Very good point, Mrs. M.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
Printable View
Very good point, Mrs. M.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
We'd love to have you, Rob! You're just our kind of folk! :)Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Awww... shucks... just a simple +1 will do. http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticon...gif?1292867603Quote:
Originally posted by Gimmethesimplelife.
Very good point, Mrs. M.....Rob
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
On the 2nd amendment thread I'd posted the following comment:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
That's deceptive.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
(link)Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
And the contrary position is one of entitlement mentality, presumption of supremacy over others, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
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 andQuote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.
Again, you're asking a question for which the answer is already well-established by years of gun control advocacy. More deceptive nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Thanks for admitting that it does take time ("quickly" instead of "instantaneously"). You've made my point. Even though you'll probably deny it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I already did. You simply refuse to see it as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I referred to a bill going through the California Assembly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.
Uh huh.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
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.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
:help:
This thread has pretty much jumped the shark.
http://youtu.be/MpraJYnbVtE
I wish you would do it more, it makes more sense when you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
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?
Thanks for the laugh, Yossarian.....good way to start the day. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
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.Quote:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
a "regular" handgun and low capacity magazines and a "regular" handgun I own with a 13 round magazine:
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/att...8&d=1357934320http://www.simplelivingforum.net/att...9&d=1357934613
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
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.
Don't we just call him "The Walkin' man" :-)!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
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 :-)!Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
I'll be interested in seeing how future discussions go.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
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...n-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.
Would that be a .45-70 or .50-70 Trapdoor Springfield? 3500 yards or 350 yards?Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
Is there any data on same day purchase/murders?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
How about swords, axes, machetes, spears, knives, clubs, ...Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
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.
Hammers?Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Cheater, you looked at the FBI data, didn't you? "Assault hammers" are indeed quite a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg