A criminal with a very long record, who has been arrested three times since his last release from jail was arrested in the shooting of five men on the Westside outside of a convenience store right here in Jacksonville. While there is long standing discussions going on about gun control and who should carry guns etc., the other side of the equation is the illegal guns that find their way into the hands of hardened criminals. The tragedy of today in Conn. has brought the issue up again, perhaps this venue and this particular crime can be a stepping off point for further discussion about gun's, gun control and the rights to own them.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-12-14/story/22-year-old-felon-arrested-jacksonville-drive-shooting-5
there are definitely parallels between the shooting in Newtown, CT and the shotting in the New Town neighborhood of Jax.
Arrested twice since May and all they got was 30 days in jail for the resisting arrest charge? Nothing on the weapon charge? I don't want to hear jack about needing more gun control when they cannot manage to lock up someone who is in possession of a weapon illegally.
Was that weapon charge not high profile enough for the State Attorney so they just didn't bother prosecuting it?
Agreed, firm enforcement would go a long way towards reducing these circumstances. There are already laws on the books that bar felons and people with mental health issues from purchasing firearms. Unfortunately criminals like this guy on the westside will get their hands on a firearm, banned or not. What it comes down to is deciding at what point taking away rights from law abiding citizens is worth the presumed decrease in the crimes.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:10:53 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:04:31 AM
Agreed, firm enforcement would go a long way towards reducing these circumstances. There are already laws on the books that bar felons and people with mental health issues from purchasing firearms. Unfortunately criminals like this guy on the westside will get their hands on a firearm, banned or not. What it comes down to is deciding at what point taking away rights from law abiding citizens is worth the presumed decrease in the crimes.
I dunno acme.
Where in the United States is 'firm enforcement' working?
Stephen, I think we'd need to see this firm enforcement actually taking place first.
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/17/nra-endorsed-sen-joe-manchin-calls-for-assault-weapons-ban/
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
With almost a million card carrying gun owners in Florida alone, not to mention all of those who choose not to register for CWP, how do you suggest recalling the weapons that are considered "assault" weapons?
I think all it will do is create a black market for these weapons only increasing their price, not necessarily one's ability to procure them. Just like the war on drugs, I feel a war on guns would be as fruitless.
I'm not saying that there isn't anything that can be done, I just think it will take a very complex solution.
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
With almost a million card carrying gun owners in Florida alone, not to mention all of those who choose not to register for CWP, how do you suggest recalling the weapons that are considered "assault" weapons?
I think all it will do is create a black market for these weapons only increasing their price, not necessarily one's ability to procure them. Just like the war on drugs, I feel a war on guns would be as fruitless.
I'm not saying that there isn't anything that can be done, I just think it will take a very complex solution.
A war on Guns is wrong but we still need to talk about which Guns should be legal to own. The assault rifle isn't for killing wild game it's for killing HUMANS and it's not needed nor are the larger gun clips.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
With almost a million card carrying gun owners in Florida alone, not to mention all of those who choose not to register for CWP, how do you suggest recalling the weapons that are considered "assault" weapons?
I think all it will do is create a black market for these weapons only increasing their price, not necessarily one's ability to procure them. Just like the war on drugs, I feel a war on guns would be as fruitless.
I'm not saying that there isn't anything that can be done, I just think it will take a very complex solution.
I think a little liability action against the makers of these assault weapons will hasten their buyback, personally.
And we can stop making and proliferating them.
The nature of machines is that most of them break or wear down. They don't last forever.
Perhaps every home should be issued a standard defense rifle, Swiss Style, but these easily hidden handguns that can shoot five times per second with exploding bullets?......
What were we thinking?
So companies in India, China, Mexico or wherever else won't produce these weapons for the black market?
I don't condone what these weapons are capable of, I just don't think you get the cat back in the bag at this point.
Exploding bullets? What are you talking about?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K5Y0auL-EyY/UM2OXqioNHI/AAAAAAAAAe4/sPXITe8mm-g/s1600/newtown-guns-12152012-390.jpg)
The Bushmaster .223-caliber Assault Rifle killed the TWENTY CHILDREN AND SIX ADULTS at Sandy Hook elementary school. Why does a man or woman need to have this gun as a Legal and reasonable gun owner?
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 10:02:19 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
With almost a million card carrying gun owners in Florida alone, not to mention all of those who choose not to register for CWP, how do you suggest recalling the weapons that are considered "assault" weapons?
I think all it will do is create a black market for these weapons only increasing their price, not necessarily one's ability to procure them. Just like the war on drugs, I feel a war on guns would be as fruitless.
I'm not saying that there isn't anything that can be done, I just think it will take a very complex solution.
I think a little liability action against the makers of these assault weapons will hasten their buyback, personally.
And we can stop making and proliferating them.
The nature of machines is that most of them break or wear down. They don't last forever.
Perhaps every home should be issued a standard defense rifle, Swiss Style, but these easily hidden handguns that can shoot five times per second with exploding bullets?......
What were we thinking?
So companies in India, China, Mexico or wherever else won't produce these weapons for the black market?
