+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #11
    Senior Member UCPharmD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    565

    Default

    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.
    SSG UCPharmD
    Veteran, ARNG Infantry and MP Squad Leader
    Veteran, United States Marine Corps Military Police


    RIP SPC Shane Ahmed, Kunar Province Afghanistan 14 NOV 2010
    RIP MSG Jeff Rieck, Faryab Province Afghanistan 4 APR 2012

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense image
    Join Date
    Just Now
    Location
    In your thoughts
    Posts
    42

  • #12
    Senior Member Exo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    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
    Tenants of Bushido;

    ‘We should never obsess about if we are going to die, but instead focus on how we live as those whom live an honorable life will always die a glorious death.’

    Rectitude (義): Courage (勇氣): Benevolence (仁): Respect (禮 ): Honesty (誠): Honour (名誉): Loyalty (忠義)

    ...ergo veneratio est vires.

  • #13
    Senior Member StayFrosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Bragg
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UCPharmD View Post
    ? 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.

  • #14
    Senior Member StayFrosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Bragg
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Army Strong View Post
    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.

  • #15
    Senior Member Exo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StayFrosty View Post
    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.. One of the benefits of being Irish..
    Tenants of Bushido;

    ‘We should never obsess about if we are going to die, but instead focus on how we live as those whom live an honorable life will always die a glorious death.’

    Rectitude (義): Courage (勇氣): Benevolence (仁): Respect (禮 ): Honesty (誠): Honour (名誉): Loyalty (忠義)

    ...ergo veneratio est vires.

  • #16
    Senior Member StayFrosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fort Bragg
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exo1 View Post
    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.. 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...

  • #17
    Senior Member LoneStarMedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    El Paso, Texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    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.
    CDT/E-5 M.
    68W Combat Medic/09R SMP Cadet
    HHB 3/133 FA
    56 IBCT
    TX ARNG
    "Dum Spiramus Tuebimur"

  • #18
    Senior Member Exo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StayFrosty View Post
    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..

    Exo
    Tenants of Bushido;

    ‘We should never obsess about if we are going to die, but instead focus on how we live as those whom live an honorable life will always die a glorious death.’

    Rectitude (義): Courage (勇氣): Benevolence (仁): Respect (禮 ): Honesty (誠): Honour (名誉): Loyalty (忠義)

    ...ergo veneratio est vires.

  • + Reply to Thread
    Page 2 of 2
    FirstFirst 1 2

    Similar Threads

    1. Gun Appraisals
      By zmcgooga in forum Off Topic
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: 03-15-2011, 01:01 AM
    2. Run 'n Gun in the sun - 14 AUG 2010
      By Grunt Medic TXARNG in forum Training
      Replies: 20
      Last Post: 08-19-2010, 11:04 AM
    3. >> M240 Machine Gun Video <<
      By M1A96819 in forum Media Gallery
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: 07-04-2010, 08:48 PM
    4. My gun cabinet loves when I'm deployed...
      By Grunt Medic TXARNG in forum Combat Arms
      Replies: 7
      Last Post: 06-26-2010, 08:40 AM
    5. Air Traffic Control
      By chevydealer08 in forum General Army Discussion
      Replies: 12
      Last Post: 11-07-2009, 08:22 AM

    Posting Permissions

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