PDA

View Full Version : Some real truths about antigun legislation (USA, and the UK and Australia)



RodB
08-28-2013, 04:42 AM
Watch all of the first video ... the stats and interviews in the UK and Australia are in the second half...

The Piers Morgan debates are interesting but this first video also shows some relevant interviews in the UK and Australia. Also, the fact check link at the bottom is well worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X6AC2SkjoI

A 15 year old girl testifies about anti gun legislation and offers a very good explanation as to why antigun legislation is just wrong headed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo


Another Piers Morgan debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v_H9vOdEs8


Another P M debate ... gets better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_we43-q7C7g


A very informative video on gun control with "rational" participants....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3R7Jvm6mnQ



Finally.... a great fact check on all of this..... wow... UK has the second highest crime rate in the EU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfZfJubbWik



RodB


Last edited by RodB (http://forum.woodenboat.com/posthistory.php?p=3887198); 08-28-2013 at 04:37 AM.

Portland
08-28-2013, 05:00 AM
Rod , if your opinion is based on crap like that , well have a shootin' good time over there !.
On TV tonight , we have the funeral of an Australian shot in the back in the US , just for fun , while he jogged .
Make sense of that !.
Rob J.

RodB
08-28-2013, 05:05 AM
There is no making sense of such atrocious behavior... its pure evil stupidity. The parents of those kids ought to be criminally libel just for not doing any parenting.


Your comments do not change the facts and the statistics on gun legislation.

RodB

PeterSibley
08-28-2013, 05:08 AM
Get some real data not silly videos .

Portland
08-28-2013, 05:20 AM
Rod , not one of those videos you put up is worth a pinch of goat s--t .
And they are offensive to the people who do have sensible gun control.
You are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that.
Rob J.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-28-2013, 09:47 AM
I trust the next time John Smith or Norman Bernstein posts a silly video from a comedy channel as if it were legitimate news that they will be similarly chastised.

Could you be a bit more specific? A well chosen web address will do.

Thank you

CC

David G
08-28-2013, 10:06 AM
Some 'real truths', eh? Do you also have some unreal truths to offer, by chance? Some of us like to keep things Fair & Balanced, yanno.

Canoeyawl
08-28-2013, 10:41 AM
Legislation by a fifteen year old?
Oh sure...

W Grabow
08-28-2013, 12:52 PM
Second Amendment: Gun Use Doesn't Fit Narrative In January, Barack Obama was leading the charge for federal gun control measures, standing on the caskets of the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in December. He asked the Centers for Disease Control to "research the causes and prevention of gun violence." His objective, of course, was to reinforce the leftist narrative that guns were to blame for acts of evil. Instead of blaming the perpetrator, the Left focuses on the implement.
The CDC passed the job to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which completed the study in June. But because it didn't follow BO's preferred BS storyline, it's only now seeing the light of day. One inconvenient truth for the Left is that guns save lives. According to the report, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals." Indeed, while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," most by gang bangers on the Democrats' inner city poverty plantations, defensive gun use incidents ranged "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."
The study elaborated on the benefits of defensive gun use: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." On the other hand, gun buy-backs, a favorite of leftists to reduce "gun violence," were found to be "ineffective." Obviously, in a culture as debased as ours has become, guns will be used for evil purposes. But that makes it all the more important for the good guys to have them.

W Grabow
08-28-2013, 01:02 PM
The Australian newspapers appeared to have more prompt and accurate reporting of that killing in Oklahoma than the US papers. You see over here in the US it is only news when a "white" kills a "black". Didn't "just for fun" turn out to be gang-related, likely some gang initiation rite?
Now we have a killing in Washington where two black youths killled an 88 y.o. man by beating him to death. Of course that doesn't fit the agenda either because we all know that guns cause violence, not people, and no gun was used in this killing. How could that happen?
When will we ever address the culture and life choices that produce these violent young people?

RodB
08-28-2013, 01:53 PM
How about taking a look at the information put forth by law abiding gun owners instead of always attacking the legitimacy of their point of view. There certainly is much more logic contained within their comments than the antigun crowd.

The videos I posted are mostly law abiding citizens trying to put out some facts. The antigun crowd is not interested in facts... just like Obama supporters are not interested in any facts that illustrate they have voted for a dishonest and incompetent president who is above all things committed to an ideology, not whats actually best for this country .

You guys consistently attack any source of information you disagree without even actually knowing what it says... heaven forbid you listen to the other side of an issue for a serious discussion. Mostly you scream out ... "that source is nuts! On the other hand, Obama's entire campaign for the past two elections has been based on false narratives supported by those on this forum and the mainstream press. The majority of the information put out during those campaigns has been character assassination of the right based on lies. Enough said.


The Australian newspapers appeared to have more prompt and accurate reporting of that killing in Oklahoma than the US papers. You see over here in the US it is only news when a "white" kills a "black". Didn't "just for fun" turn out to be gang-related, likely some gang initiation rite?
Now we have a killing in Washington where two black youths killled an 88 y.o. man by beating him to death. Of course that doesn't fit the agenda either because we all know that guns cause violence, not people, and no gun was used in this killing. How could that happen?
When will we ever address the culture and life choices that produce these violent young people?

AMEN!!!



Legislation by a fifteen year old?
Oh sure...

Why not consider listening to her comments (she has been a competitive shooter most of her life)... rather than just automatically disregarding her comments straight off? Thats what you left wing folks do, you absolutely avoid any information or facts that do not support your ideology! The gun issue is a perfect example of one side having all the facts wrong... not even close for that matter ... but not willing to consider any real facts that illustrate the folly of their emotional pleas to infringe on the rights of all citizen gun owners.


a fact check on all of this.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfZfJubbWik

Shang
08-28-2013, 02:14 PM
They're not coming for your guns,
they're coming for your Social Security checks.

Try to pay attention.

RodB
08-28-2013, 02:30 PM
Actually, they are coming for both.

RodB

David W Pratt
08-28-2013, 02:31 PM
In the US, 2/3 of gun violence is self harm, so you have to debate autonomy to dissect that.
African Americans are hugely over represented as the perpetrators of gun violence. Curiously, neither the Prez nor Rahm Emmanuel has chosen to address this fact.
People from the UK and Australia like to point out our high rate of gun violence, without addressing all violence. I doubt if my survivors would be consoled if, instead of being shot, I was bludgeoned to death with a cricket bat.

RodB
08-28-2013, 02:34 PM
The following link contains some real objective evaluation on this issue, if anyone is interested in reality.


http://betterlivingthroughliberty.com/2013/02/11/on-common-sense-gun-laws/


The problem with statistics is that individuals or groups with a specific agenda will tend to only look at data that confirm their bias and ignore the rest. - See more at: http://betterlivingthroughliberty.com/2013/02/11/on-common-sense-gun-laws/#sthash.fBP5JOx5.dpuf


....While the U.K. does much better in terms of homicide, it is far worse in terms of total violent crime. In 2009, the U.S. had a violent crime rate of 466/100k, whereas the U.K.’s rate was 2034/100k. That is over 4x higher! I’ve looked at more recent data (here and here) that suggests that in 2011 the rate was actually 8x higher! - See more at: http://betterlivingthroughliberty.com/2013/02/11/on-common-sense-gun-laws/#sthash.fBP5JOx5.dpuf...




The Purpose of the Second Amendment

A common strategy for justifying federal arms restrictions is to claim either that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution can be interpreted in ways that suggest limitations to an individual right to own personal firearms, or that it is an outdated notion and that the Founder’s would not have added it had they known how firearms technology would progress.
Understand that there is no such thing as a “Constitutional right”. That is to say, the Constitution does not grant the rights of free speech, exercise of religion, or due process of law to the people. What individuals have are natural, or God-given rights. They derive from the very nature of individuals having autonomy and self-ownership. They do not require legal justification, as they are self-evident and axiomatic. The Constitution merely affirms that the government has no authority to produce legislation or engage in activities which conflict with an individual’s natural rights.
Individuals do not have a right to guns, per se. They have a right to self-defense and to property. Guns are a means to protect these rights. It is true that guns can be used to commit violence, but violence in and of itself is not wrong. According to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), the initiation of force is illegitimate, but defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not. A government has no moral authority to deny people the means of self-defense or to confiscate property items if they use them for legitimate purposes, regardless of the hypothetical potential for illegitimate uses.
Being a tool of defense, guns put a stop to tyranny. I don’t only mean tyranny from an organized regime, but the tyranny of thugs and criminals. For most of human history, if you were weak (a woman, a child, old, infirm, “backward”) you would easily be terrorized or even killed by strong, violent men. We now have a piece of technology, often times that can fit in a pocket, that can outcompete even the strongest and most violent attacker. Guns are an equalizer.

In addition to personal self-defense, a reason for the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed resistance against a tyrannical government. I’m shocked at how often I encounter derisive opposition to this claim. One would think it wouldn’t seem too far-fetched, what with the murders of at least 170 million people in the 20th century alone, who were forcibly disarmed and killed by their own governments. The documentary Innocents Betrayed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaDzKzKT6nM) describes how arms restrictions preceded immense systematic genocide in places such as Turkey, the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, Guatemala, Tibet, Bangladesh, and Sudan. That Americans do not currently fear this level of tyranny is no reason to abdicate our right to the means of armed resistance. Should we someday find ourselves in a scenario that is clearly not without precedent, a sudden realization that the right to keep and bear arms is essential will be too late.
The Founders realized this, which is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Though they did not face genocide from Imperial England, the tyranny and oppression was enough to prompt the Revolution. The Founders rightly understood both that they could not have achieved victory if the colonists had not been armed and that their best efforts to create a government founded in justice and liberty might prove to be in vain.
Though it has been argued that the militia clause indicates that only soldiers have a right to keep and bear arms, a brief examination shows this to be patently false. The Founders understood the “militia” to be comprised of civilians, set apart from a standing army. They realized that the military of any government might be used by ambitious and evil men to terrorize the people, as had been the case with the British army. George Mason, regarded as the father of the Bill of Rights, wrote (http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm):
“… A well-regulated Militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army…”

Samuel Adams echoed Mason’s sentiments, saying:
“… It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

Furthermore, James Madison, the chief author of the Constitution, wrote:
“Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

These quotes clearly show us that the intention of the Second Amendment was to ensure the right of every American to own a firearm for their own defense, should they so chose.
Another popular argument is to say that the Second Amendment was written during a time when the firearms technology consisted of muzzle-loading muskets and rifles and that the Founders could not have envisioned the death-machines of today. The fundamental flaw with this argument is that if it is applied to any other portions of the Bill of Rights, it falls right apart.
Imagine the same argument in reference to the First Amendment. The founders could not have known about radio, or television, or the Internet. Surely, free speech should be limited only to that which I can verbalize with my unamplified voice and written material printed with my 18th century press. That, and when affirming the freedom of religion, they couldn’t have possible known that we’d have Mormons and Scientologists, so the rights of those people are forfeit. Or what about the Third Amendment? It specifically says that civilians are under no obligation to provide quarters for soldiers in “a house”. It says nothing about condos or apartments.
The Second Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from infringing the right of its citizens to own personal arms for the defense of self an others. These arms should be commensurate with the personal arms of contemporary soldiers so as to impose a legitimate barrier to oppressive tyranny of the state, the military, or foreign invaders.
- See more at: http://betterlivingthroughliberty.com/2013/02/11/on-common-sense-gun-laws/#sthash.fBP5JOx5.dpuf

http://betterlivingthroughliberty.com/2013/02/11/on-common-sense-gun-laws/

RodB
08-28-2013, 02:36 PM
continued from above..


What a ban really means…

On the hypocrisy of gun control, I believe Stephan Molyneux says it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg) the best:
“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.”
What does it mean to “ban” something? It means that the government places a criminal restriction on the possession of a certain item, regardless of the potential legitimate uses and actual actions taken with the item.
When the government bans 30-round magazines, the politicians who write and vote for that law are saying some very disturbing things: that the mere possession of those items justifies armed agents of the state entering your home and putting guns in your face, arresting you, shooting you if they think you are resisting, imprisoning (read: enslaving) you, and confiscating (read: stealing) your wealth and material property.
Are these reasonable and appropriate responses for a person who simply owns an AR-15 or a 30-round magazine? Owning an “assault weapon” hurts no one. Owning a 30-round magazine for one hurts no one. Hunting with one hurts no one. Target shooting with one hurts no one. Self-defense might hurt someone, but it is a legitimate use.
Banning “assault weapons” means that you can be put in prison just for doing anyone of these things, which are not actually crimes. I find this to be egregious, paternalistic, sickening, and unambiguously morally wrong.
Further Inquiry

Here are some excellent articles and videos that help explain the error of gun control, many in ways far superior to my own article:
The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/) is a slideshow that exposes the misinformation surrounding the assault weapons ban. It is concise and persuasive and a good way to introduce these ideas of gun freedom to a novice.
Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote an excellent piece here (http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/10/guns-and-freedom) concerning gun laws and the violation of the Second Amendment.
I previously mentioned the documentary Innocents Betrayed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaDzKzKT6nM). I mention it again because I think it is essential viewing and presents a strong case against gun control legislation due to its connection to acts of genocide.
I also previously mentioned Stephan Molyneux’s video Gun Control: History, Philosophy, and Ethics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg) where he shreds the mendacious arguments so often used to attempt to justify gun restrictions.
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk), David Kopel, associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute, evaluates prospects for changes to federal gun laws following the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.
Here (http://www.independent.org/issues/guncontrol/) is a list of articles concerning firearms, violence, and the second amendment, provided by The Independent Institute.
This site (http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm) provides further claims that the intention of the Founders in writing the Second Amendment was to ensure civilians could own personal firearms as a mean to resist the tyranny of the state.
- See more at: http://betterlivingthroughliberty.com/2013/02/11/on-common-sense-gun-laws/#sthash.fBP5JOx5.dpuf

RodB

BrianW
08-28-2013, 03:17 PM
If the internet is to be believed, it appears that the CDC study Obama requested via Executive Order has been completed. If you haven't heard about it much, it's because it's not favorable to the gun grabber crowd.

Well, at least parts of aren't favorable.

In any case, turned out to be a dud from what I gather. But he looked good signing it, with all those kids standing around him.

ccmanuals
08-28-2013, 03:24 PM
Hmm, I looked at the report. Looks to me like their big problem was getting data. This statement is in the report summary,


"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

In the conclusion,


In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.

BrianW
08-28-2013, 03:39 PM
Hmm, I looked at the report. Looks to me like their big problem was getting data.

I also read the summary. Well, scanned though it. Because as you noted, it was pretty lame.

Are there not enough laws and reporting programs for the CDC to find enough data to even study? It appears to be a huge cop out. Heck, Ian does a better job from Australia.

I'm going to assume whoever did the study got a stellar review, and a promotion. ;)

ccmanuals
08-28-2013, 03:45 PM
I also read the summary. Well, scanned though it. Because as you noted, it was pretty lame.

Are there not enough laws and reporting programs for the CDC to find enough data to even study? It appears to be a huge cop out. Heck, Ian does a better job from Australia.

I'm going to assume whoever did the study got a stellar review, and a promotion. ;)

aah, it was probably contracted out to a beltway bandit. You know, you can't trust those contractors. :)

Peerie Maa
08-28-2013, 03:52 PM
In the US, 2/3 of gun violence is self harm, so you have to debate autonomy to dissect that.
African Americans are hugely over represented as the perpetrators of gun violence. Curiously, neither the Prez nor Rahm Emmanuel has chosen to address this fact.
People from the UK and Australia like to point out our high rate of gun violence, without addressing all violence. I doubt if my survivors would be consoled if, instead of being shot, I was bludgeoned to death with a cricket bat.

Now come on there. I have seen a baseball bat taken into a pub, but never a cricket bat. You are making $h!t up and pretending it is true.

W Grabow
08-28-2013, 03:55 PM
"The CDC passed the job to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which completed the study in June. But because it didn't follow BO's preferred BS storyline, it's only now seeing the light of day."

Is the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council a beltway bandit?

PeterSibley
08-28-2013, 05:19 PM
The religion of guns .

Portland
08-28-2013, 05:35 PM
I don't care what you do Rod , but please , spare us the BS that is supposed to be happening in our country.
Australias gun control is not perfect , its hard to keep the criminals from importing guns freely bought in the US , but for the Australian citizens its pretty good.
So please , keep us out of your discussions.
And your sights.
Rob J.

RodB
08-28-2013, 05:59 PM
Rob J, I just saw the comments and reports in your country and thought them relevant here...

RodB

BrianW
08-28-2013, 06:04 PM
aah, it was probably contracted out to a beltway bandit. You know, you can't trust those contractors. :)

Trust'em, the government can't function without them. Not without spending a whole lot more taxpayers money. ;)

I do hope this will be the last we hear about how the NRA won't allow Congress to approve funds for the CDC to research gun violence. It was done, it was lame, and we could have saved some time and money by not doing it. I guess the NRA was right. ;)

Portland
08-28-2013, 06:15 PM
I'm sorry Rod , all I saw is BS , not a true picture of what is happening here.
One person you could research is Tim Fischer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Fischer .
I'm trying to find his latest comments on the gun situation in your country.
The power of the NRA , and how it has neutralised your President .
How the rest of the world is affected by the weaponing freely available in the USA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/tim-fischer-boycott-us-christopher-lane_n_3786687.html .
This is coming from a right wing former Deputy Prime Minister , who is also a Vietnam Vet .
There are few Australians who would argue with him on this point.
I believe his comments would have more weight than just about any other on this subject , in this country.
Rob J.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-28-2013, 08:27 PM
Watch all of the first video ... the stats and interviews in the UK and Australia are in the second half...

The Piers Morgan debates are interesting but this first video also shows some relevant interviews in the UK and Australia. Also, the fact check link at the bottom is well worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X6AC2SkjoI

A 15 year old girl testifies about anti gun legislation and offers a very good explanation as to why antigun legislation is just wrong headed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo


Another Piers Morgan debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v_H9vOdEs8


Another P M debate ... gets better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_we43-q7C7g


A very informative video on gun control with "rational" participants....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3R7Jvm6mnQ



Finally.... a great fact check on all of this..... wow... UK has the second highest crime rate in the EU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfZfJubbWik



RodB

Last edited by RodB (http://forum.woodenboat.com/posthistory.php?p=3887198); 08-28-2013 at 04:37 AM.


If you want your arguments to get some traction you can't go around like some tent-preacher declaring what you bring is "the truth".

The Bigfella
08-28-2013, 09:24 PM
Second Amendment: Gun Use Doesn't Fit Narrative

In January, Barack Obama was leading the charge for federal gun control measures, standing on the caskets of the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in December. He asked the Centers for Disease Control to "research the causes and prevention of gun violence." His objective, of course, was to reinforce the leftist narrative that guns were to blame for acts of evil. Instead of blaming the perpetrator, the Left focuses on the implement.
The CDC passed the job to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which completed the study in June. But because it didn't follow BO's preferred BS storyline, it's only now seeing the light of day. One inconvenient truth for the Left is that guns save lives. According to the report, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals." Indeed, while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," most by gang bangers on the Democrats' inner city poverty plantations, defensive gun use incidents ranged "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."
The study elaborated on the benefits of defensive gun use: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." On the other hand, gun buy-backs, a favorite of leftists to reduce "gun violence," were found to be "ineffective." Obviously, in a culture as debased as ours has become, guns will be used for evil purposes. But that makes it all the more important for the good guys to have them.


That's a rather strange presentation of the report.

Did you really read page 15 and page 16 of the report? The commentary about those numbers being an "extrapolation from a small number" or the other report that had the number of defensive uses at 108,000?

Did you read (p16) about the increased risks of gun presence with respect to suicide, homicide or the use of that weapon against its owner by house invaders?

Did you read that the rate of firearm violence is 19.5 times higher than in other high income countries? That the annual cost of firearms violence is $174 billion (2010). They are both on p27

Here's a link to page 15. I'm sure you can figure out how to get to the other pages

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15

RodB
08-28-2013, 09:35 PM
As a life long NRA member I am very aware of all the BS sprayed by the antigun folks... about 99% is absolutely erroneous, but that doesn't stop them. When I find examples where efforts have been made to put forth the law abiding gun owners perspective I like to post them in the case that some folks will at least give a listen. The reason I may have come across like a "tent preacher" is probably the inundation of the media with nonsensical antigun talking points which I know are out and out lies. I'd like to interject some element of truth to the discussion. After watching Piers Morgan's attempts to have a so called "discussion/debate", its obvious the anti-gun proponents are not very logical and certainly not interested in listening to any facts.

RodB

BrianW
08-28-2013, 09:37 PM
I read the part about defensive use of guns being as high as offensive use of guns.

So if criminals aren't going to turn in their guns, but the law abiding people do, how will that piece of information change in the future?

BrianW
08-28-2013, 09:41 PM
Also read the part about people who use guns to defend themselves have consistently lower injury rates than people who use other forms of self protective strategies.

Like duh. To most people, that's obvious. But some people needed the President to commission a study to tell them the obvious. :)

Portland
08-28-2013, 09:46 PM
What is logical about pumping more and more guns on to the street , with no registration or control at all , in many cases ?.
Its easy enough for these bad eggs to go steal a weapon , and go shoot people in the back , for the fun of it , or to gain entry in to a punk club.
Talking about it here is obviously a waste of time , so please , just leave us out of your attempts to validate your present position.
Except , to recognise that the American gun lobby , and the NRA are responsible for not only the American debacle , but the proliferation of weapons in other countries as well.
No doubt you won't do that either.
What can I say ?.
Rob J.

RodB
08-28-2013, 10:58 PM
What is logical about pumping more and more guns on to the street , with no registration or control at all , in many cases ?

The guns bought from dealers in this country by law abiding citizens like those here on this forum... are bought with a photo ID and a background check for any criminal record. The federal form to buy a gun makes that particular gun connected to the purchaser forever. Thats why when you sell a gun to another law abiding citizen... you get the buyers name, drivers license number etc and make a bill of sale. If the gun comes up involved in a crime, you can show a record of your selling it and to who. Its just CYA commonsense. If you buy a gun from an individual then most states do not require you to have any paperwork. IT is obvious that if you are on the original paperwork for the purchase of the gun, it certainly behooves you to create a record of exactly when you sold it and to who ... and that they were a resident of your state to keep within the law.

Used guns do not have the same selling rules as new guns... when the sale is between individuals. Individuals buy, sell or trade guns all the time without any paperwork in most states. I would say that the events of the past few years certainly make most folks acutely aware that selling a gun to a questionable person carries a strong responsibility and can come back on you if you use bad judgement. My suggestion here would be that people get a proper ID related to gun ownership like my present CCL . That way a person with a current CCL or general background card signifying you are cleared to own a gun can buy/sell/ or trade guns from individuals with no risk taken by the seller or buyer (with the appropriate information recorded by the individuals involved in the transaction). At the present time this is not a law, but as far back as I can remember, most folks who own and have sold used guns, get the appropriate info and a signature from the person they sold the gun to.



Its easy enough for these bad eggs to go steal a weapon , and go shoot people in the back , for the fun of it , or to gain entry in to a punk club

Its always easy enough for bad eggs to get their hands on a weapon if the weapons are not properly secured. Securing a weapon is the responsibility of the owner.


I must comment, it is curious that the majority of the mass gun violence cases we see in the nation have not been a situation where the guns were stolen during a burglary but were legally purchased and a member of the family just somehow got access... or were able to buy them themselves.


Keeping firearms secure is a major part of the responsibility of a gun owner.


RodB

PeterSibley
08-28-2013, 11:02 PM
How about changing the thread title from "truths" to "myths "?

RodB
08-28-2013, 11:04 PM
Peter, with such a comment, you obviously wouldn't know a truth from a myth and are not interested in knowing any truth on this issue if it doesn't go along with your predisposed opinion


RodB

PeterSibley
08-28-2013, 11:14 PM
Yet you post crap videos about our country and it's laws as if you had some idea. You need to look a little wider for you information . Perhaps even look at the laws themselves ?

Until then the vids are crap and you are posting rubbish .

The Bigfella
08-29-2013, 12:53 AM
I hope someone with some sense saves this thread... surely the GOT will attempt to have it removed from sight by tomorrow

Nah... the Chairman of the GOT likes guns - provided they are properly regulated, stored and used responsibly

http://i.imgur.com/AVNiv54.gif


GOTCHA

Waddie
08-29-2013, 01:01 AM
Rod, Rod, Rod......... you're expecting a civil and open minded discussion here? This is the Bilge, where truth goes to die. We come down here to have our already fabricated "truths" validated, and for the opportunity to attack with impunity anyone who disagrees with us. We can't possibly be that rude outside of the anonymous venue the internet provides. Good luck... :)

regards,
Waddie

PeterSibley
08-29-2013, 01:04 AM
How about a civil discussion on agreed facts or data? Opinion is harder.

Waddie
08-29-2013, 01:25 AM
How about a civil discussion on agreed facts or data? Opinion is harder.

Most of the time the issue doesn't get confused because of a lack of facts. One side uses the facts that support their position and assigns these facts the greatest weight. The other side does the same thing, using different facts. One side dismisses the facts - presented as important by the other side - and asserts that their facts are much more relevant. Facts that fail to reinforce one position (or another) are often conveniently omitted from their argument.

And then there is the problem of what is a "fact", exactly. As Samuel Clemens is credited with saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

But it would be fun to try such a discussion.....

regards,
Waddie

Larks
08-29-2013, 01:25 AM
Where does an 8 year old boy picking up his grandmothers revolver/pistol and shooting her in the head after playing Grand Theft Auto, fit into this discussion?

Who's fault was it?

The boy's for shooting his grandmother?
The Grandmothers for owning a weapon and leaving it loaded and accessible in case she was attacked in her home?
The US Government for not implementing laws that would prevent a loaded weapon being left where an 8 year old could find it?
The Xbox game developer for producing such lifelike games that result in kids developing a blurred understanding of the results of their actions and so behaving the way this 8yo and those that shot the Australian kid did?
The US Government for not regulating violent video games?
The gun lobbyists for protecting their rights to own as many guns as they like and use them as they like?
The bleeding hearts that lobby for people to have the right to watch what they want and play what they want when they want regardless of any perceived impact on society, ethics or morals?
Everybody else?

The Bigfella
08-29-2013, 01:30 AM
http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png

http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-2.png

PeterSibley
08-29-2013, 01:48 AM
Most of the time the issue doesn't get confused because of a lack of facts. One side uses the facts that support their position and assigns these facts the greatest weight. The other side does the same thing, using different facts. One side dismisses the facts - presented as important by the other side - and asserts that their facts are much more relevant. Facts that fail to reinforce one position (or another) are often conveniently omitted from their argument.

And then there is the problem of what is a "fact", exactly. As Samuel Clemens is credited with saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

But it would be fun to try such a discussion.....

regards,
Waddie

That was a gentle reference to Rod's video selection.

Old Dryfoot
08-29-2013, 10:15 AM
Peter, with such a comment, you obviously wouldn't know a truth from a myth and are not interested in knowing any truth on this issue if it doesn't go along with your predisposed opinion


RodB

Here's a little truth, 7648 of them actually.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Canoeyawl
08-29-2013, 10:27 AM
Also read the part about people who use guns to defend themselves have consistently lower injury rates than people who use other forms of self protective strategies.

That should be some interesting data...
Does it include deaths along with "injuries"?

BrianW
08-29-2013, 01:57 PM
http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-1.png

http://guncontrol.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1995-2006-2.png

Proof that the gun grabber won't stop with one new law, they'll continue to add them over at least two decades. ;)

Paul Pless
08-29-2013, 02:05 PM
Being extremely polite one could only call that stuff ridiculous fantasy!
The distortion of figures for the UK is because of the way that crimes are recorded in the UK not on conviction rates or arrest rates like in the US. Makes for a seemingly huge disparity that the ignorant and sfoolish love to believe when the gun lobby feed it to them.
Total and utter rubbish . so no crime had halpened without there being a conviction?

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-29-2013, 02:35 PM
The guns bought from dealers in this country by law abiding citizens like those here on this forum... are bought with a photo ID and a background check for any criminal record. The federal form to buy a gun makes that particular gun connected to the purchaser forever. Thats why when you sell a gun to another law abiding citizen... you get the buyers name, drivers license number etc and make a bill of sale. If the gun comes up involved in a crime, you can show a record of your selling it and to who. Its just CYA commonsense. If you buy a gun from an individual then most states do not require you to have any paperwork. IT is obvious that if you are on the original paperwork for the purchase of the gun, it certainly behooves you to create a record of exactly when you sold it and to who ... and that they were a resident of your state to keep within the law.

Used guns do not have the same selling rules as new guns... when the sale is between individuals. Individuals buy, sell or trade guns all the time without any paperwork in most states. I would say that the events of the past few years certainly make most folks acutely aware that selling a gun to a questionable person carries a strong responsibility and can come back on you if you use bad judgement. My suggestion here would be that people get a proper ID related to gun ownership like my present CCL . That way a person with a current CCL or general background card signifying you are cleared to own a gun can buy/sell/ or trade guns from individuals with no risk taken by the seller or buyer (with the appropriate information recorded by the individuals involved in the transaction). At the present time this is not a law, but as far back as I can remember, most folks who own and have sold used guns, get the appropriate info and a signature from the person they sold the gun to.




Its always easy enough for bad eggs to get their hands on a weapon if the weapons are not properly secured. Securing a weapon is the responsibility of the owner.


I must comment, it is curious that the majority of the mass gun violence cases we see in the nation have not been a situation where the guns were stolen during a burglary but were legally purchased and a member of the family just somehow got access... or were able to buy them themselves.


Keeping firearms secure is a major part of the responsibility of a gun owner.


RodB

From what we know of ADam Lanza he was a "law abiding citizen", altho' somewhat confused, until he pumped four slugs into his mother's head.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-29-2013, 02:40 PM
Rod, Rod, Rod......... you're expecting a civil and open minded discussion here? This is the Bilge, where truth goes to die. We come down here to have our already fabricated "truths" validated, and for the opportunity to attack with impunity anyone who disagrees with us. We can't possibly be that rude outside of the anonymous venue the internet provides. Good luck... :)

regards,
Waddie

You and Rod would probaly find more acceptance on a "souverign citizens" web site. Why not go there now?

The Bigfella
08-29-2013, 04:21 PM
Proof that the gun grabber won't stop with one new law, they'll continue to add them over at least two decades. ;)

It isn't about grabbing guns, it is about effective legislation and gun safety.. We have the same number of guns in Australia now as we had in the mid nineties. I have the same four that I had then.

Next please

MiddleAgesMan
08-29-2013, 04:57 PM
Rob's "truth" is fully represented by, Ted Nugent, the craziest SOB in the music business, Jesse Ventura, the craziest SOB to ever be elected governor of a state, Pratt, the craziest SOB to ever put on a suit and appear sane, and a 15 year old girl who thinks her world would end if she couldn't go to college on a "shooting" scholarship.

Yeah, that's a whole bunch of "truth" if you're just another crazy SOB.

PeterSibley
08-29-2013, 05:09 PM
Proof that the gun grabber won't stop with one new law, they'll continue to add them over at least two decades. ;)

Your comment is proof you care more for guns than life. Both homicide rate and suicide rate fell hand in hand with our gun buybacks and new laws .

Keith Wilson
08-29-2013, 05:09 PM
Jesse Ventura, the craziest SOB to ever be elected governor of a stateSurprisingly, Jesse Ventura was a pretty moderate and more or less competent governor, if somewhat excitable and prone to talk before thinking. His term was over in '03, and apparently in the last ten years he's gotten weirder and weirder. Mr Nugent, OTOH, is out of his ****ing mind.

BrianW
08-29-2013, 05:16 PM
I have the same four that I had then.

You were simply fortunate not to own guns they decided to grab. That is no arguement that the gun grabbers don't grab guns. :)

The Bigfella
08-29-2013, 05:32 PM
You were simply fortunate not to own guns they decided to grab. That is no arguement that the gun grabbers don't grab guns. :)

There is no argument that one million Americans died in the last 30 years due to a bullet hole in their body.... not including the 5,000 or so who died in foreign wars

Its humanity that suffers.

Peerie Maa
08-29-2013, 05:37 PM
so no crime had halpened without there being a conviction?

If that is the way the US gathers its statistics, probably makes the legislators feel better.
In the UK we are carefull to collect better quality data, which is what Andrew was pointing out.

Portland
08-29-2013, 07:15 PM
Brian my take on the gun laws here , is that there are no guns banned.
You just have to justify having them.
The aim being of course to get a lot of the unnecessary firepower out of peoples homes.
If you had a Barratt 50 cal , or an M60 , you may be able to keep it , but not as a working weapon , kept behind the seat of your truck.
If you are a sporting shooter , you don't need an automatic weapon , you need to develop the skill and patience to make every shot count .
If you are a professional shooter , employed to kill feral animals , you may well get a permit to keep and use a high powered semi auto.
But you would be well checked , and have to have very secure storage for the weapon when it is not in use.
Most of us are licenced for weapons appropriate to what we need , in my case .22 rifles.
If you are a range shooter , or sporting shooter , then you are licenced , and the appropriate guns are registered , and properly stored.
Some , (very few ) people are licenced to have weapons for their own protection.
The idea of the general population carrying around firearms for protection is not on.
That works just fine.
Here , we assume that everyone is unarmed .
While in the States , its best to believe that everyone is armed , or has a firearm close handy.
And they will find any excuse to use it.
Even just killing for the fun of it.
Rob J.

Larks
08-29-2013, 07:41 PM
Well said Rob. The focus in Australia is not necessarily banning weapons, but managing them safely and removing unnecessary risk. To that end:

- The gun buyback scheme allowed people to sell their unused or unnecessary weapons to the government, after which they were destroyed. Mostly aimed at people who had weapons lying around in storage that weren't worth selling but were still useable and which they'd be unlikely to use anyway, or at people who couldn't be bothered complying with new licensing and storage rules and so on;
- A number of amnesties allowed people to hand in unlicensed weapons without redress. So people who'd had weapons for years and simply hadn't bothered to license them and again, people who couldn't be bothered complying with new licensing and storage rules and so on but who may have either missed the buy back scheme or had ignored it at the time;
- Tougher requirements to get a license were introduced, but that really only meant that people with a quantifiable reason for a license would qualify - hunters, target shooters, farmers and so on. Which meant again that there'd not be so many uncontrolled weapons just laying around in a cupboard and forgotten about (and therefore available to be stolen or picked up by kids or accidentally discharged).
- Tougher storage requirements, that require weapons to be locked in a secured gun safe and ammunition stored separately, no weapons left loaded while not in use and so on. Again minimising the chance for theft for use in crime, or accidents with kids, accidental discharge and so on.

As Rob said, none of the laws here in Oz stop you from owning pretty much whatever weapon you might want, so long as you can show a reason for owning it and that you are capable of securing it properly and using it safely, as well as allowing the authorities to at least have some manner of tracking weapons here in Oz.

Some statistics here suggest that weapons ownership has actually increased since the gun laws came in. I'm not so sure about that, I'd suggest that LICENSED weapons ownership has increased,

The Oz gun laws still don't stop criminals obtaining weapons but they do reduce the easy availability of them to criminals, they have reduced deaths by guns in Australia and very few people in Oz have any real problems with the gun laws here.

So it's rather weird that it seems as though the only people who have any problems with Oz gun laws are in the US.

hokiefan
08-29-2013, 10:24 PM
Brian my take on the gun laws here , is that there are no guns banned.
You just have to justify having them.
The aim being of course to get a lot of the unnecessary firepower out of peoples homes.
If you had a Barratt 50 cal , or an M60 , you may be able to keep it , but not as a working weapon , kept behind the seat of your truck.
If you are a sporting shooter , you don't need an automatic weapon , you need to develop the skill and patience to make every shot count .
If you are a professional shooter , employed to kill feral animals , you may well get a permit to keep and use a high powered semi auto.
But you would be well checked , and have to have very secure storage for the weapon when it is not in use.
Most of us are licenced for weapons appropriate to what we need , in my case .22 rifles.
If you are a range shooter , or sporting shooter , then you are licenced , and the appropriate guns are registered , and properly stored.
Some , (very few ) people are licenced to have weapons for their own protection.
The idea of the general population carrying around firearms for protection is not on.
That works just fine.
Here , we assume that everyone is unarmed .
While in the States , its best to believe that everyone is armed , or has a firearm close handy.
And they will find any excuse to use it.
Even just killing for the fun of it.
Rob J.

As I've said before, you need to find new American friends. That is not the normal state for most folks here.

Portland
08-29-2013, 10:48 PM
I won't be going back to see my friends again.
In fact I doubt I'll go to America again.
But if I did , yes , I would consider every American I met as carrying a firearm , or has one handy.
Yes , thats tough on those Americans who don't carry firearms , but considering your lax gun laws , and the prevelance of gun use , I reckon its a safe way to be , consider everyone as armed.
And with a legal system that as often as not protects the gun user.
And its not up to me to change that perception , its up to America to change its gun laws , so that the rest of the world views Americans differently.
Rob J.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 12:18 AM
But if I did , yes , I would consider every American I met as carrying a firearm , or has one handy.

We'll miss you, I'm sure.

On the bright side, most people don't share your paranoia.

Portland
08-30-2013, 12:59 AM
Just carry on as per normal eh Brian ?.
Is it any wonder your country has the reputation it does.
Rob J.

varadero
08-30-2013, 02:26 AM
I thought you had a spelling error for "Antiguan" as in West Indies.

Captain Intrepid
08-30-2013, 02:31 AM
In America people buy their children bulletproof backpacks, schools buy bulletproof whiteboards, and teachers carry guns in their classrooms. There might actually be a problem somewhere here, and buying guns and armouring classrooms are probably not going to solve it.

The Bigfella
08-30-2013, 02:31 AM
We'll miss you, I'm sure.

On the bright side, most people don't share your paranoia.

Hey Brian.... not "taking a shot", but seriously, what do you think about the massive multiple of gun deaths that occur in the US, relative to any other high income, western country? That one million dead in the last 30 years? Acceptable to you?

PeterSibley
08-30-2013, 03:23 AM
In America people buy their children bulletproof backpacks, schools buy bulletproof whiteboards, and teachers carry guns in their classrooms. There might actually be a problem somewhere here, and buying guns and armouring classrooms are probably not going to solve it.

and Brian thinks Rob is paranoid. America sounds positively schizophrenic.

hokiefan
08-30-2013, 04:05 AM
and Brian thinks Rob is paranoid. America sounds positively schizophrenic.

There are some real nut-jobs around here for sure. But I have walked around this place unarmed my entire life. Unless of course you count the pocketknife in my pocket growing up. And truth be known that was more useful for stabbing my hand while whittling than anything else. Seriously, I have never carried and see no need to. I've worked and lived in some dodgy areas and while I pay attention to my surroundings I've never felt endangered. We have a gun violence issue, but most of America doesn't behave as Captain Intrepid portrays.

Cheers,

Bobby

Portland
08-30-2013, 04:17 AM
And a visitor to your country is supposed to know where to go that is safe , and where it is not ?.
We have an Aussie that has been there a couple of years jogging through a wealthy area , and gets shot in the back !.
I'm sorry , I'd consider everyone armed , then there hopefully be less surprises.
Just look at some of the posters on this forum , that carry , have weapons all around the house . Where is safe ?.
Look at the amount of weapons in the country , the type of weaponry.
The responses of citizens after another shooting.
They go out and buy MORE handguns !.
I'm sorry , you are all armed , that is the only safe way to look at you.
Rob J.

PeterSibley
08-30-2013, 04:19 AM
There are some real nut-jobs around here for sure. But I have walked around this place unarmed my entire life. Unless of course you count the pocketknife in my pocket growing up. And truth be known that was more useful for stabbing my hand while whittling than anything else. Seriously, I have never carried and see no need to. I've worked and lived in some dodgy areas and while I pay attention to my surroundings I've never felt endangered. We have a gun violence issue, but most of America doesn't behave as Captain Intrepid portrays.

Cheers,

Bobby

I'm aware of that but my comment was directed at the extremes, the bulletproof vests for children at one extreme and the fetishisation of weapons at the other. The attitudes of some have gone way beyond any sense of reality and seem to have entered some Rambo universe of macho heroes but the firearms industry is making a motza so all's well.

Peerie Maa
08-30-2013, 06:13 AM
Here we go round the buoy again
Buoy again
buoy again,
Here we go round the buoy again
Covering the same old ground.

We have debated in previous threads how American visitors to the UK, Auz and Canada to notice a greater feeling of security and confidence/comfort when on our streets compared to US cities.
We have debated the paranoia that results in gated communities etc.

The bottom line is that whilst for example we do have mayhem on our roads that the population is willing to accept so that they can drive to go about their daily lives, we do not have the number of gun deaths that the US is willing to accept because they think that they cannot change their society to align it with the rest of the developed world on the issues of gun controll and the lack of a need for guns.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 06:31 AM
I'm not aware of any of our forum members who carry. Could be wrong though.

John Smith
08-30-2013, 07:06 AM
I thing there are several facts in this area that we all need to take a deep breath and accept as facts.

Too many people are killed by guns. Or by people using guns.

There are well over 300 million guns in the hands of the public: no law is going to change that.

If the people who commit crimes with guns had to use a different weapon, most of these crimes would not be committed.

Everyone seems to agree we'd like to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, but that seems impossible. You can't pass a law that keeps unstable people from buying guns unless you require a doctor's note. No matter what laws you pass, you cannot keep track of all the guns already in circulation. It's simply a battle that cannot be won, much as the war on drugs can't be won.

When the Caldwell NJ Post Office suffered the explosion of a LETTER bomb, we had a series of safety talks and new regulations concerning PACKAGES. I pointed the lunacy of this out to the guy giving the talks. After we had an employee murder 4 people, we were given a series of safety talks on what characteristics to look for in fellow employees so that this sort of thing might be prevented. Again, I stood up and explained to the man giving the talks, that the individual who actually committed this crime had shown NONE of the characteristics he was advising us to watch for.

I find it all silly. The fact is we have an extremely heavily armed public, and that fact is not going to change. It is already illegal to shoot someone, and it is the shooting that, if caught, puts you in jail. Anyone who is willing/able to shoot another human being is likely to have no scruples about owning an illegal gun.

If it were up to me, I'd put all this money and effort that we use in the gun war and the drug war into improving the opportunities legal activities and pursuits provide. This is similar to the concept of putting money into better, renewable sources of energy, so we won't be concerned with what happens in the middle east.

I don't think any of this needs a survey or a study. I think it's common sense.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 07:10 AM
While in the States, its best to believe that everyone is armed, or has a firearm close handy.And they will find any excuse to use it. Even just killing for the fun of it.Well, you can believe that if you like, but fortunately in my experience it's very far from reality. I've lived in the US for all but 3 of my 57 years, always in or near major cites. With two exceptions - police officers and deer hunters (the beginning of hunting season is quite a social ritual in rural areas around here) I've never seen anyone carrying a gun in public. I have never once seen anyone use a gun, threaten to use a gun, or even take a gun out of its holster or case. The same would almost certainly be the case if one visits.

Yes, the US has a problem with too many people shooting each other, and I think we need to change some laws. We have a more widespread problem with gun nuts, and I would be pleased if popular attitudes changed. But from a what lot of folks in other countries write here, it seems that accounts in the press elsewhere give the impression that the modern US is like a B-grade cowboy movie, everybody with a gun on their hip and bullets flying everywhere. It isn't. Most of the more sensational stories, like schoolchildren with bulletproof backpacks, are just designed to sell papers. Yes we have a problem. No, it's not nearly as bad as sometimes portrayed, and it's getting better, not worse.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-2-1.png

PeterSibley
08-30-2013, 07:12 AM
A cheerful note Keith, thank you .

Paul Pless
08-30-2013, 07:14 AM
I'm not aware of any of our forum members who carry. Could be wrong though.there's a few

John Smith
08-30-2013, 07:23 AM
As a nation, IMO, we tend to react only when groups of people get shot in a single incident, and then we look at the weapons they used.

The only people I knew who got shot were shot with handguns. To my knowledge the young man who committed the murders in my post office only had the one gun he had specifically obtained for that purpose. I had a friend who had a small collection and dropped one which fired and killed him.

Perhaps some of those here who follow this stuff more religiously than I will have some statistics on how many crimes are committed with guns that are part of a collectors collection. It seems to me, and I could certainly be wrong, that most people who get shot are shot by someone who doesn't own a lot of guns. I tend not to worry so much about collectors. My brother never shot anyone, and he had a substantial collection of firearms. I worry about those guns now what he's dead. I worry about all gun collections when the collector is no longer here.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 07:33 AM
there's a few

I stand corrected.

(Darn that stings :) )

PeterSibley
08-30-2013, 07:35 AM
As a nation, IMO, we tend to react only when groups of people get shot in a single incident, and then we look at the weapons they used.
.

So do we, thus we removed semi autos from the country.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 07:43 AM
Hey Brian.... not "taking a shot", but seriously, what do you think about the massive multiple of gun deaths that occur in the US, relative to any other high income, western country? That one million dead in the last 30 years? Acceptable to you?

Honestly, when I read a statistic like that I think... "Did the statistician chose a big or easily remembered number, then count far enough back to reach that number? Or, was there something special about the number of years, and it's a coincidence that the resulting number was memorable?"

Portland
08-30-2013, 07:50 AM
Brian , its not only those who carry .
Its those who have weapons in their vehicles , and planted around the house who also contribute in one way or another to the death toll.
But like has been said , we have been down this route before , and we aren't getting anywhere.
It won't change until each and every one of you is prepared to see change , and see gun regulations tidied up.
And one last thing.
Its no good talking about "law abiding citizens" being affected by gun regulations , when the regulations are so damn slack .
It has to tighten up , to have any affect on who has access to firearms.
Its America that has the problem , and its you that will have to do something about it.
You can't keep on just shrugging your shoulders , its not going to go away , unless something positive is done , to reduce weapons on the street.
But you have heard it all before , I'm wasting my time , you won't change.
Rob J.

Peerie Maa
08-30-2013, 08:04 AM
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-2-1.png

I'll pee on your parade Keith. That chart has flat-lined over the last 10 years or more, from now on it could go any way.

It is far too easy to obtain a gun, and too easy to pull one and spray bullets around.
You will remember a disgruntled city worker with a grudge. He obtained a gun for the purpose of killing an ex colleague. (How easy was that?)
He ambushed and killed said colleague on a city street.
A short wile later he was engaged by several police, who drew their weapons and killed him, hitting several bystanders in the process. (Why did they do that?)

This scenario would not have happened in the UK.

The Bigfella
08-30-2013, 08:20 AM
Honestly, when I read a statistic like that I think... "Did the statistician chose a big or easily remembered number, then count far enough back to reach that number? Or, was there something special about the number of years, and it's a coincidence that the resulting number was memorable?"

Not in the slightest. That was the available statistics. 30 years... and then they were available for a few years prior (in ten year gaps IIRC). The million figure is very slightly rounded up... again, if I recall correctly, it was 980,000. I have another 3 years stats now too I think.... but that's neither here nor there.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 08:24 AM
I'll pee on your parade Keith. No parade; as I said, the US has a real problem here. I just wanted to correct the impression some outside the US seem to have that the entire country resembles Durango, Colorado around 1880. It does not.

Some more data, showing all developed countries:
(Mexico, alas, is in the middle of a really nasty drug war between utterly ruthless and well-armed gangs.)

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/510949bdecad04e80d000023-1200/compared-to-the-rest-of-the-world-the-us-is-an-extreme-outlier-this-chart-shows-that-the-more-guns-a-country-has-the-more-gun-deaths-a-country-has-the-us-takes-this-relationship-to-the-extreme.jpg


http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51094a07eab8eaa455000009-1200/this-chart-of-industrialized-nations-shows-that-the-us-and-mexico--a-nation-currently-engulfed-in-a-widespread-anarchic-drug-cartel-war--stand-alone-when-it-comes-to-gun-ownership-and-gun-homicide.jpg

Peerie Maa
08-30-2013, 08:49 AM
Well, in the interest of legibility here is the chart sans US
http://mark.reid.name/pics/figures/homicide-vs-guns-detail.png

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
08-30-2013, 01:15 PM
.... the fascination with guns, and the ardent, almost obsessive desire to own them for whatever reason, is a unique cultural feature of American society. .....

I don't think that is unique to the USA - I've met people in the UK who fit that description quite well - and once spent a happy evening killing a bottle of whisky while comparing trigger releases on a range of different pistols - in a semi in Epsom!

Paul Pless
08-30-2013, 01:33 PM
in Epsom!where MgSO4 was first produce commercially?

Peerie Maa
08-30-2013, 03:37 PM
where MgSO4 was first produce commercially?

No, naturally, bubbling up in a spring from the ground.
Sam Pepys drank the waters a couple of times, once on Sunday 14th July 1667:

We got to Epsum by eight o’clock, to the well; where much company, and there we ‘light, and I drank the water (http://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/7811/): they did not, but do go about and walk a little among the women, but I did drink four pints, and had some very good stools by it.

Paul Pless
08-30-2013, 05:38 PM
but I did drink four pints, and had some very good stools by it. tmi

Peerie Maa
08-30-2013, 06:04 PM
tmi

That was restrained compared to some of his diary entries.

Portland
09-03-2013, 03:52 AM
The little kids aren't coping too well http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/18766177/baby-in-stroller-shot-dead/ .
Rob J.

RodB
09-03-2013, 09:10 AM
So from this chart which shows all these nations below 1 gun homicide per 100,000 people that leaves the US way out there at 4x's that rate.
No there isn't a problem, no not at all!

Arguing religion with American fundamentalists that rely on ignorance and blind faith is an exercise in futility second only to trying to discuss gun control with most of the extremists in the pro-gun lobby who have exactly the same limitations on their ability to partake in a rational debate about this topic.
The blatant distortion and misrepresentation of the data by the gun lobby is beyond sad because so many more will die as a result of their refusal to accept that there is a problem and that there has to be drastic steps taken. But they seem oblivious to reality.

If you want to get anywhere with such a discussion, you must enter the discussion with a strong dose of commonsense and a realistic examination of the facts... perhaps a little open mindedness. Saying there are more gun related deaths in a country with over 300 million guns in circulation than in any other country that has almost no guns... is not a good start, not even close. Duh... any country with more automobiles will obviously have more traffic accidents etc. Restricting gun ownership in our population would be like ."Prohibition" ... which did not work. You are not going to be able to wave a magic wand and make all the guns in our society disappear... so how about dealing with reality. Misrepresenting the stats on gun violence in our country is also not working and at best, begins any discussion based on a false premise. .. which alienates the pro gun folks. Also, disregarding the stats of just violent crime in other countries also shows a lack of serious effort to evaluate the facts.

Only a few posters on these types of threads mention the mental illness factor and the difficulty of a centralized agency having access to such information to restrict gun purchases and ownership from high risk individuals. When a gun violence incident takes place... most anti gun folks just say ... "TAKE AWAY OR RESTRICT GUNS FROM EVERYONE", without regard to what would really work. As a matter of fact, it appears that the only solution most anti gun folks want to hear is "take the guns away, period". This intellectual disingenuous approach will not influence most law abiding gun owners.... just saying.

Additionally, the comments about existing gun laws are usually wrong. It is obvious that no matter how many gun rights supporters point out the existence of plenty of gun laws, the anti gun crowd only want more restrictions that eventually lead to no guns in our society. There is not a lot of common ground upon which to base any logical discussion.

Most commonsense gun owners would likely have no problem with gun owners having to take a safety course and a background check. The background check is in effect now, but it only checks for a criminal record. Once you have a CCL permit in our state, you can buy any legal gun on the spot by just showing your valid CCL permit. Folks with the CCL permit have had a decent background check (including running the FBI background report) , underwent a shooting safety course, and completed all the background information paperwork. This paperwork, by the way does not list any guns you own (which is not necessary IMHO).

I guess the only additional feature to a background check would be to have a mental health examination or a mental health status data base that could be checked against when anyone purchased a gun. Any suggestions as to how this could be implemented within our current system and constitution? I doubt the average citizen would react positively to a "mental health committee" evaluating them to decide whether they could exercise their right to defend themselves with a gun or not. The reason the mental health element is not brought up very often is because it is complex and an uphill battle with our constitution. How many folks would want to see any mental health professional if seeing them could cause a report to be generated that would limit their 2nd amendment rights?

Perhaps federalizing any gun crime that is committed so that those individuals get serious prison time would be a positive step. That has been suggested by some and would not hurt.

RodB

RodB
09-03-2013, 09:23 AM
Sadly that's something the crazy gun lobby has never bothered with otherwise they would be able to see what the rest of the rational world has known for a long time.
But then "rational gun lobby" is one of those oxymorons.


You have no interest in facts or reality...

http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham

RodB





Interesting and worth publishing here...

http://newtown.patch.com/groups/just-consider-if-you-will/p/18-littleknown-gun-facts


Thought I'd pass this along. I found it particularly interesting, and I am hoping it will erase the rhetoric and falsities of the hoplophobes in CT.Guns, after all, are not our enemies. Taken from The DC Clothesline (http://dcclothesline.com/2013/08/22/18-little-known-gun-facts-that-prove-that-guns-make-us-safer/?fb_source=pubv1).


18 Little-known Gun Facts

#1 Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-09/picturing-plunge-gun-crimes-gun-sales-surge) during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-09/picturing-plunge-gun-crimes-gun-sales-surge).
#2 A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/)discovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.
#3 The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater (http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/) than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.
#4 Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/25/gun-free-zone-john-lott/1791085/)…
With just one exception (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929), every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.
#5 The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th (http://www.infowars.com/ben-swann-destroys-piers-morgans-anti-gun-argument/) in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.
#6 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8) per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8) per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8) per 100,000 to 4.7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FWNOiw_XIV8) per 100,000.
#7 Approximately 200,000 women (http://thetruthwins.com/archives/you-wont-believe-the-crazy-things-that-are-being-said-about-gun-owners) in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.
#8 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often (http://thetruthwins.com/archives/you-wont-believe-the-crazy-things-that-are-being-said-about-gun-owners) to prevent crime than they are to take lives.
#9 The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-09/picturing-plunge-gun-crimes-gun-sales-surge) between 1991 and 2011.
#10 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2HQDkC3re) per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2HQDkC3re) per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?
#11 The UK has approximately 125 percent (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims) more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
#12 The UK has approximately 133 percent (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims) more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.
#13 The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate (http://www.infowars.com/ben-swann-destroys-piers-morgans-anti-gun-argument/) in the EU.
#14 The UK has the second highest overall crime rate (http://www.infowars.com/ben-swann-destroys-piers-morgans-anti-gun-argument/) in the EU.
#15 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/cold-hard-facts-on-gun-bans-the-cost-of-liberty-can-be-measured-in-the-loss-of-life_08032012) and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/cold-hard-facts-on-gun-bans-the-cost-of-liberty-can-be-measured-in-the-loss-of-life_08032012) after a gun ban was instituted.
#16 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As I wrote about recently (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/large-cities-all-over-america-are-degenerating-into-gang-infested-war-zones), the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-500th-homicide-20121229,0,3765416.story) in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html)“. If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.
#17 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/society-is-crumbling-right-in-front-of-our-eyes-and-banning-guns-wont-help) over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries (http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html#.UggeoD8pgw6).
#18 According to Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/news12202012.htm), the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered

Flying Orca
09-03-2013, 09:31 AM
Saying there are more gun related deaths in a country with over 300 million guns in circulation than in any other country that has almost no guns... is not a good start, not even close. Duh... any country with more automobiles will obviously have more traffic accidents etc.

So, you acknowledge that taking guns out of circulation would reduce gun deaths? That's a start.


Restricting gun ownership in our population would be like ."Prohibition" ... which did not work.

Now you've lost me. Why has it worked everywhere else, but it wouldn't work in the USA? Magic? Exceptionalism? Or just an excuse to avoid tackling the problem?


You are not going to be able to wave a magic wand and make all the guns in our society disappear... so how about dealing with reality.

Tell you what - since nobody in their right mind is proposing that, how about you stop with the Tinkerbull and deal with a little reality yourself. Maybe you could start by looking at what has worked in other countries.


Only a few posters on these types of threads mention the mental illness factor and the difficulty of a centralized agency having access to such information to restrict gun purchases and ownership from high risk individuals.

Other countries have licensing processes that require references, and licenses can be revoked over mental health concerns or legal findings. There's no reason that couldn't be done in the USA.


it appears that the only solution most anti gun folks want to hear is "take the guns away, period".

I'll bet you can't find a single quote to that effect in the entire history of the Bilge. Stop making stuff up.


the anti gun crowd only want more restrictions that eventually lead to no guns in our society.

Is that what's happened elsewhere? Hmmm, no, it's not. For someone who talks about dealing with reality, you're slinging around a fair bit of rubbish.

Keith Wilson
09-03-2013, 09:39 AM
Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.Frequency of all serious crime, not just homicides using guns, has decreased dramatically in every developed country, not just the US, during that time period. You can read about in that notorious left-wing rag The Economist by following the link (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic). The US is still an outlier.

FWIW, the rate of gun ownership, the percentage of households where there's a gun, has dropped significantly in the US. Fewer people are buying more guns, another example of the increasing polarization of the culture. I doubt anyone would argue that having a dozen guns in the house makes one any safer than having one or two.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png

One more time.
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51094a07eab8eaa455000009-1200/this-chart-of-industrialized-nations-shows-that-the-us-and-mexico--a-nation-currently-engulfed-in-a-widespread-anarchic-drug-cartel-war--stand-alone-when-it-comes-to-gun-ownership-and-gun-homicide.jpg

RodB
09-03-2013, 09:47 AM
Is that what's happened elsewhere? Hmmm, no, it's not. For someone who talks about dealing with reality, you're slinging around a fair bit of rubbish.

I'll change that statement... Lets just say that most anti gun folks think more restrictions on guns will be part of the solution...which means all kinds of bureaucratic red tape and cost laid upon the backs of law abiding gun owners when there are no facts that such actions would prevent any of the mass shooting incidents in the past. So... because of people who think like you, us law abiding gun owners are supposed to jump through all kinds of hoops with gun registration and government involvement of each and every part of gun ownership... despite the 2nd amendment.

Be honest and admit that your statements about it "working in other places" are mostly based upon populations who do not have the rights of our second amendment. . . so in essence the populations are for all practical purposes unarmed. This is not the case here and hopefully will never be.



Frequency of all serious crime, not just homicides using guns, has decreased dramatically in every developed country, not just the US, during that time period. You can read about in that notorious left-wing rag The Economist by following the link (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic). The US is still an outlier.

Duh Keith... obviously with over 300 million guns in our society, the stats are not surprising. We can likely improve on this by federalizing gun crimes and with commonsense gun safety courses prior to owning a gun. . . which is not the case now. I doubt anyone would have a problem with a law mandating taking such a course before owning a gun. Since removing guns from society is not a consideration, most of the suggestions on this forum are not realistic or seriously worth considering.

RodB

John Smith
09-03-2013, 09:52 AM
If you want to get anywhere with such a discussion, you must enter the discussion with a strong dose of commonsense and a realistic examination of the facts... perhaps a little open mindedness. Saying there are more gun related deaths in a country with over 300 million guns in circulation than in any other country that has almost no guns... is not a good start, not even close. Duh... any country with more automobiles will obviously have more traffic accidents etc. Restricting gun ownership in our population would be like ."Prohibition" ... which did not work. You are not going to be able to wave a magic wand and make all the guns in our society disappear... so how about dealing with reality. Misrepresenting the stats on gun violence in our country is also not working and at best, begins any discussion based on a false premise. .. which alienates the pro gun folks. Also, disregarding the stats of just violent crime in other countries also shows a lack of serious effort to evaluate the facts.

Only a few posters on these types of threads mention the mental illness factor and the difficulty of a centralized agency having access to such information to restrict gun purchases and ownership from high risk individuals. When a gun violence incident takes place... most anti gun folks just say ... "TAKE AWAY OR RESTRICT GUNS FROM EVERYONE", without regard to what would really work. As a matter of fact, it appears that the only solution most anti gun folks want to hear is "take the guns away, period". This intellectual disingenuous approach will not influence most law abiding gun owners.... just saying.

Additionally, the comments about existing gun laws are usually wrong. It is obvious that no matter how many gun rights supporters point out the existence of plenty of gun laws, the anti gun crowd only want more restrictions that eventually lead to no guns in our society. There is not a lot of common ground upon which to base any logical discussion.

Most commonsense gun owners would likely have no problem with gun owners having to take a safety course and a background check. The background check is in effect now, but it only checks for a criminal record. Once you have a CCL permit in our state, you can buy any legal gun on the spot by just showing your valid CCL permit. Folks with the CCL permit have had a decent background check (including running the FBI background report) , underwent a shooting safety course, and completed all the background information paperwork. This paperwork, by the way does not list any guns you own (which is not necessary IMHO).

I guess the only additional feature to a background check would be to have a mental health examination or a mental health status data base that could be checked against when anyone purchased a gun. Any suggestions as to how this could be implemented within our current system and constitution? I doubt the average citizen would react positively to a "mental health committee" evaluating them to decide whether they could exercise their right to defend themselves with a gun or not. The reason the mental health element is not brought up very often is because it is complex and an uphill battle with our constitution. How many folks would want to see any mental health professional if seeing them could cause a report to be generated that would limit their 2nd amendment rights?

Perhaps federalizing any gun crime that is committed so that those individuals get serious prison time would be a positive step. That has been suggested by some and would not hurt.

RodB

I must be one of those you consider "sane" as I don't know how you keep crazy people from getting guns without requiring a doctor's note. I don't see any method of keeping track of guns after they are sold. They could be sold again, given as a gift, or stolen. The gun/s a person owns will survive his death, so that every gun sold today, regardless of what restrictions apply to the buy, will be around, in practical terms, forever. All of this is simple the facts as they are.

I am on record as being supportive of efforts to modify buildings so that bringing any substantial weaponry into them would be quite difficult. Bulletproof glass on the ground floor windows would have prevented the event at the Sandy Hook school.

Gun control laws, in order to be effective, would have to start before any guns were in the hands of the public. We don't have that luxury. We have, IMO, misinterpreted the second amendment at our great peril, and now we are stuck will all these murders.

John Smith
09-03-2013, 09:56 AM
I'll change that statement... Lets just say that most anti gun folks think more restrictions on guns will be part of the solution...which means all kinds of bureaucratic red tape and cost laid upon the backs of law abiding gun owners when there are no facts that such actions would prevent any of the mass shooting incidents in the past. So... because of people who think like you, us law abiding gun owners are supposed to jump through all kinds of hoops with gun registration and government involvement of each and every part of gun ownership... despite the 2nd amendment.

Be honest and admit that your statements about it "working in other places" are mostly based upon populations who do not have the rights of our second amendment. . . so in essence the populations are for all practical purposes unarmed. This is not the case here and hopefully will never be.

RodB

The second amendment is in the bill of rights for the sole purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. Period. It allows no infringement of the right of the people to "keep", not "own" "arms" which Art. 1, section 8 gives the government the responsibility to supply.

As I said, we've misconstrued this amendment at our great peril.

Peerie Maa
09-03-2013, 10:01 AM
You have no interest in facts or reality...

http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham

RodB

A total crock, the Office For National Statistics published our crime stats, this is what they say:


The CSEW is a face-to-face survey in which people resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of crime in the 12 months prior to the interview. For the crime types and population groups it covers, the CSEW provides a more reliable measure of trends in crime than police recorded crime statistics, as it has a consistent methodology and is unaffected by changes in levels of reporting to the police, recording practice or police activity.


So Larry Pratt is well named, as he is iether ignorant of his topic or dishonest.


Interesting and worth publishing here...

http://newtown.patch.com/groups/just-consider-if-you-will/p/18-littleknown-gun-facts

If you trace the european stats back to the source you will find this:

Crimes recorded by the police

The crime statistics presented here cover offences recorded by police in the Member States of the EU and some other European countries. These figures do not purport to describe all crime in Europe: some crime goes unreported; and changes in rates of particular offences may result from changes in the focus of police activity.
There is usually no straight match to be made in types and levels of crime between countries, because legal and criminal justice systems differ in such areas as: definitions of crimes[1] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-0); methods of reporting, recording and counting crimes; and rates of reported to unreported crime[2] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-1).


from the same source:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/2/25/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police_Homicide%2C2004-2010_New.png


The UK is not up with the worst.
However when you look at the UK's own statistics the accuracy level is higher, as unlike the USA and EU, our statisticians include all crime, not just those the the police get to hear about. Hence the gutter rag that is the Daily Mail being able to sensationalise by mis reporting statistics by comparing apples with oranges.
Which begs the question, is the rest of the stuff on that propaganda web site crap as well?

RodB
09-03-2013, 10:04 AM
For reference here...

RodB


The Purpose of the Second Amendment

A common strategy for justifying federal arms restrictions is to claim either that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution can be interpreted in ways that suggest limitations to an individual right to own personal firearms, or that it is an outdated notion and that the Founder’s would not have added it had they known how firearms technology would progress.
Understand that there is no such thing as a “Constitutional right”. That is to say, the Constitution does not grant the rights of free speech, exercise of religion, or due process of law to the people. What individuals have are natural, or God-given rights. They derive from the very nature of individuals having autonomy and self-ownership. They do not require legal justification, as they are self-evident and axiomatic. The Constitution merely affirms that the government has no authority to produce legislation or engage in activities which conflict with an individual’s natural rights.
Individuals do not have a right to guns, per se. They have a right to self-defense and to property. Guns are a means to protect these rights. It is true that guns can be used to commit violence, but violence in and of itself is not wrong. According to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), the initiation of force is illegitimate, but defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not. A government has no moral authority to deny people the means of self-defense or to confiscate property items if they use them for legitimate purposes, regardless of the hypothetical potential for illegitimate uses.
Being a tool of defense, guns put a stop to tyranny. I don’t only mean tyranny from an organized regime, but the tyranny of thugs and criminals. For most of human history, if you were weak (a woman, a child, old, infirm, “backward”) you would easily be terrorized or even killed by strong, violent men. We now have a piece of technology, often times that can fit in a pocket, that can outcompete even the strongest and most violent attacker. Guns are an equalizer.

In addition to personal self-defense, a reason for the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed resistance against a tyrannical government. I’m shocked at how often I encounter derisive opposition to this claim. One would think it wouldn’t seem too far-fetched, what with the murders of at least 170 million people in the 20th century alone, who were forcibly disarmed and killed by their own governments. The documentary Innocents Betrayed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaDzKzKT6nM) describes how arms restrictions preceded immense systematic genocide in places such as Turkey, the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, Guatemala, Tibet, Bangladesh, and Sudan. That Americans do not currently fear this level of tyranny is no reason to abdicate our right to the means of armed resistance. Should we someday find ourselves in a scenario that is clearly not without precedent, a sudden realization that the right to keep and bear arms is essential will be too late.
The Founders realized this, which is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Though they did not face genocide from Imperial England, the tyranny and oppression was enough to prompt the Revolution. The Founders rightly understood both that they could not have achieved victory if the colonists had not been armed and that their best efforts to create a government founded in justice and liberty might prove to be in vain.
Though it has been argued that the militia clause indicates that only soldiers have a right to keep and bear arms, a brief examination shows this to be patently false. The Founders understood the “militia” to be comprised of civilians, set apart from a standing army. They realized that the military of any government might be used by ambitious and evil men to terrorize the people, as had been the case with the British army. George Mason, regarded as the father of the Bill of Rights, wrote (http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm):
“… A well-regulated Militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army…”

Samuel Adams echoed Mason’s sentiments, saying:
“… It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

Furthermore, James Madison, the chief author of the Constitution, wrote:
“Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

These quotes clearly show us that the intention of the Second Amendment was to ensure the right of every American to own a firearm for their own defense, should they so chose.
Another popular argument is to say that the Second Amendment was written during a time when the firearms technology consisted of muzzle-loading muskets and rifles and that the Founders could not have envisioned the death-machines of today. The fundamental flaw with this argument is that if it is applied to any other portions of the Bill of Rights, it falls right apart.
Imagine the same argument in reference to the First Amendment. The founders could not have known about radio, or television, or the Internet. Surely, free speech should be limited only to that which I can verbalize with my unamplified voice and written material printed with my 18th century press. That, and when affirming the freedom of religion, they couldn’t have possible known that we’d have Mormons and Scientologists, so the rights of those people are forfeit. Or what about the Third Amendment? It specifically says that civilians are under no obligation to provide quarters for soldiers in “a house”. It says nothing about condos or apartments.
The Second Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from infringing the right of its citizens to own personal arms for the defense of self an others. These arms should be commensurate with the personal arms of contemporary soldiers so as to impose a legitimate barrier to oppressive tyranny of the state, the military, or foreign invaders.
- See more at: http://betterlivingthroughliberty.com/2013/02/11/on-common-sense-gun-laws/#sthash.fBP5JOx5.dpuf

The Bigfella
09-03-2013, 10:05 AM
Can you summarise that for us please mate?

RodB
09-03-2013, 10:07 AM
Part of the quote above summarizes ok...

RodB



The Constitution merely affirms that the government has no authority to produce legislation or engage in activities which conflict with an individual’s natural rights.
Individuals do not have a right to guns, per se. They have a right to self-defense and to property. Guns are a means to protect these rights. It is true that guns can be used to commit violence, but violence in and of itself is not wrong. According to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), the initiation of force is illegitimate, but defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not. A government has no moral authority to deny people the means of self-defense or to confiscate property items if they use them for legitimate purposes, regardless of the hypothetical potential for illegitimate uses.



The following is a very good reference for any of you who are interested in facts

Gun Facts... all comprehensively checked for accuracy....

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Flying Orca
09-03-2013, 10:09 AM
Lets just say that most anti gun folks think more restrictions on guns will be part of the solution...

Oh, it's not just "anti-gun" folks; I'm a hunter and gun owner and I think the USA's lax gun regulations are (a) reprehensible, and (b) an enormous contributing factor to the country's evident problem with gun violence.


which means all kinds of bureaucratic red tape and cost laid upon the backs of law abiding gun owners when there are no facts that such actions would prevent any of the mass shooting incidents in the past.

You've achieved a new low in coherence; congratulations, I guess. For the record, nothing can prevent events that are already in the past. Also for the record, the aim of effective gun control is not to prevent specific mass shootings, it is to reduce gun violence. It's worked everywhere it's been tried, and there is no reason to think it cannot work in the USA.


So... because of people who think like you, us law abiding gun owners are supposed to jump through all kinds of hoops with gun registration and government involvement of each and every part of gun ownership... despite the 2nd amendment.

I can assure you that gun ownership in Canada does not involve "all kinds of hoops"; perhaps you should read up on the matter (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm).


your statements about it "working in other places" are mostly based upon populations who do not have the rights of our second amendment. . . so in essence the populations are for all practical purposes unarmed. This is not the case here and hopefully will never be.

Gun ownership in Canada prior to effective gun control was roughly the same as gun ownership in the USA. Australia also has plenty of guns. You are correct in that there is no equivalent to the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment itself is open to multiple interpretations and ultimately depends upon the Supreme Court and the amendment process itself. I don't believe it is necessarily a barrier to effective gun control, and hopefully it never will be. ;)

Flying Orca
09-03-2013, 10:12 AM
For reference here...

Erm... that's nothing but an opinion piece.

Keith Wilson
09-03-2013, 10:16 AM
These arms should be commensurate with the personal arms of contemporary soldiers . . . Why 'personal"? That seems completely arbitrary. By far the most effective weapons (i.e. destructive weapons, since a weapon is by definition a tool of destruction) use by modern armies are not 'personal', nor have they been for quite a long time. If the point is to allow the citizens to rise in armed insurrection against the government, then they'll need the most effective weapons available. This line of argument leads directly to a Second Amendment guarantee of a tank in the driveway and anti-aircraft missiles, even a suitcase nuke, in the garage.

RodB
09-03-2013, 10:20 AM
You've achieved a new low in coherence; congratulations, I guess. For the record, nothing can prevent events that are already in the past. Also for the record, the aim of effective gun control is not to prevent specific mass shootings, it is to reduce gun violence. It's worked everywhere it's been tried, and there is no reason to think it cannot work in the USA.


Most suggestions have been about gun registration (each and every gun) and all that entails as people decide to sell them or trade them or they die and their family then owns them.... etc. Are you not satisfied with a solid safety course required for all gun owners along with a background check? Gun registration opens a pandora's box for the gun owner and many times in history it has led to confiscation.



I like the quote from above for here too...


The Constitution merely affirms that the government has no authority to produce legislation or engage in activities which conflict with an individual’s natural rights.
Individuals do not have a right to guns, per se. They have a right to self-defense and to property. Guns are a means to protect these rights. It is true that guns can be used to commit violence, but violence in and of itself is not wrong. According to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), the initiation of force is illegitimate, but defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not. A government has no moral authority to deny people the means of self-defense or to confiscate property items if they use them for legitimate purposes, regardless of the hypothetical potential for illegitimate uses.





So describe "effective gun control" for me... this should be interesting.



RodB

Keith Wilson
09-03-2013, 10:55 AM
A government has no moral authority to deny people the means of self-defense . . . One more time: if one aspect of 'legitimate self-defense' is insurrection against the government, then no weapon can rationally be excluded. If the Montana Free Christian Men's Militia (I just made them up) bankrolled by John ("Daddy") Paranoid Warbucks' billions, wishes to purchase Abrams tanks, cruise missiles, a fleet of Apache helicopters, and the most sophisticated air-defense system available, then according to that reasoning, the US government has no right to prevent them. They have the right to defend themselves against a hypothetical tyrannical government which may some day arise, right? And 'the hypothetical potential for illegitimate uses' are irrelevant. And the same is true of the North American Red Worker's Brigade, The Stormfront Troopers, the St Louis branch of the Crips, Google, Inc., the Westboro Baptist Church, Koch Industries, and any other organization you can name. What could go wrong?

And the idea of 'natural rights' has serious problems. In a state of nature, one has no rights. Your life is tenuous, and your property belongs to anyone strong enough to take it away. What we call 'rights' are agreements we make and enforce among ourselves. I agree that I won't use aggressive force in order to be free of someone else's use of it. I agree to not steal your stuff in the expectation that someone else won't steal mine.

Flying Orca
09-03-2013, 11:24 AM
Are you not satisfied with a solid safety course required for all gun owners along with a background check?

I think they are a good place to start. I think safe storage laws and severe restrictions on handguns (with the explicit aim of removing them from general circulation) are equally necessary. I would also suggest mandatory insurance covering all of the consequences (health, liability, you name it) of the use of a gun.


The Constitution merely affirms that the government has no authority to produce legislation or engage in activities which conflict with an individual’s natural rights.

With all due respect, that's hogwash. Rights are a part of the social contract; there is no such thing as "natural rights" unless you count the "right" to compete for food, water, air, and successful reproduction with the other animals in your ecosystem.



A government has no moral authority to deny people the means of self-defense or to confiscate property items if they use them for legitimate purposes, regardless of the hypothetical potential for illegitimate uses.

More hogwash. A government - which is to say, the people who engage in a social contract - has all the "moral authority" the people themselves wish to grant it.

RodB
09-03-2013, 04:31 PM
I'm not interested in arguing semantics... the supreme court ruled on the 2nd amendment ... and you guys can continue with the nonsense... for thousands of words... it won't change the following.



Justice
Samuel A. Alito Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
, writing for the majority, said the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, he said, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?_r=0



I think they are a good place to start. I think safe storage laws and severe restrictions on handguns (with the explicit aim of removing them from general circulation) are equally necessary. I would also suggest mandatory insurance covering all of the consequences (health, liability, you name it) of the use of a gun.


So, you see sensible gun legislation is removal of all hand guns from the general population? This is no surprise and exactly why the middle ground in discussing this issue is almost nonexistent.



I will say that you and Keith are beating the bushes denying an individuals "natural rights"... but as usual you are just arguing semantics rather than just agreeing to understand the basic meaning of the forefathers in this regard. The founding fathers were acutely aware of tyranny and considered the right of self determination trumped all... at least IMHO, and gun rights is a part of protecting this self determination ... ie., the right to defend your rights against those who would infringe them.


One more note to Keith... an AR-15 is simply a semi-auto rifle and no different than a semi-auto shotgun if you look at the design. My point here is you tend to go over the top in your progression of logic. An A-15 is simply a rifle, not a tank or mortar or bazooka... The legally owned guns in our society are mostly handguns and rifles and shoguns. Not grenade launchers, etc . Your comparison of a semi auto rifle to the constantly mentioned grenade launchers, tanks, etc, etc, is simply silly.

BTW, some folks with Class III licenses do own automatic weapons etc, but those folks have a very exhaustive background check, must have a local sheriff write a letter of recommendation, and these folks pay an exorbitant amount of money for each weapon they own on the class III list. The people who actually own these weapons are very few.. .about 3.1 million in the USA... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/


RodB

Flying Orca
09-03-2013, 05:17 PM
I'm not interested in arguing semantics... the supreme court ruled on the 2nd amendment ... and you guys can continue with the nonsense... for thousands of words... it won't change the following.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?_r=0

Pardon my saying so, but I find your response completely incoherent.


So, you see sensible gun legislation is removal of all hand guns from the general population? This is no surprise and exactly why the middle ground in discussing this issue is almost nonexistent.

Yes, I do, and furthermore I see the removal of handguns from the general population as "middle ground", too - between no controls and the complete removal of guns from the general population, period. Handguns serve no legitimate hunting purpose; they are made to wound or kill people and they do it well. If you largely eliminate them from circulation, I guarantee that your gun violence rate will go down.


I will say that you and Keith are beating the bushes denying an individuals "natural rights"... but as usual you are just arguing semantics rather than just agreeing to understand the basic meaning of the forefathers in this regard.

More hogwash. The "basic meaning of the forefathers" is, at the very least, unclear--and while you might claim perfect understanding, I doubt my understanding would agree. We appear to differ on the fundamental nature of "rights". Furthermore, what the "forefathers" may or may not have meant is largely irrelevant in a world that has changed beyond recognition over the last couple hundred years; I suspect they would be uniformly horrified to know that there are those who would rather cling to their words as if they were carved in stone for eternity instead of doing something about the gun violence that plagues the country they left to you and me.

Keith Wilson
09-03-2013, 05:17 PM
Your comparison of a semi auto rifle to the constantly mentioned grenade launchers, tanks, etc, etc, is simply sillyI think you missed the point. I wasn't talking about the current disputes about certain types of semi-automatic rifles.

The logic in both your posts and the article you quoted runs like this:

- People have a natural right of self-defense.
- The Second Amendment recognizes that right and turns it into law.
- Insurrection against a tyrannical government is legitimate self-defense.
- If a weapon is currently being used legitimately, potential for illegitimate use is not a valid reason to restrict it.

The first three statements are pretty solid; the last is pretty dodgy. I took the logic to its conclusion:

- Insurrection against the military forces of a tyrannical government would require far more sophisticated weapons than just rifles.
- Therefore, the government has no legitimate right to restrict the private possession of any kind of weapon that might possibly be used to free us from tyranny.

You may not agree with the above, but your logic leads inevitably to that conclusion.

RodB
09-03-2013, 09:10 PM
The first three statements are pretty solid; the last is pretty dodgy. I took the logic to its conclusion:


Agreed...

R




Originally posted by Flying Orca
With all due respect, that's hogwash. Rights are a part of the social contract; there is no such thing as "natural rights" unless you count the "right" to compete for food, water, air, and successful reproduction with the other animals in your ecosystem.

Why don't you explain or make your points within the framework of the mindset of the authors of the Bill of Rights instead of arguing about the non-existence of natural rights. I took that statement from a section of the quote and it made sense to me that you could transition away from the extreme basics of the right to compete for survival in the ecosystem and consider the right to defend your life or liberty as a natural right. I think thats what they meant.




http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by RodB http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3893546#post3893546)
So, you see sensible gun legislation is removal of all hand guns from the general population? This is no surprise and exactly why the middle ground in discussing this issue is almost nonexistent.


Originally posted by Flying Orca
Yes, I do, and furthermore I see the removal of handguns from the general population as "middle ground", too - between no controls and the complete removal of guns from the general population, period. Handguns serve no legitimate hunting purpose; they are made to wound or kill people and they do it well. If you largely eliminate them from circulation, I guarantee that your gun violence rate will go down.


Handguns are eminently more practical for self defense... I won't even bother with why, you can figure it out. Your statement that handguns do not serve any legitimate hunting purpose illustrates your complete lack of understanding of the second amendment ... the inherent right of people to defend themselves. Hunting really has nothing to do with the second amendment, it just misdirection by gun control advocates.

Perhaps the following quote from above, which I doubt you read is appropriate here where you fail to see any reason for people to have handguns.


A common strategy for justifying federal arms restrictions is to claim either that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution can be interpreted in ways that suggest limitations to an individual right to own personal firearms, or that it is an outdated notion and that the founders would not have added it had they known how firearms technology would progress.
Understand that there is no such thing as a “Constitutional right”. That is to say, the Constitution does not grant the rights of free speech, exercise of religion, or due process of law to the people. What individuals have are natural, or God-given rights. They derive from the very nature of individuals having autonomy and self-ownership. They do not require legal justification, as they are self-evident and axiomatic. The Constitution merely affirms that the government has no authority to produce legislation or engage in activities which conflict with an individual’s natural rights.
Individuals do not have a right to guns, per se. They have a right to self-defense and to property. Guns are a means to protect these rights. It is true that guns can be used to commit violence, but violence in and of itself is not wrong. According to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), the initiation of force is illegitimate, but defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not. A government has no moral authority to deny people the means of self-defense or to confiscate property items if they use them for legitimate purposes, regardless of the hypothetical potential for illegitimate uses.
Being a tool of defense, guns put a stop to tyranny. I don’t only mean tyranny from an organized regime, but the tyranny of thugs and criminals. For most of human history, if you were weak (a woman, a child, old, infirm, “backward”) you would easily be terrorized or even killed by strong, violent men. We now have a piece of technology, often times that can fit in a pocket, that can outcompete even the strongest and most violent attacker. Guns are an equalizer.


Also from earlier in this thread... perhaps this will enlighten you as to why people can and should be able to own handguns.

#7 Approximately 200,000 women (http://thetruthwins.com/archives/you-wont-believe-the-crazy-things-that-are-being-said-about-gun-owners) in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.
#8 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often (http://thetruthwins.com/archives/you-wont-believe-the-crazy-things-that-are-being-said-about-gun-owners) to prevent crime than they are to take lives.
#9 The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-09/picturing-plunge-gun-crimes-gun-sales-surge) between 1991 and 2011.
#18 According to Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/news12202012.htm), the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered


You might find some of my quotes in the previous pages worth reading.

RodB

Glen Longino
09-03-2013, 09:29 PM
Oh, Lordy, don't these Fundamentalist Christians know how to throw a party?
First, they hold you under water until they deem you Baptized!
Then they ask you if you Believe...BELIEVE!...
Then they shove a gun in your hand and tell you to use it anytime God or Jesus don't show up out there on the street or the prairie when you need them....but you Really Do Believe they will protect you....but just in case!!!!!!

Mealy Mouthed Hypocrites!!!!!!!!!!:D:DLMAO

RodB
09-03-2013, 09:34 PM
Glen,

Did you take your medicine today???

I wouldn't think guns rights advocates could automatically be stereotyped as Fundamentalist Christians... never even thought of it. Perhaps you mixed up your standard remarks with the wrong issue.

RodB

Ed Harrow
09-03-2013, 09:53 PM
Some live ones here. I'd love for Chuck's commentary...

Glen Longino
09-03-2013, 09:55 PM
Glen,

Did you take your medicine today???

I wouldn't think guns rights advocates could automatically be stereotyped as Fundamentalist Christians... never even thought of it. Perhaps you mixed up your standard remarks with the wrong issue.

RodB

Perhaps you have missed some important similarities between Gunslinger Fanatics and Religious Fanatics that I will be all too happy to make you aware of.
First, let me remind you that I was born a few miles from here 72 years ago and I have been watching you crazy bastids and your crazy forebears all those years.
Don't think you can blithely dismiss my observations of you crackpots merely because you assume some superior position that does not exist!!
Of all the gun nuts I've known, at least 95% of them have been Jesus nuts also! Go figger!
"I trust you, Jesus, but I trust this here pistol MORE!":D
Shame on you!:D

Garret
09-03-2013, 10:04 PM
@ Portland:

I've said this before & I'll say it one last time. Your view of the US is skewed (I almost typed "warped") . I realize you spent some time here with people who carried & had lots of guns. That is not how the vast majority of Americans live. I know you have your preconceived notions, but they are false! I live in a state with the fewest gun laws of any in the country. Alaska & Montana do come close though. Anyway - out of hundreds of people I know, 2 carry. One is a gunsmith & both are competitive practical shooters & well up in national rankings. IOW - they do this as a sport. Out of all the people I know, maybe 50% own guns. Of those, the vast majority are 22's & such for racoons & the like or hunting rifles. This is a rural state & a lot of people hunt.

I wish you would stop making judgements about the entire US based on a few people you spent time with. It's unfair & also makes you come across as ignorant - and I don't think you are. Want a map of where you can walk in my state? Easy. Go to google maps, look up Vermont. Make sure you can view the entire state. That's where it's safe to walk at any time of the day or night without any kind of weapon. Are there a few places where it might not be wise to be counting your hundred dollar bills under a streetlight? Of course, but I bet Oz has one or 2 of those as well.

Canoeyawl
09-03-2013, 10:41 PM
Out of all the people I know, maybe 50% own guns

That sort of sums up that every other person you know is armed.
It is also the case with me perhaps, but to someone from where guns are not allowed mostly, and definitely are not commonplace it must be shocking to think that here every other person they might meet is armed (and could shoot them).
We had an employee from Australia, and he was the sort of guy with a habit of provoking people to argument by insult (Could this trait be cultural?) I called him on this and he said "So what man? It's just a little fisticuffs..." I tried to explain that he was causing them to be afraid and many people here in the US might actually have a gun right there in the car with them, and just as many more had a gun within a few minutes drive. He sort of went pale as this reality sunk in and his behavior was notably modified.

The gun culture here in the US is truly bizzare in that it has taken on a religious and political fervor.
A firearm can work as a tool to protect your home, and I have killed plenty of vermin here, but to think that protecting my home might mean being prepared to shoot another person, I could never do that.

RodB
09-03-2013, 11:46 PM
That sort of sums up that every other person you know is armed.
It is also the case with me perhaps, but to someone from where guns are not allowed mostly, and definitely are not commonplace it must be shocking to think that here every other person they might meet is armed (and could shoot them).
We had an employee from Australia, and he was the sort of guy with a habit of provoking people to argument by insult (Could this trait be cultural?) I called him on this and he said "So what man? It's just a little fisticuffs..." I tried to explain that he was causing them to be afraid and many people here in the US might actually have a gun right there in the car with them, and just as many more had a gun within a few minutes drive. He sort of went pale as this reality sunk in and his behavior was notably modified.

The gun culture here in the US is truly bizzare in that it has taken on a religious and political fervor.
A firearm can work as a tool to protect your home, and I have killed plenty of vermin here, but to think that protecting my home might mean being prepared to shoot another person, I could never do that.

I know many folks here that do not own guns and many who do own guns and of the gun owners, very few that carry them. Our large cities have areas in which you wouldn't want to count your hundred dollar bills out in the open, but we have many areas that are fine... and also hundreds of small towns that are quite safe. Oh yeah, Austin has its problems with the thousands of students and with over 350,000 illegal aliens .... college students are not safe in Austin and they need to have some commonsense, but its not guns that are the problem.

We probably have lots of people here with their license to carry (on a relative basis) , but you sure don't see crimes or shootings happening because of these law abiding gun owning citizens. Your comments... "many people here in the US might actually have a gun right there in the car with them, and just as many more had a gun within a few minutes drive" inferring that people who own guns will use them if they get pissed in an argument is nonsense. The cardinal rule of having a gun for self defense is just that.. .self defense and of course last resort. Your comments can give those who don't know better the absolutely wrong idea. If you were any where near correct there would be wholesale shootings in areas of the country where gun ownership was higher... but the most shootings are in areas with the strongest gun control. Hmmmm?? EXPLAIN THAT!

Your final remarks are not only curious... but downright unbelievable. So.... if someone broke into your home at night, you would make no attempt to defend yourself and your family that required any deadly force? Gimme a break... no one is that naive.



Of all the gun nuts I've known, at least 95% of them have been Jesus nuts also! Go figger!

Made up BS.... !

RodB

Portland
09-03-2013, 11:57 PM
No comment on post 94 ?.
Rob J.

Portland
09-04-2013, 12:04 AM
Rod , I can't believe any of your arguments , when your "facts" are WRONG !.
Sorry.
Rob J.

Glen Longino
09-04-2013, 12:26 AM
I know many folks here that do not own guns and many who do own guns and of the gun owners, very few that carry them. Our large cities have areas in which you wouldn't want to count your hundred dollar bills out in the open, but we have many areas that are fine... and also hundreds of small towns that are quite safe. Oh yeah, Austin has its problems with the thousands of students and with over 350,000 illegal aliens .... college students are not safe in Austin and they need to have some commonsense, but its not guns that are the problem.

We probably have lots of people here with their license to carry (on a relative basis) , but you sure don't see crimes or shootings happening because of these law abiding gun owning citizens. Your comments... "many people here in the US might actually have a gun right there in the car with them, and just as many more had a gun within a few minutes drive" inferring that people who own guns will use them if they get pissed in an argument is nonsense. The cardinal rule of having a gun for self defense is just that.. .self defense and of course last resort. Your comments can give those who don't know better the absolutely wrong idea. If you were any where near correct there would be wholesale shootings in areas of the country where gun ownership was higher... but the most shootings are in areas with the strongest gun control. Hmmmm?? EXPLAIN THAT!

Your final remarks are not only curious... but downright unbelievable. So.... if someone broke into your home at night, you would make no attempt to defend yourself and your family that required any deadly force? Gimme a break... no one is that naive.




Made up BS.... !

RodB

"Made up BS... !"

Nope! How do you possibly presume to know what I know?
Look, Rod, if you are so fearful of the world you live in, I'm sorry!
But don't expect me and everybody else to be as fearful as you are.
Your message seems to be, "I'm batshyte crazy and scared as hell and if you're not, you're a damn Democrat Communist!"
Sorry, I ain't buying it!
You can be as scared as you please, but your fear is Not Contagious!

Peerie Maa
09-04-2013, 03:04 AM
No comment on post 94 ?.
Rob J.

Nor on #103.


But then again that one is full of facts. :D

Flying Orca
09-04-2013, 07:20 AM
Why don't you explain or make your points within the framework of the mindset of the authors of the Bill of Rights instead of arguing about the non-existence of natural rights.

Because I think their mindset is open to interpretation and irrelevant to the current situation.


it made sense to me that you could (...) consider the right to defend your life or liberty as a natural right. I think thats what they meant.

Yes, I know you think that's what they meant. If you're living in a place without laws or social mores, you can claim that "right" in its purest, unadulterated form. If on the other hand you're living in a group of people that has agreed to meet certain standards of behaviour, as well as a mechanism for modifying those standards (the real point of the constitution), then it is perfectly acceptable to place limitations on the behaviour and the tools that may be acceptably employed in defending your life or liberty. You and I differ on the acceptable limitations because I am less willing to accept the negative consequences of widespread handgun ownership (to choose a contentious example) than you are.


Handguns are eminently more practical for self defense.

In a very narrow sense, that is undoubtedly correct, but so what? Just because a particular machine is exceptionally good at killing people doesn't mean they should be widely available. Perhaps you should ask whether people in general would be safer if handguns were largely taken out of circulation. The experience elsewhere would suggest that they would. The fact that you refuse to engage with that reality suggests that safety is not really your concern, however much you may present it as such.

RodB
09-04-2013, 08:31 AM
In a very narrow sense, that is undoubtedly correct, but so what? Just because a particular machine is exceptionally good at killing people doesn't mean they should be widely available. Perhaps you should ask whether people in general would be safer if handguns were largely taken out of circulation. The experience elsewhere would suggest that they would. The fact that you refuse to engage with that reality suggests that safety is not really your concern, however much you may present it as such.





No doubt this is true, duh! In a nation with lots of guns in circulation there will be more gun deaths than in a nation with none!

Since we have to live with the reality that over 300 million firearms are in existence in our society and if you were able to pass laws to take them away from all the law abiding citizens... what about the rest of those guns not in the hands of those who would turn them in... and what about the black market that would increase... so only the bad guys would be armed. . . we have to deal with how things are, not how you would wish them to be.



"Made up BS... !"

Nope! How do you possibly presume to know what I know?
Look, Rod, if you are so fearful of the world you live in, I'm sorry!
But don't expect me and everybody else to be as fearful as you are.
Your message seems to be, "I'm batshyte crazy and scared as hell and if you're not, you're a damn Democrat Communist!"
Sorry, I ain't buying it!
You can be as scared as you please, but your fear is Not Contagious!


Glen, talk about tunnel vision and such weak arguments that you always resort to personal attacks against those you disagree with. I have a news flash for you... millions of folks own guns and do not live in fear. Perhaps they see owning a gun as a tool for a sport they are interested in... and perhaps they view the gun as a commonsense tool to own in these times.




RodB

Flying Orca
09-04-2013, 10:49 AM
what about the rest of those guns not in the hands of those who would turn them in... and what about the black market that would increase... so only the bad guys would be armed. . . we have to deal with how things are, not how you would wish them to be.

Excellent question - oh, if only there were examples somewhere else in the world! :rolleyes:

Wait a minute, there ARE examples, from a whole bunch of first-world nations that have enacted reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, removed handguns from general circulation, etc. etc. What do those examples show? They show a huge reduction in gun violence, that's what they show. On the other hand, they conspicuously fail to show the horrors of hordes of armed "bad guys" terrorizing an unarmed population of "good guys". That scenario, my friend, is pure make-believe.

We have to deal with how things are, not how you would wish them to be. :D

Canoeyawl
09-04-2013, 11:22 AM
Your final remarks are not only curious... but downright unbelievable. So.... if someone broke into your home at night, you would make no attempt to defend yourself and your family that required any deadly force? Gimme a break... no one is that naive.


Unbelievable? Well Rod, no one has to "break into" my home, the doors are always open.
If someone did make it up the road unannounced they would have to contend with dogs, and dogs are pretty smart even if you just woke them up. And, they can be trained to bite on command.
I suggest you will be promptly discouraged and I won't have to be scurrying around in my skivvies like a fool looking for guns and ammo.

It must be hard for you to get a good nights sleep unless you are in a gaol.

pipefitter
09-04-2013, 12:08 PM
Unbelievable? Well Rod, no one has to "break into" my home, the doors are always open.
If someone did make it up the road unannounced they would have to contend with dogs, and dogs are pretty smart even if you just woke them up. And, they can be trained to bite on command.
I suggest you will be promptly discouraged and I won't have to be scurrying around in my skivvies like a fool looking for guns and ammo.

It must be hard for you to get a good nights sleep unless you are in a gaol.

Not everyone in the US can live in a security compound. The fact that you would have to scurry like a fool looking for your guns and ammo only further depicts part of the gun problem. Responsible gun owners know 'exactly' where their guns and ammo are.

Do you know where your fire extinguisher is, and is it inspected at least annually?

I used to, up until recently, own a protective dog. It occurred to me at the beginning of our relationship that I would prefer he not take the risk for me. The thought of me, hiding in my closet while my dog took a bullet instead, just for being a protective dog, was equally as disturbing as the contrary.

I do not own a gun or a dog at present. Protective dogs carry much more responsibility than guns do. I don't have the time to monitor either responsibly at this time, although, of the two, a gun would be easier.

Oddly enough, haphazard gun owners who would not be aware of where their guns/ammo were, would likely be haphazard pet owners as well. I have been bitten by dogs who were not monitored by their owners or even aware their little darling would even bite at all. I hope they don't own anything that could be considered dangerous, or even an automobile, for that matter.

Canoeyawl
09-04-2013, 02:12 PM
Rest assured, I know where they are...

Portland
09-04-2013, 05:10 PM
Still no answer to posts 94 or 103.
Rob J.

RodB
09-04-2013, 05:37 PM
Its funny how people against guns change their tune quickly once someone close to them experiences a violent crime. Then they get religion real quick... (ie., realize a gun might have some value). Just saying...

Looks like those privately owned guns are used for stopping crime way more than you ever thought in this country. Interesting interview.
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

To consistently attack gun owners for even owning guns is certainly not a positive way to begin any open minded discussion. Do you ever really consider why folks might want to own a gun? No... you just lead in with the idea... if you want to own a gun you must be nuts! Hows that approach working so far????

Why folks say they own guns.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/


A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection; just 32% say they have a gun primarily for hunting and even fewer cite other reasons, such as target shooting. That’s 22 percentage points higher than 1999 when 26% cited protection as the biggest factor and 49% said they owned a gun mostly for hunting.

About a quarter of Americans (24%) say they personally own a gun, rifle or pistol; another 13% say another person in their household has a gun. A large percentage of gun owners (79%) say having a gun makes them feel safer. At the same time, nearly as many (78%) say that owning a gun is something they enjoy.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-12-13-1.png (http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/)



Another link... on why people own guns...

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun.htm



Quite informative ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/09/terence-gillespie/76-reasons-to-have-a-gun/

RodB

Glen Longino
09-04-2013, 06:45 PM
Its funny how people against guns change their tune quickly once someone close to them experiences a violent crime. Then they get religion real quick... (ie., realize a gun might have some value). Just saying...

Looks like those privately owned guns are used for stopping crime way more than you ever thought in this country. Interesting interview.
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

To consistently attack gun owners for even owning guns is certainly not a positive way to begin any open minded discussion. Do you ever really consider why folks might want to own a gun? No... you just lead in with the idea... if you want to own a gun you must be nuts! Hows that approach working so far????

Why folks say they own guns.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/




Another link... on why people own guns...

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun.htm



Quite informative ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/09/terence-gillespie/76-reasons-to-have-a-gun/

RodB

Rod, your post simply proves my point that you and other gun nuts have become more paranoid and fearful the past few years.
Be brave! Don't be scared and fearful! What will the children think if they see you whimpering in the shadows clutching your guns? Tsk, tsk!

Flying Orca
09-04-2013, 08:34 PM
Its funny how people against guns change their tune quickly once someone close to them experiences a violent crime.

No, there's nothing funny about it. They are reacting emotionally rather than rationally, indulging in a sort of magical fantasy that they can somehow do something about what has already happened. Kahneman would describe it as a System 1 decision.

The sobering statistical reality is that they are just making things more dangerous for their loved ones and the other people around them. That's not funny, it's tragic.

(And before you go there, I've had almost unbelievably violent crime hit my immediate family.)

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-04-2013, 09:03 PM
Agreed...

R





Why don't you explain or make your points within the framework of the mindset of the authors of the Bill of Rights instead of arguing about the non-existence of natural rights. I took that statement from a section of the quote and it made sense to me that you could transition away from the extreme basics of the right to compete for survival in the ecosystem and consider the right to defend your life or liberty as a natural right. I think thats what they meant.







The United States Constitution was not handed down to us by godlike people who had everything figured out. It was a political process like most pieces of legislation except that committees from each state had an opportunity to rake it over in conventions. Because of the hundreds of folks and divergent interests of those who debated the document potential amendments were allowed for consideration. They got so many amendments it was deemed a menace to passage so they winnowed them down to ten. And the ten were chosen for both practical and political reasons. The document had to please enough of the states so the basic document would be accepted before it was talked to death. Given the problems of crafting legislation acceptable to people spread out over 1500 miles of wilderness they were lucky to get it ready for ratification in two years.
In the end nobody got everything they wanted. The backers knew time was of the essence so they settled for a "good enough" document rather than a perfect document. As constitutions go ours was very much truncated. A lot of knotty problems and bright ideas were left for another day.

If you want to argue the US Constitution you would do well to read this importsnt work published in 2010.
"Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" by Helen Maiers.
The amount of original documents covering the constutional debates that have been unearthed has been growing every year. One compendium is over 20 volumes presently and more is being found. And the late Helen Maiers seems to have been familiar with them all.

Keith Wilson
09-04-2013, 09:28 PM
Bit of a disconnect here.



http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-12-13-1.pnghttp://megafrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/us-violent-crime-rate.png


http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/ca/9ca04150-7844-11e1-bfaf-001871e3ce6c/4f721800e64c9.preview-620.png

RodB
09-04-2013, 10:21 PM
So many stats today are rigged by the left because they are completely dishonest and have no honor... they will do anything to win on any issue because they think they know best for the rest of us. Ask them... they are the light!

I'd say about 95% of what you read and see put out by left leaning organizations is pure bull..... similar amount of bull put out by the Obama admin....

RodB



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/has-the-rate-of-gun-ownership-in-american-homes-really-decreased-this-dramatically/



HAS GUN OWNERSHIP IN AMERICAN HOMES REALLY DECREASED THIS DRAMATICALLY?



As the debate over gun rights continues in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, there’s some interesting — and dueling — research emerging about Americans and firearms. According to
a report in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)
, gun ownership in U.S. homes has allegedly declined dramatically over the past four decades...

...
Of course, this decrease may serve as a head-scratcher for anyone who’s seen media reports about Americans rushing out to purchase firearms as Congress debates enacting stricter gun control measures. After all, if more people are buying,
shouldn’t the rate of gun ownership be increasing
? Not so, explains Daniel Webster, director of John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research...


...
NRA spokesperson Andrew Arulanandam, though, has his doubts about the purported decline.“I’m sure there are a lot of people who would love to make the case that there are fewer gun owners in this country, but the stories we’ve been hearing and the data we’ve been seeing simply don’t support that,” he told the Times.Arulanandam, among others, would also likely cite Gallup’s research (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication), which seems, contrary to the GSS, to show an increase since 2009 when asking if respondents have a gun in their homes. While the survey group has observed some dips in ownership since 1991, 47 percent of Americans told the organization that they had a gun in their household in 2011.,,,



Gun expert John Lott addressed (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-general-social-survey-is-gun.html) this issue and the Times report in a recent blog post, seemingly dismissing the GSS as being potentially biased against guns. He wrote:

The New York Times cites (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?hp) the General Social Survey to claim that the gun ownership rate is low and falling. Here is something that I wrote in my 2003 book The Bias Against Guns.
A few years ago, while I was doing research at the University of Chicago, I had lunch with Tom Smith, who is the director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). This private organization conducts many important national surveys for the government as well as other clients. During lunch Tom mentioned how important he thought the General Social Survey was. He felt the large drop in gun ownership implied by his survey would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations. His surveys have traditionally shown one of the lowest gun ownership rates among any of the surveys: for example, almost 20 percentage points lower than recent polling by John Zogby. . . .Tom Smith (http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/About+GSS/GSS+Staff/) is still the director of the GSS. It is interesting to note that both the JAMA study (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390) this week as well as Tom Smith have received funding from the Joyce Foundation.

The Joyce Foundation embraces gun control initiatives, as implied by Lott’s comments.Perhaps differences in the question being asked by Gallup and the GSS could be at the root of the statistical disagreement. While the GSS asked 2,000 respondents the gun question between March and September 2012 (margin of sampling error plus or minus three percentage points), Gallup surveyed 1,005 people in October 2011 (margin of sampling error plus or minus four percentage points).Here’s the GSS question, based on the 2010 survey (http://publicdata.norc.org/GSS/DOCUMENTS/OTHR/Ballot1_AREA_English.pdf), as the 2012 version is not yet available online: “Do you happen to have in your home (IF HOUSE: or garage) any guns or revolvers?” The Gallup version is a bit more expansive, also asking if guns are present inside one’s vehicle. It reads (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx), “Do you have a gun in your home? (If no: Do you have a gun anywhere else on your property, such as in your garage, barn, shed, or in your car or truck?).While these slight differences may impact results, others who support the GSS’s findings maintain that urbanization and changing demographics (increasing numbers of Hispanics and women-headed households — both of which are less likely to own guns) is helping fuel the decrease.What do you think? You can read the Times’ analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1) and Gallup’s latest gun poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication) and decide for yourself.

Durnik
09-04-2013, 10:33 PM
So many stats today are rigged by the left because they have no honor and will win on any issue no matter what... I'd say about 95% of what you read and see put out by left leaning organizations is pure bull

Amazing. It only took 141 posts for conservative projection to rear its head.

enjoy
bobby

Keith Wilson
09-04-2013, 10:50 PM
Sorry, but you can't rationally just dismiss numbers unless you have a good reason to question the methodology of a survey. It's the equivalent of stuffing your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Nyaaah Nyaaah I can't hear you!!!"

The reasoning goes like this:
-Over the last 14 years, the percentage of gun owners who say they have a gun 'for protection' increased from 26% to 48%, a 1.85X increase.
- Over the same period of time, violent crime dropped by around 20%.
- Over the same period, gun ownership decreased a bit, although the exact amount varies according to which survey you look t\at.

The increasingly common claim that one's gun is needed for protection makes no sense while both violent crime and gun ownership are decreasing significantly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png

Oysterhouse
09-04-2013, 11:11 PM
The reasoning goes like this:
-Over the last 14 years, the percentage of gun owners who say they have a gun 'for protection' increased from 26% to 48%, a 1.85X increase.
- Over the same period of time, violent crime dropped by around 20%.
- Over the same period, gun ownership decreased a bit, although the exact amount varies according to which survey you look t\at.

The increasingly common claim that one's gun is needed for protection makes no sense while both violent crime and gun ownership are decreasing significantly.



Fair enough interpretation of the data presented.

However, it could also be interpreted that the increase in the number of firearms that are privately owned for the express purpose of personal/home protection, coupled with the related increase in concealed carry licencees, has had a downward pressure on the rate of violent crime.

Less people may own guns, but more guns are being employed as a defensive tactic. It is reasonable to conclude that this trend is dissuading would-be violent criminals.

Keith Wilson
09-04-2013, 11:15 PM
Less people may own guns, but more guns are being employed as a defensive tactic.How does that work? I'm certainly not an expert on firearms, but my understanding is that a person can generally only use one at a time.

Oysterhouse
09-04-2013, 11:31 PM
Keith----From your own stats ( chart "Why do you own a gun?"), The percentage of guns used for hunting is way down, while the percentage used for protection/defense is way up. Even if the percentage of gun owners in the general population is trending downward, the number of gun owners that are owning/carrying firearms "for protection" is trending upward.

More people are preparing to use firearms in a defensive manner, If I was a violent criminal, looking for an ordinary citizen to prey upon, that would be a big deterrent to me.

I wonder if the stats on violent crime were broken down to exclude drug/gang violence, how the numbers would look on violent crime against law abiding citizens.

My guess is that the stats would show a drastic decrease in those crimes that correlates to the shift away from hunting as a reason for gun ownership to defense/protection as the reason for gun ownership.

Waddie
09-04-2013, 11:52 PM
Keith----From your own stats ( chart "Why do you own a gun?"), The percentage of guns used for hunting is way down, while the percentage used for protection/defense is way up. Even if the percentage of guns owners in the general population is trending downward, the number of gun owners that are owning/carrying firearms "for protection" is trending upward.

More people are preparing to use firearms in a defensive manner, If I was a violent criminal, looking for an ordinary citizen to prey upon, that would be a big deterrent to me.

I wonder if the stats on violent crime were broken down to exclude drug/gang violence, how the numbers would look on violent crime against law abiding citizens.

My guess is that the stats would show a drastic decrease in those crimes that correlates to the shift away from hunting as a reason for gun ownership to defense/protection as the reason for gun ownership.

As we as a nation become more and more urban it is understandable that gun ownership overall would decline but more guns would be owned for self defense than hunting. However, statistics mean little unless they're disaggregated. The number of women owning guns is growing substantially. They are buying them in large numbers, and almost solely for self defense. At a recent concealed carry class I was presenting at, over half of the attendees were women. I can also attest, but only from personal observation, that retired people are also attending concealed carry classes in large numbers. They are also interested in self defense. I have been surprised at the number of immigrant citizens I see at concealed carry classes. People do not seem willing to trust the safety of themselves or their loved ones to local law enforcement. It's a cliche to say that your typical gun owner is some 50 ish white guy. I doubt that they are even still the main purchasers of guns, because they probably already have the ones they want. Gun ownership is becoming very diverse. I think this trend will make passing even more stringent gun laws very difficult.

regards,
Waddie

RodB
09-05-2013, 01:57 AM
Gun expert John Lott addressed (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-general-social-survey-is-gun.html) this issue and the Times report in a recent blog post, seemingly dismissing the GSS as being potentially biased against guns. He wrote:
The New York Times cites (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?hp) the General Social Survey to claim that the gun ownership rate is low and falling. Here is something that I wrote in my 2003 book The Bias Against Guns.
A few years ago, while I was doing research at the University of Chicago, I had lunch with Tom Smith, who is the director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). This private organization conducts many important national surveys for the government as well as other clients. During lunch Tom mentioned how important he thought the General Social Survey was. He felt the large drop in gun ownership implied by his survey would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations. His surveys have traditionally shown one of the lowest gun ownership rates among any of the surveys: for example, almost 20 percentage points lower than recent polling by John Zogby. . . .Tom Smith (http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/About+GSS/GSS+Staff/) is still the director of the GSS. It is interesting to note that both the JAMA study (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390) this week as well as Tom Smith have received funding from the Joyce Foundation.

The Joyce Foundation embraces gun control initiatives, as implied by Lott’s comments.Perhaps differences in the question being asked by Gallup and the GSS could be at the root of the statistical disagreement. While the GSS asked 2,000 respondents the gun question between March and September 2012 (margin of sampling error plus or minus three percentage points), Gallup surveyed 1,005 people in October 2011 (margin of sampling error plus or minus four percentage points).Here’s the GSS question, based on the 2010 survey (http://publicdata.norc.org/GSS/DOCUMENTS/OTHR/Ballot1_AREA_English.pdf), as the 2012 version is not yet available online: “Do you happen to have in your home (IF HOUSE: or garage) any guns or revolvers?” The Gallup version is a bit more expansive, also asking if guns are present inside one’s vehicle. It reads (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx), “Do you have a gun in your home? (If no: Do you have a gun anywhere else on your property, such as in your garage, barn, shed, or in your car or truck?).While these slight differences may impact results, others who support the GSS’s findings maintain that urbanization and changing demographics (increasing numbers of Hispanics and women-headed households — both of which are less likely to own guns) is helping fuel the decrease.What do you think? You can read the Times’ analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1) and Gallup’s latest gun poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication) and decide for yourself.


Keith, this kind of thing is rampant in the current administration... there are countless examples where political power is used to push an agenda.

What we have seen exposed only this last year is just the tip of the iceberg. Don't bother with your "evidence?" question ... when you look down the block and see lots of smoke... its about 99% chances that a fire exists.... The Obama administration and its supporters have created clouds of smoke all over the place...

With hundreds of clouds of smoke, theres got to be some fires...don't you think? I also know no matter what you see happen with the current administration, you would not believe anything unless there was a video of Obama admitting he did something wrong. Hell, even then you would doubt it!

RodB

Portland
09-05-2013, 04:57 AM
So , how many American gun owners have ALL of their firearms under lock and key ?.
How many of these women buying handguns are going to lose them , have them stolen , or used against them ?.
How many are prepared to kill ?.
Because if you draw a weapon , then you better be prepared to use it , and quickly.
And are they going to get away with killing , or does it mean time in the slammer ?.
Any chance of some real answers , and answers to posts 94 and 103?.
And please RodB , now more of your blatant lies , masquerading as "facts".
Rob J.

Keith Wilson
09-05-2013, 07:07 AM
Even if the percentage of gun owners in the general population is trending downward, the number of gun owners that are owning/carrying firearms "for protection" is trending upward.My point exactly. More people believe that they need a gun for protection. Crime is much less common, even though the percentage of households with a gun is also lower. Therefore, the increase in the belief that one needs a gun for protection does not correspond to objective fact.


With hundreds of clouds of smoke, theres got to be some fires...don't you think?Some folks think it in their interest to set off smoke bombs, or deceive the gullible about fog. See "IRS scandal", a figment of Darrel Issa's imagination.

Flying Orca
09-05-2013, 07:11 AM
"Wanting to believe" is a mighty effective short-cut to delusion. Rod, I mean this in all sincerity and without snark - if you read Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow you will gain some insight into cognitive bias and the pitfalls of less-than-rigorous decision-making processes.

Waddie
09-05-2013, 09:34 AM
Keith Wilson; My point exactly. More people believe that they need a gun for protection. Crime is much less common, even though the percentage of households with a gun is also Therefore, the increase in the belief that one needs a gun for protection does not correspond to objective fact.

You're too focused on macro statistics. The decision to own a firearm for protection is a very personal decision based on local conditions. It would be more productive to look at how neighborhoods are changing and if crime (even if it's only occasional) is creeping into neighborhoods once thought to be safe. After all, it isn't the actual crime rate that matters. It is how threatened a person feels in their own neighborhood.

The division of wealth has been creating a wider gap between the haves and have less. I suspect neighborhoods are reflecting that change. There are reasonably safe enclaves for the more well off, but even once "good" neighborhoods are feeling the effects of crimes that were once very uncommon. We recently had a double car jacking in a neighborhood that had pretty much considered itself immune from such things. You can bet that the car jackings created some new gun owners in that neighborhood; probably half of them women.

regards,
Waddie

Flying Orca
09-05-2013, 10:07 AM
After all, it isn't the actual crime rate that matters. It is how threatened a person feels in their own neighborhood.

I disagree. Feelings are a notoriously poor basis for decision-making and risk analysis, because they are irrational, subjective, and prey to manipulation.

RodB
09-05-2013, 11:21 AM
Some folks think it in their interest to set off smoke bombs, or deceive the gullible about fog. See "IRS scandal", a figment of Darrel Issa's imagination.

Keith, you will have a difficult time convincing anyone that at minimum a political climate imposed by this administration played an important part in the IRS scandal. Its not whether there was a conspiracy or to what degree you could conclude there was a conspiracy...but what ended up happening. If someone runs you over with their car, I doubt you give a damn how many legitimate distractions they had... or that they had a terrible day... only that the end results was you got kilt!!!!


My point exactly. More people believe that they need a gun for protection. Crime is much less common, even though the percentage of households with a gun is also Therefore, the increase in the belief that one needs a gun for protection does not correspond to objective fact.

Consider owning a gun in the "self defense rationale" is kinda like an insurance policy. If you ever need it, there is not other substitute... if not, you paid a little money and spent time practicing with it... only to have that option. People have that right in our system especially the weak. On a personal note. having seen what bad people can do to weaker people in violent encounters, you know you certainly do not want to be at the mercy of such people.



RodB

Flying Orca
09-05-2013, 11:29 AM
Consider owning a gun in the "self defense rationale" is kinda like an insurance policy. If you ever need it, there is not other substitute... if not, you paid a little money and spent time practicing with it... only to have that option.

The problem with that argument is that it is mathematically unsound. Insurance is based upon statistics - specifically, the pooling of risk. Data from various countries strongly indicates that pooled risk is increased by the presence of more guns, especially handguns, and is decreased by effective gun controls.

Paul Pless
09-05-2013, 11:39 AM
Consider owning a gun in the "self defense rationale" is kinda like an insurance policy. If you ever need it, there is not other substitute... if not, you paid a little money and spent time practicing with it... only to have that option. People have that right in our system especially the weak. On a personal note. having seen what bad people can do to weaker people in violent encounters, you know you certainly do not want to be at the mercy of such people.


The problem with that argument is that it is mathematically unsound. Insurance is based upon statistics - specifically, the pooling of risk. Data from various countries strongly indicates that pooled risk is increased by the presence of more guns, especially handguns, and is decreased by effective gun controls.

you don't even have to bring other countries into the argument, data from just the U.S. strongly indicates this

Keith Wilson
09-05-2013, 11:46 AM
After all, it isn't the actual crime rate that matters. It is how threatened a person feels in their own neighborhood.Of course. and how threatened one feels may or not correspond to how threatened one actually is. Certainly, individual circumstances vary a great deal. That why it's often better to look at aggregate statistics. Consider that over the past 20 years:

- Crime is way down.
- The percentage of individuals and households with guns is down.
- Yet a much higher percentage of those who have guns claim they're for self-defense.

This is not rational. The numbers show that people feel more threatened than they really are.

This is one of the cases where both sides of the dispute make a valid point, and the question is one of numbers. Guns are sometimes used for legitimate self-defense, to prevent or deter crimes. Guns are also sometimes used for bad purposes, to commit crimes or for suicide, as well as accidents. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming that societies with lots of guns are less safe.

I think it has a lot to do with how one views the world, the level of violence one believes exists, and to what degree one thinks violence should be a legitimate tool. It goes pretty deep.




. . . you will have a difficult time convincing anyone . . . For sure, I will have a difficult time convincing you. However in reality, the "IRS scandal" has absolutely no basis in fact, whether I convince you or not.

John Smith
09-05-2013, 11:51 AM
Keith, you will have a difficult time convincing anyone that at minimum a political climate imposed by this administration played an important part in the IRS scandal. Its not whether there was a conspiracy or to what degree you could conclude there was a conspiracy...but what ended up happening. If someone runs you over with their car, I doubt you give a damn how many legitimate distractions they had... or that they had a terrible day... only that the end results was you got kilt!!!!



Consider owning a gun in the "self defense rationale" is kinda like an insurance policy. If you ever need it, there is not other substitute... if not, you paid a little money and spent time practicing with it... only to have that option. People have that right in our system especially the weak. On a personal note. having seen what bad people can do to weaker people in violent encounters, you know you certainly do not want to be at the mercy of such people.



RodB

What IRS scandal? The only organizations that got denied tax exempt status were liberal. There's no "there" there.

As for self defense, a can of wasp spray makes a pretty good weapon, no?

John Smith
09-05-2013, 11:53 AM
Of course. and how threatened one feels may or not correspond to how threatened one actually is. Certainly, individual circumstances vary a great deal. That why it's often better to look at aggregate statistics. Consider that over the past 20 years:

- Crime is way down.
- The percentage of households with guns is down.
- Yet those who do have guns claim they're for self-defense a much higher percentage of the time.

This is not rational. The numbers show that people feel more threatened than they really are.

This is one of the cases where both sides of the dispute make a valid point, and the question is one of numbers. Guns are sometimes used for legitimate self-defense, to prevent or deter crimes. Guns are also sometimes used for bad purposes, to commit crimes or for suicide, as well as accidents. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming that societies with lots of guns are less safe.

I think it has a lot to do with how one views the world, the level of violence one believes exists, and to what degree one thinks violence should be a legitimate tool. It goes pretty deep.



For sure, I will have a difficult time convincing you. However in reality, the "IRS scandal" has absolutely no basis in fact, whether I convince you or not.

Comes under the same umbrella as Cantor saying we have to fear the growing deficit. Have an agenda, and the actual facts don't support it simply make up some that do.

What does a person need a gun to protect himself from, if not another man with a gun?

Paul Pless
09-05-2013, 11:54 AM
Would that there was an effective deterrent to white anglo saxon protestants. . .

Keith Wilson
09-05-2013, 12:09 PM
What does a person need a gun to protect himself from, if not another man with a gun?A younger, larger, stronger, more skillful person? A man with a club or a knife? No, the pro-gun people have a legitimate point, a gun takes little physical strength to use, and is indeed an 'equalizer'. But again, the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that societies with lots of guns are less safe.

RodB
09-05-2013, 12:10 PM
So , how many American gun owners have ALL of their firearms under lock and key ?.
How many of these women buying handguns are going to lose them , have them stolen , or used against them ?.
How many are prepared to kill ?.
Because if you draw a weapon , then you better be prepared to use it , and quickly.
And are they going to get away with killing , or does it mean time in the slammer ?.
Any chance of some real answers , and answers to posts 94 and 103?.
And please RodB , now more of your blatant lies , masquerading as "facts".
Rob J.

Guns for defense need to be accessible in a very short span of time. About the only secure quick access item is a lock box with combination buttons. Likely, most people just hide their firearm where they can grab it quickly if needed in their home. Most take special precautions if young children are in the home. Note: millions of folks have been raided in homes with guns and were taught early on about them.

Should all guns be locked up even in your own private home? What about that one you want quick access to in an emergency?

Why would women lose their guns or have them stolen or used against them any more than anyone else? The single issue people have to decide if they get a gun is whether or not they could take a life. Its kinda the elephant in the room which you do not seem to see. I doubt many folks make the decision to own a gun for self defense lightly... especially people who have not been brought up around guns. This is where a comprehensive shooting safety course comes into the equation. BTW, about 90% of the CCL course is covering the legal ramifications if you ever do have to shoot someone... instructors universally say... don't do it unless you simply have no other choice.

The legal ramifications of shooting someone are a definite factor in this decision process. Most folks would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 and they certainly do not what to be in a situation where they are helpless to protect their loved ones. So... they decide to take their chances if they ever have to make the decision to shoot someone. No... I don't believe the stats that guns are more likely to hurt you than an intruder.

No matter what link I post, if you disagree with it, you attack the source as lying or wrong. Get this straight, us law abiding citizens do not have to justify owning a gun to folks like you. Also, stats can be used to back up any point of view. The double standard here is astounding... you libs are never interested in facts if they fail to support your views... no matter how logical. Is there any source of data or compilation of data by a qualified author... that tends to support the pro gun side of this argument... that would be acceptable to you? I doubt it. The link I posted earlier called "Gun facts" is not a bunch of lies.


All in all, people certainly have the right to evaluate the environment in which they live and to make the decision to own a firearm or not. Most of them could care less what you think... and you certainly don't give any of them the courtesy of respecting their decision to own a gun.

RodB

Keith Wilson
09-05-2013, 12:24 PM
Rod, you really appear to believe that there are a significant number of people who want to prevent you from a owning a gun at all. I don't think this is the case. I don't, anyway.

Flying Orca
09-05-2013, 12:42 PM
Guns for defense need to be accessible in a very short span of time.

Logical fallacy - this heightens the overall risk rather than lessening it.


Should all guns be locked up even in your own private home?

Yes.


What about that one you want quick access to in an emergency?

Statistics show that everyone is safer, i.e. overall pooled risk is reduced, if guns are locked up... regardless of what any individual may "want" in an emergency. I might "want" an unmarked fence with lethal amounts of electricity around my property; that doesn't mean it's OK for me to have it.


The single issue people have to decide if they get a gun is whether or not they could take a life.

I can see why you'd want to think so, but the safety of others should be a consideration as well... and the statistics show that overall safety is reduced, not enhanced, by the presence of guns. As somebody once said, "Its kinda the elephant in the room which you do not seem to see."


No... I don't believe the stats that guns are more likely to hurt you than an intruder.

That's not exactly what the stats say - they say that overall risk for everyone goes up with more guns and down with better gun controls - but if you choose to ignore reality, we don't really have much of a basis for discussion, do we?


you libs are never interested in facts if they fail to support your views... no matter how logical.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between facts and opinions, because you seem to present opinions as if they were facts and dismiss facts as if they were opinions. This is baffling behaviour.


Is there any source of data or compilation of data by a qualified author... that tends to support the pro gun side of this argument... that would be acceptable to you?

Well, is there? I've never seen one, but if you can find data to support your position, go ahead and present it. Just don't throw out a bunch of opinion and pretend you're providing facts.


people certainly have the right to evaluate the environment in which they live and to make the decision to own a firearm or not.

As it currently stands, you're correct; that's not in dispute. One hopes this will change.


you certainly don't give any of them the courtesy of respecting their decision to own a gun.

I don't believe one is obliged to respect wrongheaded decisions that endanger other people.

Mike DeHart
09-05-2013, 04:26 PM
Feelings are a notoriously poor basis for decision-making and risk analysis, because they are irrational, subjective, and prey to manipulation.

An argument based on feelings will usually win over an argument based on facts when the argument is presented to the masses who know or care little about the subject. The masses then are swayed to push for the solutions that feel the best to them. This is why the anti-gun crowds trot out every mass shooting to push for controls and disarmament schemes that would have no bearing whatsoever on the mass shooting they used in their argument. The decisions that result from those arguments of feeling are notoriuosly poor, irrational, subjective, and often manipulative.

John Smith
09-05-2013, 04:38 PM
An argument based on feelings will usually win over an argument based on facts when the argument is presented to the masses who know or care little about the subject. The masses then are swayed to push for the solutions that feel the best to them. This is why the anti-gun crowds trot out every mass shooting to push for controls and disarmament schemes that would have no bearing whatsoever on the mass shooting they used in their argument. The decisions that result from those arguments of feeling are notoriuosly poor, irrational, subjective, and often manipulative.

I would ask anyone who believes it's wrong to have so many gun deaths (yesterday there was news of a 1 year old being shot) to tell us how they would cut down on this blemish of society.

RodB
09-05-2013, 04:39 PM
FO,

I'll give you this, you sure are fixated on one set idea... that the mere existence of guns in our society is a bad thing no matter what!!! Having spent a lifetime around and using guns, I am against not having them around because of the stupid or wrong headed people. Whether its driving autos, boats or scuba diving ... any task that takes some good judgement and commonsense, you will have behavior that is incompatible with life. I can't go along with governing our lives by the acts of the stupid ones.

Keith,

Maybe some here do not want all guns removed... but most do. Second, more than some go along with really making it more difficult to own and use guns with more laws that would just add red tape and expense to gun owners. The guns are whats usually the target, not solutions for gun violence like hardening targets, and mental health measures and trying to get parents to do their fricking jobs as parents.

RodB

Portland
09-05-2013, 04:54 PM
Rod , you are impossible to argue with.
You twist facts , you twist other peoples posts , you have little touch with reality.
Or if this IS the real America , is it any wonder responsible people are calling for a tourist boycott of America , what you are saying is just crazy , who would want to visit such an America ?.
I give up , shoot me.
Rob J.

Keith Wilson
09-05-2013, 05:06 PM
Maybe some here do not want all guns removed... but most do.I don't think this is the case. I don't. I think many people would say that a long-term goal of reducing the number of guns around would be desirable, but getting rid of all of them would be impossible, even if it were a good idea. No other western country has done this, or even tried. Japan has come close, but that's a very different culture.

Making guns harder and more inconvenient to get, within reason, would be a good idea. Better mental heath treatment would be a very good idea. It would cost money. I don't think "getting parents to do their jobs" is an area in which the government can be very helpful.

Flying Orca
09-05-2013, 05:22 PM
FO, I'll give you this, you sure are fixated on one set idea... that the mere existence of guns in our society is a bad thing no matter what!!!

Rod, that's a steaming load of cop-out, and unless you've conveniently forgotten the fact that I'm a hunter and gun owner, you know it.

The existence of large numbers of guns, many of them handguns, without effective controls - that is a bad thing no matter what. The existence of large numbers of effectively controlled hunting guns probably isn't.

You talk about things like driving and SCUBA, but they are bad examples for your case, because they are already subject to effective controls - and by effective, I mean controls that have drastically reduced deaths due to inexperienced or unlicensed operation. Do the same for guns and show me the results - then we can compare guns to driving and SCUBA.

John Smith
09-05-2013, 05:28 PM
FO,

I'll give you this, you sure are fixated on one set idea... that the mere existence of guns in our society is a bad thing no matter what!!! Having spent a lifetime around and using guns, I am against not having them around because of the stupid or wrong headed people. Whether its driving autos, boats or scuba diving ... any task that takes some good judgement and commonsense, you will have behavior that is incompatible with life. I can't go along with governing our lives by the acts of the stupid ones.

Keith,

Maybe some here do not want all guns removed... but most do. Second, more than some go along with really making it more difficult to own and use guns with more laws that would just add red tape and expense to gun owners. The guns are whats usually the target, not solutions for gun violence like hardening targets, and mental health measures and trying to get parents to do their fricking jobs as parents.

RodB

I'd be happy if there we no guns. However, I accept the fact that there is NO WAY to get guns already out there out of the public's hands. I've seen no gun control laws that, IMO, will work any better than our drug laws.

We have misconstrued the second amendment so some businesses can make money and now we suffer the consequences. This isn't much different than letting fracking go haywire so some people can make money.

This is the country we wanted, and this is the country we got. We have to live with it, assuming we dodge the bullets.

Waddie
09-05-2013, 05:28 PM
I disagree. Feelings are a notoriously poor basis for decision-making and risk analysis, because they are irrational, subjective, and prey to manipulation.

No sh*t, sherlock.... But people make many of their most important decisions based on feelings. Ever been married? I didn't say it was the best basis for decision-making. But it does go far in explaining why more people are owning guns for self defense.

regards,
Waddie

John Smith
09-05-2013, 05:29 PM
I don't think this is the case. I don't. I think many people would say that a long-term goal of reducing the number of guns around would be desirable, but getting rid of all of them would be impossible, even if it were a good idea. No other western country has done this, or even tried. Japan has come close, but that's a very different culture.

Making guns harder and more inconvenient to get, within reason, would be a good idea. Better mental heath treatment would be a very good idea. It would cost money. I don't think "getting parents to do their jobs" is an area in which the government can be very helpful.

How do you propose to handle guns perfectly legally purchased by responsible gun owners that are still here and in working condition when that gun owner dies?

Flying Orca
09-05-2013, 05:35 PM
people make many of their most important decisions based on feelings. Ever been married?

Quite possibly more than you have.


I didn't say it was the best basis for decision-making. But it does go far in explaining why more people are owning guns for self defense.

No sherlock right back atcha... but you didn't say that originally, you said that how people felt was "what matters". I don't think it should be taken into consideration in the context of gun control, so you can see how I might differ in my estimation of what "matters".

Canoeyawl
09-05-2013, 07:27 PM
Rod , you are impossible to argue with.
You twist facts , you twist other peoples posts , you have little touch with reality.
Or if this IS the real America , is it any wonder responsible people are calling for a tourist boycott of America , what you are saying is just crazy , who would want to visit such an America ?.
I give up , shoot me.
Rob J.

There is an unwritten rule here in the US, "Stay away from Texas"
We feel sorry for friends and relatives that live there, but not sorry enough to visit.

Durnik
09-05-2013, 08:51 PM
I'll give you this, you sure are fixated on one set idea

Well, well, well - 26 posts later, it (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?166870-Some-real-truths-about-antigun-legislation-(USA-and-the-UK-and-Australia)&p=3894875#post3894875) pops up again!

peace
bobby

RodB
09-06-2013, 12:20 AM
Rod, that's a steaming load of cop-out, and unless you've conveniently forgotten the fact that I'm a hunter and gun owner, you know it.

The existence of large numbers of guns, many of them handguns, without effective controls - that is a bad thing no matter what. The existence of large numbers of effectively controlled hunting guns probably isn't.

You talk about things like driving and SCUBA, but they are bad examples for your case, because they are already subject to effective controls - and by effective, I mean controls that have drastically reduced deaths due to inexperienced or unlicensed operation. Do the same for guns and show me the results - then we can compare guns to driving and SCUBA.

I've already suggested a comprehensive gun safety course and solid background check for gun owners in addition to some mental health background efforts. So, what is your definition of effective controls over handguns owned by our citizens???

Do I get to keep my shotguns and my large caliber single action custom Ruger Bisley hunting pistol? Would I have to turn in my 1911 .45 and my Sig 9mm?

What are your exact suggestions to achieve what you have written above?



I don't think this is the case. I don't. I think many people would say that a long-term goal of reducing the number of guns around would be desirable, but getting rid of all of them would be impossible, even if it were a good idea. No other western country has done this, or even tried. Japan has come close, but that's a very different culture.

Making guns harder and more inconvenient to get, within reason, would be a good idea. Better mental heath treatment would be a very good idea. It would cost money. I don't think "getting parents to do their jobs" is an area in which the government can be very helpful.


"Harder and more inconvenient to get".... so are you saying change the law so that the common law abiding citizen will have to go to so much trouble and expense that he will forego owning a gun? This sounds like a strategy I heard about recently....

I have a good anti-gun friend who lives in Austin, our capital. He knows lots of folks and about 3 months after Sandy Hook had lunch with a couple state representatives (one from each party) and a couple lobbyists. He just listened to the conversation and basically heard the long range strategy that would most likely be employed to get rid of guns for the long haul ... going something like this....

Using special taxes on gun purchases and significantly increasing the cost of ammunition over time will decrease the guns in our society by natural attrition. During the discussion they said the majority of people in the country do not care that much about gun ownership, thus it would be easy to pass laws with fine print to add taxes or incurred costs for ammo and gun purchases. The guns would become too expensive to own and people would begin getting rid of them... or the heirs of gun owners would not choose to keep them. This would be a long haul strategy that they thought would have a very good chance of success.

I would hope this would be a lot more difficult than they think in my state.





The following link/video on recent gun purchases and CCL apps will surly disappoint many here... its all Obama's fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIRKZqc4gbE[



There is an unwritten rule here in the US, "Stay away from Texas"
We feel sorry for friends and relatives that live there, but not sorry enough to visit.


If you visited Texas you'd have to be careful... those dangerous guns can jump right out of peoples pockets and spit at you...


RodB

Garret
09-06-2013, 12:32 AM
Do the same for guns and show me the results - then we can compare guns to driving and SCUBA.

For starters, SCUBA has self-regulation originally proposed by people who calmly assessed the facts & came up with logical rules. Sounds just like today's NRA doesn't it? ;)

Before anyone jumps my case, I am a gun owner (long & short) & was at one time an NRA member. Couldn't pay me to join today.

RodB
09-06-2013, 02:48 AM
Before anyone jumps my case, I am a gun owner (long & short) & was at one time an NRA member. Couldn't pay me to join today.

The NRA is the only reason you have any gun rights now... gimme a break!




The link below represents what most here want to get done. This is in Maryland and a new law is about to be passed. This is worth watching the officials trying to decide what to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM9hZXBmA5g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM9hZXBmA5g)

Watch the above link... it shows how bad gun law hysteria can be... THIS IS EXACTLY WHY KNOWLEDGABLE GUN OWNERS ARE AGAINST ANY NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS...

part two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyv9EgFebMk





This from an ex secret service agent... I have never seen this before .... analysis of whats going on in the country now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2PqyYnIBU





RODB

Portland
09-06-2013, 03:03 AM
What a load of crap Rod !.
Jeez , if people were to belief the BS you put up , gawd help America !.
Rob J.

PeterSibley
09-06-2013, 03:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2PqyYnIBU

If you voluntarily watch the likes of that.... without being strapped to your chair, you'll believe anything .

RodB
09-06-2013, 03:50 AM
Peter and Portland... the links I posted from Maryland are just documentation of whats going on in the country.... and people like you are responsible for such activity.... and you won't even take a few minutes to see what happens in the legislature due to hysterical gun law pressure. This kind of cluster f is what happens when logic goes out the window.


Several county sheriffs testify at the Maryland state house on pending gun legislation. Should be interesting to most for this debate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn7BpqorSs0

RodB

Curtism
09-06-2013, 04:06 AM
This from an ex secret service agent... I have never seen this before .... analysis of whats going on in the country now.

Hahaha, If Tucker Carlson thought Dan Bongino's comments were "the most eloquent defense of gun rights" he's ever heard, I have serious doubts.

PeterSibley
09-06-2013, 04:15 AM
Peter and Portland... the links I posted from Maryland are just documentation of whats going on in the country.... and people like you are responsible for such activity.... and you won't even take a few minutes to see what happens in the legislature due to hysterical gun law pressure.

This kind of cluster f is what happens when logic goes out the window.


RodB
The two highlighted sections there I agree with but precisely reverse of your implied meaning !

and how the hell are WE responsible for idiots in your country ?

John Smith
09-06-2013, 05:13 AM
Rod B said, "I've already suggested a comprehensive gun safety course and solid background check for gun owners in addition to some mental health background efforts"

I'm curious as to your plan for the gun after the gun owner dies.

Flying Orca
09-06-2013, 07:08 AM
what is your definition of effective controls over handguns owned by our citizens?

Handguns are, for the most part, made for the sole purpose of injuring or killing another human being - they are lousy hunting guns and every hunter knows it. I don't believe their widespread ownership or use is in the best interest of a well-ordered society, and I do believe that the available evidence indicates that their removal from widespread ownership or use significantly reduces gun violence. Therefore I would consider a general ban on handgun ownership, coupled with very strict permitting, storage, and transport rules for those who wish to continue to shoot handguns competitively.


Do I get to keep my shotguns and my large caliber single action custom Ruger Bisley hunting pistol? Would I have to turn in my 1911 .45 and my Sig 9mm?

You could certainly keep the shotguns, assuming you pass the screening.


"Harder and more inconvenient to get".... so are you saying change the law so that the common law abiding citizen will have to go to so much trouble and expense that he will forego owning a gun? This sounds like a strategy I heard about recently...

I'd consider it kind of a last resort, but it's probably the only thing that will work in some areas.

Keith Wilson
09-06-2013, 07:43 AM
. . . so are you saying change the law so that the common law abiding citizen will have to go to so much trouble and expense that he will forego owning a gun? Something like that. Everyone who gets a gun makes a calculation: are the benefits of having it worth the trouble, risk, and expense? I think we should make guns harder to get - not impossible at all, and not necessarily much more expensive; I'd rather not make them only a rich man's hobby - but significantly harder and more hassle, enough to deter some of those who don't care much or don't really need one. Then those who buy guns will mostly be those who really have a good reason to get one, or want one very badly, and the number of guns in circulation will decease over time.

I agree with Orca; a general ban on handguns except under certain limited circumstances might be an excellent idea. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of it happening.

Garret
09-06-2013, 07:54 AM
The NRA is the only reason you have any gun rights now... gimme a break!


I'll use the term "horsefeathers" but it's nowhere near strong enough. 100% flat out lie get's closer, but I'm still looking for a stronger response. I'll think of something as soon as I post this....

You have been well brainwashed sir!

Durnik
09-06-2013, 10:22 AM
The NRA is the only reason you have any gun rights now... gimme a break!

More accurately, the NRA is the only reason the situation in the U.S. has become such that you are in danger of losing _all_ your gun rights. Step away from their idiocy & you may find mutual ground with others who recognize the validity of firearms, but not the validity of the insanity.

You wanted concrete suggestions -

1 - All firearms unloaded & locked except when in actual use - all ammunition locked when not in use.
2 - Use _only_ at/in approved sites/areas - sites/areas vary as terrain/use. Varmint control in a wild environment is obviously vastly different than target shooting in an indoor urban range.
3 - All owners _and_ users trained & licensed on each type firearm & applicable use. (target, hunting, collecting - each with various categories). Americans like to think 'they were born knowing how to use guns', or 'my daddy taught me everything I need to know'.. I've seen far too many 'I know how to use guns' people waving loaded firearms around in places where they shouldn't be - Training & licensing for _everybody_. Those who are already safe won't mind others being required to be also.
4 - All arms registered & collected by the state on the owners death - with approved, _non-political_ channels for inheritance (inheritor must meet above requirements - or the firearms are sold & the inheritor receives the money.). The obvious 'bypass' to this is to make sure the inheritor is previously trained on the firearms in question - & perhaps transfer ownership prior to death. This later is for J.S. It's _not_ rocket science. .

Firearms for 'self protection' are the problem, not the solution - being based on fact, not ideology, that is not debatable.

That'll do for starters. You will note the 'non-political'. Nick is correct in that public/civil servants should _not_ be allowed to push their own ideologies.

Like others, I'm not holding my breath. The NRA (& its blind followers) seems to want the idiocy.. You have to wonder why.

Meanwhile, nothing happens over night - a journey of a thousand miles still starts with a single step

enjoy
bobby

John Smith
09-06-2013, 10:51 AM
I didn't get very far with my suggestion the guns are collected upon death.

I am convinced, however, that we should follow Heston's advice and wrest the guns from the cold dead hands.

As it is, every gun sold is out "there" forever.

Durnik
09-06-2013, 10:58 AM
^It's fair & necessary to allow for inheritance.. just 'sane' inheritance following the rules. Inheriting a car doesn't give one the right to use it - & Title 1 firearms can't be inherited without following thru with the laws on registering/regulation. As I said, this ain't rocket science.

enjoy
bobby

RodB
09-06-2013, 03:14 PM
The two highlighted sections there I agree with but precisely reverse of your implied meaning !

and how the hell are WE responsible for idiots in your country ?



My comment was people like you... are the cause of a bunch of new antigun laws being pushed for passage.... quickly from hysteria ... with no regard to reality and commonsense. The links I showed simply showed the side effects of quickly drawn up laws where the people writing them either know nothing about guns or their end goal is removal of all guns.... with the shorter term goal to make it as difficult as possible for current gun owners.



You wanted concrete suggestions -

1 - All firearms unloaded & locked except when in actual use - all ammunition locked when not in use.
2 - Use _only_ at/in approved sites/areas - sites/areas vary as terrain/use. Varmint control in a wild environment is obviously vastly different than target shooting in an indoor urban range.
3 - All owners _and_ users trained & licensed on each type firearm & applicable use. (target, hunting, collecting - each with various categories). Americans like to think 'they were born knowing how to use guns', or 'my daddy taught me everything I need to know'.. I've seen far too many 'I know how to use guns' people waving loaded firearms around in places where they shouldn't be - Training & licensing for _everybody_. Those who are already safe won't mind others being required to be also.
4 - All arms registered & collected by the state on the owners death - with approved, _non-political_ channels for inheritance (inheritor must meet above requirements - or the firearms are sold & the inheritor receives the money.). The obvious 'bypass' to this is to make sure the inheritor is previously trained on the firearms in question - & perhaps transfer ownership prior to death. This later is for J.S. It's _not_ rocket science. .

Firearms for 'self protection' are the problem, not the solution - being based on fact, not ideology, that is not debatable.

That'll do for starters. You will note the 'non-political'. Nick is correct in that public/civil servants should _not_ be allowed to push their own ideologies.

Like others, I'm not holding my breath. The NRA (& its blind followers) seems to want the idiocy.. You have to wonder why.

Meanwhile, nothing happens over night - a journey of a thousand miles still starts with a single step

enjoy
bobby

Now there is a list of suggestions...

So.... the truth comes out. You want to turn us into the UK, or Australia, etc... good luck!



OR how about these commonsense gun ownership policies for a "free country"

1) Law abiding citizens can buy and use a legal firearm and will take reasonable measures to secure both the guns and ammo safely when not in use. Taking the CCL gun safety course should be highly recommended to first time gun owners.

2) Conceal and carry permits do not change and are always an option if you choose. This process involves a background check, finger prints, and a complete gun safety and handling course..

4) Private citizens can buy, sell or trade guns between themselves (state residents only) (this is current law here).

5) Law abiding gun owners can legally take their gun with them in their automobile (Texas law now).

6) Guns owned by law abiding citizens revert to their families or to who they designate in their will when they die just like any other property... PERIOD!

7) Availability of ammunition to law abiding citizens will not be infringed upon by any laws... this includes not allowing any new ammo taxes or firearm purchase fees.

8) Gun owners can shoot their firearms anywhere they damn well want to as long as it is legal, safe, and where there is a proper backstop.... i.e.., commonsense





Firearms for 'self protection' are the problem, not the solution - being based on fact, not ideology, that is not debatable.


Statistics in states that have implemented CCL programs show crime dropping with more folks armed.

RodB

Keith Wilson
09-06-2013, 03:21 PM
You want to turn us into the UK, or Australia, etc... Horrors! Oppression! Tyranny! http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif


. . . show crime dropping with more folks armed.Crime has been dropping throughout the US and the rest of the developed world for over 20 years.

PeterSibley
09-06-2013, 03:29 PM
My comment was people like you... are the cause of a bunch of new antigun laws being pushed for passage.... quickly from hysteria ... with no regard to reality and commonsense. The links I showed simply showed the side effects of quickly drawn up laws where the people writing them either know nothing about guns or their end goal is removal of all guns.... with the shorter term goal to make it as difficult as possible for current gun owners.




Now there is a list of suggestions...

So.... the truth comes out. You want to turn us into the UK, or Australia, etc... good luck!

RodB



Ah!!! I understand, Australia has shown indisputably that reduced gun numbers and safe storage saves lives. Ours is the path to follow if you care about people rather than guns and ideology. Such observations are a threat to gun loving ideologues, no wonder you're upset.

Durnik
09-06-2013, 04:06 PM
8) Gun owners can shoot their firearms anywhere they damn well want to as long as it is legal, safe, and where there is a proper backstop.... i.e.., commonsense

Right at the end - absolute insanity. If Common Sense existed, it would be both common, & make sense. You & this don't - make sense, that is. The belief is all too common. The property I live on is surrounded by other property - occupants of most of which seem to think it is 'safe' & 'rational' to shoot out their back door - towards leafed out trees.. & the property I am walking. This country is all hills n hollers. Two ridges may have 1/8 mile walk between them while being only 200' apart 'as the crow (or bullet) flies'. Shooting in this manner is
A) wrong
B) not safe
C) not sensible
D) did I mention wrong?!
E) but considered 'rational' & 'safe' by most of the unaware & uneducated who live around here - after all, _they_ don't walk outside - somebody might be shooting! Keep in mind, these are folks who think a lot like you - meaning they all claim to only shoot where it is 'safe'. Just sayin'..

Short of _requiring_ training/certification, none of that will change.

The rest of your points are as devoid of reason.

BTW, my right to walk my property in safety supersedes others 'rights' to throw lead projectiles blindly toward it. 'Hunting Accidents' are not accidents. They are man slaughter at best, more accurately, murder. Laws giving hunters preferential treatment/rights are obscene, but that's yet another issue to deal with.

OTOH, 'what is legal' is the subject at hand - & the sane among us recognize that the definition needs changing.

enjoy
bobby

RodB
09-06-2013, 04:14 PM
Keith,

Believe it or not, the tyranny of this current administration has really driven the gun owners in the country to coalesce.

Obama is the one who said, if congress will not pass his anti gun recommendations that he would sign several regulations within his discretion.

Additionally, any time you saw any details of impending anti gun legislation, the added on small stuff scared the hell out of law abiding gun owners... most stuff that would make owning and using a gun more and more difficult but make no difference in stopping crazy people from committing mass shootings. .

Finally, about 100% of the time when you see anti gun proponents talking about what we need to do... they make so many false statements that defy logic.


RodB

Durnik
09-06-2013, 04:21 PM
tyranny of this current administration

Three's a charm! ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Keith Wilson
09-06-2013, 04:24 PM
. . . the tyranny of this current administration has really driven the gun owners in the country to coalesce. Let me put it another way. I would say that some gun owners in this country have worked themselves into a lather about what they imagine to be "the tyranny of this current administration". I see this as an example of the increasing extremism and irrationality of parts of the American right wing. A list of precisely which actions of the current administration you believe constitute "tyranny" would be interesting.

RodB
09-06-2013, 04:53 PM
Right at the end - absolute insanity. If Common Sense existed, it would be both common, & make sense. You & this don't - make sense, that is. The belief is all too common. The property I live on is surrounded by other property - occupants of most of which seem to think it is 'safe' & 'rational' to shoot out their back door - towards leafed out trees.. & the property I am walking. This country is all hills n hollers. Two ridges may have 1/8 mile walk between them while being only 200' apart 'as the crow (or bullet) flies'. Shooting in this manner is
A) wrong
B) not safe
C) not sensible
D) did I mention wrong?!
E) but considered 'rational' & 'safe' by most of the unaware & uneducated who live around here - after all, _they_ don't walk outside - somebody might be shooting! Keep in mind, these are folks who think a lot like you - meaning they all claim to only shoot where it is 'safe'. Just sayin'..

Short of _requiring_ training/certification, none of that will change.

The rest of your points are as devoid of reason.

BTW, my right to walk my property in safety supersedes others 'rights' to throw lead projectiles blindly toward it. 'Hunting Accidents' are not accidents. They are man slaughter at best, more accurately, murder. Laws giving hunters preferential treatment/rights are obscene, but that's yet another issue to deal with.

OTOH, 'what is legal' is the subject at hand - & the sane among us recognize that the definition needs changing.

enjoy
bobby

First off, in our state, you cannot even go on property that you do not have permission, and 2nd, if you are just shooting for practice, the first thing you do is locate your shooting in a safe area where you cannot possibly hurt someone. I was mostly responding to the suggestions above which included " only designated areas for shooting" . There are lots of shooting ranges in our state but that comment shows a little lack of knowledge if one thinks people that own guns will just drive out to the country and climb a fence and go to shooting their gun?????????.

I'm surprised you didn't have a fit on the "private sales" between individuals or no required safety course to buy a gun. Anyway, lets leave this issue because people tend to go to shooting ranges unless they are hunting on a ranch. Even then, hunters prefer to not do any unnecessary shooting on property they will be hunting.

Its big business here for all the gun ranges to keep up with the demand from the population for shooting practice, (handguns) etc. Its damn expensive too when you consider the cost of the range fee and ammunition. Several new large scale shooting ranges have opened up this past year with some still to open. They are full service from shooting safety courses to gun rental (you can rent just about any pistol you may want to try out before buying), from fingerprinting to selling guns and accessories.

RodB

RodB
09-06-2013, 05:09 PM
Let me put it another way. I would say that some gun owners in this country have worked themselves into a lather about what they imagine to be "the tyranny of this current administration". I see this as an example of the increasing extremism and irrationality of parts of the American right wing. A list of precisely which actions of the current administration you believe constitute "tyranny" would be interesting.


To start off, there has been more regulations introduced in all areas of the Gov under this administration than every before. IT is obvious that tyrannical use of power has become commonplace under this administration.

Heres a bit more:


http://www.policymic.com/articles/42853/obama-scandals-2013-why-obama-like-bush-has-gone-tyrannical

Obama Scandals 2013: Why Obama, Like Bush, Has Gone Tyrannical
http://www.policymic.com/articles/42853/obama-scandals-2013-why-obama-like-bush-has-gone-tyrannical
Thomas Jefferson lamented, "No man will ever carry out of the presidency the reputation which carried him into it." President Obama can certainly relate. The day he was elected president, many people seemed to believe everything wrong with American politics would finally change. The seemingly perfect embodiment of American progressivism, he had defeated another crusty old white Republican, and was supposed to save us all from the travails of partisanship and the long nightmare of the Bush years.
Yet, predictably, President Obama has not turned out to be the savior his base hoped for — and very likely believed himself to be. His administration is responsible for a series of scandals that easily rival the Bush years. Things are so bad that even Piers Morgan has admitted (http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/05/piers-morgan-now-i-see-u-s-government-tyranny/)gun-rights advocates may have a point about "government tyranny."
What could have gone so wrong? What happened to ruin a presidency that so many banked their hopes on?
Get used to it. This is what governments do.
Despite the best intentions of candidate Obama at pursuing his own vision, his administration, like that of his predecessor, is in a constant state of war with personal freedom in a world that is changing faster than it can adapt. Assuming the presidency in such a world means engaging in a constant struggle to control the uncontrollable, making ever-increasing exertions to legitimize state power.
The Department of Justice scandals (including the Aaron Swartz prosecution) were overzealous attempts to combat the failing War on Drugs and file-sharing; the AP scandal was an attempt to control a media leak; the IRS scandal was an attempt to control political outcomes; and the Benghazi cover-up was a failed attempt to control the narrative of a situation the government found embarrassing.
A government is much like an economy: It exists to expand. Everytime someone finds a way around a law or regulation, the state must expand to plug another leak in its absolute authority. As more and more control slips through the cracks, government must get more aggressive to assert itself, or risk losing legitimacy. Where this tendency eventually leads should be obvious.
Despite the recent media scrutiny, the progress of state expansion is undeterred. In the midst of President Obama's scandals, the administration just broke ground on a $3.4 billion Homeland Security Complex (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/homeland.security.headquarters/index.html?_s=PM%3APOLITICS). One can only imagine the enormous volume of civil-liberty violations that will take place there every day before you've even had your morning coffee.
The DOJ continues to push the boundaries in its war against the media, citing its powers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality) under the long-outdated Espionage Act of 1917 to punish journalists who "solicit" classified information — never mind that it is legal under U.S. law to publish said information. The Obama administration has also dramatically increased the number of prosecutions under the act.
Don't expect tyranny to end with the next administration. The only thing the state seems to learn from its own scandals and blown whistles is how to more clandestinely consolidate power and silence opposition. The ACLU notes (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/disavowed_report.pdf) that many federal employees have no substantive First Amendment or whistleblower protection and are often the subject of retaliation when they disclose wrongdoing, particularly in national-security matters.
You don't have to be a libertarian to acknowledge this fundamental truth — governments thrive on expanding their own capabilities at the expense of personal freedom. President Obama can't stop it, and indeed benefits from enhancing it, just like his predecessors. For every abuse of power we catch, there are thousands they get away with. I don't say this to dance on the grave of Obama's reputation, but as a warning against putting faith in those who crave power. It will not end well for any of us.


RodB

RodB
09-06-2013, 05:20 PM
Let me put it another way. I would say that some gun owners in this country have worked themselves into a lather about what they imagine to be "the tyranny of this current administration". I see this as an example of the increasing extremism and irrationality of parts of the American right wing. A list of precisely which actions of the current administration you believe constitute "tyranny" would be interesting.


This administration tyrannical?????

The following by a judge... very solid individual....


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/23/tyranny-around-corner-team-obama-trashes-constitution-to-pursue-opponents/


Tyranny around the corner -- Team Obama trashes Constitution to pursue opponents

A few weeks ago, President Obama advised graduates at Ohio State University that they need not listen to voices warning about tyranny around the corner, because we have self-government in America. He argued that self-government is in and of itself an adequate safeguard against tyranny, because voters can be counted upon to elect democrats (lowercase “d”) not tyrants.
His argument defies logic and 20th-century history. It reveals an ignorance of the tyranny of the majority, which believes it can write any law, regulate any behavior, alter any procedure and tax any event so long as it can get away with it.
History has shown that the majority will not permit any higher law or logic or value -- like fidelity to the natural law, a belief in the primacy of the individual or an acceptance of the supremacy of the Constitution -- that prevents it from doing as it wishes.

Reporters are protected by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they can ask whatever questions they wish without fear of prosecution.

Under Obama’s watch, the majority has, by active vote or refusal to interfere, killed hundreds of innocents -- including three Americans -- by drone, permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants, bombed Libya into tribal lawlessness without a declaration of war so that a mob there killed our ambassador with impunity, attempted to force the Roman Catholic Church to purchase insurance policies that cover artificial birth control, euthanasia and abortion, ordered your doctor to ask you whether you own guns, used the IRS to intimidate outspoken conservatives, seized the telephone records of newspaper reporters without lawful authority and in violation of court rules, and obtained a search warrant against one of my Fox colleagues by misrepresenting his true status to a federal judge....

....This misuse of the search warrant mechanism by misrepresentation of the status of the target continues the radicalization of federal criminal procedure now typical of this Department of Justice. It has claimed that it can release military weapons to foreign criminal gangs just to see where the weapons end up, and that its agents cannot be prosecuted for harm caused by those who received the weapons....

...The government’s behavior here is very troubling. Government lawyers and FBI agents are charged with knowing the law. They must have known that Rosen committed no crime, and they no doubt never intended to charge him, and they never have. They materially misled the judge, who saw the phrase “probable cause” of criminal activity (taken from the Fourth Amendment) in their affidavit in support of the search warrant they sought, and he signed. The judge should have seen this for the ruse it was. It is inconceivable that a person could conspire to commit a crime (release of classified information) that is impossible for that person to commit, particularly with a Supreme Court case directly on point.This misuse of the search warrant mechanism by misrepresentation of the status of the target continues the radicalization of federal criminal procedure now typical of this Department of Justice. It has claimed that it can release military weapons to foreign criminal gangs just to see where the weapons end up, and that its agents cannot be prosecuted for harm caused by those who received the weapons. It has held that the serious consideration given in the White House by high-ranking government officials to the identity of persons the president wants to kill somehow is a constitutional substitute for due process and thus enables the president to use drones to kill people uncharged with federal crimes. It has extended the public safety exception to the Miranda rule from the few seconds at the scene of the crime spent securing the prisoner, where the Supreme Court has said it resides, to more than 72 hours....

.... The reason we have the due process safeguards imposed upon the government by the Constitution is to keep tyranny from lurking anywhere here, much less around the corner. Due process is the intentionally created obstacle to government procedural shortcuts, which, if disregarded, will invite tyranny to knock at the front door and sneak in through the back. Justice Felix Frankfurter warned of this 70 years ago when he wrote, “The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards.” That was true then, and it is true now....



RodB

Garret
09-06-2013, 05:56 PM
The Department of Justice scandals (including the Aaron Swartz prosecution) were overzealous attempts to combat the failing War on Drugs and file-sharing; the AP scandal was an attempt to control a media leak; the IRS scandal was an attempt to control political outcomes; and the Benghazi cover-up was a failed attempt to control the narrative of a situation the government found embarrassing.

Oh pulease.....

The MIC & all those who profit from the war on drugs are perpetuating it - along with Homeland Security - which is way too big for its britches. The AP was a problem, but the last 2 were manufactured by Reps in attempts to make Obama look bad.

But go on hating - you ultimately are the one that hurts the most. I hope you can figure that out - for your own personal benefit.

Durnik
09-06-2013, 06:15 PM
First, if you are going to appear to quote me - at least make your statements refer to what I said.


First off, in our state, you cannot even go on property that you do not have permission, and 2nd, if you are just shooting for practice, the first thing you do is locate your shooting in a safe area where you cannot possibly hurt someone. I was mostly responding to the suggestions above which included " only designated areas for shooting" . There are lots of shooting ranges in our state but that comment shows a little lack of knowledge if one thinks people that own guns will just drive out to the country and climb a fence and go to shooting their gun?????????.
I neither said nor implied this. I stated that people, shooting from their land (their back door) thru the woods as a 'backstop' were shooting over my land, with me walking on it. BTW, it is my experience that most people, while imagining that they know what is 'a safe area', are in fact, most careless. IE., they don't even know they are being unsafe. Hence the requirement for training/certification & restriction of use ares.



I'm surprised you didn't have a fit on the "private sales" between individuals or no required safety course to buy a gun.

'a fit'? No need - this is covered by my suggested minimums above.



Anyway, lets leave this issue because people tend to go to shooting ranges unless they are hunting on a ranch. Even then, hunters prefer to not do any unnecessary shooting on property they will be hunting.


The country is much bigger than your back yard. Around here, they are hunting in their & their neighbors (reciprocal arrangements) back woods - which borders on woods I walk in. I have two neighbors who hunt on 4 adjacent pieces of property - 3 of which border mine. I, even with no firearm in my hands, have the right to expect I will not be shot on my land - ever heard a bullet wizz by? I have. It's not.. calm inducing. But unlike the righties on this forum, I will neither 'get a gun for protection', nor as they seem to imagine non gun owners do, will I 'cower in my home'. Walking (hiking/camping plus canoing/sailing) are my joys in life - don't be thinking I'll be stopping till my legs & arms no longer move. & no matter what 'rights' you & others may imagine you have concerning firearms, my (& your) rights to simply walk peacefully & unmolested (should) trump.



Its big business here for all the gun ranges to keep up with the demand from the population for shooting practice, (handguns) etc. Its damn expensive too when you consider the cost of the range fee and ammunition. Several new large scale shooting ranges have opened up this past year with some still to open. They are full service from shooting safety courses to gun rental (you can rent just about any pistol you may want to try out before buying), from fingerprinting to selling guns and accessories.

RodB

and looks as if the hoplophiles aren't shy about using non hoplophile tax money to support their habit. - one quick 'Google' found this (http://smmercury.com/2010/05/19/shooting-task-force-brings-new-plan-to-county/) -


Hays County residents could have a new 20-acre park along the San Marcos River next to more than 350 acres of shooting ranges next year — if the money can be found.

A citizens group appointed by the Hays County Commissioners Court recommended using $5.5 million of the remaining $8.5 million in parks and open space bonds to purchase land for the project at Tuesday’s meeting. The project would involve a park/shooting complex on a 563-acre parcel in eastern San Marcos, between Staples Road and the San Marcos River

I'm between a rock & a hard place here - I'd happily have general tax funds support safe shooting ranges.. as long as we also have sane regulations regarding general possession & use of those firearms.. and as long as non shooters get their equal treatment - that would include primitive hikers/canoeists . That _any_ people at all die or are wounded at shooting ranges, places where one might imagine strict rules apply, simply points out the degree of danger associated with the 'sport' - & indicates the absolute necessity for regulation/training/licensing along with the denial of firearm possession/use by those who show willful disregard for accepted safety practices.

If you're sane, if you're safe, ok. If not, than not. Society (that would be _all_ of us) has a right to know & control.

enjoy
bobby

PeterSibley
09-06-2013, 09:35 PM
Ah!!! I understand, Australia has shown indisputably that reduced gun numbers and safe storage saves lives. Ours is the path to follow if you care about people rather than guns and ideology. Such observations are a threat to gun loving ideologues, no wonder you're upset.


No comment Rod ?

RodB
09-06-2013, 10:44 PM
I have a problem with disarming our population for several reasons, and even with stringent laws, there would be millions of guns still in circulation, and it would not stop crazies from killing. You can never get rid of all the guns and all the law abiding citizens would be unarmed.

Federalizing all gun crimes so that those folks do very serious time will go a long ways in reducing gun crime. I'll stick with the 2nd amendment for now.

RodB

PeterSibley
09-06-2013, 10:50 PM
We have quite a few illegal guns here amongst the crims, but crims kill crims in turf wars . I've got more chance of being hit by a meteor than being attacked by a gang member. It's the law abiding citizen with a gun killing another law abiding citizen in an argument that is more of a problem . Here they thump each other, if there were guns available , it would be guns not fists and one would end up dead.

Captain Intrepid
09-06-2013, 11:17 PM
Federalizing all gun crimes so that those folks do very serious time will go a long ways in reducing gun crime. I'll stick with the 2nd amendment for now.

RodB

Makes sense. Being tough on crime certainly has been an effective deterrent for the USA in other areas... oh wait, no, it hasn't. Pop another bandage on that arterial bleed, it's sopping the blood up so nicely.

Canoeyawl
09-06-2013, 11:32 PM
This administration tyrannical?????

The following by a judge... very solid individual....RodB


http://forum.woodenboat.com/image.php?u=29297&dateline=1328660005&type=thumb

Glen Longino
09-06-2013, 11:41 PM
I have a problem with disarming our population for several reasons, and even with stringent laws, there would be millions of guns still in circulation, and it would not stop crazies from killing. You can never get rid of all the guns and all the law abiding citizens would be unarmed.

Federalizing all gun crimes so that those folks do very serious time will go a long ways in reducing gun crime. I'll stick with the 2nd amendment for now.

RodB

..."disarming our population"...

You need to quit reading the crappola that suggests there is any movement to disarm our population, Rod.
There is No such movement.
There is a huge difference between limiting firearms to responsible owners and "disarming our population."
When you write hyperbolic frenzied stuff it only hurts your cause.

RodB
09-07-2013, 02:19 AM
You need to quit reading the crappola that suggests there is any movement to disarm our population, Rod.
There is No such movement.
There is a huge difference between limiting firearms to responsible owners and "disarming our population."
When you write hyperbolic frenzied stuff it only hurts your cause.

How about reading the thread above so you know the context of my remarks... heaven forbid you might get a headache if you have to focus for more than a minute.

A couple fellas llsted their ideas for gun control and they certainly did see the answer as removing the guns from society...

Wake up goofy...

RodB

bobbys
09-07-2013, 02:41 AM
Get some real data not silly videos ..

tell that to Obama and Susan rice...

PeterSibley
09-07-2013, 02:53 AM
.

tell that to Obama and Susan rice...

bobbys , Rob posted some NRA inspired crap about Australia and Australian gun laws, you think I should just sit here and agree ? and why the hell should I see any relationship between that particular BS and your country's internal politics ?

Stick to the subject.

John Smith
09-07-2013, 06:52 AM
^It's fair & necessary to allow for inheritance.. just 'sane' inheritance following the rules. Inheriting a car doesn't give one the right to use it - & Title 1 firearms can't be inherited without following thru with the laws on registering/regulation. As I said, this ain't rocket science.

enjoy
bobby

Explain how the mechanics of this would work. That's where the problem lies. I don't think you can make them work. First, you have to have a record of every gun owned by every citizen. That would include all the weapons out there that there is no record of at this time. How to you create that record?

It's kind of like the trap of a balanced budget amendment. Many support it, but NO ONE has been able to explain how the mechanics of it would work when a major storm wipes out three states.

John Smith
09-07-2013, 06:54 AM
My comment was people like you... are the cause of a bunch of new antigun laws being pushed for passage.... quickly from hysteria ... with no regard to reality and commonsense. The links I showed simply showed the side effects of quickly drawn up laws where the people writing them either know nothing about guns or their end goal is removal of all guns.... with the shorter term goal to make it as difficult as possible for current gun owners.




Now there is a list of suggestions...

So.... the truth comes out. You want to turn us into the UK, or Australia, etc... good luck!



OR how about these commonsense gun ownership policies for a "free country"

1) Law abiding citizens can buy and use a legal firearm and will take reasonable measures to secure both the guns and ammo safely when not in use. Taking the CCL gun safety course should be highly recommended to first time gun owners.

2) Conceal and carry permits do not change and are always an option if you choose. This process involves a background check, finger prints, and a complete gun safety and handling course..

4) Private citizens can buy, sell or trade guns between themselves (state residents only) (this is current law here).

5) Law abiding gun owners can legally take their gun with them in their automobile (Texas law now).

6) Guns owned by law abiding citizens revert to their families or to who they designate in their will when they die just like any other property... PERIOD!

7) Availability of ammunition to law abiding citizens will not be infringed upon by any laws... this includes not allowing any new ammo taxes or firearm purchase fees.

8) Gun owners can shoot their firearms anywhere they damn well want to as long as it is legal, safe, and where there is a proper backstop.... i.e.., commonsense





Statistics in states that have implemented CCL programs show crime dropping with more folks armed.

RodB

We can't get unlicensed or uninsured motorists off our streets. You think we would have better luck with any of these gun regs?

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:02 AM
Right at the end - absolute insanity. If Common Sense existed, it would be both common, & make sense. You & this don't - make sense, that is. The belief is all too common. The property I live on is surrounded by other property - occupants of most of which seem to think it is 'safe' & 'rational' to shoot out their back door - towards leafed out trees.. & the property I am walking. This country is all hills n hollers. Two ridges may have 1/8 mile walk between them while being only 200' apart 'as the crow (or bullet) flies'. Shooting in this manner is
A) wrong
B) not safe
C) not sensible
D) did I mention wrong?!
E) but considered 'rational' & 'safe' by most of the unaware & uneducated who live around here - after all, _they_ don't walk outside - somebody might be shooting! Keep in mind, these are folks who think a lot like you - meaning they all claim to only shoot where it is 'safe'. Just sayin'..

Short of _requiring_ training/certification, none of that will change.

The rest of your points are as devoid of reason.

BTW, my right to walk my property in safety supersedes others 'rights' to throw lead projectiles blindly toward it. 'Hunting Accidents' are not accidents. They are man slaughter at best, more accurately, murder. Laws giving hunters preferential treatment/rights are obscene, but that's yet another issue to deal with.

OTOH, 'what is legal' is the subject at hand - & the sane among us recognize that the definition needs changing.

enjoy
bobby

These gun arguments always amuse me. It is already illegal to kill someone, regardless of the weapon used. Inherently, then, we should need no laws about what weapons on carries, as it's a major crime already to use the weapon to kill or commit some other crime.

As I've said, we've got laws require license and insurance to drive; they don't work very well. We've got laws against drug use; they don't work. Why on earth does anyone believe we can pass laws about guns that will work any better?

I'm not against laws: I'm against dumb laws that cannot be enforced.

When I look at the great debate in NYC over stop and frisk, I wonder if all pedestrians had to walk through metal detectors, which would not be profiling, if the public would accept it.

There is huge public support for background checks, but they only cover the initial purchase of the gun. Who's going to have an accurate record of where that gun is 150 years after it is purchased. There is huge support for preventing unstable people from buying guns, but you really can't do that unless you enter the realm of doctor's notes, and a man stable at 30 may have Alzheimer's at 60, but he'll still have the gun, or he may have given it to someone else.

For those who are great at gun statistics, are there any that show how many guns are used in crimes by the people who bought them in the first place?

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:09 AM
Keith,

Believe it or not, the tyranny of this current administration has really driven the gun owners in the country to coalesce.

Obama is the one who said, if congress will not pass his anti gun recommendations that he would sign several regulations within his discretion.

Additionally, any time you saw any details of impending anti gun legislation, the added on small stuff scared the hell out of law abiding gun owners... most stuff that would make owning and using a gun more and more difficult but make no difference in stopping crazy people from committing mass shootings. .

Finally, about 100% of the time when you see anti gun proponents talking about what we need to do... they make so many false statements that defy logic.


RodB

The gun nuts, are nuts. My brother was very much afraid this tyrannical president was going to take his guns, but he had NO evidence that pointed towards that. In fact, at the time of that discussion, Obama had broadened gun rights.

The enemy of those who like guns are those who use them to shoot up elementary schools. It is events of that nature that stir the gun control advocates.

What defies logic, IMO, are things that come from both sides of this issue. The gun lovers convince themselves that any incident will be made better by someone having a gun handy to stop the bad guy. Fact is that when one decides to play hero, it may help, or it may hurt. It can make matters worse.

On the other side is the belief we can, through laws, keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them to shoot up schools.

To me, this is insane. My logic says the very best we can do is make it impossible for an incident like Sandy Hook to happen again by modifying the school.

Laws don't prevent people from doing things; they only give us something to charge those people with after they've done them.

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:17 AM
This administration tyrannical?????

The following by a judge... very solid individual....


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/23/tyranny-around-corner-team-obama-trashes-constitution-to-pursue-opponents/




RodB

Fox News? They still question his birth certificate. Can you find a reliable source?


I'd like to put this whole thing into a slightly different perspective. I think it's obvious that the only way we'll generally know if someone has a weapon illegally is when he uses it. Assuming we catch him and convict him of murder, and give him a life sentence, do we add more time to his sentence for using a weapon he was illegally in possession of?

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:19 AM
First, if you are going to appear to quote me - at least make your statements refer to what I said.


I neither said nor implied this. I stated that people, shooting from their land (their back door) thru the woods as a 'backstop' were shooting over my land, with me walking on it. BTW, it is my experience that most people, while imagining that they know what is 'a safe area', are in fact, most careless. IE., they don't even know they are being unsafe. Hence the requirement for training/certification & restriction of use ares.



'a fit'? No need - this is covered by my suggested minimums above.



The country is much bigger than your back yard. Around here, they are hunting in their & their neighbors (reciprocal arrangements) back woods - which borders on woods I walk in. I have two neighbors who hunt on 4 adjacent pieces of property - 3 of which border mine. I, even with no firearm in my hands, have the right to expect I will not be shot on my land - ever heard a bullet wizz by? I have. It's not.. calm inducing. But unlike the righties on this forum, I will neither 'get a gun for protection', nor as they seem to imagine non gun owners do, will I 'cower in my home'. Walking (hiking/camping plus canoing/sailing) are my joys in life - don't be thinking I'll be stopping till my legs & arms no longer move. & no matter what 'rights' you & others may imagine you have concerning firearms, my (& your) rights to simply walk peacefully & unmolested (should) trump.



and looks as if the hoplophiles aren't shy about using non hoplophile tax money to support their habit. - one quick 'Google' found this (http://smmercury.com/2010/05/19/shooting-task-force-brings-new-plan-to-county/) -



I'm between a rock & a hard place here - I'd happily have general tax funds support safe shooting ranges.. as long as we also have sane regulations regarding general possession & use of those firearms.. and as long as non shooters get their equal treatment - that would include primitive hikers/canoeists . That _any_ people at all die or are wounded at shooting ranges, places where one might imagine strict rules apply, simply points out the degree of danger associated with the 'sport' - & indicates the absolute necessity for regulation/training/licensing along with the denial of firearm possession/use by those who show willful disregard for accepted safety practices.

If you're sane, if you're safe, ok. If not, than not. Society (that would be _all_ of us) has a right to know & control.

enjoy
bobby

How does on know & control?

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:21 AM
I have a problem with disarming our population for several reasons, and even with stringent laws, there would be millions of guns still in circulation, and it would not stop crazies from killing. You can never get rid of all the guns and all the law abiding citizens would be unarmed.

Federalizing all gun crimes so that those folks do very serious time will go a long ways in reducing gun crime. I'll stick with the 2nd amendment for now.

RodB

Correct. Where you and I disagree is that we have all these guns already out there because we've intentionally misconstrued the second amendment. We are now paying the price for that.

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:22 AM
We have quite a few illegal guns here amongst the crims, but crims kill crims in turf wars . I've got more chance of being hit by a meteor than being attacked by a gang member. It's the law abiding citizen with a gun killing another law abiding citizen in an argument that is more of a problem . Here they thump each other, if there were guns available , it would be guns not fists and one would end up dead.

If he's killing someone, he is NOT a law abiding citizen.

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:24 AM
..."disarming our population"...

You need to quit reading the crappola that suggests there is any movement to disarm our population, Rod.
There is No such movement.
There is a huge difference between limiting firearms to responsible owners and "disarming our population."
When you write hyperbolic frenzied stuff it only hurts your cause.

How do you limit firearms to responsible owners?

PeterSibley
09-07-2013, 07:29 AM
If he's killing someone, he is NOT a law abiding citizen.

He is until he does.

John Smith
09-07-2013, 07:34 AM
I post often that we've misconstrued or misinterpreted the constitution. For the record, let me post what Article 1, Section 8 says about the Militia:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

And what the 2nd Amendment says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From my perspective, anyone who's graduated high school can read what our founders actually wrote and ratified. Doesn't say a thing about "owning" anything. "Keep" simply did not, and does not, mean "own". Those in the Militia kept arms supplied by the government. This was to have the arms readily available if/when needed.

All that said, by misinterpreting it all these years we've opened a "Pandora's box" and we are stuck with it. The debate since Sandy Hook has been enormous, but I can't say I've heard a single proposal that would work any better than our drug laws.

hanleyclifford
09-07-2013, 08:08 AM
How do you limit firearms to responsible owners? In Massachusetts we have stringent vetting and investigating procedures. The latest avaliable statistic for accidental firearms death is 2010; (1), for the year. Meanwhile since the 1998 gun law "upgrade", firearms crimes have doubled here.

John Smith
09-07-2013, 09:43 AM
In Massachusetts we have stringent vetting and investigating procedures. The latest avaliable statistic for accidental firearms death is 2010; (1), for the year. Meanwhile since the 1998 gun law "upgrade", firearms crimes have doubled here.

Fine! Now, how do you keep the guns out of the hands of those who ought not have guns?

Durnik
09-07-2013, 11:11 AM
How does on(e) know & control?

Obviously, by getting society (people) to cooperate. Also, obviously, this doesn't happen overnight - & again, obviously, nothing happens till after it's started.

Yet again, obviously, none of this will work until after the haves are prevented from raping the have-nots - & the Christians ($Dominate_Religion_of_Choice) are prevented from practicing their (non)compassionate compassion.


Fine! Now, how do you keep the guns out of the hands of those who ought not have guns?

By teaching people that it is their responsibility to report the possession of firearms by people who obviously shouldn't have them. This isn't rocket science. We simply need to make a mechanism for it. Drunks, the aggressively violent, the irrationally dangerous (waving firearms or carrying loaded weapons) are obviously people who should _not_ be in possession. 1st 'offense', documentation of the offense as well as confiscation & selling of the firearm - as well as others owned. 2nd offense, 1st two plus monetary fine. 3rd offense, prison - perhaps for life. Willfully endangering & threatening others is wrong.

All this presupposes (among other things - see above) that we develop a police system which does _not_ practice willful violence on its own accord. Like _that's_ going to happen in this Right Wing Wacko World. FWIW, Police should suffer harm _before_ they harm others - they having freely chosen to be 'enforcers of law'. This 'harming a cop is a worse crime than harming a citizen' is pure, unadulterated 'elitist' b.s..





Federalizing all gun crimes so that those folks do very serious time will go a long ways in reducing gun crime.

Wrong, as in VERY! Punishment happens _after_ commission, meaning what you are advocating is to continue setting up the circumstances which create the action & _then_ doing something - in this case, harming yet another. That is irrational. That is the response of one who likes to hurt others.. & is setting up a 'legal' way to do it. Compassion, my ass!

Now, federalizing _requirements_.. that's a horse of a different color.

peace out
bobby

RodB
09-07-2013, 11:25 AM
There is a huge difference between limiting firearms to responsible owners and "disarming our population."
When you write hyperbolic frenzied stuff it only hurts your cause.

I have not seen any suggestions here that would not mostly affect law abiding gun owner negatively. We already have plenty of laws specifically aimed at those with a criminal record, but all the rest of the law abiding population will be affected by most all the suggested gun control policies here.

Captain Intrepid
09-07-2013, 11:31 AM
If no one is affected, the laws are really not that effective, eh? In any case, American gun laws aren't the main problem, it's the American mindset towards guns that is. So long as the idea that the use of guns for personal protection is socially acceptable, your gun violence problem will never go away.

RodB
09-07-2013, 12:55 PM
How about laws that effect the problem... deranged folks getting their hands on guns.. . not punishing the american public en masse. The truth is addressing the mental illness problem is so complex that its just easier and makes people feel good to attack gun ownership. At least then they feel like something is being done, no matter how illogical. This comment is based on the premise that you have to deal with the amount of guns that are in our society and that it is very unlikely that will change any time soon.

RodB

Captain Intrepid
09-07-2013, 01:03 PM
Mental illness is a separate problem, a more serious one I think. With gun deaths though, the main problem isn't the mentally ill, it's the ordinary people who commit suicide because they have easy access to a gun, it's petty criminals who feel they need to be armed as a matter of course, it's the mass acceptance of stand your ground philosophies, it's the mass acceptance of the wild west mythos as an ideal, it's the reactionary nature of the society. Those are the problems that just begin to lay the groundwork for the sort of massive gun violence for a first world country that the USA endures. None of them are easily quantifiable, \ none of them have simple solutions, and most of them are sacred cows, so they all go ignored.

Keith Wilson
09-07-2013, 01:13 PM
How about laws that affect the problem... deranged folks getting their hands on guns . . . I think we could agree on that. How would it work in practice? Serious background checks at EVERY transfer of ownership of a gun, at the least. Licensing of gun owners, requiring a psychological evaluation? An MMPI as part of the license exam, perhaps? Mandatory reporting by heath professionals of serious mental health issues they encounter? Simpler commitment procedures? Confiscation of the guns of those with reported metal problems? What would you suggest?

You have a point, but to be effective it would have to be quite intrusive. The trick is how to do it without giving those who most need help an incentive to avoid treatment.

Any measures that would decrease the use of guns for bad purposes would negatively effect law-biding gun owners, if only by creating more hassle and inconvenience. if you're not willing to put up with that, then there's no hope of any common ground.

RodB
09-07-2013, 03:05 PM
I have a friend who has managed some upscale apartments over the past few years... a couple hundred units on different properties. Over a period of a little over a year there were 11 suicides by people in their thirties in these properties and when she asked the police that investigated those deaths... the most common reason seemed to be unfulfilled expectations. So... not mental illness but perhaps inability to deal with adversity or disappointment??

We have more population than ever in the past and certainly more folks with a weaker mental attitude compared to past generations when it comes to adversity or disappointment. I don't know how you get parents to become more involved with their kids so that young people develop a healthy interaction in society... not to mention the awful type of behavior where they go out and shoot innocent people because they are bored ( a total lack of parenting perhaps??).

I'm not too sure about your take on the stand your ground philosophy mainly because people will have to show in a court of law (to a jury) that the use of force was indeed self defense. Your wild west mythos is just made up IMHO.

Theres plenty of violent crime in this country, guns or no guns.... I think the stats are that one person in four will be the victim of a violent crime in their life. Perhaps people just do not want to be at the mercy of someone who may want to do them bodily harm.



Any measures that would decrease the use of guns for bad purposes would negatively effect law-biding gun owners, if only more hassle and inconvenience. if you;re not willing to put up with that, then there's no hope of any common ground.

Agreed only if the measures taken will really be effective in stopping the wrong people from getting their hands on guns...not some feel good measure that accomplishes nothing.

RodB

Captain Intrepid
09-07-2013, 03:20 PM
I have a friend who has managed some upscale apartments over the past few years... a couple hundred units on different properties. Over a period of a little over a year there were 11 suicides by people in their thirties in these properties and when she asked the police that investigated those deaths... the most common reason seemed to be unfulfilled expectations. So... not mental illness but perhaps inability to deal with adversity or disappointment??

We have more population than ever in the past and certainly more folks with a weaker mental attitude compared to past generations when it comes to adversity or disappointment.

Do yourself a favour and actually learn a bit about mental illness before being so dismissive of it. You may be surprised who it affects and the hurt you can cause by doing so.


I'm not too sure about your take on the stand your ground philosophy mainly because people will have to show in a court of law (to a jury) that the use of force was indeed self defense. Your wild west mythos is just made up IMHO.

The American culture and mindset values the individual over everything else. That's not made up, it's a fact, a meme developed from of the history and legends of your country. The myth of the wild west certainly occupies a key spot in that, and in how Americans as a whole see themselves. As for the stand your ground philosophy, I mean the concept that it should be permissible to use force when de-escalation is still a possibility. In a lot of countries it's not self defense unless you are literally backed into a corner, under the threat of death or gross bodily harm.

Keith Wilson
09-07-2013, 03:27 PM
. . . and certainly more folks with a weaker mental attitude compared to past generations when it comes to adversity or disappointment.This shows a serious lack of understanding of mental illness and the causes of suicide - as well as IMHO being incorrect. The suicide rate has, BTW, been roughly constant, perhaps slightly decreasing, in the US over the past 50 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg/800px-Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

Durnik
09-07-2013, 03:43 PM
You've already been called to task on the "weaker mental attitude" b.s.


Let's look at this -


I'm not too sure about your take on the stand your ground philosophy mainly because people will have to show in a court of law (to a jury) that the use of force was indeed self defense.

Perhaps you might feel the urge to take a long, hard look at the recent Zimmerman trial where he most definitely did _not_ have to prove anything.. He simply made a 'statement' & it was up to the court (state) to disprove it. Since the only witness was dead, a victim of Mr. Zimmerman's.. 'exuberance', that was impossible.

FTR, You are wrong - & the situation, as it stands, is ridiculous.

bobby

RodB
09-07-2013, 06:30 PM
We have more population than ever in the past and certainly more folks with a weaker mental attitude compared to past generations when it comes to adversity or disappointment..


Now, Keith, your a psychologist... ? Theres no end to your all encompassing knowledge and skills. No, i have not studied the causes of suicide and I am extremely concerned with the high rate of suicide in the military. Do you think all the mid thirties folks I mentioned above who committed suicide were mentally ill? I'll moderate the statement above and just say I think our society today is softer than in the past and leave it at that.

I am convinced the progressive permissiveness of our society has pretty much had a negative affect on our young people.... especially when it comes to self reliance and mental toughness in dealing with adversity. Nothing is your fault any more... take a look at our President... he's not responsible for anything that has happened under his watch, even items he initiated!

Most of our young people who have gone into the military are extraordinary... and we owe them respect and a debt of gratitude. I am deeply concerned about the rate of suicides in our military...the numbers are horrendous. I remember in Viet Nam, I heard about people I served with committing suicide, it was truly disturbing. It looks like post Viet Nam vets had an even higher number of suicides per 100K than now.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/09/are_veterans_more_suicidal_than_ever.html


Are Veterans More Suicidal Than Ever?Comparing the psychiatric death tolls from Vietnam and today.By Maura Kelly (http://www.slate.com/authors.maura_kelly.html)|Posted Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011, at 7:46 PM



http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/archive/2011/09/1_123125_123073_2279751_2302915_110906_ex_veterant n.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg (http://www.slate.com/id/2303151/)
Have military suicides increased?


Writing in Slate last week, economist Joseph E. Stiglitz named the rate of suicides among veterans (http://www.slate.com/id/2302949/)of recent wars as a "social cost of 9/11." He cited stats from a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs study that looked at the years 2005-07 and found 18 suicides per day among American ex-servicemen. In light of these numbers, and in honor of National Suicide Prevention Week (which began Sunday), the V.A. has posted a toll-free crisis hotline and a link for online chats to its website. Is the suicide rate among veterans any higher now than it has been in the past?

It's hard to say, because there aren't many reliable data from before the 1960s. But what evidence we have suggests that those who were recently discharged from service in the Vietnam War were more likely to kill themselves than veterans of today's campaigns.

Advertisement






A 2004 study by a team led by researchers from the National Center for Environmental Health looked at numbers going back to 1965, and found that the suicide rate among Vietnam veterans in the five years after they were discharged was 34.5 per 100,000. For ex-military personnel who served after that war ended, the equivalent number was just 20.1. A few years later, epidemiologists for the Department of Veterans Affairs looked at U.S. veterans who'd returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, and found that 21.9 per 100,000 veterans committed suicide—not much higher than the control group in the previous study. It's possible that rates will go up in years to come, as more soldiers are discharged after multiple deployments.

No one tracked military suicide rates carefully prior to the Vietnam War. Post-traumatic stress disorder wasn't officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association until 1980, when the psychological fallout from an unpopular war was becoming more visible in the mental-health community.

There's evidence that suicides are getting more common among soldiers who remain actively involved in the military. According to a recent study by the Rand Corporation, active-duty personnel killed themselves at a rate of 16.3 per 100,000 in 2008, up from 10.3 in 2001. Repeated exposure to combat zones may account for this increase. Some soldiers are sent back three or four times before they're off the hook.

Flying Orca
09-07-2013, 07:28 PM
even with stringent laws, there would be millions of guns still in circulation, and it would not stop crazies from killing. You can never get rid of all the guns and all the law abiding citizens would be unarmed.

You keep trotting out this argument as if it has some validity, but experience in other places suggests otherwise. You must remember that the point is harm reduction, not elimination. If a particular measure succeeds enough to significantly reduce the amount of gun violence society experiences, it's worth having on the table. Any insistence on a perfect solution before acting is a de facto argument for the status quo.


I don't think you can make them work. First, you have to have a record of every gun owned by every citizen.

Actually, you don't - you just have to have a culture where a license to own firearms is widely seen as required to own firearms, so most people don't transfer ownership to an unlicensed owner. It works here.


We can't get unlicensed or uninsured motorists off our streets.

I think laws requiring every motorist to be licensed and insured have worked reasonably well to reduce unsafe driving - do you have evidence to show that they have not? Again, a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be workable - it just has to significantly reduce harm.


I have not seen any suggestions here that would not mostly affect law abiding gun owner negatively. We already have plenty of laws specifically aimed at those with a criminal record, but all the rest of the law abiding population will be affected by most all the suggested gun control policies here.

Yes - law abiding gun owners have to be part of the solution, because the current laws are not doing enough to prevent gun violence. New laws, which will inevitably affect your law abiding gun owners, are clearly indicated.


How about laws that effect the problem... deranged folks getting their hands on guns.. . not punishing the american public en masse.

If you want people to take you seriously, perhaps you shouldn't be quite such a drama queen. Here's a hint: when a society agrees to limit its members' behaviour to reduce harm, it's not "punishment".

hanleyclifford
09-07-2013, 07:35 PM
Fine! Now, how do you keep the guns out of the hands of those who ought not have guns? One way is to punish criminals; we're not very good at that here.

Keith Wilson
09-07-2013, 07:52 PM
One way is to punish criminals; we're not very good at that here.Jesus T. Christ, Hanley, get a grip; the US already has a much greater percentage of people in jail than the rest of the world. (Here's a complete list. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate)) What do you want, cutting off hands? The rack? Send 'em to the galleys or the salt mines? Crucifixion?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/28/business/economy/economix-28pewjail/economix-28pewjail-custom1.jpg

hanleyclifford
09-07-2013, 08:06 PM
I believe we also have the most lawyers...hmmm

Keith Wilson
09-07-2013, 08:09 PM
The claim that "we're not very good at punishing criminals" is utter nonsense, if you mean that we don't punish harshly enough. If you meant that we're no good at it because we lock way too many people up for things that aren't very serious, you might have a point

hanleyclifford
09-07-2013, 08:25 PM
The claim that "we're not very good at punishing criminals" is utter nonsense, if you mean that we don't punish harshly enough. If you meant that we're no good at it because we lock way too many people up for things that aren't very serious, you might have a point We do indeed lock people up for stupid things like possession of marijuana. But make the distinction; incarceration is not the same thing as punishment (people in nursing homes are "incarcerated"), and few criminals serve their whole sentence.

PeterSibley
09-07-2013, 08:50 PM
One way is to punish criminals; we're not very good at that here.

Suggestions ? Branding , tattoos ?

Flying Orca
09-07-2013, 09:01 PM
It seems to me that punishment has a debatable deterrent effect, does little to reduce crime rates, and satisfies an infant emotional need for revenge more than it does a sober concept of justice. Perhaps the results of research in this area would prove surprising to some...

PeterSibley
09-07-2013, 09:25 PM
Research ...we don't need research, we need REVENGE!!

Canoeyawl
09-08-2013, 02:37 PM
How about laws that effect the problem... deranged folks getting their hands on guns.. .
RodB
Too simple; Just disallowing republicans from owning guns? Never happen

Keith Wilson
09-08-2013, 04:53 PM
How about laws that affect the problem... deranged folks getting their hands on guns . . .Rod, you suggested this, and I agree that keeping deranged folks from getting their hands on guns would be an excellent idea. How would you propose to do it? What laws would address the problem as you see it?

Portland
09-09-2013, 04:40 AM
Yep , keep that gun handy , the handier the better ! http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/18842361/friend-shot-dead-after-hide-and-seek-surprise/ .
Rob J.

John Smith
09-09-2013, 07:00 AM
Rod, you suggested this, and I agree that keeping deranged folks from getting their hands on guns would be an excellent idea. How would you propose to do it? What laws would address the problem as you see it?

That is precisely the problem. As well intentioned as many of the suggested gun laws may be, I see little hope of any of them working. As soon as we set any type of criteria for gun ownership, we are entering an area of some form of doctor's note. Then we raise issues of liability for the doctor who certifies a gun buyer as stable.

I don't believe we can pass any laws that will keep guns out of the hands of those we'd rather didn't have guns. Truth is we can't keep people from driving drunk, or keep unlicensed/uninsured drivers off the road. Making something illegal does not prevent it from happening; it only gives us something to charge people with AFTER the fact.

Flying Orca
09-09-2013, 07:10 AM
I don't believe we can pass any laws that will keep guns out of the hands of those we'd rather didn't have guns. Truth is we can't keep people from driving drunk, or keep unlicensed/uninsured drivers off the road. Making something illegal does not prevent it from happening; it only gives us something to charge people with AFTER the fact.

Again, you're completely ignoring the fact that the desired goal is harm reduction, not perfection. We do keep most people from driving drunk, and we do keep most unlicensed and uninsured drivers off the road. Gun control has effectively reduced gun violence in other countries - there is absolutely no reason to think that it cannot do so in the USA.

RodB
09-09-2013, 08:21 PM
Rod, you suggested this, and I agree that keeping deranged folks from getting their hands on guns would be an excellent idea. How would you propose to do it? What laws would address the problem as you see it?

You know thats difficult with medical information protected....thats why so little has been suggested along this vein since Sandy Hook. How many folks would be comfortable with a psychologist being able to initiate a report that would cause officials to come to their home and confiscate their guns? Interestingly enough the following links seem to show the difficulty of this and what type of stigma could result.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/why-improving-mental-health-would-do-little-to-end-gun-violence-20130124


Psychiatric professionals are not good at identifying people who will go on to commit acts of violence; many perpetrators of mass shootings had no contact with the mental-health system; and, even when the potentially violent are identified, treatment for mental illness is not always effective in preventing violent acts.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/09/mental-health-gun-violence/2068321/

But with the focus primarily on how to prevent mentally ill people from obtaining weapons rather than improving care, mental health advocates now worry the connection has increased the stigma around the mentally ill that they have worked for decades to break down.

Even if perpetrators of these mass shooting have some history of some mental issues, most spend time to do serious planning to achieve their goal. It makes you wonder except in very extreme cases, would laws that allowed the judgement of mental health professionals to have the power to put patients under the eye of law enforcement would have that much of an effect on the crimes we are discussing.

It also seems that many folks who do these types of crimes are angry at the world etc, etc. The difficulties of coming up with laws that would protect society from such people seems a difficult task.

RodB

Keith Wilson
09-09-2013, 08:31 PM
The difficulties of coming up with laws that would protect society from such people seems a difficult task. I agree. Our understanding of mental illness is pretty rudimentary at this point, and I think there would be real difficulties in coming up with effective laws to keep guns out of the hands of these folks. I think that this is the reason most countries haven't focused on this area, but have tried to reduce the overall number of guns in circulation.

Flying Orca
09-09-2013, 08:42 PM
I agree. Our understanding of mental illness is pretty rudimentary at this point, and I think there would be real difficulties in coming up with effective laws to keep guns out of the hands of these folks. I think that this is the reason most countries haven't focused on this area, but have tried to reduce the overall number of guns in circulation.

Yes. Screening is good for preventing the mentally ill from legitimately acquiring guns; storage laws are good for preventing the mentally ill from acquiring them illegally. Reducing the number of guns in circulation helps too. Taken together, such measures significantly reduce gun violence.

PeterSibley
09-09-2013, 09:08 PM
It also seems that many folks who do these types of crimes are angry at the world etc, etc. The difficulties of coming up with laws that would protect society from such people seems a difficult task.

RodB

We managed and interestingly it was our conservative federal government that did it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia