Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative [Archive]

ApatheticNoMore

1-8-13, 10:51pm

Guns are not *the cause* as these mass shootings were very rare 30 years ago and there were plenty of guns just like there are today (and overall violent crime was not low back then, but the mass shootings were uncommon). But guns are the means used to commit the crimes.

.....boy! do I disagree with your gun control thoughts. It is not a gun issue; it is a mental health issue. As Gregg said, anyone who shoots multiple humans IS mentally ill. QED

Yea, but that's defining them so after the fact based on their actions. The question is would they even be "mentally ill enough" to be caught earlier than that, did they have enough obvious symptoms that anyone would know them from .. I shouldn't say Adam should I? Sure if one is psychotic (having hallucinations, delusions etc.) people will probably notice the symptoms, are most of the shooters psychotic? I don't get that impression. Sure people with no symptoms can seek out therapy in their own and so on, but clearly some of them even with all the money in the world where the issue isn't "can't afford therapy", were still not so helped.

I'm not even sure what is meant by "mental health care". Is it meant to mean talk therapy/family counseling? It is unlikely to hurt. Anti-psychotics? Some people need these I guess (the psychotic people mentioned above, but these are also massively prescribed for off label usage - they are now prescribed for common depression and so on even though they have major side effects like causing diabetes). Institutionalization?

gimmethesimplelife

1-8-13, 11:21pm

You know.....I don't doubt that mental illness is part of this problem plaguing the United States. Problem is, it is all too easy for guns to get into less than stable hands, or in the hands of people that have issues with mental illness. Guns are commonplace, they are easily obtained in a good chunk of the United States, and they are (unfortunately as I see it) part of US culture. It is all well and fine to try to do something about mental illness - my kudos on that - but I don't believe such efforts can effectively curb guns from getting into less than stable hands. Honestly, I don't see a solution to this mess.....folks are too attached to their guns and this is too ingrained into the American mentality. Couple this with an economy that doesn't work for many of our young, and resulting anger, easy access to drugs and alcohol and guns and viola.....seems like a recipe for more incidents like the sorry mess in Connecticut last month.

So where do we go from here after these words I have typed above, what is the answer? Sorry to say, I don't know....I don't think there is going to be a quick and easy answer here and whatever is done (or is not done) will cause an uproar. I have made my stance clear so I won't dwell on it, that being said, I don't have much hope on this one. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

1-8-13, 11:24pm

Just wanted to add though in a more positive vein - I really respect Gabby Giffords! What an inspirational woman and how decent that when she made her first public appearance to vote on some bill in DC, both the Democrats AND the Republicans gave her a standing ovation. What a class act that lady is! Rob

Square Peg

1-9-13, 12:01am

Yea, but that's defining them so after the fact based on their actions. The question is would they even be "mentally ill enough" to be caught earlier than that, did they have enough obvious symptoms that anyone would know them from .. I shouldn't say Adam should I? Sure if one is psychotic (having hallucinations, delusions etc.) people will probably notice the symptoms, are most of the shooters psychotic? I don't get that impression. Sure people with no symptoms can seek out therapy in their own and so on, but clearly some of them even with all the money in the world where the issue isn't "can't afford therapy", were still not so helped.

I'm not even sure what is meant by "mental health care". Is it meant to mean talk therapy/family counseling? It is unlikely to hurt. Anti-psychotics? Some people need these I guess (the psychotic people mentioned above, but these are also massively prescribed for off label usage - they are now prescribed for common depression and so on even though they have major side effects like causing diabetes). Institutionalization?

I am a big big fan of stricter gun control and better mental health care, but I definitely see this as an issue as well! How do we define it? I am afraid that it could end up as a witch hunt as well.

CathyA

1-9-13, 7:20am

peggy

1-9-13, 10:00am

You know, concerning Gabby Giffords, I'm hearing the words but not really feeling it. Not from her, but from the 'pro-gun' among us.
I hear all the 'right' words, concern for mentally ill, etc..., yet, I also hear strong defense for ALLOWING people to carry guns to political rallies. Some here INSIST it's their god given right to carry a LOADED GUN to a town hall or other political rally in order to 'remind' our leaders just who is in charge. Kind of a disconnect, don't you think? And I find the hand wringing of those who defend this ridiculous assertion rather phony. And in my opinion, these who think this practice is hunky dory are the very ones who SHOULDN'T have guns, at all!

Considering the political climate these days, how can anyone defend any one's supposed 'right' to carry a gun to a heated debate? As ANM pointed out above, we don't always know, or it would seem, ever know, ahead of time who is on the edge or not, and only know for certain after the fact.
Now, for the poster child FOR gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs

This is the very reason someone like this SHOULDN'T be allowed to own a gun!

Alan

1-9-13, 10:07am

I hear all the 'right' words, concern for mentally ill, etc..., yet, I also hear strong defense for ALLOWING people to carry guns to political rallies. Some here INSIST it's their god given right to carry a LOADED GUN to a town hall or other political rally in order to 'remind' our leaders just who is in charge. Kind of a disconnect, don't you think? And I find the hand wringing of those who defend this ridiculous assertion rather phony. And in my opinion, these who think this practice is hunky dory are the very ones who SHOULDN'T have guns, at all!

I guess some of us just look at things differently. If you accept the premise that we all have the right to self defense, you probably wouldn't think in terms of being ALLOWED to exercise that right only at specific venues. I think that's where the disconnect really is, in that some folks want to play fast and loose with the rights guaranteed by the constitution and the vast majority of our states.

In my mind, you either have a right or you don't. Location is irrelevant.

bUU

1-9-13, 10:17am

Gregg

1-9-13, 10:24am

I'm not even sure what is meant by "mental health care".

And I don't think many of us are any more sure than you are ANM. It is certainly one of the primary issues we have to address if we're really going to try to solve our gun violence problem. I was blasted by some a while back for suggesting there is a stigma associated with mental health issues that keeps people from seeking help. Some here are going to totally disagree with me, but I still think there is. Its time for us, as a society, to grow up. No one wants to suffer from mental illness any more than anyone wants to get cancer, but it happens. When it does the people who have it should be supported and encouraged to seek treatment just like cancer patients are. We should put little blue ribbons for OCD on all our yogurt containers and have road races raising money to cure depression and include bipolar care in every insurance plan and... No safety net is absolute, but if we take a more enlightened approach we are bound to end up helping a lot of people who could exhibit violent behavior BEFORE anything tragic happens.

Couple this with an economy that doesn't work for many of our young, and resulting anger, easy access to drugs and alcohol and guns and...

Exactly Rob. A general sense of hopelessness or of being disenfranchised can only have negative consequences and I think a lot of our younger generation are feeling that. Desperate times may call for desperate measures, but if the times didn't seem so desperate it might have a pretty profound effect in all kinds of ways.

Gregg

1-9-13, 10:41am

I hear all the 'right' words, concern for mentally ill, etc...

I think most of the people expressing concern for how our society deals with mental illness are sincere regardless of their stand on guns. We don't do a good job of taking care of that segment of our society and that's a shame. I'm glad its starting to come to light. Obviously we all wish it wouldn't take a Newtown event to get the ball rolling, but maybe there can be something positive to come out of that.

Alan

1-9-13, 10:55am

CathyA

1-9-13, 11:03am

I didn't watch the entire You Tube video...........but it points out the huge difference between peaceful people and aggressive people. I swear, there's a real brain difference.
Judas Priest!!!
That's all I'm going to say. There will NEVER be a compromise among people like this. Never.

(Edited to add I didn't see the second page. My reply is in response to Peggy's last post).

bUU

1-9-13, 1:25pm

Actually, the right to self-defense is anything but a red herring as it was used in my response to another poster. Removing context in order to make a point is the real red herring.What Peggy wrote was about carrying a loaded gun into a government building, and carrying a loaded gun into a crowd. Self-defense absolutely is a red herring in those contexts.

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 1:33pm

I know this is not going to go over well, but I believe if we are absolutely sure of someone's guilt in matters like this (killing lots of people and being "crazy"), its time to remove them from our planet.
We spend too much money, time, energy on feeding, housing, guarding them. Let them go. They are a cancer and we must remove them. That wouldn't mean we aren't uncivilized, inhumane people. It would mean we see the reality of the situation clearly.I can understand how someone could be pushed to seeing things this way.....the problem I see here though is we don't know what in the background of these folks perhaps pushed them over the edge into this kind of behavior.....I for myself would not want to live in such a society that was OK with pushing such people off the planet - to me this would lead to serious consideration of attempts at political asylum elsewhere as I would not want to be part of such a society and I don't care to live stateless in a refugee camp somewhere.....Personally, if what you suggest were to take place, it would be more than I consider acceptable - I would really marshal my resources and make an aggressive effort to (legally) get out of such a society. But I understand most will not go to this extreme of a level.....Rob

bae

1-9-13, 1:41pm

What Peggy wrote was about carrying a loaded gun into a government building, and carrying a loaded gun into a crowd. Self-defense absolutely is a red herring in those contexts.

Why? Your assertion does not make it so.

I carry weapons into government offices almost every day. For reasons entirely to do with defense of self and others.

And I'm not sure why "crowds" diminish my interests in defense.

larknm

1-9-13, 1:41pm

I'm with Mrs. M. Plus I think most mental health care is as flawed as the people carrying it out, which makes it dangerous, the more extreme the care, the more dangerous it can be. I became a therapist because I had seen such horrific abuses and thought things could be done more humanely, without the often-inherent power-tripping.

bUU

1-9-13, 1:43pm

Why?Your asking indicates that we won't agree on the reasons.

Your assertion does not make it so.Ditto. It'll be adjudicated in the court of public opinion, the legislatures and the judicial courts.

bae

1-9-13, 1:46pm

Your asking indicates that we won't agree on the reasons.

So, you have no substantive discussion to offer, simply...bickering. Got it.

What kind of ice cream do you like?

Alan

1-9-13, 1:49pm

What Peggy wrote was about carrying a loaded gun into a government building, and carrying a loaded gun into a crowd. Self-defense absolutely is a red herring in those contexts.It looks like bae beat me to the punch and he is exactly right.

I spent over 30 years of my life carrying weapons in every possible combination of buildings, crowds, events, cities and states, all for the purpose of defense, mine and others. Why would you or anyone else want to strip me of that ability and what interests are served by doing so?

bUU

1-9-13, 1:54pm

Again, if you are asking, then I don't expect you to respect the reasoning that would take away what you think you have a right to. That's not to say that there aren't substantive reasons - it is rather a recognition that you wouldn't respect those substantive reasons, and an understanding that acknowledging that is superior than encouraging more disrespect for reasonable perspectives that you happen to dislike. We each know each others' positions, at this point. There's no need to brow-beat the thread talking about Ms. Giffords' initiative out of existence because she is promoting something that you don't want to happen.

Alan

1-9-13, 1:58pm

There's no need to brow-beat the thread talking about Ms. Giffords' initiative out of existence because she is promoting something that you don't want to happen.But it's OK to brow-beat the thread talking about opposition to others opinions because you don't like them, with no responsibility to share the basis of your opposition?
I'm thinking you chose your name well grasshopper.

bUU

1-9-13, 2:20pm

You seem to be trying to be offensively abusive as a rhetorical tactic. I tried to invite you to agree to disagree, but you seem totally uninterested in respecting views other than that which placates your preference. It's kind of pointless to engage you in this discussion given that you have made it clear that you're both unwilling to agree to disagree and unwilling to acknowledge reasonable disagreement with your preference.

bae

1-9-13, 2:25pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

bUU

1-9-13, 2:33pm

I was actually getting the impression that that's what Alan was aiming for, just argument for the sake of argument, instead of accepting that reasonable people disagree about it.

Yossarian

1-9-13, 2:33pm

We each know each others' positions

Well, not really since you won't share your reasoning. Maybe we should just call this a conclusion forum instead of a discussion forum. I guess it would make moderating a lot easier.>8)

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 2:36pm

What is it about guns and gun control that make it such a heated topic? On either side this topic really brings out the heat.....I feel utterly and totally hopeless on this one. I personally find guns terrifying and anyone who is so quick to jump in and aggressively defend them really gives me pause. I also know that there are those who are very into guns that are stable - I really do believe this much - but the problem is - not everyone with a gun is. I remember back in 1993 reading of an American who had fled Brooklyn - actually fled is a very melodramatic word - he immigrated - to Canada to get away from guns. I can see now why someone would do this - the aggressive rhetoric about guns - an instrument that can indeed harm, maim and kill - really has me wondering - is this acceptable? Is this what I want?

Beyond what I have just posted, is it acceptable that there will most likely never be a civil resolution about this issue, either? Rob

bUU

1-9-13, 2:37pm

Well, not really since you won't share your reasoning. Maybe we should just call this a conclusion forum instead of a discussion forum. I guess it would make moderating a lot easier.>8)I was pretty sure I made my position clear: Semi-automatic weapons are not required for personal protection. Anonymity when buying bullets is not required for personal protection. 30-round magazine clips are not required for personal protection. Loaded guns are not required for personal protection in government buildings. Loaded guns are not required for personal protection in crowds. These things are simply not required for personal protection. You can protect yourself with a basic firearm, with a small number of bullets loaded; in your own home or vehicle. Government can provide sufficient protection within government buildings and within crowds.

bae

1-9-13, 2:40pm

We each know each others' positions, at this point.

A join date of December 2012. 52 posts, most in public policy. A keen understanding of everyone else's positions. A well-chosen name.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Troll_sockpuppet.jpg/417px-Troll_sockpuppet.jpg

Alan

1-9-13, 2:44pm

Government can provide sufficient protection within government buildings and within crowds.I think the rash of violence in government schools, crowded theaters and shopping centers belies that conclusion.

bUU

1-9-13, 2:46pm

What is it about guns and gun control that make it such a heated topic?I cannot project what these other folks may be inspired by, but some pro-gun people are motivated by the presumption that they deserve deference from society, and/or that they innately are owed the trappings of personal sovereignty.

I personally find guns terrifying and anyone who is so quick to jump in and aggressively defend them really gives me pause.For me, it is only those who don't acknowledge that their access to guns should have any reasonable boundaries - i.e., that their access should be "well-regulated".

I also know that there are those who are very into guns that are stable - I really do believe this much - but the problem is - not everyone with a gun is.And not every gun (magazine clip, bullet, etc.) is necessarily safe in every (stable) gun owner's hands.

Beyond what I have just posted, is it acceptable that there will most likely never be a civil resolution about this issue, either? RobI think it'll come down to the passage of time. The way things things work is that every time there is clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed, the gun lobby does everything it possibly can to delay, derail, and deflect until they are "saved" by an ever-increasingly distracted public turning its attention to other issues.

A join date of December 2012. 52 posts, most in public policy. A keen understanding of everyone else's positions. A well-chosen name.You've posted a pointlessly abusive posting about posting. Who's the puppet?

Yossarian

1-9-13, 3:22pm

The way things things work is that every time there is clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed

But there has never been a time when there was "clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed", in my experience there have only been times when people get emotional or weigh in on subjects they don't really understand.

bUU

1-9-13, 3:36pm

And I'm willing to agree to disagree about that with you.

Are you willing to accept that reasonable people disagree with you about that?

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 3:37pm

But there has never been a time when there was "clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed", in my experience there have only been times when people get emotional or weigh in on subjects they don't really understand.With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you.....Out of respect to the innocent schoolchildren in Connecticut, I disagree with you. These 20 children that recently lost their lives are ample reason - to me, anyway - that something needs to be done. We could discuss all day long what that something is, and I don't myself know what that will eventually look like, but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so? And what does that say about the US as a country if the majority disagrees with this? Food for thought. Rob

Yossarian

1-9-13, 3:52pm

And I'm willing to agree to disagree about that with you.

Are you willing to accept that reasonable people disagree with you about that?

Well sure, but I would have to hear the reasoning before I could say whether any particular disagreement was reasonable or not.

Midwest

1-9-13, 3:54pm

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you.....Out of respect to the innocent schoolchildren in Connecticut, I disagree with you. These 20 children that recently lost their lives are ample reason - to me, anyway - that something needs to be done. We could discuss all day long what that something is, and I don't myself know what that will eventually look like, but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so? And what does that say about the US as a country if the majority disagrees with this? Food for thought. Rob

I agree with you that something needs to be done. What happened to those children, Giffords, the people in Colorado, and many others is horrible.

Respectfully, however, I disagree with many that the something is an assault weapson ban, a semi-auto ban, registration, ammo purchase restrictions etc.

The truth is, there are so many weapons in this country that bans are ineffective. There have been numerous shootings in New York, Connecticut, Chicago, California and Dc. All of which have bans and draconian gun laws for the common person. The truth is, bans don't work and criminals don't obey them anyway.

Registration (as proven by recent events in New York), poses another set of problems.

Since I'm posting about what won't work, let me suggest something that might at least start things down the right direction. I don't support registration in any way shape or form. I wouldn't, however, be opposed to a system that allows me (via some anonomous mechanism) to do a background check on a private party sale and prove that has happened to prevent guns getting in the hands of the wrong people. That would close the "gun show loophole" without many of the negatives I see to requiring registration.

Yossarian

1-9-13, 4:00pm

but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so?

I don't know Rob, what is it that you propose doing? It is appropriate to examine the options. But if the "solutions" don't fix the problem or make the problem worse, then yes, I would say doing nothing is better than making things worse.

bUU

1-9-13, 4:04pm

Well sure, but I would have to hear the reasoning before I could say whether any particular disagreement was reasonable or not.
And you have (even if you would prefer to try to make it seem like you haven't). Thanks.

Since I'm posting about what won't work, let me suggest something that might at least start things down the right direction. I don't support registration in any way shape or form. I wouldn't, however, be opposed to a system that allows me (via some anonomous mechanism) to do a background check on a private party sale and prove that has happened to prevent guns getting in the hands of the wrong people. That would close the "gun show loophole" without many of the negatives I see to requiring registration.Why should anyone who isn't in favor of gun believe that that will address the guns already out there, circulating in the black market, better than the solutions proposed by gun control advocates, like the Brady Campaign?

But if the "solutions" don't fix the problem or make the problem worse, then yes, I would say doing nothing is better than making things worse.But if the solutions would make things even a little better, as they likely would (according to many reasonable people who disagree with you), then doing nothing is the wrong thing to do.

Mrs-M

1-9-13, 4:12pm

Originally posted by Blackdog Lin.
It is not a gun issue; it is a mental health issue.You keep right on believing what you believe, however, IT IS A GUN ISSUE/PROBLEM.

Where lies the magic bullet in the empty "mental health" argument?

- All mentally unstable people out of the 300 million plus populace in America, are suddenly going to be fished-out and treated?

- Or, help will be conveniently dropped-off on the doorsteps (and laps) of all mentally ill people to assure guns, won't end up in their hands?

- Or, magically, because there's additional help (programs) being provided to mentally ill people, no new cases of mental illness will surface in the future? Problem over, problem solved?

- Or, those who are sane today, are guaranteed to remain sane tomorrow, all because of new initiatives?

Come now...

Yossarian

1-9-13, 4:12pm

But if the solutions would make things even a little better

Like what?

bae

1-9-13, 4:13pm

Since I'm posting about what won't work, let me suggest something that might at least start things down the right direction. I don't support registration in any way shape or form. I wouldn't, however, be opposed to a system that allows me (via some anonomous mechanism) to do a background check on a private party sale ...

And all they have to do to make this work is to allow you some form of access to the already-existing federal NICS instant-check system, which is already used by dealers. It would be relatively trivial, they already have apps and everything, and I don't think it would cost particularly much.

When I engage in private-party sales or purchases myself, I demand to see a state CCW permit from the other party as a proxy for the NICS, since that is sufficient evidence of an even greater level of scrutiny. Since Federal and State law already prohibit me from selling to a whole range of prohibited persons.

Midwest

1-9-13, 4:15pm

And all they have to do to make this work is to allow you some form of access to the already-existing federal NICS instant-check system, which is already used by dealers. It would be relatively trivial, they already have apps and everything, and I don't think it would cost particularly much.

When I engage in private-party sales or purchases myself, I demand to see a state CCW permit from the other party as a proxy for the NICS, since that is sufficient evidence of an even greater level of scrutiny. Since Federal and State law already prohibit me from selling to a whole range of prohibited persons.

I've never sold a firearm face to face, but agree completely with your approach.

bae

1-9-13, 4:21pm

But if the "solutions" don't fix the problem or make the problem worse, then yes, I would say doing nothing is better than making things worse.

It is also important to note that solutions typically have a cost. In the rights and freedoms of non-problem citizens. In the time and attention of governmental agencies. In money and resources.

"If it saves just one life" is not sufficient. In a world of non-infinite resources, the cost/benefit analysis must be done.

We could probably reduce "gun violence" to zero if we assigned an armed guard to follow around each of us 24x7 to keep us safe, and an armed guard to watch the armed guard to make sure the first guard wasn't getting out of line, and a guard to watch the guard's guard, and so on. It would save one child's life, almost certainly.

Meanwhile, our bridges collapse, our roadways deteriorate, our populace doesn't have access to healthy food, and a thousand other things happen that demand our non-infinite resources and attention.

bUU

1-9-13, 4:24pm

Like what?
Are you unaware of the details of the proposals I referred to earlier in the message you replied to? Or are you yet again just looking for an excuse to post a reply ignoring the existence of reasonable disagreement to that which you believe?

I'll test which is the case, by providing this list for you, and seeing whether you respond by acknowledging that reasonable people disagree with you, or by refusing to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree with you. (And I find it rather disappointing that your rhetorical tactics in this thread force me and other who disagree with you to post in such a manner, me clearly outlining this dichotomy for you, and others almost-deferentially apologizing for disagreeing with you.)

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

Midwest

1-9-13, 4:25pm

Why should anyone who isn't in favor of gun believe that that will address the guns already out there, circulating in the black market, better than the solutions proposed by gun control advocates, like the Brady Campaign?

I'm proposing a potential solution that doesn't impede the rights of law abiding citizens. Black market guns, by their nature, won't be impacted by new reg's anyway.

But if the solutions would make things even a little better, as they likely would (according to many reasonable people who disagree with you), then doing nothing is the wrong thing to do.

Sometimes you have to do a cost benefit analysis. We could elminate all vehicle deaths by banning vehicles, but the benefits of transport outweigh the lives saved. Similarly, we could eliminate almost all DUI's through an interlock device in all cars, but again the costs and rights trampled in the process outweigh the benefits.

I'm for reasonable policies that don't impact the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun bans aren't one of those policies in my opinion.

Incidentally, the policians seem to be focused on taking certain guns from the common man and leaving them only in the hands of police/military (and of course their bodyguards). Interestingly, I can name 3 recent cases where police within a 50 mile radius of me have lost loaded firearms (one of which was full auto). Haven't heard any cries to ban guns from the police. I'm fairly certain that the parties who stole the weapons in 2 of 3 cases won't be worrying about new laws passed. Maybe we should ban police guns for the children.

bUU

1-9-13, 4:31pm

I'm proposing a potential solution that doesn't impede the rights of law abiding citizens.So are those who propose more than what you've outlined.

Sometimes you have to do a cost benefit analysis.Given that what you're trying to protect in saying so isn't an unalienable right, the cost benefit analysis would start with determining whether safeguarding that privilege is worthwhile, vis a vis the potential costs.

Incidentally, the policians seem to be focused on taking certain guns from the common man and leaving them only in the hands of police/military (and of course their bodyguards). I worry quite about about how much of the anti-gun regulation rhetoric comes from groups that include many people who I would worry about the government's ability to protect me from. Reasonable people disagree about whether individual gun owners are more or less trustworthy than police officers. My opinion is that the odds favor trusting the police and distrusting those who oppose the measures I outlined in a message, above.

Midwest

1-9-13, 4:31pm

Are you unaware of the details of the proposals I referred to earlier in the message you replied to? Or are you yet again just looking for an excuse to post a reply ignoring the existence of reasonable disagreement to that which you believe?

I'll test which is the case, by providing this list for you, and seeing whether you respond by acknowledging that reasonable people disagree with you, or by refusing to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree with you. (And I find it rather disappointing that your rhetorical tactics in this thread force me and other who disagree with you to post in such a manner, me clearly outlining this dichotomy for you, and others almost-deferentially apologizing for disagreeing with you.)

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

Exactly what would be the point of tightening the CCW restrictions? So people don't get proper training and carry illegally? I wasn't aware that any of the shooters in the recent tragedies was a CCW holder or for that matter that CCW holders (as a group) were causing significant problems.

bae

1-9-13, 4:34pm

Incidentally, the policians seem to be focused on taking certain guns from the common man and leaving them only in the hands of police/military (and of course their bodyguards)..

On this point - there was a time when I lived in California when my family had received credible death threats from specific individuals. I was at the time licensed to carry a firearm, one of the < 20 "normal" citizens in a county of ~1.25 million people to have been able to jump through the hoops. This wasn't all that helpful though - I could not be with my family 24x7 however, and my mother and father lived in a different location in CA and had also been specifically threatened with death.

Luckily, I wasn't a "common man", and was simply able to avail myself of the same solution available to all California politicians and wealthy folks: I hired several armed protective teams to watch the people at risk. It was just money. Lots of money. (Sometime I'll post the hilarious story of the poor random burglar who picked the wrong day to try to break into my mother's garage during this time period...)

I'll always be able to protect myself, with teams of trained guys with plenty of weapons, wherever I go, just by throwing money at the problem.

The rest of you...may not. Good luck with that.

bae

1-9-13, 4:35pm

I wasn't aware that any of the shooters in the recent tragedies was a CCW holder or for that matter that CCW holders (as a group) were causing significant problems.

Actual data indicates in the USA that CCW holders (as a group) are more responsible with their firearms than law enforcement officers.

Facts aren't the order of the day though.

peggy

1-9-13, 4:35pm

It looks like bae beat me to the punch and he is exactly right.

I spent over 30 years of my life carrying weapons in every possible combination of buildings, crowds, events, cities and states, all for the purpose of defense, mine and others. Why would you or anyone else want to strip me of that ability and what interests are served by doing so?

And who, exactly, appointed you, and bae, and all the other 100,000 George Zimmermans Sheriff of Nottingham? LOL

In my opinion, there are only a very few out there who truly need to carry a gun where ever they go. The rest enjoy a rather inflated sense of importance, or are paranoid. Or both!;)

Or maybe they just watch too much TV. These street corner shoot outs don't really happen in every day life of average America.

bUU

1-9-13, 4:37pm

Yossarian

1-9-13, 4:40pm

Are you unaware of the details of the proposals I referred to earlier in the message you replied to? Or are you yet again just looking for an excuse to post a reply ignoring the existence of reasonable disagreement to that which you believe?

I'll test which is the case, by providing this list for you, and seeing whether you respond by acknowledging that reasonable people disagree with you, or by refusing to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree with you. (And I find it rather disappointing that your rhetorical tactics in this thread force me and other who disagree with you to post in such a manner, me clearly outlining this dichotomy for you, and others almost-deferentially apologizing for disagreeing with you.)

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what history you are talking about. I looked back over your posts in this thread, maybe I missed it twice somehow, but this is the first time I see what you are proposing. How do you think those ideas would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?

Midwest

1-9-13, 4:44pm

The proposed CCW restrictions allow transporting guns and bullets to training grounds. They restrict concealed carrying of loaded weapons. You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

Reasonable people would have facts to back up their position. CCW holders haven't been a problem, but let's infringe their rights regardless.

Unreasonable people take rights away from others because it bothers them for no logical reason.

You proposed several points. I completely agree with you regarding background checks on all transactions.

The problem is certain parties, including you, wish to impose a whole new set of restrictions many of which have already been proven ineffective and or are non-starters (ie semi-auto bans).

The Feinstein bill, as written, will go no where and proves my point that this has nothing to do with solutions and everything to do with trampling the rights of law abiding citizens.

bUU

1-9-13, 4:44pm

I'm sorry, I have no idea what history you are talking about. I looked back over your posts in this thread, maybe I missed it twice somehow, but this is the first time I see what you are proposing.I'm not proposing anything. I'm supporting what others are proposing. I referred to the folks who are making such proposals in the very same message you replied to! If you're not going to read the messages you reply to, then what are you doing? It seems to me that you're just throwing things up against the wall to try to find some way of dodge or evading the points being presented to you. Reasonable people disagree with you. Get over it.

How do you think those ideas would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?Why do you think that each and every proposal must utterly and completely eliminate the possibility of any random event that you choose to focus on in the moment? That rhetorical tactic is a pretty cynical way of trying to evade the points being made, regarding reducing risk (which you disagree with, but reasonable people disagree with you about that, something which you still haven't clearly acknowledged, despite several invitations to do so). With every new rhetorical game you play, you're underscoring the basis for the concerns that reasonable people who disagree with you have about the grounding of your advocacy.

bae

1-9-13, 4:45pm

The proposed CCW restrictions I've heard discussed allow transporting guns and bullets to training grounds. They restrict concealed carrying of loaded weapons. You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

"Reasonable". I don't think that word means what you think it means. (But I rather suspect you are simply throwing it out there constantly as a Lifton-esque thought-terminating cliche...)

"Reasonable" people look at the data. And they "reason".

Concealed carry is now legal in almost every state in the USA. The streets are not awash in the blood of innocents killed by trigger-happy cowboys with legally-carried firearms.

Civilian permit-holders, as a group, tend to misuse their firearms at a lower rate than trained, sworn law enforcement officers. This too is supported by fact, not "opinion".

Yossarian

1-9-13, 4:45pm

You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

Can you provide the evidence behind that risk assessment so we can all test whether it's reasonable?

Alan

1-9-13, 4:46pm

And who, exactly, appointed you, and bae, and all the other 100,000 George Zimmermans Sheriff of Nottingham? LOL

I wasn't appointed, I was employed in corporate security with emphasis on executive protection. Over a career, I carried weapons in the performance of my duties with hundreds of politicians, celebrities and high level executives. Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 4:50pm

You know what I find upsetting and off-putting here? There seems to be a consensus to harp on facts, logic, statistics, proof, etc. I am not going to totally discount the need for this - but what about the consequences of the 26 deaths in Sandy Hook and so many other recent shootings, what about the further fraying of US society, what about the further fraying of trust in everyday life and the increasing fear and wariness of being out in public in America today? Lots of good debate here BUT it does not seem as if anyone is addressing the consequences of the problem or has any real respect - that I have seen mentioned anyway - for the victims. Rob

bae

1-9-13, 4:52pm

Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.

Indeed, deliberately so. I have shared details about my family's personal circumstances before on this forum and the previous one that bear directly on why my wife and I choose to be armed. And why, for us, waiting for the "appointees" to arrive on scene would likely be a poor plan for us.

And yet Peggy predictably drops in with the personal insults.

Shameful.

peggy

1-9-13, 4:57pm

I wasn't appointed, I was employed in corporate security with emphasis on executive protection. Over a career, I carried weapons in the performance of my duties with hundreds of politicians, celebrities and high level executives. Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.

Perhaps you are one of the very few, but i still contend that the vast majority who feel they need to 'pack heat' are under some delusion of 'citizen protector' or 'everyone is out to get me'.

If you are still in that job, then obviously your job requires it. If you are no longer in that position, do you still carry a loaded gun? Where? Why?

The George Zimmerman reference applies to the vast majority of gun owners who feel they 'need' to carry everywhere, anywhere, any time.

bUU

1-9-13, 4:58pm

"Reasonable". I don't think that word means what you think it means. It does, and your comments here seem to indicate that you don't care to show any respect for reasonable people who disagree with you, which is what I postulated earlier. Let's just admit it at this point and move on.

Concealed carry is now legal in almost every state in the USA. And that raises the risks, not lower them, even if you disagree with it.

Civilian permit-holders, as a group, tend to misuse their firearms at a lower rate than trained, sworn law enforcement officers.Did the NRA teach you to say that? Our society deliberately asks law enforcement officers to put themselves in situations where they are subject to scrutiny regarding their gun use orders of magnitude more often than others.

Can you provide the evidence behind that risk assessment so we can all test whether it's reasonable?Why should I do so much work to dig out the contrary studies, and copy and paste them into the thread, when you'll only disagree with the conclusions? None of the gun advocates in this thread have shown any sincere interest whatsoever in viewing anything from the lens of the reasonable people who disagree with them. There hasn't been any indication of any sincere interest in learning why we support the proposals of folks like the Brady Campaign. Yet you are trying to make it sound like there is. That's pretty a nasty deception you're trying to perpetrate there.

Your George Zimmerman reference is insultingI think the insults have been flowing freely from those who oppose gun control in this thread, so any claims of affront in the other direction, at this point in the thread, is ridiculous. How about everyone start respecting perspectives that they disagree with? As I've offered quite a number of times before, let's be reasonable people agreeing to disagree. I disagree with you but haven't insinuated that your preference is unreasonable - just that it is just your preferred way of looking at the issue, and a preference we don't share - so don't insinuate that we who disagree with you aren't reasonable. It's patently and inexcusably offensive on your part to do so, and I think I and others have been exceedingly patient with the insults that have been liberally and scurrilously thrown our way.

bae

1-9-13, 4:59pm

You know what I find upsetting and off-putting here? There seems to be a consensus to harp on facts, logic, statistics, proof, etc.

Gosh, what a poor way to craft policy.

Let's just *do something*, *now*, for the children....

We can sort out if it actually works, if we can afford it, if it causes more problems than it is worth, or if it impedes the freedoms of others later! Well, unless American Idol comes on, then we'll all just go watch that!

:-)

I'll ask you, Rob, what have you, personally, done about this event? I have attended two active shooting seminars at a regional law enforcement training facility, and worked with our local law enforcement/emergency services/schools to do training/planning drills on-site here, joined the local fire department and am undergoing my firefighter/emt training.

Midwest

1-9-13, 5:06pm

Why should I do so much work to dig out the contrary studies, and copy and paste them into the thread, when you'll only disagree with the conclusions? None of the gun advocates in this thread have shown any sincere interest whatsoever in viewing anything from the lens of the reasonable people who disagree with them.

Reasonable people attempt to write laws to produce a given outcome (ie reduce gun crime). Unreasonable people write laws due to fear, paranoia and ignorance of the facts and ignore the negative consequences of the laws they are attempting to pass.

I agree with one of the proposals floated. That's a start for some common ground.

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 5:09pm

Gosh, what a poor way to craft policy.

Let's just *do something*, *now*, for the children....

We can sort out if it actually works, if we can afford it, if it causes more problems than it is worth, or if it impedes the freedoms of others later! Well, unless American Idol comes on, then we'll all just go watch that!

:-)

I'll ask you, Rob, what have you, personally, done about this event? I have attended two active shooting seminars at a regional law enforcement training facility, and worked with our local law enforcement/emergency services/schools to do training/planning drills on-site here, joined the local fire department and am undergoing my firefighter/emt training.Fair question Bae, though you might not like the answer. I have further thought about leaving the US - due to just not having any hope for resolution to this situation. I don't see any compromise coming down the pike between those who defend gun ownership and those who want gun control and I don't know that incidents like Sandy Hook can reasonably be prevented - so I take it to a place it doesn't seem like others here do. I.E. - is this citizenship viable for the long term and etc. Will leaving prevent Sandy Hook like incidents - no. I admit that. But I wonder if staying is indeed akin to condoning them in a way. But I do think that's great that you are getting training, I give you that. Rob

Yossarian

1-9-13, 5:09pm

then what are you doing?

Well, I was trying to understand what you want to and why. It's not that complicated and really no need for all the conspiracy theory.

Some differences of opinion are reasonable. The only way to tell is to have people explain. 30,000 people die in car accidents a year. If I lived in NYC maybe banning cars or imposing a national speed limit of 10 mph might seem reasonable.

As it stands I think most of the proposals are maybe well intentioned but poorly reasoned. C'est la vie.

Yossarian

1-9-13, 5:14pm

I have further thought about leaving the US

Well Rob if I remember correctly one of the places you were thinking about going was Mexico. I think they have very restricitve gun laws so hopefully you can live there without any gun issues to worry about.

Alan

1-9-13, 5:15pm

Criminal background checks on all gun sales

I agree with background checks on all gun sales

Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
I'm not sure what that means.

Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
I keep hearing about 30 round magazines being the enemy. I think this is not based on reason. If I have three 10 round magazines I can fire 30 rounds nearly as fast as if I had a 30 round mag. With practice, it takes just about a second to reload, without practice it takes maybe 2 or 3 seconds. Without making a practical difference, I don't see the value of that ban.

Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
You'd have to elaborate more on this. There are laws in virtually every jurisdiction prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons by felons, mentally impared, domestic abusers, persons under 21, etc. Are you suggesting that these laws be expanded to people who have never committed a crime, been adjudicated as dangerous, etc?

(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)
I haven't read Assembly Bill 48 in California, perhaps you could elaborate again? Are you talking about regulating quantity of ammunition or regulating certain characteristics of specific ammunition?

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 5:15pm

Gosh, what a poor way to craft policy.

Let's just *do something*, *now*, for the children....

We can sort out if it actually works, if we can afford it, if it causes more problems than it is worth, or if it impedes the freedoms of others later! Well, unless American Idol comes on, then we'll all just go watch that!

:-)

I'll ask you, Rob, what have you, personally, done about this event? I have attended two active shooting seminars at a regional law enforcement training facility, and worked with our local law enforcement/emergency services/schools to do training/planning drills on-site here, joined the local fire department and am undergoing my firefighter/emt training.See what I mean about this society being a poor fit for me? For me personally, the lives of the children lost in the Sandy Hook incident are more important than the rights of citizens to bear arms. This one I am afraid is set in stone for me.....ever since I saw my father pull a gun on my mother in a drunken rage in 1977. I don't know which embarrasses me more - the gun culture in the US or the lack of socialized medicine.....it's becoming a tie for me these days. So if nothing else, you can see how this society might be an ill fit for those who think like me then perhaps. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 5:17pm

Well Rob if I remember correctly one of the places you were thinking about going was Mexico. I think they have very restricitve gun laws so hopefully you can live there without any gun issues to worry about.Also Chile, Uruguay, and a few other places. There are issues in Mexico with guns - but the deal is most of the guns come from the US!!!!! Rob

bUU

1-9-13, 5:18pm

Reasonable people attempt to write laws to produce a given outcome (ie reduce gun crime). Unreasonable people write laws due to fear, paranoia and ignorance of the facts and ignore the negative consequences of the laws they are attempting to pass.And it is outrageously offensive for you to claim that there aren't reasonable people who see the facts of the matter directly contrary to you do.

Same facts, different perspectives; different conclusion. This is the reality that you're working so incredibly hard to evade, dodge, deny, etc.

Well, I was trying to understand what you want to and why.With respect, I don't get that impression and as a result surely won't be willing to spend a lot of time doing what is essentially pointless busy work on your order.

Some differences of opinion are reasonable.But you don't get to determine which are which, especially in this case where I've seen personally that you don't seem inclined to see things from a perspective which would undercut what you would prefer.

Midwest

1-9-13, 5:20pm

Actually, the majority of the guns in Mexico don't come from the US http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

That's the problem with idealogues make policy and misrepresenting the facts.

bae

1-9-13, 5:22pm

But I wonder if staying is indeed akin to condoning them in a way.

Rob -

I don't think you are "condoning" anything by continuing to live in the USA. To seriously hold that position would drive a person insane, IMHO - society will always be engaging in activities you find morally repulsive, and you won't be able to stop them all, or to avoid participating in some small ways.

I was born at a given time and place and made a citizen without any choice of my own. I have to live someplace and at this moment it is here. So as far as it is within my power I try to live in peace. Live simply, as best you can manage do not engage in activities that support evil, and do not neglect your neighbors, or the stranger, or the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the innocent. Do what you can, to the best of your ability, and don't go insane.

bUU

1-9-13, 5:24pm

I'm not sure what that means. The word "except" wasn't supposed to be there. I was going to word things as the negative of the converse of what I wrote, and then changed the wording to be simpler but left the extraneous word there.

I keep hearing about 30 round magazines being the enemy. I think this is not based on reason.And you're entitled to your opinion, and only as much respect for your opinion as you're willing to give the people who disagree with you. (Again, it sucks that you've basically force the tenor of the discussion that such replies are the only replies that make sense to provide you.)

it takes just about a second to reload, without practice it takes maybe 2 or 3 seconds.Thank you for admitting at least that much.

I haven't read Assembly Bill 48 in CaliforniaI might have the citation wrong. I'm doing this from memory. It was in the news yesterday I think. You'll have to just go on the description provided, because I'm not going to waste time providing you details that I have no reason to believe that you'll respect.

bae

1-9-13, 5:25pm

See what I mean about this society being a poor fit for me? For me personally, the lives of the children lost in the Sandy Hook incident are more important than the rights of citizens to bear arms. This one I am afraid is set in stone for me.....ever since I saw my father pull a gun on my mother in a drunken rage in 1977. ... So if nothing else, you can see how this society might be an ill fit for those who think like me then perhaps. Rob

Will you be moving to a country that bans alcohol then?

bae

1-9-13, 5:26pm

Actually, the majority of the guns in Mexico don't come from the US [URL]

Even when you count all the ones the BATF arranged to have smuggled down there :-(

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 5:27pm

Will you be moving to a country that bans alcohol then?I don't see the connection....if you are talking about my late father, yes, but if you are talking about other incidents such as Sandy Hook, I'm afraid I don't see the connection then, Bae. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 5:29pm

Rob -

I don't think you are "condoning" anything by continuing to live in the USA. To seriously hold that position would drive a person insane, IMHO - society will always be engaging in activities you find morally repulsive, and you won't be able to stop them all, or to avoid participating in some small ways.

I was born at a given time and place and made a citizen without any choice of my own. I have to live someplace and at this moment it is here. So as far as it is within my power I try to live in peace. Live simply, as best you can manage do not engage in activities that support evil, and do not neglect your neighbors, or the stranger, or the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the innocent. Do what you can, to the best of your ability, and don't go insane.Not a bad take on this Bae, I'll give you that.....I just find the deaths of those children and the inability of society to do anything about it more than I can accept, but still overall I see the point in your take here. Rob

Alan

1-9-13, 5:31pm

The word "except" wasn't supposed to be there. I was going to word things as the negative of the converse of what I wrote, and then changed the wording to be simpler but left the extraneous word there.

And you're entitled to your opinion, and only as much respect for your opinion as you're willing to give the people who disagree with you. (Again, it sucks that you've basically force the tenor of the discussion that such replies are the only replies that make sense to provide you.)

Thank you for admitting at least that much.

I might have the citation wrong. I'm doing this from memory. It was in the news yesterday I think. You'll have to just go on the description provided, because I'm not going to waste time providing you details that I have no reason to believe that you'll respect.

Well bicker, I'll have to be up front with you. If you insist that I (and others) respect your opinion, you should at least try a little harder to express it rather than simply roll off talking points and reject any discussion or questioning about what you've said. Remember, this is a discussion forum.

Yossarian

1-9-13, 5:31pm

But you don't get to determine which are which

LOL, of course I do, at least for me.

You can't just claim "this is reasonable" ... or "I have people skills"

http://youtu.be/sCC_PxRWVI4

Midwest

1-9-13, 5:31pm

And it is outrageously offensive for you to claim that there aren't reasonable people who see the facts of the matter directly contrary to you do.

Same facts, different perspectives; different conclusion. This is the reality that you're working so incredibly hard to evade, dodge, deny, etc.

I'm not attempting to evade anything. It's unreasonable to restrict the rights of people who aren't causing any problems (ie CCW).

I agree with you that high cap mags contribute to the additional deaths in certain cases (reason). I disagree given the proliferation in the marketplace that banning them will have any impact (reason) and seizing them tramples on property rights (reason). Given those set of facts, banning them is pointless. Same thing with certain rifles. In addition, my position is supported by facts such as the experience of several states who have enacted just such a ban and continue to have tragedies.

Many of the proposals are not written by reasonable people. I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is no reason or logic to a position, I'll call it out.

For instance, the Feinstein ban allows me to keep the weapons I own if I register them (for a fee). I can't sell them or transfer them to my heirs. Who cares about my property rights or the 2nd amendment, Diane doesn't like guns. Let's be honest, her proposal has very little to do with safety and everything to do with her hatred of guns and those who own them.

Finally, if the politicians and the anti-gun people were serious and reasonable, they wouldn't be proposing policies that have failed over and over again.

CathyA

1-9-13, 5:34pm

Rob.....there are alot of us who think like you. I think we're not as in-your-face as many gun rights people are.....but we're still here.
As I've said many, many times, the two distinct personalities I'm seeing among some people are very different. One type seems to be peaceful people who are willing to compromise on many issues, and they try to appreciate other people's positions/feelings. The other.........well, they want what they want dammit, and if they don't get it, then the world is trying very hard to destroy them, so they are constantly on guard.......with their protection at their side.
It isn't just a disagreement about weapons.........its an entirely different Weltanschauung.
And these discussions I guess are fine for back and forth stuff, but some people are never going to budge an inch.........so its fairly futile to try.
Try not to get discouraged Rob.

bae

1-9-13, 5:55pm

I agree with you that high cap mags contribute to the additional deaths in certain cases (reason). I disagree given the proliferation in the marketplace that banning them will have any impact (reason) and seizing them tramples on property rights (reason). Given those set of facts, banning them is pointless.

Furthermore, these standard-capacity magazines (or "high cap" as the trendy seem to call them) are quite useful for law-abiding citizens.

And it isn't as if such things are new. I have a Browning pistol in my safe here, a model still produced to this day. It was designed in 1914, and takes a 20 or 30 round magazine, though it is usually carried with a 13 or 15 round magazine.

People who tell you 6 or 10 rounds are "sufficient" simply are unaware of modern firearms training curriculum, and do not understand the dynamics of the reactive fight. I as always am happy to suggest reliable instructors to any who PM me.

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 5:56pm

bUU

1-9-13, 6:13pm

Remember, this is a discussion forum.
It is a discussion forum. Your denying that I have expressed my perspective, and completely, is offensively disrespectful. It's you trying to claim that you get to dictate what constitutes a substantive perspective on the issue - conveniently applying your bias to justify labeling anything that disagrees with what you want as insubstantial - just like you're trying to dictate what is and isn't the correct approach for our nation. You don't get to dictate that. You keep trying to rationalize your questioning of value judgments, qualitative appraisals of the facts, the importance of one life, the actual rights people have, etc., but that's all based on your perspective which I disagree with, and yes, I disagree with them as a reasonable person disagreeing with your perspectives. And I will repeat that every single time you try to deny it, because your opposition doesn't deserve an unrebutted soapbox.

Besides, your are a partisan. You are biased against the perspective I support, so your qualitative appraisals of my perspective are literally worthless, because they're tainted by that bias. So the only purpose you could have for posting them is to be offensively insulting, or to distract attention from perspectives you don't like, because you want your perspective to be the only one voiced. Tough. Get over it.

LOL, of course I do, at least for me. You can't just claim "this is reasonable" ... or "I have people skills" More blatant proof of the offensively insulting tactics that you seemingly think are appropriate to rely on to gird yourself against the reality that reasonable people disagree with your perspective.

I'm not attempting to evade anything. It's unreasonable to restrict the rights of people who aren't causing any problems (ie CCW). No it isn't; we restrict the rights of people who aren't causing problems all the time when they are in a population that includes people who do cause problems - the population in question in this case is "gun owners".

Your refusal to accept that we disagree about this, and that we can still remain both reasonable people in doing so, is indeed evasion.

I agree with you that high cap mags contribute to the additional deaths in certain cases (reason). I disagree given the proliferation in the marketplace that banning them will have any impact (reason) and seizing them tramples on property rights (reason). ... Same thing with certain rifles.And you're entitled to your agreement and disagreement. Just like everyone else. Including those who reasonably look at the data you look at and draw the opposition conclusion. Even though it is your preference to try to claim that it is not possible to reasonably look at that data and draw the opposite conclusion.

In addition, my position is supported by facts such as the experience of several states who have enacted just such a ban and continue to have tragedies. This is a perfect example of the fallacious rhetoric from gun supporters that we've seen several time in this thread and see often in the broader public arena: The inane insinuation that anything that doesn't absolutely, completely and utterly eliminates 100% of the risk is not worthwhile. It's a fallacy. Since the risk if of death, the burden rests on you, supporting the contention you support, to prove that more people would die if the restrictions and bans would be put in place than if they are not.

Given that the Second Amendment is fully satisfied even with all the restrictions and bans proposed in place. Even though you disagree about that.

Many of the proposals are not written by reasonable people. False. Again, this is the nonsense we typically see coming from gun supporters from all quarters - the offensively self-centered presumption that proposals that go against what they want must therefore be unreasonable. That overt disrespect for people who disagree with them is a major source of the "heat" of these issues, as mentioned very early in this thread.

I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is no reason or logic to a position, I'll call it out. And I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is inadequate humane or moral standing included in the reason for a position, I'll call it out.

freein05

1-9-13, 6:24pm

Why? Your assertion does not make it so.

I carry weapons into government offices almost every day. For reasons entirely to do with defense of self and others.

And I'm not sure why "crowds" diminish my interests in defense.

As I have said before in my 67 years I have never felt the need to carry a weapon. That includes the time my bank was robbed by 3 armed men. Me being armed would have done me or anyone else any good. To feel the need to be armed all the time seems silly to me.

The feeling in the US by many that you have the right to be armed all the time and that is a right stated in the 2nd amendment is crazy. People today now say the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect them from the government. They are crazy enough to actually say the 2nd gives them the right to use those arms against the government. I think that is called treason.

We change government by the power of the ballot box that is what keeps us from becoming a third world country. I fear those people who think the 2nd amendment was written so they could have the firepower to over throw the government.

Gabby Gifford's efforts to establish a group that would offset the power of the gun lobby should be applauded. She will have my support. You must remember that gun sales is a business. The manufactures make millions of dollars off of installing fear in people. The gun lobby makes millions off of the blood running in the halls at Sandy Hook, Aura and the blood of the six people killed when Gabby was shot. We don't need anymore Sandy Hooks.

Guns KILL!

Yossarian

1-9-13, 6:38pm

It is a discussion forum.

So why not try discussing something instead of just stating conclusions?

gimmethesimplelife

1-9-13, 6:42pm

As I have said before in my 67 years I have never felt the need to carry a weapon. That includes the time my bank was robbed by 3 armed men. Me being armed would have done me or anyone else any good. To feel the need to be armed all the time seems silly to me.

The feeling in the US by many that you have the right to be armed all the time and that is a right stated in the 2nd amendment is crazy. People today now say the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect them from the government. They are crazy enough to actually say the 2nd gives them the right to use those arms against the government. I think that is called treason.

We change government by the power of the ballot box that is what keeps us from becoming a third world country. I fear those people who think the 2nd amendment was written so they could have the firepower to over throw the government.

Gabby Gifford's efforts to establish a group that would offset the power of the gun lobby should be applauded. She will have my support. You must remember that gun sales is a business. The manufactures make millions of dollars off of installing fear in people. The gun lobby makes millions off of the blood running in the halls at Sandy Hook, Aura and the blood of the six people killed when Gabby was shot. We don't need anymore Sandy Hooks.

Guns KILL!+1 and applause, too.

Yossarian

1-9-13, 6:48pm

As I have said before in my 67 years I have never felt the need to carry a weapon....

The feeling in the US by many that you have the right to be armed all the time and that is a right stated in the 2nd amendment is crazy. People today now say the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect them from the government. They are crazy enough to actually say the 2nd gives them the right to use those arms against the government. I think that is called treason.

Free, I missed the part where someone asked you to carry anything. Does your support for civil rights really depend on your own personal use of that right?