I don't condone what these weapons are capable of, I just don't think you get the cat back in the bag at this point.
not a very compelling argument, gators.
its hard, so we might as well forget about it?
Did I say forget about it? I said it will take a complex solution much more than a simple ban.
Do you really think a ban won't drive a black market for these weapons?
Yep Stephen, just ban them and sue the manufacturers and "poof" problem solved....
Trying to solve one problem many times creates a larger unintended one, so I think a broad look at this problem is necessary.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
With almost a million card carrying gun owners in Florida alone, not to mention all of those who choose not to register for CWP, how do you suggest recalling the weapons that are considered "assault" weapons?
I think all it will do is create a black market for these weapons only increasing their price, not necessarily one's ability to procure them. Just like the war on drugs, I feel a war on guns would be as fruitless.
I'm not saying that there isn't anything that can be done, I just think it will take a very complex solution.
I think a little liability action against the makers of these assault weapons will hasten their buyback, personally.
And we can stop making and proliferating them.
The nature of machines is that most of them break or wear down. They don't last forever.
Perhaps every home should be issued a standard defense rifle, Swiss Style, but these easily hidden handguns that can shoot five times per second with exploding bullets?......
What were we thinking?
Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated, you must possess a Class III FFL to purchase one.
A handgun can only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger and pulling the trigger 5 times a second is very fast and you could only really do that when shooting at a single target. A hollow point bullet is not the same as an exploding bullet and exploding ammunition is also heavily regulated (it is banned in Florida). Hollow points are very effective personal defense rounds.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
You are so right Stephen.
The 2nd Amendment was written in very different times. If the founding fathers had any idea how advanced guns would evolve and how violent our society would eventually become they just may have reworded it
My problem with gun lovers is how they want to extend the right to everyone, without a record, to possess whatever gun they chose. I say let everyone have a gun like the ones that existed in the days the 2nd was written. Anything else would be illegal.
It's funny that every time something like this happens gun advocates start becoming defensive and frighten the citizens with the idea that the government is about to take all their guns.
My facebook friends, I loosely call some of them that, have been posting all this nonsense about how Obama has a secret bill that is about to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
They are making crackpot statements like "He'll never take my guns."
Sensible gun control should not be about politics but it is.
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
You are so right Stephen.
The 2nd Amendment was written in very different times. If the founding fathers had any idea how advanced guns would evolve and how violent our society would eventually become they just may have reworded it
My problem with gun lovers is how they want to extend the right to everyone, without a record, to possess whatever gun they chose. I say let everyone have a gun like the ones that existed in the days the 2nd was written. Anything else would be illegal.
It's funny that every time something like this happens gun advocates start becoming defensive and frighten the citizens with the idea that the government is about to take all their guns.
My facebook friends, I loosely call some of them that, have been posting all this nonsense about how Obama has a secret bill that is about to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
They are making crackpot statements like "He'll never take my guns."
Sensible gun control should not be about politics but it is.
Wasn't the 2nd amendment written to allow citizens to protect themselves from the Army/Govt to ensure they couldn't force you to house soldiers in your home as the British were forcing colonists to do?
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 10:14:21 AM
five bullets a second.......
Who needs to be able to do this in a city?
No one unless you're hunting Humans? :'(
How about a Hello Kitty Rifle? (http://www.kittyhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/hello-kitty-assault-rifle.jpg)
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
You are so right Stephen.
The 2nd Amendment was written in very different times. If the founding fathers had any idea how advanced guns would evolve and how violent our society would eventually become they just may have reworded it
My problem with gun lovers is how they want to extend the right to everyone, without a record, to possess whatever gun they chose. I say let everyone have a gun like the ones that existed in the days the 2nd was written. Anything else would be illegal.
It's funny that every time something like this happens gun advocates start becoming defensive and frighten the citizens with the idea that the government is about to take all their guns.
My facebook friends, I loosely call some of them that, have been posting all this nonsense about how Obama has a secret bill that is about to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
They are making crackpot statements like "He'll never take my guns."
Sensible gun control should not be about politics but it is.
Wasn't the 2nd amendment written to allow citizens to protect themselves from the Army/Govt to ensure they couldn't force you to house soldiers in your home as the British were forcing colonists to do?
Like I said different times.
With the sophisticated weapons at the Army's disposal we wouldn't stand a chance. In that scenario we don't need guns at all.
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 10:39:22 AM
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
You are so right Stephen.
The 2nd Amendment was written in very different times. If the founding fathers had any idea how advanced guns would evolve and how violent our society would eventually become they just may have reworded it
My problem with gun lovers is how they want to extend the right to everyone, without a record, to possess whatever gun they chose. I say let everyone have a gun like the ones that existed in the days the 2nd was written. Anything else would be illegal.
It's funny that every time something like this happens gun advocates start becoming defensive and frighten the citizens with the idea that the government is about to take all their guns.
My facebook friends, I loosely call some of them that, have been posting all this nonsense about how Obama has a secret bill that is about to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
They are making crackpot statements like "He'll never take my guns."
