| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dynamite Dan
Deputy
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 4299
Location: Blackburn, Lancashire, UK
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:02 am Post subject: Gun Laws |
|
Seen as this is the hot topic at the moment with the recent tragedy, I'd like to know your views on the current Gun controll laws.
Would you be happy to give up your right to own a gun if it meant a potentially safer country, or do you think your rights are being taken away because of the actions of the few?
As an outsider, Im a bit undecided. I can empathise with the many people that own guns and use them in the proper, legal mannor, and dont think that banning them will solve gun crime (if you want a gun, youll get one regardless)
However, i can also see the other side where you have to look at the damage one deluded person can do with an automatic weapon and judge weather the risk is too great. |
|
 |
Super Wabbit
CH Administrator
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 3667
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
Dan, I've been thinking about starting this same discussion but you beat me to it. Before it gets started I would just like to point somethings out: We have all been friends here for quite some time. Gun control and the politics around it are a hit button issue for some. Please remember that we've been friends regardless of each other's political views for a long long time.
I don't care what your political views are - you all are DontCampers to me and you will always be my friends. |
|
|
Dynamite Dan
Deputy
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 4299
Location: Blackburn, Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
I undertstand, Its probabally why Politics and Religion are best avoided to avoid any falling out.
However, that aside.
Is there a Right way for Barack Obama to deal with this? Is it as black and white as either Ban guns or don't ban them? or can there be some middle ground comprimise.
Either way, I think whatever descision that is eventualy made will piss a lot of people off regardless. |
|
|
JoeSwindell
Forum Veteran
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 1612
Location: Roanoke, Virginia
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
| My take on anything really is, bad people do bad things, that's what makes them bad people. |
|
|
Super Wabbit
CH Administrator
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 3667
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
So let's get this started:
I am a gun owner. I'm also a registered Democrat. I own guns for personal protection but mainly for target shooting/recreation. I am relatively new to shooting and only got involved thanks to another DontCamper who was kind enough to take the time (and ammo) to get me started. I'll always be grateful for that. I did not grow up with guns but they have always been interesting to me - I loved seeing them in movies and we played a LOT of video games that had amazing weapons - and yet, I felt nervous in the presence of a real gun. It was something I could not rationally explain and that bothered me.
When the opportunity to learn about guns presented itself I jumped on it. I wanted to learn how they worked and I wanted to learn the skills required to shoot well. I now have a deep respect for firearms and am no longer nervous when I'm around them. I'm also a pretty good shot. I'm still a liberal and still like apple pie. I tell you all this to illustrate that becoming a gun enthusiast did not changed who I am.
I'll start with the first part of Dan's question:
| Dynamite Dan wrote: | | Would you be happy to give up your right to own a gun if it meant a potentially safer country? |
It's hard to say if giving up our individual rights would make us safer. That's a tough one to figure out. I feel uneasy giving up a tool that could potentially protect myself. I don't like the idea that a criminal would have access to a gun but because I am a law-abiding citizen that I would not. We also don't have very good data on how many crimes are prevented or stopped because the victim had a gun. I know the NRA claims that this happens a lot but I couldn't find any other sources of info.
Some of my co-workers express a view that guns cause bad things to happen. When I share pictures of my guns to them they're first reaction is to ask "why do you need a gun like that?" This is usually a reaction to a picture of something like an AR-15. It feeds into that trite saying of "guns are evil/scary." As I mentioned before, I had an inexplicable fear of guns so I know where they are coming from. As with most of my views, I feel that education is solution to most of our problems. I would like those that advocate for strong gun control to take the time to learn about guns. Some gun advocates come across as arrogant towards those who don't have the same level of gun knowledge and that just isn't helpful. I used to be that guy who didn't know what he was talking about and in many areas, I still am. But I'm willing to learn.
Violence in our schools is at an all time low. I know the news makes it sound the opposite, but schools are the safest place for kids to be. Violence In Schools: How Big A Problem Is It?
I think we are making progress in reducing violence. It's a combination of active law enforcement, small improvements in socioeconomics, and steady increase in education (though I think we can still do more). Mass shootings are on the decline. The following is from an NPR interview with Jack Levin, a sociologist and criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston and a co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston:
| Many Mass Killers Have Had Chronic Depression wrote: | CORNISH: Now looking back over the last two years, there have been what seems like so many recent mass shootings: Tucson in 2011; there was Aurora, Colorado; and the Sikh temple in Wisconsin this year. Are people right to believe that this kind of violence is increasing?
LEVIN: Not really. I know it looks that way, and there have been some tragically large body counts, which accounts for a lot of the publicity. There have been a few more public massacres, random massacres, and they also get people very anxious because everybody goes to the cinema, and everybody's in school. So, you know, it makes people nervous that they might be victimized.
