another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

[Valve Bounce]

Well, I can now appreciate why all this gun toting is exciting. I just watched the film "COWBOY" starring Glenn Ford, and I have decided to go down to the pubs in Richmond tonight and buy a gun, then drive around Melbourne in my Volvo Cross Country tonight and start shooting up the town. YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rollo]

There is nothing wrong with being a gun enthusiast, vehement or otherwise. It's what you DO with the gun that counts. Using it to hunt, target shoot, for personal protection, or having one just because the law says you can harms no one. It's those who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue. The gun is only the instrument of choice which the criminal uses in their crime. I do not believe that taking guns from millions of law abiding owners, who have committed no crime, in order to address a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals is a reasonable solution. So I say again, what about addressing what causes those very few people to commit such crimes?

If it is those "who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue" then it is not "a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals" who you need to address but the most basic building block of society itself - the family:

FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data-figure)
53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/10murderbyrelatesmall.gif

The "random" attacker isn't the one you need to address as first priority, rather the people in your own household. By providing guns for "self-defence" you also provide the necessary means for people who live under the same roof to kill each other.
What's next? A husband and wife to have separate guns on either side of the bed so that they can defend themselves against each other? Sure the picture is stretched to incredulity with hyperbole but it illustrates the bulk of the problem.

You don't believe that it's a reasonable solution because you accept people being slain as a necessary trade-off to your "freedom".

[anthonyvop]

You obviously do not know what fascist means.

Do you?

Not the Left wing, knee Jerk insult but the actual political and economic philosophy of Fascism?

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html) Read this and tell me who's political leanings is closer to real fascism.

[anthonyvop]

In the US, it is not.

Link please :D

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)

And

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

[anthonyvop]

Your explanation is certainly simplistic. Not quite the same thing, I know. Your definition of what constitutes a right is not, I have to tell you, gospel.

You cannot grasp that concept? Seriously?

Let me try again. Even simpler.

Healthcare costs money. If it costs money it ain't a right.

[Valve Bounce]

You cannot grasp that concept? Seriously?

Let me try again. Even simpler.

Healthcare costs money. If it costs money it ain't a right.

Guns cost money, don't they?

[Rollo]

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)

And

Legal Definition of Self-Defense Defense (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm)

The Second Amendment contains no such wording. Second, the link from Lect Law contains neither case law nor legal citation and is therefore merely opinion.

Fail and Fail.

[BDunnell]

You cannot grasp that concept? Seriously?

Let me try again. Even simpler.

Healthcare costs money. If it costs money it ain't a right.

So do guns, Tony. So does ammunition. Your definition is blatantly nonsensical, but what else would we expect?

[BDunnell]

Do you?

Not the Left wing, knee Jerk insult but the actual political and economic philosophy of Fascism?

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html) Read this and tell me who's political leanings is closer to real fascism.

How do you square with calling me a fascist the fact that you've called me a Communist in the past?

I hugely enjoy the fact that you expect me to be somehow offended by your comments, when in fact they are enormously hilarious.

[Jag_Warrior]

If it is those "who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue" then it is not "a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals" who you need to address but the most basic building block of society itself - the family:

FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data-figure)
53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/10murderbyrelatesmall.gif

The "random" attacker isn't the one you need to address as first priority, rather the people in your own household. By providing guns for "self-defence" you also provide the necessary means for people who live under the same roof to kill each other.
What's next? A husband and wife to have separate guns on either side of the bed so that they can defend themselves against each other? Sure the picture is stretched to incredulity with hyperbole but it illustrates the bulk of the problem.

You don't believe that it's a reasonable solution because you accept people being slain as a necessary trade-off to your "freedom".


First, I'd like to thank you for providing some data and not just relying on an emotion based argument. Whether we agree or disagree on the issue, the only way (IMO) to have any sort of mature, constructive dialog is by relying on valid data... not emotions. I am a little bit confused by the bar chart/table vs. the pie chart though. Either I'm not reading something right or they don't agree with each other. By the pie chart, the combination of "Family" and "Other Known" seems to equal 43.6%, while the combination of "Stranger" and "Unknown" equals 56.4% - giving a total distribution of 100%. I'm not sure where the "53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members" is coming from.

But whatever the correct figures are, it doesn't seem that any of the categories is statistically insignificant. And comparing this data to the Dept. of Justice data that I linked previously, I wonder how many of these "known" or "family member" incidents involved people who were legally prohibited from owning firearms because of prior criminal convictions or being judged mentally defective? In the United States, it is illegal for a person convicted of even misdemeanor domestic assault to own or possess a firearm. So going a bit deeper into the two data sets, I just wonder what we're truly seeing. I'm not arguing that it's worse (or better) to be shot by a stranger vs. a family member. But if in either case, the shooter is already under a legal prohibition from owning a firearm, I'm not quite clear on how a new law could prevent that shooting - I mean, there's already a "ban" that applies to those people, yes? From the standpoint of what is realistic, reasonable and practical, what new legal mechanism would be instituted that would find and confiscate firearms that would be any better than what we have now?

With all due respect to those who are opposed to or don't understand private firearms ownership in the United States, I have yet to hear anything plausible and practical on how whatever plan they have would be executed and accomplished. How would new words on new pieces of paper work any better than the old words on the old pieces of paper... that apparently aren't effective enough now??? With these new words on new pieces of paper, will all of the criminals, strangers, as well as violent family members, suddenly turn in their firearms? That seems to be a rather fantastic expectation, IMO. So... what would be the practical mechanism for confiscating firearms if this proposed ban on private firearms ownership was enacted in the United States? Honest question... really.

Something else I want to look at when I have some time: from something I read years ago, a large percentage of rapes, assaults and property crimes are also committed by people known to the victim. Not that it really affects what we're talking about here (in general), but the issue of crime seems to not just be one of "stranger danger". If the point being made relates to (true) spontaneous "crimes of passion," then I understand. But the data presented here doesn't give us any read on how frequent that is. And if the victim/assailant relationship matters here, if compared to other crimes, would we consider say, a marital or date rape as not being as bad (or worse) as a rape committed by a stranger? Maybe some would. In my state, up until the 1980's (I believe) there was no such (legal) thing as "marital rape" - a husband had the right to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to. Though most don't, some people still believe that. So without a deeper dive into the data, I'm not sure what the relationship of the victim to the assailant really tells us. We just need to know more about the data to arrive at any sort of conclusion, IMO.

[Jag_Warrior]

Not sure why it starts to look that all the pro gun ownership people posting around here are a bit infantile?

Maybe you already have, but upon self-review, you may notice the damning hypocrisy in that stereotypical claim.

[Starter]

How do you square with calling me a fascist the fact that you've called me a Communist in the past?

I hugely enjoy the fact that you expect me to be somehow offended by your comments, when in fact they are enormously hilarious.
I'd guess that it's because, when you take communism and fascism to their right and left wing extremes, they meet in the middle. (Please note, I'm not endorsing his sentiment, just commenting on how he may have gotten there.)

[Starter]

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.

I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

[BDunnell]

I'd guess that it's because, when you take communism and fascism to their right and left wing extremes, they meet in the middle. (Please note, I'm not endorsing his sentiment, just commenting on how he may have gotten there.)

I think you're considering this in a bit too much depth, personally. My view as to how he got there is rather simpler, I must say.

[BDunnell]

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'.

What sort of statement does this make about the mentality of those stocking up? To me, they're no different to the sort of unhinged idiots who bought in food and created bunkers in preparation for the Millennium Bug.



I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.

[ioan]

Maybe you already have, but upon self-review, you may notice the damning hypocrisy in that stereotypical claim.

You don't want to read my answer to your provocation so I'll keep it civilized by not making it public.

[ioan]

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.


I think we can very safely assume these were in 99% of the cases people who already owned weapons, most probably also illegally most of them.
Why would someone who didn't bother having a weapon until now go out and buy one? Doesn't make any sense.

[ioan]

I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.

Maybe they like the idea of getting free sessions with the shrink instead of having to pay for those? You never know, stranger things have happened.

[Jag_Warrior]

You don't want to read my answer to your provocation so I'll keep it civilized by not making it public.

Hurl away... if that's all you're capable of. Tussling with me may not give you the satisfaction that you're expecting though. :)

But as I've already said, I would much prefer to have a dialog or debate with people who are capable of much more than that. But if you make a statement about the immaturity of others and then you act in an immature fashion, well, one should expect to be called out for it.

[ioan]

Hurl away... if that's all you're capable of. Tussling with me may not give you the satisfaction that you're expecting though. :)

Won't give you that satisfaction kid.



But as I've already said, I would much prefer to have a dialog or debate with people who are capable of much more than that. But if you make a statement about the immaturity of others and then you act in an immature fashion, well, one should expect to be called out for it.

Said mr. perfection. LOL

[ioan]

Back to the thread subject now, the death of 20 innocent children and their teachers, killed with guns that belong in the best case in the hands of policemen and military.

Most people from outside the USA can see the biggest common denominator in all these US shootings and point it out easily.
Those from the USA are trying to find scapegoats like mental issues, and the few who accept that guns might be the issue say it is impossible to control the ownership of guns in the USA while completely ignoring examples from other countries where this worked out just fine. It looks like people think that they will never be in the position of those kids, teachers or their families. I wish you all good luck and hope you will indeed not have to go through what those people had to go one week before Christmas.

[Starter]

I think you're considering this in a bit too much depth, personally. My view as to how he got there is rather simpler, I must say.

:up:

[Starter]

I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.
Suddenly? Hardly, I've felt that way for a long time.

[Jag_Warrior]

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.

I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

Seems rather logical to me. But what do I know... I just get paid by Fortune 500 companies to solve systemic problems with a data driven approach. The "when in danger, when in doubt, run on circles... scream & shout" approach probably is more fun and entertaining. I'm switching employers shortly. Maybe the new outfit will let me run around and be a crazy-@ss bomb thrower. Just holler like a wild man and intimidate people to get my point across. Gotta have lots of name calling too. That's real important. Woo! Yeah, man! Git insane in the membrane! :bounce:



What sort of statement does this make about the mentality of those stocking up? To me, they're no different to the sort of unhinged idiots who bought in food and created bunkers in preparation for the Millennium Bug.

Again with generalizations and stereotypes. You're better than that, BDunnell. I mean that. I know that you are.



I find rather distasteful the manner in which a lot of Americans holding your views on guns have suddenly become concerned about the problem of mental illness, given that a lot of them are simultaneously against the increased provision of affordable healthcare to assist in the treatment of this.

A lot or some... but not all. I have argued for quiet some time that our failure to address mental health conditions is one of our biggest social failings. The system was never great, but it really began going downhill under Reagan back in the 80's and has gotten worse since then.



I think we can very safely assume these were in 99% of the cases people who already owned weapons, most probably also illegally most of them.
Why would someone who didn't bother having a weapon until now go out and buy one? Doesn't make any sense.

If one qualifies to buy a firearm from an FFL dealer with a required background check, exactly how could their existing possession of a (any) weapon be considered "illegal"? Only in places where it is required to register a firearm (other than several large cities, that's not that many places) would unregistered ownership of a firearm be considered illegal... or possibly (though not likely) the individual owns some sort of unreported Title II weapon.

As for why someone would buy a firearm now when they didn't have one before, it seems to be a case of people rushing to buy guns now in fear (justified or not) that they may not be able to do so later. One of the biggest demographics in the U.S. now purchasing firearms is women under the age of 45. Why? I don't know. Grab one (not literally!) and ask her. But everyone who now owns a gun had to at some point buy (or be given) their first one.

[BDunnell]

Won't give you that satisfaction kid.



Said mr. perfection. LOL

ioan, I must say, this is immature compared with the comments of the person to whom you were replying.

[BDunnell]

Suddenly? Hardly, I've felt that way for a long time.

That's why I referred to people 'holding your views', rather than you personally, as I wasn't sure what your own view on the matter was.

[Jag_Warrior]

Won't give you that satisfaction kid.

I see that I've taught you well.



Said mr. perfection. LOL

And don't you forget it. :)

Jokes aside, there's no problem with disagreeing with one another. But we can do better than acting like we're in a schoolyard.

[Starter]

I think we can very safely assume these were in 99% of the cases people who already owned weapons, most probably also illegally most of them.
Why would someone who didn't bother having a weapon until now go out and buy one? Doesn't make any sense.
Read the article and the quotes from people interviewed at the show.

[BDunnell]

Again with generalizations and stereotypes. You're better than that, BDunnell. I mean that. I know that you are.

On this, I won't retract what I said. It's what I think. Such behaviour just seems utterly, utterly contrary to any definition of good sense to which I subscribe.



A lot or some... but not all. I have argued for quiet some time that our failure to address mental health conditions is one of our biggest social failings. The system was never great, but it really began going downhill under Reagan back in the 80's and has gotten worse since then.

You don't need to convince me of the sincerity of your view on this point, believe me.


Seems rather logical to me. But what do I know... I just get paid by Fortune 500 companies to solve systemic problems with a data driven approach. ...

As for why someone would buy a firearm now when they didn't have one before, it seems to be a case of people rushing to buy guns now in fear (justified or not) that they may not be able to do so later.

Given your (genuine, I know) desire to adopt a data-driven approach, I'm surprised you don't immediately come to the view that such fears are unjustified, as is any practical basis for gun ownership. After all, the risk of being in a situation in which possession of a firearm is worthwhile in a practical sense, not to say proportionate, is very small indeed, is it not?

[anthonyvop]

Guns cost money, don't they?


The RIGHT to own Guns costs NOTHING.

[anthonyvop]

Guns cost money, don't they?



So do guns, Tony. So does ammunition. Your definition is blatantly nonsensical, but what else would we expect?


Wow. You guys are either dense or willing to act stupid just to further your agenda.

The RIGHT to own Guns costs NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA!

[anthonyvop]

Back to the thread subject now, the death of 20 innocent children and their teachers, killed with guns that belong in the best case in the hands of policemen and military.


That just displays your ignorance of firearms and your total lack of tolerance for freedom


Most people from outside the USA can see the biggest common denominator in all these US shootings and point it out easily.
Those from the USA are trying to find scapegoats like mental issues, and the few who accept that guns might be the issue say it is impossible to control the ownership of guns in the USA while completely ignoring examples from other countries where this worked out just fine. It looks like people think that they will never be in the position of those kids, teachers or their families. I wish you all good luck and hope you will indeed not have to go through what those people had to go one week before Christmas.

I blame the parents of the killer. Even though they are wealthy they refused to get treatment for their obviously mentally unstable offspring and the Local Police who took over 20 minutes to arrive on the scene when called. Like most killers of this type he took his own life as soon as an armed resistance arrived. in this case even though he still had many rounds of ammo left and plenty of potential victims he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard the sirens.

Like most killers of this type he was a coward who attacked where it was most likely nobody would have offered armed resistance.

[SGWilko]

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?

[BDunnell]

Wow. You guys are either dense or willing to act stupid just to further your agenda.

The RIGHT to own Guns costs NOTHING. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA!

No, Tony. By the same token, you may as well define anything as a 'right'. By your line of 'thought' (I use the term loosely), one could say that it's a right to have a flat-screen TV. After all, the right to have one costs nothing. Your point is meaningless.

[BDunnell]

That just displays your ignorance of firearms and your total lack of tolerance for freedom

Unlike you, Tony, many of us don't solely define 'freedom' in terms of the right to firearm ownership. You may like to spout the term over and over again, but your manner of so doing is utterly, spectacularly trite.



I blame the parents of the killer.

As a right-winger, you should, surely, believe in direct personal responsibility being taken. Therefore, you should be blaming the killer.

[Jag_Warrior]

On this, I won't retract what I said. It's what I think. Such behaviour just seems utterly, utterly contrary to any definition of good sense to which I subscribe.

I just see it as an error to believe that anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to my belief system is in some way defective.




Given your (genuine, I know) desire to adopt a data-driven approach, I'm surprised you don't immediately come to the view that such fears are unjustified, as is any practical basis for gun ownership. After all, the risk of being in a situation in which possession of a firearm is worthwhile in a practical sense, not to say proportionate, is very small indeed, is it not?

Determining that what other people fear is justified or not seems more of a subjectively arrived at conclusion than an objective one. I'm 6'3" and about 225. My girlfriend is 5'5" and I guess about 120. What might be an unjustified fear for me could be a very justified fear for her - especially in say, a bear attack. See, I can't outrun a bear, but I can outrun her. She's got a lot to worry about, IMO. Sounds like she either needs to buy a gun or find herself a boyfriend who wouldn't sacrifice her to Yogi Bear in his bid for self-preservation. But oddly enough, considering my views and our relationship, she's very anti-gun. Go figure.

And yes, I agree that (statistically speaking) the chances of actually needing and using a gun in a violent confrontation are small indeed. As well, statistically speaking, most cops will never even draw their guns, much less ever shoot anyone over the course of their careers. Statistically speaking, most people will never file a fire insurance claim. Looking at stats tells me that if firearms are being bought solely for self-defense, they'll likely never be needed or drawn. Most people who own guns will probably never shoot anything more than a paper target. But I am unable to tell a woman living alone, a cop making a traffic stop or the guy who just put his life savings into building a house that their fears are unjustified just because I have stats that say so. I understand the point you're trying to make though. So with that said, do some people take it too far? Do some people take it to extremes, as if there are bandits behind every tree and boogeymen hiding under their beds? Do some people (like that paranoid schizo, "stand-your-ground", failed wannabe cop in Florida) start more trouble than would ever come their way if they just minded their own business? Absolutely! Some do. How much of the problem are these people... what percentage? How much of the problem are so called, falsely named "assault weapons"? Those people and those weapons tend to be the ones who make the funny papers, but they are statistical outliers. So in addressing the problem, by training, I would look at those items which would yield the biggest positive effect for the least amount of cost/effort. There's nothing so unique about this issue that the same methodology that I use on a daily basis wouldn't work here. And it's a damn sight better than everybody getting all red in the face and just screaming that their way is the only way.

Without wanting to sound too arrogant (yeah, I'm so perfect that I can't stand myself, Ioan... and you probably can't stand me either! :D ), I do fully believe that if people of my professional ilk were tasked with reducing gun violence by some initial, realistic, prescribed amount, it could be done in a way that very few Americans would object to one bit. At least you'd have something to start with... something meaningful and effective to build on. But that's not what is going to happen. Just like here, there's going to be a lot of hyperbole and emotional silliness (from both sides). And whatever we get will probably be very much like the health care law: some unworkable, clumsily written, piece of ineffective nothing. People will still die and be killed by firearms. They'll seize an AK from some old man and every TV station in town will turn out to take pictures of it. Exactly like our faux war on drugs... all ya gotta do is put dope on the table... bread & circuses keeps the masses happy. :dozey:

If I was a rich man, I don't guess I'd care. Like Teddy Kennedy used to, I'd likely call for a ban on all privately owned firearms in America... while I had a private team of men carrying fully automatic mini Uzis watching my back. Must be nice. Only I think he had an armor plated Mercedes. So ya know, I'd have to have an armor plated... (wait for it) Jaguar XJ long wheelbase! Yeah man! :cool:

[race aficionado]

. . . . .So ya know, I'd have to have an armor plated... (wait for it) Jaguar XJ long wheelbase! Yeah man! :cool:

Yeah, but does it shoot missiles? Traffic jams can be a bitch!

[race aficionado]

On a serious note, there are places around the country where gun buy back programs are taking place.
Some citizens are being pro active by doing what they think is helpful.
I like that.

[Starter]

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?
Plenty, when the government taxes it's citizens in order to provide that "free" healthcare to others.

[SGWilko]

Plenty, when the government taxes it's citizens in order to provide that "free" healthcare to others.

....and how much would you be taxed for this, and how would that compare to the amount you have to pay for medical insurance?

[Starter]

....and how much would you be taxed for this, and how would that compare to the amount you have to pay for medical insurance?
The cost of gun injuries on medical insurance is infinitesimal. Auto injuries alone are orders of magnitude more costly.

[SGWilko]

The cost of gun injuries on medical insurance is infinitesimal. Auto injuries alone are orders of magnitude more costly.

Sorry, I was expecting figures!

[anthonyvop]

No, Tony. By the same token, you may as well define anything as a 'right'. By your line of 'thought' (I use the term loosely), one could say that it's a right to have a flat-screen TV. After all, the right to have one costs nothing. Your point is meaningless.

Actually you do have a right to a Free Market. It is up to you to earn the money to be able to purchase it.

Sad that so many people seem to have an distinct inability to actually know what a right is

[anthonyvop]

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?

There is no right to free healthcare. Healthcare cost Money. Obamacare alone will cost Trillions.

http://www.atr.org/fiscal-cliffs-hidden-trillion-tax-hike-a7375

[anthonyvop]

....and how much would you be taxed for this, and how would that compare to the amount you have to pay for medical insurance?


That is not the point. I WILLINGLY pay for my health insurance. I decide what my Healthcare will be, Socialized medicine is funded by the Government taking money by force from the productive members of society to buy support from the unproductive.

Classic Curley Effect.

[anthonyvop]

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

[leighton323]

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Have you ever heard of the word "contextomy"? If not please do look it up. Here is an explanation of the true meaning of the quote.

"He was referring to the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (which was amended several times over the ensuing decades). This Act was, in practice, a total gun ban enacted to protect the British realm from an insurgency. By banning firearm possession for all but those authorized by the Realm they were able to all but do away with both military and private arms as almost no one was ever authorized.Mr. Gandhi, as you correctly state, was a lifelong pacifist. But, he understood that in the extreme a society needs to have the capability to defend itself from invasion and oppressive governance. This is not contradictory. It's merely an acknowledgement of the existence of extremes. I have in person heard the Dalai Lama (another life long pacifist) state the same thing. In short, pacifists are not entirely blind to the possibility of a need to defend oneself from extraordinary violence. However, they do believe that in most cases where one man would choose to take up arms passive resistance would be the superior choice. In India that proved to be true. In the Germany of the 1940's it wasn't. However, one of the first things that Hitler did was ban all the guns.
As far as the "Right to bear arms" crowd is concerned; this quote is far from mis-attributed"

The right to bear arms was in order for the Indian people to protect themselves against an invasion. This included the Indian Military being armed as well, not just the poeple, and it was certainly not against there own domestic people, as currently in america. This cannot be related to America as you already do have a military that is armed. So how in any way, shape or form can you relate this to personal gun ownership in America?

[ioan]

ioan, I must say, this is immature compared with the comments of the person to whom you were replying.

Sure I could call him a hypocrite in a nicer way, just don't feel like it given that his only interest in the thread was to call us all imbeciles who are flogging a dead horse. he also left this thread about a zillion times already just to come back again and again with lil' snappy comments from a self proclaimed high moral position.

[ioan]

I see that I've taught you well.

And don't you forget it. :)

Jokes aside, there's no problem with disagreeing with one another. But we can do better than acting like we're in a schoolyard.

Yes we can. ;)
What bothered me most is how you dismissed this thread when you joined it first, then you left several times as it was 'going nowhere' just to come back and school us again and again.

Anyway, I hope we can put this to rest now.

[ioan]

That just displays your ignorance of firearms and your total lack of tolerance for freedom


:rotflmao:



I blame the parents of the killer. Even though they are wealthy they refused to get treatment for their obviously mentally unstable offspring and the Local Police who took over 20 minutes to arrive on the scene when called. Like most killers of this type he took his own life as soon as an armed resistance arrived. in this case even though he still had many rounds of ammo left and plenty of potential victims he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard the sirens.

Like most killers of this type he was a coward who attacked where it was most likely nobody would have offered armed resistance.

Sure everyone else is at fault, but not those who want guns everywhere, like if guns can solve a gun problem anyway.
I say you and your like are at fault for all these shootings because you are against the changes which would in the long term put an end to them, and all this just for the pathetic egoistic reason that you want to feel stronger by owning fire arms cause otherwise you are afraid of the world around you.

[ioan]

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?

A lot less then the lives of those that could be saved by having free access to it.

[D-Type]

Have you ever heard of the word "contextomy"? If not please do look it up. Here is an explanation of the true meaning of the quote.

"He was referring to the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (which was amended several times over the ensuing decades). This Act was, in practice, a total gun ban enacted to protect the British realm from an insurgency. By banning firearm possession for all but those authorized by the Realm they were able to all but do away with both military and private arms as almost no one was ever authorized.Mr. Gandhi, as you correctly state, was a lifelong pacifist. But, he understood that in the extreme a society needs to have the capability to defend itself from invasion and oppressive governance. This is not contradictory. It's merely an acknowledgement of the existence of extremes. I have in person heard the Dalai Lama (another life long pacifist) state the same thing. In short, pacifists are not entirely blind to the possibility of a need to defend oneself from extraordinary violence. However, they do believe that in most cases where one man would choose to take up arms passive resistance would be the superior choice. In India that proved to be true. In the Germany of the 1940's it wasn't. However, one of the first things that Hitler did was ban all the guns.
As far as the "Right to bear arms" crowd is concerned; this quote is far from mis-attributed"

The right to bear arms was in order for the Indian people to protect themselves against an invasion. This included the Indian Military being armed as well, not just the poeple, and it was certainly not against there own domestic people, as currently in america. This cannot be related to America as you already do have a military that is armed. So how in any way, shape or form can you relate this to personal gun ownership in America?
Exactly. The Indian Military, the Indian Army, did bear arms and fought long and hard to defend their eastern border from Japanese invasion.
So this ban must have applied only to individuals. A far cry from the US extension of the right of the People to have an armed militia to allowing individuals to have personal arsenals.

[ioan]

Determining that what other people fear is justified or not seems more of a subjectively arrived at conclusion than an objective one. I'm 6'3" and about 225. My girlfriend is 5'5" and I guess about 120. What might be an unjustified fear for me could be a very justified fear for her - especially in say, a bear attack. See, I can't outrun a bear, but I can outrun her. She's got a lot to worry about, IMO. Sounds like she either needs to buy a gun or find herself a boyfriend who wouldn't sacrifice her to Yogi Bear in his bid for self-preservation. But oddly enough, considering my views and our relationship, she's very anti-gun. Go figure.

So it seems that your girlfriend is much more objective about her own fears then you are, most probably because your sentiments for her.
The question is, should we let subjectivity and sentiments rule our lives and the lives of other?
The best way not to have to use a gun against a bear is to avoid the bears cause if you get in a situation where one of them threatens your life then the gun will not save you anymore. Where I grew up the bears were visiting people's yards on a regular basis, yet no one needed a gun. I remember when we used to go for camping in the mountains and every night the bears were roaming through the camp, when the fire was going out, in search for food leftovers, never needed a gun, just kept sleeping and they left in peace every time.


And yes, I agree that (statistically speaking) the chances of actually needing and using a gun in a violent confrontation are small indeed. As well, statistically speaking, most cops will never even draw their guns, much less ever shoot anyone over the course of their careers. Statistically speaking, most people will never file a fire insurance claim. Looking at stats tells me that if firearms are being bought solely for self-defense, they'll likely never be needed or drawn. Most people who own guns will probably never shoot anything more than a paper target. But I am unable to tell a woman living alone, a cop making a traffic stop or the guy who just put his life savings into building a house that their fears are unjustified just because I have stats that say so. I understand the point you're trying to make though. So with that said, do some people take it too far? Do some people take it to extremes, as if there are bandits behind every tree and boogeymen hiding under their beds? Do some people (like that paranoid schizo, "stand-your-ground", failed wannabe cop in Florida) start more trouble than would ever come their way if they just minded their own business? Absolutely! Some do. How much of the problem are these people... what percentage? How much of the problem are so called, falsely named "assault weapons"? Those people and those weapons tend to be the ones who make the funny papers, but they are statistical outliers. So in addressing the problem, by training, I would look at those items which would yield the biggest positive effect for the least amount of cost/effort. There's nothing so unique about this issue that the same methodology that I use on a daily basis wouldn't work here. And it's a damn sight better than everybody getting all red in the face and just screaming that their way is the only way.


Good to see that you know that objectively guns are absolutely not needed for people other then police and army.
IMO you should not feel unable to explain people these things cause otherwise they might never come to understand and deal with their unfounded fears, especially when one sees the amount of brainwashing their are subjected to by organizations like the NRA.



Without wanting to sound too arrogant (yeah, I'm so perfect that I can't stand myself, Ioan... and you probably can't stand me either! :D ),


As long as you find someone who can stand you, you can still be a happy man.



I do fully believe that if people of my professional ilk were tasked with reducing gun violence by some initial, realistic, prescribed amount, it could be done in a way that very few Americans would object to one bit. At least you'd have something to start with... something meaningful and effective to build on. But that's not what is going to happen. Just like here, there's going to be a lot of hyperbole and emotional silliness (from both sides). And whatever we get will probably be very much like the health care law: some unworkable, clumsily written, piece of ineffective nothing. People will still die and be killed by firearms. They'll seize an AK from some old man and every TV station in town will turn out to take pictures of it. Exactly like our faux war on drugs... all ya gotta do is put dope on the table... bread & circuses keeps the masses happy. :dozey:


If you don't try you will never know.
Politicians will always talk a lot and do nothing, so it's up to the people to actually drive the change. What was that saying like? If there's a will there's a way!

[ioan]

Plenty, when the government taxes it's citizens in order to provide that "free" healthcare to others.

We have it around here and no one complains about it. It does cost but then you might one day need that free health care and it's nice to be able to rely on it.

[ioan]

Actually you do have a right to a Free Market.

Bollocks, that is just an illusion you have. There is no such thing as free market, not for the people anyway, it is all controlled by those who have the means.

[ioan]

That is not the point. I WILLINGLY pay for my health insurance. I decide what my Healthcare will be, Socialized medicine is funded by the Government taking money by force from the productive members of society to buy support from the unproductive.

Classic Curley Effect.

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on. Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?! Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!
Then why would healthcare be an issue? Because it is being put forward by a democratic president?

[Rollo]

Actually you do have a right to a Free Market. It is up to you to earn the money to be able to purchase it.

Sad that so many people seem to have an distinct inability to actually know what a right is

Even if you assume that health care is not a right (which by the way is not the topic of this thread), it's still less efficient on a per capita basis to provide it on anything less than a single payer system because health care is insurance question and subject to negative self-selection criterria and dy/dx of the cost of insuring insurable items approaches maximum efficiency when the number and type of insurable items approaches the total number of possible number and type of insurable items.
Mr Vop is arguing in favour of a less efficient and therefore a more expensive system on a per capita basis. In other words Mr Vop is in favour of more wastage in a "free market" system (which doesn't actually exist in the real world), than something which is more efficient and costs less on a per capita basis.

[anthonyvop]

:rotflmao:




Sure everyone else is at fault, but not those who want guns everywhere, like if guns can solve a gun problem anyway.
I say you and your like are at fault for all these shootings because you are against the changes which would in the long term put an end to them, and all this just for the pathetic egoistic reason that you want to feel stronger by owning fire arms cause otherwise you are afraid of the world around you.

Saying that banning guns would in the long term put an end to shootings is the same as saying that banning free speech would put an end to people feeling bad. A Stupid and dangerous idea.

[anthonyvop]

We have it around here and no one complains about it. It does cost but then you might one day need that free health care and it's nice to be able to rely on it.

Still doesn't make it a RIGHT. And frankly I am pretty sure that wherever you are I could find many people who don't like it. In fact there is no place on this planet that has better healthcare than the USA. That is until Obamacare kicks in. Then my Health Insurance is going to go up to pay for the slacklers and then be Taxed at 40% (YES 40 F*cking Percent) starting in 2018.

[anthonyvop]

Even if you assume that health care is not a right (which by the way is not the topic of this thread), it's still less efficient on a per capita basis to provide it on anything less than a single payer system because health care is insurance question and subject to negative self-selection criterria and dy/dx of the cost of insuring insurable items approaches maximum efficiency when the number and type of insurable items approaches the total number of possible number and type of insurable items.
Mr Vop is arguing in favour of a less efficient and therefore a more expensive system on a per capita basis. In other words Mr Vop is in favour of more wastage in a "free market" system (which doesn't actually exist in the real world), than something which is more efficient and costs less on a per capita basis.


Cost has nothing to do with a right.

In fact as soon as cost in involved it stops being a right. Everybody has a right to the Access of healthcare. The idea that anyone has a right to free anything besides maybe air is a ignorant and dangerous idea.


the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

[Rollo]

the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

Would you like to provide a link to back up your claim then? Please show workings. I should like to check any figures you wish to present.

[Starter]

.....and all this just for the pathetic egoistic reason that you want to feel stronger by owning fire arms cause otherwise you are afraid of the world around you.
That is an incredibly ignorant assumption.

[Starter]

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on. Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?! Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!
Then why would healthcare be an issue? Because it is being put forward by a democratic president?
You just don't understand that "free" and "built with tax money" are mutually exclusive terms do you? Just because the government does something does NOT mean it is free.

[Starter]

Even if you assume that health care is not a right (which by the way is not the topic of this thread), it's still less efficient on a per capita basis to provide it on anything less than a single payer system because health care is insurance question and subject to negative self-selection criterria and dy/dx of the cost of insuring insurable items approaches maximum efficiency when the number and type of insurable items approaches the total number of possible number and type of insurable items.
Mr Vop is arguing in favour of a less efficient and therefore a more expensive system on a per capita basis. In other words Mr Vop is in favour of more wastage in a "free market" system (which doesn't actually exist in the real world), than something which is more efficient and costs less on a per capita basis.
You get it. Please explain to ioan the difference.

[BDunnell]

Still doesn't make it a RIGHT. And frankly I am pretty sure that wherever you are I could find many people who don't like it. In fact there is no place on this planet that has better healthcare than the USA. That is until Obamacare kicks in. Then my Health Insurance is going to go up to pay for the slacklers and then be Taxed at 40% (YES 40 F*cking Percent) starting in 2018.

What is a 'slackler'? This is not a word.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes we can. ;)
What bothered me most is how you dismissed this thread when you joined it first, then you left several times as it was 'going nowhere' just to come back and school us again and again.

Anyway, I hope we can put this to rest now.

Yes, I most certainly did dismiss it. And if the thread goes back to a thread where people mostly just keep restating their concrete ideologies and trading insults, then I'd rather enjoy my evening doing something else.

I have no issue with joking around a bit to keep things light. But my days of "playing the dozens" (you'll have to look that up) are mostly behind me. I've found that life is too short for that.



So it seems that your girlfriend is much more objective about her own fears then you are, most probably because your sentiments for her.
The question is, should we let subjectivity and sentiments rule our lives and the lives of other?

Her dislike of guns has nothing to do with her objectivity. It would be hard to pass a girl off as objective when she has more money tied up in her shoe collection than some people have in their 401k retirement plans. She just didn't grow up around guns - though she has fired her fair share of ammo since we've been together. It's pretty basic and simple: just as I don't like to hang out at the mall, she doesn't like guns that much - even though she'll go shooting with us from time to time. So it's not like a religious/ideological thing, it's just a personal preference. It has nothing to do with any sort of deep philosophical or analytic thought.



The best way not to have to use a gun against a bear is to avoid the bears cause if you get in a situation where one of them threatens your life then the gun will not save you anymore. Where I grew up the bears were visiting people's yards on a regular basis, yet no one needed a gun. I remember when we used to go for camping in the mountains and every night the bears were roaming through the camp, when the fire was going out, in search for food leftovers, never needed a gun, just kept sleeping and they left in peace every time.

I guess humor and sarcasm don't always translate well on the internet. Uh, I'm joking about the bear and leaving her (well, unless I really HAD to :vader :) . Grizzlies are a totally different story, but unless it's a mother with a cub, most black bears (what we have in my area) can be frightened off by making loud noises - unless you're hunting bear, then you need to stay quiet (good tasting meat, BTW). Coyotes, they're not so easy to avoid if they're in a pack, as I've found. So I do carry a pistol if I go onto parts of my land where they den later in the evening - especially when I kept livestock that had young ones. Same with snakes and rabid foxes. And we're now getting mountain lions in this area. Depending on the circumstances, they will attack humans... usually from behind. So this is why I'll start having the little miss walk 10 paces behind me from now on. But seriously, do I feel the need to walk around locked & loaded all the time? No. But that's me.



Good to see that you know that objectively guns are absolutely not needed for people other then police and army.

Nice try. But that's not what I said, now is it? ;) But why do the police need guns? Didn't I say that most of them are unlikely to ever fire their guns over the course of their careers? I don't know what the situation is now, but wasn't there a time when cops in Great Britain didn't carry firearms? We'll just ban everyone from possessing firearms and all will be well?

Generally speaking, I don't tell other people what they need, don't need, what is practical for them, what isn't practical for them, what they should have or shouldn't have... and no one tells me either. The herd mentality just aint' for me. Sorry.



IMO you should not feel unable to explain people these things cause otherwise they might never come to understand and deal with their unfounded fears, especially when one sees the amount of brainwashing their are subjected to by organizations like the NRA.

Hmm, well, there's more than enough disinformation, misinformation and brainwashing being provided by organizations other than just the NRA. ;) Many here want to discuss the ideology and culture behind American firearms ownership, with the Sandy Hook tragedy as nothing more than a backdrop. That's unfortunate. But as many times as I've mentioned realistic, practical solutions, I continue to hear crickets chirping. There are a lot of posts here now, so maybe I've missed something, and I apologize if so. But if the anti-gun lobby's only solution is to JUST put some more words (most of which are "ban") on more pieces of paper, I think that has FAIL written all over it. Simple solutions for complex problems seldom succeed. Please, humor me... try: realistic... practical. Let's talk about something real and substantive, instead of the same old same old ideological crap.




As long as you find someone who can stand you, you can still be a happy man.

Yeah, I just buy her an iPad, jewelry and some Gucci shoes every now & again and she (says she) loves me.




If you don't try you will never know.

I just accepted a new job offer, but anytime the government wants to hire me and will meet my price, I'd be happy to try. Have laptop, will travel (to D.C.).

[BDunnell]

Cost has nothing to do with a right.

In fact as soon as cost in involved it stops being a right.

I have seldom read a more muddled set of arguments than yours on this point, Tony. At once you say that nothing can be a right that costs money, and that 'cost has nothing to do with a right'. This is inherently contradictory, even if one accepts your definition (which I don't). According to your argument, cost certainly has something to do with a right, i.e. you don't feel that something that costs is a right.


The idea that anyone has a right to free anything besides maybe air is a ignorant and dangerous idea.

In that case, do you advocate the free provision by the state of guns?



the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

Rubbish. You have, over the years, had pointed out to you on these forums many examples of how the application of free market principles to public services has proved far more expensive than would have been the alternative. You choose to forget or ignore these.

[BDunnell]

Her dislike of guns has nothing to do with her objectivity. It would be hard to pass a girl off as objective when she has more money tied up in her shoe collection than some people have in their 401k retirement plans.

In the same vein, do you not find it difficult to trust the opinions of gun enthusiasts who are clearly confused of mind, irrational of thought and incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence in their home country's language? These, more than anything, are the gun enthusiasts that worry me. Certainly — and, again, I say this with no desire to make a cheap point — I would have no problem with you living next door to me with a legal firearm in your possession, despite my view that the general possession of firearms is, in practical terms, utterly unnecessary. The same I would never say of the likes of anthonyvop and Roamy.


It's pretty basic and simple: just as I don't like to hang out at the mall, she doesn't like guns that much - even though she'll go shooting with us from time to time. So it's not like a religious/ideological thing, it's just a personal preference. It has nothing to do with any sort of deep philosophical or analytic thought.

I find the attempt to equate 'liking guns' full stop with liking going shopping a little troubling, I must say. Liking shooting as a sport I can completely, utterly understand. But I would never like guns per se. At guns themselves I draw the line.


I don't know what the situation is now, but wasn't there a time when cops in Great Britain didn't carry firearms? We'll just ban everyone from possessing firearms and all will be well?

Most policemen in Britain remain unarmed. I feel decidedly uneasy when I see an armed policeman — to my mind it's a means of placating a certain section of public opinion in the face of a security threat that is, in percentage terms, unlikely directly to affect the vast majority of people. Certain events of recent years have shown that little trust can be placed in the ability of the police to use their firearms responsibly. Given that, how could I ever think that a 'have-a-go' member of the public, not subjected to extensive training, could be any more responsible with their firearm — especially given that, in the UK, it would be a matter of extreme paranoia to feel that possession of a firearm for protection is necessary or desirable?


Let's talk about something real and substantive, instead of the same old same old ideological crap.

Into which category falls, to my mind, the very basis of widespread US gun ownership.

[Rollo]

Hmm, well, there's more than enough disinformation, misinformation and brainwashing being provided by organizations other than just the NRA. ;) Many here want to discuss the ideology and culture behind American firearms ownership, with the Sandy Hook tragedy as nothing more than a backdrop. That's unfortunate. But as many times as I've mentioned realistic, practical solutions, I continue to hear crickets chirping. There are a lot of posts here now, so maybe I've missed something, and I apologize if so. But if the anti-gun lobby's only solution is to JUST put some more words (most of which are "ban") on more pieces of paper, I think that has FAIL written all over it. Simple solutions for complex problems seldom succeed. Please, humor me... try: realistic... practical. Let's talk about something real and substantive, instead of the same old same old ideological crap.

Society of itself and corporations generally do not act any different to how they are already doing unless the outcome is either incentivised or a negative outcome is actively legislated against with punitive measures.
I have also asked the question of whether or not society, ideology and culture is shaped by legislation or not and have equally been met with glib responses.

Obviously the eventual outcome is a safer society; this does not happen with a prevalence of increasing numbers of firearms. If you think that placing words on more pieces of paper has fail all over it, yet are not willing to concede that words on a piece of paper created this weird blind devotion to firearms in the first place, then sadly yes, FAIL is written all over it.

I personally think that the time to act has passed. There might have been a solution but there is certainly no will to enact it. There are 51,438 retail gun shops, 129,817 licenced firearm dealers and with the the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry in the United States estimated at around $6.7 billion in combined yearly sales, I wager that it is impossible to put any substantive incentives or punitive measures in place that would make any difference.
Of course you continue to hear crickets chirping... that is the wish and desire of the people.

[BDunnell]

I have also asked the question of whether or not society, ideology and culture is shaped by legislation or not and have equally been met with glib responses.

This is a hard one to answer. Do we believe, for example, that paedophilia would be socially acceptable were it not for legislation? Or, indeed, slavery? I could pick other examples.

[Starter]

This is a hard one to answer. Do we believe, for example, that paedophilia would be socially acceptable were it not for legislation? Or, indeed, slavery? I could pick other examples.
Pedophilia would not be socially acceptable in any society as it harms children and we're all pretty much hard wired to protect them. Not to say that some don't do those things, but the vast majority of people find it repugnant. So legislation follows use and not the other way around in this case.

Slavery is a somewhat different situation. It has always been more of an economic institution than a social one. Mechanized society has eliminated most of the need for slaves. Though there are always some people who will seek to subject others to their will, be it through slavery or other means.

I would argue that meaningful legislation almost always follows use, codifying what is already practiced. When legislation tries to force use, outside of current behavior, it nearly always fails. Small impact examples are speed limits and large ones are alcohol and drug prohibitions. A significant proportion of the population must agree with the legislation for it to succeed.

[anthonyvop]

Bollocks, that is just an illusion you have. There is no such thing as free market, not for the people anyway, it is all controlled by those who have the means.

Wow......You have no grasp of what the free market is do you?

[anthonyvop]

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on. Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?! Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!
Then why would healthcare be an issue? Because it is being put forward by a democratic president?

I am not stupid enough to think that Roads, Police or Fire Departments are free. Only a fool or the unproductive think it is free,

[airshifter]

Quickly closing in on 900 posts, yet I fail to see any reasonable solutions that as Jag has asked, are both realistic and practical.

I have seen quite a few insane sterotypes, many thinly veiled ad hominem attacks, a great deal of thread drift into other subjects (often fueled by those sterotypes and personal differences) and a whole lot of finger pointing and chest puffing seeming to indicate those people won't budge in their opinions and are certain in their own mind they are right.

Much like Jag, I knew this thread would be an insult fest and go in circles. Unlike Jag, I'm not going to take the time to try to stop it or promote real discussion or dialogue, even though I know he had the right idea in doing so.

But at the end of the day, this is the USA. As stated already ridding people of guns just isn't going to happen. It would be similar to trying to take cars from everyone in the world because some drunk drivers exist. People here simply won't give their guns up, and they have a Constitutional right that backs them up in keeping them, like it or not.


