Printable View
The gist of the article, for those who did not read it...ahem, is that the relationship between gun laws and gun crimes is very complex, and that many studies can be interpreted to support both sides, as Justice Breyer found out when researching the case. Not sure if it needs rebutting. :rolleyes:
Happy to see you working to improve your game on my account though. :D
I am all for having the right / privilege (privileged right :D) to own firearms and fire crackers as we get closer to July 4th , but
I would have trouble believing anything said by
NCPA - Policy Report 176 - Myths About Gun Control
as their opinions are mostly right wing rhetoric. :nono:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoguy67
Been enjoying reading this thread without joining in, but had to jump in to disagree with this statement. I don't believe honest people are honest due to the fear of consequenses from the police. More so the consequenses of self image/ confidence, Karma or spiritual accountability. I believe that for honest people the police are the least concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff
Scott
i think what he was trying to say is that police do not protect individuals... they can't. they protect society by upholding the social contract, which only prevent future crimes by the ever-present threat of punishment for them. if anything, police provide ONLY a post-crime deterrent, because almost nothing they do will prevent a crime in progress, only punishing the perpetrator afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Where I live, the police mostly stop people who have burned-out tail lights. They mainly leave the bikers alone. Other than that, I'm not sure.
j
Who would you suggest then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amyn
Will you accept this:Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 1Quote:
Originally Posted by Amyn
Pretty hard-core libertarian, and therefore suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
No information seems to be available on their funding.
j
How about this, just to add a little more fuel...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Interview with John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime
You need to bear in mind the statistical "confounding variable." That's the often outlying factor that may not have been considered that renders the hypothesis suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
In this case, he cites data from 1977 to 1994. The confounding variable in that time period is that the Baby Boom generation passed through the primary violent crime-committing years. All violent crime decreased in those years for that reason.
Doesn't disprove his theory, but renders his assertions unproven.
j
I guess we should through common sense out the window, which suggests the higher the possible consequence to the "act", the less likely someone will commit the "act"
Works for some things, but passion and religion make consequences moot. People in a killing frenzy with their wives don't think of consequences; people who believe that God told them to kill just don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Might work for some, though. Does for me.
j
And this is what percentage of the people? And how many people in that percentage will be weeded out by background checks? and the few that weren't weeded out, how many of them will be stopped in their tracks while perpetrating such a crime by a law abiding citizen who happens to be carrying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
I'll take the odds, and take my chances Sir!
Actually, crimes of passion are a pretty high percentage of gun crimes, as far as I know (being lazy here with the research, but I believe it holds up). No way to prevent with background checks because the insanity is temporary and situational.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
No research I've seen suggests that the number of crimes stopped by an armed citizen comes anywhere near the number of crimes and accidents enabled by wide-spread gun ownership.
But that's not really the point.
Cars are required to have safety gear because they're dangerous. They're required to be registered and insured for the same reason. Safety equipment, for example, could nearly eliminate kids getting killed with the family gat.
We also need to go upside Hollywood's head about their mania for brainwashing our children into thinking that violence is a solution. Every time Hollywood tries to show kids that they can solve problems with guns, we should be all over them.
Just an opinion. It's what the NRA should be doing -- promoting a responsible image of gun ownership, not cowboys and Indians.
j
Two things!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
One, you keep spouting facts and figures without offering any links to back you up!
Two, I believe that is exactly what the NRA is doing! That is promoting responsible use of guns!
Actually, I normally do give backup. I believe I acknowledged being a bit lazy this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Don't get me started on the NRA. Really. They don't represent gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers. The NRA Loooooves gun violence on TV. They love convincing people that guns=manhood. They love creating gun-nuts -- those folks who convince the rest of the country that gun owners aren't to be trusted. Not only do they do absolutely nothing to counter the negative image of gun owners, they actually go out of their way to promote it. Within days of the Columbine shootings, the NRA was in Columbine holding rallies and taunting the grieving families. It was unbelievable.