But the truth is that there's still about 20 mass killings every year in this country, and that has been true for decades. There are about 100 to 150 victims of mass murder. Now that sounds terrible, and it is. It's tragic. But keep in mind that that number pales against the some 15,000 single-victim homicides in this country on an annual basis, and that's really where the problem lies. |
Going back to the second part of Dan's question:
| Dynamite Dan wrote: | | Do you think your rights are being taken away because of the actions of the few? |
It sure does feel like that. But, if a gun control law could have saved just one life last week, would it be worth it? What would that law look like?
Can we do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them? I think of pilots being required to pass medical examines on a yearly basis. Could we have something like that for gun ownership? New York State's conceal permit process included a psychological examine every 2 years as part of the requirement. There are privacy concerns, but we can work through that. What would this system look like? Could it be a self-governed system that is removed from the government and administered by a 3rd party? Could it be a system that simply certifies you to own a gun but not a system that keeps a record of the the guns an individual owns?
I don't like the idea of limiting gun ownership but we live in a society and some degree of regulation is warranted. I think of the single women where a gun would give her a better chance at defending herself if attacked when she is alone. I think of my grandfather being able to defend himself from a home invasion by meeting force with force.
The gun control debate as become difficult to have in recent years but we need to keep talking. Even if you strongly disagree from the statements I've made above please try to understand where I'm coming from and my thought process. I will do the same for your views. We have to keep talking to one another to work things out. Change begins at a low level such as a forum post. Keep people talking. Eventually it will filter up to the higher levels of society.
Given all the talk of gun control I think there is a larger issue - mental health. Gun control is more of a band-aid fix to the real problem we have. That doesn't mean we simply give up on gun laws but it means that we need to focus on more than one thing to fix the larger issue. Mental health in the U.S. is still a taboo subject for most. Individuals who struggle with mental health are often met with ridicule and feel a sense of shame even though it is not their fault that they are sick. We have one of the world's best mental health systems but we have done an extremely poor job in providing access to it. Mental health must be included in this debate. |
|
|
Ryderstorm
CH Administrator
Joined: 19 Apr 2004
Posts: 2332
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
I think it would be more helpful to hear the flipside of the typical argument. I think there are plenty of obvious reasons why gun ownership should be limited and regulated. After all, that's the entire reason this discussion is happening: because 28 innocent people were murdered last week with extremely powerful guns that were all legally owned. And before that there was Aurora, and before that there was Virginia Tech - also with legally owned guns.
So I'd like to hear the reasons why people should be allowed to own guns. I think we need everyone to start being honest about their desire to own guns and see if it's rationally justified. Let's stop approaching this from a "don't limit my rights" perspective and instead have those who desire to own guns justify why its a good idea.
_________________
Know thyself. |
|
|
Monica Lewinsky
DTC Chairman
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 4907
Location: Willowbrook, IL
|
|
|
Grunt
Forum Veteran
Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 1926
Location: Calgary, AB - Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
I think it really comes down to just the way people treat each other. More and more we become distanced from each other. I mean when I was young, I knew almost every person on my street... Now I couldn't even tell you the name of my next door neighbour (and I only have 1).
Gun control, easily accessible mental help, etc. may help the problem. It also may not. To be honest there are always going to be the people that refuse help. Much like if I want a gun, no matter how strict the laws are, I can get my hands on an illegal gun pretty darn easily.
I think we as a society need to stop playing the blame game. We always look for something to blame it on, yet we don't stop and think on how we are treating each other. More compassion in this world will go a long way.
The sad reality is stuff like this will never stop. It's always going to happen. There will always be the people that are just plain "evil". We can however try to reduce it.
But that's the hippie in me.
It just seems that less people care about each other, and more about if Starbucks got their double latte right.
_________________
"It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end."
-Ernest Hemingway |
|
|
3rdRcn
CH Administrator
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 2887
Location: Peoples republic of Md.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
I am going to post some very important facts that most of you that do not do any research but instead just listen to your party rhetoric or the news might not know, some of this is in response to some statements here but I am not going to call anyone out.
I will however point out to Dan that since your country has banned firearms your violent crime rates have risen and your gun crimes have skyrocketed by more than 300%. How can that be if guns are outlawed? Because only the criminals have the guns now, the law abiding citizen turned theirs in. The same has happened in Australia. Those are facts and not opinions or conjecture.
When we look at things we must look at them from a factual standpoint and not from an opinion or prejudice based on our lack of experience with something.
My first statement is to clarify what the constitution is and secondly to let you know the TRUE MEANING of the second amendment and why it is in our constitution.
The constitution and the first ten amendments are nothing more than an enumeration of our GOD given rights, whether you believe in God or not, our forefathers did and so stated in their writings and feelings on our Bill of Rights or first ten amendments of our constitution. The second amendment in particular was there to not only enumerate our right to protect ourselves but was put there primarily to prevent a tyrannical government from ever getting a foot hold in our country ever again. Our forefathers believed that if the people were armed with the same or similar arms as our government that the government would fear the people, as it should.
With that being said, we already have gun control laws which restrict our rights to own "assault rifles" as these are by definition fully automatic rifles, the same as our military have and are very strictly regulated by the BATF. The current liberal buzz word calling a semi automatic AR15 an assault rifle is nothing more than a scare tactic, these rifles do not have the functionality of an assault rifle and really do nothing but look the same. Cosmetics do not make something any more dangerous. We also have background checks for everyone that buys a gun, any gun, in this country. You must get a "proceed" from the BATF whenever you purchase a firearm in this country from a retailer and in Maryland and a few other states it is much more difficult to purchase a pistol or "regulated" weapon, which a AR15 is. By the way, AR stands for Armalite Rifle, which was the original manufacturer of the firearm, not Assault Rifle as some would have you believe.
Now let's discuss some REAL statistics and REAL facts, some of these I have references for and some you will need to google as I don't want to take all day with this post.
According to the FBI, rifles are used in .02% of all gun deaths in the united states last year, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
So now we are talking about taking away or restricting my rights based on a .02% crime rate. really? I will ask those that believe more laws will help this. Do cars drive themselves drunk? Do drugs do themselves or force people to do them? We have very restrictive laws for both of these things, have they eliminated them? No they haven't and why haven't they? Because it is PEOPLE that are committing the crimes by using drugs and driving drunk. To say that taking away my guns or restricting my rights any further to own the guns I want to is like saying that we should take cars off the market, they do kill three times the number of people per year than guns do. Let's stop blaming inanimate objects for things that people do.
Some things most of you probably don't know. A man named John Lott did a study that he concluded in 1999, in this study he examined every mass shooting (defined as 3 or more injured or killed) since 1950. In all but 1 shooting they happened in GUN FREE ZONES, ALL BUT 1!!!! This 1 was the congresswoman that was shot at the mall. This data still holds true today, over 12 years later. In the recent Oregon mall shooting, the shooter was confronted by a concealed carry holder and ran and committed suicide, he killed two and wounded one but imagine what those numbers would have been without that law abiding citizen having a gun to fight back. The Colorado movie theater shooting that was mentioned earlier was also a GUN FREE ZONE, the shooter drove by two other theaters showing the same movie that were closer to his house to go to that one, coincidence? I think not. I could go on with other attempted mass shooting that were prevented b y law abiding citizens that were trained to use a firearm and did so to protect others. These sick people committing these crimes do not want to be confronted by someone who can fight back.
More facts: The same gentleman I mentioned earlier also did another study and wrote a book, More guns less crime, I would invite those that would want to take away someone elses rights to read that. He did a study and found that those states which actually reduced the restrictions on law abiding citizens carrying guns have actually seen a remarkable drop in violent crimes, not one of them but ALL of them, why is this? Because criminals aren't afraid of the cops, they know that they can't be everywhere, they are afraid of the citizen with a gun.
Now let's examine the real problem and stop blaming inanimate objects. Please read this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html . This is the real problem folks, treating mental health and getting these people the help they need BEFORE they can commit crimes like the ones we are seeing almost monthly now. Let's focus on fixing the system and not pointing the fingers at the spoons. That is how we are going to solve this problem, not by taking away more of my rights. This persons mother was also responsible for what her son did, she was not a responsible gun owner as she had a child that she knew something was wrong with and did not secure her firearms correctly so he could not gain access to them. Would this have stopped him, probably not but he would have had to find another weapon to do his sick deed with.
I'm sorry if I have bored you with this post and I will get off my soap box now.
Last edited by 3rdRcn on Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
3rdRcn
CH Administrator
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 2887
Location: Peoples republic of Md.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
| Just so you know Wabbit, I did not read your post prior to making mine. I did that on purpose as I did not want to have any of your thoughts or opinions reflect in my post. The amazing thing is that we can both see the REAL problem. |
|
|
Super Wabbit
CH Administrator
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 3667
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
| 3rdRcn wrote: | | Just so you know Wabbit, I did not read your post prior to making mine. I did that on purpose as I did not want to have any of your thoughts or opinions reflect in my post. The amazing thing is that we can both see the REAL problem. |
And I'm bloody liberal communist socialist! |
|
|
3rdRcn
CH Administrator
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 2887
Location: Peoples republic of Md.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
| Super Wabbit wrote: | | 3rdRcn wrote: | | Just so you know Wabbit, I did not read your post prior to making mine. I did that on purpose as I did not want to have any of your thoughts or opinions reflect in my post. The amazing thing is that we can both see the REAL problem. |
And I'm bloody liberal communist socialist! |
Not so sure about the liberal part. 
Democrats can be conservative too ya know.  |
|
|
Finger
Forum Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 870
Location: Churchill, On
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
Good posts guys, I like that you're thinking about the subject without resorting to rhetoric or media induced hysteria.