Sensible gun control should not be about politics but it is.
Wasn't the 2nd amendment written to allow citizens to protect themselves from the Army/Govt to ensure they couldn't force you to house soldiers in your home as the British were forcing colonists to do?
Like I said different times.
With the sophisticated weapons at the Army's disposal we wouldn't stand a chance. In that scenario we don't need guns at all.
We do need guns people do hunt for animals, birds and for home protection. Assault Weapons should be the only guns that should be ban!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y88VNIeNSZo
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 10:39:22 AM
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 10:25:14 AM
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 10:20:31 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on December 17, 2012, 09:26:55 AM
It's not, that's my point. The enforcement is weak. Especially when it comes to people with mental issues. I see two main problems.
First, lots of people go undiagnosed and untreated. Most of these peole show signs long before they act. Parents are confused or scared of their children when they show signs of violence and don't know where to turn. Who wants to admit that their child is a psychopath?
Secondly, even if diagnosed there is nothing to stop them from buying a gun. The only thing on the ATF form 4473 that mentions mental illness is basically "have you been diagnosed with a mental illness? Y/n". That's it. Of course lying on that form is a 5 year felony or something similar, but dies someone with these motives really care?
I feel that there has to be a better way to solve this problem than removing rights from the rest of us. Thousands die in DUI accidents each year, but we don't ban all sales of alcohol to solve the problem.
I just don't see why we all have to restructure our entire lives, turn our schools into fortresses, create security checkpoints and submit ourselves to body searches and patdowns just so a few people can possess guns that can shoot five people to death per second.
Thats not the right that the second amendment was designed to protect, and pretending that it does forces everyone else to give up other rights (like the right not to be searched, for example) and far too often the greatest right of all---the right not to be killed by a gunman with hundreds of bullets.
You are so right Stephen.
The 2nd Amendment was written in very different times. If the founding fathers had any idea how advanced guns would evolve and how violent our society would eventually become they just may have reworded it
My problem with gun lovers is how they want to extend the right to everyone, without a record, to possess whatever gun they chose. I say let everyone have a gun like the ones that existed in the days the 2nd was written. Anything else would be illegal.
It's funny that every time something like this happens gun advocates start becoming defensive and frighten the citizens with the idea that the government is about to take all their guns.
My facebook friends, I loosely call some of them that, have been posting all this nonsense about how Obama has a secret bill that is about to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
They are making crackpot statements like "He'll never take my guns."
Sensible gun control should not be about politics but it is.
Wasn't the 2nd amendment written to allow citizens to protect themselves from the Army/Govt to ensure they couldn't force you to house soldiers in your home as the British were forcing colonists to do?
Like I said different times.
With the sophisticated weapons at the Army's disposal we wouldn't stand a chance. In that scenario we don't need guns at all.
There is still the need for protection from those that would do you harm.
Also the sophisticated weaponry of the military can only do so much against small guerrilla type groups, at some point you have to commit troops to do the work that cannot be done by the heavy equipment.
I did not say ban guns. I was just making a point about what the 2nd amendment was written for. I'm not a gun person but I find nothing wrong with anyone who wants to own a sensible gun. For hunting and so on. I don't own a gun and never plan to. So often violent acts happen so quickly you don't have a chance anyway. If you feel safer with a gun in your home that's fine with me. All that concerns me is the NRA and all the gun lovers out there want a free for all. They don't even want to consider a sensible solution.
This discussion is headed in the right direction. Keep the thoughts coming while holding the current tone of this conversation and collectively we raise the discourse on a very important topic impacting all of us.
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 12:03:04 PM
I did not say ban guns. I was just making a point about what the 2nd amendment was written for. I'm not a gun person but I find nothing wrong with anyone who wants to own a sensible gun. For hunting and so on. I don't own a gun and never plan to. So often violent acts happen so quickly you don't have a chance anyway. If you feel safer with a gun in your home that's fine with me. All that concerns me is the NRA and all the gun lovers out there want a free for all. They don't even want to consider a sensible solution.
No one with any sense wants a free for all, and stereotyping NRA members(I am not one) and engaging in hyperbole does nothing to contribute to the discussion.
What sensible solutions do you think will work? Do you really think that banning assault weapons would have saved those kids in that senseless attack? When a tragedy like this happens everyone wants to do something but unless you can take your emotions out of it and look objectively at what happened, how it happened, and why it happened you won't end up doing anything that will do any good. We need to do it right and not right now.
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 12:03:04 PM
I did not say ban guns. I was just making a point about what the 2nd amendment was written for. I'm not a gun person but I find nothing wrong with anyone who wants to own a sensible gun. For hunting and so on. I don't own a gun and never plan to. So often violent acts happen so quickly you don't have a chance anyway. If you feel safer with a gun in your home that's fine with me. All that concerns me is the NRA and all the gun lovers out there want a free for all. They don't even want to consider a sensible solution.
No one with any sense wants a free for all, and stereotyping NRA members(I am not one) and engaging in hyperbole does nothing to contribute to the discussion.
What sensible solutions do you think will work? Do you really think that banning assault weapons would have saved those kids in that senseless attack? When a tragedy like this happens everyone wants to do something but unless you can take your emotions out of it and look objectively at what happened, how it happened, and why it happened you won't end up doing anything that will do any good. We need to do it right and not right now.
Wrong we need to do it Right Now! Look the Media has a short Attention span so do most Americans? The ban on assault weapons should be better then what was passed in 1994 and lasted 10 years. A new ban should have no loop holes and if you have an assault weapon you should turn it in at a police buy back program. I don't have all the answers but to poo poo this over the next several months would be just stupid.
As the mexican cartels look for other ways to offset their losses from the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington an assault weapons ban hands them a new product to peddle on the black market.
Also we can't even mow our right of ways or keep our schools funded to have PE, but we have the money to buy back guns?
Don't get me wrong I want to see the US to find a solution to the senseless
killings, I just don't think a knee jerk reaction is going
to solve it.
I'm not an NRA member and I don't own assault weapons, I just don't believe
we can legislate morality, nor stop gun murders with a new law banning these weapons.
Quote from: Gators312 on December 17, 2012, 01:01:34 PM
As the mexican cartels look for other ways to offset their losses from the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington an assault weapons ban hands them a new product to peddle on the black market.
Also we can't even mow our right of ways or keep our schools funded to have PE, but we have the money to buy back guns?
Don't get me wrong I want to see the US to find a solution to the senseless
killings, I just don't think a knee jerk reaction is going
to solve it.
I'm not an NRA member and I don't own assault weapons, I just don't believe
we can legislate morality, nor stop gun murders with a new law banning these weapons.
Who's talking about legislate morality? Is that what we would be doing if we ban assault weapons?
I'm saying it's hard to legislate people not killing other people.
Or the overall prinicple that this type of behavior isn't acceptable.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on December 17, 2012, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 12:03:04 PM
I did not say ban guns. I was just making a point about what the 2nd amendment was written for. I'm not a gun person but I find nothing wrong with anyone who wants to own a sensible gun. For hunting and so on. I don't own a gun and never plan to. So often violent acts happen so quickly you don't have a chance anyway. If you feel safer with a gun in your home that's fine with me. All that concerns me is the NRA and all the gun lovers out there want a free for all. They don't even want to consider a sensible solution.
No one with any sense wants a free for all, and stereotyping NRA members(I am not one) and engaging in hyperbole does nothing to contribute to the discussion.
What sensible solutions do you think will work? Do you really think that banning assault weapons would have saved those kids in that senseless attack? When a tragedy like this happens everyone wants to do something but unless you can take your emotions out of it and look objectively at what happened, how it happened, and why it happened you won't end up doing anything that will do any good. We need to do it right and not right now.
Wrong we need to do it Right Now! Look the Media has a short Attention span so do most Americans? The ban on assault weapons should be better then what was passed in 1994 and lasted 10 years. A new ban should have no loop holes and if you have an assault weapon you should turn it in at a police buy back program. I don't have all the answers but to poo poo this over the next several months would be just stupid.
You completely missed the point. It is more important to take the time to pass the correct legislation instead of rushing to pass bad legislation that does nothing except make you feel good.
Doing it right is more important than doing it "right now"
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on December 17, 2012, 12:51:58 PM
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
Quote from: avonjax on December 17, 2012, 12:03:04 PM
I did not say ban guns. I was just making a point about what the 2nd amendment was written for. I'm not a gun person but I find nothing wrong with anyone who wants to own a sensible gun. For hunting and so on. I don't own a gun and never plan to. So often violent acts happen so quickly you don't have a chance anyway. If you feel safer with a gun in your home that's fine with me. All that concerns me is the NRA and all the gun lovers out there want a free for all. They don't even want to consider a sensible solution.
No one with any sense wants a free for all, and stereotyping NRA members(I am not one) and engaging in hyperbole does nothing to contribute to the discussion.
What sensible solutions do you think will work? Do you really think that banning assault weapons would have saved those kids in that senseless attack? When a tragedy like this happens everyone wants to do something but unless you can take your emotions out of it and look objectively at what happened, how it happened, and why it happened you won't end up doing anything that will do any good. We need to do it right and not right now.
Wrong we need to do it Right Now! Look the Media has a short Attention span so do most Americans? The ban on assault weapons should be better then what was passed in 1994 and lasted 10 years. A new ban should have no loop holes and if you have an assault weapon you should turn it in at a police buy back program. I don't have all the answers but to poo poo this over the next several months would be just stupid.
You completely missed the point. It is more important to take the time to pass the correct legislation instead of rushing to pass bad legislation that does nothing except make you feel good.
Doing it right is more important than doing it "right now"
I didn't miss the point besides the House and Senate will take forever to get something passed anyway.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 01:59:34 PM
Why does anyone need to shoot five people in one second?
Is that just your God given Right?
The right to kill your neighbors in masses before they can react?
