Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree Part 2  
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4424 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4147 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Since the last thread was over 300 replies, please continue the discussion here. Thank you to all who have followed forum rules and kept the first thread civil.

Previous thread:
Obama, To Impose Gun Control By Decree (by AR385 Dec 26 2012 in Non Aviation)

[Edited 2013-01-14 18:28:41]

235 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SO i haven been reading the second amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_..._to_the_United_States_Constitution

And i have determined that Gun Manufactures infringe on MY right to keep a gun. How? I have to pay for it. Its my right to have a gun. Will Smith and Wesson give me one for free? Will the NRA give me a free gun?The entry point for arms should be $0. Tax who ever needs to be taxed. I want a free gun!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4120 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 305):
Why is everyone up in arms over Obama doing things by executive order?

Because the blunt truth is this forum is comprised of mostly "right thinking" members. At least they seem to be the most verbal on issues like this.

Quoting cmf (Reply 308):
Mental history is just one pert of the problem. The other parts must be addressed too.

It's one very small part of the problem. In the majority of gun crimes, and I'm not just talking about mass shootings, but gun crimes in general, the shooter doesn't legally own or possess his/her weapon of choice. A fact that Messrs La Pierre and Keene and their membership keep failing to address. I've said it before but it bears repeating; The current gun laws in CT actually worked, with regard to the Newtown shooter. He tried to purchase a firearm and didn't want to comply with that state's background and waiting period laws and left the store empty handed. Instead, he used the weapons legally owned by a relative. All the mental background checks the NRA and some contributors to this thread are suggesting would not have had any impact on the outcome on most of the gun crimes in this country.

[Edited 2013-01-14 19:34:43]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
I want a free gun!

Sorry, mt99, the Founding Fathers were ahead of you right back in 1792. See my post 307 on the thread that the mods just closed. The Militia Act, passed in that year, required every able-bodied male not only to join the Militia, but to provide his weapon at his own expense.  


"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock...."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#Nineteenth_Century_2



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
he Militia Act, passed in that year, required every able-bodied male not only to join the Militia, but to provide his weapon at his own expense.  

Awww Dang it. Damned those loopholes! So we are forced to Join the Milita then?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8346 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4105 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
A well regulated militia

Well "regulated"? That must be a word the NRA hates. Pity the Founding Fathers added it in. Guess there were not lobbyists back then.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
So we are forced to Join the Milita then?

Thankfully I don't think that bit is still in force!  

Point was, though, that the first duty of the Militia in those days was to 'keep the peace' and suppress any 'insurrections.'

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

It has to be borne in mind that quite a high proportion of the colonists in those days would have had close links to Britain and would probably have preferred to stay part of the Empire.

[Edited 2013-01-14 19:27:08]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4095 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
The Militia Act, passed in that year

The same that says that Militia Members should be between 18 and 45.

So 46yo cannot have guns anymore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

From the previous thread:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 297):
But, the data can't be discounted. Look at Washington D.C. and Chicago.

Violent crime has been going doen and we have not become the Old West, as many of the fear-mongering left claimed we would become when Florida started the shall issue concealed carry movement.

You can't discount DC or Chicago's data, but you can't discount New York's either.

Violent crime is going down (though not according to the NRA, perhaps because an increase in violent crime would compel more people to buy guns), but since there's nothing to prove that guns are the cause, it's just as likely that the effect of legal gun ownership on violent crime is negligible.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 309):
Can't, or don't wish to?

Can't. There's no data proving a solid causation between more legal guns and less crime, or between fewer legal guns and more crime, thus that conclusion can't logically be drawn.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
And i have determined that Gun Manufactures infringe on MY right to keep a gun. How? I have to pay for it. Its my right to have a gun. Will Smith and Wesson give me one for free? Will the NRA give me a free gun?The entry point for arms should be $0. Tax who ever needs to be taxed. I want a free gun!

Actually, I think the precedent has been set that you must buy your own gun, subject to the government telling you what the minimum caliber and capacity has to be. If you fail to buy your own gun, then you will be fined. If you can't afford a gun, then he government will subsidize your purchase of one.

I guess you guys have decided to take it to the ridiculous. When you can't adequately debate or defend your position, the time has come to ridicule.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
Can't. There's no data proving a solid causation between more legal guns and less crime, or between fewer legal guns and more crime, thus that conclusion can't logically be drawn.

I agree... both sides are guilty of it. There are a lot of variables that go into it, and in general, crime has been decreasing since 1990. I often see a side pick a point in time, let's say 1994 when the AWB went into effect then pick another point, let's say 2002 and claim that the AWB decreased crime. Well, um no you can't really say that. I can't think of an example from the other side, but I've seen claims like "in 200X this gun law went into effect making it easier to own guns and a few years later crime went down." Again, crime has been going down, not sure either law had anything to do with it



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
(though not according to the NRA, perhaps because an increase in violent crime would compel more people to buy guns

Actually, the NRA relies on the FBI data to bolster its position that guns in the hands of the law abiding reduces violent crime. They need only point to Washington D.C. and Chicago to show the opposite. I'm glad NY's crime rate has gone down. Statistical anomaly? I'm sure there may be one or two cities that swing the other way.

So, let's get it going. What executive orders (or regulations via tha BATFE) will President Obama issue? My guess:

-background check to purchase ammunition (by the way, some states already require a permit)
-ban on the import or manufacture of 10 round or greater magazines
-some attempt to limit transfers on currently owned high capacity magazines
-some attempt to have FFL's report multiple sales or large ammunition purchases
-adding some dubious BATFE regulation that attempts to limit the private citizen's rights under 18 USC 922(a)(3), (a)(5)(d)
-some feel good proclamation that urges The Congress to act on the proposed assault weapons ban that will be submitted by Senator Feinstein.
-and a demand, yes a demand, to The Congress to bring legislation that makes his decrees law.

What do you guys think?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
There's no data proving a solid causation between more legal guns and less crime, or between fewer legal guns and more crime, thus that conclusion can't logically be drawn.

Because funding for that sort of research has been cut. By.. Guess who?

On an unrelated note (Stephanie Miller touched on it): Why are militias regulated in the Constitution and free to do what they will by SCOTUS but free speech and freedom of expression regulated by SCOTUS by Citizens United and Janet Jackson's nip slip?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4031 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):
On an unrelated note (Stephanie Miller touched on it): Why are militias regulated in the Constitution and free to do what they will by SCOTUS but free speech and freedom of expression regulated by SCOTUS by Citizens United and Janet Jackson's nip slip?

Not having read the Citizens United brief, I can't comment in a detailed way, but didn't that opinion lift restrictions?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13):
but didn't that opinion lift restrictions

Any person or corporation can give any amount of money to any political person or faction or cause they want. Money is the same as free speech. Unless boobies are involved. Then, we must think of the children and never ever show a bare breast ever.

Imagine: a world where a gay man sticks up for boobies.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

Can someone please paint me a very simple picture (to quote attorney "Joe Miller" in Philadelphia, "Like I'm a six year old") of how more guns translates to a decrease in crime? Forget the data because both sides on the gun debate can play with those numbers. I am speaking from a literal sense. I own and either carry or have somewhat immediate access to a firearm 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And I am guessing several, if not most contributors to this thread can say the same. Great. So let's say I am approached by some sh*thead when getting out of my car at the local Shell station and he sticks a gun in my face in an attempted car jack. I get the drop on him and he finds himself chewing on the business end of my off duty piece. Even though my carrying a firearm has thwarted a successful car jack, a crime has still been committed. Here's another example- one that actually occurred: Two thugs entered an internet cafe' in, I believe it was FL. One was armed with a firearm, the other with a baseball bat. A 70 something gentlemen, who was legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon, drew his firearm and fired numerous shots at the robbers, wounding both of them in the process thus thwarting a successful robbery. However, a crime, well several crimes actually, were still committed. So, please tell me how more guns in homes or on the street literally equates to less crime.

[Edited 2013-01-14 22:31:38]

User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Imagine: a world where a gay man sticks up for boobies.

If you're speaking in a literal sense seb, I'm impressed.  


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7215 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 15):

It doesn't equate to less crime and when someone is put into a situation where a firearm might need to be used who in the world cares. What having people who are responsible and trained with firearms do is create less victims. The dirt bag might get shot but hopefully no one innocent. And it can creat less serious crimes or less loss in life or property.

Someone comes into,your home. You hold them up with your firearm it's still a bugarly but at least you didn't lose anything.

Someone goes on a shooting spree in a mall. You have your firearm and engage him. He doesn't shoot anyone else. Less victims.

This is why responble gun ownership is a good thing in this country: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/colle...t-shoots-kills-home-invader/nD9XG/

A crime was still committed. But it would have been much much worse. I will also say keeping a gun in a bag is not a good idea. Should have been on the man but in this situation everyone is just happy there was a fun in the good guys hand.

I never have met a law enforcement officer who is against responsible gun ownership. But maybe that is just the mentality down here in Florida. Not saying you are against it, I'm not sure. Just the general feeling I get from officers I know down here. At the same time I can't say officers down here are the greatest bunch around sometimes.

[Edited 2013-01-14 22:58:22]


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 11):
Actually, the NRA relies on the FBI data to bolster its position that guns in the hands of the law abiding reduces violent crime.

I'm only going by what LaPierre said at the post-Sandy Hook press conference:

"So now, due to a declined willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years."

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...-minimum-risk-nra-wayne-lapierre/2

So if you believe him, because violent crime is increasing we need more guns. That statement is entirely incompatible with the idea that we have less violent crime because we have more guns.

And, as I've mentioned, the FBI data can only be used to prove correlation, not causation.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10131 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3995 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
Will Smith and Wesson give me one for free?

I wish you all the luck in the world getting a free gun from Will Smith, but I'm not sure how it's relevant.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 16):
If you're speaking in a literal sense seb, I'm impressed.

Boobies don't kill people unless the stupid cancer gets in the way. I don't care if someone is nekked in public. If they are touching themselves inappropriately, then, yeah... I care. Otherwise, not my (or anyone else) concern.

Quoting flymia (Reply 17):
It doesn't equate to less crime and when someone is put into a situation where a firearm might need to be used who in the world cares.

So, if a person is not holding a gun, there is no crime?

I want so badly to walk up to a person who has a concealed carry permit (I have seen a number of them here) and ask them if they know for sure 100% if they know that I or anyone else in that space is mentally stable enough to know the difference between right and smashing a chair over their head and taking out the place with their gun.

Guns don't kill people. People with mental deficiancy kill people. Don't bother with what the NRA says. NRA says everyone can handle guns just fine thankyouverymuch. Including those with mental deficiancy. Depression and PTSD and what have you. That's fine. That falls under Second Amendment. They can take out 20 students in a school. Because they have a Second Amendment right to guns.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Might be worth (as briefly as I can) describing one of the worst shooting massacres ever - at Port Arthur, a small town in Tasmania, Australia, which started life as a penal colony in the 18th. century and has now become a picturesque tourist attraction close to the state capital, Hobart.

A young man called Martin Bryant went there with an AR15 one day in 1996. Without warning, he cut loose and blazed away at the tourists with an AR15, killing 35 people and wounding another 21.

http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3412072.htm

As it happened, Bryant came from a wealthy family but had severe mental problems (including an IQ of only about 60). To its credit, the court decided that he was fit to stand trial, and he ended up being sentenced to serve 35 life sentences, and another 1,035 years for other related offences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant

The important thing, though, is that both Government and the Opposition got together, and agreed on introducing a ban on private ownership of all semi-automatic (self-loading) weapons, and on pump-action shotguns. What's more (brilliantly, in my opinion), they applied the ban in the form of a 'buy-back' - existing owners were given time to 'surrender their weapons' at the nearest police station and be paid fair market value for them, before the ban came into force.

It cost an awful lot of money - I've seen $350 million dollars mentioned - but it had the desired effect. There have been no further mass shootings in Australia since that time (previously we averaged at least one a year). As a bonus, the annual number of gun killings and gun suicides have just about halved since that time. This article gives a pretty good summary of the whole exercise and its effects:-

"To understand the policy success of the National Firearms Agreement, it's important to recognise precisely what happened. Alongside the gun buyback, what had been a patchwork of state and territory regulations were strengthened and harmonised. Self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns and pump-action shotguns were banned. Firearm owners were required to obtain licences and register their weapons.

"While the changes were backed by the then Labor opposition, political credit must go to then prime minister John Howard and National Party leader Tim Fischer for standing up to the hardliners in their own parties. While they may have paid a short-term electoral price, history will judge them well.

"In the 1990s, some argued that the gun buyback would make no difference to the firearms homicide and suicide rates. Yet a series of careful studies have shown otherwise. In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia experienced an average of one mass shooting (involving five or more deaths) every year. Since then, we have not had a mass shooting. The odds of this being a coincidence are less than one in 100.

"The gun buyback also had some unexpected pay-offs. As an ANU economics professor, I collaborated with Christine Neill at Canada's Wilfrid Laurier University to look at the effect of the Australian gun buyback on firearm suicide and homicide rates. Shocking as mass shootings are, they represent a tiny fraction of all gun deaths. If there's a gun in your home, the person most likely to kill you with it is yourself, followed by your spouse.