As most of you know, I'm Canadian and grew up in a country with very strict gun laws. However, since they are not banned entirely there are some people who own guns and are responsible in their ownership. Although gun related crime with legally owned firearms is not unheard of, mostly it's the criminals without any chance of ever legally owning a gun that are responsible for what gun crime we have.
So although I'm not opposed to citizens owning firearms, either hand guns or "long guns", I would like to see the requirements for ownership increased. In fact I would like to see licensing for drivers follow this same example: After completing an approved training course, the applicant then is examined by both written and practical test before being issued a license to purchase, possess, and operate a car or gun.
The reason I say this is that testing of drivers seems a little bit of a joke, and there doesn't seem to be any kind of testing for firearms acquisition. And it seems like this is the case on both sides of the border. How far off the mark am I? |
|
|
Super Wabbit
CH Administrator
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 3667
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
So if you want a hunting license you have to take a hunter's safety course. To own a hand gun you have to fill out a form. I don't want to restrict gun ownership to those that can legally have them but I wouldn't mind requiring some level of training to own a gun. That training should include not only safe practices but also the laws around the use of deadly force and the consequences of not having your gun proper secured.
I have no problem with people owning guns but they need to be educated. |
|
|
JoeSwindell
Forum Veteran
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 1612
Location: Roanoke, Virginia
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
| Super Wabbit wrote: | So if you want a hunting license you have to take a hunter's safety course. To own a hand gun you have to fill out a form. I don't want to restrict gun ownership to those that can legally have them but I wouldn't mind requiring some level of training to own a gun. That training should include not only safe practices but also the laws around the use of deadly force and the consequences of not having your gun proper secured.
I have no problem with people owning guns but they need to be educated. |
I agree with that, but to be devils advocate, it's not like people are going around screaming OH CRAP MY GUNS ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTING EVERYONE.
I really think it's a mental health issue. |
|
|
Super Wabbit
CH Administrator
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 3667
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
It's true that the broader issue is mental health but I think there are some steps we can take to simply lower the number of people killed by guns. Suicide by gun is very high in this country as are accidental deaths due to poor training or improper storage of guns.
I think there are steps that all sides of the debate can agree on and while these steps don't solve the broader issue they can at least reduce the number of victims. |
|
|
Super Wabbit
CH Administrator
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 3667
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
- 120 specifically-named firearms;
- Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
- Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
- Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
- Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
- Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
- Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
- Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
- Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
- Background check of owner and any transferee;
- Type and serial number of the firearm;
- Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
- Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
- Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
If this legislation is passed I will have to register every gun I own with the federal government. They will have the serial number of each firearm linked with my name, address, and fingerprints. Why does the federal government need that information? This legislation really does sound like the first step to confiscating all firearms. I've never been one to point to the 2nd amendment as my right to be able to defend myself against my government but this really does smack of disarmament. I feel like this type of legislation is written by individuals who generally think guns are evil and or scary. I know that sounds trite but I can't explain how this legislation would make us all safer. The only explanation I can think of is that they are scared of guns.
This proposed legislation does nothing for public safety. It would not have saved any lives at Sandy Hook just as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not save any lives in 1999 when the Columbine shooting took place.
The only way to prevent a tragedy like the Sandy Hook shooting is to remove all guns, legal and illegal, from the public AND lock up the crazies.
I'm starting to feel personally attacked with the recent gun control debate. Not from anyone here but on a whole in a national forum. Some how responsible gun owners are being demonized for the acts of a very very few insane individuals. The gun did not make them commit the crime. The high capacity magazine didn't make them decide to do wrong. The semi-automatic-military-style does not drive one to insanity.
Why do I need an AR-15? Because it provides better defense of my home than a hand gun. If a criminal burst into my home with a rifle, I want a rifle to meet that threat. The likelihood of having to defend one's home with an AR-15 is not as far-fetched as you would think. Just look to any large natural disaster. Katrina saw weeks go by in neighborhoods where there were no police presence. I would definitely have felt safer if and been in a better position to protect myself if I have an AR-15.
Why do I have to defend the 2nd amendment when I do not have to defend any other amendment? This is our right to defend ourselves. As long as criminals have access to these weapons I want to be able to defend myself against these criminals and the best way is with the same type of weapon. When someone comes out with something better than an AR-15 I'll want that.
When our society becomes a utopia of peace, love and understanding with an absence of all violence I will be the first to destroy my firearms. I understand that violence is something that humanity has been striving to eliminate since the dawn of time. Violence makes me feel sick and I hated getting into fights as a kid. So reducing violence is a noble goal that we should all strive for. We have made huge progress in that area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature) but there are still bad people out there. Please do not limit my ability to defend myself against them.
So why are millions of responsible law abiding citizens being singled out for the failure of society? It was not gun owners who allowed someone like Adam Lanza to fall through the cracks of the system and not provide him and his mother with the support and services they needed. We are all at fault for letting individuals fall to the way-side. We are all to blame. Society failed this kid, his mother, and everyone who was killed that day.
Regarding the Aurora Shooting: Do you think that if a citizen with a gun had returned fire on the gunman that he or she could have saved at least 1 life in that theater? If you answered no, would it make any difference if that person returning fire was a police officer? To some of you there is an indescribable difference when considering a citizen with a gun and a police officer with a gun. Why do we consider it different? Training? Most concealed carry holders are probably as good marksmen than the vast majority of police officers. Concealed carry holders make it a point to practice regularly and to seek out training from professionals. They are responsible and do not take carrying a gun lightly.
If you really want to talk gun control let's talk about having severe penalties for not properly securing your firearm. The government should pass guidelines on the proper storage of firearms - if they are nto followed and a crime is committed with your firearm then you, as the owner, could be charged with manslaughter. It is likely that if Adam Lanza's mother had properly secured her firearms then this tragedy wouldn't have happened.
Let's continue to go after illegal guns - the recent gun buy-back programs have been hugely successful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program
How is public safety increased by making it more difficult (or impossible) for a law abiding citizen to own a gun? How does that keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How is disarming me going to keep me safe from a gunman who obtained a gun illegally? |
|
|
3rdRcn
CH Administrator
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 2887
Location: Peoples republic of Md.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
Some flaws in your thinking Wabbit.
1. There are already laws regarding the safe storage of your firearms and penalties if an unauthorized person gets your firearms if not stored properly. (at least in Maryland there are as I'm sure many states have them)
2. The gun buyback programs are taking your tax dollars to buy back guns that are not on the streets, are inoperable or unwanted by the law abiding citizen. I would be curious as to how many criminals are turning in their guns for the money they are paying for them, I'm betting that number is very close to zero. I think our tax money could be better spent setting up some mental health programs instead of feel good political bravado.
I am also in agreement that the .gov is up to no good and this new weapons ban and registration, it covers more than just rifles, is a first step to tyranny. This is what the second amendment was put there for in the first place. |
|
|
Ryderstorm
CH Administrator
Joined: 19 Apr 2004
Posts: 2332
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
| Super Wabbit wrote: | | If this legislation is passed I will have to register every gun I own with the federal government. They will have the serial number of each firearm linked with my name, address, and fingerprints. Why does the federal government need that information? |
The federal government needs that info because guns are a tool of destruction and death. That is not hyperbole, that is not fear-mongering, that is not exaggeration - it is simply the truth about the purpose of a gun or any other powerful weapon. They are tools designed and engineered to inflict as much damage as possible, as easily as possible, and as quickly as possible. Other highly dangerous things that have the potential to harm or destroy many lives are strictly regulated(toxic chemicals, nuclear waste, explosives, heavy machinery, aircraft), and require mandatory training before being handled as well as regular mandatory inspections on how they are stored. Yet no one gets up in arms about their right to operate/own any of those things. No one gets defensive to the point of screaming matches online or face-to-face about their regulated access to F1 race cars, uranium 238, mustard gas, mine-digging equipment, or cargo planes. The only reason guns are different is because they are mentioned in the 2nd amendment. The only reason they are mentioned in the 2nd amendment is because of the context in which the Constitution was conceived. There was no police force then. The idea of distributed services from the government was in its infancy. The authors could not have possibly conceived the weapons that we have today or how easy they make it to murder dozens of people in seconds. I am 100% sure that the authors of the 2nd amendment would see the current debate gun control as ludicrous and be horrified their words had been twisted so horribly out of context.
As for the 2nd amendment's purpose in defending the citizenry against a tyrannical goverment, that argument could not be more foolish. When the 2nd amendment was written, a government could conceivably be fought against by the public because both the goverment and the public had equal access to weaponry and resources. The Revolutionary War was a success because the British military(and every other military force on the planet) did not have any weapons that were significantly more powerful than the revolutionaries. That is simply not the case today. I don't care how many AR-15s the public owns - they aren't going to do any good whatsoever if the US military is used against the civillian population. Thinkg about it: tanks, bombers, military body armor, miltary tactics, grenades, rocket launchers, troop transports, nuclear weapons, and on and on. Anyone who seriously thinks that a civillian population armed with some semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles is going to police and deter the US goverment is not living in reality. The democratic process is the public's only real check against tyranny in the goverment - not your gun locker.
| Super Wabbit wrote: | | The gun did not make them commit the crime. The high capacity magazine didn't make them decide to do wrong. The semi-automatic-military-style does not drive one to insanity. |
This is such hugely frustrating argument. It is logically false and has no bearing on the problem. It is distractionary rhetoric and quite frankly it is willfully ignorant. We can't stop people from being mentally unbalanced or insane. Maybe one day we will be able to. Until then, we can only do what we have the means to do - try harder to prevent these people from getting access to guns, high capacity magazines and semi-automatic-military-style weapons.
| Super Wabbit wrote: | Why do I need an AR-15? Because it provides better defense of my home than a hand gun. If a criminal burst into my home with a rifle, I want a rifle to meet that threat. The likelihood of having to defend one's home with an AR-15 is not as far-fetched as you would think. Just look to any large natural disaster. Katrina saw weeks go by in neighborhoods where there were no police presence. I would definitely have felt safer if and been in a better position to protect myself if I have an AR-15.
Why do I have to defend the 2nd amendment when I do not have to defend any other amendment? This is our right to defend ourselves. As long as criminals have access to these weapons I want to be able to defend myself against these criminals and the best way is with the same type of weapon. When someone comes out with something better than an AR-15 I'll want that. |
This line of logic is infinite and therefore false. Should civilians be allowed to own anti-aircraft battery so they can shoot down the next hijacked plane and thus prevent the next 9/11? Or anti-tank mines to guard against a possible land invasion by North Korea? Or Claymore anti-personel mines on the front door to stop unwanted intruders? Obviously not. The 2nd amendment is not a blank permit for civillians to own whatever destructive tools they want. There is a point at which defense can no longer be the responsibility of the individual and must be handled by civil services like the police, the FBI, and the military. Just because guns were the only tool available for self-defense at the time that the 2nd amendment was written does not mean that anything we call a "gun" should always be availalbe for unregulated civillian ownership. To think so is foolish and disregards the context within which the amendment was written.
| Super Wabbit wrote: |
Regarding the Aurora Shooting: Do you think that if a citizen with a gun had returned fire on the gunman that he or she could have saved at least 1 life in that theater? If you answered no, would it make any difference if that person returning fire was a police officer? To some of you there is an indescribable difference when considering a citizen with a gun and a police officer with a gun. Why do we consider it different? Training? Most concealed carry holders are probably as good marksmen than the vast majority of police officers. Concealed carry holders make it a point to practice regularly and to seek out training from professionals. They are responsible and do not take carrying a gun lightly. |
This discussion is not about concealed carry holders. If they practice regularly and do not take carrying a gun lightly, they are not the problem. Bringing them up as a potential solution for stopping mentally unbalanced gunmen is a distraction that avoids the actual problem - keeping legally-owned guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people. No amount of people wearing guns and having concealed carry permits is going to affect that problem. Mandatory registration of ownership, mandatory training and proof-of-skill at regular intervals, and mandatory storage inspection at regular intervals will affect the problem.
| Super Wabbit wrote: |
If you really want to talk gun control let's talk about having severe penalties for not properly securing your firearm. The government should pass guidelines on the proper storage of firearms - if they are nto followed and a crime is committed with your firearm then you, as the owner, could be charged with manslaughter. It is likely that if Adam Lanza's mother had properly secured her firearms then this tragedy wouldn't have happened. |
This is a good start, but it simply does not go far enough. A federally mandated guideline that can be easily ignored and only has consequences *after* innocent people are dead could not have stopped Adam Lanza from accessing his mother's legally owned guns. Federally required registration, training, and storage inspections could have stopped him.
| Super Wabbit wrote: | | This legislation really does sound like the first step to confiscating all firearms. |
*NO ONE* is saying all guns should be taken away. This kind of alarmist rhetoric is exactly why nothing changes. Every increase in regulaion is viewed as an inevitable step towards all guns being taken a away from everybody forever. The current system doesn't work, period. People are being murdered with legally owned guns. Something has to change. If anti-gun control people constantly look at every increase in regulation as a "slippery slope", nothing will ever change and innocent people will keep dying from bullets shot by legally owned guns.
| Super Wabbit wrote: |
How is public safety increased by making it more difficult (or impossible) for a law abiding citizen to own a gun? How does that keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How is disarming me going to keep me safe from a gunman who obtained a gun illegally? |
If it had been more difficult for the law abiding citizens who murdered dozens of people to get the guns they used, then public saftey would have been increased.
In order for progress to be made, people have to stop bringing in straw-man arguments about concealed carry owners saving the day, about illegal guns always being out there anyway, about mentally unbalanced people being the "real" problem, stopping government tyranny, or fear-mongering about any increase in gun legislation being the inevitable beginning of taking all guns away from the public. These have nothing to do with the real problem.
The problem is people are being murdered with legally owned guns. It happened at Sandy Hook. It happened at Aurora. It happened at Virginia Tech. It happened at Columbine. Legally owned guns are being used to murder innocent men, women and children. That is the problem in each one of these horrible situations. Each one of these situations is proof that powerful guns are not regulated enough.