Why else do they oppose safety equipment? Why do they oppose banning plastic guns that might get through security? Why do they insist that hunters have a sporting need for magazines that hold more than 30 rounds? Why won't they even try to educate the public about the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. It's all so the manufacturers can sell more stuff. They care about the short-term profit, not the fact that if their negligence creates enough of a backlash, we're all losers. They don't look that far forward. It's really scandalous.
I could go on. Stop me now.
j
Link please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
WWW.NRA.ORGQuote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Unfortunately, it's hard to prove that statement due to the lack of such honest people :shrug: Many will find it easier to be honest when circumstances allow - such frail honesty is pervasive.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Thank you for the link, but since you didn't link to the specific information you were reffering to I had to do a little searching and found this:Education & TrainingQuote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Is this what you mean!
I'll see if I can find more stuff if you are interested, or, maybe you can give me a more specific link.
Or how about this:NRA Basic Firearm Training
Its a tad more specific!
What I belive is that its easy to try to have a scape goat, whether it be the NRA, Sarah Brady, or whomever. Ultimately the resposibility lies in the hands of the person holding that firearm. It does not matter in the least if that firearm is a single shot pellet rifle or a full automatic weapon, it only relys on the person holding it to make it good or evil all the hoopalh in the world on tv, in the newsmedia or anywhere else is completely moot point. A person in responsible for his own actions, I have personally fired well over 100 machine guns and thousands of other guns and NEVER hurt a single person with a weapon. I also belive it is not up to the schools, government, The NRA or anyone else to teach a child about handling a gun safely, it is up to the parent of that child.
Just my .02$
Photoguy67
Your two cents is worth every penny, and then some!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoguy67
Hi again folks,
Amyn, one man's "right wing rhetoric" is another's gospel. Do you dislike it because of who printed it or because of what it says? Most of the opposition statements, which, incidentally seem to me to make even more far reaching claims, could just as easily be proclaimed "left wing rhetoric", or even communist propaganda. Doesn't make the numbers false. I do not believe that the founders or anyone else felt that the government should be deciding we can only have this weapon, or that weapon, and restricted from the other, because, well, only the government gets to have THOSE. I feel if the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, etc. it should make no difference what the citizens want to own wrt arms.
So, you would leave the option of lethal force only in their hands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
How fast do you think they would respond to your house if the "bikers" were coming for you?
Jim, it would appear that no source contrary to what you wish to believe, e.g. guns=bad and therefore Americans owning guns=bad, meets your standards. Fact of the matter is there is NO completely unbiased study, as gun control advocates want the studies to show firearms are inherently evil and citizens are not trustworthy and should subject themselves to the protection of the government, meanwhile firearms rights advocates, such as myself, are drawn to the studies showing net crime reduction in locales which reduce the death hold on gun rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Just thought I would point out, that just because the "Baby Boom" generation has gotten older doesn't mean there aren't people born every day. I admit perhaps a little laziness here, but just wanted to point out that there are ALWAYS citizens in those "primary violent crime-committing years". Per capita it really doesn't matter how old "Baby Boomers" "Gen-X"ers or any other group is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
This statement does not follow. First, it is apparent you rule out any research which disagrees with your personal beliefs, but secondly this makes the blanket statement that widespread crimes and accidents are enabled by widespread gun ownership, which, is obviously, an opinion of yours. Pre-US days, in many locations firearms ownership was mandatory yet strangely, it didn't lead to an increase in crime rates. Likewise in modern times, areas with less restrictive gun laws also typically have lower crime rates per capita, not higher. Most restrictive gun laws: LA, NYC, DC...highest murder rates: LA, NYC, DC... just as an example. One could also point at the Swiss, who have all the same modern conveniences we do (and likely more) as well as an automatic weapon in every household. EXTREMELY low crime rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Most of the more guns=more crime doesn't wash, in spite of how appealing it may seem.
Here, I agree completely. +1. It is ridiculous that as Americans we decry foreign television shows which perhaps show more nudity, sexuality, or some such-something anyone married experiences, hopefully-but we would gladly show our children gang-related, brutal, violent, gory MURDER, without blinking, then we let them play it out graphically as if THEY were the star, shooting police officers, selling drugs, etc. on their playstations. Where are our priorities!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Jim, this displays a huge ignorance of what the NRA is and does. Every man has his own favorite flavor of propaganda, but perhaps do some research on what the NRA actually is and does, not what your own particular flavor of propagandists says it does. The irresponsible image of gun ownership? Comes from your friendly activists (who don't know) and Hollywood in general, not the NRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA. Not saying what you are claiming is false, but I've never heard of any such rallies to taunt grieving families. I just don't believe you in this regard. Often what does happen is that when someone commits a crime, all of the anti-gun organizations use the blood of the victims as a cheap, dirty spring board to push their political agendas, and every time one hears on the news there was a mass shooting, Hollywood types scramble to claim their gun-toting, trenchcoat wearing underdog-hero (Matrix, just as an example) had nothing to do with students who felt oppressed thinking they could do the same. So, there is ALWAYS after such incidents a scramble to take rights away from Americans. This is unacceptable use of the loss of others, and the NRA has to defend against these attacks on our liberties, as do other citizens' organizations. If you don't want to own a firearm, that's your prerogative. Blaming it for murder is misguided justice. One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Ok, Jim. Stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
A whole lot of statements here that aren't backed up, nor for the most part, are they true. Oppose safety equipment? Not at all. Equipment which would prevent a gun owner from effectively using said firearm to defend one's family? That is a different case altogether.
Magazines over 30 rounds? Why does this matter to you. In my job for the government, I sometimes fire a gun that holds four THOUSAND rounds, and I can stream them through your window from a moving helicopter almost half mile away, at between two and four thousand rounds per MINUTE. Now. If a law abiding citizen wants to have a military style weapon, (exactly what I believe the 2nd Amendment protects, incidentally) then, since he is a free citizen of the United States of America, and not some lowly subject of some other nation, I say he shall keep it, and may it provide him and his family much enjoyment, and never have to be fired in anger.
John P.
Hey John,
you raise a good point about bias.
I completely agree with your point if you mean that bias shows up in how we interpret the data. There is usually an amount of built in bias when surveying any kind of social data. However that doesn't mean that meaningful data hasn't been collected. The real question of bias comes in the interpretation and weighing the importance of the numbers. For example, with regards to the W Post editorial you chose to focus on the data as it pertained to suicides, whereas I chose to focus on seeming effectiveness during home invasions - both of us exhibiting obvious bias. The key will be having decision makers who are able to approach the issue from as objective a view point as possible. I believe that some SC justices on both sides of the decision tried to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
Keep in mind that the founding fathers lived in a time when population density was basically non-existent and their weapons could fire a single round. Surely there has to be a line where it becomes unreasonable to allow anyone access to any weapon. The armed forces maintains arms to protect the nation and it's interests. You would know better than I, but I assume that weapons are less frequently stolen from the armed forces armouries than from peoples' bedrooms. Also I suspect there are few six year olds rooting around the armouries and magazines. The point being that the "government's weapon" are usually handled with a very high degree of responsibility and care. If it could be guaranteed that every gun owner would do the same I suspect the 2nd amendment would be a non-issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
Is there no amount of destructive power which is unreasonable to be allowed to be kept in someone's suburban rec room? An M203 launcher, an M249, a SRAW? (yes, I played a lot of BF2 when I had an internet connection that could handle it :) ). If people are keeping these things in their underwear drawer, waiting for the day when the nation is ruled by a despotic tyrant, so that he may be overthrown - well, I'm sad that there is such little trust in our system on their part.
Because the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, doesn't mean they are equivalent in terms of authority and responsibility. If that's true, I'm going to start collecting taxes :p. I have a keen interest in physics, chemistry and biology. The bill of rights doesn't explicity discuss my rights with regards to home chemistry and yet I have no right to mix up a batch of ricin in my kitchen no matter how responsible and careful I am.
I believe the point being made was that, while the total population is gradually increasing, the age distribution fluctuates considerably. The number of people in the "crime committing ages" is anything but static.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
This is a chicken-egg problem. Cities implement stricter gun laws usually to address a pre-existing problem with gun crimes. One could ask the question - how much worse would the problem be without strict gun laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
Switzerland has mandatory military service, and annual mandatory refresher courses. Perhaps that every male is taught to handle weapons with respect and responsibility (I'm making an assumption that this a common feature of most modern armed forces) has an impact of attitude and wisdom regarding handling of weapons.