The talk about treason is a red herring. The Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment protects a right of self defense. The Seventh Circuit decided that right extends outside the home. People have the right, but not the obligation, to use a weapon to defend themselves.

Gregg

1-9-13, 6:59pm

Criminal background checks on all gun sales

I also support this.

Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals

Strike "except", I understand. What I am not sure of is whether you mean assault rifles or all semi-automatic weapons. If you could clarify that bicker it would be easier to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips

Alan said that it only takes a few seconds to switch out magazines if someone is untrained and obviously less if they have practiced. I have 100% confidence in his training and experience, but still wanted to see for myself. I do not have any high capacity magazines, but did go through the motions of changing out standard capacity examples to satisfy my own curiosity. If I simply let the empty magazine fall to the floor, which is what I would assume anyone in a combative situation would do, it quite literally took me one second to expel the empty and snap in what would be a full, new magazine (it was empty when I tried this) and less time than that to work a new round into the chamber. Keep in mind that while I am proficient in the use of this firearm speed reloading is not something I had ever practiced before.

If I apply that experience to what was going on in the most horrific situations (Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, etc.) the time it took me to reload would not give even the most highly trained, battle hardened people we have time to rush me before I could start shooting again. It MIGHT give someone who had intense training AND a suitable weapon on hand time to shoot me, but what are the chances of that person being in my very immediate area? Innocent bystanders who were terrorized by what was going on would likely never know I temporarily ran out of ammunition. It would be nothing more than a pause between shots. My experiment led me to the conclusion that, had I been a shooter, there would be no difference in the outcome of my actions based on the capacity of my magazine(s). With that in mind I am guessing these magazines are being offered as a political sacrificial lamb. If we get rid of them it would help make those opposed to them feel better even if in reality it did nothing to help solve the problem. It would not be the first time politicians took that road.

Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons

"Expand laws" is too vague to be able to comment one way or the other because it could mean almost anything. Are you willing to provide a little more detail regarding what you have in mind to facilitate discussion?

(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California

I'm not in CA so don't know what the proposals out there are. When I googled this one it came up as the "Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act". I'm guessing that's not the one.

Alan

1-9-13, 7:01pm

It is a discussion forum. Your denying that I have expressed my perspective, and completely, is offensively disrespectful. It's you trying to claim that you get to dictate what constitutes a substantive perspective on the issue - conveniently applying your bias to justify labeling anything that disagrees with what you want as insubstantial - just like you're trying to dictate what is and isn't the correct approach for our nation. You don't get to dictate that. You keep trying to rationalize your questioning of value judgments, qualitative appraisals of the facts, the importance of one life, the actual rights people have, etc., but that's all based on your perspective which I disagree with, and yes, I disagree with them as a reasonable person disagreeing with your perspectives. And I will repeat that every single time you try to deny it, because your opposition doesn't deserve an unrebutted soapbox.

Besides, your are a partisan. You are biased against the perspective I support, so your qualitative appraisals of my perspective are literally worthless, because they're tainted by that bias. So the only purpose you could have for posting them is to be offensively insulting, or to distract attention from perspectives you don't like, because you want your perspective to be the only one voiced. Tough. Get over it.

LOL, I can see already that you're gonna be....interesting. Welcome to the forums.

Gregg

1-9-13, 7:02pm

Free, I missed the part where someone asked you to carry anything. Does your support for civil rights really depend on your own personal use of that right?

+1 It's an important question in the big picture.

Gregg

1-9-13, 7:12pm

*** MOD HAT ON ***

Just a friendly reminder for old salts and a heads up for our newer members: Personal attacks, inflammatory language, etc. directed at other members is against our forum's mutually agreed upon rules of etiquette (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?12-Forum-Etiquette). Everyone kindly take a breath and consider your words before hitting the post button.

freein05

1-9-13, 7:31pm

Free, I missed the part where someone asked you to carry anything. Does your support for civil rights really depend on your own personal use of that right?

The talk about treason is a red herring. The Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment protects a right of self defense. The Seventh Circuit decided that right extends outside the home. People have the right, but not the obligation, to use a weapon to defend themselves.

I am looking to protect myself from those who yearn for the Wild West days. I hope we live in civilized country. The need people feel to carry heat comes from comic books and the NRA.

Alan

1-9-13, 7:37pm

I am looking to protect myself from those who yearn for the Wild West days. I hope we live in civilized country. The need people feel to carry heat comes from comic books and the NRA.I don't remember any weapons in my old Archie comics and have never been an NRA member. I did like The Wild Wild West though, James West was cool, and he had a train.

bUU

1-9-13, 7:42pm

So why not try discussing something instead of just stating conclusions?
I have been. I respect your right to try to make it seem otherwise.

LOL, I can see already that you're gonna be....interesting. Welcome to the forums.
Thanks. I will likely continue to discuss things based on criteria other than your own.

Alan

1-9-13, 7:45pm

Thanks. I will likely continue to discuss things based on criteria other than your own.
Great! That's what makes a discussion forum interesting.

Yossarian

1-9-13, 7:59pm

I am looking to protect myself from those who yearn for the Wild West days.

What is the crime rate for licensed concealed carry holders?

peggy

1-9-13, 8:40pm

Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.

Hummm...What a difference a day makes! You defended Zimmerman quite forcefully, and defended his actions, even though it was pretty obvious to most what the situation was. You defended his right to carry, and was quite certain, CERTAIN I tell you, that he was innocent. (Because we all know that someone who went through training with guns, and who carried to 'protect' his neighbors couldn't possibly be drawn into such a horrible abuse of gun rights/training)
I assumed you admired the guy.>8)

Alan

1-9-13, 8:53pm

Hummm...What a difference a day makes! You defended Zimmerman quite forcefully, and defended his actions, even though it was pretty obvious to most what the situation was. You defended his right to carry, and was quite certain, CERTAIN I tell you, that he was innocent. (Because we all know that someone who went through training with guns, and who carried to 'protect' his neighbors couldn't possibly be drawn into such a horrible abuse of gun rights/training)
I assumed you admired the guy.>8)
Yes, what a difference a day makes! (Now I'm humming that)

I recall as if it were only yesterday how you vilified him as a racist and an irresponsible, murdering cowboy. I'm glad to see that when you referenced myself and bae with his name, your opinions had changed. Maybe you weren't being insulting at all.

Sing it with me:

What a difference a day makes
Twenty-four little hours
Brought the sun and the flowers
Where there used to be rain

My yesterday was blue, dear
Today I'm a part of you, dear
My lonely nights are through, dear
Since you said you were mine

What a difference a day makes
There's a rainbow before me
Skies above can't be stormy
Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss

It's heaven when you find romance on your menu
What a difference a day made
And the difference is you

What a difference a day makes
There's a rainbow before me
Skies above can't be stormy
Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss

It's heaven when you find romance on your menu
What a difference a day made
And the difference is you

DocHolliday

1-9-13, 9:42pm

Furthermore, these standard-capacity magazines (or "high cap" as the trendy seem to call them) are quite useful for law-abiding citizens.
...

People who tell you 6 or 10 rounds are "sufficient" simply are unaware of modern firearms training curriculum, and do not understand the dynamics of the reactive fight. I as always am happy to suggest reliable instructors to any who PM me.

There's a case in the news the last couple of days about an intruder at a home outside of Atlanta who searched for and found the homeowner and her children who were hiding. She shot him 5 times and her gun was empty. He left and wrecked his car, that's where the police found him.

http://loganville.patch.com/articles/loganville-woman-shoots-burglar-several-times

DocHolliday

1-9-13, 9:57pm

Self-defense is a red herring for most of what is being discussed today. A semi-automatic weapon is not required for personal protection. A 30 round magazine clips is not required for personal protection. Personal protection doesn't require the ability to buy bullets (or guns, for that matter) anonymously.

What you have the right to do is indeed limited and subject to regulation, whether we're talking about free speech (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), free exercise of religion (polygamy), freedom of the press (publishing top secret documents), or Second Amendment rights.

A semi-auto may not be "required" for personal protection, but it may very well be the best possible tool for the job. I don't see police, secret service, or the military using revolvers these days...

Yes, there are defininitely restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. We can't just walk right in and buy a machine gun, less than 16" barrelled rifle, less than 18" barrelled shotgun, or suppressor like we can with "regular" firearms.

DocHolliday

1-9-13, 10:04pm

DocHolliday

1-9-13, 10:12pm

Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals

How do you define "semi-automatic weapons"? Semi-automatics have been around since the late 1880. Do semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns fit into your definition?

DocHolliday

1-9-13, 10:15pm

Actual data indicates in the USA that CCW holders (as a group) are more responsible with their firearms than law enforcement officers.

Facts aren't the order of the day though.

Seems like there's a story every couple of weeks about an officer shooting a chained up or fenced-in dog. Shoot first ask questions later...

Midwest

1-9-13, 10:30pm

No it isn't; we restrict the rights of people who aren't causing problems all the time when they are in a population that includes people who do cause problems - the population in question in this case is "gun owners".

I was responding to you specifically advocating additional restrictions against CCW holders (among your other proposals). If your objective is to prevent gun violence, it makes little if any sense to target a group who, statisically speaking, is the cause of few problems and for the most part are law abiding citizens. In my state, a training course and an FBI background check is required to receive a CCW. We have had very little in the way of problems with the group.

Your proposal to single CCW holders out because they are gun owners is like banning the Amish from a road because the road a problem with people speeding. Sure they use the road, but the chances of the Amish speeding are fairly low. Guess it works if you don't like Amish, but probably makes more sense to target the problem (ie the people in cars).

On a lighter note, I generally agree with 2 of the 3 points proposed by Giffords. More background checks and investigating mental health issues. The devil could be in the details, but if we actually want to solve problems we need to find common ground.

Spartana

1-9-13, 10:49pm

I remember back in 1993 reading of an American who had fled Brooklyn - actually fled is a very melodramatic word - he immigrated - to Canada to get away from guns. I can see now why someone would do this - the aggressive rhetoric about guns - an instrument that can indeed harm, maim and kill - really has me wondering - is this acceptable? Is this what I want?

Beyond what I have just posted, is it acceptable that there will most likely never be a civil resolution about this issue, either? Rob

Rob - Canada is not a firearm free country. The only difference between it and the USA is the requirements to buy, own and carry certain firearms. Firearms are more restricted but they are there:

ACTUAL NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN CANADA

In 1945, despite massive non-compliance, the RCMP managed to register nearly 2 million firearms, comprised of 1.7 million rifles and shotguns and the remainder handguns. Add to this the nearly 8 million firearms imported between 1945 and 2000 and you get 10 million firearms.

Please note that to arrive at this figure of 10 million firearms we did not:

Add any portion of the more than 6 million firearms manufactured in Canada from the 1920s to present; or
Subtract up to one-quarter of a million guns destroyed by the RCMP between 1978-2000, or
Subtract the 1.6 million firearms exported between 1970-1998. The National Firearms Association Estimate of the Number of Firearms and Owners in Canada.

The National Firearms Association has come to conclusion there are approximately 7 million owners with 21 million firearms

According to Wikipedia, Canada is ranked number 13 of all countries in gun ownership per 100 people (approx. 31 guns /100 people in Canada). That is lower then the US (number one with 88/100) and such countries as Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and France - all in the top 10 of gun ownership per 100 people. All of those countries have very low death by firearms in all cases: crime, accidental, suicide, or mass shootings.

Spartana

1-9-13, 11:36pm

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California) All these already exist in Calif (and several other states) yet have done nothing to curb gun violence or mass shootings.

And what do you mean by banning semi-auto's except to individuals? I have semi-auto rifles and handguns (as most pistols are) with Calif legal magazine capacities yet I can re-load them rapidly from as many pre-loaded 8 round (10 rounds in the case of a rifle) magazines in less then a second - thus firering many many rounds rapidly. So I don't understand the need to ban a certain type of firearm or even limit the magazine capacity to prevent a rapid fire mass shooting kind of situation. The same thing can be done with most any handgun. And as other's have pointed out in different threads - carrying several handguns and many magazines is easily concealable.

ETA: I finally caught up with all the posts and see that several other's mentioned the ease to to cahnge out mags fast. Also I understand Bicker meant "ban semi-autos for all individuals - not except for them. Next time I'll read it all before posting. I know..I say that every time and never do ;-)!

Spartana

1-9-13, 11:50pm

The proposed CCW restrictions I've heard discussed allow transporting guns and bullets to training grounds. They restrict concealed carrying of loaded weapons. You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks. In Calif, CCW is a permit to carry a concealed loaded weapon. They are very difficult to get here unless you work in public safety or have a darned good reason. There are other laws that tell you how you are able to transport a firearm. Most require they be in a locked container, with the ammo seperate from the firearm. It is illegal to transport a loaded weapon or have an unlocked firearm - loaded or unloaded - on your person or in your vehicle. Except those who have a CCW permit.

Spartana

1-10-13, 12:04am

Fair question Bae, though you might not like the answer. I have further thought about leaving the US - due to just not having any hope for resolution to this situation. I don't see any compromise coming down the pike between those who defend gun ownership and those who want gun control and I don't know that incidents like Sandy Hook can reasonably be prevented - so I take it to a place it doesn't seem like others here do. I.E. - is this citizenship viable for the long term and etc. Will leaving prevent Sandy Hook like incidents - no. I admit that. But I wonder if staying is indeed akin to condoning them in a way. But I do think that's great that you are getting training, I give you that. Rob

Be careful if you go to Mexico Rob!! This from todays Huff Post: A total of 34,612 people have died in drug-related killings in Mexico in the four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared an offensive against drug cartels, officials said Wednesday. A

I know you've talked often of moving to Mexico, but like many places in the USA there is gun violence there too - and not just drug related killings but a high number of other crime, accidental, and suicides. And Mexico has very tough gun laws and a fairly low ownership/capita of legal firearms. So the gun violence there is probably much greater then here in terms of shootings and death. So while I DO support gun regulations, I feel that we need to look into other causes of gun violence and mass shootings then merely "what kind of gun did the person have?" hope I'm convincing you to stay around awhile longer :-)!

Spartana

1-10-13, 12:20am

Not a bad take on this Bae, I'll give you that.....I just find the deaths of those children and the inability of society to do anything about it more than I can accept, but still overall I see the point in your take here. Rob But it takes time for society to do anything. Just like in the Oklahoma city bombing, it took time to decide what was the best course of action to reduce or eliminate that kind of thing. The solution was to change the way people could enter the building, park near by, and some "attractive" concrete barricades to prevent vehicles from just driving up to ther front doors. That and more asrmed security. I don't think that it will do much good due to the extent of these kinds of bombs, but it is a reasonable solution.

The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings[

Spartana

1-10-13, 12:45am

Alan said that it only takes a few seconds to switch out magazines if someone is untrained and obviously less if they have practiced. .
As well as with a speed loader (or multiple ones) for a standard 6 shot revolver. I have several and they can be used to reload in a sec or 2. A bit more cumbersome then putting in a new mag but still fast.

bae

1-10-13, 1:23am

As well as with a speed loader (or multiple ones) for a standard 6 shot revolver. I have several and they can be used to reload in a sec or 2. A bit more cumbersome then putting in a new mag but still fast.

I've seen this fellow shoot. I'm not *quite* this fast, but can do a semi-credible imitation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

Now though I cheat when I carry a revolver:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JyjPC0aGsxo/TDZGEDCEaKI/AAAAAAAABKA/16c0OdsNr10/s640/img_0325.jpg

bUU

1-10-13, 5:15am

All these already exist in Calif (and several other states) yet have done nothing to curb gun violence or mass shootings. You mean you have a "practice" version of California, where people who are identical to "our" Californians live without such laws, and you can provide detailed evidence comparing these two Californias? Let's go visit this practice California you apparently have and verify your data. /s/

I didn't think so. So we're back to your decision to interpret the data the way that serves your preference and reasonable people who disagree with you interpreting the data in a completely different way.

So I don't understand the need to ...And that's okay. Not every gun owner has to "understand the need" for every gun restriction. Some of my family members are gun owners and they don't even try to understand. Some of those family members also don't understand why we have to pay taxes. ... or why we have to be fair to minorities and women. And some other of my family members don't understand why we would hold Israel to account for their actions, and why would consider any Arab to be friendly. Heck, I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneously possession of more than one or two guns - I've never seen anyone successfully shoot three guns simultaneously.

It is okay for some people to not understand. It's the nature of bias to obstruct understanding.

In Calif, CCW is a permit to carry a concealed loaded weapon. They are very difficult to get here unless you work in public safety or have a darned good reason. There are other laws that tell you how you are able to transport a firearm. Most require they be in a locked container, with the ammo seperate from the firearm. It is illegal to transport a loaded weapon or have an unlocked firearm - loaded or unloaded - on your person or in your vehicle. Except those who have a CCW permit.
Those are the types of restrictions that they're proposing. You apparently already have them in place in your state. (I know I have them in place in my state.)

DocHolliday

1-10-13, 8:28am

Heck, I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneously possession of more than one or two guns.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean that reasonable people don't understand why someone would want more than one or two guns. A gun that is fine for squirrel hunting doesn't mean that it will be fine for bird hunting. A gun that is fine for bird hunting will not be fine for deer hunting. A gun that is fine for deer hunting isn't definitely fine for bear hunting. A bear gun isn't the best weapon for home defense. Your home defense gun won't be the best available tool for target shooting. Reasonable and knowledgeable people know these things.