_________________
Know thyself. |
|
|
3rdRcn
CH Administrator
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 2887
Location: Peoples republic of Md.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
| Ryderstorm wrote: |
The federal government needs that info because guns are a tool of destruction and death. That is not hyperbole, that is not fear-mongering, that is not exaggeration - it is simply the truth about the purpose of a gun or any other powerful weapon. |
WOW, by this logic then spoons make people fat and pencils make people misspell words. I guess people don't use a firearm for hunting, sporting or to keep other countries from wanting to invade us? We'll touch on the .gov conversation later on in your post. Might wanna go see what was said when Japan wanted to invade us as early as WWII there my friend.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | They are tools designed and engineered to inflict as much damage as possible, as easily as possible, and as quickly as possible. |
So what does a knife, baseball bat or any other object that I could use as a weapon do? Did you also forget about them being designed for self protection, putting food on the table? Is your mind really that closed to the fact that they as does any other tool have many purposes, those purposes are determined by the user and not the tool.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | Other highly dangerous things that have the potential to harm or destroy many lives are strictly regulated(toxic chemicals, nuclear waste, explosives, heavy machinery, aircraft), and require mandatory training before being handled as well as regular mandatory inspections on how they are stored. Yet no one gets up in arms about their right to operate/own any of those things. No one gets defensive to the point of screaming matches online or face-to-face about their regulated access to F1 race cars, uranium 238, mustard gas, mine-digging equipment, or cargo planes. |
I notice you conveniently forgot to mention cars, since they kill more people than guns every year, matter of fact, almost three times as many. I can see that facts are eluding you in your posts though and as a typical liberal you will bend things to fit your perception of what every one else should do. Do you know what the word freedom means or what this country was founded on?
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | The only reason guns are different is because they are mentioned in the 2nd amendment. The only reason they are mentioned in the 2nd amendment is because of the context in which the Constitution was conceived. There was no police force then. The idea of distributed services from the government was in its infancy. The authors could not have possibly conceived the weapons that we have today or how easy they make it to murder dozens of people in seconds. I am 100% sure that the authors of the 2nd amendment would see the current debate gun control as ludicrous and be horrified their words had been twisted so horribly out of context. |
This logic is so flawed on so many levels it is not even worth addressing. You need to go read our founding fathers writings and what they intended by each one of the bill of rights and the first ten amendments and you will see that you are so far off base by those statements that it is unbelievable.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | As for the 2nd amendment's purpose in defending the citizenry against a tyrannical goverment, that argument could not be more foolish. When the 2nd amendment was written, a government could conceivably be fought against by the public because both the goverment and the public had equal access to weaponry and resources. The Revolutionary War was a success because the British military(and every other military force on the planet) did not have any weapons that were significantly more powerful than the revolutionaries. That is simply not the case today. I don't care how many AR-15s the public owns - they aren't going to do any good whatsoever if the US military is used against the civillian population. Thinkg about it: tanks, bombers, military body armor, miltary tactics, grenades, rocket launchers, troop transports, nuclear weapons, and on and on. Anyone who seriously thinks that a civillian population armed with some semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles is going to police and deter the US government is not living in reality. The democratic process is the public's only real check against tyranny in the government - not your gun locker. |
Refer to some of my previous comments, like what Japan was going to do in WWII. You would also assume that every member of the military, that also says an oath to uphold the constitution, would disregard that oath. If you honestly believe that then you must have never read anything in any of your history classes, as recent as the Philippines. It all starts with registration and then taking the guns, a little at a time. The democratic process does not always work Ryder, read your history books and don't be fooled into thinking that history can not repeat itself.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | This is such hugely frustrating argument. It is logically false and has no bearing on the problem. It is distractionary rhetoric and quite frankly it is willfully ignorant. We can't stop people from being mentally unbalanced or insane. Maybe one day we will be able to. Until then, we can only do what we have the means to do - try harder to prevent these people from getting access to guns, high capacity magazines and semi-automatic-military-style weapons. |
You really do not read any facts do you? Rifles were used in .02% of ALL gun homicides in this country in 2011. If you read the article that I posted earlier (with facts, not assumptions) you could make an intelligent correlation to us stopping the treatment of mental illness and the rise of mentally ill people committing mass murder. Because these mentally ill people are committing a very very very small percentage of the murders in this country you feel it acceptable to take some of my freedoms away? You can actually justify that in your mind?!