Stephen, you've been parroting this line since you started posting about the story. A handgun can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, they aren't automatic. Five rounds a second means you are pulling the trigger 5 times in a second which is very fast for any normal person. If you are pulling the trigger that fast you are not changing targets, you are firing at a single target, because you simply cannot pull the trigger that fast and aim at 5 different targets in one second. I doubt you'd find many people who could even aim and hit two different targets in a second.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 02:02:55 PM
While we were talking about being sensitive to the rights of the right people to be able to kill five people per second, three more were shot to death in Michigan:
We can always count on you to come with the hyperbole.
I don't think anyone on this board, is wanting to be sensitive Stephen.
I think it's those who want a reasonable discussion and concern for unintended consequences while trying to address the issue.
"The White House says curbing gun violence is a complex problem that will require a "comprehensive solution" including addressing gun control measures.
Still, spokesman Jay Carney says gun control is not the only solution to stopping shootings like the horrific attack at a Connecticut elementary school Friday. He says no single piece of legislation or single action will fully address the problem."
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 01:59:34 PM
Why does anyone need to shoot five people in one second?
Is that just your God given Right?
The right to kill your neighbors in masses before they can react?
Stephen, you've been parroting this line since you started posting about the story. A handgun can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, they aren't automatic. Five rounds a second means you are pulling the trigger 5 times in a second which is very fast for any normal person. If you are pulling the trigger that fast you are not changing targets, you are firing at a single target, because you simply cannot pull the trigger that fast and aim at 5 different targets in one second. I doubt you'd find many people who could even aim and hit two different targets in a second.
Well please help me out, carpenter.
How many of your neighbors should you be able to kill per minute, and is that your God given Right?
None but if a Neighbor is trying to kill you it is your God Given Right!
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 01:59:34 PM
Why does anyone need to shoot five people in one second?
Is that just your God given Right?
The right to kill your neighbors in masses before they can react?
Stephen, you've been parroting this line since you started posting about the story. A handgun can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, they aren't automatic. Five rounds a second means you are pulling the trigger 5 times in a second which is very fast for any normal person. If you are pulling the trigger that fast you are not changing targets, you are firing at a single target, because you simply cannot pull the trigger that fast and aim at 5 different targets in one second. I doubt you'd find many people who could even aim and hit two different targets in a second.
Well please help me out, carpenter.
How many of your neighbors should you be able to kill per minute, and is that your God given Right?
If someone is trying to kill me then I should be allowed to use whatever means necessary to remove that threat, that is my God Given Right. I am still responsible for ensuring that others around are not harmed by my actions in removing that threat.
Since we are engaging in hyperbole and you appear to be incapable of anything other than an emotional argument at this time. I should be able to kill as many of my neighbors per minute as is necessary to remove and real threat they pose to my life and those of my family. If that requires me to be able to kill 50 neighbors per minute because they are attacking me or my family and are a threat to our lives, then that is how many I should be allowed to kill.
Once you get over this ridiculous 5 shots per second statement that you are hanging on to, perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion.
Count me in the camp that supports gun rights but sees no reason for the pushers to be able to peddle military rifles to the public. Though I absolutely agree that prohibiting such weapons won't end the problem of gun crime. However, the excuse that the problem will be complicated to solve is pretty flimsy justification for maintaining the status quo.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on December 17, 2012, 02:45:03 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 01:59:34 PM
Why does anyone need to shoot five people in one second?
Is that just your God given Right?
The right to kill your neighbors in masses before they can react?
Stephen, you've been parroting this line since you started posting about the story. A handgun can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, they aren't automatic. Five rounds a second means you are pulling the trigger 5 times in a second which is very fast for any normal person. If you are pulling the trigger that fast you are not changing targets, you are firing at a single target, because you simply cannot pull the trigger that fast and aim at 5 different targets in one second. I doubt you'd find many people who could even aim and hit two different targets in a second.
Well please help me out, carpenter.
How many of your neighbors should you be able to kill per minute, and is that your God given Right?
None but if a Neighbor is trying to kill you it is your God Given Right!
You know, like Jesus did.
Stephen if a neighbor was coming after you with a gun would you go "Mahatma Gandhi" on him or fight back?
The NRA’s A-rated West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin, calls for a ban on assault weapons.
“Seeing the massacre of so many innocent children has changed everything...Everything has to be on the table.â€
Watch: http://on.msnbc.com/VLwNDf
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=360629974033261&set=a.279728135456779.59808.273864989376427&type=1&theater
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 04:43:23 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on December 17, 2012, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on December 17, 2012, 02:45:03 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: carpnter on December 17, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 01:59:34 PM
Why does anyone need to shoot five people in one second?
Is that just your God given Right?
The right to kill your neighbors in masses before they can react?
Stephen, you've been parroting this line since you started posting about the story. A handgun can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, they aren't automatic. Five rounds a second means you are pulling the trigger 5 times in a second which is very fast for any normal person. If you are pulling the trigger that fast you are not changing targets, you are firing at a single target, because you simply cannot pull the trigger that fast and aim at 5 different targets in one second. I doubt you'd find many people who could even aim and hit two different targets in a second.
Well please help me out, carpenter.
How many of your neighbors should you be able to kill per minute, and is that your God given Right?
None but if a Neighbor is trying to kill you it is your God Given Right!
You know, like Jesus did.
Stephen if a neighbor was coming after you with a gun would you go "Mahatma Gandhi" on him or fight back?
Ive had a number of guns pointed at me by people willing to pull the trigger, didnt shoot one of them.
But is the question limited only to people coming at me with a gun?
And isnt that a bit ironic, considering the subject?
Im just wondering how many people per minute need to be killed by a single weapon if we are going to preserve um, you know....Freedom. Life and Liberty. and uh, you know...the Constitutional right to rapidly kill as many people as we feel are necessary.
"Ive had a number of guns pointed at me by people willing to pull the trigger" WOW you must piss off a lot of people? Look I'm ready for the assault weapons and large magazine clips to be banned ASAP! But you will never get people or America to ban all weapons and we shouldn't even try.
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 05:06:37 PM
Is there some proposal to do this, IILY? Or are you just saying something for the lack of having anything to say?
I bet you also would convince anyone to do away with all vegetables either.
Or junk food.
or chain link fences.
or any number of things. ;)
"Is there some proposal to do this, IILY? Or are you just saying something for the lack of having anything to say?" Stephen your Nuts!
Quote from: stephendare on December 17, 2012, 05:31:53 PM
well you mentioned a proposal to take all guns away from all Americans, I was wondering if this was a real thing or just something you made up?
Jesus Christ Stephen you love picking fights what don't you understand? I said I would like the assault weapons and large magazine clips to be banned ASAP! BUT trying to get any other Guns removed from honest Americans is just NUTS!
I would be interested in what the definition of "assault weapon" is. An AR-15 or any civilian variant is a semi-automatic medium powered rifle. The "standard" magazine is 30 rounds. Semi-automatic simply means that the weapon will fire once every time the trigger is pulled until the magazine is empty. Is it the intent of those calling for an "assault weapons" ban to ban all semi-automatic weapons? The Clinton ban limited itself to certain "listed" models. Based largely on "features" such as flash suppressors, pistol grips, and other "military-like" features.
An actual "assault rifle" fires fully automatically, or fires continuously when the trigger is held down. These are already heavily regulated and are not very common.
I would appreciate clarification of what is proposed by the posters. I have not been able to find the text of the Fienstein proposal.
(For the record, I am opposed to any such ban. I am a member of the NRA. I believe in the Second Amendment and the purpose for which it was written. I am also of the belief that the right to self defense is God given, and is not to be abridged by men.) Just so you guys have someone to yell at... :) .
The definition of "assault rifle varies wildly... with some of the definitions absurd. That said... I am not... nor have ever been... a member of the NRA. I have however owned a weapon or two my entire life... most have been semi automatic in one version or another.
I do agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a critical and fundamental right delineated in our Bill of Rights along with nine other precious rights. Most if not all of those critical and fundamental rights come with certain limitations.
We are all aware of various limitations to the first amendment for example.
That said... the soon to be introduced legislation to limit certain weapons or even clips will do nothing to make things safer. I am not opposed to such legislation... as I also cannot fathom why someone needs an "assault weapon" (whatever that is)(they know one when they see one) with 30 round clips. Ban em... if it makes you feel better.
I take no issue with making the process to purchase a new weapon more difficult and the standards raised for prospective buyers. Reasonable limitations on types of weapons and raising standards are measures I will support.
That said... me... and many people like me... will be vigilant for the "slippery slope" syndrome where once some reasonable limitations are placed on our second amendment right are in place... there will be some who want further and further limitations that I and others will not support.
Knowledgeable people know what "assault weapon" means when they see them, and know that potential bans will necessarily include specific criteria. They're talking about military style weapons with particular features, not traditional hunting rifles or handguns that happen to be semi-automatic. I don't know why some folks in the gun crowd try to conflate these things, but it's a losing battle for anyone who wants to preserve gun rights in a sensible manner.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 18, 2012, 09:05:00 AM
Knowledgeable people know what "assault weapon" means when they see them, and know that potential bans will necessarily include specific criteria. They're talking about military style weapons with particular features, not traditional hunting rifles or handguns that happen to be semi-automatic. I don't know why some folks in the gun crowd try to conflate these things, but it's a losing battle for anyone who wants to preserve gun rights in a sensible manner.
Not trying to conflate... and I am not a member of the "gun crowd". Please illustrate the working differances between a hunting rifle and military style assault rifle. I would also ask what your definition of "gun crowd" is.
Here would be a good working referance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
QuoteCriteria of an assault weapon
Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
Quote from: stephendare on December 18, 2012, 09:50:34 AM
nobody needs to shoot up to fifty people within three minutes.
Whatever terminology may exist to strain over, I think thats the bottom line.
I dont think anyone disagrees here Stephen... I certainly do not. The question is... How do you get there?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 18, 2012, 09:45:25 AM
Here would be a good working referance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
QuoteCriteria of an assault weapon
Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
Yeah, but.....
This (http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/9380/10373088_1.jpg?v=8CDAE02674746C0)
is the same as (http://www.weerdworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Hunting-FAL.jpg)
The only differences are cosmetic.
Same ammo. Same firing rate.
Does a car go faster because you put shiny rims and a glow kit on it?
We can ban all types of guns and it won't stop murders or mass killings. All it will be is something to make you feel like you are doing something to address the problem.
People love to cite lower murder rates in other countries with stricter gun control, but the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control. The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.
Brazil has some very restrictive gun ownership laws yet they have one of the highest murder rates with firearms in the world. Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high ownership rates of guns but have lower number when it comes to murders involving firearms. Again, the difference is the people and the culture. You can't point to a country and say "their laws are working, we can do the same here." There are other things besides gun control that have an affect on why the numbers are so different.
You can discuss regulating firearms all you want but until you address the people issues you are likely going to end up accomplishing nothing. People issues range from education and broken families to mental health and the media's and movie industry's obsession with violence. Gun control should be part of the conversation, but if it dominates the conversation and the only thing accomplished is more gun laws, we will have done absolutely nothing keep something like this from happening again.
Quote from: stephendare on December 18, 2012, 11:25:27 AM
Quote from: carpnter on December 18, 2012, 11:20:08 AM
We can ban all types of guns and it won't stop murders or mass killings. All it will be is something to make you feel like you are doing something to address the problem.
People love to cite lower murder rates in other countries with stricter gun control, but the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control. The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.
Brazil has some very restrictive gun ownership laws yet they have one of the highest murder rates with firearms in the world. Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high ownership rates of guns but have lower number when it comes to murders involving firearms. Again, the difference is the people and the culture. You can't point to a country and say "their laws are working, we can do the same here." There are other things besides gun control that have an affect on why the numbers are so different.
You can discuss regulating firearms all you want but until you address the people issues you are likely going to end up accomplishing nothing. People issues range from education and broken families to mental health and the media's and movie industry's obsession with violence. Gun control should be part of the conversation, but if it dominates the conversation and the only thing accomplished is more gun laws, we will have done absolutely nothing keep something like this from happening again.
literally balderdash from beginning to end.
lets see some statistics proving any of these claims. carpenter
Here are a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate - Sort it by homicide.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list - The chart here ranks each nation.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/ - This site classifies the gun laws and policies of each nation.
I could come up with an encyclopedia full of stats to support my claims and you will simply dismiss them because you don't agree with them. You are incapable of having a thoughtful and rational discussion about the issues. Your mind is made up.
This subject has been discussed on this board many times. "Knowledgable people" do not appear to know very much about firearms. What is being called "assault weapons" is simply the attachments to a semi-automatic firearm. Real assault weapons are already heavily regulated.
Just a couple of notes:
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect hunting. It is to simply document that the right to self defense, from all dangers, but especially tyranny of government, to all Americans. Any study of the writings of the founding fathers makes it clear what the meaning is. That's right, I said "is". It means the same thing today as it did in 1789. Americans have as much right to an AR-15 as a musket. Technology has changed universally since the founding of this country. We are (hopefully) not abridging freedom of speech because of television or the internet. (Although the government is currently trying to restrict your use of the internet.)
The legislative response to this crime should be to reform our mental health laws. An honest assessment of our treatment of mental illness reveals serious problems. This killer was one of the "lucky" mentally ill. He had a family that cared about him and they allowed him to live in their home. I would not be surprised to find out that the Lanza divorce was over this mentally ill child. Many families are coping with dangerous individuals on a daily basis because we as a society don't have the political will to provide secure medical facility settings for them. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of families dealing with dangerous mentally ill family members every day. We constantly read about families calling police to their homes because of an "out of control" mentally ill family member and the police end up having to kill that person. We then blame the Police or "lack of training". Many of the mentally ill don't have families willing to put up with the craziness and danger to themselves, and those end up on our streets and in our alleys. In our need to be "humane" we allow these people to wander aimlessly with no monitoring, no medication, and no future. We abandon large portions of real estate to avoid the unpleasant contact with "crazy people" and then we wonder why our urban areas cannot make any progress. These poor souls sometimes end up killing others or themselves. We must reform our mental health system. If we learn anything from this horrible incident, that is what is most important.
Quote from: stephendare on December 18, 2012, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: carpnter on December 18, 2012, 11:51:35 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 18, 2012, 11:25:27 AM
Quote from: carpnter on December 18, 2012, 11:20:08 AM
We can ban all types of guns and it won't stop murders or mass killings. All it will be is something to make you feel like you are doing something to address the problem.
People love to cite lower murder rates in other countries with stricter gun control, but the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control. The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.
Brazil has some very restrictive gun ownership laws yet they have one of the highest murder rates with firearms in the world. Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high ownership rates of guns but have lower number when it comes to murders involving firearms. Again, the difference is the people and the culture. You can't point to a country and say "their laws are working, we can do the same here." There are other things besides gun control that have an affect on why the numbers are so different.
You can discuss regulating firearms all you want but until you address the people issues you are likely going to end up accomplishing nothing. People issues range from education and broken families to mental health and the media's and movie industry's obsession with violence. Gun control should be part of the conversation, but if it dominates the conversation and the only thing accomplished is more gun laws, we will have done absolutely nothing keep something like this from happening again.
literally balderdash from beginning to end.
lets see some statistics proving any of these claims. carpenter
Here are a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate - Sort it by homicide.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list - The chart here ranks each nation.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/ - This site classifies the gun laws and policies of each nation.
I could come up with an encyclopedia full of stats to support my claims and you will simply dismiss them because you don't agree with them. You are incapable of having a thoughtful and rational discussion about the issues. Your mind is made up.
Here is your claim:
the problem is those countries have always had lower murder rates than the US even before they enacted their strict gun control. The difference between the the US and those other countries is the people and culture.
None of these sources even come close to demonstrating this.
Keep looking, though. Ill be patient.
And if you can prove your point, I will definitely concede.
Since the most common comparison people use is the UK.
England/UK enacted their most stringent gun control laws in 1996 which banned handgun ownership, and they banned semi-automatic rifles in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade
As you can see around 1900 the US and Great Britain were relatively the same when comparing murder rates. The US begins to increase after that and has always been higher than England/UK. As a side note, England/UK did not show any significant decline in the murder rate after either of these gun control laws were enacted and I suspect an analysis of the data could probably attribute the increase in the murder rate from the 1990's to the 2000's to the addition of Northern Ireland and Scotland to the numbers for the UK when the chart changed from counting data as separate countries to counting the countries as the United Kingdom.
However the data shows that the murder rate has historically been lower than that in the US before and after the gun laws were passed.
You can also say the same for Australia, its murder rate has been lower than the US no matter their laws, there is data to suggest they did notice a decline in their murder rate after they passed more stringent gun laws(The chart does not seem to show a significant decline though, probably because Australia's murder rate was already pretty low) unlike the UK which did not see a significant decrease. There is data that indicates that Australia did see a very significant reduction in firearm suicides, but that is another discussion which I am not going to get into.
StephenDare,
You quoted my opinion of what the founders had in mind. My opinion is based on the letters and writings of the founding fathers in which it is quite clear what dangers they had in mind when they decided to actually guarantee ten human rights in the original Constitution. At the time, many thought that these human rights were self evident, and opposed the original Bill of Rights from the fear that some future government would try to state that citizens rights were limited to just those specified in the Bill of Rights.
There is no need (I would hope) for me to quote the founding fathers many statements which they verify that one of the most important reasons for an armed populace is to keep tyranny of government in check. That has already been done many times on this site. Seditionist nonsense? Read the Federalist papers. Read the writings of the founding fathers. Read the past threads on this issue. To argue for what is right is not "seditionist".
"Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
As for this nonsense - "No where does it say that the Right to Bear Arms includes machinery which allows for the mass murder of American citizens without warning." - You might want to think about the statement. Timothy McVeigh killed almost two hundred people including almost twenty small children...with fertilizer and a van. 33,000 people died in traffic crashes, almost 11,000 of those people died in DUI crashes last year. Trains killed 600 people and injured 2300. Almost 2,000 people are stabbed to death each year.
We will be outlawing a lot of booze, cars, trains, and knives using your "machinery" logic.
Seriously, the Second Amendment codifies the right of the public to keep and bear arms...what kind of arms? Why, just as you posted, the kind needed to arm a militia. Modern arms capable of using as an armed force.
It's really just that simple.
The real call for reform from this incident is the need for mental health care reform. That is where we should be concentrating our efforts and debate.
^Oh come on. Our state already has a well regulated militia that's far better equipped than any private citizen and is perfectly capable of protecting us from any threat to our freedom, foreign or domestic. It's called the Florida National Guard.
Tacachale, you are missing the point of the Second Amendment. The National Guard is an arm of the state government. The founding fathers believed in placing as much power as possible with the people. The militia that they were talking about was the people.
Here is the beauty of the Constitution. Truth stands the test of time. The idea of a free people, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from government is as true today as it was in 1776. Sure, times have changed. We have automobiles and airplanes, television and the internet, corporate food supplies and corporate health care. But the freedoms that we enjoy, those basic truths still stand. A human being has every right to be able to defend him/herself against any incursion, be it criminal or tyrant. As the founding fathers (and their forebears)said, these rights are God given and are not subject to the governments of man. A free people acknowledge the increased responsibility placed on each of them. They understand that the temporary security of tyrants has resulted in massive suffering throughout history. How easily we forget the lessons of the past.
Owner of the firearms company who made the gun used at Sandy Hook is selling the business.
From the article:
"It's an unusual move by Cerberus but it was a terrible event, so they are responding to some of their investors who are teachers' funds. I'm sure they will be selling it at a low price because now would not be a good time to sell the business," said Steven Kaplan, a University of Chicago finance professor.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-cerberus-freedomgroupbre8bh08f-20121217,0,3376808.story