If you want to compare to other nations, the impact of culture is usually overlooked and in my opinion far from insignificant. Some cultures are simply more law abiding than others. And acceptable conflict resolution varies hugely from culture to culture. My interpretation of this is that wide spread gun ownership will cause more issues in some cultures than others.
+10Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
I believe the reference was to the NRA convention that was held in Denver very shortly after the Columbine tragedy. The NRA scaled back, but refused to reschedule the event or change venue when asked to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
You are comparing apples to oranges to some extent. Hammers and cars are designed to transport people and put nails into lumber. Firearms are designed to kill and injure, or threaten to do so. Yes, they are ubiquitously used for target practise and recreation, but to argue that it was for this purpose that firearms have been developed into such efficient tools is disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
It is a complex issue and I think statements like "guns = bad" and "the founding fathers guaranteed that we can own any weapon we want" do nothing to solve or even lessen the very real problem of gun crime.
The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.
Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen) or if the owner snaps and goes on a killing spree.
And if you want M60, why not rocket launchers? Apache helicopters? Anti aircraft guns? Nuclear weapons? Where would you draw the line?
Such weapons have 0 practical purpose for defense scenarios, so there is no reason for owning them. Their only purpose is military, so it makes sense that only the military has them.
I would like to point out that there are a number of m-60 and anti air craft guns in private hand and legally registered and have never been used in the commission of a crime so why should you fear them? Let people have what they want until they prove they can't handle it. I don't agree with people having nuclear weapons but pretty much everything else yes. People prove themselves all them time that they are capable of owning them and making the correct decisions on the recreational firing of those weapons everytime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that WE the people are also supposed to be the military. Our founding fathers had as much to fear from the notion of a standing army as they did from the lose of their weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
This is one very visible way that we are extremely far from the original intent of the framers. Someone implied in another thread that we are even a fascist state now. If that is the case our own government may well soon turn on its citizens and become (more?) oppressive in which case it is our duty to oppose the government, with any and every means we can.
Every line drawn limits the power of the people to provide a necessary check on the government.
To give another pertinent example I think that, if things were still being done as they were designed to, we would be in Afghanistan right now but I doubt we would be in Iraq. The urgency at the start of the war just wasn't there. No matter how strongly most of congress supported it I don't think they would have had the support of the people in raising the militia for that conflict.
they never would have imagined tv, radio and the internet, but guess what? the first amendment doesn't ONLY apply to wooden printing presses because that's what they had at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
This might be a good point if you had bothered to read back for my position on firearm ownership. I've been an owner of firearms since birth and strongly support responsible ownership. What upsets me is incompetent (and worse) people pissing away my rights. I worry less about gun control advocates than I do about people who are supposedly on my side.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
I used to be a member. Dropped my membership in disgust.Quote:
Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA.
Good point. Claw hammers probably aren't used often enough to draw much attention, but cars are a problem. And we don't need "bills in Congress the next day..." because the laws exist. Cars are dangerous and can't even be taken on the road unless they're registered, which they need to be on an average of every two years. To be registered, they must be insured up the whoop, and inspected for mechanical function and safety equipment, which must be present.Quote:
One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.
Then, in order to drive the car, you must pass a written test, a practical test, a vision test, and a background check. You must be recertified every few years. And your driving privileges can be revoked for a variety of reasons.
In fact, the car analogy is as good an argument for gun registration as I've ever heard. Please stop using it.
I don't know if I should worry about you. Presumably your government employment ensures that you're reasonably sane. On the other hand, the glee with which you describe pumping 4000 round through my window gives me pause. Should I worry?Quote:
In my job for the government, I sometimes fire a gun that holds four THOUSAND rounds, and I can stream them through your window from a moving helicopter almost half mile away, at between two and four thousand rounds per MINUTE. Now. If a law abiding citizen wants to have a military style weapon, (exactly what I believe the 2nd Amendment protects, incidentally) then, since he is a free citizen of the United States of America, and not some lowly subject of some other nation, I say he shall keep it, and may it provide him and his family much enjoyment, and never have to be fired in anger.