"Neill and I found that the firearm suicide and homicide rates more than halved after the Australian gun buyback. Although the gun death rate was falling before 1997, it accelerated downwards after the buyback. Looking across states, we also found jurisdictions where more guns were bought back experienced a greater reduction in firearms homicide and suicide.

"We estimate that the Australian gun buyback continues to save about 200 lives per year. That means thousands of people are walking the streets today who would not be alive without the National Firearms Agreement. Other work, including by public health researchers Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers, Kingsley Agho and Michael Jones, reaches a similar conclusion."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...-20130114-2cpny.html#ixzz2I2aN6TWW

The cost was high in Australia in the 1990s, and it would be absolutely astronomically expensive to do anything like it in the USA. But at least there is no doubt at all that it worked.

I hope the United States sends some people to Australia to check this issue out and see whether adopting at least some aspects of the 'ban and buyback' approach could help to reduce gun killings (and gun suicides) in the USA.

[Edited 2013-01-15 03:18:43]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 17):
Someone comes into,your home. You hold them up with your firearm it's still a bugarly but at least you didn't lose anything.

Or, someone comes in to your home. Seeing you holding a weapon they shoot you instead of just taking the TV.

Or you think someone is breaking in to your house. When someone tries to open your bedroom door you shoot. You just killed your six year old son.

Quoting flymia (Reply 17):
Someone goes on a shooting spree in a mall. You have your firearm and engage him. He doesn't shoot anyone else. Less victims.

Or, you miss him but hit 2 people behind him while he shoots you. More victims.

Or, someone else engages the shooter. You think that person is with the shooter and you shoot him. The shooter continues shooting. More victims.

It is very easy to make up scenarios but hypothetical scenarios prove nothing.

Quoting flymia (Reply 17):
This is why responble gun ownership is a good thing in this country:

You're making a lot of unsupported assumptions. Yes it is great when a crime is stopped but this doesn't prove the net balance is positive.

- How did the two guys get their weapons. The likely alternatives are a) Straw purchase b) legal purchase c) stolen. It is very likely that without "responsible" gun owners and industry those two guys would not have had weapons. Would two guys enter a place with 10 people if they were unarmed? It is very likely that without "responsible" gun owners there would not even have been a crime.

Then add all the cases where someone at a bar is carrying, or leave it in their car, get angry and shoot the person they are angry at. Murders that only happen because weapons were at the site. Without the weapons most of them would have been no more than black eyes.

Quoting flymia (Reply 17):
I never have met a law enforcement officer who is against responsible gun ownership.

No-one have problems with responsible owners. Problem is that too many of the responsible gun owners are not responsible, at least not all the time. They do not store their weapons properly, more than 500,000 stolen guns per year. Kids getting hold of them. Stupid accidents because they make mistakes. Exposure time is very important to number of mistakes. You want enough time to avoid the rookie mistakes but after that additional time increases the "responsible owner" mistakes.

Ask the question slightly different and the answer you get from LEO is very different. Ask them if people should have loaded weapons around them at all times, for "protection." At least the two LEO bringing their kids to the scouts I take my friends kids think we have a problem with too many people having guns in the wrong situations. As do the LEO at the soccer training. And the LEO at the mountain bike races. All of this in south Florida.

So while they don't have a problem with responsible gun owners, they do have a problem with the real life owners.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7587 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3947 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
The cost was high in Australia in the 1990s, and it would be absolutely astronomically expensive to do anything like it in the USA. But at least there is no doubt at all that it worked.

I hope the United States sends some people to Australia to check this issue out and see whether adopting at least some aspects of the 'ban and buyback' approach could help to reduce gun killings (and gun suicides) in the USA.

Do you really expect to get an answer to this post from the gun happy crowd on this forum. Remember NAV20 the rest of the world has to follow the lead of the US, they're not very good at adopting ideas from elsewhere, the metric system is a good example.


User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

To add some humor to this conversation, gun owners should thank Obama !  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUwb3Z2Klrk

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3954 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 23):
Do you really expect to get an answer to this post from the gun happy crowd on this forum.

I think myself that - as applauded by the mods in the first post on this thread - pretty well everyone has been very reasonable on this thread up to now, KiwiRob. I don't know whether you've ever visited the United States, but unless you have you won't know how deeply ingrained the Second Amendment is in the minds of so many people there. They really do see it as one of their fundamental freedoms - and many believe that it's a major reason why the United States has held together as a nation, instead of having revolutions and things like so many other countries.

I'm happy just offering alternative views and possibilities. Because the other thing that characterises the United States is that once a majority of people think that something is wrong and should be put right, they lose no time in recognising the fact, and sorting out the problem.

NICE one, Redd!  Smile

[Edited 2013-01-15 05:05:11]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3919 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 23):
Do you really expect to get an answer to this post from the gun happy crowd on this forum.

Oh, so we are the only ones being unreasonable?

Let's take a step back a minute. Let's strip away all of the rhetoric and look at the fundamentals of what each side really wants:

Conservatives: The right to directly protect themselves, their family, and property from those who would do them harm.

Leftists: The right to indirectly have themselves, their family, and property protected from those who would do them harm.

I know it's a little more complicated than that , but let's keep it simple.

We have plenty of housing developments being built in this country - why not begin designating some as gun free communities? And if there is enough demand for these communities we could incorporate gun free townships. The predominately leftist Washington, DC area already has nearby two such planned towns in Columbia, MD and Reston, VA. This would be a perfect region to start another. This would place all of the anti-gun crowd in an enclave where they know that none of their neighbors will be armed with guns, save for local law enforcement.

Conversely, we can do the same for the gun-rights crowd. Communities where every adult, by default, has the right to carry a weapon (while within city limits) - concealed or not, doesn't matter.

I wonder which communities will suffer the higher crime/murder rates...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7587 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
Oh, so we are the only ones being unreasonable?

Sure are, it's very easy to solve the problem, sure it will piss off a few people but it's been done in Australia, where it worked, South Africa has also limited availibility of certain types of weapons and made owning one harder, it's slowly working there as well. Other civilised countries don't have the gun issues the US has simply because there aren't that many weapons in circulation.

The second amendment is now outdated, society changes, so theres no reason why the constitution shouldn't change to reflect today's America not yesterdays America.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3907 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
Sure are, it's very easy to solve the problem, sure it will piss off a few people but it's been done in Australia, where it worked

OK, let's assume the 2nd amendment is eliminated and we do a buyback. What was the average price that the aussie gov't paid for each gun?

Let's assume $500. That would make the buyback cost $150 billion. Not affordable.

And of course you are going to trust all the criminals to hand over their weapons, right?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3897 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Actually, I think the precedent has been set that you must buy your own gun, subject to the government telling you what the minimum caliber and capacity has to be. If you fail to buy your own gun, then you will be fined. If you can't afford a gun, then he government will subsidize your purchase of one.

So why it doesn't happen now?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
I guess you guys have decided to take it to the ridiculous. When you can't adequately debate or defend your position, the time has come to ridicule.

I dont think its ridiculous at all..That what the law says.

Why is this ridiculous? Why isn't the word "infringed" as ridiculous?



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):

I wonder which communities will suffer the higher crime/murder rates...

That one fallacy. Crime does not necessarily equal murder,

Is a stolen iphone the same as gun murder? In the pro-gun lobby they seem to think so..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
I wonder which communities will suffer the higher crime/murder rates...

Murder rates are pretty certain to be higher in the gun areas. As long as the gun side is responsible and don't provide criminals with guns, as they do today.

With less than 10% of burglars bringing guns that isn't likely to have much effect.

Without guns no longer readily available the spur of the moment murders will go down. It requires a lot more to kill with a knife than a gun.

The cases where a family member or relative murders will also go down.

Rape, probably the most common violent crime rarely involve weapons, so there will not be much change.

In the end it is a matter of maintaining the border. We know it works on the border to Canada.

Of course this wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have an industry readily supplying guns to criminals.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 30):
That one fallacy. Crime does not necessarily equal murder,

Is a stolen iphone the same as gun murder?

I'm talking about crimes committed with guns involved.

There was a big stink in Britain a decade ago about gun related crimes exploding even though ownership of such weapons has been basically banned for generations. What are the latest stats on that?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3882 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 31):
Murder rates are pretty certain to be higher in the gun areas.

Really? In US towns where they liberalized gun restrictions (using the true usage of the term liberal), I believe the results were that crime and murder plummeted. The main reason was that all the criminals moved a short way down the road - it's hard to get true impacts where such communities are close to each other.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
- Robert A. Heinlein



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3878 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
, I believe the results were that crime and murder plummeted.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32):
I'm talking about crimes committed with guns involved.

Then separate them.. Give numbers of "crime with guns" vs "non-gun crimes".. Don't mix them up. You don't want to mislead do you?

What % of "crime" involve a guns?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3875 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
Or, someone comes in to your home. Seeing you holding a weapon they shoot you instead of just taking the TV.

Or you think someone is breaking in to your house. When someone tries to open your bedroom door you shoot. You just killed your six year old son.
Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
Or, you miss him but hit 2 people behind him while he shoots you. More victims.

Or, someone else engages the shooter. You think that person is with the shooter and you shoot him. The shooter continues shooting. More victims.

That's where proper training comes in. Part of that includes "just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it."

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 23):
Do you really expect to get an answer to this post from the gun happy crowd on this forum. Remember NAV20 the rest of the world has to follow the lead of the US, they're not very good at adopting ideas from elsewhere, the metric system is a good example.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
it will piss off a few people

You gotta realize that it's a big deal, a big hobby, and part of our culture for more than a few in this country. We have some of the higher ownership rates in the world. I'm all for learning from others, but I don't think every country can just simply apply another country's laws verbatim. I know it's difficult for you guys to realize this because guns (especially including semi-autos) are less liked and owned, but here, we're just different



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3874 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 34):
Then separate them.. Give numbers of "crime with guns" vs "non-gun crimes".. Don't mix them up. You don't want to mislead do you?

What % of "crime" involve a guns?

You tell me. I'm not looking for more gun laws or bans. You are. It is up to you to gather evidence and convince me.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10131 posts, RR: 26
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3869 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I really don't want to wade into this discussion, but:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
Conservatives: The right to directly protect themselves, their family, and property from those who would do them harm.

Leftists: The right to indirectly have themselves, their family, and property protected from those who would do them harm.

Come on dude. That is the most grossly over-simplified, generic, non-universal description of this issue I've ever read.

There are plenty of conservatives who want guns simply because they like shooting them. There are plenty of liberals who are perfectly content protecting themselves, but don't feel they need a gun to do it.

Anyway....



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3869 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
I know it's a little more complicated than that , but let's keep it simple.

Or, you could take off the FOX glasses and see what is really happening:

right-wing extremists: give everyone a gun at all costs.
right-wing moderates: we don't really need assault weapons.
left-wing moderates: we don't really need assault weapons.
left-wing extremists: ban all guns.

That is what is really going on. BTW, the vast majority of Americans are either 2 or 3. FOX and NRA wants everyone to believe we are either 1 or 4 and no one but no one is in between.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 36):
You tell me. I'm not looking for more gun laws or bans. You are. It is up to you to gather evidence and convince me.

You should know already. Why else would you say this:


Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):

Really? In US towns where they liberalized gun restrictions (using the true usage of the term liberal), I believe the results were that crime and murder plummeted.

How do "you believe" - based on fact? gut instinct? NRA pamphlet?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3851 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
Let's assume $500. That would make the buyback cost $150 billion. Not affordable.

Why isn't it affordable? You need to look at the cost we carry now for all those guns, estimated to be as high as 100 BUSD per year. If you can reduce that by half then the payback is only three years. Seems very affordable to me.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
- Robert A. Heinlein

You just need to look around USA to see that isn't true.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):
That's where proper training comes in. Part of that includes "just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it."

Completely agree. Problem is, nothing of that is reflected in the scenarios flymia proposed. They all reflected the hero who fixes everything. It isn't reality.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):
I know it's difficult for you guys to realize this because guns (especially including semi-autos) are less liked and owned, but here, we're just different

I think you're missing how common guns were, and still are, in other developed countries. The difference is they have changed with the times. Many of my friends and relatives hunt in Europe hunt. Ranges are common. The big difference is the mentality that if you carry a gun you're safe. Irony is that Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3856 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 39):

How do "you believe" - based on fact? gut instinct? NRA pamphlet?

I live in one of those areas. Every household in my city are required to own a gun, and have it loaded and "at hand" in the home. The law has been in place 30 years, and the gun-crime rate here is very small compared to other nearby cities like Marietta. 30 years ago the rates were identical.

Here is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws.

http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3853 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41):
I live in one of those areas. Every household in my city are required to own a gun, and have it loaded and "at hand" in the home. The law has been in place 30 years, and the gun-crime rate here is very small compared to other nearby cities like Marietta. 30 years ago the rates were identical.

Ha again "gun crime" - what about "non-gun crime"?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 42):
Ha again "gun crime" - what about "non-gun crime"?

You be the judge.

Kennesaw's (pop 30K) crime stats : http://www.cityrating.com/crime-stat...georgia/kennesaw.html#.UPWGseTLTY8

Marietta's (pop 56K) crime stats : http://www.cityrating.com/crime-stat...georgia/marietta.html#.UPWG6eTLTY8

Marietta is a little bit more upmarket than Kennesaw - some of Atlanta's most wealthy suburbs are there.

I think you can quickly see that Kennesaw's crime rates are better across the board.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):

I think you can quickly see that Kennesaw's crime rates are better across the board.

From your own links:

Kennesaw
Kennesaw crime statistics report an overall upward trend in crime based on data from 11 years with violent crime increasing and property crime increasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Kennesaw for 2013 is expected to be higher than in 2010.

Marrietta
Marietta crime statistics report an overall downward trend in crime based on data from 12 years with violent crime increasing and property crime decreasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Marietta for 2013 is expected to be lower than in 2010.

Kennesaw has more guns? why is the crime rate going up? Maybe the law should say that you need 2 guns in every house.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7215 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3839 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 20):
I want so badly to walk up to a person who has a concealed carry permit (I have seen a number of them here) and ask them if they know for sure 100% if they know that I or anyone else in that space is mentally stable enough to know the difference between right and smashing a chair over their head and taking out the place with their gun.

Guns don't kill people. People with mental deficiancy kill people. Don't bother with what the NRA says. NRA says everyone can handle guns just fine thankyouverymuch. Including those with mental deficiancy. Depression and PTSD and what have you. That's fine. That falls under Second Amendment. They can take out 20 students in a school. Because they have a Second Amendment right to guns.

What? We all do realize the shooting in Newtown the shooter was not eligible to get a gun. You realize he stoled the guns from his mother right? If his mom would have just locked the guns we would most likely not be here discussing this. Also concealed carry is supposed to be concealed. If you can tell that they have a gun on them they are not doing it right. At the same time please find me a news story of someomemwithna CCP or someone stealing a weapon off the person and going on a shooting spree.

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):

In my scenarios I assume responsible use. Such as not shooting if you don't know what is behind the target, or if there are people behind it. Not shooting if you don't know who the target is. Keeping you eye on the person at all times. Things that every person should know who owns or carries a gun legally. I am all for some stricter laws and training the more training the better. What I am against is limiting the use or ownership of fire arms.

As for assault weapons. I will never own one. But there is no reason to get rid of semi auto handguns.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
/That is what is really going on. BTW, the vast majority of Americans are either 2 or 3. FOX and NRA wants everyone to believe we are either 1 or 4 and no one but no one is in between

CNN and MSNBC want everyone to believe that too.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3849 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 44):
Kennesaw has more guns? why is the crime rate going up? Maybe the law should say that you need 2 guns in every house.

Man, you are really insistent, arent you?



Even if Marietta is coming down a bit and Kennesaw is going up (mainly because Kennesaw is rapidly growing compared to Marietta), Kennesaw still has only a small fraction of the crime rate.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
Man, you are really insistent, arent you?

I try  

The graphs are from the PAST.

The future is not looking good for Kennesaw..   More guns should solve it!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
Even if Marietta is coming down a bit and Kennesaw is going up (mainly because Kennesaw is rapidly growing compared to Marietta), Kennesaw still has only a small fraction of the crime rate.

Upward trend is upward trend. Fact from your own data: The crime rate a a place with guns is going up. You cant dispute that.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3835 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 45):
In my scenarios I assume responsible use.

A big assumption, and very selectively applied.

We know that reality isn't as rosy. There are multiple accidental shootings each day. There are plenty of spur of the moment shootings each day. How do you address them? They are not mentally ill. Some can be avoided with better training but far from all.

Quoting flymia (Reply 45):
But there is no reason to get rid of semi auto handguns.

Semi automatic handguns is the most common type used during crime. It makes much more sense to regulate them than assault weapons.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8346 posts, RR: 9
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3831 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 12):
Janet Jackson's nip slip?

Janet was performing over the airways where rights to broadcast include regulations related to the broadcast. That is far different than cable, or simply a public performance.

Quoting flymia (Reply 17):
You have your firearm and engage him. He doesn't shoot anyone else. Less victims.

That assumes you hit the guy with each shot. In your efforts to be the great protector you are liable for the bullet until it stops moving. Hit the wrong person and cause injury and you might have a jury give YOUR victim your house, car and retirement fund.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
"So now, due to a declined willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years."

Courts around here a not hesitant to do their job, nor are the prosecutors, That's why we have jail overcrowding.

More guns simply mean more demand for prison space so I guess that the tax I want on guns & ammunition needs to be increased to cover increased prison costs.

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
When someone tries to open your bedroom door you shoot. You just killed your six year old son.

Accidentally killing a family member is pretty common place in America. Actually, accidental killings are pretty commonplace in America.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7587 posts, RR: 4
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
OK, let's assume the 2nd amendment is eliminated and we do a buyback. What was the average price that the aussie gov't paid for each gun?

Let's assume $500. That would make the buyback cost $150 billion. Not affordable.

They didn't take every gun just certain types, specifically assault weapons, automatic and pump action weapons. As NAV20 said they haven't had a massacre since.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):

You gotta realize that it's a big deal, a big hobby, and part of our culture for more than a few in this country.

Fine it can still stay as a hobby it's just the the types of weapons people are allowed would change, as in NAV20's example the Australian govt made automatics, pump action and assault type weapons illegal. You can still have you pistol for home defence, your rifle and shotgun for hunting and target shooting, you just don't need assault weapons. No civilian needs an assault rifle.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7215 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 49):
That assumes you hit the guy with each shot. In your efforts to be the great protector you are liable for the bullet until it stops moving. Hit the wrong person and cause injury and you might have a jury give YOUR victim your house, car and retirement fund.
Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
A big assumption, and very selectively applied.


I agree this is a big assumption and that is why I am FOR much more stringent CCW laws. By more stringent I mean a more thorough background checks including medical history, much more thorough required training along with annual or bi-annual follow up training. Most of it would be paid for my the applicant besides for the criminal checks. However with this I believe these people should be allowed to carry in say a public university or school. Of course private business owners can decide whether they want guns on their property or not. Its pretty dumb idea IMO to say no but that is up to them.

I don't think we need to take guns away from people. We just need to treat them like the serious item they are, like how we treat airplanes sort of, when we are talking about carrying outside ones home.

But when it comes to solely owning a gun for home protection the requirements would not be as strict. Same for large hunting guns too.
I have no problem with this, however does it really solve the issue? Maybe not. But it is a better system than we have now.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Semi automatic handguns is the most common type used during crime. It makes much more sense to regulate them than assault weapons.


I can agree with that. I just don't want to see a ban on them. Create a database of all the shell casings like some states do. Require registration of the guns, it could be as simple as going online.

There are two gun debates really. You have the media frenzy, political topic that the tragedy of Newtown sparked up again which I wrote and researched on a month prior to the event. In my opinion these mass killing events have much much less to do with gun control than mental health issues. It is a recurring theme with mass shootings. Most of the shooters fit the same description, most show warning signs. Mental Health should be part of all gun purchasing checks. This country also has a huge mental health crisis.

And then you have the every day streets of Chicago gun control. The problem with the every day street violence is 99% of those guns were not legally purchased, 99% of the people using them should not be using them. So does getting rid of all guns take care of that problem?
That is a very difficult question to answer. And it certainly would likely take decades to find out.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 50):
You can still have you pistol for home defence, your rifle and shotgun for hunting and target shooting, you just don't need assault weapons. No civilian needs an assault rifle.

You do realize that no civilians have assault rifles, don't you? An assault rifle has a fully-automatic setting. The ones that look like assault rifles that are sold to the public are semi-auto only.



Check out this gun. It's a Ruger Mini-14. I think everyone, including the gun control nazis, that this is a perfectly acceptable gun that we can trust the general population to own. It looks likes a perfectly fine weapon for hunting. There is no extendable stock. It doesn’t have an evil pistol grip. It’s got a wooden frame instead of a black one. The magazine cannot hold 30 or more rounds. None of those murder-prone picatinny rails. It’s just a down-to-earth, typical American rifle one would expect to see in the back window of a pickup truck.

But you can customize the crap out of a Mini-14. here is the same gun after cutting off the stock and messing around with it. The firing capacity/rate/caliber have not been changed. But now it is an evil "assault weapon"




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52):
But now it is an evil "assault weapon"

How many of these are needed to reverse the increasing crime rate of Kennesaw, GA?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 49):
Accidentally killing a family member is pretty common place in America. Actually,

Sadly, that scenario is a shortened version of a real event.

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
By more stringent I mean a more thorough background checks including medical history

But that is the part that is, mostly, working.

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
However with this I believe these people should be allowed to carry in say a public university or school.

What about bars?

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
In my opinion these mass killing events have much much less to do with gun control than mental health issues.

That is true for mass killing. But they are a small part of the problem. Not the typical problem. Accidents kill more people.

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
And then you have the every day streets of Chicago gun control. The problem with the every day street violence is 99% of those guns were not legally purchased,

Almost all of them were legally sold. Straw purchases is a major problem. Poor storage another. Stolen represent 10 - 15%.

You're missing another large problem. the spur of the moment. Where someone gets angry for one reason or another. Often it happens in homes. Often enough in public places such as bars. In my opinion these are the worst. I personally have less fear of a thief with a gun than someone with a CCW who is upset about something.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52):
You do realize that no civilians have assault rifles, don't you?

Do you have any doubt about what weapons are meant when the description "assault weapon" is used? This is just an attempt to sideline the discussion.

[Edited 2013-01-15 11:17:13]

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13664 posts, RR: 62
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3754 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
it's been done in Australia

The difference is that gun ownership has been codified in our Bill of Rights, and repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court. Try again; the "solution" enacted in Australia would never be legal in the US.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52):
Check out this gun. It's a Ruger Mini-14. I think everyone, including the gun control nazis, that this is a perfectly acceptable gun that we can trust the general population to own. It looks likes a perfectly fine weapon for hunting. There is no extendable stock. It doesn’t have an evil pistol grip. It’s got a wooden frame instead of a black one. The magazine cannot hold 30 or more rounds. None of those murder-prone picatinny rails. It’s just a down-to-earth, typical American rifle one would expect to see in the back window of a pickup truck.But you can customize the crap out of a Mini-14. here is the same gun after cutting off the stock and messing around with it. The firing capacity/rate/caliber have not been changed. But now it is an evil "assault weapon"

  

And that's the rub; most people who want an assault rifle like it because it "looks cool."

Most people who want to ban them want to do so because it "looks like something no one should own."



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

The only Assault weapon ever made was the WWII Stg.44. Neith the weapon nor the 8mm Kurtz round it fired has been manufactured since 1945.

To call any other firearm an assuakt weapons is a anti gun propagandist lie.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7215 posts, RR: 9
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
What about bars?


Alochol does not mix well with anything besides for sitting down and watching a sports game.

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
Often enough in public places such as bars. In my opinion these are the worst. I personally have less fear of a thief with a gun than someone with a CCW who is upset about something.


That is a bad situation, that is the point of the medical checks. We trust police officers and many other law enforcement officers to carry guns all the time 24/7. They get mad too but is a fairly rare for them to just start shooting someone they are mad at.
Is this a common problem with CCW holders?

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
That is true for mass killing. But they are a small part of the problem. Not the typical problem. Accidents kill more people.


I agree. The problem is politicians and the media want people to worry about mass shootings in schools and malls over accidental killings or even street violence. That does not get votes or ratings.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 53):
How many of these are needed to reverse the increasing crime rate of Kennesaw, GA?

None, I'm sure. This is the kind of gun people show off at gun stores. It's like people who put big chrome alloys and hydraulic jumping shocks on their cars.



Personally I think anyone who modified a Mini-14 like I showed earlier is being silly. It does virtually nothing to improve the real-world use of the gun. It's just showing off. But why ban it?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 58):
None, I'm sure. This is the kind of gun people show off at gun stores. It's like people who put big chrome alloys and hydraulic jumping shocks on their cars.

So,what kind of guns do people in Kennesaw have? They seem to be kind of infective as their crime rate is increasing. What kind would you recommend to reverse this disturbing trend?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8346 posts, RR: 9
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3731 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
OK, let's assume the 2nd amendment is eliminated and we do a buyback. What was the average price that the aussie gov't paid for each gun?

Let's assume $500. That would make the buyback cost $150 billion. Not affordable.

If you consider the reductions in health care costs for GSWs over a 10 year period then it might be.

The reality is that the 2nd Amendment is not going to be eliminated. Maybe an increase in the "well regulated" aspect of it, but it is going to stay. That is why we need tax revenues from guns & ammunition to help offset the costs of that health care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):


And of course you are going to trust all the criminals to hand over their weapons, right?

My bet is that they would be first in line for a quick $500 - figuring that they can steal more. Even at half that price it would be a profitable business for the crooks.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3728 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 59):
So,what kind of guns do people in Kennesaw have?

Handguns mostly, I would expect. What does that have to do with anything?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 60):
If you consider the reductions in health care costs for GSWs over a 10 year period then it might be.

Not according to this study, which would seem to indicate that no such savings would result - indeed the opposite.

http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3724 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
Handguns mostly, I would expect. What does that have to do with anything?

That they are infective at controlling crime - as per the data you provided.

So the questions is: What guns would be more effective?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
right-wing extremists: give everyone a gun at all costs.
right-wing moderates: we don't really need assault weapons.
left-wing moderates: we don't really need assault weapons.
left-wing extremists: ban all guns.

Well it's a lot more complicated than that. I'm trying my best to allow most freedom but put in place some common sense controls

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
I think you're missing how common guns were, and still are, in other developed countries. The difference is they have changed with the times. Many of my friends and relatives hunt in Europe hunt. Ranges are common.

Yeah I know, that's why I was trying to point out that our culture enjoys assault weapons for fun more than other cultures. We have millions and despite your views, the fact is the great majority enjoy them very peacefully. It's where to draw the line...

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
Irony is that Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

That's like saying being a pro-skydiver makes you at greater risk of dying from a fall (vs a novice.)

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 50):
You can still have you pistol for home defence, your rifle and shotgun for hunting and target shooting, you just don't need assault weapons. No civilian needs an assault rifle.

No they don't, and you'll never catch me saying they do (IMO.) BUT, I did point out, and feel free to debate it, but I think it's a FACT that 99.9% of assault weapon owners use them peacefully. Instead of stripping them all away from the 100%, I'm trying to take them away from the .1%... perhaps even higher (because there are people that are totally incompetent that have guns that luckily don't do anything stupid.)

I'm not gonna argue any crazy scenario, and I do know what your country and many other countries did works... I just think we as Americans can go about it a bit differently and control them a bit better vs outright banning them. In my scenario, there might be a few events slipping through the cracks, but in your scenario, freedom slips through the cracks... just trying to balance it out the best. Because ultimately, freedom does cost sometimes. Look at the price for the freedom to consume alcohol--thousands dead each year. We put in measures to regulate it and enforce the rules, but we don't ban it. I'd like to see the same with guns.

I don't want Ted Bundy with an assault rifle, but at the same time, for me and other enthusiasts (especially the ones with military and/or police training) we are quite safe and competent with them. My SKS is only loaded at the range, is locked away, and is NEVER pointed at anyone even when I've checked the chamber and magazine a dozen times



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 62):
That they are infective at controlling crime - as per the data you provided.

So the questions is: What guns would be more effective?

Depends on the situation. If you live on a large property outside of town, I'd want a carbine, like the mini-14. In a house at close quarters, a pistol would suffice.

There is also the value of intimidation. If you are a burglar on someone's property, and you see the laser sight of a carbine sweeping around, you'd probably shit your pants and run.

But personally, in my own situation, my Army Colt 1911 does just dandy. In fact just the other day I pulled it on someone - A haggard looking guy walked in my door (which I had neglected to lock) without knocking or anything, saw a .45 barrel from 5 feet away, said he thought a friend of his lived here, and quickly left. That was the first time I had ever pointed a loaded gun at anyone - even in the army.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3702 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 55):
And that's the rub; most people who want an assault rifle like it because it "looks cool."

Personally, I think there's a racial component. Assault rifles (and I assume assualt handguns, since they are included in Mrs. Feinstein's bill) tend to be black.

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
What about bars?

Illegal here already, but in places where the carrying of a gun in a bar is legal, do we see a massive spilling of blood?

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
Accidents kill more people.

And training will alleviate that problem, but you're against expanded training aren't you? Basic training is OK, but training to deal with a possible aggressor outside (or inside) the home is giving in to the fear mongering of the NRA, correct?

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 2):
I've said it before but it bears repeating; The current gun laws in CT actually worked, with regard to the Newtown shooter. He tried to purchase a firearm and didn't want to comply with that state's background and waiting period laws and left the store empty handed. Instead, he used the weapons legally owned by a relative. All the mental background checks the NRA and some contributors to this thread are suggesting would not have had any impact on the outcome on most of the gun crimes in this country.

You're right. The system worked, then broke down and then failed. It worked in that the asshole was denied legal purchase. It broke down when his mother failed to properly secure her firearms (I assume she didn't, I don't know that for a fact). And it failed entirely when the asshole entered a gun-free zone where no responsible adult is allowed, by law, to carry a firearm.

Can anyone on this board say with absolute certainty that the outcome would have been the same if a teacher, administrator or a parent were allowed to carry a gun in the school? I have enough intellectual honesty to know that the outcome may not have changed one bit.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 58):
It does virtually nothing to improve the real-world use of the gun.

In fact, in some cases, may hinder its real-world use.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7587 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52):

You do realize that no civilians have assault rifles, don't you? An assault rifle has a fully-automatic setting. The ones that look like assault rifles that are sold to the public are semi-auto only.

Not but they can buy weapons like an AR-15 which can kill a whole bunch more people in a few second than a bolt action rifle.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 56):
The only Assault weapon ever made was the WWII Stg.44.

Pull the other one it's got bells on it.

Quote:
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 56):
Neith the weapon nor the 8mm Kurtz round it fired has been manufactured since 1945.

Also not true.

Quote:
StG 44 are being manufactured in Germany today by SSD (Sport Systeme Dittrich) and distributed by HZA Kulmbach GmbH in the original 7.92x33mm Kurz chambering.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
That was the first time I had ever pointed a loaded gun at anyone - even in the army.

If I were you I'd add that you weren't gonna shoot him unless you truly felt threatened or you'll have a million people here jump on you

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 66):
StG 44 are being manufactured in Germany today by SSD (Sport Systeme Dittrich) and distributed by HZA Kulmbach GmbH in the original 7.92x33mm Kurz chambering.

That's cool, a real piece of history. Not to detract from the conversation, but do you know if they make a semi-auto version and sell it in the US? It's not Soviet but it's still right up my alley



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
Alochol does not mix well with anything besides for sitting down and watching a sports game.

Yet plenty of CCW holders bring guns to bars, or at least to their cars park next to it. Like driving and alcohol is a good combination.

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
Is this a common problem with CCW holders?

Based on news article, yes.

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
I agree. The problem is politicians and the media want people to worry about mass shootings in schools and malls over accidental killings or even street violence.

Not just them. Look at the discussion here. It is all about preventing crazies from having guns. Focusing on a tiny part of the problem.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
despite your views, the fact is the great majority enjoy them very peacefully.

Careful there, I have not once suggested that most don't enjoy them peacefully. I have also stated that I think they should be available for use at ranges and for hunting and even for people in high risk areas, e.g. gas stations.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
That's like saying being a pro-skydiver makes you at greater risk of dying from a fall (vs a novice.)

No it isn't. They are very different. Skydivers are not walking around with the parachutes at all times just in case a big void opens up below them. They always use them under very controlled terms. There are very few places where accidentally pulling the cord will put them in great danger. There really is very little in common with the two situations.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
just trying to balance it out the best. Because ultimately, freedom does cost sometimes.

I agree we need balance. Sadly assault weapons attract mass murderers. I really think the balance is in restricting the number of rounds. And I very much like the idea of no switchable magazines. There are only so many weapons you can bring before you stand out like a Christmas tree and despite the many claims here lets remember that several people have been save because the shooter changed magazine. While not confirmed it has been reported that is what saved 6 kids in Newtown.

Loading isn't fun but it really isn't much of an issue either. I think this is a clever compromise.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
Illegal here already, but in places where the carrying of a gun in a bar is legal, do we see a massive spilling of blood?

Go over to your car, same difference. And yes, it is plenty common. Hardly a day without multiple events being reported.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
but you're against expanded training aren't you?

From where do you get that idea? It certainty isn't what I have posted. It is rather irritating to see pro-gunners repeatedly painting the devil on the wall no matter what is actually said.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
Basic training is OK, but training to deal with a possible aggressor outside (or inside) the home is giving in to the fear mongering of the NRA, correct?

Fear mongering isn't OK.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
Can anyone on this board say with absolute certainty that the outcome would have been the same if a teacher, administrator or a parent were allowed to carry a gun in the school?

Can you say with absolute certainty that he would have been able to bring guns to the school if gun owners stored their guns and ammunition properly?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Yet plenty of CCW holders bring guns to bars, or at least to their cars park next to it. Like driving and alcohol is a good combination.

You know this, how?

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Based on news article, yes.

Source?

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Focusing on a tiny part of the problem.

That is exactly what the media and the politicians are doing, isn't it?

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
There really is very little in common with the two situations.

Ok, how about smokers have a greater chance of dying from lung disease than non-smokers? Drinkers have a higher chance of dying from liver disease than non-drinkers. Sky-divers do have a higher chance of dying in sky-diving accident than non-sky-divers.

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
From where do you get that idea? It certainty isn't what I have posted. It is rather irritating to see pro-gunners repeatedly painting the devil on the wall no matter what is actually said.
"I do not want them to take classes because they are told that they need it for self defense, because someone may break in to your house and you must be able to violently defend yourself.

Again, I ask, if a person buys a firearm for the purpose of self-defense is he not being responsible in taking these classes?

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Fear mongering isn't OK

You mean like the fear-mongering that assault weapons are the reason the kids in CT were killed? You mean like the way NY politicians are saying that NY is now safer because of the draconian restrictions passed on firearms?

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Can you say with absolute certainty that he would have been able to bring guns to the school if gun owners stored their guns and ammunition properly?

No, I can't. But, can you say that the outcome may have been different if someone other than the asshole were armed?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6368 posts, RR: 32
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From what I just heard on the news, Action 4 News, the local CBS station for the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, the executive order may come tomorrow, and it will be a ban on assault weapons, just like the one passed by Clinton, and mandatory checks for everyone who wants to get a gun, regardless of the venue and the type of gun.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 69):
You know this, how?

I read.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 69):
Source?

Any paper. Do a search for "shooting bar" in google news and you will get plenty of examples.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 69):
That is exactly what the media and the politicians are doing, isn't it?

As stated before, not just them.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 69):
Ok, how about smokers have a greater chance of dying from lung disease than non-smokers? Drinkers have a higher chance of dying from liver disease than non-drinkers. Sky-divers do have a higher chance of dying in sky-diving accident than non-sky-divers.

None of them are equal or even close, for the reasons I mentioned before.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 69):
Again, I ask, if a person buys a firearm for the purpose of self-defense is he not being responsible in taking these classes?

Any-one buying for self defense should be trained. Much more than those 8 hour courses NRA state is all required for you to be ready to carry in public. I have stated this over and over. It is a disgrace how little training is required.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 69):
You mean like the fear-mongering that assault weapons are the reason the kids in CT were killed?

No, I mean how gun are sold on how you need one to defend yourself in this dangerous society. But I do not agree with fear mongering no matter in what direction.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 69):
No, I can't. But, can you say that the outcome may have been different if someone other than the asshole were armed?

I like to address to address problems as early as possible. I have no problem with trained security having weapons but I don't think they will be ale to stop any Newtowns. I expect them to be the first victims. And expensive on top of that.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 70):

From what I just heard on the news, Action 4 News, the local CBS station for the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, the executive order may come tomorrow, and it will be a ban on assault weapons, just like the one passed by Clinton, and mandatory checks for everyone who wants to get a gun, regardless of the venue and the type of gun.

And I heard that he's going to propose them surrounded by a bunch of little children as a backdrop. I find this to be a new low.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 71):
I like to address to address problems as early as possible. I have no problem with trained security having weapons but I don't think they will be ale to stop any Newtowns. I expect them to be the first victims. And expensive on top of that.

That's why I disagree with the NRA on this. If a school or school district wants to hire guards that's fine. It's their and the tax-payers' or tuition payers' preogrative. I say the various states and the US government should repeal their 'school gun-free zone' laws. This will allows a teacher or administrator or a parent to carry a gun, if they choose to.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
And I heard that he's going to propose them surrounded by a bunch of little children as a backdrop. I find this to be a new low.

Yeah, classy. I find it disgusting. He is using the tragedy in Newtown for political gain.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 70):
and it will be a ban on assault weapons,

That will instantly be challanged. That is the purview of The Congress.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 70):
and mandatory checks for everyone who wants to get a gun, regardless of the venue and the type of gun.

I'm not opposed to that, so long as the private sales between individuals are not unduly hampered. By the way, that will also require legislation of some sort, because there is currently legislation on the process and not just regulation.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3620 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 70):
From what I just heard on the news, Action 4 News, the local CBS station for the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas

What I've hearing from several sources is there will be no new action from the President.

He will only require that the current laws be enforced to the letter.

No ban of assualt weapons or high capacity magazines.

Background checks will be required where legal in existing law, however, his orders will be that people who falsify information on background checks will be prosecuted. Rather than ignored, or a minor 'ticket' today.

Gun dealers found to have allowed people to skip background checks will see their federal licenses suspended immediately.

'Private' gun sellers who are conducting gun selling businesses as individual sales, gun show sales of large numbers of guns, etc - will be charged with a felony if the authorities think the person was selling guns to make money. i.e. purchase of a gun at a low price and resale at a high price - without background checks or other paperwork. The person would have to be doing it regularly. I'm sure there are a lot of people doing this, at last based on seeing the same people as private sellers at several recent gun shows in various locations.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
What I've hearing from several sources is there will be no new action from the President.

That looks the most likely scenario. Just a bit of fiddling about, supervision of dealers etc., which is within the president's existing powers - and then a long 'knockdown/drag out battle' to try to get some sort of assault weapon controls through Congress:-

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama said he will outline sweeping new gun control proposals this week, including an assault weapons ban.

"The Washington Post reported a Wednesday announcement has been set with Obama proposing a renewal of the assault weapons ban in addition to outlawing high-capacity magazine clips and requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases.

"The announcement is likely to cause controversy on Capitol Hill, especially in a Republican-led House of Representatives that's protective of Second Amendment rights.

"Obama's announcement is also expected to include 19 executive actions the president can order within existing laws, the Post said."


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/.../UPI-24371358289992/#ixzz2I5yBMJQz

Some mentions in the press though of the possibility of an Australian-style buyback scheme though - giving people tax credits for weapons that they choose to hand in. That could presumably be done under existing powers?

[Edited 2013-01-15 17:27:02]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
Conservatives: The right to directly protect themselves, their family, and property from those who would do them harm.

And no one, that I've read or heard anyway is trying to take that right away from them. It's the type of tool they want to use to protect themselves, their family and their property that's in question.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
OK, let's assume the 2nd amendment is eliminated and we do a buyback. What was the average price that the aussie gov't paid for each gun?

According to the post, not all weapons were eligible for the buy back program. I believe it was specific to semiautomatic weapons only.

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
Mental Health should be part of all gun purchasing checks.

I agree but that will just be a "feel good" law. First, not everyone who is mentally ill has ever been adjudicated as such and second, as we've seen time and time again, the mentally ill manage to get their hands on a weapon by means other than legal purchase.

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
Alochol does not mix well with anything besides for sitting down and watching a sports game.

I disagree. It also has a tendency to enhance the physical appearance of others.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
Personally, I think there's a racial component. Assault rifles (and I assume assualt handguns, since they are included in Mrs. Feinstein's bill) tend to be black.

You're kidding, right? Ironically, Steven Colbert said this very thing on last night's program but he said it sarcastically.

Quoting cmf (Reply 71):
I have no problem with trained security having weapons but I don't think they will be ale to stop any Newtowns. I expect them to be the first victims

Actually, there was an incident in August of 2010 at Sullivan High School in TN where having an armed officer in the school did succeed in stopping a Newtown type outcome. One that, for whatever reason, we never heard about from the mass media. I am guessing the reason might be because the only one to die in this incident was the gunman. The TN incident started out exactly the same as Sandy Hook. In both cases, a gunman with a semiautomatic weapon entered a school and was confronted by the school's principal. We know what happened at Sandy Hook however, at the school in TN, an armed Sheriff's Deputy who was assigned to the school was with the principal when the gunman was confronted. The officer drew her weapon and quickly put herself between the gunman and the principal who was then able to escape. While the officer held the gunman at gunpoint, the school was placed in lock down status and several other officers responded to the help call. After ignoring several directives to drop his weapon, the gunman was shot and killed. He never got off so much as a single shot.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Careful there, I have not once suggested that most don't enjoy them peacefully. I have also stated that I think they should be available for use at ranges and for hunting and even for people in high risk areas, e.g. gas stations.

I know I know. The problem with the range argument is a ton of shooting isn't done on ranges, it's done on private land. That's where I enjoy most my shooting. Plus, going from range to range would be a pain

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
And I very much like the idea of no switchable magazines.

This is very unfeasible and requires modification of the gun. CA has something similar, but IIRC their bullet button solution can be modified easily by criminals to easily change magazines. The result: again, punishing the law abiding citizens and doing little/nothing to prevent crime.

There are good ideas out there, but a lot of ideas thrown out, no offense to anyone, are because a lot of people fail to understand some basic things about firearms

Quoting AR385 (Reply 70):
the executive order may come tomorrow, and it will be a ban on assault weapons

Can he do that? I thought he could only change enforcement. Makes me wonder why more presidents wouldn't just use EOs left and right to pass things without Congress' approval

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
No ban of assualt weapons or high capacity magazines.

I hope not. There are things that can be done in this area without a blanket ban



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 76):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
OK, let's assume the 2nd amendment is eliminated and we do a buyback. What was the average price that the aussie gov't paid for each gun?

According to the post, not all weapons were eligible for the buy back program. I believe it was specific to semiautomatic weapons only.

Yes, self-loaders (semi-automatic) plus pump-action shotguns.

As to cost, about $A400M. They paid market value plus 10 per cent. They found the money by increasing the Medicare levy for a year or two.

One other factor that surprises me; the total number of weapons bought back was about 700,000. The population at the time was around 18M. That works out at about one self-loader or pumpgun for every 26 souls living in Oz at that time.........men, women, and children. I had no idea that there were that many self-loaders around in those days.

[Edited 2013-01-15 17:39:16]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 76):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
OK, let's assume the 2nd amendment is eliminated and we do a buyback. What was the average price that the aussie gov't paid for each gun?

According to the post, not all weapons were eligible for the buy back program. I believe it was specific to semiautomatic weapons only.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 78):
Yes, self-loaders (semi-automatic) plus pump-action shotguns.

The only guns out there that are not self-loading/semi-automatic are revolvers - not that many around these days - bolt-action rifles, and double-barrel shotguns. I'd guess 95% of all guns in this country are semi-autos.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 78):
One other factor that surprises me; the total number of weapons bought back was about 700,000. The population at the time was around 18M. That works out at about one self-loader or pumpgun for every 26 souls living in Oz at that time.........men, women, and children. I had no idea that there were that many self-loaders around in those days.

We have about 300 million in this country.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
We trust police officers and many other law enforcement officers to carry guns all the time 24/7. They get mad too but is a fairly rare for them to just start shooting someone they are mad at.

And there's a very good reason for that. The hiring processes the vast majority of U.S. law enforcement agencies use is grueling and time consuming and has a very high success rate of weeding out applicants who have, let's call them personality quirks, anger management issues being one of them, that aren't conducive to being a law enforcement officer. When you think about the number of sworn Federal, State, County, City, and Village law enforcement officers there are in this country (I've seen the number estimated at over 600,000), the incidents of one of us snapping while on the job are extremely minimal. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for some of the people we encounter:

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


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 79):
The only guns out there that are not self-loading/semi-automatic are revolvers - not that many around these days - bolt-action rifles, and double-barrel shotguns.

The buyback only applied to 'longarms,' Dreadnought, not pistols.

Even so, looks like any such venture in the USA would be a ready-made 'second fiscal cliff' though.......   What does say an AR15 cost to buy these days?

[Edited 2013-01-15 18:45:45]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 73):
If a school or school district wants to hire guards that's fine. It's their and the tax-payers' or tuition payers' preogrative.

Many of us are trying to figure out: if there is no money to hire teachers or upgrade equipment or anything like that, why is there suddenly and magically money to hire guards?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3578 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 82):
Many of us are trying to figure out: if there is no money to hire teachers or upgrade equipment or anything like that, why is there suddenly and magically money to hire guards?

I did wonder this. I don't think security guards everywhere is a good idea, but arming all teachers is a bad idea. I wouldn't be opposed to some prior military or police teachers carrying or teachers going through some extremely meticulous training. JMO



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
No ban of assualt weapons or high capacity magazines.

Background checks will be required where legal in existing law, however, his orders will be that people who falsify information on background checks will be prosecuted. Rather than ignored, or a minor 'ticket' today.

Gun dealers found to have allowed people to skip background checks will see their federal licenses suspended immediately.



So, I guess that begs the question: WHY ISN'T THIS HAPPENING NOW?

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 76):
You're kidding, right? Ironically, Steven Colbert said this very thing on last night's program but he said it sarcastically.


Of course, I'm kidding...a little levity every now and then is a good thing. Much like mt99's demand that manufacturer's provide him with a gun. A good laugh was had by all.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 82):
Many of us are trying to figure out:


So am I. That's why I disagree with the NRA's position.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
but arming all teachers is a bad idea.


Who said all the teachers? I'm sure there are several teachers and administrators in shall-issue (or even may-issue) states that have carry permits. Let them exercise those permits by repealing the various gun-free zone laws around the country.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
So, I guess that begs the question: WHY ISN'T THIS HAPPENING NOW?

Yeah, that's pretty bad

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
Who said all the teachers?

My bad, I kinda derived too much from what the NRA said. I should know better



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3539 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 76):
Actually, there was an incident in August of 2010 at Sullivan High School in TN where having an armed officer in the school did succeed in stopping a Newtown type outcome.

No rule without exemptions  

Pretty fortunate to she was at the right place at the right time. But I think it would be different if he knew to look for her.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 76):
One that, for whatever reason, we never heard about from the mass media. I am guessing the reason might be because the only one to die in this incident was the gunman.

And because there are just too many murders. Few make more than back pages in the local paper.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 77):
Plus, going from range to range would be a pain

Why? I have to do it with most sports I practice.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 77):
This is very unfeasible and requires modification of the gun.

Modifying guns would be an enormous undertaking. But requiring it for all new sales is much more straight forward. Yes it will not have immediate effects. But probably a lot faster than most expect. Majority of guns used during crime are less that three years old.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
So, I guess that begs the question: WHY ISN'T THIS HAPPENING NOW?

In the case of Florida, in no small part because anyone doing these kind of investigations are damn close to be charged with third degree felony.


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
I'm sure there are several teachers and administrators in shall-issue (or even may-issue) states that have carry permits. Let them exercise those permits by repealing the various gun-free zone laws around the country.

Another thing I find fascinating is: Sandy Hook took place in Connecticut. White bread, relativley low crime. Columbine. White bread, low crime. Springfield. White bread, low crime. Also, little or no talk of security guards etc. High crime schools in places like in Richmond, Oakland, Sacramento, etc. don't have that problem. Why? One reason is, yes, metal detectors and security. But, also, people in the inner cities have to live with shootings in the hood all the time. Plus, they don't have the leisure of stockpiling huge numbers of semi-automatic weapons. Sure, they can be on the street where someone is carrying a piece with 16 in the clip and one in the hole, but that, at most, would be 17 bodies going cold. (Catch the Warren G reference?) I think part of the problem is education. Not just in school, but stop listening to only one side of the story.

I rarely go to Oakland, but when I do I am cautious. I feel less safe here in the White bread community of Santa Rosa than in Oakland or San Francisco. There is more room here and more kooks here who believe the gub'mint is takin' ours gunz!

When I see someone at Panda Express with a gun, conceal carry and all that, I still worry about the crazy people who would bash them over the head, take the gun and start firing randomly.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
Who said all the teachers? I'm sure there are several teachers and administrators in shall-issue (or even may-issue) states that have carry permits

I have no doubt there are teachers and administrators who are carrying on the qt. And if they thwart another Columbine or Sandy Hook, they'll happily risk the consequences, if any, of having a firearm on school property.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
Pretty fortunate to she was at the right place at the right time. But I think it would be different if he knew to look for her.

Which is why I purpose a program in our schools much like the Federal Air Marshalls. Plain clothed officers that cover schools on a rotating basis. I also think it should be common practice for agencies to park marked patrol cars at schools (my department and several neighboring departments already do this). Hell, we use "decoy cars" in high crime areas and in areas where vehicle speed is a concern, why not do the same at schools? Unless the Newtown shooter was on a "suicide by cop" mission (seeing as he took his own life, I'm guessing he wasn't), he may have thought twice about forcing his way into Sandy Hook had he encountered a patrol car at the school's entrance.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 77):
Plus, going from range to range would be a pain

Why? I have to do it with most sports I practice.

You know, you bring up a valid point cmf. OK, so some see firing a gun as a sport, much like baseball, football, and hockey. I've been playing the latter three since I was old enough to skate. Actually, if what my mom told me is right, I learned to skate before I learned to walk. And quite often, I have to travel to different arenas, fields, and stadiums to participate in my sport. Why can't those who shoot for sport do the same?


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 87):
When I see someone at Panda Express with a gun, conceal carry and all that

If you can see the gun, then they haven't concealed it properly. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, over the past several months, I've noticed a significant spike in our 417 (man with a gun) runs. The majority of the time, the responsible has a valid permit to carry, he/she just forgot the definition of the second "C" in "CCW".


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 81):
What does say an AR15 cost to buy these days?

I saw on TV today between $700 and $2000.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 79):
We have about 300 million in this country.

If a buy back of assault weapons was implemented it would be a minority of the total guns.


Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
I did wonder this. I don't think security guards everywhere is a good idea, but arming all teachers is a bad idea.

Arming teachers is a bad idea for one reason, if its a high school most kids could overpower a teacher and take that gun. I was big enough to psychically incapacitate a teacher in 8th grade. If 3-4 guys surrounded a teacher in an effort to take his/her gun they would probably be able to get it. There has to be a better way to keep a school safe than to arm teachers.

A cop would have difficulty with the above scenario which is why they always have partners to avoid/reduce the chances of that from happening.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
So, I guess that begs the question: WHY ISN'T THIS HAPPENING NOW?