I'm a gun owner myself. I'm also in a situation in which family members have both been killed by guns and protected themselves against immediate bodily harm with guns. My biases could easily sway due to those incidents. But I still don't think guns are the problem.... at least not guns legally owned. And though I don't really think I have a need for a gun for self defense, I wouldn't want to give them all up if the criminals now knew for certain my home couldn't be protected.

This isn't fear or paranoia by any means. This is a safety net against making things less safe in my opinion. In my years of driving I've never been in an accident, but our cars have air bags. I've got insurance for things I've never filed a claim for, yet I still keep paying that insurance. As for people who buy guns because they fear the laws might get tougher that doesn't surprise me either, but it certainly doesn't make them paranoid or afraid either. I haven't owned a motorcycle in years, but if I actually thought they would make laws against purchases I might go pick another one up in a hurry.


I think a great deal of the problem here in the US rests with illegal gun possession. Without enforcement of that problem we get nothing done. But I also think greater accountability for legal gun owners is part of that solution. We register cars on a regular basis, and the same could be done with guns. I would have no issue having laws that require me to do a physical inventory of guns on a regular basis, even if associated with a reasonable fee. Nor would I have issues with more laws that hold legal owners more accountable for ensuring access to their weapons is restricted only to those that could legally possess them already. But of course the strong pro gun crowd will say this removes rights, and that anyone should be able to buy a cannon for their own use.

Without compromise, neither side of the gun debate is going to get much of anything done. And with emotions being so high for so many on both sides of the fence, compromise doesn't seem to be much of an option.

[anthonyvop]

Would you like to provide a link to back up your claim then? Please show workings. I should like to check any figures you wish to present.

How about you show me one thing the Government(Outside of the Military which is run under different rules) runs more efficiently than the private sector. Just tell me one industry that is free from Government meddling that isn't vastly more efficient and profitable than a government run one.

Just one.

[anthonyvop]

Rubbish. You have, over the years, had pointed out to you on these forums many examples of how the application of free market principles to public services has proved far more expensive than would have been the alternative. You choose to forget or ignore these.

BULL. Name me one time where I said the the private sector would be more inefficient that a government run service.

[Rollo]

How about you show me one thing the Government(Outside of the Military which is run under different rules) runs more efficiently than the private sector. Just tell me one industry that is free from Government meddling that isn't vastly more efficient and profitable than a government run one.

Just one.

SNCF

[Rollo]

the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

As I thought, this claim is baseless.

[Valve Bounce]

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.

I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

I can only say that I hope the guns works in you favor, and that if anyone starts shooting, you willnt be in their gun-sights.

[keysersoze]

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on . . . Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!

It's hard not to post something sarcastic here, ioan. The US government gets their funding from tax revenues, so it logically follows that if someone is a taxpayer, that person is entitled to use those services. We have a right to complain about the conditions of those roads you mentioned, not just be beholden to the government for having them built.

[Bagwan]

How about a real simplistic suggestion ?

Bring the armed forces home .
Let the rest of the world sort itself out , and sit them at home to keep things safe .

Given the amount spent on patrolling the world , couldn't the USA have more than just health care ?


I see both sides here sad that there are lives lost .
And , both sides see a problem .


I've been all across the states , and I have felt nervous many times . I watched carefully behind me .
But , I've also been to London , and felt very nervous at seeing signs warning of un-attended bags being potential bombs .

Despite having spent most of my life here in Canada , I have very few recollections of feeling nervous about my safety here .
I guess that's just a throw away statement about how safe I feel .

It relates , though , in the fact that , all patriotism aside , I would see the gun issue as a serious one in the decision as to whether I would ever consider living in the USA .
And , despite really loving a few spots down there in the southwest especially , I would never consider it .

[BDunnell]

BULL. Name me one time where I said the the private sector would be more inefficient that a government run service.

That's not what I'm saying, Tony. Read it again. Comprehension isn't your strong point, clearly.

[BDunnell]

How about a real simplistic suggestion ?

Bring the armed forces home .
Let the rest of the world sort itself out , and sit them at home to keep things safe .

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.



I've been all across the states , and I have felt nervous many times . I watched carefully behind me .
But , I've also been to London , and felt very nervous at seeing signs warning of un-attended bags being potential bombs .

Why does that make you nervous? The actual risk is very, very small.

[keysersoze]

Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?!

When I was 6 years old I didn't have a job but my dad drove me around on those streets. I also had the protection of the military and police force, even though at that point I had contributed nothing to the economy. Your point is a difficult one to follow to its logical conclusion.

Taxation is one of those necessities that has become abused. Many taxes are immoral, IMO. Take, for example, income taxes, one of the most common forms of taxation. I do not know much about the tax rates, so this is a guess, but take three families of 4, all supported by one income. I will try to oversimplify this because with the tax codes and deductions--tax-free IRA, 401K deductions, etc.--this can be a complex process:

Person A is lower middle class, lives in a 3 bedroom apartment, makes $50,000 US per year, and because of his deductions (for his dependents), has a gross taxable salary of less around $25,000-30,000. He has practically zero tax liability. In other words, he doesn't pay federal income taxes but continues to enjoy the protection and infrastructure the governments (state and local) provide. In our country over a third of our citizens do not have to pay federal income taxes.

Person B lives in a 3-bedroom home valued at 300,000, earns a salary of 100,000, and after he pays property taxes (a pre-tax deduction) and gets his standard deductions for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 70,000. In the 25% tax bracket, he pays $17,500 in taxes that year. This family is solidly middle class and I would guess half of our citizen fall into this category

Person C lives in a 4-bedroom house worth 1,000,000, earns a salary of 500,000 per year, and after he pays property taxes and gets his standard deduction for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 450,000. In the 35% tax bracket, he pays over $155,000 in taxes that year. This person is considered rich, and I'd guess this is <2% of our citizens.

If the US goes off the "fiscal cliff," the tax rates for middle and upper class jump around 3%. Can anyone explain how this is morally justified? Citizens getting the same services?

It's almost the same as saying that the poor person pays $3 for the fast food hamburger, but middle class person pays $30, and the wealthy person pays $300--for the same hamburger.

[BDunnell]

Pedophilia would not be socially acceptable in any society as it harms children and we're all pretty much hard wired to protect them. Not to say that some don't do those things, but the vast majority of people find it repugnant. So legislation follows use and not the other way around in this case.

I don't think you've quite grasped the point here, with all due respect. What was it that made paedophilia repugnant in the first place? It's all very well saying that we find it so now, but that's not in question. How was this attitude originally formed?



Slavery is a somewhat different situation. It has always been more of an economic institution than a social one. Mechanized society has eliminated most of the need for slaves. Though there are always some people who will seek to subject others to their will, be it through slavery or other means.

Not sure I quite agree with you, given the very active campaigning against slavery from a social point of view. The effect of this in changing attitudes towards slavery, and its eventually being abolished, cannot simply be overlooked.



I would argue that meaningful legislation almost always follows use, codifying what is already practiced. When legislation tries to force use, outside of current behavior, it nearly always fails. Small impact examples are speed limits and large ones are alcohol and drug prohibitions. A significant proportion of the population must agree with the legislation for it to succeed.

Said legislation must also be inherently workable, unlike that relating to drug prohibition, and also be based upon the likelihood of practical effect.

[BDunnell]

When I was 6 years old I didn't have a job but my dad drove me around on those streets. I also had the protection of the military and police force, even though at that point I had contributed nothing to the economy. Your point is a difficult one to follow to its logical conclusion.

Taxation is one of those necessities that has become abused. Many taxes are immoral, IMO. Take, for example, income taxes, one of the most common forms of taxation. I do not know much about the tax rates, so this is a guess, but take three families of 4, all supported by one income. I will try to oversimplify this because with the tax codes and deductions--tax-free IRA, 401K deductions, etc.--this can be a complex process:

Person A is lower middle class, lives in a 3 bedroom apartment, makes $50,000 US per year, and because of his deductions (for his dependents), has a gross taxable salary of less around $25,000-30,000. He has practically zero tax liability. In other words, he doesn't pay federal income taxes but continues to enjoy the protection and infrastructure the governments (state and local) provide. In our country over a third of our citizens do not have to pay federal income taxes.

Person B lives in a 3-bedroom home valued at 300,000, earns a salary of 100,000, and after he pays property taxes (a pre-tax deduction) and gets his standard deductions for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 70,000. In the 25% tax bracket, he pays $17,500 in taxes that year. This family is solidly middle class and I would guess half of our citizen fall into this category

Person C lives in a 4-bedroom house worth 1,000,000, earns a salary of 500,000 per year, and after he pays property taxes and gets his standard deduction for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 450,000. In the 35% tax bracket, he pays over $155,000 in taxes that year. This person is considered rich, and I'd guess this is <2% of our citizens.

If the US goes off the "fiscal cliff," the tax rates for middle and upper class jump around 3%. Can anyone explain how this is morally justified? Citizens getting the same services?

It's almost the same as saying that the poor person pays $3 for the fast food hamburger, but middle class person pays $30, and the wealthy person pays $300--for the same hamburger.

I must say, I think in trying to have a discussion about tax I think we really are drifting too far away from the subject. Not your fault, I know.

[Starter]

Quickly closing in on 900 posts, yet I fail to see any reasonable solutions that as Jag has asked, are both realistic and practical.
Probably because there is no reasonable and practical solution at hand.

[anthonyvop]

SNCF

A government monopoly which allows no competition? Try again.

[anthonyvop]

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.



Aside from the name and the color of the uniform what is the difference?

[Bagwan]

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.

Why does that make you nervous? The actual risk is very, very small.

That came off as a bit aggressive . Go easy .

My suggestion would be to have one's armed forces for the purpose of protecting one's own borders .

I remember driving down a shiny , colourful street down in Buffalo(I know , it was a while ago) , where there were a variety of folks shopping away , and going through an intersection where it changed , instantly to delapidated tenements and burned out buildings . Every face on the street(every one black) turned to watch the four pale faces in the shiny car drive by .
I lived at that time in a University town , where the 70,000 or so faces were varied .
It was a culture shock for me . I was genuinely afraid .

And , as far as fearing an un-attended bag in my town , I'm ready to take on all comers .
I've never seen any signs warning about bombs in my town at all .

Back in the early eighties , I did the backpack tour of europe thing , chasing a girl .
I was displaying a Canadian flag on my backpack , and , in England , Holland , and Switzerland , I was met with "Oh , you actually are a Canadian ?" .
They had expected me to be an American , wearing false colours .

That's the main reason I think those troops should come home .

[keysersoze]

Aside from the name and the color of the uniform what is the difference?

The United States Post Office: a government run "business" that consistently runs in the red--4 million in the hole this year. I frankly think they don't even try to break even because, you know, we just raise the debt ceiling when there is a cash-flow problem. Meanwhile, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc., operate efficiently and seem to be doing extremely well financially.

[Jag_Warrior]

In the same vein, do you not find it difficult to trust the opinions of gun enthusiasts who are clearly confused of mind, irrational of thought and incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence in their home country's language? These, more than anything, are the gun enthusiasts that worry me. Certainly — and, again, I say this with no desire to make a cheap point — I would have no problem with you living next door to me with a legal firearm in your possession, despite my view that the general possession of firearms is, in practical terms, utterly unnecessary. The same I would never say of the likes of anthonyvop and Roamy.

Like with most things, sure, I often see opinions expressed by people who seem to be a bit kooky (I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular here). But at gun shows and things like that, yeah, I see people with or buying guns who make me nervous too. As with most things, it's the radicals and nutjobs who mess it up for everybody else. If the TEA Party had been a real and sincere movement for true fiscal responsibility, and not a cadre of wingnuts who are more concerned with extremist, right wing social policies or economically naive, silly people (led by Sarah Palin, et al), maybe I would have joined. If it was more like United We Stand (from the early 90's), I'm sure I would be a member - as that was the only political movement that I have ever been (and likely ever will be) a member of. But it's not. And my parents taught me very well to be careful of the company that I keep.



I find the attempt to equate 'liking guns' full stop with liking going shopping a little troubling, I must say. Liking shooting as a sport I can completely, utterly understand. But I would never like guns per se. At guns themselves I draw the line.

Not so much an equation, only to say that there are things that she doesn't like and there are things that I don't like. If her feelings about guns were that strong, I doubt she'd have gone shooting with our group (or spend time with someone like me). But I would be very surprised if she ever bought a firearm. She doesn't lose her mind around firearms. She's just not into them. She didn't grow up around them, as I did.




Most policemen in Britain remain unarmed. I feel decidedly uneasy when I see an armed policeman — to my mind it's a means of placating a certain section of public opinion in the face of a security threat that is, in percentage terms, unlikely directly to affect the vast majority of people. Certain events of recent years have shown that little trust can be placed in the ability of the police to use their firearms responsibly. Given that, how could I ever think that a 'have-a-go' member of the public, not subjected to extensive training, could be any more responsible with their firearm — especially given that, in the UK, it would be a matter of extreme paranoia to feel that possession of a firearm for protection is necessary or desirable?

Cops here would burn down the city of Rome before they'd ever be disarmed. And what many police here want is even more firepower -which disturbs me (as I know many, many cops). My local police dept. even has full automatics now. :eek: Now what do these hayseeds need with MP5 submachine guns? They don't. But all this anti-terrorist B.S. (like an Islamist could even find this place!) made it possible for them to buy some new "toys" with taxpayer money. But to your point, there clearly is a very deep divide (culturally) between what most people accept there and what most people accept here regarding firearms ownership. Like it or not, that is the reality that we have to accept before we can move on and maybe (I hope) discuss our ideas on lessening firearms related violence here.



Into which category falls, to my mind, the very basis of widespread US gun ownership.

I actually agree with you. But you understand that that ideology shows no sign of changing, don't you? So if we just want to talk about the ideology, then we will get nowhere on the issue of firearms related violence. If the only way that you see to lessen gun violence is to enact some sort of total ban (which many Americans would ignore, just as criminals do now), then we're back to square one, IMO. The people of this nation will not accept such a ban, anymore than the people of your nation would accept complete removal of the monarchy and the tearing down of Buckingham Palace and turning the land into a theme park.

To effectively address the specific problem of gun violence (or any problem, really), one has to just accept certain things, whether they are distasteful or not. I have to do that too. Much of the time I don't like it. But to be effective, I sometimes have to do that.

[BDunnell]

Aside from the name and the color of the uniform what is the difference?

The difference between having a country policed by military authorities and civil ones is, I would suggest, quite substantial.

[Jag_Warrior]

Society of itself and corporations generally do not act any different to how they are already doing unless the outcome is either incentivised or a negative outcome is actively legislated against with punitive measures.
I have also asked the question of whether or not society, ideology and culture is shaped by legislation or not and have equally been met with glib responses.

Once we accept how our legislation comes to be (and that it's not put forth by a dictator), then I believe the answer becomes more clear. Certainly our society is shaped by legislation. But more importantly, our legislation is shaped by the wants of our society. It is one thing to propose, pass and enact legislation which doesn't have total public support (we are greatly divided on many issues now). But it is quite another to think that something like a total ban on private firearms ownership could be railroaded through Congress, a President would sign it, the Supreme Court would allow it and the various law enforcement bodies would/could enforce it (assuming they'd even want to).


Obviously the eventual outcome is a safer society; this does not happen with a prevalence of increasing numbers of firearms. If you think that placing words on more pieces of paper has fail all over it, yet are not willing to concede that words on a piece of paper created this weird blind devotion to firearms in the first place, then sadly yes, FAIL is written all over it.


Please re-read what I wrote. I said "just words on a piece of paper". With the words that you're speaking about, there has been a will and a desire of the people (right or wrong) to hang onto those words over time - from even before the document was written. It's not as if there was no private firearms ownership when the Second Amendment was written and then all of a sudden there was.


I personally think that the time to act has passed. There might have been a solution but there is certainly no will to enact it. There are 51,438 retail gun shops, 129,817 licenced firearm dealers and with the the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry in the United States estimated at around $6.7 billion in combined yearly sales, I wager that it is impossible to put any substantive incentives or punitive measures in place that would make any difference.
Of course you continue to hear crickets chirping... that is the wish and desire of the people.

As far as a total ban on private firearms ownership, my knowledge of U.S. history is not complete enough to know when that time has ever existed. Maybe it did, and I just don't know about it. I've studied Roman history much more than I have studied American history. Maybe after the shootings of John F. Kennedy, his brother, Bobby and Martin Luther King, Jr.? I don't know. But nothing has happened recently which has caused a majority or even a plurality of the people to push their elected representatives for any sort of total ban on firearms ownership here. Things have happened that would probably cause many to want a close review of gun laws, the court system and the mental health system here. The time for that has not passed - it's rolling along quite well, in fact.

Folks, let me state the obvious here: if you could wave a magic wand and remove all firearms from every home and hand in the United States, you most certainly would have a safer environment overall. No question about it. You wouldn't eliminate crime or even murders and rapes. But with no guns (not even the police or the military), nobody could shoot anybody else - unless we revert to crossbows and bows & arrows. Not only would law abiding citizens, the police and the military not have firearms, but neither would criminals and mentally defective people. If that magic wand could accomplish that, then we could talk... and more Americans than you think would probably support such a (fantasy) measure. But there is no such thing as a magic wand. And just as I have to accept and deal with the reality of things like unions when I seek to restructure a manufacturing process in order to improve productivity and profitability (because that is my goal... the goal is not to bust the union or ban anything), then many of you also have to swallow hard and accept and deal with the reality of the gun culture here... if, if, if your goal in discussing this is to find realistic and practical ways to meaningfully lessen (as you'll never totally eliminate) firearms related violence.

But if the point of all of this is to just speak about and criticize the American gun culture, then that's something else altogether. That's just a dog chasing its tail for the fun of it. Just as with some unions, I may not like the reality that is there... but it is still there. And if I want to improve a current state and create a better future state, I have to work within the bounds of that reality. I have built a pretty decent reputation for being able to enact organizational change. But I'm not (truly) delusional. I know that I can't bend or change reality. I can't make a union disappear. I can't make hardened union members change their beliefs. I can shut their facility (if I'm allowed), but that is very different from my usual stated mission of improving productivity and profitability within a given, fixed facility. So to make some of the positions I see here work, you'd pretty much have to shut down this version of the U.S. and start over again somewhere else. Hey, maybe when we start colonizing the moon we can do this thing. :idea:

[BDunnell]

The United States Post Office: a government run "business" that consistently runs in the red--4 million in the hole this year. I frankly think they don't even try to break even because, you know, we just raise the debt ceiling when there is a cash-flow problem. Meanwhile, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc., operate efficiently and seem to be doing extremely well financially.

I have never seen any improvement in postal service when a private company is involved. But, again, we're going a long way off topic.

[Dave B]

Saying that banning guns would in the long term put an end to shootings is the same as saying that banning free speech would put an end to people feeling bad. A Stupid and dangerous idea.
This is where people fall down, believing the argument is binary. Nobody is saying that a ban or restrictions on gun ownership would "put and end" to shootings, no more than banning drink-driving put an end to road deaths. Of course there will always be a subset of people who disobey any given law, and no sane person would suggest otherwise. However all the evidence shows that of all the westernised industrial nations it is that banning or severely restricting access to firearms reduces the death toll. I really don't understand what is so difficult to accept about that.

[keysersoze]

I have never seen any improvement in postal service when a private company is involved. But, again, we're going a long way off topic.

And you keep responding. :p

Fed Ex changed the face of the postal service industry thirty odd years ago by offering to ship things faster. They were the only game in town. Then UPS and others quickly followed suit when they figured out the market was there. The USPS has likewise followed suit but it's a money pit--every year. My contention is the "improvement" is being fiscally responsible / profitable, and these other companies do extremely well. I've never seen a US Mail jet, but I see Fed Ex, UPS, DHL all the time. They have figured out how to make money.

Our government, on the other hand, could not care less about being solvent. That's because, drum roll please, they are using Other People's Money. When management has a financial stake in the company, money is spent responsibly. When it's OPP, there is no incentive to care.

The other issue is employee morale. I actually walk into a post office every now and then--what a soul-crushing place to be. Indeed, the phrase "going postal" was born from the phenomenon of disgruntled employees (or ex-employees shooting up the place). Never heard of that happening at these other companies.

[nigelred5]

The United States Post Office: a government run "business" that consistently runs in the red--4 million in the hole this year. I frankly think they don't even try to break even because, you know, we just raise the debt ceiling when there is a cash-flow problem. Meanwhile, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc., operate efficiently and seem to be doing extremely well financially.

Have you seen the USPS ONLY benefits their employees get? It repulses me every time I look at my benefit costs and see Postal/non-postal rates for health benefits. I have to contribute $230 a month more than a postal worker for the same exact health benefit plan. Why is that?

[SGWilko]

You just don't understand that "free" and "built with tax money" are mutually exclusive terms do you? Just because the government does something does NOT mean it is free.

Roads was given as an example. When my Son is old enough to drive (but still in education) he will benefit from driving on roads, built with tax money, that he has yet to contribute to. For him then, it is free. (assuning he uses my car..... etc ;) )

[nigelred5]

Roads was given as an example. When my Son is old enough to drive (but still in education) he will benefit from driving on roads, built with tax money, that he has yet to contribute to. For him then, it is free. (assuning he uses my car..... etc ;) )

as a minor, his contribution is your responsibility.

[keysersoze]

Have you seen the USPS ONLY benefits their employees get? It repulses me every time I look at my benefit costs and see Postal/non-postal rates for health benefits. I have to contribute $230 a month more than a postal worker for the same exact health benefit plan. Why is that?

This is the mentality that makes countries like Greece go bankrupt--pension and benefits policies that do not make fiscal sense.

We have a few situations here that
The same could be said for the United Auto Workers--each car that's driven off the lot must charge $5K just to cover pensions. I heard that stat 15 years ago--it's perhaps significantly more now. Oh yeah, and three years ago the US taxpayers had to bail them out of their mess.
I heard this one a while back: a lifeguard in California can get a $105K pension--another state that where labor makes the rules.

[Rollo]

And just as I have to accept and deal with the reality of things like unions when I seek to restructure a manufacturing process in order to improve productivity and profitability (because that is my goal... the goal is not to bust the union or ban anything), then many of you also have to swallow hard and accept and deal with the reality of the gun culture here... if, if, if your goal in discussing this is to find realistic and practical ways to meaningfully lessen (as you'll never totally eliminate) firearms related violence.

The thing is that, as has been demonstrated, there actually are no practical solutions. You can't ban anything, you can't forcibly take firearms off the populace and any incentivised scheme like a gun buyback would be like trying to remove the ocean by using a single bucket.
There are no realistic and practical ways to meaningfully lessen firearms related violence in the United States other than natural variation.