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | This line of logic is infinite and therefore false. Should civilians be allowed to own anti-aircraft battery so they can shoot down the next hijacked plane and thus prevent the next 9/11? Or anti-tank mines to guard against a possible land invasion by North Korea? Or Claymore anti-personel mines on the front door to stop unwanted intruders? Obviously not. The 2nd amendment is not a blank permit for civillians to own whatever destructive tools they want. There is a point at which defense can no longer be the responsibility of the individual and must be handled by civil services like the police, the FBI, and the military. Just because guns were the only tool available for self-defense at the time that the 2nd amendment was written does not mean that anything we call a "gun" should always be availalbe for unregulated civillian ownership. To think so is foolish and disregards the context within which the amendment was written. |
Now you resort to ridiculousness to try and make an argument for taking away my pistols and semi auto rifles by comparing them to anti aircraft guns? I can not believe your brain functions in that capacity. The .gov has many strict rules for guns that are designed for military being owned by civilians Ryder so your logic is bordering insanity and you should really educate yourself on what you are trying to argue as it is more laughable than arguable. There were many other tools available for self defense in the 1700's for self defense also Ryder, really man?! You really need to do some reading on what the constitution is about man, cause you are way off base.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | This discussion is not about concealed carry holders. If they practice regularly and do not take carrying a gun lightly, they are not the problem. Bringing them up as a potential solution for stopping mentally unbalanced gunmen is a distraction that avoids the actual problem - keeping legally-owned guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people. No amount of people wearing guns and having concealed carry permits is going to affect that problem. Mandatory registration of ownership, mandatory training and proof-of-skill at regular intervals, and mandatory storage inspection at regular intervals will affect the problem. |
Again, more party rhetoric with no facts to back it up. the problem with your thinking is that I am a law abiding citizen who served my country and also a concealed carry permit holder that can out shoot most of the law enforcement folks I train with and your solution is to take my guns too. How bout we start funding the treatment of the mentally ill and see if that has an effect, we've already tried the assault weapons ban thing before. You also want me to have to let someone into my home to inspect my things to make sure it is up to their approval, think that might smack a little of Hitler or other dictators? Wow man, I really can't believe there are folks that think this way. Have you ever considered moving to the UK or Australia or maybe even North Korea, China? I think these countries have the gun controls and lack of personal freedom that you desire.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | This is a good start, but it simply does not go far enough. A federally mandated guideline that can be easily ignored and only has consequences *after* innocent people are dead could not have stopped Adam Lanza from accessing his mother's legally owned guns. Federally required registration, training, and storage inspections could have stopped him. |
Do your homework, Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control laws of any state in the nation, what did it stop. Bad people are always going to be bad people no matter how much we wish they wouldn't and no matter how much we try to disarm the good people.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | *NO ONE* is saying all guns should be taken away. This kind of alarmist rhetoric is exactly why nothing changes. Every increase in regulaion is viewed as an inevitable step towards all guns being taken a away from everybody forever. The current system doesn't work, period. People are being murdered with legally owned guns. Something has to change. If anti-gun control people constantly look at every increase in regulation as a "slippery slope", nothing will ever change and innocent people will keep dying from bullets shot by legally owned guns. |
Why then are you not screaming about getting cars off the streets then, they kill many more innocent people then guns do every year. Oh wait, there I go using facts to counter the party rhetoric again.
| Super Wabbit wrote: |
How is public safety increased by making it more difficult (or impossible) for a law abiding citizen to own a gun? How does that keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How is disarming me going to keep me safe from a gunman who obtained a gun illegally? |
| Ryderstorm wrote: | If it had been more difficult for the law abiding citizens who murdered dozens of people to get the guns they used, then public saftey would have been increased.
In order for progress to be made, people have to stop bringing in straw-man arguments about concealed carry owners saving the day, about illegal guns always being out there anyway, about mentally unbalanced people being the "real" problem, stopping government tyranny, or fear-mongering about any increase in gun legislation being the inevitable beginning of taking all guns away from the public. These have nothing to do with the real problem. |
Again, you are talking about taking away my freedoms to attempt to stop or regulate less than 1/10 of a percent of murders instead of talking about finding a real solution. I live in a state that used to have rifle teams in their high schools Ryder, it all started with let's just do this, for the children. then comes the next thing and the next restriction and none of them ever address the problem, this is what's wrong with your logic, it never address's the problem it only takes freedoms from law abiding citizens.
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | The problem is people are being murdered with legally owned guns. It happened at Sandy Hook. It happened at Aurora. It happened at Virginia Tech. It happened at Columbine. |
Again, failed to read the facts. Why is it that you aren't reading any of the facts here, maybe because they might actually make sense and make your arguments nonsense? FACT: These mass murders were committed in GUN FREE ZONES as was EVERY MASS MURDER SINCE 1950 EXCEPT ONE. Those are real facts and not emotion or party rhetoric. think that is a coincidence Ryder?
| Ryderstorm wrote: | | Legally owned guns are being used to murder innocent men, women and children. That is the problem in each one of these horrible situations. Each one of these situations is proof that powerful guns are not regulated enough. |
SO are legally owned cars, now what? Each one of these situations are being done in gun free zones, which is proof that we need to have more people allowed to carry guns to protect themselves and stop gun free zones. Then we need to concentrate on treating these sick individuals BEFORE they get out of control by getting more money poured into the mental health system. |
|
|
|