But when some imbecile walks into McDonalds to take out his frustrations with his mother, I'd just as soon he had to reload once in a while.
j
I do believe you have the answer there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoguy67
http://straightrazorpalace.com/membe...ure420-ack.jpg
Think about it:
- small magazine size
- kids unlikely to be able to load/operate it
- hard to conceal or carry in a public place
- might be used for a crime, but the getaway would be slow and ponderous
- tough to steal someone else's
- and, in terms of recreation, a HELL of a lot of FUN!
:D
Also, Jim, I'm glad I wasn't in your nursery school. ;)
Pudu that reminds me of the miniature tank an MIT student built (Will Foster) :roflmao
FOXNews.com - College Student Builds His Very Own Tank - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
Was his name Krupp?Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Clearly I chose the wrong classes at university :cry:.
Another book. Sorry folks. One day I'll learn to be more concise, but not today, apparently.
Makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Agree and disagree here. Good point about people less likely to steal from the government, but it does indeed happen, I'm sure. My issue, I guess, is that the power of the government to keep us in line, if you will, grows and grows and grows, yet we are being conditioned to think only the government can be trusted with that power. Which, I think, was never the intent of the framers, either. It is true that early firearms only fired one round at a time typically (which is why Ben Franklin suggested the revolting colonists use longbows instead, due to their higher rate of fire and generally higher accuracy compared to, say, a Brown Bess musket). However, it is also known that the government at the time also only possessed single shot weapons at the time, including (when we were British) the forces of the British Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
I would turn this question around. Felons are not supposedly allowed to buy firearms in the first place. Suppose a law abiding citizen just WANTS to have one of those. I feel it is his right. I also think one of the reasons people DO trust the system, is that a system which did not have the best interests of its citizens in mind would not allow them to be competently armed. It only takes one despotic tyrant to ruin everyone's day, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Honestly, I don't know the legalities of ricin production other than it's supposedly extremely dangerous to produce, is a derivative of castor beans, and is something I'll oblige myself never to encounter if possible. I also have a questionable opinion about some of the taxes here. I understand things need to be paid for, but I'm not positive I agree completely with how everything is undertaken. The supposedly temporary income tax, for instance...doesn't look so temporary now. It just seems to me that every time the government (any government, in fact) encroaches on the people for whatever reason with taxes, restrictions, etc. it is loathe to remove those encroachments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Perhaps. I would also point out, however, that the crime rate has typically dropped in areas where firearms restrictions were released. I'm not saying it is solely because firearms are a deterrent(they are) but that also, when things are more restricted, legitimate safety training, etc. is non-existent, not to mention the only users of firearms in this situation are typically the criminal element, those same people that gamers pretend to be on their playstations. Not a good way to learn the proper use of firearms,IMHO. I think it is a multifaceted issue in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
This is a good point. I grew up in a firearm friendly state, and when I reached the eighth grade, we were all given a course on firearms and hunter safety. It was an eye opener for everyone, I think, who hadn't handled firearms previously. I think it was sponsored by the NRA, still, the important stuff-safety-was covered before anyone even touched a firearm in the classroom. Now, I imagine it is much more difficult to offer such courses. I received firearms safety training in the military also, but it was basically the same, and could be taught in a very short session or two. I do feel that such training should be mandatory (or a test) prior to purchasing a firearm. This would not restrict anyone, but simply require them to learn firearms safety rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Good point. I feel that while our culture is generally law abiding, there is a huge push from game manufacturers, Hollywood, etc. showing the criminal element as the underdog, or as "cool" and not only that, depicts law enforcement in a negative light (generally). It is a bad combination, IMHO. I don't feel that firearms ownership is the problem here, so much as what is being streamed to our television sets, or at least, the backwards roles it places people in. There was a time when someone needed help or directions etc. a police officer was the first person to ask. Now many look on the police with mistrust. Not saying that this is always misguided, but it is a sad commentary, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Perhaps this also had to do with scheduling issues with the venue, etc. I mostly took issue with the suggestion people were going to an NRA convention for the opportunity to taunt victims families, which, while I admit I was not there, sounds not only false, but is completely horrible. If individuals did such a thing, it was not something the NRA supported, for sure. At least I didn't get the memo. Regardless it is a pretty horrible thing if people did that. I simply do not believe it did. Now, if by "grieving family members" one really means anti-gun protesters, there is always back and forth taunting between these groups, and just because protesters happen to be in Colorado does not make them family members. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Perhaps I could have stated my point better, I have not claimed that firearms are not dangerous, nor that they are not designed to kill (well, a lot of them anyway-some are more specifically for other purposes). My feeling is that an armed populace is specifically acknowledged by our constitution, there is no law against a citizen having lethal means to protect him or herself, or for him or her to practice with that weapon (keep AND bear...as I see it, anyway). I would agree with mandatory safety training or a basic firearms safety test, but registration is how they begin putting citizens on "lists", always initially "for our own good". I feel that when a crime is committed, it is the responsibility of the person committing the crime, and not everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Actually I agree. I don't believe firearms ownership has anything at all to do with the problem. I think much more it has to do with the cultural influences above, e.g. Hollywood. When I grew up, at 4 years old I already knew that a firearm was "Always loaded" ( a good safety mantra btw) and "Never to point it at anything that you were not willing to shoot and perhaps kill" which, at 4, meant pretty much everything, unless the adults brought out the firearm and allowed me to join them. Now, every 8 year old knows firearms (from TV mostly ) as evil things, possessed only by gang-bangers, having no use but for murdering innocents. This is then glorified on the big screen as well. They also practice doing just that with a few of the popular games out these days. I believe this is wrong and produces a much more negative effect than a firearm by itself, which can not influence its owner one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
I believe they knew such things would happen, the earliest multi-shot weapons preceded our revolution by centuries, if only in experimental weapons, not to mention, shot typically used at the time from mortars, cannon, etc. and perhaps rockets, would sicken the stomachs of some today when considered for too long. Rather than control the effectiveness of the weapons used by the citizenry, I feel they felt a need to ensure that no matter how powerful the government became (which they hoped to avoid, incidentally) the people would be well armed enough to not only counter it, but would be called upon if our own soil was invaded from without. Hence laws which define "militia" very broadly to include just about every able bodied American male.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Why distrust the people with the means to kill? The government has it, after all- and while the open revolt idea seems far-fetched, perhaps because the difference has already become great through various gun control laws, it is not impossible. Just as in the case of 1930's Germany, it will not be the military which attacks the citizens, as they are loyal to their country, as is the U.S. Military loyal to our country. It would likely be a new government entity loyal to it not the citizens, which people would have to revolt against, should such come to pass. It isn't the army that comes after citizens, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I feel if one wants an Apache helicopter, good for him, and good luck buying the fuel for the thing. People do own them, as well as Anti-Aircraft guns. WRT Nuclear weapons, well, in principle I believe a citizen should be allowed to own anything a soldier owns. Soldiers do not own Nuclear weapons, and the military cannot even detonate them. The president does that. IF a citizen wishes to own a nuclear weapon, he only need get himself elected :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I disagree with you for exactly the same reason you give, so its a point of view thing, perhaps. I feel the citizenry should be allowed to own things, if ONLY because government forces have them. A law abiding citizen, mutually trusted by a non-tyrannical government, is no threat regardless of what he chooses to adorn his gun rack/safe/locker etc. with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Perhaps I misread you then, and apologies. I agree with this statement, at any rate. Every time someone does something stupid with a firearm (regardless of whether he had a legal right to it in the first place, e.g. convicted felons, who lose their 2nd Amendment rights in many cases) it affects the rest of us who do obey the laws, and while we may have multiple firearms, would not dream of using any of them for murder or other nefarious purposes. Unfortunately many forget that new laws only affect those who obey them in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Really? When did this happen? Just curious. I've been a member on and off several times. Usually when my membership dropped it was simply because I'd already spent dues money on something else. This last membership was a gift from my father, who is a lifetime member. Strange, he never seemed to like guns when I was younger, but they provide him much enjoyment now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
While I see your point, I still believe it is an excellent analogy. The car analogy is used because cars, misused or not, have killed far more people than firearms in this country, and they are already registered, the government already controls who does and does not (in theory, anyway) drive one, and yet, they are one of the leading killers. There is no right, constitutionally or otherwise, to own a car. Not so arms. Regardless, there are some who drive illegally, or do stupid things. No government registration laws (or any other laws, for that matter,) made any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Do not read into something that which I did not write. Nowhere did I mention anything about being "gleeful". It was just making a point, that we trust government forces (composed of citizens, incidentally) with tremendous firepower, and yet you were balking over a non-government citizen having the right to 30 round magazines, or some such. If one wants to make the claim that simply by its appearance or magazine capacity that one weapon should remain out of the peoples' hands, while another,perhaps to you more aesthetic weapon should not-then the battle is already lost, we may as well declare Pres. Bush (or Obama or whoever you choose) to be your king. Turn in your firearms, and prepare to turn in your paycheck and begin plowing or whatever, all "for the common good". A 30 round magazine does not make the owner of such a weapon a murderer or more likely to commit murder any more than having a large fuel tank on your car makes you want to drive it a lot more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Imbeciles in McDonalds not withstanding, how often were such people the legal owners of a firearm in the first place? Convicted felons? Non-citizens? Someone who perhaps stole another's firearm? Laws and restrictions didn't help at all. The difference between this logic and my own, is that while this logic assumes the patrons of the McDonalds would cower while the person reloads, my logic would have him overpowered or killed before he had a chance to get to the reloading part. Again, if I've misrepresented you in some way that you find offensive, I apologize. I simply disagree with some of your statements is all. Just a difference of opinions, at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
John P.
We probably disagree far less than you seem to believe. As I said, I support responsible ownership of firearms. I just don't think some things are worth fighting over. My father always asked me, when I got on my high horse to go tilt some windmill or other, "Is that the hill you want to die on?" Fighting for some of this stuff just convinces a skeptical public that we're whackos.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
I mean, why do we need cop-killers? What's the point? Why plastic handguns? Who do you know who'd buy one?
We're constantly drawing lines in the sand and spitting in the eyes of the majority of Americans. Not surprisingly, they simply shrug and mutter something about us being a bunch of gun-nut whack jobs. Then they call their Congressmen. Trouble is, there are more of them than there are of us.
I know that lots of people believe that every advance by gun control advocates is ground permanently lost, but that's obviously not true. The latest court decision proves once again that these things ebb and flow. And there are things we can do to get them to flow in our direction more often.
One last time: Our problem is one of perception. Most Americans disagree with us, and many are willing to take away our rights for their comfort. That's scary. Unless you're willing to abolish democracy, we need to convince them, not fight them.
Peace, brother. Don't forget your windage.
j
Great post John!!!!
There is only one point I didn't like:
Not that I don't think training is a good thing or that requiring it would be wrong. I just take issue with requiring it because Then the government would be in charge of who could own a gun, either by limiting the number of courses allowed to be taught, or by charging astronomical costs for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
For example: in my home state our CPL law had to be revised almost immediately after its implementation in order to stop some jurisdictions from charging an astronomical "processing fee" to the applicants with the sole purpose of discouraging people from being able to apply.
Jim,
When you put it that way, perhaps I had you all wrong. I basically agree with you except for the restrictions on certain types of weapons. I feel if someone is willing to break the law to kill another person, banning a certain type of weapon only puts the (usually American) manufacturer of that weapon out of business, but does not really deter someone already committed to the act of murder, from using that or simply choosing a different means.
Tim,
You make a good point. I feel that a test should be something given freely and should be simple to understand complete with pictures if necessary, for those who are illiterate in the English language but are still citizens. It should also be free.
A similar test is required before shooting at certain ranges, or getting hunting licenses in some areas.
Pretty much, covering muzzle discipline and the idea that a loaded weapon "on safe" is still a loaded weapon. Do not point it at anyone unless that person is a threat to your life and as a last resort to save your own life/that oof a loved one.
That could branch out into finger-out-of-the-trigger guard until ready to shoot, for instance.
Finally, awareness of what is beyond the target.
Firearms safety rules, as those of us who use them responsibly, are as simple as they are important. Eyes and ears (Personal protective equipment) are also important to cover, but, hey, its your eyesight and hearing. The first ones are the big ones and lives depend on them, just like driving on the correct lane in traffic instead of into opposing traffic.
I dislike giving the government control over whether its populace is armed, and I feel that the media and others are 1) displaying use of firearms in a most negative light and 2) step by step placing more and more "reasonable" restrictions, until we become good subjects, just like proverbial crustacean in a pot of cold water that keeps getting warmer...
If there is a way to do so, however, I do think a test, mandatory to everyone equally, would weed out a lot of the "Imbeciles" so to speak without placing restrictions. If someone goes for a drivers license, there is a test. I feel that someone wishing to purchase a deadly weapon, for fun or other reasons such as protection, should feel it worthwhile to know the basic safety rules of operating said weapon. Then, assuming they are responsible and not a convicted felon/non citizen, I feel there should be no restriction on them purchasing the firearm. I don't even think background check records should be kept. If the person is not on the list as a felon, he should not be recorded, other than basic sales information required for any business.
John P.
You are right about perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
My house is in Washington DC. Three years ago a little girl was shot to death in her front yard in a drive-by that missed, 2 blocks away. I'm about to move back there with my three year old daughter and one year son. When I hear someone say that everyone should be able to do whatever they want with regards to firearms up to the point where they screw up, it frustrates me. "Screwing up" in my neighbourhood likely means someone is dead - and when it's an innocent little girl playing in her front yard it makes you want to do anything to prevent that sort of thing happening, not just punish someone who does it.
I don't advocate banning guns because I know it'll never happen. But claiming your right to fire off rounds on the weekend using any weapon conceivable trumps my desire to raise my kids in reasonably safe environment, I gotta tell you rings pretty hollow. Call it "comfort" if you wish, but it's a comfort I would wish on everyone in the country.
I know asserting your rights to own guns isn't the same as disparaging my concerns for the safety of my family. In the same way, advocating gun control in the form of registration, training etc. isn't designed to trample your rights or spite your hobby or interest. For both sides it should be about solving the current problems we face. That will take compromise.
Calling for no restrictions whatsoever on weapon ownership will serve you about as well as screaming for a ban on all weapons would serve me.
Perhaps I need to clarify.
While I'm sympathetic to your concerns about children being shot, (a horrible event in anyone's eyes)
I thought I would point out that no one here is arguing that someone owning a firearm be allowed to fire it anywhere he pleases. Basic firearms safety rules would eliminate this.
The actions of someone during a drive-by shooting are not the actions of people who are likely to be concerned about whether or not their firearm is legal. I feel it is wrong to judge the millions of law-abiding gun owners by the actions of those already breaking the law and who likely were never legally able to purchase a firearm in the first place. There will always be a black market. Heavy restrictions just puts the honest people out of business.
Saying someone should, if they choose, be able to own a howitzer, is not at all the same as saying such a person can fire it within the city at his neighbor's house.
In a remote area, after the target area is cleared? Sure. Might be a fun 4th of July, if that's your desire. In town? never.
One's rights, I believe, reach only so far as to where extending them would impinge on another's rights. While I feel I should be able to own whatever weapon I choose, and same for any other responsible citizen, I also know I do not have a right to use it on someone else unless I am in the unenviable situation of preventing the loss of my own life or that of an innocent. Short of all out war, (where really, the rules actually remain similar) there is no other reason to use deadly force on anyone.
Firearms should, IMHO be a source of responsible fun and enjoyment for those who own them (unless they are gunsafe queens for collectors) with only the capability in extreme situations to perform as an actual weapon or for deterrence. It USED to be one of the best father-son bonding experiences, for instance-a day on the range, usually with a little side bet here or there.
John P.
Point in fact: The weapon used in that drive-by was illegal to own in that city and had been for thirty years, that didn't keep some piece of dreck from using it in a reckless manner to kill a little girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Somehow I see no connection whatsoever between me going to the range on weekends and your daughters safety. Are you going to let her run around there? Heck living downrange at the firing line near me is probably safer than living in parts of D.C.