Then there's the wee problem of getting 50 states to agree to anything, which is a herculean task at the best of times.

[race aficionado]

So basically, we(USA) are screwed.

[race aficionado]

So basically, we(USA) are screwed.

But me being the eternal optimist will disqualify my previous statement by firmly believing that we will eventually move ahead with some changes that will get us closer to respecting the law abiding gun owners and also respecting the sanity of a sane society where the "us" will take precedent over the "I" and we will not be forced to all carry a hand gun (or a machete in my case) - oh but wait . . . . we still have to go over this "cliff" of ours and the debt ceiling and the fact that banks are not lending any money to us normal citizens . . . . but sorry, I digress . . .

And to continue my rant, the fact that this thread continues and some (in my always honest opinion) forum members are contributing to it with an intelligent and even a caring manner, it shows that this is a very important topic that not only affects the citizens of the USA but also the citizens of our planet.

[keysersoze]

So basically, we(USA) are screwed.

It can be looked at as an opportunity:

1) Sales of firearms goes up, plus increased demand causes prices to increase, making that industry financially healthier.
2) More training classes for firearms owners, which makes gun owners more knowledgable . . . and the gun industry has another source of income.
3) Registration of firearms is another source of revenue . . . for the states.
4) Applications for conceal-carry permits go up=more revenue for the states.
5) Mental healthcare fields have a higher demand for qualified graduates (along with de-stigamtizing mental health issues) to get ill people the help / support they need
6) Security companies may have to hire more personnel to keep up with the demand.
7) The police forces may need to recruit more due to higher demand.

[BDunnell]

It can be looked at as an opportunity:

1) Sales of firearms goes up, plus increased demand causes prices to increase, making that industry financially healthier.
2) More training classes for firearms owners, which makes gun owners more knowledgable . . . and the gun industry has another source of income.
3) Registration of firearms is another source of revenue . . . for the states.
4) Applications for conceal-carry permits go up=more revenue for the states.
5) Mental healthcare fields have a higher demand for qualified graduates (along with de-stigamtizing mental health issues) to get ill people the help / support they need
6) Security companies may have to hire more personnel to keep up with the demand.
7) The police forces may need to recruit more due to higher demand.

I'm reminded of a satire about a BBC newsreader's desire for the broadcasting of more 'good news':

'It's boom time for glaziers, as the IRA bombs the Baltic Exchange.'

'Good news for funeral directors, as 12 people are murdered by dangerous mental patients released under the government's Care in the Community scheme.'

You may as well argue that numbers of road deaths be increased in order to justify expansion of the emergency services, or encourage al-Qaida repeatedly to attack the USA in order to boost employment in the anti-terrorism sector.

[keysersoze]

I'm reminded of a satire about a BBC newsreader's desire for the broadcasting of more 'good news':

'It's boom time for glaziers, as the IRA bombs the Baltic Exchange.'

'Good news for funeral directors, as 12 people are murdered by dangerous mental patients released under the government's Care in the Community scheme.'

You may as well argue that numbers of road deaths be increased in order to justify expansion of the emergency services, or encourage al-Qaida repeatedly to attack the USA in order to boost employment in the anti-terrorism sector.

Yes, I love me some satire (in fact, I have designed and taught courses on that genre) and it became painfully obvious to me as I was typing that the inevitable "coffin industry spike" comment would be leveled. But I'm being sincere.

The only reason al-Qaida is a threat is because we willy nilly allow anyone to come to our country (we don't even deport many, and give them heathcare and free public education--all without any federal tax liability). But I digress.

It's too bad we didn't have security measures in place the day they hijacked 4 of our commercial planes and flew them either into a building or into the ground. What did we do afterward? Put an armed, undercover agent on board all flight and (so far) there has been no such terrorist threat.

[BDunnell]

Yes, I love me some satire (in fact, I have designed and taught courses on that genre) and it became painfully obvious to me as I was typing that the inevitable "coffin industry spike" comment would be leveled. But I'm being sincere.

In that case, I find your comments extremely depressing.



The only reason al-Qaida is a threat is because we willy nilly allow anyone to come to our country (we don't even deport many, and give them heathcare and free public education--all without any federal tax liability). But I digress.

The only reason? Really?



It's too bad we didn't have security measures in place the day they hijacked 4 of our commercial planes and flew them either into a building or into the ground. What did we do afterward? Put an armed, undercover agent on board all flight and (so far) there has been no such terrorist threat.

There may be other reasons, you know.

[keysersoze]

In that case, I find your comments extremely depressing.

I'm calling for gun registration and gun education. That's depressing?
College graduates have suffered because they have been unable to find work, and I noted the increase in demand for healthcare professionals to deal with mentally ill people. That's depressing?
I noted the increase in demand for security and law enforcement professionals--in an economy that just recently dipped under 8% unemployment and is recovering from the biggest recession since the 70s. That's depressing?

[BDunnell]

I'm calling for gun registration and gun education. That's depressing?
College graduates have suffered because they have been unable to find work, and I noted the increase in demand for healthcare professionals to deal with mentally ill people. That's depressing?
I noted the increase in demand for security and law enforcement professionals--in an economy that just recently dipped under 8% unemployment and is recovering from the biggest recession since the 70s. That's depressing?

I find it depressing because all of your ideas for job generation are based on what I consider to be almost wholly negative phenomena, namely gun ownership and feelings of insecurity.

[keysersoze]

I find it depressing because all of your ideas for job generation are based on what I consider to be almost wholly negative phenomena, namely gun ownership and feelings of insecurity.

So far we have 44 pages to suggest that the US has some "negative phenomenon" that needs fixing.

But I prefer to look at it as "enhanced homeland security" and "healthcare for the mentally ill." :p :

I'm pretty sure that we were pulled out of a catastrophic depression in the 1930s in large part due to World War II.

[Rollo]

I'm pretty sure that we were pulled out of a catastrophic depression in the 1930s in large part due to World War II.

The difference being of course that in 1941 the American people pulled together in order to defeat a common enemy. Not only will that not be the case here but a great deal of people explicitly do not want to and will fight in the other direction.

[keysersoze]

The difference being of course that in 1941 the American people pulled together in order to defeat a common enemy. Not only will that not be the case here but a great deal of people explicitly do not want to and will fight in the other direction.

Sure, and it took many months for the US government (and its people) to convince itself to enter the war. We were pretty much running out of options once France got stomped on by the Nazis. Still, it took the Japanese attack to finally make us declare war in the Pacific, and we only declared war on Germany after they declared war against us. We were, I believe, the last powerful nation to enter the war.

As for the opposition to gun control, I think the American public will need to see what the final bill will entail. Right now cooler heads are not prevailing and we have pure emotion and paranoia spilling over, fueled, of course, by our melodramatic media. In addition, this issue is still generating a great deal of information and the talking heads have been proffering their solutions too quickly, which the unthinking masses are all too happy to repeat.

[Rollo]

As for the opposition to gun control, I think the American public will need to see what the final bill will entail. Right now cooler heads are not prevailing and we have pure emotion and paranoia spilling over, fueled, of course, by our melodramatic media. In addition, this issue is still generating a great deal of information and the talking heads have been proffering their solutions too quickly, which the unthinking masses are all too happy to repeat.

What's the current bill?

Shootings Costing U.S. $174 Billion Show Burden of Gun Violence - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/shootings-costing-u-s-174-billion-show-burden-of-gun-violence.html)
The cost of U.S. gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.
...
Dividing the $174 billion total by the number of guns in the U.S. -- 270 million as reported by the United Nations’ International Small Arms Survey -- the institute calculated the cost to society of each civilian-owned firearm in the U.S. at more than $644.
- Bloomberg, Dec 21, 2012

I don't know how exactly you'd arrive at a cost of keeping the status quo but at least 10,000 people killed per year and $174bn seems statistically insignificant really, it's a little more than 0.1% of GDP. Perhaps it's just best that people die needlessly. After all, Americans have pretty well much decided that their increased health care costs are worth it for precisely zero net benefit.

[Jag_Warrior]

The thing is that, as has been demonstrated, there actually are no practical solutions. You can't ban anything, you can't forcibly take firearms off the populace and any incentivised scheme like a gun buyback would be like trying to remove the ocean by using a single bucket.
There are no realistic and practical ways to meaningfully lessen firearms related violence in the United States other than natural variation.

Then there's the wee problem of getting 50 states to agree to anything, which is a herculean task at the best of times.

To the contrary, nothing (that I'm aware of) has been demonstrated, regarding the practicality of any solutions. What practical solutions have we even seen thus far? Foolish, naive attempts, like the (misnamed) Assault Weapons Ban of the mid 90's, which mostly dealt with the cosmetic appearance of firearms, were sure to fail and I knew that as soon as the googly-eyes in Congress passed that bit of Hopium filled silliness. Seriously, I'm truly not aware of any well though out, data based legislation which has passed, or even been proposed, which has dealt specifically with any of the root causes of firearms related violence in the United States.

There is also no requirement for the 50 states to agree to anything (en masse). Even with an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessary for the 50 states to agree to it. Now, is getting anything through Congress easy right now? No, clearly it is not. Within the next three months, I may end up deeply regretting my (unannounced) decision to leave my current employer and join a new company. If we are plunged into a Congress-created recession, then I could very well be out of a job - and so will a LOT of other Americans. So even slow pitches are hard for these overpaid, half-witted crooks to hit. But under what (used to be) normal circumstances, even controversial bills (after being tweaked somewhat) could make it through Congress. It has happened many, many times. But to be practical, it has to be effective and able to be clearly explained, given the contentious nature of this topic in the U.S.

No one else wants to give it a shot, so I will go first. I'm going to base my hypothesis and proposals on the data, which confirms that those who have been previously convicted of violent crimes, and are already prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, contribute disproportionately to firearms related violence in the United States, which includes murder, attempted murder, malicious wounding, forcible rape and armed robbery. One data source (which I cannot yet find adequate validation for the study the claim is pulled from) states that 90% of the murders committed in the United States for 2005 were committed by people with a prior criminal conviction. Another states that "During the years 2001-2005, a total of 2816 murders were logged for the City of Chicago. Also during those 5 years, 2231 murder offenders were apprehended. Of those 2231 offenders, 93% had prior arrest histories. The high was in 2001, when 99% of murderers had rap sheets." So whatever the correct data is, nationally or from locality to locality, it seems that it is going to confirm that this subgroup ("previously convicted offenders"), within the total population ("people living in the United States... citizens or not"), should comprise almost the entire focus of my "proposals for reform" (for practical, logical and also political reasons). I'm also going to throw in something about mental health, but I haven't thought enough about what the most effective reforms should be for that broken system... it's just not something I know that much about. But some of these offenders are surely people with various mental conditions - I just don't know how many or what to do about them.

So I'm just going to throw out some rough cut concepts and ideas - some of which probably won't be liked very much by the pro-gun people here. Sorry folks, I have my beliefs but I am not an ideologue in most cases. I just want to see if this will get anything constructive going... or if people will just go back to arguing the who, why and whats of the Second Amendment and what George Washington had for breakfast on October 21, 1779. Add to it, subtract from it, modify it as you see fit... whatever you choose to do, but be constructive! And since almost nobody else has had much to throw in the pot on the topic of firearms violence reduction, just coming up with a cute/valueless criticism, without a corresponding contribution, may provoke a very sharp & pointed response from me. Merry Christmas! :wave:

The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:

1) Extended/longer term, "extraordinary" surveillance for any and all persons convicted of a violent felony or a crime which resulted in involuntary confinement to a mental institution for more than 90 days (arbitrary number there). As they are now "prohibited persons", with respect to the firearms laws, any evidence that they have violated this law may subject them to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

2) Gun show reforms which would prevent the sale of firearms in public places or those places open to the public by those without an FFL, unless a mandatory FBI background check has been passed by the purchaser.

3) A Strawman law which mandates that any person who purchases a firearm, and within 12 months desires to sell it to a party who does not possess an FFL, must use the (reformed) FBI Background Check system prior to the sale, to ensure the qualification of said person to purchase or possess a firearm. Any person found to be purchasing one or more firearms for immediate sale across state lines to prohibited persons or organizations may be found guilty of a Federal crime and sentenced to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

4) Court or judicially confirmed (not convicted) members of any and all recognized, organized criminal groups (street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, ethnic gangs, RICO violators, etc.) may be seen and dealt with as domestic terrorists - and all of the fun things that come with such a designation. As well, such individuals immediately become "prohibited persons" under the Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute.

5) The FBI Background Check System will be reformed so that private sellers of firearms will have ready access to the system. And any prohibited individual who attempts to purchase a firearm must have his identity reported to the appropriate police agency within 24 hours. All states will be required to report any and all court enforced mental health submissions/confinements exceeding 90(?) days to the FBI database. Failure to do so may result in the AG of said state being taken into Federal custody by U.S. Marshals and held for contempt before a Federal judge. Conviction may result in a term (ready??? wait for it!) not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

6) Upon purchasing a new or used firearm from any source that has to or elects to use the background check system, the identity of the purchaser will remain in an FBI database and a chain of ownership will be established for as long as that firearm exists. Should one, who does not currently have an FFL, elect not to use the system and then sell to suspicious purchasers... much like a fully assumable VA mortgage, you can transfer a firearm to whomever you like. But if the transfer is done without a background check, whatever trouble that weapon causes is all on you - because you are the last recorded owner of the house... I mean gun! BTW: *Any release of a name and/or address in this database to any entity outside of the courts or law enforcement shall be punishable by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. Breaching said database would carry the same penalties.*

7) Any individual, financial institution, financier or business entity convicted of being engaged in or enabling the smuggling of two or more firearms into or out of the United States (including the laundering of money from said transactions) will have 50% of all assets (beneficial and owned directly) seized by the United States government or be subject to a fine equaling 50% of current net assets payable to the United States government. Upon the date of said charge, all liquid assets shall be frozen and unavailable for use, for continuing business or legal purposes. Any individual and/or the corporate officers of a business entity tried and convicted of this crime may punished by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. 100% of these seizure and fine proceeds shall be segregated from general government operating funds and be used solely for violent crime and gang interdiction, police staffing, database operation and victim restitution.

8) Mental health reforms to include (but not limited to) the expansion of psychiatric studies and care at all publicly funded hospitals... especially for veterans. **Hopefully this is the one that someone, with a deeper knowledge than I have, will spend some time on and add something of real value.**

9) Any person deemed to be a "prohibited person" under my reforms, who is found in possession of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm, whether committing some other crime or not, shall be subject to a prison term of... what is it? I know that you know it by now!

Is that all? No. Is that everything? No. Is it a start? I think so... a little bit... even those items that might/would be challenged to the Supreme Court or by civil liberties groups... or my NRA bros. :p

[race aficionado]

The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:

The man got balls!

[Starter]

I've made a couple of changes / additions to your statute. Take a look and see if you agree or not.


The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:

1) Extended/longer term, "extraordinary" surveillance for any and all persons convicted of a violent felony or a crime which resulted in involuntary confinement to a mental institution for more than 90 days (arbitrary number there). As they are now "prohibited persons", with respect to the firearms laws, any evidence that they have violated this law may subject them to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

2) Gun show reforms which would prevent the sale of firearms in public places or those places open to the public by those without an FFL, unless a mandatory FBI background check has been passed by the purchaser.

3) A Strawman law which mandates that any person who purchases a firearm, and within 12 months desires(delete) to sell or give it to a party who does not possess an FFL, must use the (reformed) FBI Background Check system prior to the sale, to ensure the qualification of said person to purchase or possess a firearm. Any person found to be purchasing one or more firearms for immediate sale(delete) transfer across state lines to prohibited persons or organizations may be found guilty of a Federal crime and sentenced to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

4) Court or judicially confirmed (not convicted) members of any and all recognized, organized criminal groups (street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, ethnic gangs, RICO violators, etc.) may be seen and dealt with as domestic terrorists - and all of the fun things that come with such a designation. As well, such individuals immediately become "prohibited persons" under the Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute.

5) The FBI Background Check System will be reformed so that private sellers of firearms will have ready access to the system. And any prohibited individual who attempts to purchase a firearm must have his identity reported to the appropriate police agency within 24 hours. All states will be required to report any and all court enforced mental health submissions/confinements exceeding 90(?) days to the FBI database. Failure to do so may result in the AG of said state being taken into Federal custody by U.S. Marshals and held for contempt before a Federal judge. Conviction may result in a term (ready??? wait for it!) not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

6) Upon purchasing a new or used firearm from any source that has to or elects to use the background check system, the identity of the purchaser will remain in an FBI database and a chain of ownership will be established for as long as that firearm exists. Should one, who does not currently have an FFL, elect not to use the system and then sell to suspicious purchasers... much like a fully assumable VA mortgage, you can transfer a firearm to whomever you like. But if the transfer is done without a background check, whatever trouble that weapon causes is all on you - because you are the last recorded owner of the house... I mean gun! BTW: *Any release of a name and/or address in this database to any entity outside of the courts or law enforcement shall be punishable by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. Breaching said database would carry the same penalties.*

7) Any individual, financial institution, financier or business entity convicted of being engaged in or enabling the smuggling of two or more firearms into or out of the United States (including the laundering of money from said transactions) will have 50% of all assets (beneficial and owned directly) seized by the United States government or be subject to a fine equaling 50% of current net assets payable to the United States government. Upon the date of said charge, all liquid assets shall be frozen and unavailable for use, for continuing business or legal purposes. Any individual and/or the corporate officers of a business entity tried and convicted of this crime may punished by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. 100% of these seizure and fine proceeds shall be segregated from general government operating funds and be used solely for violent crime and gang interdiction, police staffing, database operation and victim restitution.

8) Mental health reforms to include (but not limited to) the expansion of psychiatric studies and care at all publicly funded hospitals... especially for veterans. **Hopefully this is the one that someone, with a deeper knowledge than I have, will spend some time on and add something of real value.**

9) Any person deemed to be a "prohibited person" under my reforms, who is found in possession of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm, whether committing some other crime or not, shall be subject to a prison term of... what is it? I know that you know it by now!

10) Any owner of a legally registered firearm who loses the firearm or has the firearm stolen must report the loss within 24 hours of discovering the loss. Failure to do so will result in a $5,000 fine.

11) Any person convicted of using a firearm in the commission of these felonies - robbery, rape, kidnapping or murder (other than self defense) - shall be subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

[anthonyvop]

The difference between having a country policed by military authorities and civil ones is, I would suggest, quite substantial.


Again. In a police state like yours the only difference is in the color of the uniform and in its name.

[anthonyvop]

And then you people wonder why we look at you euro-types with contempt.

Piers Morgan: Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws I may deport myself | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254758/Piers-Morgan-Deport-If-America-wont-change-crazy-gun-laws-I-deport-myself.html#ixzz2GZ06xA00)

Does this arrogant douche actually think we would even bat an eyelash if he left? Jeez. I know many who would pay for his plane ticket.....including the twits at CNN who hired that self-absorbed jerk.

[keysersoze]

What's the current bill?

Shootings Costing U.S. $174 Billion Show Burden of Gun Violence - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/shootings-costing-u-s-174-billion-show-burden-of-gun-violence.html)
The cost of U.S. gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.
...
Dividing the $174 billion total by the number of guns in the U.S. -- 270 million as reported by the United Nations’ International Small Arms Survey -- the institute calculated the cost to society of each civilian-owned firearm in the U.S. at more than $644.
- Bloomberg, Dec 21, 2012

I don't know how exactly you'd arrive at a cost of keeping the status quo but at least 10,000 people killed per year and $174bn seems statistically insignificant really, it's a little more than 0.1% of GDP. Perhaps it's just best that people die needlessly. After all, Americans have pretty well much decided that their increased health care costs are worth it for precisely zero net benefit.

Bloomberg, eh? Well, then. I guess the case is closed.

[keysersoze]

Jag and Starter--well done. I'm all for responsible gun ownership and common sense measures. Inasmuch as I believe in the Bill of Rights, lawbreakers should lose theirs.

[Dave B]

And then you people wonder why we look at you euro-types with contempt.

Piers Morgan: Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws I may deport myself | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254758/Piers-Morgan-Deport-If-America-wont-change-crazy-gun-laws-I-deport-myself.html#ixzz2GZ06xA00)

Does this arrogant douche actually think we would even bat an eyelash if he left? Jeez. I know many who would pay for his plane ticket.....including the twits at CNN who hired that self-absorbed jerk.
For once we're in agreement, over your description of Morgan at least.

I fail to understand his popularity over there. You guys love your armed forces, soldiers are worshipped as heroes, but this man deliberately put British and Allied soldiers at risk by sanctioning a front page consisting of a faked photograph of actors in uniform appearing to urinate on Iraqis [link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm)]. Piers Morgan is a worm, and you're more than welcome to him. We don't want him back. Please do not make the mistake of thinking he is in any way representative of Brits or Europeans as a whole.

But he's right on gun control...

[nigelred5]

And then you people wonder why we look at you euro-types with contempt.

Piers Morgan: Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws I may deport myself | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254758/Piers-Morgan-Deport-If-America-wont-change-crazy-gun-laws-I-deport-myself.html#ixzz2GZ06xA00)

Does this arrogant douche actually think we would even bat an eyelash if he left? Jeez. I know many who would pay for his plane ticket.....including the twits at CNN who hired that self-absorbed jerk.
Don't let the door hit ya Piers.

I'm in. You take paypal?

[nigelred5]

The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:

1) Extended/longer term, "extraordinary" surveillance for any and all persons convicted of a violent felony or a crime which resulted in involuntary confinement to a mental institution for more than 90 days (arbitrary number there). As they are now "prohibited persons", with respect to the firearms laws, any evidence that they have violated this law may subject them to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

2) Gun show reforms which would prevent the sale of firearms in public places or those places open to the public by those without an FFL, unless a mandatory FBI background check has been passed by the purchaser.

3) A Strawman law which mandates that any person who purchases a firearm, and within 12 months desires to sell it to a party who does not possess an FFL, must use the (reformed) FBI Background Check system prior to the sale, to ensure the qualification of said person to purchase or possess a firearm. Any person found to be purchasing one or more firearms for immediate sale across state lines to prohibited persons or organizations may be found guilty of a Federal crime and sentenced to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

4) Court or judicially confirmed (not convicted) members of any and all recognized, organized criminal groups (street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, ethnic gangs, RICO violators, etc.) may be seen and dealt with as domestic terrorists - and all of the fun things that come with such a designation. As well, such individuals immediately become "prohibited persons" under the Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute.

