Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 259

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,905
    A lot of things about "gun control" really gets under my skin. First of all, There is the full court press of the media trying to brainwash the public. I have seen the same story about states that are "unsafe" because they have no gun control, and that story has been trotted out nearly every day for a couple of weeks now. It shows Wyoming as being the most dangerous state (per capita) and heavily regulated California as being one of the safer states. Actual numbers? Wyoming had 16 murders in 2014. California had 1,699. The gun grabbers even will even spew about the "epidemic of gun violence" even though the numbers have dropped to nearly half the level of such crime in the 1990's. The biggest contributor to the lower violence is the tougher laws aimed at keeping violent criminals in prison longer through mandatory sentencing.

    To even make up the talking point of "gun violence" is a slap in the face for every citizen as these people would have you believe that gun violence is in a magical vacuum, and if the gun fairy can wave a wand to remove all guns….30K people would magically not die. People who really wanted to kill would not uses other means? Riiiiiiiiight. The general rule of thumb is that violence of all sorts, increases as criminals know that their victim's ability to fight back has been impaired. Further salt is that gun grabbers refuse to look at WHY the numbers are what they are. About 15k are suicides. " I want to die but I don't have a gun so therefore I choose to live" is said by no one ever. There are plenty of other methods to kill oneself and they all are used. Guns are effective so they are the choice but make no mistake, when people want to die badly enough they will find a way. Is jumping off an overpass really a better way to go? according to the gun grabbers…yes. The next largest number of "gun violence" is from gangs. In fact gangs can account for upwards of 70% of all crime in some places. If one really wants to take a bite out of crime and thus make communities safer, gangs would be the best place to start. Other violent criminals have a high recidivism rate. Why on earth are we letting them out early so they can kill again? Long story short is the lions share of violent crimes are being done by a fraction of the population and the rank and file citizens actually do very little such crimes. Mass shootings? By and large the shooters were certifiable and had a history of being a danger to themselves and others yet all was swept under the rug. How is that working out? In response people like Obama want even more gun control yet they know that the ones causing the problems care little about even more laws. Even more telling is that people in prison or a mental institution can't fill out background checks and buy weapons but anti gun people will hear none of this. Nor do they want to consider actually enforcing the gun control laws currently on the books.

    Now lets examine Obama's policies. he has signed off on mexican drug lords to buy weapons (fast and furious), and he is currently arming people in the M.E. even though history proves that the allies today are often the enemies of tomorrow. Kind of makes you wonder who else he is arming, yet at the same time he is working overtime to disarm the law abiding citizens of the U.S. It is rather clear that as with much of politics, the title to get people to transfix on, ie, "gun violence" is not the agenda after all. Just smoke and mirrors for what they are really after. The gun grabbers are after the pot of god lat the end of the rainbow but they know that cant happen until America is disarmed.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

  2. #17
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,138
    Bonehead,

    Can you give specific sources which back this statement "...yet at the same time he is working overtime to disarm the law abiding citizens of the U.S."

    What bills has he offered?

    Policies?

    He has expressed his opinion but where has that translated into specific action by his Administration?
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,152
    http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...proposals.aspx
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def..._time_full.pdf
    *Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.
    *Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.
    *Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.
    *Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes “loopholes” in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for “straw purchasers” who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.
    There's obviously a lot to unpack, but here's the actual point:
    While no law or set of laws will end gun violence, it is clear that the American
    people want action. If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act.
    When your attitude is "everything on the evening news is a catastrophe and requires immediate legislation," you get a lot of crappy, overreaching legislation.

    Actual numbers?
    The number of Americans who die in mass shootings is trivial. A few hundred a year, at most.
    Most people who die from guns die by their own hands.Don't take my word for it, just ask the New York Times.

    If you are allergic to bees? I'd worry more about them than mass shootings.

    This is the same sort of stupid logic behind worrying about shark attacks or pet dogs. Let's all ban pit bulls because a few dozen people die each year from dog attacks.


    You get a lot of awesome moral posturing and crusading language from this "PANIC!!!!!!" line of thinking. I really like this one:
    Some states have cited concerns about
    restrictions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as a reason not to share relevant information on people prohibited from gun ownership for mental health reasons. The Administration will begin the regulatory process to remove any needless barriers, starting by gathering information about the scope and extent of the problem.
    Medical privacy: now a needless barrier.

    I don't trust these moral crusaders for even a moment.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  4. #19
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,762
    Of course if even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act. Most mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" where there's a large gathering of helpless victims. Let's expand "gun free zones" to as many places as possible to ensure an adequate supply of easy targets for criminals.

    Ever noticed no one goes into a police station for a mass shooting? Ever noticed no one shoots up a target range where everyone is armed to the teeth?

    I was in France recently. I was walking in Paris on Nov. 13th. What I noticed was all monuments were patrolled by fully armed soldiers carrying their issue rifles. They patrolled in threes. Large transit centers were patrolled by police and Gendarmerie carrying carbines. Terrorists did not hit these locations. Instead they shot up a bunch of restaurants and sieged a theater full of unarmed targets. I was at Eiffel Tower when they attacked the theater. It was full of people on a Friday night. I wonder why they chose the theater rather than a national monument?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #20
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,138
    So GVChamp,

    People with criminal backgrounds should be allowed to buy guns? People with mental health issues?

    What is wrong with closing the loopholes? Straw purchases should be stopped. Do you disagree with that?

    Gunnut,

    All of what you say are instances of security personnel guarding those sites. Fine...I am all for that. But what are you saying should have been done? Should the concert organizers hired a guard force? If there had been a threat warning to that effect that would have been prudent. Don't know what the specific issue is here.

    I want to be clear...I have no issue with responsible gun ownership. I used to have a Class III Federal fire arms license and owned automatic weapons...I got past that.

    If a someone wants to own 55 automatic pistols...fine. But let's make sure the individual is not being treated for schizophrenia.

    If you want to own an M4, fine. Then lock it up properly. And don't tell me you need it for hunting. If so, then you need to be a vegetarian cause you suck as a hunter.

    In order to drive you have to pass a basic test. That is for operating a deadly device if used improperly.

    So how is it a violation of basic rights to insist on personnel pass a basic background test to own weapons?
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,152
    People with criminal backgrounds should be allowed to buy guns? People with mental health issues?

    What is wrong with closing the loopholes? Straw purchases should be stopped. Do you disagree with that?
    What do the proposed Assault Weapons Ban and magazine limit accomplish?

    I am more interested in that. Why is the President advancing something so tangential and unimportant compared to the actual issues surrounding gun violence?

    "Criminal background" and "mental health issue" are so broad as to be meaningless and can represent major intrusions on American rights. I obviously am not going to trust any American President who describes medical privacy as "pointless" and am obviously not going to trust a President who fear-mongers in order to ban entire classes of weapons for no reason.

    I would not be opposed to some meaningful gun control legislation if the opponents in this debate were not hell-bent on simply seizing guns and lying their asses off when they say they aren't.
    Last edited by GVChamp; 02 Dec 15, at 19:34.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  7. #22
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,138
    So what concrete measures do you propose?

    I have said what I proposed numerous times on this subject over the past several years on the WAB.

    What exactly do you propose?
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  8. #23
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Gunnut,

    All of what you say are instances of security personnel guarding those sites. Fine...I am all for that. But what are you saying should have been done? Should the concert organizers hired a guard force? If there had been a threat warning to that effect that would have been prudent. Don't know what the specific issue is here.
    Maybe the concert venue should have had a guard force. I have never been to a rock concert here. Do we have a security force at our venues? Are concealed carry permit holders allowed to carry in a concert?

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I want to be clear...I have no issue with responsible gun ownership. I used to have a Class III Federal fire arms license and owned automatic weapons...I got past that.
    I'm totally for responsible gun ownership. The problem is what is "responsible?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    If a someone wants to own 55 automatic pistols...fine. But let's make sure the individual is not being treated for schizophrenia.
    The reverse of that is if we start to crack down on mental patient, then no one would report or seek treatment for fear of losing one's hobby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    If you want to own an M4, fine. Then lock it up properly. And don't tell me you need it for hunting. If so, then you need to be a vegetarian cause you suck as a hunter.
    Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    In order to drive you have to pass a basic test. That is for operating a deadly device if used improperly.
    Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.