Mrs-M

1-10-13, 8:45am

Background checks? http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/laugh3-smiley.gif?1292867631

Mrs-M

1-10-13, 8:54am

Time for me to present MY "magic bullet" solution. How about two guns per person? http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/gun-toot-smiley.gif?1292867611

Instead of carrying just one on either your right or left side, how about two, one for each side? Theoretically, that in itself should keep America, twice as safe. http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/hehaha-smiley.gif?1292867615

Mrs-M

1-10-13, 8:57am

At any rate, this thread supplies me with my recommended daily dose of comedy!

bUU

1-10-13, 9:04am

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean that reasonable people don't understand why someone would want more than one or two guns.I didn't say anything about what a gun owner might "want". You evidently misread two important words in what I wrote. What I wrote was that I don't understand why we (i.e., everyone else in society) need (i.e., essential aspect, not discretionary aspect) to allow anyone to have simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns.

Regardless, beyond those two misunderstandings, you also misunderstood the point I was making, i.e., that it is often not necessary for people to understand why other people hold to perspectives contrary to their own. Their lack of understanding, expressed to me earlier in the thread, doesn't exempt what they're wanting (there's your word in its proper place) from broader scrutiny. And the point I was making that my lack of understanding why we would allow even what these restrictions we're talking about would continue to allow doesn't exempt me from the ramifications of that rationale for allowing (in that case) simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns.

A gun that is fine for squirrel hunting doesn't mean that it will be fine for bird hunting.Personal protection is the basis on which objections to the proposals being made are being voiced. Beyond that, you have again misunderstood what I wrote. I use words very deliberately - nothing is wasted. I said that I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns. I have no problem with people owning separate guns for squirrel hunting and for bird hunting. The storage, inventorying, and general access to those guns you own, though, can perhaps be heavily controlled and regulated, such that you would be unable to possess both at the same time, limiting you to either squirrel hunting or bird hunting at any one time. You may perceive this as an onerous invasion into your freedom. I'm okay with you feeling that way. I don't even think we need to set a single absolute limit, say two guns - but rather am making the point that if it weren't for the self-serving brow-beating of the NRA and others, we would be able to pursue a more nuanced inventory control system, that lends sufficient flexibility for (for example) those who want to go squirrel hunting and bird hunting on the same day, but doesn't facilitate other types of flexibility. The overwhelming cadence of "me my mine" by gun supporters drowns out any chance of talking about a nuanced system that could work well enough for everyone's perspective, and that brings us back to the point I was making - that I just have to live with the fact that I don't understand why some gun owners won't respectfully negotiate with those who wish to reach a compromise between the the two sides of this specific "number and nature of guns" issue, due to it's lesser importance (as compared to the other proposals, i.e., semi-automatics, restrictions on CCW permits such as those in California, etc.).

Reasonable and knowledgeable people know these things.Moral and principled people know things that I could make puerile aspersions implying that you don't know. You have fallen into the same self-serving trap that others in this thread have, assuming that people who disagree with you about what the rules should be don't know the relevant facts. We do. And we still think your perspective is wrong. Learn to live with it and respect it, or learn to earn the disrespect that you irresponsibly seek to dish out.

At any rate, this thread supplies me with my recommended daily dose of comedy!This is such a sticky, contentious issue that I worry that many people who would otherwise be sincere and fervent in advocating for more changes seek to make light or otherwise marginalize the issue to keep from feeling the importance of the issue that stems from past tragedies.

Mrs-M

1-10-13, 9:26am

Originally Posted by Mrs-M.
At any rate, this thread supplies me with my recommended daily dose of comedy!

Originally posted by Bicker.
This is such a sticky, contentious issue that I worry that many people who would otherwise be sincere and fervent in advocating for more changes seek to make light or otherwise marginalize the issue to keep from feeling the importance of the issue that stems from past tragedies.So far all I see is, selective misunderstanding, and just like, selective hearing, pro-gun lobbyists, can claim a quiet victory by pulling out their dumb-cards in relation to addressing the real issue, GUN-VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, with viable and realistic solutions.

Yossarian

1-10-13, 9:28am

assuming that people who disagree with you about what the rules should be don't know the relevant facts. We do.

So far you haven't shown any understanding of the facts, just a rabid opinion and a robust capability to spew hostility and dismiss anyone who might disagree with you as biased. But at least we know you have a good plan for reducing all the violent crime committed by the hordes of people simultaneously carrying a squirrel gun and a bird gun.

CathyA

1-10-13, 9:37am

I don't know why we even have these discussions. It never leads to anything but to preaching to our own choirs.
And I must say, some of the pro-gun people here are pretty rude and totally closed-minded, resorting to rude insults. (that does not apply to all the gun owners here....just a couple).
Listen everyone.........if you like arguing for argument's sake, then okay, have at it.
But if you're hoping for any kind of open-minded discourse, it ain't going to happen......at least not with a couple of the pro-gun people here.
(who by the way, just love bragging about their stockpile, showing pictures of various weapons, etc. if only to inflame).
If you want to talk survivalist stuff, or gun stuff.........why don't you go to the various forums out there, where you'll have all the agreement you need.........instead of needing to bully and argue.
I find it fairly sickening.

bUU

1-10-13, 9:42am

So far you haven't shown any understanding of the factsYes I have. I just disagree with you. It's a shame you cannot admit that.

Mrs-M

1-10-13, 9:49am

Yossarian

1-10-13, 10:09am

I just disagree with you.

And that's fine! Yes some people may whine about disagreement but that is actually what makes things interesting to discuss. You have strong opinions about what you want done. But just stating your conclusion and saying reasonable people agree doesn't contribute much. What would be great is if you could explain the reasoning or logic or studies or evidence that supports what you propose. Just calling everyone who questions your conclusions biased is unfair if you haven't presented any evidence to support your position. Give it a shot. People here may surprise you.

Gregg

1-10-13, 10:10am

And I must say, some of the pro-gun people here are pretty rude and totally closed-minded, resorting to rude insults. (that does not apply to all the gun owners here....just a couple).

Curious. I have an obligation to try to read ALL the posts in this section of the forums. My take is rather opposite of yours CathyA. It's easy enough to see how one side won't budge because they feel there are larger issues at stake and the other side interprets that as being closed minded. What I haven't noticed from the pro-gun side is any kind of aggressive rudeness. The only comments from that side that struck me as discourteous were in response to insulting comments.

One of the biggest problems with this issue is that everyone brings preconceived notions to the table. What those are becomes quite obvious if you want to read this thread from front to back. Those cause people to not seek out the REAL facts because they think they already know what the truth is. On the larger stage, VP Biden has made it fairly clear in the past few days that the administration is "GOING to take action". No one knows exactly what that means, but other clues from his time with the press (as well as his past) indicates his mind is made up on what course of action will be pursued. He meets with the NRA today. My guess is that meeting will be somewhat less productive than this discussion has been.

Gregg

1-10-13, 10:26am

Feel free to correct me if I stand wrong, but how I understand a "background check"... it's sort of like a credit-check, am I right? Where once someone is approved for a loan/monies, because a credit-check has been conducted/performed, suddenly, the credit-check ensures that no missed or late payments will ever occur?

Does the same hold true for a "background CRIMINAL check"? Where once an applicant is approved to purchase, carry, and use a gun, because a "background CRIMINAL check" was performed, the person will never succumb to criminal activity or misuse/compromise the privilege of gun-ownership?

There are no crystal balls. Credit and background checks are risk assessment tools. A kind of insurance policy. Future predictions are based on past behavior, just like in any other human endeavor. That is all anyone can do.

A credit check does not insure that no payment will ever be missed. People have a good credit score because they have honored their obligations to pay back borrowed money and have been responsible with their finances in the past. People pass a background check because they have not broken laws, exhibited violent behavior, been treated for mental illness and because they have acted responsibly as a member of society.

Is it possible that someone with a high credit score will lose their job and be unable to meet their financial obligations? Of course it is. Is it also possible that someone who has passed a background check will become afflicted with a mental disorder that could cause them to become violent? Yes it is. There are no guarantees in life. Politicians try to make us believe there are. Anyone who believes them is simply a fool.

bUU

1-10-13, 11:17am

Yossarian

1-10-13, 12:04pm

like the Brady Campaign, suggest.

Ah yes, the Brady people. Let's see how their suggestions work. They like laws that lower gun ownership:

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/files/2012/12/Table-Average-PGO.jpg

But what does that lead to? More violent crime?

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/files/2012/12/Table-Ave-VC-Rate.jpg

What was the impact of restricting guns? Maybe you can share some helpful data from the palces with strict gun control, like Chicago and Washington to help your case?

According to the government the Assualt Weapons ban had no impact on crime: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=96

How about in schools? Have bans help there?

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/9f/47/9f47da061ec9ea96ce11d92742676b93.jpg

bUU

1-10-13, 12:20pm

Still nothing worthwhile to contribute Yossarian?
Gun control opponents ... have to actually propose solutions to the problems that have been raised. Just whining about the proposals others are making, without proving that the have proposals of their will actually result in significantly fewer tragedies, will invariably be considered an attempt to assert their personal preference.

Yossarian

1-10-13, 12:28pm

Still nothing worthwhile to contribute Yossarian?

Sure, what is the problem you want to address? The issues may be different for "mass shootings" versus the general carnage that occurs within certain demographics or geographies.

So let's start with that. Crime rates are reaching historic lows: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Since we are moving toward historic crime lows while right to carry laws and gun ownership increases, you have to identify what it is about that trend that you want to change.

Gregg

1-10-13, 12:31pm

Gun supporters just stating their conclusions doesn't contribute much.

If supporting evidence is given with the conclusion then yes, I believe it does. I gave you (the proverbial you) an example of high capacity magazines a few pages back. I stated exactly how I had arrived at the conclusion that banning them would make no difference whatsoever in the carnage level of a mass shooting. If someone had arrived at a different conclusion the logical course of action would be to compare methodology, find and correct any errors and then use that information to draw a new, and presumably better, conclusion. No one came forward. Either no one cares about the subject or the conclusion was correct based on the evidence given so any possible retort was rendered moot.

bUU

1-10-13, 12:45pm

Sure, what is the problem you want to address?A question rife with the kind of feigned ignorance that demonstrates the abject disrespect for perspectives that you don't want to deal with.

If the way things are now were good enough, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If supporting evidence is given with the conclusion then yes, I believe it does.Evidence supporting their own criteria, not the criteria I outlined. So, no - I believe it does not.

It sure is easy for gun control opponents to win the game when they make up the rules themselves, though, isn't it?

I stated exactly how I had arrived at the conclusion ...And if that rationale met the threshold I outlined earlier, then it wouldn't still be a matter of discussion whenever this issue is brought up. What you truly need to come to understand is that your rationale, within the boundaries and premises that you impose on the argument, are inadequate in the context which you're trying to express them (i.e., as a resolution to the valid concerns by reasonable people who disagree with you about gun control). I think opponents of gun control are their own worst enemies when they try to justify their positions with self-serving defenses in the context of self-defined criteria.

Yossarian

1-10-13, 12:53pm

not the criteria I outlined.

Just so we are clear, what is that criteria? I looked back but I don't see what you are talking about.

creaker

1-10-13, 12:56pm

Sure, what is the problem you want to address? The issues may be different for "mass shootings" versus the general carnage that occurs within certain demographics or geographies.

So let's start with that. Crime rates are reaching historic lows: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Since we are moving toward historic crime lows while right to carry laws and gun ownership increases, you have to identify what it is about that trend that you want to change.

I think one would need show a connection between the two - more people own and carry smartphones as well, but I would not immediately attribute a drop in violent crime rates to it.

Added: then again - ability of people to dial 911, take pictures and video - I wonder if smartphones are attributable to a portion of the drop?

Yossarian

1-10-13, 1:02pm

I think one would need show a connection between the two - more people own and carry smartphones as well, but I would not immediately attribute a drop in violent crime rates to it.

Agreed, but that is the starting correlation. There is likely a lot more to the analysis, but that's what I want to see- the analysis.

ApatheticNoMore

1-10-13, 1:03pm

It's almost certainly not the cause, too many other good theories of why violent crime has dropped. But then neither is guns being around the reason the crazy mass shootings have increased.

bUU

1-10-13, 1:04pm

creaker

1-10-13, 1:12pm

It's almost certainly not the cause, too many other good theories of why violent crime has dropped. But then neither is guns being around the reason the crazy mass shootings have increased.

As many people have said a gun is a tool - I would venture to say if people have an impulse to do a woodworking project, it's a lot more likely to happen if they already have woodworking tools in the home.

Spartana

1-10-13, 2:20pm

You mean you have a "practice" version of California, where people who are identical to "our" Californians live without such laws, and you can provide detailed evidence comparing these two Californias? Let's go visit this practice California you apparently have and verify your data. /s/

I didn't think so. So we're back to your decision to interpret the data the way that serves your preference and reasonable people who disagree with you interpreting the data in a completely different way.

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this comment. I was merely stating that the legal codes in the state of Calif require things like background checks, waiting periods, safety classes, etc... to purchase many firearms, and that it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm or to purchase certain types of semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines yet that we still have one of the highest death by firearms rates in the country. I have no problem with anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me on this, or any other subject, and have never said anyone who disagrees with my personal beliefs as "unreasonable". I happen to support gun laws and restrictions similair to those in Calif - as most of the long term posters here know - however I do not support the proposed semi-auto ban.

bae

1-10-13, 2:27pm

Midwest

1-10-13, 2:30pm

Gun supporters just stating their conclusions doesn't contribute much. Gun supporters are frustrated, no doubt, by the fact that they cannot come up with a set of ideas to change things to address the concerns that gun control advocates have raised. Gun supporters practically throw up their hands, effectively telling others to just live with the ramifications of the gun supporters' personal preference. Gun supporters dodge and weave the moral issues raised, marginalize the risks, and even ridicule the perspectives of reasonable people who disagree with them.

It would be idiocy to give anyone who opposes gun control a promotion to inquisitor. Gun control opponents obviously will want to have the "discussion" on their terms and their terms only. -- "Request denied." -- If anyone is to be promoted to inquisitor in this context (and I believe that neither side should be, but if there is to be such a promotion) then let it be those who want the tragedies to be addressed, allowing us to start quizzing you on the moral underpinnings of your advocacy. Ridiculous? No more so than the suggestion that gun control opponent should rightfully be able to demand control over the discussion.

Gun control opponents have yet to prove - definitively - so that gun control advocates agree with them - that doing what the gun control opponents want results in fewer deaths than doing what the gun control opponents, like the Brady Campaign, suggest. That is the threshold for advocacy that is reasonably imposed on the comments of gun control opponents by those concerned about gun violence. This directly parallels the threshold for advocacy that gun control opponents try to impose on the comments of people who disagree with them. Fair is fair.

Gun control opponents have a vested interest in, and work very hard to maintain the fiction of, their insistence on denying the fact that gun control advocates have not ignored the facts gun control opponents tout but rather have determined the facts as inadequate. See above for the threshold of advocacy that gun control opponents would need to meet in order to have their perspective considered worthy by many folks who take a more moral and socially-conscious view of this issue: They have to actually propose solutions to the problems that have been raised. Just whining about the proposals others are making, without proving that the have proposals of their will actually result in significantly fewer tragedies, will invariably be considered an attempt to assert their personal preference.

Bicker - Is the the framework you are referencing?

A few observations:

1) It seems that you already feel that you automatically have the moral high ground in this issue and are the judge and jury of the facts. If you don't agree or are unswayed with a set of facts they are irrelevant and no further discussion is needed. You also seem take on an air that other positions are immoral because you (as the inquisitor) don't agree.

2) Your position is one of imposing restrictions on a portion of society. It seems reasonable to request you support this postion with facts and not just pontificate on the moral superiority of your position.

3) Some of those opposing your position, do in fact agree that some changes need to be made. They just don't agree with your solutions after weighing the pluses and minuses.

4) Lastly, I took the liberty of replacing "gun supporters" with "gun control supporters" and "gun control supporters" with "gun rights advocates" in the above. I didn't post it, but it is an interesting excerise as it sounds just as arrogant coming from the gun rights side. The point is, both sides need to listen and find solutions not laws for the sake of laws.

I'm all for a discussion of the facts. Sometimes my mind is even changed when that happens.

Alan

1-10-13, 2:41pm

Just so we are clear, what is that criteria? I looked back but I don't see what you are talking about.

With respect, I cannot see how you could have read my earlier comments without having read that. With respect, go back and read my replies, and get the answer to your question that way.

I've looked back over the entire thread and I would suppose the criteria you mention are the following list:
Criminal Background checks
Ban semi-automatic weapons
ban high capacity magazines
Prohibit Carrying concealed weapons
Regulate the sale of bullets

I, and others, have attempted to engage you in a discussion about these various items, without response. I will try again.

I believe most of us have agreed on the criminal background checks on all gun purchases.

On the ban of semi-automatic weapons, I'm curious about the rationale for that one. Is it because you consider a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to be more dangerous?

High capacity magazines, I addressed a question regarding this earlier and several others have as well, what do you consider high capacity and what do you hope to achieve by banning them given the knowledge that lower capacity magazines can be changed out so quickly that there is practically no distinction between the two.

I, and several others, have asked about the prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons, can you provide a response?

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail. Would it be a limit on the number or a limit on specific ammunition characteristics? In each case, would it be a daily limit, weekly limit, monthly limit, annual limit or perhaps lifetime limit?

bae

1-10-13, 2:51pm

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail. Would it be a limit on the number or a limit on specific ammunition characteristics? In each case, would it be a daily limit, weekly limit, monthly limit, annual limit or perhaps lifetime limit?

I'm not sure what the point of these ammunition-oriented restrictions is, other than perhaps to make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens. Seems criminals don't *use* that many cartridges, nor do they seem to practice much.

For context though, I run through 500-1000 rounds of handgun ammunition a week, 100-200 rounds of rifle ammunition, and 200-250 rounds of shotgun shells. I sometimes purchase a year or more supply of a given sort of ammunition, to take advantage of sales and volume shipping discounts to my remote location. My small local gun club purchases entire tractor-trailer deliveries of 12 gauge shotgun ammunition - trap, skeet, and sporting clays shooters go through ammunition like you wouldn't believe.

My suspicion is that people advocating ammunition controls don't understand the issue. Well, that's my charitable suspicion.

I think they also don't understand reloading. Most of the shooters I know do a lot of reloading, either to keep costs down or to produce a higher quality product than they can purchase. The typical reloading machine they use can easily produce 500 rounds/hour and an initial investment of about $500. For pennies a cartridge. The machine I use produces 1200 rounds/hour.

Yossarian

1-10-13, 2:55pm

Bicker - Is the the framework you are referencing?

I'm still looking for the criteria by which one can judge an argument. The way I read it it just says "prove definitively to bicker's satisfaction" :doh:

Gregg

1-10-13, 2:59pm

I think opponents of gun control are their own worst enemies when they try to justify their positions with self-serving defenses in the context of self-defined criteria.

The logical question would be to ask you how my criterion was self serving? The experiment was unbiased. It was only self defined in the sense that the person conducting an experiment must necessarily set the parameters for it. Since that particular experiment was designed to prove or disprove a very specific theory it was not difficult to define the boundaries. The outcome proved a singular hypothesis to be correct and a conclusion was drawn from that evidence.

There are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful, articulate people here who believe that various levels of bans on different types of equipment or other restrictions would be beneficial. They are able to state their case, listen (read) other, often opposing, opinions and formulate logical responses from them. Compromise is usually a goal even if it is not always a result. They are people who realize that protecting individuals from harm while at the same time preserving liberty is often a fine balancing act. They can usually see the value of entering into discussions to try to find the point at which the scales don't tip too far either way. Washington could learn a lot from this group. Your posts on this topic have not evolved to show any type of consideration for ideas beyond those you arrived with. No attempts to identify the actual cause of any problem or reasonable questions attempting to separate rumor and urban myth from truth. No effort to present evidence, empirical or otherwise, to validate any claim. Personally, I have reached the point of diminishing return and so choose to concentrate my efforts communicating with others who genuinely wish to make progress.

Good day.

bae

1-10-13, 3:01pm

I'm still looking for the criteria by which one can judge an argument. The way I read it it just says "prove definitively to bicker's satisfaction" :doh:

I recommend a study of: Chagrov, A, and Zakharyaschev, M., 1997. Modal Logic. Oxford University Press.

decemberlov

1-10-13, 3:09pm

All I know is that I'm going to get my permit before shit hits the fan! Criminals don't follow the rules so I don't know how a ban on guns will help anything. However I do know they may think twice if they knew most people had a concealed weapon.

Spartana

1-10-13, 3:14pm

I said that I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns. But if the topic is to reduce or eliminate mass shootings (and this is the Gabby Gifford thread about just that) then what difference does it make how many guns a person owns? In most cases these kinds of shootings are done with only one firearm - perhaps one of the 2 you would willing allow people to own. The same shootings could have been done with other firearms almost as easily. So unless you want to institute a complete ban on ALL firearms in this country (and that includes anything used for hunting like a rifle or shotgun - heck even BB guns and crossbows!) and seriously beef up weapons anti-smuggling enforcement from the air, land and sea, then allowing people to have one or 2 firearms means that you are not eliminating any mass shooting threat. Especially in case such as Sandy Hook where the shooter wasn't even a gun owner. Or in the case of Colorado where the shooter wasn't ever a gun owner until a short time before the shootings. So I ask this as a simple question with no snarkiness meant and respect for your opinion even if it differs from mine, what logic do you find in your belief that allowing people to own even one gun will reduce the amount of mass shootings like at Sandy Hook? In my estimation it won't, as I feel that these are aberations from the norm that the 99.9% of miillions of gun owners (with 300 million legally registered guns) in this country do with their firearms in their lifetimes.

Gregg

1-10-13, 3:15pm

Spartana

1-10-13, 3:32pm

I've looked back over the entire thread and I would suppose the criteria you mention are the following list:
Criminal Background checks
Ban semi-automatic weapons
ban high capacity magazines
Prohibit Carrying concealed weapons
Regulate the sale of bullets

I, and others, have attempted to engage you in a discussion about these various items, without response. I will try again.

I believe most of us have agreed on the criminal background checks on all gun purchases.

On the ban of semi-automatic weapons, I'm curious about the rationale for that one. Is it because you consider a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to be more dangerous?

High capacity magazines, I addressed a question regarding this earlier and several others have as well, what do you consider high capacity and what do you hope to achieve by banning them given the knowledge that lower capacity magazines can be changed out so quickly that there is practically no distinction between the two.

I, and several others, have asked about the prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons, can you provide a response?

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail. Would it be a limit on the number or a limit on specific ammunition characteristics? In each case, would it be a daily limit, weekly limit, monthly limit, annual limit or perhaps lifetime limit?
These are the issues I'd like to see addressed as well. I think having a rational disscussion on this topic is very important and whether we agree or not on the issues, I'd like to see all sides opinion respected and their posts answered without a lot of character thrashing and snarky comments based on nothing more then the single fact that I (and others) own guns. I am more then a gun owner, I'm a whole person, and don't believe I or other's fall into a one-size-fit-all characterisation of how "we are violent cowboy wanna bes bent on subjectating others to our wills" (she says as a peaceful-law-abiding-non-violent-anti-hunting-vegan-animal-rights-avocate-member-of-PETA... and the NRA) ;-)!

I also don't understand why other's feel the need to limit ammo amounts. They can be bought and stockpiled over a period of time box by box. In any case, I just bought a box of 100 rounds for target practice. That one box would be enough to kill a lot of people by itself, so what is the purpose of limiting ammo sales if your goal is to reduce mass shootings? Maybe having a waiting period for any new ammo purchases would serve better.

Spartana

1-10-13, 3:44pm

As an interesting side note, I went to Wal-Mart for dog food today. Dog food is right by the sporting good section. There was a line at the sporting goods counter and everyone in it appeared to be buying ammunition, mostly shotgun shells from what I could see. I spoke with a stocker in my section and he said that whenever they get a shipment of ammunition in it usually sells out in a day. Makes me wonder if they all know something I don't! I bought a couple boxes just in case.They are probably buying shotgun shells because that's all that's left on the shelves! I bought the last box of .357 mag they had at Walmart and the only ammo left was for shotguns. Like Bae pointed out, back when I use to work in the field I practiced a lot more then now and had my own re-loading stuff (hubby got it in the divorce), so anyone with reloading equiptment could in effect make tons of unregulated ammo if they want.

bae

1-10-13, 3:52pm

Maybe having a waiting period for any new ammo purchases would serve better.

Several additional thoughts on ammunition for you, Spartana:

- I used to work quite a bit with battered/abused people who were attempting to avoid the attentions of their pursuing ex-partner. These folks responded quite well to training in use of force, but I found that waiting periods for purchasing firearms definitely impeded their ability to defend themselves. They didn't need a tool in 3 days, or 2 weeks, or after the next scheduled certification class. They needed it, well, now. I suspect ammunition waiting periods would serve mostly to inconvenience law-abiding citizens, and have little measureable effect on crime. I frankly suspect inconveniencing is really the goal of some, to slowly-but-surely make firearms ownership and practice such a pain in the patoot that the firearms culture is stamped out. Judging from the demonization of gun owners that I constantly see, this is really about culture, not crime.

- I currently buy almost all of my ammunition mail-order, for several reasons. I live in a remote spot, and it requires at least 12-14 hours of my time, and about $50 in expense, to travel to the nearest store that sells ammunition. Mail-order prices by the case are lower than 1-box-at-a-time retail pricing, and it is far easier to procure ammunition in some of the obscure calibers I use, which WalMart typically doesn't carry. There is a de-facto waiting period in simply having to order the stuff, and waiting a week or two for UPS to remember to deliver something.

Spartana

1-10-13, 3:59pm

Now though I cheat when I carry a revolver:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JyjPC0aGsxo/TDZGEDCEaKI/AAAAAAAABKA/16c0OdsNr10/s640/img_0325.jpg
Me too :-)!

For those who don't know what a speed loader is, there's a photo. It's to reload revolvers rapidly. They are small and you can carry many of them on your person at once and reload a standard revolver fast and multiple times thus making it almost as if you have a large capacity magazine. These would not be part of any kind of ban anymore then pinned magazines would be (reducing a 30 round magazine to a lower number like 10 or less). So the semi-auto ban is really nothing more then a band aid offered by the government to make people FEEL safer when in reality everything really stays the same and nothing gets done about looking into the cause of these kinds of shootings. To me, it's the equivalant of banning larger vehicles from everyone in the country to try to eliminate deaths and accidents by drunk and distracted driver. It doesn't deal with the real issues, but makes people feel safer because, of course, drunk and distracted drivers can't kill you if they are driving sedans. Umm...yep they can and do.

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1085&d=1357847550

Alan

1-10-13, 7:54pm

These are the issues I'd like to see addressed as well. I think having a rational disscussion on this topic is very important and whether we agree or not on the issues, I'd like to see all sides opinion respected and their posts answered without a lot of character thrashing and snarky comments based on nothing more then the single fact that I (and others) own guns. Well, there's always a discussion here about the effects of advertising, or its cohort, propaganda. I think our Attorney General laid out the strategy to be used against guns, and their owners, pretty well back in 1995.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0

gimmethesimplelife

1-10-13, 8:04pm

Rob - Canada is not a firearm free country. The only difference between it and the USA is the requirements to buy, own and carry certain firearms. Firearms are more restricted but they are there:

ACTUAL NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN CANADA

In 1945, despite massive non-compliance, the RCMP managed to register nearly 2 million firearms, comprised of 1.7 million rifles and shotguns and the remainder handguns. Add to this the nearly 8 million firearms imported between 1945 and 2000 and you get 10 million firearms.

Please note that to arrive at this figure of 10 million firearms we did not:

Add any portion of the more than 6 million firearms manufactured in Canada from the 1920s to present; or
Subtract up to one-quarter of a million guns destroyed by the RCMP between 1978-2000, or
Subtract the 1.6 million firearms exported between 1970-1998. The National Firearms Association Estimate of the Number of Firearms and Owners in Canada.

The National Firearms Association has come to conclusion there are approximately 7 million owners with 21 million firearms

According to Wikipedia, Canada is ranked number 13 of all countries in gun ownership per 100 people (approx. 31 guns /100 people in Canada). That is lower then the US (number one with 88/100) and such countries as Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and France - all in the top 10 of gun ownership per 100 people. All of those countries have very low death by firearms in all cases: crime, accidental, suicide, or mass shootings.Hi Spartana! Thanks for posting - I always like it when you respond to my posts (smiley face here). I did know that Canada was not completely free of firearms - and also I have been in touch with one of the posters on this board who has told me there are those who are into the gun culture in Canada, too - so I know that crossing the border to the North is not going to get me completely away from this. OTOH, I sure prefer 31 guns to 100 people in Canada over 88 guns to 100 people in the US. To me that is 57/100 less chances overall of guns getting into less stable hands. ( I do know from taking statistics in college that this simple math here won't necc. hold up - I put this here only to illustrate my point.) BTW - learn something new every day - I did not know those Scandinavian countries I so respect were so heavy on gun ownership.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife

1-10-13, 8:09pm

But it takes time for society to do anything. Just like in the Oklahoma city bombing, it took time to decide what was the best course of action to reduce or eliminate that kind of thing. The solution was to change the way people could enter the building, park near by, and some "attractive" concrete barricades to prevent vehicles from just driving up to ther front doors. That and more asrmed security. I don't think that it will do much good due to the extent of these kinds of bombs, but it is a reasonable solution.

The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings[I still remember very vividly that day, and the shock and horror of it.

In today's USA Today, on the front page, there is an article to the effect that there may be some changes coming up soon about gun ownership, perhaps the kind of changes I personally would like to see. Gotta tell you though, there is a part of me that dreads such changes to the gun laws - don't mean to go 180 on anyone or bat for the other team BUT I am not looking forward to the outcry from certain quarters if such laws were enacted. I just don't know how some folks would react and I'm not sure I want to find out just yet.

But I do think some change of some kind is coming soon - as I said yesterday, it remains to be seen what kind of change it is. Rob

gimmethesimplelife

1-10-13, 8:19pm

Be careful if you go to Mexico Rob!! This from todays Huff Post: A total of 34,612 people have died in drug-related killings in Mexico in the four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared an offensive against drug cartels, officials said Wednesday. A

I know you've talked often of moving to Mexico, but like many places in the USA there is gun violence there too - and not just drug related killings but a high number of other crime, accidental, and suicides. And Mexico has very tough gun laws and a fairly low ownership/capita of legal firearms. So the gun violence there is probably much greater then here in terms of shootings and death. So while I DO support gun regulations, I feel that we need to look into other causes of gun violence and mass shootings then merely "what kind of gun did the person have?" hope I'm convincing you to stay around awhile longer :-)!Hi Spartana! I really respect you for your concern and for the last line of your post above - Thank You. Very kind of you.....

About Mexico, I'm not going to deny that you don't have somewhat of a point. OTOH, the whole country is not how the US media would have you believe it is. There are parts that are - don't get me wrong. I would not want to be in Juarez, or Saltillo, or Monterrey, or San Luis Potosi, or anywhere in Sinaloa (including Mazatlan now) or Michoacan states. Add Durango - both the city and the entire state to this, or Veracruz, both the city and the state. Here you will find your US media images of Mexico.

Leave these areas and it gets much safer, though I do realize this can change, too. I bring this up as remember Medellin, Columbia in the late eighties and nineties? And how dangerous it was and how the murder counts were just insane? During that whole mess there were folks living quite safely and inexpensively in other parts of Columbia - and I remember reading accounts of such people being grateful for the media coverage scaring people away as it kept things cheap for them there. Now Medellin is actually marketing itself as a place for North Americans to retire as there have been changes since those days and it is much safer there now than it was.

Point being, about places like Mexico, gotta do the research if you want the option to go and have a less stressful life.....Gotta dig beyond the media and find out if there are places that are safe, where they are, and how close they are to the drug routes. I would personally still live in Mexico, but not in any of the above places I have listed. Rob

PS I came back to add that I would avoid Acapulco and most of the state of Guerrero, too.....

gimmethesimplelife

1-10-13, 8:23pm

Mrs-M

1-10-13, 9:36pm

Originally posted by Gimmethesimpelife.
I did know that Canada was not completely free of firearms - and also I have been in touch with one of the posters on this board who has told me there are those who are into the gun culture in Canada, too - so I know that crossing the border to the North is not going to get me completely away from this. OTOH, I sure prefer 31 guns to 100 people in Canada over 88 guns to 100 people in the US. To me that is 57/100 less chances overall of guns getting into less stable hands.We'd love to have you, Rob! You're just our kind of folk! :)

Mrs-M

1-10-13, 9:44pm

Originally Posted by Mrs-M.
Feel free to correct me if I stand wrong, but how I understand a "background check"... it's sort of like a credit-check, am I right? Where once someone is approved for a loan/monies, because a credit-check has been conducted/performed, suddenly, the credit-check ensures that no missed or late payments will ever occur?

Does the same hold true for a "background CRIMINAL check"? Where once an applicant is approved to purchase, carry, and use a gun, because a "background CRIMINAL check" was performed, the person will never succumb to criminal activity or misuse/compromise the privilege of gun-ownership?

Originally posted by Gimmethesimplelife.
Very good point, Mrs. M.....RobAwww... shucks... just a simple +1 will do. http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smileys/giggle1-smiley.gif?1292867603

jp1

1-10-13, 11:04pm

But if the topic is to reduce or eliminate mass shootings (and this is the Gabby Gifford thread about just that) then what difference does it make how many guns a person owns?

I could be wrong, and I hate to put words in someone else's mouth, but since bicker hasn't answered I will, and he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they intended simultaneous possession to mean "carrying around on their person at any given moment" as opposed to "all of the guns one owns".

jp1

1-10-13, 11:34pm

On the 2nd amendment thread I'd posted the following comment:

I think the thing about this entire conversation that I find so dispiriting is that the people in favor of the status quo are so certain that no solution will have any impact in reducing these senseless deaths that they continually argue that there's no point in even bothering to try and find a solution to this problem. And by extension since it's unsolvable no problem even exists.

After reading through this thread I have to say that I am much heartened to see a good debate on possible solutions and their merits or lack of merit, carried out mainly by the gun owners on this forum.

I can't pretend that I know what will work to actually solve the problem of gun deaths in the US. My hope is that we'll figure out a combination of solutions that will work, much as we have with drunk driving. Obviously we haven't outlawed cars or drinking, yet through a combination of several things 1) lowering the acceptable blood alcohol level for operating a car, 2) increasing the penalties for drunk driving, 3) punishment for bars that over-serve patrons, and 4) public education on the dangers of drunk driving, we've managed to reduce the number of drunk driving tragedies significantly. Drunk driving hasn't gone away entirely, and it didn't get reduced to its current level in a day or week or even a year. But it happened over time.

If we, as a society, can figure out a parallel combination of methods to reduce senseless gun deaths over the coming years/decades while respecting the right of gun owners to continue to be gun owners I will be happy.

bUU

1-11-13, 9:22am

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this comment.That gun supporters have no way of proving that their way is actually going to result in less gun violence, because what they're suggesting, when the deign to even provide suggestions, is just a suggestion and therefore there is nothing real to compare to. They have to have proof their way is better, vis a vis the criteria I outlined earlier, not the criteria that they would want to apply, otherwise reasonable people will use their own sense, which is as valid as the gun supporters' sense, to judge the various options based on which they believe will be better, again vis a vis the criteria I outlined earlier.

And of course, Spartana, there exists before-and-after data in California speaking to the effectiveness of the various recent-ish California laws, which really started in the 1980s. And that data shows pretty much zero effectiveness, significant cost, reduction of freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and so on.That's deceptive.

States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation's strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation.(link (http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tough-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-deaths-4145605.php))

So again, you're injecting your interpretation of the reality as the only possible valid interpretation, refusing to acknowledge and admit that reasonable people disagree with your gun-support-biased view of things. You want to try deceive others into believing that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence aren't reasonable people, but they are. Your evading their results and insinuating that your conclusions are the only possible valid ones is nothing but deception.

But data and reasoning aren't the order of the day. Childish sophistry from a sock-puppet is.What a self-centered and rude way of engaging the issue. Grow up and stop with the back-handed insults. They're childish and color your comments as nothing but juvenile lashing out at those who oppose what you want. That's the behavior of two year olds, not adults. Stop denying that reasonable people disagree with you.

1) It seems that you already feel that you automatically have the moral high ground in this issue and are the judge and jury of the facts.Not any more than anyone else in this thread. Of course the gun supporters are going to lean up against each other and try to cast any strong perspectives holding them to account for what they're supporting in a negative light. Are you really trying to pass this off as anything but? How inanely ridiculousl.

If you don't agree or are unswayed with a set of facts they are irrelevant and no further discussion is needed.This comment highlights a major problem in society today: As alluded to above, the refusal to acknowledge that the facts you refer to don't actually draw to the conclusion you've decided to ascribe to them, but rather can be drawn to any number of reasonable conclusions, some of which you might not like. It's a tough lesson to learn, especially (apparently) for people who want guns.

You also seem take on an air that other positions are immoral because you (as the inquisitor) don't agree.I reply in-kind. If you want a different tone to the conversation, then start respecting the contrary perspectives as you would have your perspectives respected, rather than claiming that the contrary perspectives aren't supported by the data while your perspectives are. The reality is that the facts don't support your conclusions. Facts only go so far, and then the rest of the way must be traverse via reason, logic, and judgment. Your judgment is not the only valid one. Admit it. Accept it. And start acting like you respect it, or accept that you'll earn back as much disrespect for your judgment as you presume to direct toward that of others.

2) Your position is one of imposing restrictions on a portion of society. And the contrary position is one of entitlement mentality, presumption of supremacy over others, etc.

It seems reasonable to request you support this postion with facts and not just pontificate on the moral superiority of your position.Again, the facts don't draw only to your conclusion, but also to the conclusions that contradict yours, even though you refuse to admit it. Furthermore, the claiming of individual entitlement by gun supporters requires even more definitive support for that position than the claiming of primacy of society to determine what well-regulated means in this context.

3) Some of those opposing your position, do in fact agree that some changes need to be made. They just don't agree with your solutions after weighing the pluses and minuses.They'll have to get over the feeling that others should bend over and kowtow to their "weighing" - that everyone will do their own "weighing" and that the conclusion many of us reach contradicts theirs, and that that's every bit as valid and worthy of respect as their own conclusion.

4) Lastly, I took the liberty of replacing "gun supporters" with "gun control supporters" and "gun control supporters" with "gun rights advocates" in the above. I didn't post it, but it is an interesting excerise as it sounds just as arrogant coming from the gun rights side. The point is, both sides need to listen and find solutions not laws for the sake of laws.I think that would help. The fact of the matter is that the environment we are in now is a direct result of the dogged, intransigence of gun control opponents. Their forceful actions to avoid compromise and

bUU

1-11-13, 9:23am

mediation, over decades, has resulted in a situation where they only way to accomplish what is right, i.e., compromise, is paradoxically to forcefully fight back with the same intransigence that the gun control opponents have myopically and self-servingly employed straight through. This is this result whenever one side insists on sticking to their guns (pardon the pun).

I'm all for a discussion of the facts. Sometimes my mind is even changed when that happens.I think you've fallen into the trap gun control opponents have set for their supporters, deceiving you into thinking that the facts are in dispute. The facts aren't in dispute. The conclusions drawn from the facts are in dispute. The facts do not lead inextricably to just one conclusion - the conclusion that feeds gun supporters. That's the deception that gun control opponents have perpetrated, apparently on you, and on others, and that's the crux of the issue - the source of the conflict.

I, and others, have attempted to engage you in a discussion about these various items, without response. I will try again.This is a self-deception. I have responded, completely and comprehensively. You didn't like the replies. They were not responsive to the criteria you wanted to impose on the discussion. This is, again, something that gun control opponents do quite a bit - an aspect of their intransigence on the issue. I'll state it very plainly: You don't get to impose the criteria for the discussion. Get over that inclination. I have accepted, fully, that what you have posted is your version of what you believe is a complete and comprehensive response to what I've written. You should accepted, fully, that what I have posted is my version of what I believe is a complete and comprehensive response to what you've written, but you refuse to do so. In doing so, you explicitly and overtly blind yourself to the points that you don't like by refusing to allow yourself to acknowledge them, internalize them, understand them on their merits. You seem only capable of seeing them through the lens of your own criteria, and as such you cannot realize the actual meaning and significance of them.

On the ban of semi-automatic weapons, I'm curious about the rationale for that one.And I'm curious about the rationale for objecting to restrictions on semi-automatics. I guess we'll both have to live with the fact that we each won't allow the other to impose the boundaries and direction of the discussion. You don't want me to draw the discussion off focusing on the aspects of the issue that matter most to my perspective, and I don't want you to distract attention away from the points I'm making by drawing the discussion off focusing on the aspects of the issue that matter most to your perspective.

The reason why I respond like this is because I don't believe you're being honest about your curiosity. The objections to semi-automatics (and with regard to an interrogatory posted by a poster yesterday regarding concealed weapons) are well-known. If you're as knowledgeable of the issue as you claim to be, then you already know what you're asking - you're just asking it to give yourself an excuse to spew your own perspective and show overt disrespect for the perspectives of others. As such, you're engaging in a self-serving deception, and there's no reason to reward that. You disagree with those rationales. Big surprise. (not) Stipulate to it and move on. There is no need to ask leading questions just to have another chance to say you disagree.

I find this one objection even more laughable because even gun control opponents admit that semi-automatics cause damage faster than regular firearms. Earlier in this thread, a gun owner made it clear that semi-automatics save about a second per shot. You want to bury the facts you don't like under claims that these differences are margin or somehow not worthy of respect. How ridiculous. If you're the person shot by a semi-automatic in the last second before the police take the active shooter out, that second matters.

High capacity magazines, I addressed a question regarding this earlier and several others have as well, what do you consider high capacityAgain, you're asking a question for which the answer is already well-established by years of gun control advocacy. More deceptive nonsense.

and what do you hope to achieve by banning them given the knowledge that lower capacity magazines can be changed out so quickly that there is practically no distinction between the two.Thanks for admitting that it does take time ("quickly" instead of "instantaneously"). You've made my point. Even though you'll probably deny it.

I, and several others, have asked about the prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons, can you provide a response?I already did. You simply refuse to see it as such.

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail.I referred to a bill going through the California Assembly.

No matter how many times you try to split the hairs, your complaints fail. Until you respect the perspectives of those who disagree with you as much as you would like your perspectives respected, you earn the disrespect you dish out. In the end, this really is a matter of conflicting judgment. And that will be addressed through the good offices of our society's government, whether you like it or not - and if gun control prevails, as I fervently hope it does, that'll be eventual conclusion, even if you don't like it. My objective is to make clear that those who's judgments contradict yours shouldn't be deceived by the nonsense claims gun supporters make claiming that their perspective is the only valid one, for the reasons I've outlined already, and we should be working towards strong and definitive action to apply whatever controls we feel may have a net-positive impact.

If you have any question why I won't do busywork for you, why I won't spend time providing detailed answers of things you should already know (and incidentally, why I will have to skip a couple of pages of this thread), just look at this reply. I actually had to split it in two because it was so long. I'm actually running a little late today out of respect for your inquiries. I provide far more respect for your perspectives and your rhetorical tactics than they deserve. With respect, you don't deserve this much of my time, and surely not more of my time. Stop presuming that you do. If you want to address the risks to what you feel your gun rights are, you had better start respecting the perspectives of those who oppose you, because only through understanding our perspective will have a chance of moderating it even a little.

Thanks.

Gregg

1-11-13, 10:02am

Uh huh.

Gregg

1-11-13, 10:23am

OTOH, I sure prefer 31 guns to 100 people in Canada over 88 guns to 100 people in the US. To me that is 57/100 less chances overall of guns getting into less stable hands. ( I do know from taking statistics in college that this simple math here won't necc. hold up - I put this here only to illustrate my point.)

One important consideration Rob... Just because there are 88 guns for every 100 people in the US it does not in any way mean there are 88 people out of every 100 with guns. A 2011 Gallup poll estimated 47% of American households own at least one gun. The gap between 47% and 88/100 is closed because a lot of people own more than one. That 88/100 figure is, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless and it is often used in deceptive ways.

A possibly more important thing to remember is that poll numbers reflect responsible owners of legal guns. No one knows how many illegal guns there are and how many criminals they are distributed between. That is, as always, the elephant in the room.

bae

1-11-13, 10:24am

Uh huh.

Indeed.

Yossarian

1-11-13, 11:21am

:help:

This thread has pretty much jumped the shark.

http://youtu.be/MpraJYnbVtE

Yossarian

1-11-13, 11:29am

I could be wrong, and I hate to put words in someone else's mouth, but since bicker hasn't answered I will, and he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they intended simultaneous possession to mean "carrying around on their person at any given moment" as opposed to "all of the guns one owns".

I wish you would do it more, it makes more sense when you do.

With regard to the mass shootings, take Sandy Hook. The guy shot his mother 3 or 4 times in the head while she was sleeping. He was packing the car to go shoot 20 little school kids. Do you think such a law would have been been effective and caused him to leave extra guns at home?

For the day to day shootings, how would this type of rule affect things?

gimmethesimplelife

1-11-13, 12:24pm

:help:

This thread has pretty much jumped the shark.

http://youtu.be/MpraJYnbVtEThanks for the laugh, Yossarian.....good way to start the day. Rob

ApatheticNoMore

1-11-13, 1:37pm

With regard to the mass shootings, take Sandy Hook. The guy shot his mother 3 or 4 times in the head while she was sleeping. He was packing the car to go shoot 20 little school kids. Do you think such a law would have been been effective and caused him to leave extra guns at home?

For the day to day shootings, how would this type of rule affect things?

I doubt those are the day to day shootings. The day to day shootings are probably criminal related or else "heat of an argument" type things. Really it takes a highly unusual person to plan a premeditated murder (and even more premeditated murder on people you don't even know, not even a revenge thing), it's rare and unusual enough, they maybe could come up with a pretty good profile.

creaker

1-11-13, 1:45pm

I wish you would do it more, it makes more sense when you do.

With regard to the mass shootings, take Sandy Hook. The guy shot his mother 3 or 4 times in the head while she was sleeping. He was packing the car to go shoot 20 little school kids. Do you think such a law would have been been effective and caused him to leave extra guns at home?

For the day to day shootings, how would this type of rule affect things?

If you extend this logic, any law that someone would be willing to break is ineffective. Why have laws specific to things like "armed robbery" or "assault with a deadly weapon" when it does not appear to stop people from using weapons comitting these crimes?

Yossarian

1-11-13, 1:56pm

Spartana

1-11-13, 2:41pm

gun control opponents admit that semi-automatics cause damage faster than regular firearms. Earlier in this thread, a gun owner made it clear that semi-automatics save about a second per shot. . That is NOT what was said. What was said is that a "regular" handgun - say a semi-automatic pistol and even a 6 shot standard revolver - can be fired exactly the same way as a semi-automatic rifle (these are semi-automatic not full autos we are talking about). You can shoot a handgun just as fast as you can shoot an AR-15 rifle - which is just as fast as you can pull the trigger. Reloading the handgun from multiple pre-loaded magazines (which hold approx. 8 - 10 rounds/magazine) or speed loaders. It takes less then a sec to discard one magazine (or speed loader) and put a new one in and continue firering. Thus enabling you to shoot hundreds of rounds in a "regular" handgun just as fast as with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle with a high capacity magazine like an AR-15 (AR-15's in Calif can only have 10 round magazines). And lets not forget that even a regular hunting rifle or pump action shotgun can be used to shot multiple rounds in seconds. They are just not as easily reloadable.

a "regular" handgun and low capacity magazines and a "regular" handgun I own with a 13 round magazine:

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1088&d=1357934320http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1089&d=1357934613

bae

1-11-13, 2:51pm

Spartana - for reference, when I competed in PPC/IPSC competitions at the national level, I was still using a revolver when most others had switched to semi-auto pistols, and I was still *almost* competitive. I finally switched over because the courses of fire for matches were increasingly being designed to eliminate revolver competitors, and that extra 5% matters in competition.

I now prefer semi-auto pistols for self-defense use because I find they are far more reliable and easier to maintain. Probably some of the same reasons military and police have switched to them over the years. I still use revolvers for hunting, or fun, or training.

Spartana

1-11-13, 2:52pm

Several additional thoughts on ammunition for you, Spartana:

- I used to work quite a bit with battered/abused people who were attempting to avoid the attentions of their pursuing ex-partner. These folks responded quite well to training in use of force, but I found that waiting periods for purchasing firearms definitely impeded their ability to defend themselves. They didn't need a tool in 3 days, or 2 weeks, or after the next scheduled certification class. They needed it, well, now. I suspect ammunition waiting periods would serve mostly to inconvenience law-abiding citizens, and have little measureable effect on crime. I frankly suspect inconveniencing is really the goal of some, to slowly-but-surely make firearms ownership and practice such a pain in the patoot that the firearms culture is stamped out. Judging from the demonization of gun owners that I constantly see, this is really about culture, not crime.

- I currently buy almost all of my ammunition mail-order, for several reasons. I live in a remote spot, and it requires at least 12-14 hours of my time, and about $50 in expense, to travel to the nearest store that sells ammunition. Mail-order prices by the case are lower than 1-box-at-a-time retail pricing, and it is far easier to procure ammunition in some of the obscure calibers I use, which WalMart typically doesn't carry. There is a de-facto waiting period in simply having to order the stuff, and waiting a week or two for UPS to remember to deliver something.

I agree that the waiting period for ammo is probably useless as most people who own firearms probably already have some. But I do think a waiting period to purchase any kind of firearm is a good thing to have in place. Not only does it give time to do things like criminal and mental health background checks, any training and safety course that may be required, etc... but it allows for a cooling off period if someone is angry. And while I agree there are people who may need them for protection asap - the abused person being stalked - it's hard to tell if that person is the stalkee or stalker. "Am I the abused woman who's hubby is trying to kill me for leaving him and I need to protect myself and my kids, or the angry wife who just discovered the home address of the new mistress and want to visit her with my shiney new gun"? Hard to tell, so having a couple of weeks cool down period is a good thing imo.

Spartana

1-11-13, 2:55pm

Well, there's always a discussion here about the effects of advertising, or its cohort, propaganda. I think our Attorney General laid out the strategy to be used against guns, and their owners, pretty well back in 1995.
] Don't we just call him "The Walkin' man" :-)!

bae

1-11-13, 3:00pm

"Am I the abused woman who's hubby is trying to kill me for leaving him and I need to protect myself and my kids, or the angry wife who just discovered the home address of the new mistress and want to visit her with my shiney new gun"? Hard to tell, so having a couple of weeks cool down period is a good thing imo.

I usually found it pretty easy to tell from the bruises, sprains, broken bones, and physical evidence of rape. I know more-than-a-few women who would be dead today had they had a waiting period to contend with, to "cool off". They would have cooled off. In the morgue.

bae

1-11-13, 3:10pm

Thus enabling you to shoot hundreds of rounds in a "regular" handgun just as fast as with a semi-automatic assault-style rifle like an AR-15. And lets not forget that even a regular hunting rifle or pump action shotgun can be used to shot multiple rounds in seconds. They are just not as easily reloadable.

Actually, correctly configured, you can reload a bolt action rifle incredibly quickly - check out how the British Enfield rifle works. And with proper training, you can keep a pump action shotgun or lever-action rifle firing almost constantly, you don't run it dry, pause to reload, then continue - you reload in progress.