It all comes down to money.

The processing time of a background check means that gun manufacturers can't sell as much as they want to.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 87):
Plus, they don't have the leisure of stockpiling huge numbers of semi-automatic weapons. Sure, they can be on the street where someone is carrying a piece with 16 in the clip and one in the hole, but that, at most, would be 17 bodies going cold.

The biggest difference between these mass shooting and street violence is the intention to inflict as much death and destruction as possible and there is much more preparation and their is so much more darkness associated with these shootings as opposed to street crime.

Using Aurora as an example, it has been reported by some that James Holmes had so much body armour (much more than the average cop) that he wouldn't have been wounded easily by someone shooting at him. He planned to live it seems and I would bet that he is deemed sane and gets the needle in a few years.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3525 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 88):
Why can't those who shoot for sport do the same?

I have to go to a range anytime I shoot. The run out to my father-in-law's place is to far. I don't want to store my guns at the range. And, I don't want to store my ammunition at the range. Fat good they'd do me there if I ever needed them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 87):
I think part of the problem is education.

I think education is a major issue. We've had a rash of shootings here in the last few months. All inner-city, all high-crime area. The common factor (other than the illegally obtained firearm) is, what appears to be a sense of hopelessness in the community.

A local talk show host spent a considerable amount of time on this issue when the violence started ramping up. And the community leaders agree that the kids are not getting what they deserve from the education system (among other things).

Quoting cmf (Reply 68):
Careful there, I have not once suggested that most don't enjoy them peacefully. I have also stated that I think they should be available for use at ranges and for hunting and even for people in high risk areas, e.g. gas stations.

But, not self-defense in or away from the home, even if you're not in a "high risk area" ?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 90):

The processing time of a background check means that gun manufacturers can't sell as much as they want to.

To quote Sherman T. Potter "Horse Hockey". Anytime I've purchased a firearm the bckground check through NICS has taken less than 5 minutes...usually around 2. BAFTE shouldn't be tolerating any FFL that doesn't do a background check and they sure as hell shouldn't tolerat an FFL they ignores a negative background check.

[Edited 2013-01-15 22:29:54]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8653 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Just to jump in here, I think we should have an AR15 buyback program. If you turn in your AR15, your reward is that you can continue living in the USA.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 90):
He planned to live it seems and I would bet that he is deemed sane and gets the needle in a few years.

Hopefully.


I think both sides are converging on a common goal in terms of gun control. Both sides recognize the 2nd Amendment gives SOME right to own SOME arms. .22 rifles, definitely legal. M-16 fully automatic, not legal. Bunker buster bombs and Apache helicopters, definitely not legal for an NRA member.

What's going to happen is minor tweaks. The NRA should back off its "heads we win, tails we win" philosophy. More guns kill more kids. NRA needs to feel an impact directly connected to the deaths of those children caused by the NRA.

Liberal gun rules are what make law-abiding people able to jump into massacre mode. These aren't thugs, they are white-collar people going on a suicidal rampage. Gun liberals who cavort with their guns need to be put on notice. Their hobby and the ludicrous notion that they can take on the Pentagon in an actual combat scenario, (good luck with those hellfire missiles by the way), need to be recast as a form of insanity. They are sick and they need medical professionals .  


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7587 posts, RR: 4
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 67):
That's cool, a real piece of history. Not to detract from the conversation, but do you know if they make a semi-auto version and sell it in the US? It's not Soviet but it's still right up my alley

Looks like you can get one in Canada.

http://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/category.jsp?catid=74985

they make a range of WW2 German firearms

http://www.ssd-weapon.com/web_en/produkte_en.htm


User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):

But personally, in my own situation, my Army Colt 1911 does just dandy. In fact just the other day I pulled it on someone - A haggard looking guy walked in my door (which I had neglected to lock)

To me it seems that the most sensible solution is LOCK YOUR DOOR.



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 91):
BAFTE shouldn't be tolerating any FFL that doesn't do a background check and they sure as hell shouldn't tolerat an FFL they ignores a negative background check.

That's another thing: Republicans in the Senate have refused to confirm anyone Obama puts forth to head ATF. That speaks volumes.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3444 times:

Yup, Obummer has failed to provide any acceptable candidate.

That is something he does a lot, see Elizabeth Warren.

The lack of a BATF head us his own doing, and possibly ontentional on obummers part



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3427 times:

Here are the executive orders:

Quote:
The announcement is over, and Obama is signing the 23 executive actions. These orders are in addition to laws that Obama wants Congress to pass. Here, according to the White House, are what the 23 executive actions will do, without congressional approval:

1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."

11. "Nominate an ATF director."

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."

23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16...ntrol-proposals-shortly/?hpt=hp_c1

I very much agree with the closing of the "private sales" ID check loophole. I'll have to read through everything else to comment on them overall.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2739 posts, RR: 8
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 90):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 81):What does say an AR15 cost to buy these days?I saw on TV today between $700 and $2000.

Actually prices have sky rocketed the last month. A bas one will be at least a grand and some will run $3000 plus. with suppressor and top scopes.

Quoting tugger (Reply 97):
I very much agree with the closing of the "private sales" ID check loophole.

It is none of their business....

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
Just to jump in here, I think we should have an AR15 buyback program. If you turn in your AR15, your reward is that you can continue living in the USA

I think that every one should be given an AR15 when they finish high school along with the training on how to defend yourself against an oppressive government..



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
I think that every one should be given an AR15 when they finish high school along with the training on how to defend yourself against an oppressive government..

That awesome.., Who would pay for the AR15?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3386 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 96):
Obummer

You know you keep doing this, and it keeps being silly and childish and just making you look a bit foolish. But if that is what you want.... On the other hand I would recommend you try this: P r e s i d e n t O b a m a. Pretty simple and accurately describes who you are indicating and talking about.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
It is none of their business....

Of course not and it doesn't become "their business" with this either.

But when somewhere around 40% of guns sales are done via "private sales" that bypass ID checks and are where anyone who shouldn't have a gun goes to buy a gun, I am OK with the loophole closing. It absolutely will not end the ability of people to sell their guns (and there are appropriate exceptions for family inheritance etc. issues), but it will make it more difficult for people who can't legally buy a gun to go get one.

And the good thing is that the industry already quietly supports this change.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-16 10:31:57]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2739 posts, RR: 8
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 99):
That awesome.., Who would pay for the AR15?

The rich. Is that not who pays for every "free" item we get?.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 101):
The rich. Is that not who pays for every "free" item we get?.

So now you are OK for the "rich" to pay for more stuff? Wow - you positions changes really quickly,.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 90):
The processing time of a background check means that gun manufacturers can't sell as much as they want to.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
That's another thing: Republicans in the Senate have refused to confirm anyone Obama puts forth to head ATF.

That's because he has failed to put a candidate that is acceptable to the Senate.

Quoting tugger (Reply 97):

I whole-heardtly agree with 1 through 5.

6 presupposes that the current law will change. He will need legislation.

8, 9 & 10 are pure vanilla. Feel good things.

11...nominate someone acceptable to the Senate.

12 is already happening on the local level in many jurisdictions.

13 sounds nice, what does it entail?

14 The CDC? We already know that not all violence where a gun is used is related to mental illness.

15 Thumb print technology? Micro-stamping? Again, what does this mean?

16 Like this matters one bit. I've been to the range with my doctor. Introduced him to his first gun.

17 Ok.

18 - 23 I'm alright with.

I'll wait until I read all the executive orders to decide further.

I'm bummed that he isn't asking (see he's supposed to ask Congress for legislation) to repeal the Gun Free School Zone provisions of the USC.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 103):

I too tend to agree after reviewing the list. Yes we'll have to see the actual "orders", and yes some are "feel goods" and things that already should be (such as the BATF head), but overall these are not horrible, objectionable things that should raise everyone ire. That doesn't mean that it won't raise the ire of a certain groups of people that apparently must oppose anything either regarding guns or President Obama, but overall I am OK with these.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 103):
he's supposed to ask Congress for legislation

The smart thing about doing it this way is that it more makes Congress act than just "asking" which hasn't lead to much of anything recently because Congress is so dysfunctional. This really is the President using the power of the bully pulpit to get things moving or done.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12258 posts, RR: 35
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting tugger (Reply 97):
Here are the executive orders:

I haven't read the full text, but I don't mind any of these. I especially like these:

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently onlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1975 posts, RR: 2
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Looks to me like 23 ways to increase bureaucracy with minute to no effect on school shootings. That right there is called using Newtown for your own past agenda. It disgusts me.

User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 106):
Looks to me like 23 ways to increase bureaucracy with minute to no effect on school shootings. That right there is called using Newtown for your own past agenda. It disgusts me.

An agenda - that got him re-elected..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 106):
Looks to me like 23 ways to increase bureaucracy with minute to no effect on school shootings. That right there is called using Newtown for your own past agenda. It disgusts me.

It is impossible to stop Sandyhook-type tragedies.

There is no way to fully arm everyone or protect everyone or restrict everyone in a way that stops a determined individual from planning and executing an attack on a school or other public facility where a number of people will be killed.

No way.

And everyone knows that.

What Sandyhook has done though, is break the logjam on discussion and moving reasonable measures that should be in place to improved gun ownership and responsibility. And without attacking the right to ownership itself.

And that disgusts you? OK, it disgusts you.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-16 11:21:50]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 106):
Looks to me like 23 ways to increase bureaucracy with minute to no effect on school shootings. That right there is called using Newtown for your own past agenda. It disgusts me.

Really? THAT'S what disgusts you? And the NRA attack ad about the protection two innocent 11 and 14 year old children must receive does what - makes you happy?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Well, let's see what the text and implementation are. The devil is in the details and some of this will require legislation.

Reviewing the list, I don't see anything about requiring safe, secure storage. I think that's something he can probably do through regulation, but there appears to be no mention of it. Strange.

Funny; 1 - 5, 7, 9, 12 & 19 could have been written by the NRA. Did he give them credit?

I didn't see the great unveiling....did he surround himself with 6 year olds?

Quoting tugger (Reply 104):
That doesn't mean that it won't raise the ire of a certain groups of people that apparently must oppose anything either regarding guns or President Obama, but overall I am OK with these.

I'm not a fan of executive orders that change the substance of things to begin with. I know they've been used in the past and will be used in the future, but I don't like them. They can easily be an end-round to congressional action. But, that's the way things work.

[Edited 2013-01-16 11:42:25]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
Modifying guns would be an enormous undertaking. But requiring it for all new sales is much more straight forward. Yes it will not have immediate effects. But probably a lot faster than most expect. Majority of guns used during crime are less that three years old.

And how would you address every other gun? More importantly, for me as a collector of older guns that aren't being produced anymore?

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 88):
Which is why I purpose a program in our schools much like the Federal Air Marshalls. Plain clothed officers that cover schools on a rotating basis. I also think it should be common practice for agencies to park marked patrol cars at schools (my department and several neighboring departments already do this). Hell, we use "decoy cars" in high crime areas and in areas where vehicle speed is a concern, why not do the same at schools?

I like this idea... not too expensive and it seems effective

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 88):
Why can't those who shoot for sport do the same?

I was getting more at shooting at private land. I have no stats but I would reckon a large chunk, maybe a majority, is done on private land. I've had friends who could go outside and shoot off their back porch (and no, there was no one back there except a mountain)

Quoting Flighty (Reply 92):
M-16 fully automatic, not legal.

Sigh... people need to really brush up on their gun knowledge before debating this. Not trying to be mean, but there is a lot of misinformation flying around due to not understanding the issue, case in point

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 93):
Looks like you can get one in Canada.

Ironically, there are a lot of things you can get in Canada you can't get in the US. Russia and the US blocked sales of pretty much anything, so I can't get a Russian SVT-40 unless I want to pay a pretty penny (it's a 10 round internal mag weapon IIRC, so I think they'd be good even for CA)

Quoting mt99 (Reply 94):
To me it seems that the most sensible solution is LOCK YOUR DOOR.

I think it was he forgot to lock his door...

Quoting tugger (Reply 97):
Here are the executive orders:

These don't seem too bad or unreasonable

Quoting mt99 (Reply 107):
An agenda - that got him re-elected..

The President got reelected because of the CT shooting?    



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3312 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 94):
To me it seems that the most sensible solution is LOCK YOUR DOOR.

I think it was he forgot to lock his door...

Seem like self inflected problem. with a very simple solution.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 107):
An agenda - that got him re-elected..

The President got reelected because of the CT shooting?

Everyone knows that Obama has never been pro-gun.Was that a secret until now?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
Seem like self inflected problem. with a very simple solution.

Never forget anything ever?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
Everyone knows that Obama has never been pro-gun.Was that a secret until now?

Um a few months ago I merely said I wouldn't be surprised if Obama took on the gun issue this turn and I got basically flamed from a bunch of people and called paranoid, and said he wasn't going to do anything and I was brainwashed from the NRA. So yeah, it seemed like from a lot of people he wasn't that anti-gun.

I just don't see why he is reacting now and not after Aurora... Honestly, and not trying to be harsh or anything, but I see 20 people dying the same way I see 20 kids dying... people are people, age doesn't really play a factor in my mind unless they're like 70 or close to dying. Not trying to be cynical, but I really think the election is what stopped him from tackling this issue



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7587 posts, RR: 4
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
And how would you address every other gun? More importantly, for me as a collector of older guns that aren't being produced anymore?

A lot of countries have specific licenses for collectors, can't see any reason why it should be any different in the US. One of my relatives has a large collection of WW2 weapons, many of them are illegal in NZ to own unless you have a collectors license.


User currently onlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 6
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 113):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 112):
Seem like self inflected problem. with a very simple solution.

Never forget anything ever?

Not locking my door - that's just plain silly..

Again a post it note on the wall "LOCK DOOR" -would have been just as useful as a gun in this situation.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 113):
Not trying to be cynical, but I really think the election is what stopped him from tackling this issue

If true, you think that you are the only one the figured this out?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 114):
A lot of countries have specific licenses for collectors

I would hope so, but part of that includes going from the old Soviet stuff (Mosin Nagants) to the newer Soviet stuff (AKMs and AK-74s) which are seen as scary and all, even though the ones I'd be getting are original from the countries they came from (decades old) but with a US made NEW receiver (obviously because it has to be semi-auto.) So technically the rifle is new even though most of it is historic

Kinda going off on a tangent there ^ but once again I go down the road of control and regulate vs outright ban. If 99% of the population is good and 1% bad, shave off the extreme 5% as best you can. You reduce crime and preserve freedoms. So many people are completely for guns or against them but it doesn't have to be that way. I actually liked a lot of the EOs Obama passed, best of all, he is not circumventing Congress. I commend him for that.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 84):
So, I guess that begs the question: WHY ISN'T THIS HAPPENING NOW?

Because the NRA has, via Congress, been neutering the enforcement mechanism. BATFE is underfunded, handcuffed by other laws, and hasn't had a director for years. If the government doesn't have the resources to enforce a law, then the law might as well not exist.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 103):
That's because he has failed to put a candidate that is acceptable to the Senate.

To the NRA, you mean.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 105):
I especially like these:

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

Already done. There's not a single police department in this country that hasn't gone through active shooter training. And in Newtown, the teachers and administrators did everything by the book. Some confronted the shooter, some distracted him, while the teachers with kids got the kids into hiding places.


This is pretty much what I hoped it to be. Issuing a bunch of meaningless and worthless EOs, because that's (thankfully) all he can do. Half of the list is already done, the other half is feel-good meaningless crap. Lots of "studies" and "proposals", no action.

I also find it hilarious that the ONLY order that would have made a damn bit a difference in Newtown, was the one to "provide incentives" for schools to hire SROs.


Gotta love how he used the kids, too. Despicable.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
I like this idea... not too expensive and it seems effective

Probably too late. I would have like to have seen the response. A friend of mine started this:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-federal-educator-and-student-defense-act-program/v56sCpfT



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4703 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 116):
I actually liked a lot of the EOs Obama passed, best of all, he is not circumventing Congress. I commend him for that.

Yeah, but the NRA created it's advanced campaign of attacing any new anything, that now has a lot of really unintelligent people agitated.

The NRA itself has manufactured more anger againt some POTENTIAL EO's and legistaltive actions than is necessary. Some of the comments on this board and in these threads makes me wonder how many gun owners would pass that mental stability requirment.

Regardless of how you feel about the new laws and actions. The NRA's activty has not been conductive to a rational discusion.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8870 posts, RR: 24
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 113):
Um a few months ago I merely said I wouldn't be surprised if Obama took on the gun issue this turn and I got basically flamed from a bunch of people and called paranoid, and said he wasn't going to do anything and I was brainwashed from the NRA. So yeah, it seemed like from a lot of people he wasn't that anti-gun.

Well come on - it's not like anyone here has suggested anything that would actually reduce gun violence. Who are the biggest perpetrators of gun violence in the US? It's not the law-abiding population that would comply with registration laws and background checks. It's gangs.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...-threat-assessment-emerging-trends

A couple of paras from the report:

Quote:
Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGiC analysis. major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence.

…Gangs encourage members, associates, and relatives to obtain law enforcement, judiciary, or legal employment in order to gather information on rival gangs and law enforcement operations.

Gang infiltration of the military continues to pose a significant criminal threat, as members of at least 53 gangs have been identified on both domestic and international military installations.

So if you want to reduce gun violence, how about starting with gangs? Anyone flashing gang signs or walking around with their pants around their ankles, arrest them and sentence them to hard labor building windmills and solar farms and planting trees to counter CO2.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3246 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 117):
Because the NRA has, via Congress, been neutering the enforcement mechanism. BATFE is underfunded, handcuffed by other laws, and hasn't had a director for years. If the government doesn't have the resources to enforce a law, then the law might as well not exist.

Bull. The NRA's stance has always been to enforce the laws on the books before you make new laws.

Quoting Mir (Reply 117):
To the NRA, you mean.

Let's see...my last reading of the US Constitution did not include the NRA in Article 2.

The only nominee that President Obama has put forth has been unacceptable to The Senate.

You do realize that The Senate also blocked President Bush's nominee for the positon.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 121):
Well come on - it's not like anyone here has suggested anything that would actually reduce gun violence. Who are the biggest perpetrators of gun violence in the US? It's not the law-abiding population that would comply with registration laws and background checks. It's gangs.

Then you should attend some gun shows! The few I have attended here have had groups of 5-10 "youths" let's call them, going around purchasing 5-10 guns each from private sellers and then the group all meet back up and leave. The on location law enforcement personnel know what is going on but the sales are perfectly legal and they cannot do anything to step in and stop them. These "private sales" are well known by law enforcement as a standard way for gangs to purchase guns.

Changing the ID check requirement to be on all gun sales is the best means to reduce these types of sales and make it a bit more difficult for those gangs to get their guns.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 121):
So if you want to reduce gun violence, how about starting with gangs? Anyone flashing gang signs or walking around with their pants around their ankles, arrest them and sentence them to hard labor building windmills and solar farms and planting trees to counter CO2.

I am all for pulling troops back from foreign lands with gangs running around, and putting them into neighborhoods where gangs currently control the streets. That would markedly change things (and create a hell of a discussion of a different set of "rights").

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-16 13:11:10]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3234 times:



Quoting fr8mech (Reply 122):
Bull. The NRA's stance has always been to enforce the laws on the books before you make new laws.

Actually that is not true. I was listening today to a discussion on the EO's and one "gun rights" advocate expressly pointed out how EO 14 (from the list I posted):

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
... is illegal because there is a law that expressly forbids the CDC from expending any money on such tasks. And you can guess who lobbied to pas that law and they many similar laws designed to remove the ability of government and its agencies from doing anything that could impact guns.

This is a common tool in many industry lobbies and for congressional leaders, starve the funding and nothing can be done.

Tugg

[Edited 2013-01-16 13:19:33]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12258 posts, RR: 35
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3203 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 118):
Already done. There's not a single police department in this country that hasn't gone through active shooter training.

True, but more funding is always appreciated so we can get even more training.



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 799 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 80):
And there's a very good reason for that. The hiring processes the vast majority of U.S. law enforcement agencies use is grueling and time consuming and has a very high success rate of weeding out applicants who have, let's call them personality quirks, anger management issues being one of them, that aren't conducive to being a law enforcement officer. When you think about the number of sworn Federal, State, County, City, and Village law enforcement officers there are in this country (I've seen the number estimated at over 600,000), the incidents of one of us snapping while on the job are extremely minimal. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for some of the people we encounter:

I know that is your chosen profession and perhaps the standards are high in California, but I would say law enforcement officers run the gamut of comptetence much like the general public. Some are great and some are not. Most are very good. It doesn't take much to find examples of police brutality, some notably in your Southern California area. I would argue that police are largely representative of the communities they serve.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 124):
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Amd. I'll ask again...exactly what does this mean? Are we going to classify firearms as a disease. Are we going to classify those that want to exercise their Second Amendment rights as mentally deficient?

I fail to see why the CDC has any stake in this argument.

If you're going to make laws, make laws that make sense and will actually accomplish something.

[Edited 2013-01-16 15:40:11]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1975 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 108):
It is impossible to stop Sandyhook-type tragedies.

Not impossible, but it is difficult, and it's not something that is likely to be stopped or slowed through gun control of law-abiding citizens. The ideas Obama has read off do virtually nothing to even mitigate the chances of another Newtown. They can only be used to further discourage legal gun ownership, demonize gun owners, and make it easier for the elimination of your 2nd Amendment rights down the road.

Quoting tugger (Reply 108):
What Sandyhook has done though, is break the logjam on discussion and moving reasonable measures that should be in place to improved gun ownership and responsibility. And without attacking the right to ownership itself.

There's nothing reasonable about Obama's measures. It wouldn't have stopped Newtown. Yet here he is grandstanding on that tragedy.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 109):
Really? THAT'S what disgusts you? And the NRA attack ad about the protection two innocent 11 and 14 year old children must receive does what - makes you happy?

There aren't many political things more disgusting that using a tragedy like Newtown to push a preexisting agenda that wouldn't have done anything to stop it.

The NRA ad is a factual basis for why Obama has been hypocritical in this matter. But how dare one use facts and reason anymore in this world! No, instead the anti-gun use appeals to emotion that would fail a logic litmus test.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

In 1994 former President Reagan personally helped convince at least two GOP Represenatives to vote FOR the 1994 assault weapons ban. He also co-signed with Presidents Ford and Carter a letter to all of Congress urging them to support the Assault Weapons ban. He also lobbyied GOP Represenatives to support the Brady Bill in 1992.


http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-...ews/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron...pass-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban/

I wish the former President were here today.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 121):
It's gangs.

Honestly I wonder why this isn't being talked about. I mean I can totally see why people are concerned about mass shootings but this is only a drop in the bucket compared to the real gun violence in this country. It's a completely different animal, and the crimes are committed mostly with tiny junk guns with small clips you can dispose of easily



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 130):
, and the crimes are committed mostly with tiny junk guns with small clips you can dispose of easily

Where do these guns come from? Who makes them and how are they obtained by the "gangs" or criminals? And how supportive would the most vocal be of steps introduced to curb these elements?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Since I'm not an American citizen, I usually refrain from participating in debates about domestic issues in the United States out of respect for my southern neighbors. However this time I'm going to make an exception, since I'm not really debating anything, and make 2 suggestions from a Canadian point of view.

I read through the entire PDF document, and nowhere did I see any points on making gun owners legally responsible for the safe and secure storage of their firearms and ammunition. No offense, but a "national responsible gun ownership campaign" is going to achieve jack-all in the long run. It's unlikely there will be any reduction in school shootings, assault weapons ban or not, unless gun owners are held accountable every time a kid steals a loaded gun from home and takes it to school with the intent of murdering people. That being said, it wouldn't hurt for US politicians to look at their neighbors to the north and see what works and what doesn't work with our gun legislation, which brings me to point #2: the proposed assault weapons ban. It's a good idea, but unfortunately, as someone on here pointed out earlier: "the cork is out of the bottle". To illustrate this point, I will use the failed Canadian gun registry as an example. It was a great idea, to some people and overzealous cops, on paper but it failed in reality because of 3 reasons:

- Hundreds of illegal firearms were already in circulation via organized crime groups with ties to foreign countries
- The government couldn't simply jail the majority of gun owners who refused to register their firearms
- Bureaucracy curtailed the effectiveness of the program and took it well over-budget

Even if everyone handed in their assault weapons to the ATF, which won't happen, organized crime would continue to import them illegally from Mexico, South America, and Red China. No amount of bureaucracy will fix that problem. Gun control and education, not a complete ban, is the only real solution here.

Anyway, that's my   .



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 131):
Where do these guns come from? Who makes them and how are they obtained by the "gangs" or criminals? And how supportive would the most vocal be of steps introduced to curb these elements?

Well straw purchasing (which can easily be curtailed IMO using a registry system, one that isn't available to Joe Blow Public or even worse, the media but only to law enforcement) and from theft (which can be prevented by proper storage.) That still leaves a lot of guns "out there" but with the supply coming in severely cut, the criminal supply will start to dry up (but will never go away, of course.)

There are simple measures (IMO) to curtail these but it doesn't seem like the NRA supports them sadly. I do see some of the President's EOs doing some good... I hope it really does put a dent in violence so it won't come to the banning of *insert item here*



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 799 posts, RR: 1
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

I would add that we should support mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of committing a violent felony involving a firearm. Too many bad people are let off easy by wimpy judges.

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 133):
There are simple measures (IMO) to curtail these but it doesn't seem like the NRA supports them sadly. I do see some of the President's EOs doing some good... I hope it really does put a dent in violence so it won't come to the banning of *insert item here*


That's the problem. Let's say that "magically", all the assault weapons disappear because of the ban. What happens when the next shooter enters a (insert a public space here) and guns down 5, 10 or 20 people with a couple of handguns? Like the Tuscon shooter. Like the Virginia Tech shooter.

Ok, let's go after semi-autos. Then someone goes and starts blasting away with a shotgun. Gotta make those shotguns go away.