    Gun ownership is a right under the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    So how is it a violation of basic rights to insist on personnel pass a basic background test to own weapons?
    I'm all for basic background check and tests to make sure the individual can own guns.

    What do you think about a background check and a test to make sure people are eligible to vote?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    So what concrete measures do you propose?

    I have said what I proposed numerous times on this subject over the past several years on the WAB.

    What exactly do you propose?
    Take it up with your state government and do not pass any new federal laws.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  10. #25
    Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    Take it up with your state government and do not pass any new federal laws.
    The lack of a coherent national policy seems to be a pretty big effect on gun violence, just see the case with Chicago and Indiana. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...laws/74740388/

    A report from Chicago authorities found that nearly 60% of illegal guns recovered in the city from 2009 to 2013 were first sold in states with more lax gun laws. The largest portion came from Indiana, which accounted for 19% of the illegal guns in Chicago.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  11. #26
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,138
    Gunnut,

    At almost every concert I have been to in the US we have police...same in Germany. But if the threat level in France called for that level of security...then there should have been cops or private security. Not sure of their laws.

    I am not saying you crack down on mental patients...I am saying the fact that you have a disease which could cause you to act in violent and irrational manner should be a reason for you to not have a weapon until such time as you are evaluated to being cured.

    "Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never was."

    Yup, and our world has evolved since then. We do not have an active threat of Canadians, Frenchman and Spaniards on our northern, western and southern borders waiting to attack.

    Yes, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right own a weapon. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    And we have changed the Constitution or interpreted before. There is no reason why there cannot be a new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    As for how to fix the problems...and there are problems...http://www.cnn.com/...they cannot be fixed when the opposite ends of the debate are allowed to control it.

    There is too much outside money...ON BOTH SIDES...polluting the issue.

    Elected representatives need to act like adults and sit down and come up with a rational way forward that both sides can live with. We cannot keep living that it is all or nothing for "my side" on an issue or we will go the way of past societies which stopped governing themselves.
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,561
    That's just a matter of sourcing though. If you couldn't buy 'em in other states of the US you'd import them from Mexico. Or you'd legally buy certain parts in Canada and assemble them with certain other parts legal in the US.
    Been going on that way in the illegal weapons trade in Europe since the 60s.

  13. #28
    Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    That's just a matter of sourcing though. If you couldn't buy 'em in other states of the US you'd import them from Mexico. Or you'd legally buy certain parts in Canada and assemble them with certain other parts legal in the US.
    Been going on that way in the illegal weapons trade in Europe since the 60s.
    Kato,

    Certainly, that's true. But wouldn't it be much more expensive to smuggle things across a regulated national border than it is across an unregulated state border. The name of the game here is deterrence through inconvenience; is a nutjob more likely to follow through with his plans if he has to spend ~$1000 just to get a handgun trafficked to him?

    For the record, I'm also a supporter of the Second Amendment and believe that volume of guns per capita do not necessarily correlate with gun crime. Just look at Vermont.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    The lack of a coherent national policy seems to be a pretty big effect on gun violence, just see the case with Chicago and Indiana. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...laws/74740388/
    Not a big enough problem to allow Chicago to run national gun policy (ban all guns).
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,786
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowFever View Post
    Actually we live in a Republic where we have a right to vote but not a right to vote when it infringes on our Bill of Rights.

    I've posted this quote before but it seems relevant whenever gun control is debated:

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    To a point. The question of rights is that it cannot be voted out.
    I don't care about voting it away. Here is my question : if conservatives/ Republicans care so much about protecting the right of carry arms, why do they violate or tamp down the right to vote?
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Air traffic control
    By tankie in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 26 Jan 10,, 15:10
  2. Who would take control in this what if?
    By BudW in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30 Dec 07,, 19:12
  3. US Keeps Control of Net
    By Julie in forum International Economy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 19 Nov 05,, 14:28
  4. This is way out of control...
    By troung in forum International Economy
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 24 Jul 05,, 00:10
  5. Do we control the media or does it control us?
    By MaximumDefiance in forum International Economy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 21 Aug 04,, 23:09

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •