Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

You gotta be kidding me
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 5 14:08:51 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This shit won't fly . .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp


 
Ahriman Posted: Thu Mar 5 19:50:53 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well in NY, you need to have license to own a handgun. The rifle with a clip thing, I don't care about. I own a few guns and I have no use for clips. Even my shotgun is an over/under 12 gauge. If you can't take the animal out on the first shot, what's the point?
In fact reading over this bill, it would not effect me at all. All of that is already in effect in NY. It makes perfect sense. Hif what do you have against it?


 
kurohyou Posted: Thu Mar 5 20:37:02 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I really don't understand why it is such a big deal that there would be a law requiring a person to supply all of this information in order to own a firearm. While I am not an avid, die hard supporter of everyone owning a gun, I do believe that if they are to own them then should go through such processes in order to ensure that, for the most part, firearms are in the hands of responsible citizens.

I say for the most part because criminals will generally always have the access to firearms whether these provisions are in place or not.

I'll never really understand why responsible gun ownership rubs people the wrong way so often.

For what it's worth...


 
addi Posted: Fri Mar 6 07:11:35 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ask the folks living in or near the Mexican border towns now what they think of our liberal laws on gun ownership. A little research lets you know that 90% of the drug cartel thug's assault weapons can traced back to the U.S. They love our laws. Meanwhile do 10 minutes of research on how many civilians (and tourists) have been gunned down with these weapons over the past few years.

Gun laws and the drug laws need to be changed here. It's beyond fucking stupid.


 
Posted: Fri Mar 6 09:55:31 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer, you probably at least have it in the back of your mind that you'd be willing to do something stupid if the chance arose.

If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer and you have a fundamental problem with a bill that encourages responsible ownership before congress, and as a citizen I fully expect you to do something stupid at any given moment and no longer have any trust in your capacity for owning a firearm.


Right to bear arms -> right to free speech,
bearing arms irresponsibly -> yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

That's all.


 
Posted: Fri Mar 6 10:12:58 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer, you probably at least have it in the back of your mind that you'd be willing to do something stupid if the chance arose.
>
>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer and you have a fundamental problem with a bill that encourages responsible ownership before congress, and as a citizen I fully expect you to do something stupid at any given moment and no longer have any trust in your capacity for owning a firearm.
>
>
>Right to bear arms -> right to free speech,
>bearing arms irresponsibly -> yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
>
>That's all.

Upon reflection, I should probably also qualify hunters with military and police officers, provided the weapons they own are not handguns, they have no problem with letting local law enforcement know about their ownership of said weapon, and it is designed and used solely for hunting (that is, they use traceable ammunition, the gun isn't fingerprint resistant, etc.)


 
addi Posted: Fri Mar 6 10:42:52 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well said, Sir.

*although I'd think twice about letting anyone with the name Criminal own a gun.
; )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 6 12:43:42 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>CriminalSaint said:
>>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer, you probably at least have it in the back of your mind that you'd be willing to do something stupid if the chance arose.
>>
>>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer and you have a fundamental problem with a bill that encourages responsible ownership before congress, and as a citizen I fully expect you to do something stupid at any given moment and no longer have any trust in your capacity for owning a firearm.
>>
>>
>>Right to bear arms -> right to free speech,
>>bearing arms irresponsibly -> yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
>>
>>That's all.
>
>Upon reflection, I should probably also qualify hunters with military and police officers, provided the weapons they own are not handguns, they have no problem with letting local law enforcement know about their ownership of said weapon, and it is designed and used solely for hunting (that is, they use traceable ammunition, the gun isn't fingerprint resistant, etc.)
>
So, you would be against anyone owning a weapon for the purpose of self defense ?


 
Posted: Fri Mar 6 16:30:10 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>CriminalSaint said:
>>CriminalSaint said:
>>>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer, you probably at least have it in the back of your mind that you'd be willing to do something stupid if the chance arose.
>>>
>>>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer and you have a fundamental problem with a bill that encourages responsible ownership before congress, and as a citizen I fully expect you to do something stupid at any given moment and no longer have any trust in your capacity for owning a firearm.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right to bear arms -> right to free speech,
>>>bearing arms irresponsibly -> yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
>>>
>>>That's all.
>>
>>Upon reflection, I should probably also qualify hunters with military and police officers, provided the weapons they own are not handguns, they have no problem with letting local law enforcement know about their ownership of said weapon, and it is designed and used solely for hunting (that is, they use traceable ammunition, the gun isn't fingerprint resistant, etc.)
>>
>So, you would be against anyone owning a weapon for the purpose of self defense ?

What, like a 9mm?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 6 16:44:18 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>CriminalSaint said:
>>>CriminalSaint said:
>>>>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer, you probably at least have it in the back of your mind that you'd be willing to do something stupid if the chance arose.
>>>>
>>>>If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer and you have a fundamental problem with a bill that encourages responsible ownership before congress, and as a citizen I fully expect you to do something stupid at any given moment and no longer have any trust in your capacity for owning a firearm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Right to bear arms -> right to free speech,
>>>>bearing arms irresponsibly -> yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
>>>>
>>>>That's all.
>>>
>>>Upon reflection, I should probably also qualify hunters with military and police officers, provided the weapons they own are not handguns, they have no problem with letting local law enforcement know about their ownership of said weapon, and it is designed and used solely for hunting (that is, they use traceable ammunition, the gun isn't fingerprint resistant, etc.)
>>>
>>So, you would be against anyone owning a weapon for the purpose of self defense ?
>
>What, like a 9mm?
>
You didn't specify caliber, you just said one should either be police or military or a hunter to own a weapon and a hunter should not own a sidearm.
I merely brought up the subject of self defense. A 9mm would be impractical in an urban environment, but a .38 or .357 would do just fine. Then again the metro police carry 9mm here.
Do you have a problem with a private citizen owning a handgun for self defense ?


 
Posted: Fri Mar 6 17:09:44 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Do you have a problem with a private citizen owning a handgun for self defense ?

Yes, this is the case.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Mar 6 21:36:30 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Do you have a problem with a private citizen owning a handgun for self defense ?
>
>Yes, this is the case.
>
And how would this make anyone other than the criminals any safer ?

Also, this goes against the very fabric of our constitution.

Thomas Jefferson argued that "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." James Madison boasted about the "advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Alexander Hamilton wrote that "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped." And George Mason warned that "to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."


 
Posted: Fri Mar 6 23:47:27 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>CriminalSaint said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Do you have a problem with a private citizen owning a handgun for self defense ?
>>
>>Yes, this is the case.
>>
>And how would this make anyone other than the criminals any safer ?

There are other ways to prevent crimes than for people to keep guns in their gloveboxes, closets, homes. Having a continuous supply of new weapons made available is a problem. If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns, right? Until you take the guns from the outlaws. It's a lofty goal but why not at least have it as a goal rather than live in the perpetual state of widely available firearms, for criminals or otherwise? It will take time, but it will take less time with better laws and better enforcement.

>Also, this goes against the very fabric of our constitution.
>
>Thomas Jefferson argued that "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." James Madison boasted about the "advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Alexander Hamilton wrote that "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped." And George Mason warned that "to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

I hope I'll not be automatically branded a heretic if I suggest that perhaps their feelings on this issue are antiquated.

I guess a question I should ask is,

Americans in general: are they safer under the current conditions (many feeling the necessity to own a firearm, this demand increasing availability and, I would argue, perpetuating the problem), or if there were no guns at all?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 7 07:45:36 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>CriminalSaint said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>Do you have a problem with a private citizen owning a handgun for self defense ?
>>>
>>>Yes, this is the case.
>>>
>>And how would this make anyone other than the criminals any safer ?
>
>There are other ways to prevent crimes than for people to keep guns in their gloveboxes, closets, homes. Having a continuous supply of new weapons made available is a problem. If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns, right? Until you take the guns from the outlaws. It's a lofty goal but why not at least have it as a goal rather than live in the perpetual state of widely available firearms, for criminals or otherwise? It will take time, but it will take less time with better laws and better enforcement.
>
If you could make them as unavailable to criminals as well as law abiding citizens I might agree with you, but that is something that could never be done. You would have to be able to change human nature to accomplish that.
Can you change human nature ? I doubt it.
Can you show me where any government has ever been able to stop the flow of any commodity for which there is an appreciable market?

>>Also, this goes against the very fabric of our constitution.
>>
>>Thomas Jefferson argued that "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." James Madison boasted about the "advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Alexander Hamilton wrote that "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped." And George Mason warned that "to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
>
>I hope I'll not be automatically branded a heretic if I suggest that perhaps their feelings on this issue are antiquated.
>
I would say their ideas are as relevant now as when they were alive. Perhaps you should ask the folks living under Castro or Chavez.
>I guess a question I should ask is,
>
>Americans in general: are they safer under the current conditions (many feeling the necessity to own a firearm, this demand increasing availability and, I would argue, perpetuating the problem), or if there were no guns at all?
>
Yes, I believe so. Gun ownership is a proven deterrent to crime.
Do you think that if all the guns in the world were to suddenly disappear that there would be no more violent crime ?


 
Ahriman Posted: Sat Mar 7 11:38:19 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  -This whole thing isn't about banning guns though. It's just about controlling the unnecessary things. Pistols are not necessary for civilian life.
-If you are shooting a gun in city limits, you are destined to shoot a bystander.
-If I need a gun for home defense, my shotgun would do much better than a handgun. There is nooo argument there.
-All the law is really saying is you can own all those wacky guns like AR-15s and such but you just need to register it. That prevents crazies/criminals from owning them legally.


 
Posted: Sat Mar 7 11:57:46 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>-All the law is really saying is you can own all those wacky guns like AR-15s and such but you just need to register it. That prevents crazies/criminals from owning them legally.

Still a BIG part of the problem:

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/news/medicalnews/guns.html

"Young adults who legally buy small, inexpensive handguns are more likely to commit a crime after the purchase of the gun even if they had no criminal record"


http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/news/assault.html

"Young adults who legally purchased assault-type firearms in California in 1988 were twice as likely to have a prior criminal history and were as much as three times as likely to be charged with new, violent crimes as those who purchased other handguns"




Like I said before,

"If you own a gun and you are neither military personnel nor a police officer, you probably at least have it in the back of your mind that you'd be willing to do something stupid if the chance arose."


 
Posted: Sat Mar 7 12:04:52 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>If you could make them as unavailable to criminals as well as law abiding citizens I might agree with you, but that is something that could never be done. You would have to be able to change human nature to accomplish that.

All I'm saying is that we should be working in the opposite direction than we are now. The American arms industry is profitable as such, the flow of firearms continues. Why aren't we at least moving in the other direction? Nobody says it will be easy to stop criminals from getting guns, but change the laws to make the deterrents as significant as they can be and it will stop.


>Yes, I believe so. Gun ownership is a proven deterrent to crime.
>Do you think that if all the guns in the world were to suddenly disappear that there would be no more violent crime ?

Of course not, but there's no peripheral line of fire in a stabbing, nor will a bat kill innocent bystanders. And the best deterrent is a more efficient legal system, protection and otherwise.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 7 19:55:48 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>If you could make them as unavailable to criminals as well as law abiding citizens I might agree with you, but that is something that could never be done. You would have to be able to change human nature to accomplish that.
>
>All I'm saying is that we should be working in the opposite direction than we are now. The American arms industry is profitable as such, the flow of firearms continues. Why aren't we at least moving in the other direction? Nobody says it will be easy to stop criminals from getting guns, but change the laws to make the deterrents as significant as they can be and it will stop.
>
You really believe it can be stopped ?
How long have they been trying to stop the flow of drugs. Or prostitution or gambling. Or even alchohol.
If there is a market for it, no government can stop it.

>>Yes, I believe so. Gun ownership is a proven deterrent to crime.
>>Do you think that if all the guns in the world were to suddenly disappear that there would be no more violent crime ?
>
>Of course not, but there's no peripheral line of fire in a stabbing, nor will a bat kill innocent bystanders. And the best deterrent is a more efficient legal system, protection and otherwise.
Peripheral lines of fire and innocent bystanders are not a common problem in gun violence cases. Certainly not enough of a problem to call for a constitutional amendment.
More children are killed yearly from bicycle accidents than guns. Should we call for a ban on bicycles ?
It's not the guns but the culture that needs to be changed. That is the only way to make it work.


 
Kira Posted: Sat Mar 7 21:19:24 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Crim, do you really not trust me to be responsible with a gun? :(

You would have me stake my life on a can of pepper spray when I'm walking to my car on a parking deck at night? Or maybe I should call 911 and wait for the police while my attacker has his way with me.

I don't care if he doesn't have a gun, he's half a person heavier than me.


 
Posted: Sat Mar 7 21:23:27 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Kira said:
>Crim, do you really not trust me to be responsible with a gun? :(
>
>You would have me stake my life on a can of pepper spray when I'm walking to my car on a parking deck at night? Or maybe I should call 911 and wait for the police while my attacker has his way with me.
>
>I don't care if he doesn't have a gun, he's half a person heavier than me.

Stricter laws against violent crimes act as a deterrent, better security in general acts as a deterrent. My point is just that your owning a gun is more of a risk in an ideal scenario than your not owning one.

That most people think they need to own a gun to feel safe is a delusion slapped into them by media and industries that would profit from those feelings.

This is not to say that you don't deserve to be completely protected, because everybody does, but you shouldn't need to do it on your own, with a weapon whose very existence indicates societal ills.


 
Kira Posted: Sat Mar 7 21:49:25 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:

I'm not talking about an ideal scenario. What do you want me to do between now and never while the city is installing thousands of dollars worth of lights and security cameras and hiring two night watchmen to patrol each deck, in addition to the guy at the toll gate - who is now charging me twenty-five dollars to park there?

And stricter laws? Do you mean harsher punishments? So far long-term imprisonment and/or execution have yet to make our society a heaven on earth.

>This is not to say that you don't deserve to be completely protected, because everybody does, but you shouldn't need to do it on your own, with a weapon whose very existence indicates societal ills.

So you're going with the calling 911 option then.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Mar 7 22:08:07 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>Kira said:
>>Crim, do you really not trust me to be responsible with a gun? :(
>>
>>You would have me stake my life on a can of pepper spray when I'm walking to my car on a parking deck at night? Or maybe I should call 911 and wait for the police while my attacker has his way with me.
>>
>>I don't care if he doesn't have a gun, he's half a person heavier than me.
>
>Stricter laws against violent crimes act as a deterrent, better security in general acts as a deterrent. My point is just that your owning a gun is more of a risk in an ideal scenario than your not owning one.
>
Seems to me that the liberals are quite fond of stating that the US already imprisons more people than the rest of the world. Would you have us imprison yet more people ? And for longer terms ?

>That most people think they need to own a gun to feel safe is a delusion slapped into them by media and industries that would profit from those feelings.
>
It's certainly not the media, if they had their way, guns would be banned.

>This is not to say that you don't deserve to be completely protected, because everybody does, but you shouldn't need to do it on your own, with a weapon whose very existence indicates societal ills.
>
Why not do it on your own ?
Who the hell else can you trust ?
What happened to personal responsibility ?
Of course they represent societal ills. Has there ever been, or will there ever be a society without ills ? Isn't that just human nature anyway ?


 
addi Posted: Sun Mar 8 08:47:20 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Only in America has the need been so thoroughly perpetrated into our heads that we must have a gun in order to be free. It's taken on iconic status as a symbol of liberty and our innate right as citizens.
These pea brained gun rights advocates are incapable of seeing beyond their own noses...That there are other civilized places around the world where people are able to actually experience freedom and justice and relative safety (compared to here) without toting a handgun around in their purse or stuffed down their pants.
I've discovered these same simple-minded folks are also the ones that frequently cling to other dangerous black and white falsehoods about our society, government, and religion as well, but that's a bit off topic.

Kira, I'd trust neither you or hif with a gun; Not because you don't have the ability to operate one correctly, but for the fact that you're both so adamant about having the "right" of owning one. That tells me more than I need to know about your thought processes.

Leave the killing machines to the cops and military folks.
You feel the need to hunt animals? Then undergo a strict and thorough background search first, along with a comprehensive MANADATORY safety and responsible use course if you pass the first check. Hunters firearms would be limited to standard shotguns. They have absolutely no need to own a handgun or assault rifle, or any other rapid multiple firing machine for hunting purposes.

"But...but, addi! What about my safety?!"
You're already delusional if you think carrying around a handgun is making you safer (statistics bear this out). If you find a madman breaking into your home intent on doing you harm just whip out that 12 gauge shotgun you have for killing deer and point it at his head...it can actually kill-harm-wound more than forest creatures.

And, yes, I'm completely aware of the fact that the above rant is a waste of time and falling on the deaf ears of gun rights advocates. I went ahead and wrote it anyway, which tells you I probably shouldn't own a gun myself.
; )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 8 12:34:50 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Only in America has the need been so thoroughly perpetrated into our heads that we must have a gun in order to be free. It's taken on iconic status as a symbol of liberty and our innate right as citizens.
>
Not true my liberal friend. There are actually societies where it's mandatory for all citizens to own a firearm.

>These pea brained gun rights advocates are incapable of seeing beyond their own noses...That there are other civilized places around the world where people are able to actually experience freedom and justice and relative safety (compared to here) without toting a handgun around in their purse or stuffed down their pants.
>
Pea brained ? Now you're just hurting my feelings.
This is also not true. The following taken from Richard Poe's Seven Myths of Gun Control:

Myth #1 Guns increase violent crime.
Just the opposite is true. Experts have found that criminals tend to avoid physical confrontation, when they fear their victims may be armed. But when strict gun laws are imposed, criminals become bolder and more violent, confident that their victims are defenseless.
Australians learned this lesson the hard way. When a madman slaughtered 35 people at a Tasmanian resort in 1996, the government responded by banning most firearms. More than 640,000 guns were seized from law-abiding citizens.
The result was a sharp increase in violent crime. In the two years following the gun ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The same thing happened in England. The government cracked down on guns following a 1996 massacre of schoolchildren in Scotland. A terrifying crime wave ensued. The U.S. Department of Justice announced, in 1998, that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent. Assault and burglary rates were found to be almost 100 percent higher in England than in the United States.
In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Yale Law School economist John R. Lott points out that most criminals, in America, choose empty houses to burglarize. They avoid late-night break-ins, because, as many convicts have explained to researchers, "that's the way to get shot." Hot burglaries - in which the criminal enters while people are home - account for only 13 percent of all U.S. burglaries.
But in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, criminals enter houses at will, without worrying whether anyone is home. The hot burglary rate in those countries is nearly 50 percent.
After studying 18 years' worth of crime statistics from around the United States, Lott concluded that "states experiencing the greatest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing percentages of gun ownership."
On average, Lott found that violent crime dropped by 4 percent for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership. The most dramatic improvement came in states that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns. States enacting such laws between 1977 and 1994 experienced an average 10 percent reduction in murders and a 4.4 percent drop in overall violent crime during that period.

>Kira, I'd trust neither you or hif with a gun; Not because you don't have the ability to operate one correctly, but for the fact that you're both so adamant about having the "right" of owning one. That tells me more than I need to know about your thought processes.
>
And perhaps this would also tell you something about the thought processes of our founding fathers ?

>Leave the killing machines to the cops and military folks.
>You feel the need to hunt animals? Then undergo a strict and thorough background search first, along with a comprehensive MANADATORY safety and responsible use course if you pass the first check. Hunters firearms would be limited to standard shotguns. They have absolutely no need to own a handgun or assault rifle, or any other rapid multiple firing machine for hunting purposes.
>
Sorry, but as our "right to keep and bear arms" guaranteed by the constitution, this just won't fly.
When guns become so regulated, they are no longer a right but a privelege conferred to us by a government agency.
If we were to follow your advice, then we would be living in a police state.

A hunter should be able use a weapon of his own choosing. You obviously have never hunted. You don't use a shotgun on small game. You also don't use a shotgun on very large game. And you certainly don't use a shotgun for self defense.
It is most difficult to keep a shotgun under one's pillow or in the nightstand drawer.

>"But...but, addi! What about my safety?!"
>You're already delusional if you think carrying around a handgun is making you safer (statistics bear this out).
>
No, statistics bear out just the opposite.
Again, from Richard Poe's Seven Myths of Gun Control:

Myth #2 Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal.
Gun bashers claim that if you draw a gun during a mugging, the mugger will probably take it away from you. But the facts say otherwise. According to surveys by Gallup, the Los Angeles Times and other national polling organizations, Americans use guns to defend themselves between 760,000 and 3.6 million times each year. In 98 percent of those cases, simply brandishing the gun was enough to scare off the attacker.
>
If you find a madman breaking into your home intent on doing you harm just whip out that 12 gauge shotgun you have for killing deer and point it at his head...it can actually kill-harm-wound more than forest creatures.

>And, yes, I'm completely aware of the fact that the above rant is a waste of time and falling on the deaf ears of gun rights advocates. I went ahead and wrote it anyway, which tells you I probably shouldn't own a gun myself.
>; )


 
Posted: Sun Mar 8 12:41:29 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/08/church.shooting/index.html

Nice to wake up and see this on the front page of CNN. Wonder how bad this would have been if the best weapon he could have gotten his hand on was a small blade or a pipe?


 
addi Posted: Sun Mar 8 13:02:47 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ya know, Crim...if all the parishioners had been carrying concealed Glocks none of that would have happened.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 8 13:05:44 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/08/church.shooting/index.html
>
>Nice to wake up and see this on the front page of CNN. Wonder how bad this would have been if the best weapon he could have gotten his hand on was a small blade or a pipe?
>
It probably wouldn't have happened, but then again, it's not possible to keep guns out of the hands of those who want them. All the government regulation you can think of won't stop it.
However, if just one of the parishoners was carrying, it might possibly have been prevented.


 
Ahriman Posted: Sun Mar 8 15:35:07 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It probably wouldn't have happened, but then again, it's not possible to keep guns out of the hands of those who want them. All the government regulation you can think of won't stop it.
>However, if just one of the parishoners was carrying, it might possibly have been prevented.

Prevented? Do you think this problem could have been prevented better without the involvement of guns in the first place? Well, it must be that people are just crazy and do things like this. Couldn't possibly be some other underlying problem.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 8 18:39:53 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>It probably wouldn't have happened, but then again, it's not possible to keep guns out of the hands of those who want them. All the government regulation you can think of won't stop it.
>>However, if just one of the parishoners was carrying, it might possibly have been prevented.
>
>Prevented? Do you think this problem could have been prevented better without the involvement of guns in the firstplace?
>
Isn't that what I said ?
Didn't I also say that getting rid of the guns is not a possibility.

Well, it must be that people are just crazy and do things like this. Couldn't possibly be some other underlying problem.
>
The underlying problem is that human societies are flawed. They always have been and always will be.


 
addi Posted: Sun Mar 8 21:18:57 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>The underlying problem is that human societies are flawed. They always have been and always will be.

We agree 100% on this, hiffer. Where we part ways is how best to deal with this issue.
Perhaps an over simplification but you tend towards letting citizens get there hands on just about any type of firearm, and having them readily available. And that we'll be safer as a society under those circumstances...as people are the problem and not the proliferation of guns.

I tend to think there should be a much more restrictive process in place on gun ownership (you and I interpret the 2nd amendment differently), and that a very real part of the problem is precisely because of so many guns being available.

Perhaps the only viable way to settle this is with a duel...using ping pong guns of course. : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Mar 8 21:27:04 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>The underlying problem is that human societies are flawed. They always have been and always will be.
>
>We agree 100% on this, hiffer. Where we part ways is how best to deal with this issue.
>Perhaps an over simplification but you tend towards letting citizens get there hands on just about any type of firearm, and having them readily available. And that we'll be safer as a society under those circumstances...as people are the problem and not the proliferation of guns.
>
>I tend to think there should be a much more restrictive process in place on gun ownership (you and I interpret the 2nd amendment differently), and that a very real part of the problem is precisely because of so many guns being available.
>
Exactly how do you interpret the second amendment ?

And how do you think guns could be restricted given the fact that govt cannot restrict any damn thing that people want ?


 
Posted: Sun Mar 8 23:16:18 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addi said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>>The underlying problem is that human societies are flawed. They always have been and always will be.
>>
>>We agree 100% on this, hiffer. Where we part ways is how best to deal with this issue.
>>Perhaps an over simplification but you tend towards letting citizens get there hands on just about any type of firearm, and having them readily available. And that we'll be safer as a society under those circumstances...as people are the problem and not the proliferation of guns.
>>
>>I tend to think there should be a much more restrictive process in place on gun ownership (you and I interpret the 2nd amendment differently), and that a very real part of the problem is precisely because of so many guns being available.
>>
>Exactly how do you interpret the second amendment ?
>
>And how do you think guns could be restricted given the fact that govt cannot restrict any damn thing that people want ?

But people don't really *want* guns for their own sakes, but only as means to an end (unless we're talking about proper gun affectionatos, in which case, whole 'nother thread for me to vent in).

You gave the examples of prostitution and drugs as examples of things the government could not get rid of, but guns are not really comparable. One goes to a prostitute for sex, or does drugs for a high.

One owns a gun in case something bad happens to them, like insurance. It's a means to an end - if you take away the fear of violent crime, gun ownership will go down. This is achievable with better laws, stricter punishments as deterrent for violent offenders, and more efficient public security.

People don't want guns like they want sex or want a drink/a stone. Anybody sane, ideally, would prefer the scenario where they did not feel the need to own a gun.

I say that's a pretty worthwhile goal.


 
Posted: Sun Mar 8 23:16:56 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ps woooo discussion thread with heat on GT. Nostalgia feels nice!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 9 07:28:16 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>addi said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>
>>>>The underlying problem is that human societies are flawed. They always have been and always will be.
>>>
>>>We agree 100% on this, hiffer. Where we part ways is how best to deal with this issue.
>>>Perhaps an over simplification but you tend towards letting citizens get there hands on just about any type of firearm, and having them readily available. And that we'll be safer as a society under those circumstances...as people are the problem and not the proliferation of guns.
>>>
>>>I tend to think there should be a much more restrictive process in place on gun ownership (you and I interpret the 2nd amendment differently), and that a very real part of the problem is precisely because of so many guns being available.
>>>
>>Exactly how do you interpret the second amendment ?
>>
>>And how do you think guns could be restricted given the fact that govt cannot restrict any damn thing that people want ?
>
>But people don't really *want* guns for their own sakes, but only as means to an end (unless we're talking about proper gun affectionatos, in which case, whole 'nother thread for me to vent in).
>
>You gave the examples of prostitution and drugs as examples of things the government could not get rid of, but guns are not really comparable. One goes to a prostitute for sex, or does drugs for a high.
>
>One owns a gun in case something bad happens to them, like insurance. It's a means to an end - if you take away the fear of violent crime, gun ownership will go down. This is achievable with better laws, stricter punishments as deterrent for violent offenders, and more efficient public security.
>
>People don't want guns like they want sex or want a drink/a stone. Anybody sane, ideally, would prefer the scenario where they did not feel the need to own a gun.
>
>I say that's a pretty worthwhile goal.
>
Sure it's a worthwhile goal. How would you go about obtaining it ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 9 07:28:46 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ps woooo discussion thread with heat on GT. Nostalgia feels nice!
>
word !


 
Ahriman Posted: Mon Mar 9 12:57:44 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>One owns a gun in case something bad happens to them, like insurance. It's a means to an end - if you take away the fear of violent crime, gun ownership will go down. This is achievable with better laws, stricter punishments as deterrent for violent offenders, and more efficient public security.

Holy crap, you guys are being ridiculous. How the hell do any of your "solutions" actually help? They are all just temporary fixes. If you make better laws with stricter punishments then you know what would really happen. A bunch of criminals would go to jail. The ones left behind would increase their arms and become ten times more dangerous to fight your "more efficient public security". A couple years later all those criminals will be back on the street with now more dangerous weapons and intentions.

Hif, you think carrying a gun will protect you or someone else? It's just a temporary fix. The underlying problem is not "society" as you put it. It's the American system. Tell me that if you gave proper education at a young age to all these so called muggers, gang members, etc. they would grow up to become dangerous. Tell me that if we actually had budgets in place to buy books and pay teachers for inner city schools, you wouldn't see a severe drop in violence. Come on, real solutions for real problems.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 9 16:35:20 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:

>Holy crap, you guys are being ridiculous. How the hell do any of your "solutions" actually help? They are all just temporary fixes. If you make better laws with stricter punishments then you know what would really happen. A bunch of criminals would go to jail. The ones left behind would increase their arms and become ten times more dangerous to fight your "more efficient public security". A couple years later all those criminals will be back on the street with now more dangerous weapons and intentions.
>
>Hif, you think carrying a gun will protect you or someone else? It's just a temporary fix. The underlying problem is not "society" as you put it. It's the American system. Tell me that if you gave proper education at a young age to all these so called muggers, gang members, etc. they would grow up to become dangerous. Tell me that if we actually had budgets in place to buy books and pay teachers for inner city schools, you wouldn't see a severe drop in violence. Come on, real solutions for real problems.
>
Ahriman, you ignorant slut . . . . . just kidding.

Whaddya mean it's only a temporary fix ?
It's only temporary if you don't aim correctly.

As far as having budgets in place to buy books and teachers for inner city schools . . . it won't work. We already spend more per student than other industrialized nations and still keep turning out idiots. Besides most of the ones that use guns to solve their problems don't go to school.
It's not the "American System", it's the culture we have developed. Our system works fine when the family works together. If mom and dad give a damn about the kid and participate in his upbringing, he will usually not grow up to be a gangbanger or armed robber.
The problem is that when you go into the inner cities, upwards of 70 percent of the kids don't know their fathers and mom sees the neighborhood school as more of a daycare than an opportunity for their kids to better themselves.
My wife teaches first grade at an inner city school. 98 percent of the kids there are on free lunches and most of them are being raised by their grandparents because mom is out getting high and getting pregnant again and dad is not in the picture.
These kids show up for school after having been up all night watching tv because they are mostly unsupervised at home and many of them are hungry because they didn't get any supper last night. Many have filthy hair and clothes and some are not even potty trained when they get to the first grade.
By the time these kids are old enough to join a gang and start banging, they have lost any chance they might have had to succeed in life.
No amount of government funding for our schools will change that. It has to begin at home`.



 
Kira Posted: Mon Mar 9 19:57:11 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No amount of education will make you a moral person. That is not what school is for.


 
Posted: Mon Mar 9 21:24:42 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Kira said:
>No amount of education will make you a moral person. That is not what school is for.

What about a rational person?


 
kurohyou Posted: Mon Mar 9 21:41:58 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Whaddya mean it's only a temporary fix ?
>It's only temporary if you don't aim correctly.

Here in lies a problem with civilians arming themselves. They are civilians. As one who is authorized and trained to carry a lethal weapon on me at all times I can tell you this. No 40 hour course in basic firearms safety and operation comes even close to being enough to prepare anyone with the physical, mental or emotional tools needed to responsibly carry a firearm.

My training was an 80 hour intitial training and 10 hours of tactical training each month with my agency and then an additional 15-20 hours of training on my own time. The training covers everything from marksmanship, (which by the way has nothing to do with shooting in a life and death situation because you won't have time to do any of what you are trained to do), combat/tactical shooting, weapons retention, disarming and moving and shooting.

I'm not taking anything away from people who do train with their weapons but I question how much additional training these people go through once they have received their CCW's and what that training entails.

A bigger problem in my mind is that, as a law enforcement officer I am responsible, on or off duty for every single round I fire if I need to. Which means if i open fire with my weapon in defense of myself or someone else, if I miss, and don't think for one second that I won't, and that anyone else won't either, and I hit an innocent. I'm on the hook for that.

Will that liability extend to a civilian who opens fire in defense of themselves and end up spraying a crowd of bystanders in the name of their own self defense?

Additionally, if I'm off duty, and end up in a situation where I need to use my firearm, I don't need to be worried about any other untrained, untested citizen who decides because they are armed they are going to engage was well. I barely trust some of the men I work with, let alone someone I don't know who pulls a gun in a restraunt. Even if their intentions are good there is a decent shot, in the confusion, they are going to either be put down at gunpoint or shot themselves.

To me its not worth the risk of having an armed civilian population.

You want to talk about education starting at home, tell me what kind of education are we giving children if we teach them that the only want to protect themselves is with a firearm. We negate the need for communcation or basic situational awareness by emphasising the "have gun will travel" mentality. My kids know I have a gun, but they know I'm cop. Before I was a cop, I never had a gun and the only reason I have one is because I am a cop. I see no need as a civilian to have a gun. I kept myself safe by maintaining my situational awareness, being alert to my surroundings and by not putting myself into positions where I or my family could be harmed. Even in the worst situations I never considered that I would need a gun to get myself out of it.

As it is, if I am faced with an armed assaliant, there is a decent chance, depending on the situation I will be able to disarm him before I can get to my own firearm. Action beats reaction. If someone gets the drop on you and has a gun in your face, you options to draw your own weapon especially if concealed are very limited if not non existent. If a man has a gun in my face, I'm not reaching for my gun... he'll shoot me before I can draw... and I'm trained. How will someone who is not trained fair?

I'll tell you. If the guy with the gun already drawn has the guts... he'll kill the other person without thinking about it.

Now I'm sure there are a million reasons why I"m full of crap... But having trained with these devices and knowing what they are capable of, they are not, in anyway the ultimate device. Even in the line of duty, my words and my presence have gotten me out of more jambs than my firearm.

For what it's worth...


 
Kira Posted: Tue Mar 10 00:24:18 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The issue is not whether or not guns are 'safe' in the hands of civilians.

There is potential risk inherent in every weapon, as well as countless other objects, and the risk goes up the less you know about the weapon.

But there is no immediate danger.

We are not a society who punishes or restricts people for what they MIGHT do. At least, we're not supposed to be.

People talk about peace and safety like they are the ultimate good, the greatest values. I disagree. Freedom is my ultimate good, out of which all other good things spring forth, and with freedom comes risk. I am willing to accept that some of my fellow civilians, who perhaps should not own a deadly weapon, do. Just as I am willing to accept that some people who drive like idiots have as much right to the road as I do. Until they become an immediate threat, I have no right to stop them.

Kuro, I'm sure your job would be much easier if the people you are charged to protect didn't have so much potential to do stupid things. I hate the thought of anyone endangering you. But no one should have to depend solely on the police, or the government, for their life's security. Once I put my life in your hands, you control me. In threatening situations I am willing to relinquish control if it is in my best interests, but for no longer than the threat exists. Promise me everlasting safety and I will reject it out of hand. It's just a lie anyway.


 
kurohyou Posted: Tue Mar 10 00:43:45 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Kira said:
>The issue is not whether or not guns are 'safe' in the hands of civilians.
>
>There is potential risk inherent in every weapon, as well as countless other objects, and the risk goes up the less you know about the weapon.
>
>But there is no immediate danger.
>
>We are not a society who punishes or restricts people for what they MIGHT do. At least, we're not supposed to be.
>
>People talk about peace and safety like they are the ultimate good, the greatest values. I disagree. Freedom is my ultimate good, out of which all other good things spring forth, and with freedom comes risk. I am willing to accept that some of my fellow civilians, who perhaps should not own a deadly weapon, do. Just as I am willing to accept that some people who drive like idiots have as much right to the road as I do. Until they become an immediate threat, I have no right to stop them.
>
>Kuro, I'm sure your job would be much easier if the people you are charged to protect didn't have so much potential to do stupid things. I hate the thought of anyone endangering you. But no one should have to depend solely on the police, or the government, for their life's security. Once I put my life in your hands, you control me. In threatening situations I am willing to relinquish control if it is in my best interests, but for no longer than the threat exists. Promise me everlasting safety and I will reject it out of hand. It's just a lie anyway.

I'm not advocating anyone placing their safety in the hands of another. I'm a firm believer in an individuals safety is their own responsiblity. But what I will tell you is that a firearm is not the be all end all solution for safety.

A firearm, even if you are armed with it in your purse, or the small of your back is only effective as a first strike weapon. I said it before. Action beats reaction. If someone comes up and puts a gun in my face, my only option is reaction the reaction to process what is happening, and engage the proper response to get to my weapon, deploy it and use it will more than likely cost me my life, therefore, the firearm I am carrying, is borderline useless against an assailant who acts first, and lets be honest most of them do.

There are other tools at our disposal to ensure our safety and security. Awareness, placment, and a host of defensive tactics are much better suited to your garden variety street level armed encounter.

For what it's worth..


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 10 06:29:31 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>Kira said:
>>The issue is not whether or not guns are 'safe' in the hands of civilians.
>>
>>There is potential risk inherent in every weapon, as well as countless other objects, and the risk goes up the less you know about the weapon.
>>
>>But there is no immediate danger.
>>
>>We are not a society who punishes or restricts people for what they MIGHT do. At least, we're not supposed to be.
>>
>>People talk about peace and safety like they are the ultimate good, the greatest values. I disagree. Freedom is my ultimate good, out of which all other good things spring forth, and with freedom comes risk. I am willing to accept that some of my fellow civilians, who perhaps should not own a deadly weapon, do. Just as I am willing to accept that some people who drive like idiots have as much right to the road as I do. Until they become an immediate threat, I have no right to stop them.
>>
>>Kuro, I'm sure your job would be much easier if the people you are charged to protect didn't have so much potential to do stupid things. I hate the thought of anyone endangering you. But no one should have to depend solely on the police, or the government, for their life's security. Once I put my life in your hands, you control me. In threatening situations I am willing to relinquish control if it is in my best interests, but for no longer than the threat exists. Promise me everlasting safety and I will reject it out of hand. It's just a lie anyway.
>
>I'm not advocating anyone placing their safety in the hands of another. I'm a firm believer in an individuals safety is their own responsiblity. But what I will tell you is that a firearm is not the be all end all solution for safety.
>
>A firearm, even if you are armed with it in your purse, or the small of your back is only effective as a first strike weapon. I said it before. Action beats reaction. If someone comes up and puts a gun in my face, my only option is reaction the reaction to process what is happening, and engage the proper response to get to my weapon, deploy it and use it will more than likely cost me my life, therefore, the firearm I am carrying, is borderline useless against an assailant who acts first, and lets be honest most of them do.
>
>There are other tools at our disposal to ensure our safety and security. Awareness, placment, and a host of defensive tactics are much better suited to your garden variety street level armed encounter.
>
>For what it's worth..
>
1992: Los Angeles California, USA. For three days police stood
by and watched, unable to stop the rioting, arson and destruction of
whole neighborhoods. Yet many Korean stores were virtually
untouched - protected by their well-armed storeowners who exercised
their right to self-defense through their right to keep and bear arms and
who did for themselves what the police were unwilling or unable to do.

There are many other scenarios other than a guy has a gun on you that firearms can be useful as a means of self defense. Your post above only addressed that one scenario.
You are correct in saying that a firearm is not the be all end all solution for safety but it is probably the most important of the many solutions in one's arsenal.
It should be noted that wherever ccw permits are allowed, violent crimes have decreased.
Criminals would much rather deal with their prey knowing they are unarmed.
As for the armed private citizen doing stupid things with their weapons, sure it's a possiblity, but I just don't seem to see it happening.

Also, personal self defense is but one reason to own firearms :

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the
'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to
keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the
essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is
extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny
which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a
major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains
an important declaration of our basic civilian-military
relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to
participate in the defense of his country. For that reason,
I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
John F. Kennedy

"But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more
guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more
safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in
America, but which historically has proved to be always
possible."
Hubert Humphrey .

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

1929: Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929
to 1953, about 40-60 million citizens, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated or starved to death.

1935: China established gun c ontrol. From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945,
13 million Jews, Catholics and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977,
one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated."

1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

1966-1976: China still has gun control. Another 50-100 million
civilians, unable to defend themselves, were killed in Mao Tse Tung's
"Cultural Revolution".

1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

1990s: Rwanda established gun control. In a span of 100 days
in April 1994, 800,000 people who were unable to defend themselves
were massacred to death - most by machetes. How many dead,
hacked-up bodies do you think were found holding a loaded gun?
(answer is less than one)


 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 10 06:47:47 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Exactly how do you interpret the second amendment ?

I happen to think it applies to state militias, and not the individual's right to bear arms. In fact I actually believe if we could magically time transport Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the others to see what's happening today they would no doubt say something like, "Get the guns away from these stupid motherfuckers!"
: )

And don't waste your time with telling me I'm interpreting the amendment wrong. I'm familiar with the results of the District of columbia v Heller ruling. Even with a court loaded with conservative leaning judges they still had a vote of 5-4, which is hardly a ringing endorsement that interpreting the 2nd is clear cut.


*and Kira..listen to the wise words of Kuro. He's being much nicer and respectful in his replies to you than I ever would be.


 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 10 08:27:19 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>*and Kira..listen to the wise words of Kuro. He's being much nicer and respectful in his replies to you than I ever would be.

And, yes, for being a caring, warm, kind person in general, I can be a real condescending asshole sometimes.

There...I saved ya'll the trouble of replying. : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 10 09:29:34 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Exactly how do you interpret the second amendment ?
>
>I happen to think it applies to state militias, and not the individual's right to bear arms. In fact I actually believe if we could magically time transport Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the others to see what's happening today they would no doubt say something like, "Get the guns away from these stupid motherfuckers!"
>: )
>
>And don't waste your time with telling me I'm interpreting the amendment wrong. I'm familiar with the results of the District of columbia v Heller ruling. Even with a court loaded with conservative leaning judges they still had a vote of 5-4, which is hardly a ringing endorsement that interpreting the 2nd is clear cut.
>
I don't about the DC vs Heller ruling, but I do know what the 2nd amendment says.
"The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Please explain how this does not grant specific rights to keep and bear arms to "the people".

In order to interpret this any other way than what it actually says, you would have to conclude that the phrase "the people" does not mean the same thing in the 2nd amendment as it does in the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendment.

I can see that you might disagree with the spirit of this amendment, but to try to interpret it any other way is pure spin.



 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 10 10:29:44 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I can see that you might disagree with the spirit of this amendment, but to try to interpret it any other way is pure spin.

Four out the nine SC judges would take issue with you, along with literally millions of "average" Americans and some of the most brilliant minds in political, legal, and U.S. Constitution knowledge.

What you fail to grasp is that I have never once stated that the 2nd Amendment absolutely can not be interpreted in the way you take it, hif.
What I do contend is that it's not nearly as clear cut as you and the NRA folks want to make it out to be...that ambiguity exists in the intent. The fact alone that the Heller ruling was one vote shy of being evenly split, and that minds much more knowledgeable on the topic have debated this for a century clearly tells any rational person that it's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Furthermore I'm not pushing for the government to step in and ban me from owning a gun. What I'd like to see is some type of national legislation that attempts to make sense of gun laws currently in place (effective ways to enforce them), and a limit to the types of guns that be can purchased, and some uniformity between states.
Timothy McVeigh and Cho Seung-Hui (the Virginia Tech killer) both would have qualified for a firearm's license that allows you to carry a gun openly. I can go to a local gun show and buy an AK 47 without a background check here. It's fucking absurd!

I don't have all the answers for sure, but something needs to be done. It's never going to stop the craziness, but if it even puts a slight dent in needless shooting deaths then it's worth it.



 
jennemmer Posted: Tue Mar 10 11:41:44 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I love how all gun control arguments in the US turn so quickly to "they are going to take all our guns away and we are going to be overrun by the enemy and not able to do anything about it!"

At the most basic level they want to know your name and they want to make sure that they are not just handing a gun to someone who has already used guns to threaten to kill (or actually kill) people.

Good, make them work even that one step harder to be armed.

And I would see no harm in having ones name on file if I were to be the sort of person who felt the need to carry a gun. The only reason for not wanting your name associated with a serial number is if you intend to use it, or sell it to people who can't get one of their own.

The scariest part of this bill for people I think is the licensing part. Look at the state of the roads now, and everyone has to take a test before they are allowed to drive. I know that I marvel at this every time I am passed by some jerk is on the phone, and eating his/her breakfast while driving 80 down the freeway. And you want there to be less regulation on an object whose sole purpose is killing things?


 
kurohyou Posted: Tue Mar 10 12:10:51 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>1992: Los Angeles California, USA. For three days police stood
>by and watched, unable to stop the rioting, arson and destruction of
>whole neighborhoods. Yet many Korean stores were virtually
>untouched - protected by their well-armed storeowners who exercised
>their right to self-defense through their right to keep and bear arms and
>who did for themselves what the police were unwilling or unable to do.

I don't know why I'm going to do this again but here it goes...

ACTION BEATS REACTION!!!!!

This scenario is an action beats reaction scenario. Also, this scenario defies the regular day to day occurance in common everyday civilized society. As do the remaining of your arguements for why someone should have a gun. My guess is that these store owners were standing either inside their stores or inside their stores with their firearms brandished in plain view for any would be attackers to see before entering the store. The store owners "action" beat the would be criminals "reaction" to facing someone already armed.

>There are many other scenarios other than a guy has a gun on you that firearms can be useful as a means of self defense. Your post above only addressed that one scenario.

>You are correct in saying that a firearm is not the be all end all solution for safety but it is probably the most important of the many solutions in one's arsenal.

Its not the most important of solutions. Its a horrible uncivilized solution. Its the final solution if used effectively and I'm sorry. While I'm ready to kill someone if I need to, I hope to hell I never have to.

This idea of a gun being the most important weapon in your arsonal of defense is absolutely insane. It negates the importance of your awareness, your presence and your verbal skills. Does this mean that if you leave your house without your gun you're at the mercy of the elements because you don't have the most important weapon in your defensive arsonal?

I would say its the least effective, because unless its in your hand 24/7, its not effective against a first strike. Whether that first strike is with fist, a knife or a gun.

Do some force on force training and trust me, you'll begin to see how your body reacts when startled and the best way to defend yourself...This romantic idea of drawing your gun and laying down justic like john wayne is impratical and fucking dangerous.

>Criminals would much rather deal with their prey knowing they are unarmed.

So then your solution to this problem must be to have civilians brandish their firearms in plain view for any would be criminals to see and therefore not attack.

There is a fine line between cops and criminals. Something I won't get into right now. But let me tell you this. Unless you have a gun in your hand already and If I want to rob you, beat you or kill you. It will not matter if you are armed or not. I can have the drop on anyone whether I think they are armed or not before they can get to their weapon. Hell even if it is in a holster on their side in plain view it is an ineffective weapon against a first strike.

Is it a deterrent? Perhaps for criminals who are opportunistic but not psychopathically aggressive. But read the reports hif. Criminals don't pick their targets based on who may or may not be armed. They pick their targets the same way predators in the wild do. They look for the weak ones. The ones who hold themselves in a less than confident way. Slumped shoulders, looking at the ground, preoccupied with some electronic device or someone who just looks scared. This has nothing to do with whether or not someone has a weapon, it has to do with wether or not someone is a viable target.

You want an interesting read about this... An article in Feb 2009 Issue of Psychology Today entitled Marked for Mayhem, pg 80. Talks about how criminals select their targets and what signals people put off saying they may be a target. None of the deterrants are "the individual may be armed...

In addition to that, anyone who carries a weapon and is profcient with that weapon and confiedent with that weapon will more than likely not display any of the characteristics of prey to a criminal. Therefore negating the need for a gun.

Here's the other thing. You seem to think that these predator criminals exist in droves, roaming our cities looking for innocent sheep to devour. The fact is that 5% of the population are violent criminals. Truly violent criminals of the sociopathic variety Stats show that you have a better chance of getting killed in a car wreck by accident than during an armed street level encounter where the only way you could have defended yourself would have been with a gun. And of these 5% of violent criminals, many of them are repeat offenders.

What I'm saying is that violence on this level is not common enough to be a compelling argument for arming the citizen population.

>As for the armed private citizen doing stupid things with their weapons, sure it's a possiblity, but I just don't seem to see it happening.

Really? Really? Let me give you an example. Young lad where I work decides one night its a good idea to get tanked with his buddies, grab his .223 rifle and go crank off rounds at 630 in the morning near a busy highway at rush hour. I respond to this call, and encounter a man with an assault rifle, who is drunk head to head at this trail head. There is an awkward moment, knowing the strength, resolve and rationale of individuals under the influence of alochol, where I wonder if we're just going to splatter each other all over this trail head and call it a day.

You don't think civilians won't do stupid things with guns you're dead fucking wrong because I have been in several potentially deadly situations with just that, civilians who do something stupid and have a firearm of some sort and are threatening to us it on themselves, a loved one or me. Don't tell me for one min. that the likelihood of an armed civilian doing something stupid with their gun is slim.

Its probably not worth much...

But for what it's worth...



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 10 13:06:28 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:

>>You are correct in saying that a firearm is not the be all end all solution for safety but it is probably the most important of the many solutions in one's arsenal.
>
>Its not the most important of solutions. Its a horrible uncivilized solution. Its the final solution if used effectively and I'm sorry. While I'm ready to kill someone if I need to, I hope to hell I never have to.
>
>This idea of a gun being the most important weapon in your arsonal of defense is absolutely insane. It negates the importance of your awareness, your presence and your verbal skills. Does this mean that if you leave your house without your gun you're at the mercy of the elements because you don't have the most important weapon in your defensive arsonal?
>
>I would say its the least effective, because unless its in your hand 24/7, its not effective against a first strike. Whether that first strike is with fist, a knife or a gun.
>
>Do some force on force training and trust me, you'll begin to see how your body reacts when startled and the best way to defend yourself...This romantic idea of drawing your gun and laying down justic like john wayne is impratical and fucking dangerous.
>
It is the most important weapon in your defensive arsenal because if you choose to use it, you must consider the taking of a human life.

It is also the most important because it is a right guaranteed to us by the constitution and if we aren't vigilant, it is a right we could very well lose.
>>Criminals would much rather deal with their prey knowing they are unarmed.

>So then your solution to this problem must be to have civilians brandish their firearms in plain view for any would be criminals to see and therefore not attack.
>
No, but wherever ccw permits have been issued, violent crimes have decreased.

>There is a fine line between cops and criminals. Something I won't get into right now. But let me tell you this. Unless you have a gun in your hand already and If I want to rob you, beat you or kill you. It will not matter if you are armed or not. I can have the drop on anyone whether I think they are armed or not before they can get to their weapon. Hell even if it is in a holster on their side in plain view it is an ineffective weapon against a first strike.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. . . but the average thug does not have the training you have, nor the motivation you speak of, they are most likely looking for drug money.

>Here's the other thing. You seem to think that these predator criminals exist in droves, roaming our cities looking for innocent sheep to devour. The fact is that 5% of the population are violent criminals. Truly violent criminals of the sociopathic variety Stats show that you have a better chance of getting killed in a car wreck by accident than during an armed street level encounter where the only way you could have defended yourself would have been with a gun. And of these 5% of violent criminals, many of them are repeat offenders.
>
>What I'm saying is that violence on this level is not common enough to be a compelling argument for arming the citizen population.
>
Sure it is - read below:
In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Yale Law School economist John R. Lott points out that most criminals, in America, choose empty houses to burglarize. They avoid late-night break-ins, because, as many convicts have explained to researchers, "that's the way to get shot." Hot burglaries - in which the criminal enters while people are home - account for only 13 percent of all U.S. burglaries.
But in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, criminals enter houses at will, without worrying whether anyone is home. The hot burglary rate in those countries is nearly 50 percent.
After studying 18 years' worth of crime statistics from around the United States, Lott concluded that "states experiencing the greatest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing percentages of gun ownership."
On average, Lott found that violent crime dropped by 4 percent for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership. The most dramatic improvement came in states that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns. States enacting such laws between 1977 and 1994 experienced an average 10 percent reduction in murders and a 4.4 percent drop in overall violent crime during that period.
>>As for the armed private citizen doing stupid things with their weapons, sure it's a possiblity, but I just don't seem to see it happening.
>
>Really? Really? Let me give you an example. Young lad where I work decides one night its a good idea to get tanked with his buddies, grab his .223 rifle and go crank off rounds at 630 in the morning near a busy highway at rush hour. I respond to this call, and encounter a man with an assault rifle, who is drunk head to head at this trail head. There is an awkward moment, knowing the strength, resolve and rationale of individuals under the influence of alochol, where I wonder if we're just going to splatter each other all over this trail head and call it a day.
>

>You don't think civilians won't do stupid things with guns you're dead fucking wrong because I have been in several potentially deadly situations with just that, civilians who do something stupid and have a firearm of some sort and are threatening to us it on themselves, a loved one or me. Don't tell me for one min. that the likelihood of an armed civilian doing something stupid with their gun is slim.
>
Kuro, the "civilians" you deal with are mostly the ones that gun controls would not affect. The "civilians" that you deal with are more than likely the thugs that I feel the need to defend myself from. As a cop, you are not usually going to see many responsible gun owners in your line of work.
>


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 10 13:18:01 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>I can see that you might disagree with the spirit of this amendment, but to try to interpret it any other way is pure spin.
>
>Four out the nine SC judges would take issue with you, along with literally millions of "average" Americans and some of the most brilliant minds in political, legal, and U.S. Constitution knowledge.
>
Who cares about Judges from South Carolina :-)

Are these the same judges you branded as idiots because they stole the presidency from Gore ?

>What you fail to grasp is that I have never once stated that the 2nd Amendment absolutely can not be interpreted in the way you take it, hif.
>What I do contend is that it's not nearly as clear cut as you and the NRA folks want to make it out to be...that ambiguity exists in the intent. The fact alone that the Heller ruling was one vote shy of being evenly split, and that minds much more knowledgeable on the topic have debated this for a century clearly tells any rational person that it's not as black and white as you make it out to be.
>
>Furthermore I'm not pushing for the government to step in and ban me from owning a gun. What I'd like to see is some type of national legislation that attempts to make sense of gun laws currently in place (effective ways to enforce them), and a limit to the types of guns that be can purchased, and some uniformity between states.
>I can go to a local gun show and buy an AK 47 without a background check here. It's fucking absurd!
>
That is not a military type AK47 though.
It's been modifed so it's not fully automatic and it basically nothing more than a short range rifle.

>I don't have all the answers for sure, but something needs to be done. It's never going to stop the craziness, but if it even puts a slight dent in needless shooting deaths then it's worth it.
>
That's just it Addi, you couldn't put a dent in it any more than they put a dent in the drug trade unless you made us into a police state.


 
kurohyou Posted: Tue Mar 10 15:33:48 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
ifihadahif said:
>It is the most important weapon in your defensive arsenal because if you choose to use it, you must consider the taking of a human life.

And I'd bet 90% of the people who get their CCW's who have never been either in the military or in a situation where they may have had to take a life, have no idea what a huge responsibility that is.

I have been in four situations where I nearly have killed a person, and each time its over I thank god I didn't have to and do a gut check surrounding the situation. It's not a good place to be in and its not taken seriously enough, and until one has been in a situation where you are sighted in, safety off and ready to shoot you have no idea what that situation is like. I doubt they cover than in a CCW class.

>Perhaps, perhaps not. . . but the average thug does not have the training you have, nor the motivation you speak of, they are most likely looking for drug money.

These thugs don't need training. They need a gun and nothing to lose. If I put a gun to your head and I have nothing to lose, there is nothing to keep me from blowing you away. A first action needs no training. It just need opportunity.

>Kuro, the "civilians" you deal with are mostly the ones that gun controls would not affect. The "civilians" that you deal with are more than likely the thugs that I feel the need to defend myself from. As a cop, you are not usually going to see many responsible gun owners in your line of work.


The last three people I dealt with who were brandishing their firearms had no previous offenses relating to gun, drug or gang violence. Their criminal records consisted of some petty offenses for Pot violations and one had nothing but traffic offenses. I'd say these were mostly upstanding citizens and far from being classified as "thugs out for drug money." That is a horribly oversimplified view of people who commit gun violence.

For what it's worth...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 10 18:08:39 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>
>ifihadahif said:
>>It is the most important weapon in your defensive arsenal because if you choose to use it, you must consider the taking of a human life.
>
>And I'd bet 90% of the people who get their CCW's who have never been either in the military or in a situation where they may have had to take a life, have no idea what a huge responsibility that is.
>
I would think even the most average person would realize what a huge responsibility it is to take a human life.
>I have been in four situations where I nearly have killed a person, and each time its over I thank god I didn't have to and do a gut check surrounding the situation. It's not a good place to be in and its not taken seriously enough, and until one has been in a situation where you are sighted in, safety off and ready to shoot you have no idea what that situation is like. I doubt they cover than in a CCW class.
>
Why would you doubt that ?
>>Perhaps, perhaps not. . . but the average thug does not have the training you have, nor the motivation you speak of, they are most likely looking for drug money.
>
>These thugs don't need training. They need a gun and nothing to lose. If I put a gun to your head and I have nothing to lose, there is nothing to keep me from blowing you away. A first action needs no training. It just need opportunity.
>
But that's not the issue here. The fact that I might be carrying a pistol is very much a deterrent to most muggers on the prowl.
Otherwise how do you explain the fact that violent crime is down wherever they have allowed ccw ?
>>Kuro, the "civilians" you deal with are mostly the ones that gun controls would not affect. The "civilians" that you deal with are more than likely the thugs that I feel the need to defend myself from. As a cop, you are not usually going to see many responsible gun owners in your line of work.
>
>
>The last three people I dealt with who were brandishing their firearms had no previous offenses relating to gun, drug or gang violence. Their criminal records consisted of some petty offenses for Pot violations and one had nothing but traffic offenses. I'd say these were mostly upstanding citizens and far from being classified as "thugs out for drug money." That is a horribly oversimplified view of people who commit gun violence.
>
Maybe so, but it's still anecdotal evidence. The statistics show otherwise.
>
Kuro, I know you're getting frustrated with me, but nonetheless, I do value your opinions as you always supply an honest and intelligent element to our discussions. On many issues I find that we are in agreement, just not this one.
:-)


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 11 07:17:10 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_school_attack

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_us/south_alabama_shootings

Yea Guns!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 11 11:34:26 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_school_attack
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_us/south_alabama_shootings
>
>Yea Guns!
>
Yes, for sure it was the gun's fault !


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 11 11:55:50 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Yes, for sure it was the gun's fault !

you know I get all warm and fuzzy feeling inside when you and I agree on something.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 11 16:29:34 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Yes, for sure it was the gun's fault !
>
>you know I get all warm and fuzzy feeling inside when you and I agree on something.
>: )
>
Yeah, it's just an effect I have on people.
:-)


 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Mar 11 18:56:19 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addi said:
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_school_attack
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_us/south_alabama_shootings
>>
>>Yea Guns!
>>
>Yes, for sure it was the gun's fault !

Let me guess. This was one of those armed civilians who wouldn't do something foolish with their firearms?

CCW permits didn't stop him huh?

I'm anything but zen right now. I'm pissed. I don't know why I'm bothering.

It probably doesn't matter...


 
mat_j Posted: Mon Mar 16 14:52:13 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I always get to these things by the time the ultra idiocy is well under way but seriously-

Self defence? I'm assuming you mean home not on the street? If so have a fucking shot gun/ deer hunting rifle it doesn't matter a fig, there's no need to have handguns.

Defending yourself against enslavement? This is as laughable as the hundred political generalisations you spout a week Hiffer. What absolute good is any form of handgun going to do against an organised military force. I assume BTW you mean rising up against your own government because on your lonely continent you've not got much competition from the other two countries!! In which case it's not happening, no way can any number of private citizens fight against 48% of the Earth's military spending with rifles, pistols and shotguns!

As an addendum, i don't mean it's not impossible to topple the American regime with just people but you'd need a lot more than a bunch of cowboys running around with 12 gauges, 9mm and 38s.


 
addi Posted: Mon Mar 16 16:18:10 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>I always get to these things by the time the ultra idiocy is well under way but seriously-

: )

*I hope you carry a concealed squirt gun tucked inside your trousers. You never know when you're going to run into a crazed American tourist over there and need to whip it out.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 16 21:50:16 2009 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:

>Defending yourself against enslavement? This is as laughable as the hundred political generalisations you spout a week Hiffer.
>
Now you're just trying to hurt my feelings.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]