of 20 times (my ammo)

Florida requirements are similar. Looks good but dig in to it a bit. Florida courses are as short as 2 hours and that include filling out the form. Training for forklift certification is longer.

Not knowing what kind of targets it is hard to say 11 out of 20 is right or wrong but it seems on the very low side.

I also want to see an extensive theoretical test. With extensive I mean extensive. Something that means you need to learn the laws, learn situation awareness, learn tactics.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 124):
My designated safe room (just a closet with a lock in the back of another closet in the bedroom) has a gun (stored in a locked box) in it. The door is an interior wood door, set in a wood frame surrounded by sheetrock. Not real safe.

As you say, that isn't a safe room.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 124):
No, there is a difference between marching on Washington to overthrow the government and holding weapons as a deterrent.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 126):
And who sets the standards?

Based on current laws it is the states. I would love for them to work together and set a national standard but that looks very much like something federal and then we open another can of worms.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 129):
Maybe not Obama but the US is already seeing it at the local level with SWAT teams and "no knock" warrants in which deadly mistakes have been made (i.e., wrong house)

Amazing how you worry about this but turn a blind eye to the many accidental shootings taking place daily.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16239 posts, RR: 56
Reply 132, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3388 times:

Of the many Canadians that love the US, we all shake our heads in dismay at the gun-crazy US culture. You are killing each other. Guns simply are not needed in a modern society.

You think the right to own a gun is a fundamental freedom? It's not.....a MORE fundamental freedom is the freedom from being randomly shot! That makes Canada (with our stricter gun laws) a freer and safer nation that the US.

Ban the gun and live freer. Like Canada.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 133, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 35):
Tell that to the people of Chicago and DC some of the most gun controlled cities in the US where an avg. of 8 people die a day. The research shows where there is little or no gun control there is little crime and vice versa.

Tell that to people in the UK who have a lot of gun control. There were 11227 incidents in 2010 (not murders, just a gun being fired or whatever) in England and Wales, and 9.3% of murders were done with a firearm.

Proof that gun control works - 91.8% of murders were done with something that wasn't a firearm.

Source: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940.pdf


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 134, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 111):
So how does a US government keep power against the wish of the people? An incumbent president loses the election and decides he doesn't want to go - the only possible way to stay in power would be with the help and agreement of all branches of the armed forces, CIA, FBI and police forces.

  

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 130):
US Police Chiefs Adopt Drone Code of Conduct

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...e-chiefs-adopt-drone-code-conduct/

Ir's not a big leap from criminal to innocent citizen.

Having a gun no matter how powerful isn't likely going to protect you from an unmanned drone.

This is an issue with how the US is governed and I have no idea why any police department has a need for it.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3866 posts, RR: 14
Reply 135, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3221 times:

How about bullet control?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 2
Reply 136, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 132):
Ban the gun and live freer. Like Canada.

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 137, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3203 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 136):
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

When I see statements like this... I think probably would be better with only outlaws having guns.

Ignorant one liners isn't contributing to a solution.


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 138, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 136):
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

Doesn't happen in other industrial nations, there are shootings in Toronto being used from illegal guns purchased from the states. Its an issue but after a shooting you don't see the average Canadian wanting to arm themselves, also lots of Canadians have guns but use them for sport or a hobby which I'm sure is true south of the border as well.

We don't tend to own guns just for the sake of it.

Also per capita we have about 1/5 the gun related homicides that the US does and we are also less scared on the streets of a city like Toronto.
The rates are even less in the UK which has double the population of Canada and about 1/3 the gun murders and Japan has about 5 times the population of Canada and half of the US and has single digit gun murders per year.

Quoting us330 (Reply 135):

How about bullet control?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-n...mL0II

Love that segment 



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 139, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 138):
Japan has about 5 times the population of Canada and half of the US and has single digit gun murders per year.

Curious thing is, suicide in Japan is higher than in the US by a lot. You'd think that accessibility to firearms would mean higher suicide rates, but it doesn't.

Another interesting statistic is that there are big differences in gun-related violence between demographics. Does this mean one demographic has greater accessibility to guns than the other? No. . . yet the difference still exists. And it's a significant difference.

Bottom line is, the accessibility argument doesn't hold any water. What causes high rates of suicide in Japan and high murder rates in the US have to do with social issues, not mere accessibility to firearms.

[Edited 2012-08-24 12:18:04]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 140, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 139):
Bottom line is, the accessibility argument doesn't hold any water. What causes high rates of suicide in Japan and high murder rates in the US have to do with social issues, not mere accessibility to firearms.

Yes that is the big issue.

What is it that causes these mass shootings in the US??

Speaking of Toronto, the shootings are gang related and they are killing each other and unfortunately too many innocent by-standards get shot.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 141, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 140):
What is it that causes these mass shootings in the US??

Mass shootings are abnormalities, whether in the US or in Europe. Do away with all mass shootings and I doubt the stats will change significantly.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 140):
Speaking of Toronto, the shootings are gang related and they are killing each other and unfortunately too many innocent by-standards get shot.

How come people say the problem with DC is that surrounding states do not ban guns, but such horrid numbers don't repeat in Canada? I mean, what's the percentage again of Canadians living close to the US border? And no, border agents are not that good. . .



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21425 posts, RR: 56
Reply 142, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 139):
Bottom line is, the accessibility argument doesn't hold any water.

If that's true, then the argument that having more guns available to citizens reduces gun violence doesn't hold water either.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 143, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 142):
If that's true, then the argument that having more guns available to citizens reduces gun violence doesn't hold water either.

How does that follow?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat