PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control



LoneStarMedic
12-24-2012, 06:41 PM
I'm surprised no one has touched on the subject as of yet but what do you all think of the looming political attempts to re-institute an assault weapons ban and enact other gun restrictions in light of the Connecticut shooting? I really don't think guns are the problem--if someone has the intent to kill, secondary to mental/psychological deficiency or murderous motives, they will do so whether its with guns, knives/axes as we've seen recently in China, or a can of gasoline and some matches.

I've seen a lot of panic-buying around here in response to congressional statements of intents to restrict gun sales. Stores and websites such as Cheaper Than Dirt - America's Ultimate Shooting Sports Discounter (http://www.cheaperthandirt.com), Wal-Mart, and Dick's Sporting Goods have even greatly reduced or completely eliminated firearm sales. What do you all think the political climate will be like in early 2013 when most of these bills will be pushed through congress? If you support gun rights and do not want any restrictions on firearm possessions/sales, I strongly encourage you to join the NRA. They're the only lobby group for gun rights after all.

Army Strong
12-24-2012, 07:31 PM
The two sides of this argument are each offering undeniably logical solutions. One side is suggesting we enforce strict control on firearms to limit an aspiring criminal's ability to acquire weapons. The other side suggests we put armed security or police in every school as an effective line of defense against active shooters. Neither is incorrect, and the suggestions aren't mutually exclusive. So why don't we do both?

My $0.02, ladies and gentlemen.

CWO Sharkey
12-25-2012, 07:28 AM
I understand the liberal's posture due to mass killings with guns. Taking children's lives is unbearable and it easy to conceive that wiping out our 2nd Amendment will solve the problem but it will not. Also, banning automatic assault weapons will not stop a lunatic from doing harm. And also, just tacking it from a mental issue perspective is not going to do anything as well. I grew up in New York City where the bad guys had the guns all of the time and nobody never really did serious time when caught with one nor making it hard to buy a gun or to get a ccw solve the issue of people obtaining guns.

Yes, better controls need to be implemented and sometimes in this day and age of computer technology; I cannot believe we cannot solve that nor voting issues.

RIP to those children and Happy Holidays everyone.

MSG Glenn
12-25-2012, 11:03 AM
A strong argument against gun control is the fact that 12,000 souls have been lost to drunken drivers in the US last year, many of them children yet nobody is talking about banning cars or alcoholic beverages. There are laws on the books against drunken driving & controls on alcohol but that doesn't stop anyone from using both in an illegal activity. There are even stronger laws against illegal drugs & those haven't done anything. If drugs can be illegally gotten I'm sure that smuggling & selling guns if they become illegal won't be stopped, either.

Limit the capacity of magazines? A few states have set the limit to 10 rounds. Carry 3 additional mags & now you have 30 +1 in the chamber. With even a little practice mag changes can be done in seconds. Ban the sales of semi-auto firearms? I've seen people shoot with a bolt action or pump action rifle very fast, again with practice. Revolvers with only five or six rounds? I've seen my neighbor, a retired police office load his 5 shooter very rapidly with speed loaders. He practices & usually carries 4 or 5 speedloaders. Assault rifles? Nothing more than a hunting rifle with a pistol grip & a flash hider. Teens with firearms? Already against the law yet I know of at least a half dozen punks close to my neighborhood that carry. One is as young as 15. He's now wanted for shooting up a house a block from me. Drug deal (also illegal) gone wrong. How many more laws could have stopped that? Illegal firearms can be bought or rented on many urban street corners.

People always feel that "something must be done" but they have no concept of firearms & what makes them tick. They only know they're "evil". The first thing they want to do is make more laws. All the laws on the books about firearms can & are broken. And how about the law against murder? How is that working out? Criminals don't obey the law. Good guys do & they always seem to be the ones punished when "something should be done".

surfri09
12-25-2012, 11:14 AM
I had to write an argumentative paper last semester and chose this topic. We could only use the databases provided by the school which are VERY liberal. I did finally dig up an article on a shooting in Germany. (Germany has some of the most strict gun laws in the world) A kid in high school was expelled; then returned later with some kind of pistol and a shotgun to kill 17 people before kill himself. A kid living in a country with some of the hardest gun laws found two guns and enough ammo to do that much damage. (I doubt he pulled the trigger only 17 times) It seems if someone wants a gun then they will get a gun. I found some other articles too. I talked to a chairman from the NRA he says, and I agree, with our culture we cannot have strict gun laws. He says it takes a person with a gun to stop a person with a gun. It makes sense to me. I don't make to try my luck with throwing knives and a bow/arrows yet. There is also speculation that with American citizens unarmed then politicians would be able to push the boundaries of the constitution farther and farther until it's too skewed to recognize the original.
It reminds me of an old biology experiment that was banned because it was deemed too cruel for high school students. A teacher would take one frog and throw it into a pot of boiling water. The frog would jump out, no harm done. The same frog, when put into a pot with room-temp water, would stay as the water was slowly raised to a boil then die from "natural" causes. This was told to us by a teacher of mine a few semesters ago and a kid blurted out that's what's happening to the US.
Anyway it looks like with the weapons out of Americans hands the pot could be brought to a boil quicker.

CWO Sharkey
12-25-2012, 05:43 PM
A strong argument against gun control is the fact that 12,000 souls have been lost to drunken drivers in the US last year, many of them children yet nobody is talking about banning cars or alcoholic beverages. There are laws on the books against drunken driving & controls on alcohol but that doesn't stop anyone from using both in an illegal activity. There are even stronger laws against illegal drugs & those haven't done anything. If drugs can be illegally gotten I'm sure that smuggling & selling guns if they become illegal won't be stopped, either.

Limit the capacity of magazines? A few states have set the limit to 10 rounds. Carry 3 additional mags & now you have 30 +1 in the chamber. With even a little practice mag changes can be done in seconds. Ban the sales of semi-auto firearms? I've seen people shoot with a bolt action or pump action rifle very fast, again with practice. Revolvers with only five or six rounds? I've seen my neighbor, a retired police office load his 5 shooter very rapidly with speed loaders. He practices & usually carries 4 or 5 speedloaders. Assault rifles? Nothing more than a hunting rifle with a pistol grip & a flash hider. Teens with firearms? Already against the law yet I know of at least a half dozen punks close to my neighborhood that carry. One is as young as 15. He's now wanted for shooting up a house a block from me. Drug deal (also illegal) gone wrong. How many more laws could have stopped that? Illegal firearms can be bought or rented on many urban street corners.

People always feel that "something must be done" but they have no concept of firearms & what makes them tick. They only know they're "evil". The first thing they want to do is make more laws. All the laws on the books about firearms can & are broken. And how about the law against murder? How is that working out? Criminals don't obey the law. Good guys do & they always seem to be the ones punished when "something should be done".

Excellent response Top and happy holidays.

MSG Glenn
12-26-2012, 10:35 AM
Thanks Chief. I hope you had a nice Christmas & hope that the New Year will be better for you & for everybody, myself included. As my dollars dwindle die to higher costs & my pension & Army retired checks stay the same I'm hurting. I've been looking for a security job, armed preferably, but I'm not having much luck. IF the state of WI lifts the ban on guns at school or IF I can get authorized to pack one there I've volunteered to act as an armed guard at our Christian school where my grandson is in the 8th grade. Hopefully there'll be a little money for that but if not I'll still do it.

StayFrosty
12-28-2012, 05:50 AM
A strong argument against gun control is the fact that 12,000 souls have been lost to drunken drivers in the US last year, many of them children yet nobody is talking about banning cars or alcoholic beverages. There are laws on the books against drunken driving & controls on alcohol but that doesn't stop anyone from using both in an illegal activity. There are even stronger laws against illegal drugs & those haven't done anything. If drugs can be illegally gotten I'm sure that smuggling & selling guns if they become illegal won't be stopped, either.