5) The FBI Background Check System will be reformed so that private sellers of firearms will have ready access to the system. And any prohibited individual who attempts to purchase a firearm must have his identity reported to the appropriate police agency within 24 hours. All states will be required to report any and all court enforced mental health submissions/confinements exceeding 90(?) days to the FBI database. Failure to do so may result in the AG of said state being taken into Federal custody by U.S. Marshals and held for contempt before a Federal judge. Conviction may result in a term (ready??? wait for it!) not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.

6) Upon purchasing a new or used firearm from any source that has to or elects to use the background check system, the identity of the purchaser will remain in an FBI database and a chain of ownership will be established for as long as that firearm exists. Should one, who does not currently have an FFL, elect not to use the system and then sell to suspicious purchasers... much like a fully assumable VA mortgage, you can transfer a firearm to whomever you like. But if the transfer is done without a background check, whatever trouble that weapon causes is all on you - because you are the last recorded owner of the house... I mean gun! BTW: *Any release of a name and/or address in this database to any entity outside of the courts or law enforcement shall be punishable by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. Breaching said database would carry the same penalties.*

7) Any individual, financial institution, financier or business entity convicted of being engaged in or enabling the smuggling of two or more firearms into or out of the United States (including the laundering of money from said transactions) will have 50% of all assets (beneficial and owned directly) seized by the United States government or be subject to a fine equaling 50% of current net assets payable to the United States government. Upon the date of said charge, all liquid assets shall be frozen and unavailable for use, for continuing business or legal purposes. Any individual and/or the corporate officers of a business entity tried and convicted of this crime may punished by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. 100% of these seizure and fine proceeds shall be segregated from general government operating funds and be used solely for violent crime and gang interdiction, police staffing, database operation and victim restitution.

8) Mental health reforms to include (but not limited to) the expansion of psychiatric studies and care at all publicly funded hospitals... especially for veterans. **Hopefully this is the one that someone, with a deeper knowledge than I have, will spend some time on and add something of real value.**

9) Any person deemed to be a "prohibited person" under my reforms, who is found in possession of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm, whether committing some other crime or not, shall be subject to a prison term of... what is it? I know that you know it by now!

Is that all? No. Is that everything? No. Is it a start? I think so... a little bit... even those items that might/would be challenged to the Supreme Court or by civil liberties groups... or my NRA bros. :p

I really have no problem agreeing with any of that. I have no problems with all transactions being registered or my background being checked. I do it already any time I buy a firearm through a dealer or a retailer.

http://www.mdgunsafety.com/mspfaq.htm

In Maryland, we aren't too far from most of those laws as it is. They just need to be ENFORCED. I have no problem with the gun show loopholes being closed. There is no reason a government official couldn't be present at gun shows to run the background checks through the current system for private party sales. FFL's should already be running the purchases, even on long arms. Every shotgun or rifle I've ever purchased was run through the system. Again, I have no problem with that. I have run all of my private sales/transfers through an FFL or the state police anyway. Yeah, it can be a hassle, but law abiding folks shouldn' have a problem with it, and someone that does, well, I don't need or want to sell them any firearms I am linked to. I don't agree with current statutes that sometimes allow convicted violent offenders to regain their rights to ownership, even for hunting. They did it once, they will do it again.

#4 can be problematic but needs to be better defined anyway. I know a person that holds the office of treasurer in a fraternal organization that was drug into a RICO case because an associate member of the club was arrested for a launtry list of crimes. The guy that was arrested is clearly a POS, but also owns a fairly successful and legitimate food distribution company. He is a very active member of the club, but he hasa few vices people didn't know about. The treasurer was charged with money laundering because he wrote a series of checks to reimburse the guy for food he provided for the organizations events. The feds are asserting the treasurer should have knowledge as a member of the same fraternal organization that the guy was involved in trug trafficking and prostitution (guy likes coke whores apparently).


*wow, I didn't realize we have a character limit. Had to snip the quote just to post my reply.

Still not one bit of that would satisfy gun opponenents who simply want all firearms confiscated.

[BDunnell]

And then you people wonder why we look at you euro-types with contempt.

Piers Morgan: Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws I may deport myself | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254758/Piers-Morgan-Deport-If-America-wont-change-crazy-gun-laws-I-deport-myself.html#ixzz2GZ06xA00)

Does this arrogant douche actually think we would even bat an eyelash if he left? Jeez. I know many who would pay for his plane ticket.....including the twits at CNN who hired that self-absorbed jerk.

This is the only time Morgan, a fool of the second order (I would say 'first', but there are one or two others I'd rank in front of him) and congenital liar, has ever been right.

Are you in favour of his deportation?

[BDunnell]

Again. In a police state like yours the only difference is in the color of the uniform and in its name.

Splendid point! Yes, I'm a fascist and in favour of a police state. Bless you, Tony, for pointing out points of view I hadn't even realised I had.

Happy New Year!

[BDunnell]

So far we have 44 pages to suggest that the US has some "negative phenomenon" that needs fixing.

But I prefer to look at it as "enhanced homeland security" and "healthcare for the mentally ill."

'Enhanced homeland security', in my eyes = means of exerting further control over the population by means of preying on paranoia regarding terrorism. Certainly it should be opposed by anyone truly in favour of freedom, as opposed to the trite notion of it we see from some here, who just think that spouting the word makes them its only true defender.

[BDunnell]

Don't let the door hit ya Piers.

I'm in. You take paypal?

So you're not in favour of free speech?

[Jag_Warrior]

I've made a couple of changes / additions to your statute. Take a look and see if you agree or not.

Very much so! Great ideas. :up: That's how these things get done (right); with people who are pushing for the same goal (increasing public safety and lessening firearms related violence) making contributions.



Jag and Starter--well done. I'm all for responsible gun ownership and common sense measures. Inasmuch as I believe in the Bill of Rights, lawbreakers should lose theirs.

:up:


I really have no problem agreeing with any of that. I have no problems with all transactions being registered or my background being checked. I do it already any time I buy a firearm through a dealer or a retailer.

MD Firearms Safety Training (http://www.mdgunsafety.com/mspfaq.htm)

In Maryland, we aren't too far from most of those laws as it is. They just need to be ENFORCED. I have no problem with the gun show loopholes being closed. There is no reason a government official couldn't be present at gun shows to run the background checks through the current system for private party sales. FFL's should already be running the purchases, even on long arms. Every shotgun or rifle I've ever purchased was run through the system. Again, I have no problem with that. I have run all of my private sales/transfers through an FFL or the state police anyway. Yeah, it can be a hassle, but law abiding folks shouldn't have a problem with it, and someone that does, well, I don't need or want to sell them any firearms I am linked to. I don't agree with current statutes that sometimes allow convicted violent offenders to regain their rights to ownership, even for hunting. They did it once, they will do it again.

#4 can be problematic but needs to be better defined anyway. I know a person that holds the office of treasurer in a fraternal organization that was drug into a RICO case because an associate member of the club was arrested for a laundry list of crimes. The guy that was arrested is clearly a POS, but also owns a fairly successful and legitimate food distribution company. He is a very active member of the club, but he has a few vices people didn't know about. The treasurer was charged with money laundering because he wrote a series of checks to reimburse the guy for food he provided for the organizations events. The feds are asserting the treasurer should have knowledge as a member of the same fraternal organization that the guy was involved in trug trafficking and prostitution (guy likes coke whores apparently).


*wow, I didn't realize we have a character limit. Had to snip the quote just to post my reply.

Still not one bit of that would satisfy gun opponents who simply want all firearms confiscated.

As much as I used to be for open gun shows, I've just witnessed too much funny business at the past several shows I've attended to keep that position (the most recent being the weekend before Christmas).

I understand your point about item #4. Actually, several of those concepts would need to be cleaned up and better written. I mean, under those reforms, Brian Moynihan of Bank of America and Stuart Gulliver of HSBC might find themselves in bracelets for allowing money laundering that benefited drug cartels and gun smuggling operations. In addition to my draconian fines, there would also be some heavy jail time for those who *should* have known or who didn't put measures in place to prevent these crimes. One thing I have learned about big business: the top dogs will never allow any sort of (known) funny business if there is a real possibility that it might affect their life and liberty. Isn't it funny that banks were able to trace small denomination money orders ($100 and less) that wound up going to Al Qaeda, but they seem completely oblivious to the hundreds of billions that flow through accounts benefiting drug cartels? But yeah, I understand your concern about getting small, (mostly) innocent fish in the net. I'd hate for that to happen (and I'm not judging your buddy), but another tactic that people in business often rely on when something illegal/improper happens is "plausible deniability". I just wanted to get some ideas out there as quickly as I could.

A little later, I'll try to further verify the data on what percentage of murders is committed by people previously charged and/or convicted of a violent crime or maybe any felony. From several sources, it seems that they do indeed represent a disproportionate contribution to the issue of firearms related violence in the United States. And it makes me very sad that those who talk about this issue as strictly one which involves "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines (not just the people here) will not engage in a discussion on how to address the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are already known to be violent or insane.

BTW, I am actually surprised that the gun owners here were largely OK with several of those conceptual ideas. Starter even added to them. I think he's a secret Soros/Bloomberg fan. We better keep an eye on him from now on! :D

Great contributions, guys! I hope that we now get some comments, modifications and/or additions from our European members.

[nigelred5]

So you're not in favour of free speech?

No In favor of a douchebag of the first order willfully removing himself from our shores and our airwaves. My distaste for him has zero to do with his statements on gun control. The three days during hurricane Sandy that I was without local news and was forced to listen to him and Anderson Cooper on CNN to have an idea of where the storm was going was dreadful.

[BDunnell]

No In favor of a douchebag of the first order willfully removing himself from our shores and our airwaves. My distaste for him has zero to do with his statements on gun control. The three days during hurricane Sandy that I was without local news and was forced to listen to him and Anderson Cooper on CNN to have an idea of where the storm was going was dreadful.

He is a truly awful man — with that I agree with you. But I'd much rather you kept him!

[nigelred5]

Very much so! Great ideas. :up: That's how these things get done (right); with people who are pushing for the same goal (increasing public safety and lessening firearms related violence) making contributions.





:up:



As much as I used to be for open gun shows, I've just witnessed too much funny business at the past several shows I've attended to keep that position (the most recent being the weekend before Christmas).

I understand your point about item #4. Actually, several of those concepts would need to be cleaned up and better written. I mean, under those reforms, Brian Moynihan of Bank of America and Stuart Gulliver of HSBC might find themselves in bracelets for allowing money laundering that benefited drug cartels and gun smuggling operations. In addition to my draconian fines, there would also be some heavy jail time for those who *should* have known or who didn't put measures in place to prevent these crimes. One thing I have learned about big business: the top dogs will never allow any sort of (known) funny business if there is a real possibility that it might affect their life and liberty. Isn't it funny that banks were able to trace small denomination money orders ($100 and less) that wound up going to Al Qaeda, but they seem completely oblivious to the hundreds of billions that flow through accounts benefiting drug cartels? But yeah, I understand your concern about getting small, (mostly) innocent fish in the net. I'd hate for that to happen (and I'm not judging your buddy), but another tactic that people in business often rely on when something illegal/improper happens is "plausible deniability". I just wanted to get some ideas out there as quickly as I could.

A little later, I'll try to further verify the data on what percentage of murders is committed by people previously charged and/or convicted of a violent crime or maybe any felony. From several sources, it seems that they do indeed represent a disproportionate contribution to the issue of firearms related violence in the United States. And it makes me very sad that those who talk about this issue as strictly one which involves "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines (not just the people here) will not engage in a discussion on how to address the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are already known to be violent or insane.

BTW, I am actually surprised that the gun owners here were largely OK with several of those conceptual ideas. Starter even added to them. I think he's a secret Soros/Bloomberg fan. We better keep an eye on him from now on! :D

Great contributions, guys! I hope that we now get some comments, modifications and/or additions from our European members.

I think you find that most law abiding, responsible gun owners have little objection to regulations and registration, which is one of the reasons I am not a member of the NRA.


Strip the heinous nature of the mass shootings out of the equation and take a hard look at the reality of the majority of murders involving firearms in this country, I think you will find the majority are drug related, gang related, and unfortunately, highly race related. Gun buy-back programs, restrictions on "assault" weapons and further tightening already strict gun regulations will not get guns out of the hands of these types of criminals. People always have the ability to turn a fire arm in to any law enforcement agency at any time if they don't want to have firearms in their homes. You don't think those buy backs have been financially motivated? Hold an open weapons turn in program and see what we get.

Our courts need to lock criminals that use firearms up, put them to work and keep them there or give the m the option of taking the cowards way out. I live in one of the tightest gun control states in the US and you know what? We have one of the highest murder rates in the country involving firearms. Criminals literally laugh at being arrested around here. Project Exile has been a joke and the so called war on drugs has been comical. You want to eliminate murder on the streets of Baltimore and most US cities, eliminate heroin and crack cocaine.

I know all about BOA and Citi. I worked for both and got out of that business 20 years ago. Unfortunately, my wife is still in the industry biding her time. I think she has roughly 18 months.

[nigelred5]

He is a truly awful man — with that I agree with you. But I'd much rather you kept him!

I think they were simply looking for someone even more arrogant and rude than Simon Cowell when they hired him for America's got talent and we got stuck with him. He's here by choice unfortunately, but if it' really so bad and distasteful to him to live here, he's certainly free to leave. Thankfully my television tuner works just fine. If we could eliminate CNN AND FOX News in some sort of epic newsroom showdown, it would be a happy day for me.

[BDunnell]

I think they were simply looking for someone even more arrogant and rude than Simon Cowell when they hired him for America's got talent and we got stuck with him. He's here by choice unfortunately, but if it' really so bad and distasteful to him to live here, he's certainly free to leave. Thankfully my television tuner works just fine. If we could eliminate CNN AND FOX News in some sort of epic newsroom showdown, it would be a happy day for me.

I genuinely believe Piers Morgan to probably suffer from some sort of personality disorder, such does he come across.

[Starter]

Starter even added to them. I think he's a secret Soros/Bloomberg fan. We better keep an eye on him from now on! :D
Bite your tongue!!! :p

[race aficionado]

Why don't you like Soros/Bloomberg?

[Jag_Warrior]

I think you find that most law abiding, responsible gun owners have little objection to regulations and registration, which is one of the reasons I am not a member of the NRA.


Strip the heinous nature of the mass shootings out of the equation and take a hard look at the reality of the majority of murders involving firearms in this country, I think you will find the majority are drug related, gang related, and unfortunately, highly race related. Gun buy-back programs, restrictions on "assault" weapons and further tightening already strict gun regulations will not get guns out of the hands of these types of criminals. People always have the ability to turn a fire arm in to any law enforcement agency at any time if they don't want to have firearms in their homes. You don't think those buy backs have been financially motivated? Hold an open weapons turn in program and see what we get.

Our courts need to lock criminals that use firearms up, put them to work and keep them there or give the m the option of taking the cowards way out. I live in one of the tightest gun control states in the US and you know what? We have one of the highest murder rates in the country involving firearms. Criminals literally laugh at being arrested around here. Project Exile has been a joke and the so called war on drugs has been comical. You want to eliminate murder on the streets of Baltimore and most US cities, eliminate heroin and crack cocaine.

I agree with all that you've written there. But as for eliminating coke and heroin, there's too much money in it to ever think that it can or will be eliminated. Did you ever watch the amazingly great series The Wire? Most of my law enforcement pals have commented that that series was 100% dead on the mark. The (so called) War on Drugs has been nothing short of a joke and a dog & pony show put on for naive people.... kinda like thinking that banning AK's will lessen the murder rate one iota.

The lyrics from the old 80's classic, Smuggler's Blues, say it all:

See it in the headlines,
You hear it ev'ry day.
They say they're gonna stop it,
But it doesn't go away.
They move it through Miami, sell it in L.A.,
They hide it up in Telluride,
I mean it's here to stay.
It's propping up the governments in Columbia and Peru,
You ask any D.E.A. man,
He'll say There's nothin' we can do,
From the office of the President,
Right down to me and you, me and you.

It's a losing proposition,
But one you can't refuse.
It's the politics of contraband,
It's the smuggler's blues.



I know all about BOA and Citi. I worked for both and got out of that business 20 years ago. Unfortunately, my wife is still in the industry biding her time. I think she has roughly 18 months.

That's ironic. I was working in banking in Maryland back then. It will be really funny if we eventually meet at a race and both of us say, at the same time, "Say, don't I know you from somewhere???" The money was great. But it's nice to wake up and be able to like/respect myself again... without the feeling that I need to take a shower to get "clean" when I get home from work - but the dirty feeling just wouldn't go away after awhile.



Bite your tongue!!! :p

:D



Why don't you like Soros/Bloomberg?

Based on their anti-gun views, it's kind of an inside joke among us gun nuts. Sort of like me saying to Daniel that he has a secret love for iMacs or someone saying to me that I have a life size poster of Tony George above my bed. :mad:

[anthonyvop]

So basically, we(USA) are screwed.

We were screwed when the Entitlement class approached to being the majority voting group and thus now just vote for more stuff from the Government. Add in a few % with White, liberal guilt and voila.........Totally screwed.

[anthonyvop]

The difference being of course that in 1941 the American people pulled together in order to defeat a common enemy. Not only will that not be the case here but a great deal of people explicitly do not want to and will fight in the other direction.

The difference is that now the enemy is a significant portion of the US Population who are drinking the Kool-Aid forced fed them by the Media.

I have already shown how the police are under no legal or moral obligation to protect the people and history is full of "Well intentioned" governments turning on its people and yet people still think that a unarmed populace is a good thing.

Sad.

[anthonyvop]

This is the only time Morgan, a fool of the second order (I would say 'first', but there are one or two others I'd rank in front of him) and congenital liar, has ever been right.

Are you in favour of his deportation?


Nope. I defend his right to say whatever he wants to say. Even if its is the vile, despicable, ignorant, crap that he likes to spew.

BTW I like the way he starts out saying he has shot everything from "Magnum 45 handguns"

Excuse me? First I don't believe that wussy has ever fired a gun without crying like the little Brit Girlie man but there is NO SUCH THING AS A "MAGNUM 45"

So his opinion is based on either ignorance or a lie. Something that all arguments for the destruction of basic human rights are usually based on.

[nigelred5]

I agree with all that you've written there. But as for eliminating coke and heroin, there's too much money in it to ever think that it can or will be eliminated. Did you ever watch the amazingly great series The Wire? Most of my law enforcement pals have commented that that series was 100% dead on the mark. The (so called) War on Drugs has been nothing short of a joke and a dog & pony show put on for naive people.... kinda like thinking that banning AK's will lessen the murder rate one iota.


That's ironic. I was working in banking in Maryland back then. It will be really funny if we eventually meet at a race and both of us say, at the same time, "Say, don't I know you from somewhere???" The money was great. But it's nice to wake up and be able to like/respect myself again... without the feeling that I need to take a shower to get "clean" when I get home from work - but the dirty feeling just wouldn't go away after awhile.




:D




Yeah, I watched the Wire. Easiest show ever to write. All they had to do was read the Baltimore Sun and watch the police reports every morning. I agree, it's 100% accurate, and unfortunately, I think parts of Baltimore may actually be worse than portrayed back then. Heroin has single handedly ruined many parts of what was a fine city. I recommend anyone that wonders why some of us are adamant about gun ownership spend a few hours and watch the Wire series. fortunately, I only work in the city and live 40 miles outside of the city, but it's effects are felt even at home. At least they keep the harbor and tourist areas safe.

[Rollo]

I rather like the proposals in the The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute Bill 2012. I note that it doesn't make mention of provisions relating to semi-automatic or automatic weapons. I'm wondering if this should be included...



6) Upon purchasing a new or used firearm from any source that has to or elects to use the background check system, the identity of the purchaser will remain in an FBI database and a chain of ownership will be established for as long as that firearm exists. Should one, who does not currently have an FFL, elect not to use the system and then sell to suspicious purchasers... much like a fully assumable VA mortgage, you can transfer a firearm to whomever you like. But if the transfer is done without a background check, whatever trouble that weapon causes is all on you - because you are the last recorded owner of the house... I mean gun! BTW: *Any release of a name and/or address in this database to any entity outside of the courts or law enforcement shall be punishable by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. Breaching said database would carry the same penalties.*


When I register a motor car in NSW, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine number are recorded. I'm wondering if this database which you propose should include standardised serial numbers (which the manufacturers would agree to) and if parts don't match up, it should raise flags in the system.

[nigelred5]

I rather like the proposals in the The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute Bill 2012. I note that it doesn't make mention of provisions relating to semi-automatic or automatic weapons. I'm wondering if this should be included...



When I register a motor car in NSW, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine number are recorded. I'm wondering if this database which you propose should include standardised serial numbers (which the manufacturers would agree to) and if parts don't match up, it should raise flags in the system.

All guns are already serialized and possession of a non numbered firearm is a federal offense under the federal gun control act of 1968. It is also a state offense in all states as far as I know. In my state all new handguns must also be accompanied by a test fired round from the manufacturer, even though many experts question the practical usefulness of this method of ballistic matching. You do not want to be cought in possession of a gun with a removed serial number. Fully automatic weapons and most so called and identified assault weapons are already highly restricted in most states and under the federal government. This includes handguns. Most transfers or sales of these restricted weapons legally have to go through an FFL or a local police department. I guarantee, despite provisions that records of firearms sales are not supposed to be retained by the state or federal government after completion of a transfer, the ATF and Maryland State police know exactly how many restricted weapons should be in my posession from my transactions and background checks. Actual registration of ALL firearms has been highly controversial with the staunchest pro gun advocates, primarily as an infringement of a constitutional right to privacy. Maryland tried it... it was scrapped as cumbersome to administer and ineffective, and IIRC even the state police were against it. Maryland also attempted to force serialization of all ammunition which would have also essentially outlawed home reloading which drew an even larger outcry. That effort was stillborn.
It is quite a misnomer that anyone in this country can just walk into a store like a Walmart and walk out with a firearm without questionin most areas. Even an unregulated firearm like a shotgun requires a BACKGROUND check and a registration of the sale.

[race aficionado]

The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:


In the The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:


What do you mean by firearms?


What weapons are you, Mr. Jag_Warrior, civilian, allowed to purchase legally? And as many as you wish?

[anthonyvop]

Despite Gun Control, Dutch Shooting Rampages Becoming Common (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/30/Dutch-Shooting-rampages-becoming-common-despite-Gun-Control)

WTF is going on in Europe?

[Rollo]

Despite Gun Control, Dutch Shooting Rampages Becoming Common (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/30/Dutch-Shooting-rampages-becoming-common-despite-Gun-Control)

WTF is going on in Europe?

Would the deaths of two people even make any news at all in the United States? Of course the people of the Netherlands would be outraged, there are different norms in that country.

What is your point here exactly?

[nigelred5]

Would the deaths of two people even make any news at all in the United States? Of course the people of the Netherlands would be outraged, there are different norms in that country.

What is your point here exactly?

oh, that despite total bans on automatic weapons, a shooting occurred.... and yes, the shooting of anyone does make the news here in the US. Nationally, maybe not, but then we are comparing a country of 16m people with the US. We have cities larger than the entire country and with that, proportionately larger problems. As do most shootings in the US, this shooting clearly involved criminals and illegal firearms.

[BDunnell]

The difference is that now the enemy is a significant portion of the US Population who are drinking the Kool-Aid forced fed them by the Media.

'The enemy'? Honestly, get real. You genuinely equate those with a different view to yours on gun control with the Japanese in 1941?

[BDunnell]

Nope. I defend his right to say whatever he wants to say. Even if its is the vile, despicable, ignorant, crap that he likes to spew.

BTW I like the way he starts out saying he has shot everything from "Magnum 45 handguns"

Excuse me? First I don't believe that wussy has ever fired a gun without crying like the little Brit Girlie man but there is NO SUCH THING AS A "MAGNUM 45"

So his opinion is based on either ignorance or a lie. Something that all arguments for the destruction of basic human rights are usually based on.

I don't believe he's ever fired a wide range of guns either. Mind you, I don't believe that you brought that gun to Europe illegally, so you are as bad as each other.

[BDunnell]

Despite Gun Control, Dutch Shooting Rampages Becoming Common (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/30/Dutch-Shooting-rampages-becoming-common-despite-Gun-Control)

WTF is going on in Europe?

I'm confused here. In one post you are critical of how people 'drink the Kool-Aid force-fed them by the media'; then in another you uncritically wheel out an article from the media in which the headline says that 'Dutch shooting rampages (are) becoming common', when said article offers no evidence of the sort. I would contend that shooting rampages are not becoming common in the Netherlands at all. You, Tony, are an ignoramus of the highest order when it comes to what's 'going on in Europe'. You have not the faintest idea. Your comments on any subject relating to matters from outside the USA's borders are always embarrassingly laughable.

[BDunnell]

Would the deaths of two people even make any news at all in the United States? Of course the people of the Netherlands would be outraged, there are different norms in that country.

What is your point here exactly?

The point is that Tony is, as ever, desperately keen to show us that he can key the phrase 'SPURIOUS EVIDENCE FROM CRAP MEDIA OUTLETS OF EUROPEAN VIOLENCE' into Google. It's not a bad skill, but it's no substitute for actual knowledge.

[anthonyvop]

Would the deaths of two people even make any news at all in the United States? Of course the people of the Netherlands would be outraged, there are different norms in that country.

What is your point here exactly?


That is obvious that the people of the Netherlands are victims of a repressive government and should be allowed to defend themselves as only a fool would think the police will.

[anthonyvop]

Another victory for Gun Control

At least 9 people shot in early hours of new year - Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/17331248-761/at-least-9-people-shot-in-early-hours-of-new-year.html)

[Jag_Warrior]

Nope. I defend his right to say whatever he wants to say. Even if its is the vile, despicable, ignorant, crap that he likes to spew.

BTW I like the way he starts out saying he has shot everything from "Magnum 45 handguns"

Excuse me? First I don't believe that wussy has ever fired a gun without crying like the little Brit Girlie man but there is NO SUCH THING AS A "MAGNUM 45"

So his opinion is based on either ignorance or a lie. Something that all arguments for the destruction of basic human rights are usually based on.

While it's not exactly called the "Magnum 45", there are several firearms chambered for the .45 Win Mag cartridge. Two of the more popular models are the AMT Automag IV and the LAR Grizzly. And I *believe* there is a barrel for the Thompson Encore single shot pistol which is chambered for that round. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of that round in the AMT Automag, having used one to take down a wild boar with one shot at roughly 40 yards. Compared to the .44 magnum (in a revolver), I much prefer the .45 Win Mag (in a semi-auto). IMO, it's a sweet and ideal round. The recoil is much less, the muzzle velocity is relatively high, it's more controllable and the knock-down is just as good +/- as the "Dirty Harry" caliber. It (the AMT and I suspect the LAR too) is a big heavy beast of a weapon though.

I haven't read or heard Morgan's comments on this (or most any) issue - have no idea what he's on about. But yeah, there is a "Magnum 45"/.45 magnum.



We were screwed when the Entitlement class approached to being the majority voting group and thus now just vote for more stuff from the Government. Add in a few % with White, liberal guilt and voila.........Totally screwed.

Yes, we do have an entitlement class (of sorts) and we also have a very similar class which is delusional in its belief that the overly generous benefits extended to the ultra wealthy also benefit them - all while they feed from the same trough as the people who they look down upon. While they themselves are collecting SSI, disability, food stamps, Section 8 housing, discounted school lunches, etc., they (somehow) don't see themselves as takers... yet they most certainly are (more so than the "blue states", the "red states" tend to get more from the Federal pot than they put into the Federal pot... that's simply a fact - that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion). IMO, there are too many extremists and ideologues on both sides. But right now, sadly, the far right seems to have fairly well taken control of what once was a fairly rational, sensible party, that could intelligently present alternate views, and made it a sad joke... by spouting all manner of baseless propaganda, foolishness and ignorance at every turn. Social conservatives and extremists posing as fiscal conservatives... and most of them couldn't pass a basic Econ 101 course taught at a community college. :rolleyes:

Here is an example of the political hypocrisy which I am speaking about. I find it extremely amusing to observe people who are, in fact, that which they claim to abhor. And yes, I am aware of the source of this video. But I am also well aware that the portrayal is not entirely inaccurate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54rcz_L5Q4

But as this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I have no intention of being pulled off topic, I won't address this again.




In the The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:


What do you mean by firearms?

By "firearms" I mean those weapons covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. In short, basically any modern weapon, produced after 1898(?), which fires a rimfire or centerfire cartridge which is still in production.



What weapons are you, Mr. Jag_Warrior, civilian, allowed to purchase legally? And as many as you wish?

It varies from state to state. The way our laws work, a state law (most any state law) may be more restrictive, but not less restrictive, than the corresponding Federal law. So while a civilian may be allowed to purchase a semi-auto .50 cal Barrett in my state (because Federal law allows it and our state law does not prohibit it), I don't believe it is legal for purchase in California and several other states. And while I'm not arguing for the practicality of this particular firearm, as far as I know, it has never been used in the commission of any crime in the United States. It's not exactly small or concealable. Even someone my size would have trouble lugging that beast around to do any dirt with it.

As for types of weapons which are (Federally) available, most any weapon which falls within the above statutes is available for civilians to purchase, unless their state prohibits it. It is legally possible (Federally) for civilians to purchase certain select fire and fully automatic weapons here - it's just not very easy (or cost effective). But only certain ones produced before 1986 are legal. And to make the purchase, it can occur only after submitting oneself to a very thorough FBI background check, being willing and able to pay a Title II fee to the ATF and realizing that your name will be on a hot list with any and all local and state police agencies. This is probably why there have been no murders with legally owned civilian full or select fire weapons in several decades. The last one that I'm aware of was by a rogue FBI agent who murdered his prostitute girlfriend/mistress. I'm not actually certain of the last instance of a (actual) civilian using a legally owned full/select fire weapon to commit a crime. I just don't know. But apparently it's extremely rare. But now, there are quite a few illegally owned full auto and select fire weapons though. Typically they are smuggled into the U.S. by the Russian/Israeli mob, Mexican cartels and Chinese smugglers (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-21/news/9612210093_1_charles-yah-lin-trie-then-dnc-john-huang). And they are mostly in the hands of organized crime and street gangs. The money for and from these transactions has flowed through some/most of the biggest money center banks, like Bank of America, Well Fargo (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html) and HSBC (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/report-hsbc-allowed-money-laundering-likely-funded-terror-drugs-889170).

[Dave B]

The difference is that now the enemy is a significant portion of the US Population who are drinking the Kool-Aid forced fed them by the Media.

You do know that "the media" isn't one single entity but is composed of hundreds if not thousands of publications, TV and radio networks, and increasingly bloggers and Tweeters, yes? Once you start making out that there's some mass conspiracy at work you really do lose the tiny shard of remaining credibility.

[race aficionado]

It varies from state to state.

And would your propose that these stay as is? I notice that the term "assault weapon" has too many deviations and loop holes (definitions)
How would you categorize what you Jag_Warrior, civilian :) is allowed to carry or keep safe at your home?

[EightGear]

That is obvious that the people of the Netherlands are victims of a repressive government and should be allowed to defend themselves as only a fool would think the police will.


Yeah, sure. Victims of a repressive government, that's one of the funniest things I have ever read about my country. (That's a Dutch flag next to my name, in case you didn't know)

[Jag_Warrior]

I rather like the proposals in the The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute Bill 2012. I note that it doesn't make mention of provisions relating to semi-automatic or automatic weapons. I'm wondering if this should be included...

Under my reforms, it would be (actually is even now) illegal for a person with a confirmed mental disability or who has been convicted of certain crimes to even possess a single round of ammunition. One .22 caliber bullet in your pocket and you go away for a minimum of 10 years and a max of 20 years. But unlike now, under my reforms, it won't matter if you're a cute little blue-eyed blonde, who never missed church, whether or not you were high or drunk when you committed the crime that brought you a violent felony conviction, or even if your dear old daddy is the governor of the state - you are going to prison under the Jag_Warrior Reforms. For once, justice will be blind... though rather cold - but I believe this would be effective. Anyway, that being the case, it goes without saying that these people could not possess semi or fully automatic weapons either, so I didn't see the need to pull them out for separate penalties. But I'm perfectly fine with adding even more time to a sentence if a criminal is found to be in possession of a Title II weapon of any type. Apparently they had a (non-functional) rocket launcher turned in on that L.A. gun buyback program the other day. Now that's pretty interesting. I bet they didn't buy that thing at a gun show or at Walmart, huh? :D It didn't work, but still, that should tell people that we've got some things floating around on our streets that indicate the source for these weapons is a key issue.




When I register a motor car in NSW, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine number are recorded. I'm wondering if this database which you propose should include standardised serial numbers (which the manufacturers would agree to) and if parts don't match up, it should raise flags in the system.

Nigel has already provided a very good explanation of how the system is set up now. Though I could now be convinced that the system should be enhanced (to provide for longer term traceability), possessing any firearm without serial numbers is a quick ticket to jail right now... in any state - it's a Federal law.

Hey, I know that we're not capable of solving this (or any) problem on a message board, but is anyone else also getting the feeling that once we took some of the emotion and propaganda out of it, and started discussing facts and data, we've been able to talk with each other and not just at each other? And to the members who don't live in the U.S. (and maybe to some of those who do), as we discuss, ask and learn more about the (actual) existing gun laws in the U.S., I believe that the discussion will get even better and more constructive. It's not about bending anyone's opinion or making them change their position. But at least we'd all be speaking based on data and facts and not just emotion. Cool?

[nigelred5]

And would your propose that these stay as is? I notice that the term "assault weapon" has too many deviations and loop holes (definitions)
How would you categorize what you Jag_Warrior, civilian :) is allowed to carry or keep safe at your home?

I would strongly suggest the term be eliminated from the vernacular altogether... It is misleading, inaccurate and selectively used by those with a particular agenda when convenient. In general those that advocate the outright ban of civilian posession of all firearms. The assault weapons ban of 1994 did one thing... it created an industry by clearly defining what it could not be while totally missing the opportunity to actually define the characteristics of the targeted types of weapons it was supposedly intended to restrict. I've yet to see one report of a civilian killed by a bayonet attack or a flash supressor, and I have no idea how a collapsible stock vs a fixed stock changes the equation other than possibly making them more concealable. Banning so called machine pistols was about a close as they actually got.

Why is there ANY confusion over what is termed a firearm? Firearms are guns, plain and simple. "Arms" as protected by the Second are NOT restricted to FIREarms. Knives, spears, swords, stunguns, are all protected, however there are indeed restrictions on all of these at the state level as well. You want restrictions, regulations, prohibitions, that is up to teh state as Jag_Warrior pointed out.

ENFORCE the LAWS we already have.

[BDunnell]

(That's a Dutch flag next to my name, in case you didn't know)

I doubt he did.

[BDunnell]

That is obvious that the people of the Netherlands are victims of a repressive government

Bonkers. Only word for it. What I find most disturbing is that you seem to have no qualms about coming across the way you do.

[Jag_Warrior]

And would your propose that these stay as is? I notice that the term "assault weapon" has too many deviations and loop holes (definitions)
How would you categorize what you Jag_Warrior, civilian :) is allowed to carry or keep safe at your home?

I have no issue with state laws being more prohibitive, if that's what citizens of those states choose to do, as long as they do not violate Constitutionally protected rights (whether they be gun rights, voting rights, religious rights or citizenship rights).

The term "assault weapon" has become rather meaningless in modern usage (kinda like "socialism" ;) ), as its misuse takes it away from the actual, original meaning, derived from the German word, "sturmgewehr", meaning storm/assault rifle. By definition, a (true) assault weapon is one which has the ability to be fired on full automatic or select fire modes. Such weapons, while available in a very limited way, are largely unseen by most Americans. The AK-47 variants and AR-15's, that people associate with the term "assault weapons", are actually just semi-automatic weapons which fire cartridges of medium to low caliber and which have only medium power. Do they look mean and scary? They sure do. But are legally possessed versions of any of these weapons used in any statistically significant number of gun crimes in the U.S.? No. But they do look mean and scary. But in fact, a Remington 750 "hunting rifle" in .30-06 caliber is MUCH more powerful and deadly than any AK or AR. The AK only has about the same punch as a .30-30 rifle produced over 100 years ago.

If I was studying water safety and attacks by sea life, I would mostly focus on sea creatures which posed the greatest statistical threat to swimmers. But I ask, which is the more scary creature, a Great White shark or a jellyfish? The shark, right? I mean, just like an AK or AR, those are some scary looking beasts! :eek: And just like an AK or AR, they most certainly can kill you. But from what I've read, jellyfish attacks kill 30 times more people per year than all shark attacks combined... so you can imagine what sort of small (statistical) threat Great Whites pose. Same with these so called "assault weapons" (depending on what one wants to misname or call an assault weapon). From the last data that I saw, these weapons account for far less than 1% of firearms related murders.

So that's why I've made no specific mention of that weapons class or what law abiding citizens can or cannot have. While possibly worthy of discussion, it doesn't appear to be a topic which would accomplish the primary goal here. But if you don't agree, I'd be happy to address the topic and look at whatever data that you come across. Everything is open for discussion, right? The smuggling of illegal full autos (did you click my links?) and the possession of any weapon by convicted criminals and the mentally disabled have received most of my attention, because (statistically) that's where the problem seems to lie. I'm not allowing a violent criminal to legally possess even a .22 caliber short cartridge in his pocket, much less an AK or AR rifle. Gotta get the most bang for the buck, right? So I'm trying to address the root cause and primary contributors, not so much the things that just frighten people because of their cosmetic appearance.

Oh! BTW, to make room for all of these smugglers, money launderers in fancy suits, repeat violent offenders, gangsters, et al, that I'd see rounded up and locked away for very long periods of time, I'm going to be releasing many/most of the potheads and petty criminals that are clogging up the judicial and prison systems right now. If they're truly a problem, we'll need to deal with them in ways other than just locking weed smokers up with murderers, rapists and child molesters. The ridiculous War on Drugs, that we've had for the past 40 odd years, comes to an end, certainly as it's been "fought" so far! And there would need to be (severe) reforms within various law enforcement agencies as well.

[BDunnell]

Oh! BTW, to make room for all of these smugglers, money launderers in fancy suits, repeat violent offenders, gangsters, et al, that I'd see rounded up and locked away for very long periods of time, I'm going to be releasing many/most of the potheads and petty criminals that are clogging up the judicial and prison systems right now. If they're truly a problem, we'll need to deal with them in ways other than just locking weed smokers up with murderers, rapists and child molesters. The ridiculous War on Drugs, that we've had for the past 40 odd years, comes to an end, certainly as it's been "fought" so far! And there would need to be (severe) reforms within various law enforcement agencies as well.

I couldn't agree more. Governments seem increasingly keen on fighting wars which are blatantly unwinnable (cf. Afghanistan). There is no practical sense in which the 'war on drugs' can meaningfully be won, and it amazes me that politicians — and others — of successive generations have sought to perpetuate the fallacy that it can, while simultaneously wasting the police's time. I'm not convinced that the prison space they currently occupy need automatically be filled up with other sorts of criminal, as I take the view that the prison population, certainly in the UK, is already too large as it is.

[BDunnell]

Hey, I know that we're not capable of solving this (or any) problem on a message board, but is anyone else also getting the feeling that once we took some of the emotion and propaganda out of it, and started discussing facts and data, we've been able to talk with each other and not just at each other? And to the members who don't live in the U.S. (and maybe to some of those who do), as we discuss, ask and learn more about the (actual) existing gun laws in the U.S., I believe that the discussion will get even better and more constructive. It's not about bending anyone's opinion or making them change their position. But at least we'd all be speaking based on data and facts and not just emotion. Cool?

I very, very much appreciate your approach to this topic. You raise some very interesting points, and I agree with many of them. Certainly, they are a welcome antidote to the inarticulate nonsense being spouted from some other quarters, representative of the worst of right-wing American worldviews. However, I do feel you're still neglecting, somewhat, one important element — the underlying culture. More specifically, I'm referring the way in which the gun has become some sort of default option for the sort of attacks that always provoke the discussion we're having. Do you feel your ideas for reform would do anything towards tackling this? My worry, from reading elements of this thread, is the way in which the gun has in the US become 'normalised'; the way people refer to guns in the same vein as they would a badly-driven car, to cite one example. To me, at least, it's completely alien. This must have an effect.

[nigelred5]

Well, we could quit threatening to take something away from folks and simply enforce the tight regualtions as suggested by Jag. Prohibition is the worst form of control IMHO. Then we could challenge the media and the entertainment industry to cease teh sensationalization of violence as they are all too apt to do currently. Real or percieved, if you are constantly bombarded with violence, it eventually is accepted as real.

[BDunnell]

Well, we could quit threatening to take something away from folks and simply enforce the tight regualtions as suggested by Jag. Prohibition is the worst form of control IMHO.

I do find it strange that you and others, presumably, don't apply this to everything. After all, I assume you consider prohibition the best form of control in relation to certain things, don't you? Otherwise you would oppose the very concept of laws.


Then we could challenge the media and the entertainment industry to cease teh sensationalization of violence as they are all too apt to do currently. Real or percieved, if you are constantly bombarded with violence, it eventually is accepted as real.

Again, I say that I completely disagree with you about this in the context of gun crime. I deplore sensationalised depictions and the glamourisation of violence, simply because I find them vulgar, but I don't think they are central to addressing this topic. Nor, more importantly, am I in favour of undue media censorship. I would sooner place further restrictions on firearm ownership on the grounds that I consider this far more inherently troublesome and dangerous.

[nigelred5]

I do find it strange that you and others, presumably, don't apply this to everything. After all, I assume you consider prohibition the best form of control in relation to certain things, don't you? Otherwise you would oppose the very concept of laws.



Again, I say that I completely disagree with you about this in the context of gun crime. I deplore sensationalised depictions and the glamourisation of violence, simply because I find them vulgar, but I don't think they are central to addressing this topic. Nor, more importantly, am I in favour of undue media censorship. I would sooner place further restrictions on firearm ownership on the grounds that I consider this far more inherently troublesome and dangerous.


No, I do not believe absolute prohibition is necessary or appropriate in every aspect of society. Prohibition of marijuana use or posesession has been one of the biggest jokes of the last hundred years in this country. Alcohol phohibition was an absolute catastrophy. Actually, I do resent the constant over legislation of our country. The very concept of personal responsibility is absent from our society. Just passs another law... I never said censorship of the entertainemnt, but ok- self censorship. Self monitoring. Just because you CAN does not mean you should. The entertainment industry, in this country especially, has zero conscience. They need to get one. instead, we'll have a movie about it within a year. We will have to agree to disagree on the influence it has on MY society. So called action movies, television, music, ESPECIALLY the vast majority of rap music, GAMING, the way our news outlets report on violence. Sure, we've always had cowboy movies, war movies, etc, but the extreme level of violence we are constantly bombarded with in this country absolutely has an effect on people.

[BDunnell]

No, I do not believe absolute prohibition is necessary or appropriate in every aspect of society.

With respect, though, that wasn't quite what you said previously, was it? The quote to which I referred was 'Prohibition is the worst form of control', which I took to mean that you are always opposed to it.


Prohibition of marijuana use or posesession has been one of the biggest jokes of the last hundred years in this country. Alcohol phohibition was an absolute catastrophy.

On this, I very much agree with you. But I'd place the prohibition of violent movies and video games in the same category. Some might argue, with a degree of justification, that alcohol prohibition would be of more practical effect.


Actually, I do resent the constant over legislation of our country. The very concept of personal responsibility is absent from our society.

Again (and somewhat in contradiction with what some think of me), I agree with you, but I do feel there are limits. To me, firearms — instruments designed to kill — simply cross the line.


I never said censorship of the entertainemnt, but ok- self censorship. Self monitoring. Just because you CAN does not mean you should.

Another thing on which we're in agreement. However, events of the recent past have proved to me that simple responsibility simply does not exist in large sections of the media. How, then, to change this?

[nigelred5]

With respect, though, that wasn't quite what you said previously, was it? The quote to which I referred was 'Prohibition is the worst form of control', which I took to mean that you are always opposed to it.



On this, I very much agree with you. But I'd place the prohibition of violent movies and video games in the same category. Some might argue, with a degree of justification, that alcohol prohibition would be of more practical effect.



Again (and somewhat in contradiction with what some think of me), I agree with you, but I do feel there are limits. To me, firearms — instruments designed to kill — simply cross the line.



Another thing on which we're in agreement. However, events of the recent past have proved to me that simple responsibility simply does not exist in large sections of the media. How, then, to change this?

Well, I haven't gone to a movie theatre to see or rented a violent movie in close to ten years. I do admit my kid has several video games others have bought him, however I also know my son and daughter and I teach them morality and responsibility. It has to start somewhere, but simply banning and confiscating weapons will NOT have the desired effect. That I am confident of.

[Starter]

Again, I say that I completely disagree with you about this in the context of gun crime. I deplore sensationalised depictions and the glamourisation of violence, simply because I find them vulgar, but I don't think they are central to addressing this topic. Nor, more importantly, am I in favour of undue media censorship. I would sooner place further restrictions on firearm ownership on the grounds that I consider this far more inherently troublesome and dangerous.
Several of us have come up with realistic suggestions for reducing gun related crime and deaths in the US. There are already many laws on the books that are ineffective mostly because they are not enforced. Yet you keep coming back with wanting more restrictions on ownership. We put practical, realistic ideas out there. Where are yours? Be specific now, we were.

[BDunnell]

Several of us have come up with realistic suggestions for reducing gun related crime and deaths in the US. There are already many laws on the books that are ineffective mostly because they are not enforced. Yet you keep coming back with wanting more restrictions on ownership. We put practical, realistic ideas out there. Where are yours? Be specific now, we were.

I'm afraid I am unable to get past the notion that I consider gun ownership wholly unnecessary, and the fact of its being seen by anyone as an inalienable right utterly alien. The ideas that Jag_Warrior has put forward strike me as eminently sensible, but I would hope that they or their like would represent a first step towards weaning people off guns. That, to me, is the only truly desirable end result.

[nigelred5]

I'm afraid I am unable to get past the notion that I consider gun ownership wholly unnecessary, and the fact of its being seen by anyone as an inalienable right utterly alien. The ideas that Jag_Warrior has put forward strike me as eminently sensible, but I would hope that they or their like would represent a first step towards weaning people off guns. That, to me, is the only truly desirable end result.

Well, fortunately those of us that do live in this country and do believe in such rights and do not feel any such weaning is either necessary or desirable are protected by the document that ultimately governs our country. Actually, more than one of my replies today were made while at the range with my son and my .40, my latest AR, a vintage browning auto loader and a case of skeet. Quite an enjoyable day keeping the skills sharp. Only downside was having to wait almost 30 minutes for an open bench at the rifle range. No one was harmed in the exercise of my rights ;)

[leighton323]

Just a question, earlier on this thread it was mentioned that there should be a law saying that somebody who has had or has a mental illness would be prohibited from owing a firearm. Does that mean people are not going to come out that they are suffering a mental illness because of the fact that if they do come out it will mean they will never be able to own a gun?

[nigelred5]

Just a question, earlier on this thread it was mentioned that there should be a law saying that somebody who has had or has a mental illness would be prohibited from owing a firearm. Does that mean people are not going to come out that they are suffering a mental illness because of the fact that if they do come out it will mean they will never be able to own a gun?

Possibly, however that is already the case. Anyone that has been committed to a mental institution is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Many jurisdictions already require such persons to surrender all firearms. In my state this also applies to persons that have had a cIvil protective order against them, regardless of whether criminal charges are ever filed. They don't get their firearms back as long as the protective order is in place. It is the questionable legality of reporting a medical condition to the government where no current evidence of criminal or violent behavior. That is a privacy issue that will have to be resolved legally and socially.

[Roamy]

well if you want to take guns from criminals you could try a "Drugs for Gun" program. The feds have a lot of drugs they could trade.

[BDunnell]

Actually, more than one of my replies today were made while at the range with my son and my .40, my latest AR, a vintage browning auto loader and a case of skeet. Quite an enjoyable day keeping the skills sharp. Only downside was having to wait almost 30 minutes for an open bench at the rifle range. No one was harmed in the exercise of my rights ;)

While I can well understand why shooting is an enjoyable activity for those who practice it, I am delighted that none of my day has been spent doing anything connected with protecting my own safety.

[race aficionado]

Dang! I would swipe my oozie for a pound of punto rojo!

[nigelred5]

Dang! I would swipe my oozie for a pound of punto rojo!
Might have a gun or two I might take atrade for some herbal pain relief. :)

[nigelred5]

While I can well understand why shooting is an enjoyable activity for those who practice it, I am delighted that none of my day has been spent doing anything connected with protecting my own safety.

It's was as much to relieve stress and continue to ensure my ability to feed my family as much to protect myself. Ducks fly damn fast so I have to stay sharp and while I don't routinely hunt with my AR, I have bagged a nice meaty 8pt whitetail with one. It's just prudent to stay proficient with any firearm one owns. It'll be three different ones at the range this weekend.

[Starter]

I'm afraid I am unable to get past the notion that I consider gun ownership wholly unnecessary, and the fact of its being seen by anyone as an inalienable right utterly alien. The ideas that Jag_Warrior has put forward strike me as eminently sensible, but I would hope that they or their like would represent a first step towards weaning people off guns. That, to me, is the only truly desirable end result.
That's why we're Americans, not just in name, but in attitude. That attitude was born partially in England's treatment of the colonies. (Also see India, Kenya, etc.) It also probably has a lot to do with why we had to pull England's bacon out of the fire a couple of times. ;)

So, because you hold one (unrealistic) idealistic stance, the rest of the world must fall into step with you or you're not going to play? Rigid thoughts and behaviors are nice in a text book and idealism sometimes has it's day for a bit, but in the end pragmatism rules the world.

[keysersoze]

Dang! I would swipe my oozie for a pound of punto rojo!

Your knowledge of Hispanic food exceeds your knowledge of Israeli weaponry. :D

Uzi

[race aficionado]

Your knowledge of Hispanic food exceeds your knowledge of Israeli weaponry. :D

Uzi

Too much punto rojo perhaps.

[BDunnell]

That's why we're Americans, not just in name, but in attitude.

An attitude that, I have to tell you, is hardly well-liked the world over. It's also, I feel, rather presumptuous for you to suggest that there is an 'American attitude' as though this is somehow shared by all your countrymen.


That's why we're Americans, not just in name, but in attitude. That attitude was born partially in England's treatment of the colonies. (Also see India, Kenya, etc.)


That attitude was born partially in England's treatment of the colonies. (Also see India, Kenya, etc.)

Something of zero practical relevance now.


It also probably has a lot to do with why we had to pull England's bacon out of the fire a couple of times. ;)

Er, what?



So, because you hold one (unrealistic) idealistic stance, the rest of the world must fall into step with you or you're not going to play? Rigid thoughts and behaviors are nice in a text book and idealism sometimes has it's day for a bit, but in the end pragmatism rules the world.

If so, pragmatism has, in the vast majority of countries, still allowed people to go about their lives in suitable safety without the need to bear arms.

[Mintexmemory]

That's why we're Americans, not just in name, but in attitude. That attitude was born partially in England's treatment of the colonies. (Also see India, Kenya, etc.) It also probably has a lot to do with why we had to pull England's bacon out of the fire a couple of times. ;)



Now I'm a bit of a reverse isolationist, I think we should just seal off the US and let them resolve the gun ownership issue without external interference - will the last man standing please send an e-mail to let the rest of us know when to come and disarm him ;)
May I correct 2 glaring inaccuracies though
Britain's treatment of their colonies in the 20th C cannot be said to be analogous to the response in the late 18th C when tax-dodging entrepreneurs thought up a wizard jape to get richer - form a new country. As I see it the US has been ploughing this furrow ever since!

As for 'pulling our bacon out of the fire' a couple of times - so you blinking well should have, in return for us not intervening on the side of the Confederacy! ;)
The standard British reply to this old chestnut contains the words: late, self-interest, seeking allies to legitimise its own interests, expensive reparations, historically anti-British and Ol Joe Kennedy. Feel free to arrange these words in a set of phrases that accurately represents US popular attitudes towards Britain through the late 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.

[chuck34]

BDunnel, I have been away from this for a while. I come back and see nothing has changed. You keep going on about how the attitudes of Americans about guns are "alien" to you, and how you don't understand how people can "live in fear", etc.

Why can't you see that your attitude is utterly alien to us? That we think it is incomprehensible that you live in such fear of guns that you must beg your governments to take them away from you? Why can't you see that despite some great tragedies, that LEGAL gun ownership in this country is completely safe, that the chances of this sort of tragedy happening is less than the chances of being struck by lightning? Why is it so hard for you to allow us to live our lives? Why must you force your morals on us?

[Starter]

An attitude that, I have to tell you, is hardly well-liked the world over.
Ask me if I care how well we are liked or not. I'm pretty sure I won't lose any sleep over it no matter whether we're liked or not.


Something of zero practical relevance now.
True, but failure to know and understand history leads to many missteps, both in a micro and macro sense.


If so, pragmatism has, in the vast majority of countries, still allowed people to go about their lives in suitable safety without the need to bear arms.
Well duh, that's what we've been trying to tell you for lo these many pages now. One size does not fit all and we do what we need to do for our time and society. We fully understand you're happy the way you are. Good for you. Please note that no one over here is lobbying for you to change to our way. (Hint, hint)

[Starter]

Now I'm a bit of a reverse isolationist, I think we should just seal off the US and let them resolve the gun ownership issue without external interference - will the last man standing please send an e-mail to let the rest of us know when to come and disarm him ;)
Thank you. I'll buy that. We'll be able to pull all our troops and aid programs home and save a whole bunch of tax money.



May I correct 2 glaring inaccuracies though
Britain's treatment of their colonies in the 20th C cannot be said to be analogous to the response in the late 18th C when tax-dodging entrepreneurs thought up a wizard jape to get richer - form a new country. As I see it the US has been ploughing this furrow ever since!
I was referring to the insurrections which followed the rather heavy handed rule of the Empire.


As for 'pulling our bacon out of the fire' a couple of times - so you blinking well should have, in return for us not intervening on the side of the Confederacy! ;)
You should have done that, as your factories didn't "cotton" to the idea of paying more for raw materials. Or was it your fondness, as a nation, for our home grown drug tobacco?



The standard British reply to this old chestnut contains the words: late, self-interest, seeking allies to legitimise its own interests, expensive reparations, historically anti-British and Ol Joe Kennedy. Feel free to arrange these words in a set of phrases that accurately represents US popular attitudes towards Britain through the late 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.
It's our entrepreneurial spirit. Invest in something now for huge returns later. ;)

[nigelred5]

I for one live absent of fear in my own very well protected home....
As far as our American attitude... Many of us really could care less what folks think of our attitude or our laws. Our laws are OUR laws, no one elses and that is what matters to us. Personally I wish we would mind our own damn business more often, if others would do the same. I feel no obligation what so ever to amend our laws to pander to outside interests so outsiders feel safe. We'll decide what makes us feel safe and how we we accomplish that within our laws. Unfortunately, when a country has been attacked, not everyone is going to like the response.

[BDunnell]

BDunnel, I have been away from this for a while. I come back and see nothing has changed. You keep going on about how the attitudes of Americans about guns are "alien" to you, and how you don't understand how people can "live in fear", etc.

Why can't you see that your attitude is utterly alien to us? That we think it is incomprehensible that you live in such fear of guns that you must beg your governments to take them away from you? Why can't you see that despite some great tragedies, that LEGAL gun ownership in this country is completely safe, that the chances of this sort of tragedy happening is less than the chances of being struck by lightning? Why is it so hard for you to allow us to live our lives? Why must you force your morals on us?

Why can't I see any of this? Because nothing anyone has said will ever change my view of guns. And because, when all is said and done, it is very easy for many a European to feel a sense of moral superiority over many a gun-toting American, a breed most vividly represented by the likes of anthonyvop, someone with whom any right-minded person ought almost always to find themselves in disagreement.

As for the last two sentences of the quote above, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I have some sort of authority over you, when all I'm doing is voicing an opinion with which you happen to disagree. This is not a case of 'forcing my morals on you'. It's merely a suggestion that lives might better be lived without guns.

[BDunnell]

Many of us really could care less what folks think of our attitude or our laws.

You mean 'couldn't care less', surely?


Personally I wish we would mind our own damn business more often, if others would do the same.

And there's part of the problem in any such discussion. For an American to be critical of others merely for making suggestions relating to domestic matters will always bring about accusations of hypocrisy given the recent record of your country under successive administrations of both colours.


I feel no obligation what so ever to amend our laws to pander to outside interests so outsiders feel safe.

Any perceptive citizen or commentator ought always to consider, rather than reject out of hand on grounds of tradition, examples of policy from elsewhere.


Unfortunately, when a country has been attacked, not everyone is going to like the response.

What relevance does that have here?

[BDunnell]

Ask me if I care how well we are liked or not. I'm pretty sure I won't lose any sleep over it no matter whether we're liked or not.

Well, I'm glad you're happy with years of belligerent foreign policy, and with the typical view abroad of the equally bellicose, poorly-educated American, ignorant of goings-on outside their own country's borders. Easy stereotypes, yes, but not without a grain of truth in them, and neither exactly something of which to be proud. If anyone is in any doubt as to why outsiders seek to tell you how we feel you should live your lives in terms of gun ownership, this impression of Americans is directly relevant.



True, but failure to know and understand history leads to many missteps, both in a micro and macro sense.

There is a difference between knowing and understanding history and allowing it to shape policy unnecessarily. And, surely, if one claims to 'understand history', one thing it tells you is that guns, in a practical sense, do not represent a 'force for good'?

[anthonyvop]

While I can well understand why shooting is an enjoyable activity for those who practice it, I am delighted that none of my day has been spent doing anything connected with protecting my own safety.

That thought makes me sad for you. I sincerely hope you have no friends or family that would ever have to depend on you for protection.

[chuck34]

Why can't I see any of this? Because nothing anyone has said will ever change my view of guns.

That's fine and dandy. Now tell me why you must continually spout your "morally superior" attitude as if we Americans must somehow see that as the right answer for us? Clearly we do not, as evidenced by the many pages on this thread, the thousands of others on other similar topics, and the 200+ years of your detested "gun culture".


And because, when all is said and done, it is very easy for many a European to feel a sense of moral superiority over many a gun-toting American, a breed most vividly represented by the likes of anthonyvop, someone with whom any right-minded person ought almost always to find themselves in disagreement.

Why do you feel a sense of moral superiority? Isn't that exactly what you always claim makes the "typical right-wing American" so distasteful in your mind? Remind me again why you are trying to force us (sure you'll say suggest) to legislate your morals? Why can't you just let us live the way we feel is right for us?


As for the last two sentences of the quote above, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I have some sort of authority over you, when all I'm doing is voicing an opinion with which you happen to disagree. This is not a case of 'forcing my morals on you'. It's merely a suggestion that lives might better be lived without guns.

It sure is forcing your morals on us (at least in the internet forum sense). 48+ pages of mostly you belaboring the point that if you had your way, you would outlaw all guns. For you to not be forcing your morals on us, you would simply say something to the effect of "What a horrible tragedy, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims. I wish these type of things wouldn't happen again", and leave it at that.

Thank God you do not have any authority over us.

[chuck34]

Well, I'm glad you're happy with years of belligerent foreign policy, and with the typical view abroad of the equally bellicose, poorly-educated American, ignorant of goings-on outside their own country's borders. Easy stereotypes, yes, but not without a grain of truth in them, and neither exactly something of which to be proud. If anyone is in any doubt as to why outsiders seek to tell you how we feel you should live your lives in terms of gun ownership, this impression of Americans is directly relevant.

And you have done nothing to dispel the stereotype of the typical snobbish, self-centered, pseudo-intellectual European that looks down their nose at anything American.


There is a difference between knowing and understanding history and allowing it to shape policy unnecessarily. And, surely, if one claims to 'understand history', one thing it tells you is that guns, in a practical sense, do not represent a 'force for good'?

Do I really need to start posting stories again? For every tragedy of a mass shooting there are probably hundreds of stories about a person or family saving themselves and their property from violent criminals by using a gun. How is that not a "force for good"?

[Mintexmemory]

Thank you. I'll buy that. We'll be able to pull all our troops and aid programs home and save a whole bunch of tax money.

...and let all that lovely ME oil be controlled by the Russian mafia and admit that the 'War on Terror' is nothing more than the sham its opponents have claimed all along!! You Yanks and your obsession with tax :rolleyes:






I was referring to the insurrections which followed the rather heavy handed rule of the Empire.

The Mau Mau 'rebellion' was hardly a coherent independence movement and the 'unrest' in India was nothing like an insurrection. (Though it may have turned into that had Mountbatten been less pragmatic)






You should have done that, as your factories didn't "cotton" to the idea of paying more for raw materials. Or was it your fondness, as a nation, for our home grown drug tobacco?

Actually it was the first example of the US chucking its weight around. Seward implying that the US would support Scots and Irish independence movements if the UK showed any support for the Confederacy. As to the second point, it was more a fondness for US grain, without which the UK would have experienced a famine, that mitigated against Confederacy support. Still at least Lincoln had the good sense to resolve the Trent affair sensibly!






It's our entrepreneurial spirit. Invest in something now for huge returns later. ;)

Britain's example has served as a warning to other countries ever since:
UK "As you're now in it with us and we've maintained opposition in Asia and Europe for 3 years how about some help"
US " Sure, that'll cost you all UK business assets and patents in the US and your gold reserves"
UK " Err, thanks (pause to count fingers after shaking hands)"

Anyway as this is not a thread on UK-US foreign relations I'll not bandy words further sirrah.

[nigelred5]

You Yanks and your obsession with tax :rolleyes:



Yeah, we are obsessed with individuals keeping their hard earned money, providing for ourselves and own, and not being endlessly taxed by an overly intrusive government, onlt to see those taxes wasted on supporting corrupt regimes, unpopular and unnecessary foreign wars and wasteful dysfucntional domestic programs for the unmotivated.

[BDunnell]

And you have done nothing to dispel the stereotype of the typical snobbish, self-centered, pseudo-intellectual European that looks down their nose at anything American.

Oh, spare us the victim mentality. In no way do I look down my nose at 'anything American' — rather, I look down my nose at certain attitudes typical of a particular section of the American populace, just as I do certain attitudes typical of a particular section of the British populace. And is there nothing in your eyes between 'ignorant' and 'pseudo-intellectual'?



Do I really need to start posting stories again? For every tragedy of a mass shooting there are probably hundreds of stories about a person or family saving themselves and their property from violent criminals by using a gun. How is that not a "force for good"?

Strange we don't need them, then.

[BDunnell]

That thought makes me sad for you. I sincerely hope you have no friends or family that would ever have to depend on you for protection.

Makes you sad for me? Ought you not to be happy that I don't feel the need to, or are you really so desperate to feel insecure?

[BDunnell]

Why do you feel a sense of moral superiority?

To be honest, it's not hard to feel a sense of moral superiority over a gun-loving American.


Remind me again why you are trying to force us (sure you'll say suggest) to legislate your morals? Why can't you just let us live the way we feel is right for us?

Again, I say that all I'm doing is offering an opinion. If I had any sort of legislative power over you, you'd have a point, but I don't.



For you to not be forcing your morals on us, you would simply say something to the effect of "What a horrible tragedy, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims. I wish these type of things wouldn't happen again", and leave it at that.

Rubbish. Offering an opinion is not 'forcing your morals' on someone. I don't feel like you're forcing your morals on me, for example.

[Starter]

For an American to be critical of others merely for making suggestions relating to domestic matters will always bring about accusations of hypocrisy given the recent record of your country under successive administrations of both colours.

Any perceptive citizen or commentator ought always to consider, rather than reject out of hand on grounds of tradition, examples of policy from elsewhere.
Those are interesting words. I believe you should say them again, loudly and with unwavering gaze -- as you stand in front of a mirror.

[chuck34]

Again, I say that all I'm doing is offering an opinion. If I had any sort of legislative power over you, you'd have a point, but I don't.

Then why can't you leave this subject alone? Why can't you accept that not everyone will think like you? Why is your opinion the only "valid" one, the only one that has the "moral high ground", the only one that doesn't conjure up contempt from the "more enlightened"?

No one in the US is forced to have a gun. If someone feels as you do, that they are so damn scared of guns, they do not have to own one. That is their right, just as much as it is my right to buy one for whatever reason I feel. So I'll ask again, why would you seek to legislate your morals on me?

[Starter]

There is a difference between knowing and understanding history and allowing it to shape policy unnecessarily. And, surely, if one claims to 'understand history', one thing it tells you is that guns, in a practical sense, do not represent a 'force for good'?
Since you like to point out others typos and grammar errors, perhaps you might want to put "quotation" marks there.

[BDunnell]

Those are interesting words. I believe you should say them again, loudly and with unwavering gaze -- as you stand in front of a mirror.

Why? I was merely pointing out why Americans will always be open to a certain type of criticism when they adopt an isolationist approach. Nothing more than that.

[BDunnell]

Since you like to point out others typos and grammar errors, perhaps you might want to put "quotation" marks there.

Pardon?

[Starter]

...and let all that lovely ME oil be controlled by the Russian mafia and admit that the 'War on Terror' is nothing more than the sham its opponents have claimed all along!! You Yanks and your obsession with tax :rolleyes:
Don't look now, but with recent discoveries we may be a net exporter of energy soon. Then you'll have a choice - deal with the arabs, the Russians or us. That'll keep you up nights. :D


Actually it was the first example of the US chucking its weight around. Seward implying that the US would support Scots and Irish independence movements if the UK showed any support for the Confederacy. As to the second point, it was more a fondness for US grain, without which the UK would have experienced a famine, that mitigated against Confederacy support. Still at least Lincoln had the good sense to resolve the Trent affair sensibly!
Kept you guys minding your own business didn't it? Not a bad outcome.

[BDunnell]

Kept you guys minding your own business didn't it? Not a bad outcome.

And, above all, who cares?

[Jag_Warrior]

I couldn't agree more. Governments seem increasingly keen on fighting wars which are blatantly unwinnable (cf. Afghanistan). There is no practical sense in which the 'war on drugs' can meaningfully be won, and it amazes me that politicians — and others — of successive generations have sought to perpetuate the fallacy that it can, while simultaneously wasting the police's time. I'm not convinced that the prison space they currently occupy need automatically be filled up with other sorts of criminal, as I take the view that the prison population, certainly in the UK, is already too large as it is.