I have a US military assault rifle from 1874. It is a single-shot rifle, each new cartridge must be loaded in by hand. I can fire an honest 45 rounds a minute from it, until I run out of ammunition. It can put a bullet through 3 inches of oak and 8 inches of sand backing at 3500 yards. A bullet roughly 7x the weight of the bullet the AR-15 typically fires. At the Second Battle of Adobe Walls, a man was dropped at ~1500 yards by a shot with one of these (or something very similar).

Spartana

1-11-13, 3:11pm

And of course, Spartana, there exists before-and-after data in California speaking to the effectiveness of the various recent-ish California laws, which really started in the 1980s. And that data shows pretty much zero effectiveness, significant cost, reduction of freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and so on.

But data and reasoning aren't the order of the day. Childish sophistry from a sock-puppet is. Back in the late 1980's as I was just getting out of the Coast Guard and finishing up my (almost useless) Bach. in Criminal Justice at a Calif state university, in class us senior students would spend hours and days in round table kinds of discussion on the current gun laws in Calif and their relative effectivness. And like anything else in the world, we discovered just how easily it was to manipulate data to go anyway you want. So now I have a tendancy to look at data from unbiased places like the Justice Dept that just handle statistics rather then groups that are either pro or anti gun (including NRA stats) as most have one agenda or another and can easily manipulate the data. But over all, my personal view and data from relatively unbiased sources support your data that restrictions on certain types of firearms (like the former Federal semi-auto rifle ban) do not lead to a reduction in gun violence - and certainly not a reduction in mass shootings. Even yesterday, here in Calif, a student took a regular, no need to register, hgunting shotgun into his class and shot a fellow student and grazed a teacher. The teacher (bravely IMHO) was able to put himself in front of the shooter and talk him out of shooting more people and get the shotgun away from him. Otherwise he could have shot - and probably killed - many more. This is a firearm that is owned and used worldwide and in almost all places - including Canada that no longer has a long gun registry - does not require registraion or licensing. It is also one of the most common firearms used n the commission of crimes and shootings. This gun, which holds numerous shells and can be fired rapidly - less then a second between rounds and can do much more physical damage then a handgun or rifle round - would not be any more regulated under the current proposed assaut rifle ban then it is now.

Spartana

1-11-13, 3:21pm

Hi Spartana! Thanks for posting - I always like it when you respond to my posts (smiley face here). Thanks Rob - I do hope you stay around (at least here at this site even if you are living in some quaint fishing village in Mexico and lying on the beach drinking margaritas all day!) as I think you have a lot to offer. Yes Canada and those other countries mention are relatively peaceful places in terms of gun violence - even if there are lots of hunting rifles and shot guns there.I think that we can learn alot from their society on how best to address our situation to make these kinds of instances (mass shootings) very rare or non-existent in the future. Of course all of Canada and those Northern European countries are buried in 200 feet of snow three-quarters of the year so maybe that helps when it comes to gun violence. It's just too darn cold and snowy to venture outside :-)!

Spartana

1-11-13, 3:35pm

One important consideration Rob... Just because there are 88 guns for every 100 people in the US it does not in any way mean there are 88 people out of every 100 with guns. A 2011 Gallup poll estimated 47% of American households own at least one gun. The gap between 47% and 88/100 is closed because a lot of people own more than one. That 88/100 figure is, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless and it is often used in deceptive ways.

A possibly more important thing to remember is that poll numbers reflect responsible owners of legal guns. No one knows how many illegal guns there are and how many criminals they are distributed between. That is, as always, the elephant in the room.That's true Gregg. I was only using it as a statisic for comparability purposes to other countries not saying that 88 out of every 100 people own a legally registered firearm - same with the other countries mentioned. I agree that of the approx. 300 million registered legally owned guns out there is the USA, most are owned by people who have more then one (and I'm one of those people) and my belief is that less then one-tenth of a percent (probably less) of those legal firearms owners have ever, and will ever, engage in any kind of criminal or mass shooting kind of situations.

Spartana

1-11-13, 3:40pm

I could be wrong, and I hate to put words in someone else's mouth, but since bicker hasn't answered I will, and he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they intended simultaneous possession to mean "carrying around on their person at any given moment" as opposed to "all of the guns one owns". I'll have to re-read what Bicker wrote but I understood he/she meant that they didn't see any reason for anyone to own more then 2 firearms at any given time - not carry. I don't know the law in other states but in Calif a CCW is often only for one specific handgun not multiple concealed handguns. And since it's only handguns (pistols and revolvers) the CCW permits are for (they don't include things like shotguns or rifles) I guess I just assumed that Bicker was talking about ownership rather then carrying a concealed gun. But I'll reread that post.

Alan

1-11-13, 3:45pm

......This is a self-deception. I have responded, completely and comprehensively......
I'll agree with the fact that you have responded, but unfortunately you haven't answered a single question or advanced any discussion. I may be a bit slow at times but I think I've finally gotten the point you're conveying.

I'll be interested in seeing how future discussions go.

Spartana

1-11-13, 3:47pm

After reading through this thread I have to say that I am much heartened to see a good debate on possible solutions and their merits or lack of merit, carried out mainly by the gun owners on this forum.

.As a gun owner I'll take that as a compliment ;-)! I actually posted almost the exact same thing on those other 2 recent "gun debate" threads as I have here so I feel like I'm really repeating myself, but I think it's important to look at all aspects of the debate and try to come up with a solution. Of course this debate, like any debate, is going to be subject to different ideas as to the causes and to the solutions.

Spartana

1-11-13, 4:12pm

I usually found it pretty easy to tell from the bruises, sprains, broken bones, and physical evidence of rape. I know more-than-a-few women who would be dead today had they had a waiting period to contend with, to "cool off". They would have cooled off. In the morgue.True. But maybe having to go into hiding for awhile is the best thing there is for people like that. Or finding an experienced and trained protector would be the best if the police aren't able to do that. I am quite wary of an inexperienced - and possibly highly emotional - untrained person (one who may have children to protect as well) getting a gun asap in that kind of highly emotional situation. I think that could make the situation much worse. I think it would be wise to find an alternative solution for the immediate protection needs and then work towards becoming trained before just issuing a firearm. Now if the person is already experienced, trained and comfortable with firearms then that is different.

Gregg

1-11-13, 4:42pm

If you extend this logic, any law that someone would be willing to break is ineffective. Why have laws specific to things like "armed robbery" or "assault with a deadly weapon" when it does not appear to stop people from using weapons comitting these crimes?

Presumably people who break those laws think that the reward > (risk * penalty). They probably think that they won't get caught or if they do, hey, do your 5 years and get out. So either we need to increase the risk or the penalty.

In the mass shootings I have heard of I don't know any of them that had a real plan to escape death or capture. What is the incremental penalty that you are going to impose on top of suicide or 27 murder convictions that would have made a difference?

I think Yos pretty much nailed it. Deterrents work because almost everyone in our society 1) has a fairly defined sense of right and wrong (and wants to do right), and 2) even for those who would cross the line the risk is too high. I don't know what percentage of our population is involved in criminal activity, but I have to believe it is very low. What, maybe 2% tops? Using that figure just for example that means the laws are effective at keeping 98% of the population in line. Some of the 2% will get caught, some won't. Then there is that 1/10,000th of 1% who do not bother to even consider the laws. Or other humans. Or much of anything beyond their own world. As Yos said, if someone has already determined that they will die what deterrent is there to add? We will always have those people and they will always find a way to do harm. Unfortunately, no law will change that.

DocHolliday

1-11-13, 11:00pm

That's deceptive.
(link (http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tough-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-deaths-4145605.php))

So again, you're injecting your interpretation of the reality as the only possible valid interpretation, refusing to acknowledge and admit that reasonable people disagree with your gun-support-biased view of things. You want to try deceive others into believing that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence aren't reasonable people, but they are. Your evading their results and insinuating that your conclusions are the only possible valid ones is nothing but deception.

Did you happen to notice that the study says "gun related deaths" instead of "murder", that's often a sign of cherry picked data to support claims of "gun violence".

From the "study": "In 2009, Vermont had the 16th lowest number of gun deaths per capita among the states. Yet even this relatively low ranking means that, in that year, 60 people died from firearm-related injuries in Vermont."

http://smartgunlaws.org/vermont-state-law-summary/

From the FBI's UCR. Vermont had 0 murders by rifle, 0 murders by shotgun, 0 murders by handgun in 2009.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009

This is a tactic often used by gun control supporters. You might even say "deceptive" when used in discussions concerning murders via firearm.

DocHolliday

1-11-13, 11:06pm

I have a US military assault rifle from 1874. It is a single-shot rifle, each new cartridge must be loaded in by hand. I can fire an honest 45 rounds a minute from it, until I run out of ammunition. It can put a bullet through 3 inches of oak and 8 inches of sand backing at 3500 yards.

Would that be a .45-70 or .50-70 Trapdoor Springfield? 3500 yards or 350 yards?

bae

1-11-13, 11:08pm

Would that be a .45-70 or .50-70 Trapdoor Springfield? 3500 yards or 350 yards?

There you go, though I was using the 1874 Military version of the falling block one for my test. At the trials, 3500, not 350, yards, pretty silly what those old black powder cartridges could do.

DocHolliday

1-11-13, 11:15pm

But I do think a waiting period to purchase any kind of firearm is a good thing to have in place. Not only does it give time to do things like criminal and mental health background checks, any training and safety course that may be required, etc... but it allows for a cooling off period if someone is angry.

I hear that "cooling off period", but it makes me think that if a person doesn't have a gun at the moment and want to kill someone, that's where the knife, blunt object" hands and feet murders come into play. That seems way more likely than someone driving to the gunstore, picking out a gun, going through the background check, driving back and killing the victim. If they did that, they just set themselves up for a 1st degree murder charge.

Yossarian

1-11-13, 11:25pm

Is there any data on same day purchase/murders?

DocHolliday

1-11-13, 11:35pm

The same shootings could have been done with other firearms almost as easily. So unless you want to institute a complete ban on ALL firearms in this country (and that includes anything used for hunting like a rifle or shotgun - heck even BB guns and crossbows!)

Saw a story yesterday from the town of Weston CT, that a selectman proposed a bill saying that you had to get a "permit of ownership" from the Chief of Police to own a rifle, pistol, shotgun, longbow, crossbow, or even...a slingshot...

bae

1-11-13, 11:40pm

bUU

1-12-13, 6:12am

This is a tactic often used by gun control supporters. You might even say "deceptive" when used in discussions concerning murders via firearm.
Which is no different than the "deception" committed by gun control opponents. Because, like I said, and you continually refuse to allow yourself to admit: Reasonable people disagree. You want to think of your conclusions as "accurate" conclusions and conclusions you don't like as "inaccurate" conclusions. Tough. You're wrong about that. Get over it. Reasonable people disagree no matter how much you try to make it seem like the only "right" people in the world are the ones that agree with you.

Gun control opponents are trying to get what they want (and it is nothing more than that: "what they want") using the same tactics that partisans have recently used to try to get what they want with regard to opposing health care reform, and to get what they want with regard to opposing returning to fairer, more progressive tax rates. They have formed a coalition to try to get what they want, and have pledged themselves to the intractable position “‘no compromise’”. That's another thing wrong with our society - how some groups think so much of themselves that they think that “‘no compromise’” is a defensible approach.

Gregg

1-12-13, 11:05am

How about swords, axes, machetes, spears, knives, clubs, ...

Hammers?

bae

1-12-13, 11:11am

Hammers?

Cheater, you looked at the FBI data, didn't you? "Assault hammers" are indeed quite a threat.

creaker

1-12-13, 11:50am

How about swords, axes, machetes, spears, knives, clubs, ...

Or sudafed

http://www.ctpharmacists.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3456

Spartana

1-12-13, 1:34pm

Actually, correctly configured, you can reload a bolt action rifle incredibly quickly - check out how the British Enfield rifle works. And with proper training, you can keep a pump action shotgun or lever-action rifle firing almost constantly, you don't run it dry, pause to reload, then continue - you reload in progress.

I have a US military assault rifle from 1874. It is a single-shot rifle, each new cartridge must be loaded in by hand. I can fire an honest 45 rounds a minute from it, until I run out of ammunition. It can put a bullet through 3 inches of oak and 8 inches of sand backing at 3500 yards. A bullet roughly 7x the weight of the bullet the AR-15 typically fires. At the Second Battle of Adobe Walls, a man was dropped at ~1500 yards by a shot with one of these (or something very similar).
yes I've seen those - and other types as well. I know there are several shotguns out there on the market that have rapid fire capabilities including cylinder-style magazines (illegal in Calif although semi-auto shotguns ARE legal), steel chambers to prevent overheating and even some kind of cooling system to prevent over heating during rapid fire with lots of rounds. I have a Mossberg 12-ga. pump action shotgun myself (with an 18 inch barrel - shortest allowed in Calif) that holds 9 rounds, and had a Remington 12 - gauge riot shotgun when in the CG. Because we had to qualify on that for tactical law enforcement shooting as well as military shooting (two very differrent modes of engagement) we had to learn to shoot and reload single shells and fire them individually (often on the run) rapidly once our ammo was out. Basicly turned the thing over and and popped a round in each time while shooting it upside down from the hip. I'm not that fast but I did qualify at the "expert" level (higher then Markman and Sharpshooter - same with the other weapons we had to qualify on) but I can see how someone who does that a lot can become very very fast at single shot reloading. But of course no one has ever pimped out their Mossbergs to full or semi auto assault style weapons like below - they only ever do them as single shot firearms. Not! These wouldn't be part of a ban (although I imagine it is illegal everywhere to change your shotgun to full auto)
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1091&d=1358014588

From Wikipedia: One simple reason that a shotgun - especially a legal semi-auto shotgun that can hold 10 rounds of .00 buckshot and would nott be part of the semi-auto rifle ban - can do as much or more harm then an assualt style rifle with a large capacity clip:

The multiple projectile ability of a shotgun greatly increases the probability of a hit on an assailant, and the multiple projectiles increase the likelihood of a disabling hit. Though many sizes and configurations of shotshell are used, among the most common is the 12-gauge 23⁄4-inch (70 mm) 00 ("double-ought") buckshot shell, which consists of 8 or 9 .33 caliber (8.5 mm) round lead balls, each of which is similar in size and velocity to a 9mm/.38 caliber handgun bullet. This shot spreads out to a greater or lesser degree depending on the barrel choke, and can be effective at ranges as far as 75 yards (70 m).

The delivery of the large number of projectiles simultaneously makes the shotgun the most effective short range weapon commonly used, with a hit probability 45% greater than a submachine gun, and twice as great as an assault rifle.[

Spartana

1-12-13, 1:40pm

I hear that "cooling off period", but it makes me think that if a person doesn't have a gun at the moment and want to kill someone, that's where the knife, blunt object" hands and feet murders come into play. That seems way more likely than someone driving to the gunstore, picking out a gun, going through the background check, driving back and killing the victim. If they did that, they just set themselves up for a 1st degree murder charge.Yeah but if you are a 120 pound female enraged that your 200 pound male hubby dumped you, then the knife, blunt object, hands and feet attemps at murder probably aren't going to be very effective. where as getting your dainty little hands on a gun may be. Of course, since we don't regulate shotguns or hunting-style rifles it's all a moot point anyways.

Spartana

1-12-13, 2:01pm

Saw a story yesterday from the town of Weston CT, that a selectman proposed a bill saying that you had to get a "permit of ownership" from the Chief of Police to own a rifle, pistol, shotgun, longbow, crossbow, or even...a slingshot... What about Maxwell's Silver Hammer or Colonel Mustard's lead pipe, and Ms. Scarletts wrench :-)! Unlike some other gun owners, I am one of those gun owners who DOES believe in more restrictive laws to buy a gun (and that means all firearms that can fire successive rounds without the need to reload by hand) but I think requiring EVERYTHING that could cause harm to another to be registered is a bit of overkill (pardent he pun!). If that was the case my cooking would be registered as not only a deadly weapon, but a weapon of mass destruction :-)! But my personal feeling is that most firearms are potentially deadly weapons (just like a car is a deadly weapon) and people should have some sort of training, licensing and/or registration required as well as a waiting period, backgrounds checks, etc... for new gun owners.

My views are pretty simple:

1) I believe that 99.9% of all legal gun owners have not, and will not, ever engage in any kind of criminal activity or mass shooting irregardless of the kinds of firearms they own or the amount they own.

2) I believe that anyone who can meet some basic qualifications, background checks, training and standards should be allowed to own whatever firearms are legal in their state, and as many as they want.

3) I believe that bans on one very specfic firearm is useless at stopping mass shootings, because of the ease and ability to do the same thing with other non-banned firearms.

4) I believe that to ban a specific firearm like a semi-auto rifle to prevent or reduce mass shootings can actually be dangerous because it lulls people into a false sense of security, one which will prevent them (both the public and the law and policy makers) from looking further at the issues that cause these kinds of shootings in the first place, and thus they will not enact other ways to deal with mass shootings and attempted mass shootings - things like mental health and social issues as well as tougher gun laws for ALL firearms and not just one small classs of them.

5) I believe that bans do infringe on my 2nd ammendment rights, and the rights of the 10's of millions of safe, sane, and lawful gun owners in this country. I do not support bans, ammo restrictions, or limits on the amount of firearms I can own, but I do support increasing and tightening regulations.

OK now I'm really done. Back to my Sat morning coffee and chocolate crossiant :-)!