Limit the capacity of magazines? A few states have set the limit to 10 rounds. Carry 3 additional mags & now you have 30 +1 in the chamber. With even a little practice mag changes can be done in seconds. Ban the sales of semi-auto firearms? I've seen people shoot with a bolt action or pump action rifle very fast, again with practice. Revolvers with only five or six rounds? I've seen my neighbor, a retired police office load his 5 shooter very rapidly with speed loaders. He practices & usually carries 4 or 5 speedloaders. Assault rifles? Nothing more than a hunting rifle with a pistol grip & a flash hider. Teens with firearms? Already against the law yet I know of at least a half dozen punks close to my neighborhood that carry. One is as young as 15. He's now wanted for shooting up a house a block from me. Drug deal (also illegal) gone wrong. How many more laws could have stopped that? Illegal firearms can be bought or rented on many urban street corners.

People always feel that "something must be done" but they have no concept of firearms & what makes them tick. They only know they're "evil". The first thing they want to do is make more laws. All the laws on the books about firearms can & are broken. And how about the law against murder? How is that working out? Criminals don't obey the law. Good guys do & they always seem to be the ones punished when "something should be done".

What pains me is that they need only look at places like NYC, Chicago, Washington DC (right out their own back door!), and the like to realize that the "do something" direction they've selected repeatedly fails. I'm all for re-evaluating the situation and seeing how to make it better, but what does it say when you keep whacking a screw with a hammer?

MSG Glenn
12-29-2012, 03:42 AM
I guess we have to ban subway trains now. For the second time someone has been deliberately pushed under one.

Army Strong
12-29-2012, 07:43 PM
I am conservative to the bone when it comes to preserving the fundamental liberties that we have been defending for so long. However, the 2nd amendment has always struck me as an anomaly, as it appears to have been created to protect people from the very specific conditions of that time, specifically, protection from tyrannical governments. This contradicts the commonly known fact that the constitution was made to adapt to an ever-changing world. I believe, with great conviction, that this law is now obsolete, and that the only citizens who "need" to posses firearms are those who voluntarily serve in the military or law enforcement to provide for the defense of the nation. Instead of having a general distrust of the population by saying "I need guns to defend myself," we should strive to eliminate or greatly reduce crime through better-trained and capable police, and boost our education system in the WHOLE country to raise children into adults who need not resort to crime to make a living. I am not suggesting a ban on guns, but strict regulations, I feel, are appropriate.

UCPharmD
12-30-2012, 08:57 PM
Yes... strive to eliminate crime how? Liberals think by removing guns from law abiding citizens that we will remove the tool which criminals use to commit their crimes? I think not. By disarming the public you will create an absolute safe haven for criminals to kick your door in, rape and kill your family and then kill you. Why? Because they will not follow the law, they are criminals. They will wait until you voluntarily hand in your weapons whilst they keep theirs. I refuse to wait, hiding under my covers while someone forces their way into my home for the police to arrive. Why is it that all of these politicians, who are guarded by armed agents, think we don't need our weapons? Oh right. Obama has Secret Service following him and his family everywhere. They carry fully automatic MP5's. What do I get to keep with this new gun ban? A revolver? Or maybe a muzzle loader... So unless you plan on hiring millions of police officers and then training them and inventing a technology that allows them to arrive instantaneously after I call them (that also means that I have the time to react to call the police while my window is broken and the person enters my home), that isn't going to work. The terrible economy and our society creates this crime. You want to reduce or eliminate it? Fix our economy. Create jobs and social programs that get people back to work. Removing guns from citizens will not do anything but INCREASE the crime rate.

Exo1
01-01-2013, 05:51 AM
Good points made all round folks.. I'm going to weigh in on this "hot topic" as an outsider and an Irishman who's spend some time in the US and kept abreast of current events in general.

I have talked to Americans whom had had more radical views then we have here on the topic which has led me to a familiar observation of "he who beats his breast loudest gets the most attention". America unlike Ireland for example has a cultural belief in guns that stem from the 2nd Amendment and its deeply ingrained in the American psyche. This fact alone leaves me puzzled as to why any American no matter how extreme their position is on guns would want a radical change like outright bans as its doomed to fail due to the cultural element alone in my view.

Like think how ridiculous this would be, after the tragic killing of some many young innocents, the political steam infuses those whom want "guns of our streets" to get all new AR's banned and hail that as some magic bullet (excuse the pun) that will somehow translate into innocents not being killed in such a manner going forward??. Some may argue this currently which leads me to the other extreme which is the argument that if we break down the gun control environment even more, we somehow will be safer if we make 20 mike mike cannons available to hill billies, we will have a safer society that somehow will stop the boogy man from getting us all??.. oh and the boogy somehow never goes away... lol.. Its not hard to see the folly in both extremes both of which overlook or just plain abuse the following areas/points;

1. "Gun Culture" is a myth.... Guns in American Culture is real, and Americans whom embrace their culture fully will accept this. They don't have to participate in it, but thy will accept it
2. Belief in blame rather then cause and effect is a cardinal error for anybody wanting to find out what happened and when and then fix it. In the case of those poor little ones in Connecticut Radicalism on the part of the doomsday prepper teacher and her mentally imbalanced son (has to be right?) has to be more to the heart of the motive for the massacre making the AR 15 the tool.... When you look at effect, does it not become very clear that regulation of "tools" available to Joe Public make more sense and achieve a less problematic society as cleverly designed processes and laws can get gun owners to stand up and do their part at reasonable cost and inconvenience. Wouldn't this change actually make more sense and have half a chance if done right have a better chance of securing America.
3. Politics on both sides needs to confront arrogance and naivety when it comes to radicalism, remember Timothy McVeigh and his magabomb? The kernel roots of such radical beliefs often take hold when imbalanced people club together with a marriage of imbalanced ideas that produce tragic outcomes that normal Americans end up paying for in blood and indeed taxes.. America needs to be very aware that saying nothing empowers such characters to ultimately do harm against Americans... This doomsday prepper mother and her psycho son appear to me to fall into the same causality classification as Timothy McVeigh..
4. A mature and civilised conversation on what works needs to happen eventually and if all sides can agree that good gun regulation doesn't deny right, but empowers rights in a more secure society, then things like central registers for gun ownership, gun law and use competency evaluations, mental competency evaluations and a host of lessor facets making up gun regulation wont be quite so threatening... Also, taking out the naivety out of the conversation is also included here. e.g. the limit on .50 calibre is actually reasonable in the US making its reduction a dangerous act especially in Alaska where bears and large animals make the calibre at close quarters necessary for self defence and necessary for large animal hunting in larger rifles. It doesn't however make it alright to have a Barrett .50 sniper rifle as a "home defence weapon" just cos one can.. Regulation for reasonable use is the key and clever process delivering balance is the answer..

Finally, I know the majority of Americans (even if they don't admit it) are believers in being able to defend themselves at home using firearms. However, unlike Ireland for example America has a defined gun culture and with some clever regulation, it can make America more secure for her children's children whilst not loosing part of her culture in one short shock approach that will fail to stop future elementary school massacres and mitigate the threat imbalanced radicalism poses to the society as a whole. Does this mean, down the road some crazy wont come into a High School or Elementary School and start killing innocents? No it doesn't, but making gun control more cleverly regulated will give LE the edge to detect crime and I agree with MSG Glenn, training up an armed gun marshall in schools will drop the response time from minutes to seconds making a difference in lives saved. Ideas like these are often the first casualties to radical and/or naive politics after a tragedy like this.. Lets hope that particular trend will change going forward..

Anyhoo, my 2c..

Best Regards
Exo

StayFrosty
01-01-2013, 09:20 AM
? Oh right. Obama has Secret Service following him and his family everywhere. They carry fully automatic MP5's. What do I get to keep with this new gun ban? A revolver? Or maybe a muzzle loader... So unless you plan on hiring millions of police officers and then training them and inventing a technology that allows them to arrive instantaneously after I call them (that also means that I have the time to react to call the police while my window is broken and the person enters my home), that isn't going to work. The terrible economy and our society creates this crime. You want to reduce or eliminate it? Fix our economy. Create jobs and social programs that get people back to work. Removing guns from citizens will not do anything but INCREASE the crime rate.

A little bit off topic - many of those who sneer at the NRA proposal of securing all schools (our President included) send their children to schools where having a squad size element of armed security is an SOP ( ie, this is before the USSS arrives)... Just food for thought when you listen to some of these talking heads discuss options that will impact our lives but not theirs.

StayFrosty
01-01-2013, 09:32 AM
I am conservative to the bone when it comes to preserving the fundamental liberties that we have been defending for so long. However, the 2nd amendment has always struck me as an anomaly, as it appears to have been created to protect people from the very specific conditions of that time, specifically, protection from tyrannical governments. This contradicts the commonly known fact that the constitution was made to adapt to an ever-changing world. I believe, with great conviction, that this law is now obsolete, and that the only citizens who "need" to posses firearms are those who voluntarily serve in the military or law enforcement to provide for the defense of the nation. Instead of having a general distrust of the population by saying "I need guns to defend myself," we should strive to eliminate or greatly reduce crime through better-trained and capable police, and boost our education system in the WHOLE country to raise children into adults who need not resort to crime to make a living. I am not suggesting a ban on guns, but strict regulations, I feel, are appropriate.

How does the populace having the option of an armed overthrow contradict the flexible nature of the constitution? I would postulate that it is precisely BECAUSE the population of the United States has the ability to arm itself to the level of your average law enforcement agency that we have enjoyed a government that has not* turned to outright tyrrany. As recently as 45 years ago significant change in government policies was exacted by the people by way of peaceful protest in the face of police forces that were very close to crushing them. If you think that the right to peacefully protest doesn't hinge on a robust combination of the First and Second Amendments, you're sorely mistaken.

*we could easily have another 10+page thread on this topic alone. I'm making the statement that they have not purely for the sake of the argument presented, and so that we don't go too far off course.

Exo1
01-01-2013, 01:57 PM
A little bit off topic - many of those who sneer at the NRA proposal of securing all schools (our President included) send their children to schools where having a squad size element of armed security is an SOP ( ie, this is before the USSS arrives)... Just food for thought when you listen to some of these talking heads discuss options that will impact our lives but not theirs.

Why do they sneer at the proposal Frosty? To my uneducated eye, it seems like a good idea. Then again, I don't really care where good ideas come from... lol.. :rolleyes: One of the benefits of being Irish.. ;)

StayFrosty
01-02-2013, 12:08 PM
Why do they sneer at the proposal Frosty? To my uneducated eye, it seems like a good idea. Then again, I don't really care where good ideas come from... lol.. :rolleyes: One of the benefits of being Irish.. ;)

Actual answer... Because the NRA proposed it. If For example, Debbie W-S actually got her IQ above room temp and suggested it, it would be getting much better reception among the left wingers in our government.

Another part of the problem is that the NRA didn't say a whole lot else other than "armed security in schools", which played beautifully into the leftist media soundbite of "NRA says more guns are the answer... How loony is that?"

And so, rather than taking it seriously, they ridicule it, and continue on with their plans to wipe their arse with the Second Amendment...

LoneStarMedic
01-03-2013, 08:16 AM
From what has been made available on Senator Feinstein's proposed ban, she's pretty much gunning for all semi-automatic firearms, including handguns. While she hasn't named the roughly 120 firearms she's specifically aiming at, the legislation would ban much more than those 120. Pretty much anything with a detachable magazine over 10 rounds is a no-go. Anything with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds in a no-go. If the weapon has even ONE characteristic of a military weapon, it's a no-go. It's absolutely ridiculous. The market for these weapons and their accessories is a mad-house. AR-15s, AK-47s and other similar weapons as well as magazines are flying out the door. Back-orders for them are spanning over 2 months right now. So if you're wanting to stock up, it's probably already too late. Instead, write your congressmen/women so Feinstein's ban won't pass at all.

Exo1
01-05-2013, 11:45 AM
Actual answer... Because the NRA proposed it. If For example, Debbie W-S actually got her IQ above room temp and suggested it, it would be getting much better reception among the left wingers in our government.

Another part of the problem is that the NRA didn't say a whole lot else other than "armed security in schools", which played beautifully into the leftist media soundbite of "NRA says more guns are the answer... How loony is that?"

And so, rather than taking it seriously, they ridicule it, and continue on with their plans to wipe their arse with the Second Amendment...

Frosty, I think the American "Left" (lol... they would be considered right of centre in Europe) has some good ideas. I've being following this particular issue from a distance and to be frank, I don't buy into the argument being put forward on the "good guy with a gun" adding to the problem, not the solution.

From what I can make out, this NRA proposal has come out from the Republican party as follows;

1. A Federal bill that authorises in-depth firearms training for a warden or a member of staff that deals with weapons and tactical training designed to defend the school against armed attack upto the arrival of LE to relieve the armed member of staff.

2. The intention is for armed staff member to be low key ergo no pill boxes at the gate or guards with guns patrolling like they are in Helmand province.

I didn't pick up on anything else, but I presume they would be afforded statutory powers and in-depth follow up and refresher training to ensure they are up-to standard in line with their powers afforded including the use of lethal force.

Anyhoo, the argument against is presented as I see it in summary as follows;

1. Other countries using the good guy with a gun approach has documented failures in their approach.
2. Bring guns into schools, and you will encourage more gun violence
3. No evidence that using armed guards will reduce "violent crime".
4. Countries like a "City in Australia"..(lol) where semi auto guns were banned saw a "50% reduction in violent crime"

I don't see the argument against this proposal carrying weight for the following reasons;

1. Countries used in the comparison are relatively unstable to the US such as Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras where violent crime is endemic and police generally are poorly trained leading to poor quality policing. Crime wont go up if you put hapless and untrained people into uniform and call them Police... The Afghan Government will know this only too well..

2. The counter arguments in developed countries like Australia where a professional police force exists has relative merit that is only valid if you overlook the obvious difference which is culture. The culture of guns in the US is one of personal pride whereas the culture in Australia is one of practical use. If you don't need it, then you shouldn't have it prevails in Auz making the gun ban much more palatable. In the US, gun culture is so deep, they are used as heirlooms for generations of Americans.

4. The Aussie reference whilst informative was out of context. The 50% reduction in violent crime was general violent crime, and not violent crime in schools. How does one relate to the other?

In summary, the south American connection and the Auzzie connection fail to justify in my mind how having a low key well trained member of staff in a school is a bad idea?? It seems like this armed protocol for schools has become victim to the larger gun issue in the US which is a pity cos I think its a good idea to have a "Chuck Norris" on staff.. Well trained and armed for the unlikely cases he or she will be needed some day to protect Americas children in seconds until the police arrive.. Maybe its better to be handled at State level then Federal level?? Not sure if its practical or possible but a thought nevertheless...

As for the larger issue, I hope common sense finally raises its head and goes for informed control of firearms where a reasonable balance between gun ownership and public safety is found. From what I've seen, thats a long way off... For now, we can enjoy the woody woodpecker approach rehashing the same approach for the same oak tree response.. :rolleyes:

Exo