I understand your concerns about expanding the prison population, but especially for white collar offenders (who believe that if they get a paper cut, it is a "war wound"), I believe that the very real prospect of mandatory jail terms would be a very effective deterrent. I used to have a VERY heavy right foot while driving. But after having a nice "chat" with a traffic court judge (and him asking me if I liked to walk - what? huh? walk?! :eek :) , I decided that possibly losing my license was reason enough to slow down. So yes, deterrents can work... for some people. For those who are too thick to discontinue their criminal behavior, they wind up in prison cages for a few decades - but society is protected from them. And that's the most important thing, IMO.



I very, very much appreciate your approach to this topic. You raise some very interesting points, and I agree with many of them. Certainly, they are a welcome antidote to the inarticulate nonsense being spouted from some other quarters, representative of the worst of right-wing American worldviews. However, I do feel you're still neglecting, somewhat, one important element — the underlying culture. More specifically, I'm referring the way in which the gun has become some sort of default option for the sort of attacks that always provoke the discussion we're having. Do you feel your ideas for reform would do anything towards tackling this? My worry, from reading elements of this thread, is the way in which the gun has in the US become 'normalised'; the way people refer to guns in the same vein as they would a badly-driven car, to cite one example. To me, at least, it's completely alien. This must have an effect.

The culture that we have, where firearms ownership is rather normal, is most certainly a factor. I would never deny that. And it's not that I'm ignoring or neglecting to address that. But making suggestions which would change an entire culture is something which is WAY above my "pay grade". Quite simply, I have no idea how to (practically) do that. So I am addressing the most practical ideas which come to my mind which should reduce firearms related violence.

In what I do in real life (usually focused on increasing productivity and profits and/or reducing variation and defects within processes), I often run into situations where there is a "corporate culture", which is not so friendly or willing to change. Now, I can get people fired if they show themselves to be hard roadblocks to progress - that tends to get messy and creates unnecessary political fights. But in the case of a nation of 300 million people, it would be pretty hard to get people to change their way of thinking based on the threat of "firing" them... or putting all legal gun owners in jail if they would not conform. Reported firearms ownership (legal) in the U.S. now stands at roughly 50%... and it's growing, not shrinking. So IMO, attempting to (truly) change that culture of thought or shift that paradigm would require a massive and messy effort. Hell, we can't even agree to pass a budget in Congress right now. This would be like setting off a nuclear weapon in D.C. and all across the nation.

"When the enemy is too strong, the only way to 'win' is to deny the battle."



Well, we could quit threatening to take something away from folks and simply enforce the tight regulations as suggested by Jag. Prohibition is the worst form of control IMHO. Then we could challenge the media and the entertainment industry to cease the sensationalization of violence as they are all too apt to do currently. Real or perceived, if you are constantly bombarded with violence, it eventually is accepted as real.

Exactly. And that's why I'm trying to restrict most of this to people who (I believe we can ALL agree) should not be in possession of firearms. Not AK's, AR's, shotguns, .22 rifles or even a single round of ammunition. Surely to goodness, this is something that we can all agree to! Now that pretty much every pro-gun person on here has conceded on several (somewhat) risky propositions, those who had only thought in terms of complete bans (which is completely unworkable and impractical here) can agree that taking a hard line on criminals, and those who fund and further criminal activity, is right and proper. If that is not the case, then I truly don't know what to say. At that point, they seem to me to be very much like the inflexible TEA Party folks who are in our Congress now. And considering that they are probably polar opposites politically, that is an interesting realization.



Just a question, earlier on this thread it was mentioned that there should be a law saying that somebody who has had or has a mental illness would be prohibited from owing a firearm. Does that mean people are not going to come out that they are suffering a mental illness because of the fact that if they do come out it will mean they will never be able to own a gun?

I would hope that people are not driven underground, any more than they already are. I have a situation in my family right now that is along these lines and it really hurts my heart that I cannot get this person to admit that they have a problem and get help. But unless the courts become involved at some point, I've done as much as I can (legally) do. But if he ever tried to get a firearm, as much as it would cause major issues within my family, I would step in and do whatever was necessary to prevent that. Unlike that idiot woman in Connecticut, I sure as hell wouldn't take him out and teach him how to shoot the thing! I hope they buried her on her head so that she's ass up for all of eternity!

But no, I would like to see people come up with ideas for reforming the mental health system here too, so that people who need help can be better helped.

[Tazio]

You Yanks and your obsession with tax :rolleyes:
Don't really mean to single you out necessarily Mintex', but "Us Yanks" a term you will never hear an American use to describe himself are quite a diverse group. In the USA we are taxed at the State and to a lesser degree on the County, and City level for , income, property, sales and other forms in varying degrees. In some States that put a higher value on the health and well being of all of its residents we are taxed higher on the State, and Civil level than the Federal level in the great Republic of The United States of America. We pay it and some of us find a little extra to give to charity for orphans, the poor, or civil rights. Some give a little donation to the NRA above membership dues, and some donate to the NRA as well as some of the charitable organizations I mentioned. Quit referring to "us yanks" we are not a certain type of people and our laws vary dramatically from State to State. But if a foreign entity, or entities piss us off enough to get about 80% of us &#8220]we’ll jack up all ya’ all!! [/B]

In the famous words of Abraham Lincoln which I suspect many of my own countrymen have never even read:

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty.

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.--I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn1gheckr70

[Rollo]

But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible,
- Abraham Lincoln

I contest that the Second Amendment is a bad law and in the words of Mr Lincoln "should be repealed as soon as possible". A law which results in death on such a wide scale, can not be held up as "good".

[Tazio]

As do many Americans including myself, however The people of the U.S.A are responsible for repealing it, and as Mr Lincoln said:

"still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed".

Now personally as an American and damn proud of it, I am not for trampling on The Constitution of the United States of America because I don't agree with it in its entirety! As a country of free men we must respect the rights, and restrictions provided their-in or change them. You my friend only have an opinion in this matter and don’t forget that! ;)

[Rollo]

As do many Americans including myself, however The people of the U.S.A are responsible for repealing it, and as Mr Lincoln said:

"still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed".

Now personally as an American and damn proud of it, I am not for trampling on The Constitution of the United States of America because I don't agree with it in its entirety! As a country of free men we must respect the rights, and restrictions provided their-in or change them. You my friend only have an opinion in this matter and don’t forget that! ;)

And I am free to express my opinion, so don't you forget that! ;)

[nigelred5]

But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible,
- Abraham Lincoln

I contest that the Second Amendment is a bad law and in the words of Mr Lincoln "should be repealed as soon as possible". A law which results in death on such a wide scale, can not be held up as "good".

Well, one down, now you just need to find about 150 million or so like minded individuals willing to actually vote for a constitutional amendment.

[Starter]

Well, one down, now you just need to find about 150 million or so like minded individuals willing to actually vote for a constitutional amendment.
Nope, it takes two thirds.

[nigelred5]

Correct. Two thirds of the combined house and Senate to propose an amendment, then three fourths of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions of three fourths of the states ratify the proposed amendment. About 150 million voters to set that in motion ;) Of course there are a couple more less likely methods to request congress propose an amendment. We are far more likely to pay off the national debt before we ever see an amendment which fundamentally alters the content of the second Amendment.

[D-Type]

But it only takes a simple majority to rule on how the written word should be interpreted as a clarification is not an amendment to the Constitution.

[nigelred5]

Correct, and the supreme court has done that very clearly very recently, striking down prohibitive firearms laws in the nations capitol and maryland.

[anthonyvop]

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Read more: Joshua Boston To Sen. Feinstein's Gun Control - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-joshua-boston-sen-feinstein-gun-control-legislation-california-cnn-ireport-2013-1#ixzz2GvURx9m9)

[race aficionado]

I like senator Dianne Feinstein.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/

[nigelred5]

I like senator Dianne Feinstein.

United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/)

She and chuck Schumer are both hypocrits. Both currently hold concealed carry permits while advocating prohibiting citizens from carrying the same weapons. Feinstein carrys a .357. Nad both surround themselves with an armed security detail.

[race aficionado]

Dianne Feinstein (http://www.nndb.com/people/535/000023466/)



Feinstein claims that she has since relinquished both the handgun and the concealed weapons permit.

[nigelred5]

Dianne Feinstein (http://www.nndb.com/people/535/000023466/)

claims. Statements from her armed guards have also stated otherwise. Chuck Schumer's unrestricted and current permit is public record.

[BDunnell]

I like senator Dianne Feinstein.

There is a sense in which she's being more courageous in mounting this campaign than are the vast majority of firearm owners.

[BDunnell]

I understand your concerns about expanding the prison population, but especially for white collar offenders (who believe that if they get a paper cut, it is a "war wound"), I believe that the very real prospect of mandatory jail terms would be a very effective deterrent. I used to have a VERY heavy right foot while driving. But after having a nice "chat" with a traffic court judge (and him asking me if I liked to walk - what? huh? walk?! :eek :) , I decided that possibly losing my license was reason enough to slow down. So yes, deterrents can work... for some people. For those who are too thick to discontinue their criminal behavior, they wind up in prison cages for a few decades - but society is protected from them. And that's the most important thing, IMO.

It's not all about being too thick to learn, though, is it? Some very intelligent people may go on making the same mistakes, whether punishable ones or not. There may be other mitigating circumstances.

In general, though, your words are very wise.

[BDunnell]

The culture that we have, where firearms ownership is rather normal, is most certainly a factor. I would never deny that. And it's not that I'm ignoring or neglecting to address that. But making suggestions which would change an entire culture is something which is WAY above my "pay grade". Quite simply, I have no idea how to (practically) do that. So I am addressing the most practical ideas which come to my mind which should reduce firearms related violence.

Sorry, forgot above to respond to this. I think your whole approach to the subject is, as explained above, most commendable.

I'm glad you, unlike others, acknowledge the cultural aspect. It came to mind again this morning upon hearing news of a triple shooting in Switzerland. In no way do Switzerland's relatively liberal gun laws concern me anywhere near as much as do the laws in the US, because I feel that the underlying culture in Switzerland is way different.

[chuck34]

There is a sense in which she's being more courageous in mounting this campaign than are the vast majority of firearm owners.

Courage would be for her to stand up and say what she really means, that she would like to repeal the 2nd Amendment altogether. At least that I would respect, wouldn't agree, but respect.

Writing common law to circumvent a Constitutionally protected right, in my opinion, should be an impeachable offence. But I'm sure, once again, you will not be able to take your emotions out of this to see past your fear into what is right under the legal system of this country.

[Tazio]

I like senator Dianne Feinstein.

United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/)
So does her constituency: "she claimed the record for the most popular votes in any U.S. Senate election in history, having received 7.75 million votes in 2012".......One of those i am proud to say was mine. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3462AZJRsiI

[chuck34]

It came to mind again this morning upon hearing news of a triple shooting in Switzerland. In no way do Switzerland's relatively liberal gun laws concern me anywhere near as much as do the laws in the US, because I feel that the underlying culture in Switzerland is way different.

So at least you have come out and finally admitted it. You just don't like Americans, or at least you somehow don't trust us because of our "culture". How is it that my culture, my beliefs, my foundation to my moral life is any different than a Swiss person's (or was this guy still an Iraqi, same question regardless)? What makes the Swiss "culture" better, more moral? Why is the cold blooded murder of 3 individuals for no reason what-so-ever less monstrous than the cold blooded murder of 20? Is it simply numbers?

I find this statement of your's truly troubling.

[chuck34]

So does her constituency: "she claimed the record for the most popular votes in any U.S. Senate election in history, having received 7.75 million votes in 2012".......One of those i am proud to say was mine. :)

A bit off topic (ok way off topic), but she's not even close to the record for percentage of the vote. Richard Lugar won 87.4% of the vote in 2006 (not sure if that's a record, just a number I know). Feinstein only got 62.5% in her election.

[BDunnell]

So at least you have come out and finally admitted it. You just don't like Americans, or at least you somehow don't trust us because of our "culture". How is it that my culture, my beliefs, my foundation to my moral life is any different than a Swiss person's (or was this guy still an Iraqi, same question regardless)? What makes the Swiss "culture" better, more moral? Why is the cold blooded murder of 3 individuals for no reason what-so-ever less monstrous than the cold blooded murder of 20? Is it simply numbers?

I find this statement of your's truly troubling.

Whether deliberately or not, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent what I wrote. I criticised a section of American opinion; you take this to mean that I 'don't like Americans'. This is utter nonsense, and I'd ask you to apologise. I don't like the American gun culture, true, but this is a very different thing. Surely you have the wit to draw the distinction?

'Truly troubling'? Really? Cease the hyperbole.

[BDunnell]

Writing common law to circumvent a Constitutionally protected right, in my opinion, should be an impeachable offence.

As I expected — you don't truly believe in freedom of speech and expression. It's just a front. As soon as it diverts what you consider to be too far from your own views, you're willing to see people, for example, impeached.

As an afterthought, I'm increasingly delighted the UK doesn't have a written constitution for people to get absurdly hung-up about.

[chuck34]

Whether deliberately or not, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent what I wrote. I criticised a section of American opinion; you take this to mean that I 'don't like Americans'. This is utter nonsense, and I'd ask you to apologise. I don't like the American gun culture, true, but this is a very different thing. Surely you have the wit to draw the distinction?

'Truly troubling'? Really? Cease the hyperbole.

I think you should cease trying to wiggle out of your own words.

Now you try to make some distinction about "American Gun Culture" as if that is somehow completely separate from the rest of America. How is that possible. As of right now I do not own a gun, therefore I am not part of the "gun culture", and presumably in your mind a-ok. But if tomorrow I decide I want a gun, I am now part of the "gun culture", and deplorable beyond mention? Explain how that works.

And yes, I believe your statement about a triple homicide in Switzerland to cause you no concern for their gun laws, yet you have great concern for ours, to be truly troubling. There is no distinction. Murder is murder, and all murder is a monstrous act of a madman, simple as that. I will not back down from that. And that is no hyperbole.

[chuck34]

As I expected — you don't truly believe in freedom of speech and expression. It's just a front. As soon as it diverts what you consider to be too far from your own views, you're willing to see people, for example, impeached.

As an afterthought, I'm increasingly delighted the UK doesn't have a written constitution for people to get absurdly hung-up about.

Once again you show your lack of understanding of US law. US Senators take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states via the 2nd Amendment that it's citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, for a Senator to want to circumvent the Constitution is a clear violation of their oath of office, an impeachable offence. She can say what she wants, she can believe what she wants, but to introduce legislation such as she has/will (not sure of the timing) is a violation of her sworn oath.

So once again I'll say it. If she would simply be "courageous" as you claim, and propose a Constitutional Amendment, I would have no problem with her stand. I would disagree, but I would respect her.

[BDunnell]

I think you should cease trying to wiggle out of your own words.

Rubbish of the highest order. In no sense am I trying to wriggle out of anything I've said.



Now you try to make some distinction about "American Gun Culture" as if that is somehow completely separate from the rest of America. How is that possible. As of right now I do not own a gun, therefore I am not part of the "gun culture", and presumably in your mind a-ok. But if tomorrow I decide I want a gun, I am now part of the "gun culture", and deplorable beyond mention? Explain how that works.

Cultures are to do with attitudes and viewpoints, not just actual ownership. I would genuinely have thought you'd be able to recognise the distinction.



And yes, I believe your statement about a triple homicide in Switzerland to cause you no concern for their gun laws, yet you have great concern for ours, to be truly troubling. There is no distinction. Murder is murder, and all murder is a monstrous act of a madman, simple as that. I will not back down from that. And that is no hyperbole.

In which case, may I suggest you reset your moral compass?

I note you still haven't apologised for the assertion that I dislike all Americans, by the way. It was a low thing to say, though hardly atypical. In recent years, the slightest criticism of individual aspects of, say, US foreign policy have often precipitated excessive accusations from some quarters of 'anti-Americanism'. The same is true here. So, please apologise.

[BDunnell]

America has the problem that its been legal for so long and some of its citizens carry such a militant attitude towards their own government, its unlikely to ever change or be realistic.

An attitude that, I say again, borders on paranoia.

[BDunnell]

Once again you show your lack of understanding of US law. US Senators take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states via the 2nd Amendment that it's citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, for a Senator to want to circumvent the Constitution is a clear violation of their oath of office, an impeachable offence. She can say what she wants, she can believe what she wants, but to introduce legislation such as she has/will (not sure of the timing) is a violation of her sworn oath.

The degree to which your constitution is sacrosanct will, it's true, always baffle an outsider. In this respect, it holds policy-making back.

[airshifter]

Now over 1000 posts and to be honest, it seems that many of the pro gun crowd and responsibly gun owners are much more open to compromise than those opposing guns. If responsible gun ownership and tough laws (that are enforced) aren't enough it's clear that people really don't want a solution... unless it is there solution.

As stated many times, the solution used in Europe won't be used here in the US. We may as well discuss removing alcohol from all the world because some would like that and think it's the best solution.

[chuck34]

The degree to which your constitution is sacrosanct will, it's true, always baffle an outsider. In this respect, it holds policy-making back.

That is PRECISELY what the Constitution was written to do, hold back policy-making. Perhaps you would be better served speaking only of your own laws.

[Tazio]

A bit off topic (ok way off topic), but she's not even close to the record for percentage of the vote. Richard Lugar won 87.4% of the vote in 2006 (not sure if that's a record, just a number I know). Feinstein only got 62.5% in her election.Lugar got punked in his 2012 bid for re-election and isn't even part of the 113th Congress. BTW the entire population of Indiana is 6.5 million, over one million less residents including unregistererd voters, felons that are prohibited from voting, and those of an age too young to vote than Feinstein received from the reseidents of "The Great State of California". In the here and now the constituency that is made up of residents in The Great State of Indiana decided he bro sucks. 61%-39%


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM01v_vVnbg

[chuck34]

I note you still haven't apologised for the assertion that I dislike all Americans, by the way. It was a low thing to say, though hardly atypical. In recent years, the slightest criticism of individual aspects of, say, US foreign policy have often precipitated excessive accusations from some quarters of 'anti-Americanism'. The same is true here. So, please apologise.

I try to be civil, but my patience wears thin. Your feelings were hurt when I say that you dislike Americans, and I am supposed to apologize for that, yet you continue to call me and others paranoid, ignorant, fearful, and worse? You like to point out the irony in other people's statements, yet you do not see it in your own.

Oh yes, yes, you were only referring to "certain people", "specific circumstances", on and on. We get it, you only dislike those you disagree with. And yet your statements about "culture" and the Swiss murders pretty much damn all Americans for having a "bad culture", basically saying Americans can't be trusted, yet the Swiss can.

[chuck34]

Lugar got punked in his 2012 bid for re-election and isn't even part of the 113th Congress. BTW the entire population of Indiana is 6.5 million, over one million less residents including unregistererd voters, felons that are prohibited from voting, and those of an age too young to vote than Feinstein received from the reseidents of "The Great State of California". In the here and now the constituency that is made up of residents in The Great State of Indiana decided he bro sucks. 61%-39%


So your point is that since Feinstein is from a larger state, and therefore has a larger voting pool, that she is somehow "better"??????

[BDunnell]

That is PRECISELY what the Constitution was written to do, hold back policy-making. Perhaps you would be better served speaking only of your own laws.

I am well aware of this fact, and would say that I am certainly not in favour of policy-making for the sake of it. On occasion, though, changes are required. This, in my view, is one such occasion.

[chuck34]

I am well aware of this fact, and would say that I am certainly not in favour of policy-making for the sake of it. On occasion, though, changes are required. This, in my view, is one such occasion.

Then you favor an Amendment to be drafted and voted on. Fine. I would/will oppose such a measure, but that is how our system is set up.

When our Founders set up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they did not do it for all eternity. They KNEW they would make mistakes, so they set up ways to correct them. They did set up the system to be difficult on purpose to stop emotional knee-jerk reactions and mob rule from becoming the law of the land. They included the Bill of Rights on purpose as well. They wanted it to be very difficult for future generations to be able to strip us of our right of free speech, the bearing of arms, the right to have a jury trial, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and all the rest. They did this in direct response to those rights being violated by the very government you praise for having the freedom to "policy-make".

[Starter]

If I lived in your country I wouldn't own a gun either. I wouldn't allow them to be carried into my home nor would I want my children exposed to them in any way.
You know, that's the nice thing about living here. If you did, no one would force you to do any of those things. The reverse apples to those who wish to own them.

[Starter]

The degree to which your constitution is sacrosanct will, it's true, always baffle an outsider. In this respect, it holds policy-making back.
You confuse policy making with the flavor of the day. And then, only if it's YOUR favorite flavor.

[Starter]

Whether deliberately or not, you completely misunderstand and misrepresent what I wrote.
That's what you do all the time. Then, when called on it, say that's not what you truly meant and you really meant something else.

[Starter]

There is a sense in which she's being more courageous in mounting this campaign than are the vast majority of firearm owners.
I'm sure you misspoke (mistyped?). You actually meant "disingenuous" and not "courageous".

[D-Type]

Folks, speaking as a moderator, can I ask you to take care with the personal comments.

[BDunnell]

I try to be civil, but my patience wears thin. Your feelings were hurt when I say that you dislike Americans, and I am supposed to apologize for that, yet you continue to call me and others paranoid, ignorant, fearful, and worse? You like to point out the irony in other people's statements, yet you do not see it in your own.

Oh yes, yes, you were only referring to "certain people", "specific circumstances", on and on. We get it, you only dislike those you disagree with. And yet your statements about "culture" and the Swiss murders pretty much damn all Americans for having a "bad culture", basically saying Americans can't be trusted, yet the Swiss can.

I give up.

There is no irony in my statements whatsoever. I believe there to be at least a degree of paranoia and fear underlying the desire for gun ownership. Everything I have read in this discussion has borne this out. However, nothing that I have written has been in any sense anti-American. I've been critical of one aspect of your country's laws — that's all. This is also, I'd underline, a matter of my opinion. By contrast, it is a fact that I am in no-sense anti-American. I think I'd know this better than you. So, enough of the 'they're all against us and we don't care' whining. An apology is due. I would never dislike an entire nation.

[BDunnell]

I'm sure you misspoke (mistyped?). You actually meant "disingenuous" and not "courageous".

Hilarious.

[BDunnell]

That's what you do all the time. Then, when called on it, say that's not what you truly meant and you really meant something else.

I think I know the sense and meaning of my words better than do you, with respect.