Make no mistake, the ultimate goal is to ensure that only the military, the police...and criminals have guns.

That's why the NRA fights tooth and nail against ANY legislation that limits an eligible person's ability to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

As the saying goes, give the bastard an inch and he'll take a mile. You need only look at NY. Some pro-gun types indicated they would be alright with a magazine ban of over 10 rounds, NY goes for 7.

You need only look at Feinstein's bill...it effectively bans "assault weapons" inside of 2 generations. Of course, her definition of assault weapons has been expanded to include all kinds of firearms.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 135):
Ok, let's go after semi-autos. Then someone goes and starts blasting away with a shotgun. Gotta make those shotguns go away.

Some people will always fight to ban every gun. But as you can see on this forum, hardly a right leaning one, many people are happy with only a few common sense measures. It's hard to see the middle ground with the 2 sides battling it out, but it's out there

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 135):
That's why the NRA fights tooth and nail against ANY legislation that limits an eligible person's ability to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

I realize that but I try my best to argue what I think is right. I will not be dishonest to get what I want and I won't resist something I believe in just because the next step will be something I don't want to see implemented. That's just me personally. I do think some on the other side of the NRA should realize what is going on and make it clear they don't want A, B, and C, just X, Y, and Z, if that makes any sense

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 135):
her definition of assault weapons has been expanded to include all kinds of firearms.

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous but luckily I don't see it passing. The only rights I really see taken away (besides the 'right' to be a criminal/mentally unstable/dangerous with a weapon) will probably be magazine limits. I think a blanket ban would punish more than help and I'd love to see something more multi-tiered, but if that is the only damage, I'll be happy. Banning all semi-autos though is very excessive



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 136):
Some people will always fight to ban every gun. But as you can see on this forum, hardly a right leaning one, many people are happy with only a few common sense measures. It's hard to see the middle ground with the 2 sides battling it out, but it's out there


I've said this before. I admire the Left, because they take the long view on things. Again, look at Feinstein: she is more than willing to wait until long after she's gone to achieve her goal.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 136):
I will not be dishonest to get what I want and I won't resist something I believe in just because the next step will be something I don't want to see implemented.


I don't see it as dishonest, I see it as politics. And, make no mistake, the NRA is a political organization and a special interest group. They come to the table knowing they're going to lose something, especially when the opposition is trotting kids out in front of the camera. But they have to go in with a must win attitude or they'll lose much more than they're willing to or should.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 136):
That's just me personally. I do think some on the other side of the NRA should realize what is going on and make it clear they don't want A, B, and C, just X, Y, and Z, if that makes any sense


It makes sense, but it's the inch and mile argument. Take the Orwellian named Affordable Care Act; do you really have any doubt that the goal of that monstrosity isn't to collapse under its own weight, so that the Single-Payer option becomes the only viable option?

Remember, they take the long view on everything they do. Don't be fooled when they strike rapidly...since you should never let a good crisis go to waste.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 118):
Gotta love how he used the kids, too. Despicable.

Not like anything like that had ever happened before ever in the whole history of the USofA.

*cough*mypetgoat*cough*

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 136):
many people are happy with only a few common sense measures. It's hard to see the middle ground with the 2 sides battling it out

It is actually very easy to see the middle ground. Polls show at least 65% of Americans across the board want sensable legislation of assault weapons. What the mass media shows are the extremes because that is what sells.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 137):
Take the Orwellian named Affordable Care Act; do you really have any doubt that the goal of that monstrosity isn't to collapse under its own weight, so that the Single-Payer option becomes the only viable option?

Actually, ACA was created because it is what the right-wing would vote yes on. It's called "compromise" in todays messed up world. Where the right-wing says "no" to absolutly everything that is not proposed by one of them.

In 2016, I would love to see the Democrats have the majority in both houses of Congress and shut the government down like the right has done for the past few years.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 122):
The NRA's stance has always been to enforce the laws on the books before you make new laws.

Then why has the NRA pushed for tighter restrictions on what BATFE can do? There's what the NRA says their position is, and then there's what their actions indicate their position really is.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 127):
Are we going to classify firearms as a disease. Are we going to classify those that want to exercise their Second Amendment rights as mentally deficient?

I fail to see why the CDC has any stake in this argument.

Because the CDC has historically been the government body responsible for statistics on mortality, regardless of cause, for the country. So if you want to do a study on deaths from guns, they're the ones who would do it (and they have in the past, before the NRA, via Congress, killed the funding for it).

We can discuss whether the CDC is really the appropriate agency to be dealing with mortality statistics, but that's a different topic from this one.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

Article published yesterday by John Howard, who was the (conservative) Australian prime minister who, back in 1996, got the Australian 'ban and buyback' legislation on automatic and semi-automatic weapons through the federal and state governments. No need for me to comment further - he 'spells things out' pretty comprehensively. Hope it's of interest to everyone:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/op...-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

[Edited 2013-01-16 22:33:10]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5510 posts, RR: 14
Reply 141, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3045 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 138):
Actually, ACA was created because it is what the right-wing would vote yes on.


The only bi-partisanship on the ACA was in opposition. The ACA was written in its current form to bring more Democrats on board.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 138):
It is actually very easy to see the middle ground. Polls show at least 65% of Americans across the board want sensable legislation of assault weapons


Of course they do...but the definition of sensible varies. As I've stated, I have no problem with verifying the identity and eligibility of gun purchasers, but what's the sensible method?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 138):
Not like anything like that had ever happened before ever in the whole history of the USofA.


Yup, it's happened before and will continue to happen because politicians know that when reason (faulty or not) fails, emotions can tip the balance. It's still disgusting.

Quoting Mir (Reply 139):
We can discuss whether the CDC is really the appropriate agency to be dealing with mortality statistics, but that's a different topic from this one.


Agreed, but that's why the NRA opposes the CDC handling it. It probably isn't the right agency to deal with mortality issues related to crime.

Quoting Mir (Reply 139):
Then why has the NRA pushed for tighter restrictions on what BATFE can do? There's what the NRA says their position is, and then there's what their actions indicate their position really is.


They ask that the laws that exist be enforced and the laws and regulations that don't work or appear arbitrary or are enforced in a capricious manner be repealed or changed. What exactly is wrong with that?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 142, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3025 times:

Here's former President George H.W. Bush's resignation letter to the NRA, he specifically cites the comments of a certain NRA executive who's still making news for his comments and stances 18 years later:

Quote:
Dear Mr. Washington,

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.

Futher..

Quote:
You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely, [ signed ] George Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us...-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html

As I pointed out in my previous post both President George H.W. Bush and President Reagan stood up for what was right, it's a disgrace to what has become of the Republican Party that no one today has the same bravery to stand up for what's right.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7587 posts, RR: 4
Reply 143, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

John Howard

Quote:
In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

I'm pretty sure the lessons learnt and the laws applied in Australia should be able to work just as well in the US.


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11733 posts, RR: 15
Reply 144, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2974 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 141):
it's happened before and will continue to happen

Then the right-wing needs to stop this idea that this is the first time. We get that they hate Obama to the point they will grasp at straws to get him removed from office. We get that. At least when sensable left wingers talked about getting W removed from office, it was generally over law and the Constitution, not wild-eyed conspiracy theories. (please notice my wording!)

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 141):
The only bi-partisanship on the ACA was in opposition.

Because the right-wing media did so much crying over how it is supposedly illegal and they should disrupt the democratic process by screaming and crying at town hall meetings instead of letting our elected officials explain what is going on.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 141):
but the definition of sensible varies

Reduce the capacity of assault weapons is the most agreeable.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1577 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2966 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting STT757 (Reply 142):
Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely, [ signed ] George Bush

So judging by this there is a list upon which the NRA have your name already (and I assume other details) and unless this information is stored on a piece of paper and not on a computer the surely the argument against having registration is just people speaking bollocks?

Fred


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 146, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2961 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 91):
But, not self-defense in or away from the home, even if you're not in a "high risk area" ?

I think few people understand what self-defense means. The idea that if you have a gun you will be the hero that save your family and yourself is not reality.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
It is none of their business....

It very much is. That is how many weapons are acquired by people who even NRA think should not have them.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 98):
I think that every one should be given an AR15 when they finish high school along with the training on how to defend yourself against an oppressive government..

Signup for the army.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 110):
Reviewing the list, I don't see anything about requiring safe, secure storage. I think that's something he can probably do through regulation, but there appears to be no mention of it. Strange.

I think the issue is that it is outside what can be done by executive order.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):
And how would you address every other gun?

Time.
As I have said the majority of guns used in crime are less than three years old. When changing ownership require something similar to the owning automatic weapons system already in place.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 113):
Never forget anything ever?

Reminds me about your comment that well trained people will never make mistakes  
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 113):
I just don't see why he is reacting now and not after Aurora... Honestly, and not trying to be harsh or anything, but I see 20 people dying the same way I see 20 kids dying... people are people, age doesn't really play a factor in my mind unless they're like 70 or close to dying. Not trying to be cynical, but I really think the election is what stopped him from tackling this issue

I agree with you that murder is murder but reality is that kids is considered much worse. But I think that was only one part of what took it over the cliff. As important, and different from Aurora, is that there has been too many mass murders in a short period of time. Why NRA promised a solution that would stop future occasions after Newtown but not after Aurora.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 121):
It's not the law-abiding population that would comply with registration laws and background checks.

It is the "law-abiding population" who provide most guns used in crime.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 121):
So if you want to reduce gun violence, how about starting with gangs?

How about not wearing blindfolds and accept there are multiple problems.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 127):
Are we going to classify firearms as a disease.

How do you connect the firearm? Remember the NRA battle cry, it isn't the gun. Then add the mentally ill argument.

More importantly, what other agency is better suited than the one tasked to handle this kind of things?

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 128):
it's not something that is likely to be stopped or slowed through gun control of law-abiding citizens.

He got the weapons used from a law-abiding citizen.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 128):
The NRA ad is a factual basis for why Obama has been hypocritical in this matter. But how dare one use facts and reason anymore in this world! No, instead the anti-gun use appeals to emotion that would fail a logic litmus test

No, the NRA ad is twisting of the truth to the degree that make sthe stereotypical politician blush just thinking about it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 135):
Make no mistake, the ultimate goal is to ensure that only the military, the police...and criminals have guns.

Stop the fear mongering.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 137):
Remember, they take the long view on everything they do. Don't be fooled when they strike rapidly...since you should never let a good crisis go to waste.

Yet more fear mongering.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 140):
Article published yesterday by John Howard, who was the (conservative) Australian prime minister who, back in 1996, got the Australian 'ban and buyback' legislation on automatic and semi-automatic weapons through the federal and state governments. No need for me to comment further - he 'spells things out' pretty comprehensively. Hope it's of interest to everyone:-

Worst part, all the things we are told don't work, worked.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 141):
It probably isn't the right agency to deal with mortality issues related to crime.

Which one then? It is sad to see how objection is the immediate response to everything.


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 9
Reply 147, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2959 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 126):
I know that is your chosen profession and perhaps the standards are high in California, but I would say law enforcement officers run the gamut of comptetence much like the general public. Some are great and some are not. Most are very good. It doesn't take much to find examples of police brutality, some notably in your Southern California area. I would argue that police are largely representative of the communities they serve

You took my comment out of context. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't done purposely. I'm not ignoring the fact that some bad apples slip through the cracks and become cops. That's going to happen in any profession whose membership is well over half a million. The post I was responding to specifically addressed the fact that rarely, if ever do cops shoot people just because they get mad at them. I agreed, saying that was largely due to the stringent application and hiring processes most law enforcement agencies use.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 128):
The NRA ad is a factual basis for why Obama has been hypocritical in this matter. But how dare one use facts and reason anymore in this world!

Yet, I am guessing in your mind, there is nothing hypocritical about the NRA blaming video games for incidents like Sandy Hook and then on the one month anniversary of those shootings, they come out with a gun-related video game.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 134):
I would add that we should support mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of committing a violent felony involving a firearm. Too many bad people are let off easy by wimpy judges.

Why limit it to committing a "violent felony involving a firearm"? I'm in favor of sentencing enhancements for any crime that's committed while illegally possessing a firearm. Get arrested for DUI and you're found in illegal possession of a firearm? You just bought yourself a mandatory prison sentence in addition to whatever the DUI sentence is. When I see a known gang-banger jaywalking and I initiate a ped stop to issue him/her a citation, if they're found to be illegally possessing a firearm (you'd be surprised how often this occurs), see ya.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 136):
The only rights I really see taken away (besides the 'right' to be a criminal/mentally unstable/dangerous with a weapon) will probably be magazine limits

What "right" addresses magazine limits?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 137):
Remember, they take the long view on everything they do. Don't be fooled when they strike rapidly...since you should never let a good crisis go to waste.

True. President GW Bush proved this theory not very long after 9/11/2001 when he used that crisis to take us into Iraq.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 148, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 134):
I would add that we should support mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of committing a violent felony involving a firearm. Too many bad people are let off easy by wimpy judges.

Florida has 10-20-life. I have not seen any report stating it has affected the willingness to use weapons during crimes.